Transcript No Slide Title

Construction-specific object case variation in Estonian
David Ogren, University of Tartu
BACKGROUND
•
RESEARCH GOALS
Estonian distinguishes between partial and
total objects
Partial objects appear in the partitive case,
total objects in the genitive or nominative
(depending on the finite verb form, e.g.
imperative mood → nominative total object)
The total object is used only if all of the
following criteria are met:
•
•
- action is perfective/resultative
- object referent is quantitatively bounded
- object modifies an affirmative verb form
•
Given an affirmative sentence with an
resultative verb and a quantitatively bounded
object, the total vs. partial object opposition
reduces to an aspectual opposition:
imperfective → partial, perfective → total.
Ema
küpsetas
•
•
Identify, describe, and quantify the significance of
the factors influencing object case in da-infinitive
constructions
Place Estonian in the context of cross-linguistic
studies on the topic of Differential Object Marking
(DOM)
•
•
Sentences containing various da-infinitive
constructions with objects, in which all the basic
criteria for total object usage are satisfied, were
extracted from a set of written language corpora
Sentences were coded for a range of features
related to sentence structure and semantics
•
object case. However, OV order is more
common in negative sentences (which require
partial objects).
In da-infinitive constructions, VO order favors
the total object, OV the partial object:
•
On lihtne leida lahendus (GEN).
On lihtne lahendust (PART) leida.
‘It is easy to find a solution.’
•
This variation does not appear to be related to
information structure
•
•
Object construction (verb chain leida tahtma 'want to find')
case is weakest in the object construction
Weaker syntactic relationship between object
and transitive finite verb → greater influence of
word order on object case (compare also to
finite clauses, where the syntactic relationship
is as strong as possible and the effect of word
order is nonexistent)
Association between OV order and negation in
finite clauses leads to an association between
OV order and partial object usage in infinitival
constructions
Assessment construction (with phrase lihtne leida 'easy to find')
OV
order
OV
order
1. Object construction: infinitive phrase as object
Tahan
want.1SG find.INF solution.GEN
Total object
Partial object
Partial object
VO
order
‘I want to find a solution.’
2. Assessment construction: infinitive phrase in
subject position, predicate adjective expresses an
assessment of the action in the infinitive phrase
VO
order
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
On lihtne leida lahendus.
is
Purpose construction (verb leida 'to find')
easy find.INF solution.NOM
Post-nominal modifier construction (noun soov 'wish’)
‘It is easy to find a solution.’
3. Purpose construction: infinitive phrase expresses
the purpose of the action in the matrix clause
Arutame
probleemi,
et
leida
lahendus.
find.INF
solution.NOM
selgitus/selgitust.
discuss.1PL problem.PART
Is possible
explanation.NOM/explanation.PART
‘We are discussing the PROBLEM in order to find a solution.’
Various factors which play no role in the
choice of object case in finite clauses prove
significant in da-infinitive constructions
Total object
leida lahenduse.
On võimalik leida
‘It is possible to find an explanation.’
•
Word
order
and
object
case
In finite clauses, word order does not influence
•
Relationship between word order and object
CONSTRUCTIONS EXAMINED
In constructions where the object modifies
the aspectually neutral da-infinitive form, the
category of aspect is less salient than in
finite clauses
In such constructions, the partitive may be
used even with verbs that do not ordinarily
allow an imperfective reading. In some
cases, both total and partial object are
possible, with little or no difference in
meaning:
find.INF
IMPLICATIONS
koogi/kooki.
THE PROBLEM:
•
SUMMARY
MATERIAL & METHOD
mother.NOM bake.PST.3SG cake.GEN/cake.PART
‘Mother baked/was baking a cake.’
•
WORD ORDER AND OBJECT CASE
CONJ
OV
order
4. Post-nominal modifier construction: infinitive
phrase as post-nominal modifier
Meil
on soov
leida
lahendus.
we.ADE
is desire
find.INF
solution.NOM
OV
order
Total object
Total object
Partial object
Partial object
VO
order
VO
order
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
‘We have the desire to find a solution.’
ADJECTIVE SEMANTICS
TOTAL OBJECT CASE VARIATION
•
•
In the assessment construction, the partial
object is more common when the predicate
adjective is a) semantically negative, b) an
assessment of difficulty, and c) processoriented. The total object prevails when the
predicate adjective is a) semantically positive,
b) a value judgment, and c) result-oriented.
In the enabling-obligating construction (an exceptional sub-type of the object construction), the total
object may appear in either the nominative or the genitive, with no clear difference in meaning:
Soovitan
sul
osta
jalgratas/jalgratta.
recommend.1SG you.ADE buy.INF bicycle.NOM/bicycle.GEN
‘I recommend that you buy a bicycle.’
