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 case-conditioning 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 markingIn 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, • usually inverse word order (XVS). 11

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 properties2. 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 (split-prone 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

23

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 casesNom – Identification of the referents’ membership in a classPrtv – reference to an non-inclusive quantity of referents

Other: 5 cases

Clausal split (W-M 3.).

Speaker’s perspectivePeenra-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 mõte. (ECC)suddenly strike-PST.3SG I-ALL head.ILL strange.NOM.SG

thought.NOM.SG‘And suddenly I got this strange idea.’

27

28

Referentially-based split (W-M 1.)

Divisibles (mass nouns, pl count nouns)case-alternation

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

31

W-M classification

Factor O (unmarked information structure)

Se (marked

information structure)

A, Sintr

(unmarked information structure)

3. clausal Aspect alternation major insignificant no

1. referential Actual quantitative definiteness distinction

major insignificant no

3. clausal Speaker’s perspective

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

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 Prtv 0-marking

Personal pronouns

Se 72 28 0 1

Sintr 56 0 44 6

A 52 0 48 13

O33 (G 26,

N 7) 67 011

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 – PrtvSe – 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 Insti tuut. 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 PublicationsKittilä 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 InternationalNemvalts, Peep 2000. Aluse sisu ja vorm : alusfraasi käändevaheldus tänapäeva eesti kirjakeeles. Tallinn: Eesti Keele SihtasutusNichols, 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 ÜlikoolVarik, 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!

helena.metslang@gmail.com

36