Transcript How close are the Estonian partitive subjects and objects?

How close are the Estonian
partitive subjects and objects?
Helena Metslang
University of Tartu, Universität Leipzig
SLE 43rd Annual Meeting, Vilnius
1
• In the Baltic language area the differential
subject and object marking are wide-spread
phenomena but they are being conditioned by
different factors.
2
• The differential subject marking: subjects with
fewer properties of a prototypical subject, to
subjects closer to the objects. (Wälchli and
Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001: 656, 665.)
3
Objective of the study
• to compare and explain the use and caseconditioning factors of 3 groups of Estonian
arguments:
– the objects (O)
– intransitive subjects (Sintr)
– existential subjects (Se)
• to assess the extent and role of split intransitivity
(Nichols 2008; Witzlack-Makarevich 2010; Dixon
1994) in Estonian.
4
Method
• Studying the text frequencies
• Preliminary text collection based on:
Syntactically annotated corpus of fiction texts (SAC; mainly narrative
genre, with some descriptions in it):
•
•
•
•
100 transitive clauses, 100 existential clauses, 100
intransitive clauses)
Separate study of Existential sentences (193 clauses)
Affirmative realis contexts
Simple clauses and full matrix clauses
Ignore experiencer clauses, negative, interrogative and
hypothetical contexts.
• Terms: total case, divisibles, inclusiveness
5
ESTONIAN:
Agglutinating but rather fusional and analytic
• 3 structural cases: nominative, genitive, partitive
• 11 semantic cases: illative, inssive, elative,
allative, etc.
• Existential clauses with clause-initial locational
phrase
• Adessive encoding of possessor and experiencer
• Flexible SVO-order with V2-tendency
• Lacking of articles
(cf. Erelt 2009: 26.)
6
Differential object marking
• Almost half of transitive verbs permit the
object case-alternation.
• Nominative, Genitive, Partitive
• is subject to the totality-partiality system:
genitive and nominative are called the total
cases (1) and they carry a set of different
meanings than the partitive (2).
(Erelt 2009: 9.)
7
Differential object marking
(1) Isa
viis
lapse
/ lapsed
kooli.
father.NOM.SG take-PAST.3SG child.GEN.SG / child.NOM.PL school.ILL
‘The father took the child/children to school.’
(2) Isa
vii-s
last
/lapsi
kooli.
father.NOM.SG take-PAST.3SG child.PRTV.SG / child.PRTV.PL school.ILL
‘The father was taking the child/children to school.’
(Erelt 2009: 9.)
8
Differential object marking
In the affirmative clause the total object – definite
quantity + the clause expresses a perfective activity.
If one of the conditions is not met, the partitive is used.
The situation is imperfective in (2);
Perfective activity but an indefinite quantity:
Ta jõi vett ja hakka-s siis söö-ma
he drink.PST.3SG water.PRTV.SG and start-PST.3SG then
eat-INF
‘He drank some water and then started to eat’
9
Differential object marking
In the negative clause only the partial object can be used:
(3) Isa ei viinud last kooli.
father.NOM.SG not take-PST.PTCP child.PRTV.SG
school.ILL
‘The father didn’t take the child to school’. (Erelt 2009: 9.)
The object case is often governed by the verb. Out 509
simple verbs 46,2% determine partitive object marking
and 9,4% total object. (Vaiss 2004: 79.)
10
Existential sentence and differential
subject marking (DSM)
In Estonian the DSM (Nom-Prtv) takes place in the
existential clauses (ES).
• mainly used to present some referent a spacial or
temporal location (or the whole situation) in
order to characterize it (Nemvalts 1996: 20;
Helasvuo 1996: 352).
• syntactic features:
• the partitive subject possibility in affirmative clauses
and requirement in the negative clauses
• lack of number agreement on the predicate if the
subject is in the partitive plural,
11
• usually inverse word order (XVS).
Existential sentence and (DSM)
• Should be kept separately from ordinary
intransitive clauses.
• The frequency of existential clauses in Finnish
is about 12% (Vähämäki 1984: 42).
12
Existential sentence and (DSM)
In the affirmative ES-s the DSM is caused by inclusive - non-inclusive
quantity distinction (in the sense of Lyons 1999). Nom – inclusive,
Prtv –non-inclusive.
(4) Selle-l kase-l on juba lehe-d.
This-ADE birch-ADE be.3 already leaf-NOM.PL
‘This birch has leaves already.’ Lit. ‘On this birch is leaves.’
(5) Selle-l kase-l on juba lehti.
This-ADE birch-ADE be.3 already leaf.PRTV.PL
‘This birch has some leaves already.’ Lit. ‘On this birch is some leaves.’
