Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T23:38:17.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oblique complements in Estonian: A corpus perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2023

MARI AIGRO Open the ORCID record for MARI AIGRO [Opens in a new window]  and
VIRVE-ANNELI VIHMAN Open the ORCID record for VIRVE-ANNELI VIHMAN [Opens in a new window]
MARI AIGRO
Affiliation:
University of Tartu, Jakobi 2-430, 51005, Tartu, Estonia mari.aigro@ut.ee
VIRVE-ANNELI VIHMAN
Affiliation:
University of Tartu, Jakobi 2-416, 51005, Tartu, Estonia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study focuses on Estonian verb-complement structures, which include oblique (non-canonically marked) complements marked in spatial cases. Not all approaches agree on whether canonical arguments and oblique complements have argument status of the same type, but they do mostly agree that the two types of complement markings are used by different types of verbs. First, oblique case is viewed as always indexing the original semantics of the case (direct semantics), that is osutama ‘point at’ selecting an allative (‘onto’) complement. Second, oblique case usage is seen as referring to a restricted set of syntactic relations (indirect semantics), that is Estonian allative and adessive being used for marking Experiencers. In any case, oblique complement verbs are viewed as more semantically restricted than canonical object verbs. This study tests these two hypotheses in a quantitative corpus approach. In a non-semantically extracted sample of verbs (n = 232), it compares the lexical-semantic transitivity of oblique and canonical complement verbs in order to investigate the degree to which indirect semantic effects differentiate between the two types of verbs. In addition, it outlines direct semantic effects between oblique case frames in terms of semantic roles. Finally, it investigates the way these patterns are related to the cases’ individual grammaticalisation degrees.