•
•
This construction is imperative-like both in meaning and in participant structure (the participant
receiving the command/recommendation/etc is the subject of the non-finite clause), which likely
motivates the use of the nominative total object.
In this construction, the nominative total object is far more common with some verbs than with
others, for no readily apparent reason:
CONCLUSIONS
•
•
Partial object % by adjective, assessment construction
100
•
90
80
70
Total object case in the enabling-obligating construction with various verbs
60
90%
50
80%
40
70%
30
60%
50%
Nominative
20
40%
Genitive
10
•
0
30%
võimatu
'impossible'
20%
raske
'difficult'
lihtne
'easy, simple'
võimalik
'possible'
parem
'better'
tähtis
'important'
10%
0%
soovitama
'to recommend'
käskima
'to command'
võimaldama
'to enable'
Examples:
lubama
'to allow'
COORDINATION AND TOTAL OBJECT CASE
In coordinate structures in the enabling-obligating construction, the first conjunct may feature a
genitive total object, while total objects in the second conjunct appear predominantly in the
nominative:
Näiteks arutame läbi ja soovitame teistelegi taasavada igas Eestimaa vallas vähemasti ühe avaliku
külasauna ning sinna asutada mittetulundusühinguna kohalik saunaklubi.
‘For example, we are discussing and we recommend to others as well to re-open at least one
public sauna (GEN) in each Estonian municipality and establish a non-profit local sauna club
(NOM) there.’
The likely explanation: the distance between the finite verb and the second conjunct renders the
finite verb (whose presence typically conditions the use of the genitive total object, as in the first
conjunct) less salient in the mind of the language user.
REFERENCES
On tähtis
leida
hea
is
find.INF
good.NOM job.NOM
important
töökoht.
‘It is important to find a good job.’
On võimatu
leida
head
töökohta.
is
find.INF
good.PART
job.PART
important
•
‘It is impossible to find a good job.’
On lihtne leida
hea
töökoht
is
good.NOM
job.NOM
easy
find.INF
/
head
töökohta.
good.PART job.PART
‘It is easy to find a good job.’
Explanation:
1. võimatu ‘impossible’ and raske ‘difficult’ are negative
assessments → partial object dominates
2. parem ‘better’ and tähtis ‘important’ are positive value
judgments → total object dominates
3. lihtne ‘easy’ is process-oriented, võimalik ‘ possible’ is resultoriented → partial object is more common with lihtne
Due to the aspectual ambiguity of the dainfinitive, object case in da-infinitive constructions
varies according to a number of parameters
which play no role in the choice of object case in
finite clauses.
Word-order driven total vs. partial object
variation, as well as construction-internal
variation in total object case, does not serve any
semantic or functional purpose.
These constructions therefore represent an
exception to the theory of de Hoop and
Malchukov (2008), according to whom differential
object marking can be explained by the
constraints of DISTINGUISHABILITY and IDENTIFY.
Likewise, as the meaning differences expressed
by the total vs. partial object opposition are the
same regardless of whether the opposition is
symmetric (genitive vs. partitive) or asymmetric
(nominative vs. partitive), Estonian represents an
exception to the generalization put forth by
Iemmolo (2013), who links asymmetric DOM to
referential properties of the object and symmetric
DOM to semantic properties.
The lack of a semantic/functional explanation for
these phenomena points to the need for a
cognitive explanation based on comparisons with
more common constructions:
1. Link between OV order and negation in finite
clauses → link between OV order and partial
object in da-infinitive constructions
2. Analogy between enabling-obligating
construction and imperative → use of nominative
total object
3. Analogy between adjectival and verbal polarity
→ influence of adjectival polarity on object case
in assessment construction
CORPORA USED
de Hoop, Helen, and Andrej Malchukov 2008. Case-marking strategies. - Linguistic Inquiry 39: 565-587.
etTenTen (Estonian internet corpus), Postimees, Eesti Päevaleht, Õhtuleht (newspaper corpora)
Erelt et al. 2007 = Erelt, Mati, Tiiu Erelt, Kristiina Ross 2007. Eesti keele käsiraamat. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.
All accessed via www.keeleveeb.ee
Iemmolo, Giorgio 2013. Symmetric and asymmetric alternations in direct object encoding. - STUF – Language Typology and Universals 66-4, 378-403.
Ogren, David 2014. Objekti kääne hinnangukonstruktsioonis: kas on võimalik osta auto või autot? - Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat, 59(1), 171-192.
E-mail: [email protected]