(adapted from Vilkuna 1992: 61)
13
In the negative existential sentences (ES) the
subject almost always occurs in the partitive:
Peenra-l
ei kasva
lilli.
flowerbed-ADE not grow
flowers.PRTV.PL
‘There are no flowers growing on the flowerbed.’
14
Split subject marking
• Like almost all other European languages,
Estonian is a profoundly accusative language
• However, no language fits perfectly in one
alignment scheme.
15
Ergativity
• Ergativity is a grammatical pattern in which
the subject of an intransitive clause is treated
the same way as the object of a
monotransitive clause, and diferently from the
transitive subject. Accusativity treats the
subject of intransitive clause similarly to a
subject of transitive clause and differently
from the object of a transitive clause.
16
Overview of existing alignment splits
(Witzlack-Makarevich 2010)
1. Referential properties
2. Predicates
3. Whole clause (TAM, polarity, clause type)
• Estonian subject-marking splits: 1., 2. and 3.
17
Predicate-based split?
(Witzlack-Makarevich 2.)
• Nichols’ (2008) split intransitivty study (splitprone verbs).
18
19
Predicate-based split?
(Witzlack-Makarevich 2.)
• 542 verbs that can take a partitive subject
(Varik 1974) but occur in non-existentials too.
20
Predicate-based split?
• The main condition is the clause type: DSM
can only appear in the ESs, and therefore Se
and Sintr have to be considered separately.
21
More common alignment types in
Estonian
Anom Oprtv
(unmarked case of O)
Sintr-nom
{S, A} {O}
Se-nom
{S, A} {O}
Se-prtv
{A} {S, O}
22
Most common Se marking conditions in
Existential clause collection
Referential (W-M 1.): Se is a count noun – 80 cases
Referential (W-M 1.): Se case reflects Actual quantitative
definiteness – 7 cases
Clausal (pragmatics, W-M 3.): speaker’s perspective – 101 cases
Nom – Identification of the referents’ membership in a class
Prtv – reference to an non-inclusive quantity of referents
Other: 5 cases
23
Clausal split (W-M 3.).
Speaker’s perspective
Peenra-l
kasva-vad
lille-d
flowerbed-ADE grow-3PL
flower-NOM.PL
‘There are flowers growing on the flowerbed.’
Peenra-l
kasva-b
lilli.
flowerbed-ADE grow-3SG
flowers.PRTV.PL
‘There are (some) flowers growing on the
flowerbed.’
(EKG II: 14.)
24
Referentially based split?
(W-M 1.)
• The Nominal Hierarchy
(Dixon 1994: 85)
25
Referentially based split (W-M 1.)
Non-divisibles
(sg count nouns - Nom)
26
Sg Count nouns (non-divisibles)
31% of e-subjects in the sample
Korraga
torka-s mul-le pähe veider
suddenly
strike-PST.3SG I-ALL head.ILL
thought.NOM.SG
‘And suddenly I got this strange idea.’
mõte.
(ECC)
strange.NOM.SG
27
Referentially-based split (W-M 1.)
Divisibles (mass nouns, pl count
nouns)
case-alternation
28
ES DSM conditions. AQD
• Actual quantitative definiteness distinction (7
cases)
29
AQD: adjective in NP
Nom – inclusive quantity, speaker is only referring to HIGH crop.
Kahe-l
pool kasva-s
kõrge
vili. (ECC)
two-ADE
side grow-PST.3SG high.NOM.SG crop.NOM.SG
‘High crop was growing on both sides.’
Prtv– non-inclusive quantity, speaker is not saying that HIGH crop is the
only kind of crop growing there (open quantification).
kõrge-t
vilja
kasva-s
kahe-l
pool.
high-PRTV.SG crop.PRTV.SG grow-PST.3SG two-ADE
side
‘High crop was growing on both sides.’
30
Comparison of factors influencing
the arguments’ case
W-M
classification
Factor
3. clausal
1. referential
Se (marked
information
structure)
A, Sintr
(unmarked
information
structure)
Aspect alternation major
insignificant
no
Actual
quantitative
definiteness
distinction
Speaker’s
perspective
major
insignificant
no
no
major
no
1. referential
Divisibility of
subject referent
together with
other factors
major
no
1. predicate
Verb choice
major
insignificant
no
3. clausal
Negation
major
major
no
3. clausal
O (unmarked
information
structure)
31
Comparison of O and Se
• The typical case of O is Partitive and of Se the
nominative.
• Affectedness marking dominates in case of O
((un)boundedness of the VP, in the majority of cases
the referent is NOT fully affected; Kiparsky 1998: 35)
• in the ESs there dominates the sentential function of
presenting a new referent in a discourse.
It has to be the nominative that dominates the Ses –
because affectedness is suppressed. Stative nature of
the ES prohibits the aspect effects (one of the partitive
O causers), and as the Se referents are in 40% of the
cases non-divisible.
32
Table 3. Argument case-marking in
the sample
(affirmative, realis contexts)
Total case
Se
72
Prtv
28
0Personal
marking pronouns
0
1
Sintr
56
0
44
6
A
52
33 (G 26,
N 7)
0
48
13
O
11
67
0
33
Conclusion
1. There is a split between the 2 subject types.
Intransitive S (“Sa”) – nominative, like A.
The e-subject (“So”) – case alternation, like O.
2. O and Se have a number of case-factors that are both
characterised by interplay, overlap and that can
override each other.
3. Mainly the factors of DSM and DOM are the same but
their importance in terms of coverage (frequency of
use) is different.
4. More frequent case:
O – Prtv
Se – Nom
34
References
Dixon, R., M., W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63:805–855.
EKG II = Erelt, Mati − Kasik, Reet − Metslang, Helle − Rajandi, Henno − Ross, Kristiina − Saari, Henn − Tael, Kaja − Vare, Silvi 1995:. Eesti keele
grammatika II. Süntaks, lisa: kiri. Peatoimetaja Mati Erelt. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.
Erelt 2009. Typological overview of Estonian syntax. STUF, Akademie Verlag, 62 (2009) 1/2, 6–28.
Erelt, Mati, Metslang, Helle. 2006. Estonian clause patterns - from Finno-Ugric to Standard Average European. Linguistica Uralica, XLII(4), 254 266.
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa 1996. Ollako vai eikö olla - eksistentiaalilauseen subjektin kohtalonkysymys.Virittäjä 3, pp. 340–356.
Huumo, T. (1999). Kieltolauseen partitiivisubjektin semantiikkaa. – Sananjalka 41, lk 21–42.
ISK = Hakulinen, Auli (peatoimetaja) − Vilkuna, Maria − Korhonen, Riitta − Koivisto, Vesa − Heinonen, Tarja Riitta − Alho, Irja (2004). Iso suomen
kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Itkonen, T. 1974. Ergatiiviisuutta suomessa, I. (Abstract: Ergativity in Finnish.) Virittäjä 78. pp. 379–398.
Itkonen, T. 1975. Ergatiivisuutta suomessa, II. (Abstract: Ergativity in Finnish.) Virittäjä 79, pp. 31–65.
Kiparsky, P. 1998. ‘Partitive Case and Aspect’ In The Projection of Arguments eds. M. Butt and W. Geuder. Stanford: CSLI Publications
Kittilä 2009. Argument marking: indexing vs. discriminatory functions. Material of PhD-course ’Typology and Databases’, University of Tartu.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., Wälchli, B. (2001). The Circum-Baltic languages. An areal-typological approach. – Östen Dahl, Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm
(Eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages, vol. 2: Grammar and typology, lk. 615−750. Studies in Language Companion Series 55. Amsterdam:
Benjamins
Lyons, Christopher 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge University Press.
Mati Erelt , Helle Metslang 2006. Estonian Clause Patterns — From Finno-Ugric To Standard Average European* Linguistica Uralica Xlii 4.
Nemvalts, Peep 1996. Case marking of subject phrases in modern standard Estonian : [dissertation]., Uppsala Universitet) Uppsala : Uppsala
University ; Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell International
Nemvalts, Peep 2000. Aluse sisu ja vorm : alusfraasi käändevaheldus tänapäeva eesti kirjakeeles. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus
Nichols, Johanna 2008. Why are stative-active languages rare in Eurasia? A typological perspective on split subject marking. In The Typology of
Semantic Alignment, ed. Mark Donohue and Søren Wichmann, 121–139. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rajandi, Henno, Helle Metslang. Määramata ja määratud objekt. (Ars Grammatica.) Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.
Tallinn: Valgus.
Rätsep, Huno 1978: Eesti keele lihtlause tüübid. (ENSV TA Emakeele Seltsi toimetised 12.) Tallinn: Valgus
Vaiss, N. 2004. Eesti keele aspekti väljendusvõimalusi vene keele taustal. (Magistritöö) Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikool
Varik, Krista 1974: Osaalus tänapäeva eesti kirjakeeles. Unpublished Degree Paper. Tartu.
VISK = Auli Hakulinen, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen and Irja Alho 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki:
Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Online version, retreived August 22, 2010, from http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk.
Witzlack-Makarevich 2010. Typological variation in grammatical relations. Phd thesis. Universität Leipzig.
Vähämäki, K. Börje 1984. Existence and identity: a study of the semantics and syntax of existential sentences in Finnish. Publications of the
Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation = Meddeland
35
Thank you!
[email protected]
36