Keywords

argument statusEstoniannon-canonical argumentsspatial casetransitivity
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , February 2024 , pp. 129 - 159
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ackema, Peter. 2015. Arguments and adjuncts. In Kiss, Tibor & Alexiadou, Artemis (eds.), Syntax theory and analysis: An international handbook, vol 1, 246–274. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Aigro, Mari. 2020. Polar question particles and their sources: A semantic approach to grammaticalisation. Transactions of the Philological Society 118.2, 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aigro, Mari. 2022. Estonian cases as argument markers. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/CQRP4. https://osf.io/cqrp4/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arka, I Wayan. 2014. Locatives and the argument-adjunct distinction in Balinese. Linguistic Discovery 12.2, 56–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald. 1993. On frequency, transparency and productivity. In Booji, Geert E. & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992, 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Lüdeling, Anke & Kytö, Merja (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, vol 2, 900–919. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barbu, Roxana-Maria & Toivonen, Ida. 2016. Event participants and linguistic arguments. In Papafragou, A., Grodner, Daniel J., Mirman, D. & Trueswell, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1961–1966.Google Scholar
Barõdal, Johanna. 2006. Predicting the productivity of argument structure constructions. In Antić, Zhenya, Chang, Charles B., Cibelli, Emily, Hong, Jisup, Houser, Michael J., Sandy, Clare S., Toosarvandani, Maziar & Yao, Yao (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 32, 467–478. Berkeley, CA: BLS and LSA.Google Scholar
Barõdal, Johanna. 2008. Productivity. Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butt, Miriam. 2006. Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In Rescher, Nicholas (ed.), The logic of decision and action, 81–95. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Malchukov, Andrej. 2007. On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua 117.9, 1636–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter. 2009. Cross-linguistic variation in differential subject marking. In de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter (eds.), Differential subject marking, 1–16. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67.3, 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erelt, Mati. 1989. Eesti lauseliikmeist (Grammatical relations in Estonian). Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati, Kasik, Reet, Metslang, Helle, Rajandi, Henno, Ross, Kristiina, Saari, Henn, Tael, Kaja & Vare, Silvi. 1993. Eesti keele grammatika II. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati, Kasik, Reet, Metslang, Helle, Rajandi, Henno, Ross, Kristiina, Saari, Henn, Tael, Kaja & Vare, Silvi. 1995. Eesti keele grammatika I. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati. 2003. Süntaks (Syntax). In Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat, 48, 63–97.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati. 2004. Lauseliigendusprobleeme eesti grammatikas (Issues with parts of speech in Estonian grammar). In Liina Lindström (ed.), Lauseliikmeist eesti keeles, 7–16. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati & Metslang, Helle. 2006. Estonian clause patterns – From Finno-Ugric to Standard Average European. Linguistica Uralica 42.4, 254–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio & Marín, Rafael. 2012. State nouns are Kimian states. In Franco, Irene, Lusini, Sara & Saab, Andres (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2010: Selected papers from ‘going romance’ leiden 2010, 41–64. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2014. A canonical approach to the argument/adjunct distinction. Linguistic Discovery 12.2. doi:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., Dixon, R. M. W. & Onishi, Masayuki (eds.), Non-canonically marked subjects and objects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiietam, Katrin. 2003. Definiteness and grammatical relations in Estonian. Ph.D dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.2, 251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasik, Reet. 2015. Sõnamoodustus (Word formation). Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Kehayov, Petar & Torn-Leesik, Reeli. 2009. Modal verbs in Balto-Finnic. In Hansen, Björn & de Haan, Ferdinand (eds.), Modals in the languages of Europe, 363–401. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettunen, Lauri. 1924. Lauseliikmed eesti keeles (Parts of speech in Estonian). Tartu: Eesti Kirjanduse Seltsi kirjastus.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon. 1969. Events and their descriptions: Some considerations. In Rescher, Nicholas (ed.), Essays in honor of Carl G. Hempel, 198–215. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2008. Case and the typology of transitivity. In Malchukov, Andrej & Spencer, Andrew (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 356–369. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klaas, Birute. 1988. Indirektne objekt (Indirect object). Keel ja Kirjandus 1, 1–8.Google Scholar
Klçaslan, Ylmaz & Tuna, Gurkan. 2015. Linking FrameNet and natural languages via thematic role structures. International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics 1.3, 158–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, Jean Pierre, Mauner, Gail & Bienvenue, Breton. 2003. Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition 89.2, 67–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In Guéron, Jacqueline & Lecarme, Jacqueline (eds.), The syntax of time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kure, Kristjan. 1959. Eesti keele lauseliigenduse alustest. Keel ja Kirjandus 1, 40–49.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1966. Stative adjectives and verbs in English. In Oettinger, Anthony G. (ed.), Mathematical linguistics and automatic translation. Cambridge, MA: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Lestrade, Sander. 2010. The space of case. Ph.d dissertation, Radboud University.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina. 2017. Partitive subjects in Estonian dialects. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 8.2, 191.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina & Tragel, Ilona. 2010. The possessive perfect construction in Estonian. Folia Linguistica 44.2, 371–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Liina & Vihman, Virve Anneli. 2017. Who needs it? Variation in experiencer marking in Estonian ‘need’- constructions. Journal of Linguistics 53.4, 789–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2003. Event-internal modifiers: Semantic underspecification and conceptual interpretation. In Lang, Ewald, Maienborn, Claudia & Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine (eds.), Modifying adjuncts, 475–509. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2008. On Davidsonian and Kimian states. In Comorovski, Ileana & von Heusinger, Klaus (eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax, vol. 84, 107–130. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2019. Events and states. In Truswell, Robert (ed.), The Oxford handbook of event structure January, 49–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & De Swart, Peter. 2008. Differential case marking and actancy variations. In Malchukov, Andrej & Spencer, Andrew (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2005. Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In Amberber, Mengistu & de Hoop, Helen (eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages, 73–117. Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumura, Kazuto. 1994. Is the Estonian adessive really a local case? Journal of Asian and African Studies 46–47, 223–235.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helena. 2013. Grammatical relations in Estonian: Subject, object and beyond. Ph.D dissertation, University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Mihkla, Karl, Rannut, Lehte, Riikoja, Elli & Admann, Aino. 1974. Eesti keele lauseõpetuse põhijooned I (Foundations of Estonian Syntax I). Tallinn: Valgus.Google Scholar
Miljan, Merilin. 2009. Grammatical case in Estonian. Ph.d dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1983. On direct and oblique cases. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1983), 170–192. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1984. Direct and oblique objects in Chechen-Ingush and Russian. In Plank, Frans (ed.), Objects. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 183–209. London: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Nurka, Maiu. 2014. Eesti keele elatiivi semantika kognitiivse keeleteaduse vaatenurgast (Semantics of Estonian elative from a cognitive linguistics perspective). Master thesis, University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki. 2001. Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and properties. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., Dixon, R.M.W & Onishi, Masayuki (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, 1–53. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pilvik, Maarja-Liisa. 2019. Assessing the productivity of the Estonian deverbal suffix -mine in five registers of Estonian. SKY Journal of Linguistics 32, 75–103.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and thematic roles. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proos, Mariann. 2021. Meaning and usage of Estonian experience perception verbs. Ph.D dissertation, University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Rajandi, Henno & Metslang, Helle. 1979. Määramata ja määratud objekt (Definite and indefinite objects). Tallinn: Valgus.Google Scholar
Rätsep, Huno. 1978. Eesti keele lihtlausete tüübid (Clause types in Estonian). Tallinn: Valgus.Google Scholar
Rätsep, Huno. 1979. Eesti keele ajalooline morfoloogia II (Historical morphology of Estonian II). Tartu: Tartu National University.Google Scholar
Rissman, Lilia & Majid, Asifa. 2019. Thematic roles: Core knowledge or linguistic construct? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 26.6, 1850–1869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rissman, Lilia, Rawlins, Kyle & Landau, Barbara. 2015. Using instruments to understand argument structure: Evidence for gradient representation. Cognition 142, 266–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothmayr, Antonia. 2009. The structure of stative verbs. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saluveer, Viktor. 1958. Sise- ja väliskohakäänete tähenduslikud funktsioonid eesti keeles. Master thesis, Tartu National University.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1992. The aspectual interface hypothesis. In Sag, Ivan. A. & Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical matters, 1–27. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19, 389–438.Google Scholar
Valgma, Johannes & Remmel, Nikolai. 1968. Eesti keele grammatika (Estonian grammar). Tallinn: Valgus.Google Scholar
Veismann, Ann, Erelt, Mati & Metslang, Helle. 2017. Määrus (Adverbial). In Erelt, Mati & Metslang, Helle (eds.), Eesti keele süntaks (Estonian syntax), 300–375. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66.2, 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J. 1999. Aspectual issues. Studies on time and quantity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Viht, Annika & Habicht, Külli. 2019. Eesti keele sõnamuutmine (Estonian inflectional morphology). Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie & Maling, Joan. 1984. Unaccusative, passive, and quirky case. In Maling, Joan & Zaenen, Annie (eds.), Modern Icelandic syntax, 137–152. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Zeldes, Amir. 2012. Productivity in argument selection: From morphology to syntax. Berlin and Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar