Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:52:37.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking case marking and case alternation in Estonian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2013

Merilin Miljan  and
Ronnie Cann
Merilin Miljan
Affiliation:
Institute of Estonian and General Linguistics, Univeristy of Tartu, Jakobi 2, 51014 Tartu, Estonia. merilin.miljan@ut.ee
Ronnie Cann
Affiliation:
Institute of Estonian and General Linguistics, Univeristy of Tartu, Jakobi 2, 51014 Tartu, Estonia. merilin.miljan@ut.ee
Get access

Abstract

In this paper, we argue for a view of case marking that does not treat case as the passive realisation of other morpho-syntactic properties of a construction but as independently bringing information to a clause. This different view of case entails that precise functions of case-marked expressions may be determined by the interaction of the case marking, the meaning of the host noun, the semantics of any predicate of which it is an argument and other contextually given factors. With respect to Estonian, it is argued that there is only one ‘structural’ case, the genitive, and this case marks non-subject, or oblique, dependency on some head. The partitive case, we argue, is semantically partitive in all its uses, except that the partitive meaning can be obscured or even eliminated depending on contextual factors. The nominative is merely the absence of case, associated with no specific positions or semantic effects.

Keywords

genitiveinferential approach to casenominativepartitive case alternation
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , December 2013 , pp. 333 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2013 

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

Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Abondolo, Daniel. 1998. Introduction. In Abondolo, Daniel (ed.), The Uralic Languages, 1–42. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Moore, John. 1999. ‘Telic entity’ as a proto-property of lexical predicates. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG’99. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://ling.ucsd.edu/~ackerman/manch-pub.pdf.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Moore, John. 2001. Proto-Properties and Grammatical Encoding: A Correspondence Theory of Argument Selection. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto & Fong, Vivienne. 2000. The Partitive Constraint in Optimality Theory. Journal of Semantics 17, 281–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto & Kim, Jong-Bok. 2011. On structural case in Finnish and Korean. Lingua 121, 100–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babby, Leonard H. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5, 91–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2009. Case syncretism. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds.), 219–230.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark & Vinokurova, Nadya. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28, 593–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brattico, Pauli. 2010. One-part and two-part models of nominal Case: Evidence from case distribution. Journal of Linguistics 46, 47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brattico, Pauli. 2011. Case assignment, case concord, and the quantificational case construction. Lingua 121, 1042–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2006. Theories of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Cann, Ronnie, Kempson, Ruth & Marten, Lutz. 2005. The Dynamics of Language: An Introduction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cann, Ronnie & Miljan, Merilin. 2012. Differential case-marking: Syntactic descriptions and pragmatic explanations. The Linguistic Review 29 (4), 585–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Robert, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (eds.). 2001. The Circum-Baltic Languages: Typology and Contact, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erelt, Mati, Erelt, Tiiu & Ross, Kristiina. 2007. Eesti keele käsiraamat [The handbook of the Estonian language], 3rd edn.Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati, Kasik, Reet, Metslang, Helle, Rajandi, Henno, Ross, Kristiina, Saari, Henn, Tael, Kaja & Vare, Silvi. 1993. Eesti keele grammatika II [The grammar of the Estonian language]. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Eesti Keele Instituut.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Lauri. 1961. The Structure and Development of the Finnish Language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Vilkuna, Maria, Korhonen, Riitta, Koivisto, Vesa, Heinonen, Tarja-Riitta & Alho, Irja. 2004. Iso Suomen Kielioppi [Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don't exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11 (1), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havas, Ferenc. 2008. Unmarked object in the Uralic languages: A diachronic typological approach. Linguistica Uralica 1, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinämäki, Orvokki T. 1984. Aspect in Finnish. In de Groot, Casper & Tommola, Hannu (eds.), Aspect Bound: A Voyage into the Realm of Germanic, Slavonic, and Finno-Ugrian Aspectology, 153–177. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinämäki, Orvokki T. 1994. Aspect as boundedness in Finnish. In Bache, Carl, Basbøll, Hans & Lindberg, Carl-Erik (eds.), Tense, Aspect, and Action: Empirical and Theoretical Contributions to Language Typology (Proceedings of Seminars on Verbal Semantics at Odense University in 1986 and 1987), 207–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2001. Syntax in the Making: The Emergence of Syntactic Units in Finnish Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiietam, Katrin. 2003. Definiteness and Grammatical Relations in Estonian. Ph.D dissertation, The University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Hilbert, David & Bernays, Paul. 1939. Grundlagen der Mathematik II. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Nikanne, Urpo (eds.). 1993. Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Malchukov, Andrej [L.]. 2007. On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua 117, 1636–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Malchukov, Andrej L.. 2008. Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39 (4), 565–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 2010. Nominal aspect, quantity, and time: The case of the Finnish object. Journal of Linguistics 46, 83–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 1982. On the structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch Ugrische Forschungen 44, 23–42.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi. 2003. The Quest for a Referent: A Cross-linguistic Look at Reference Resolution. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi & Trueswell, John. 2004. The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word order language. Cognition 94, 113–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempson, Ruth, Meyer-Viol, Wilfried & Gabbay, Dov. 2001. Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In Butt, Miriam & Geuder, Wilhelm (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, 265–307. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 111, 315–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2001. “A piece of cake” and “a cup of tea”: Partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions in the Circum-Baltic languages. In Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), 523–568.Google Scholar
Künnap, Ago. 2006. Historically Problematic Morphosyntactic Features in Uralic Languages. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Künnap, Ago. 2008. On the Finnic and Samoyedic genitive and accusative plural. Linguistica Uralica 44 (1), 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lander, Yury A. 2009. Varieties of genitive. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds.), 581–592.Google Scholar
Leino, Pentti. 1991. Lauseet ja tilanteet: Suomen objektin ongelmia [Clauses and situations: Problems of object case marking in Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Leino, Pentti. 1993. Polysemia – kielen moniselitteisyys [Polysemy – multiple meanings of a language]. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitos.Google Scholar
Lestrade, Sander. 2010. The Space of Case. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. & de Hoop, Helen. 2011. Tense, aspect, and mood based differential case marking. Lingua 121, 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej [L.] & Spencer, Andrew (eds.). 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malouf, Robert. 2000. A head-driven account of long distance case assignment. In Cann, Ronnie, Grover, Claire & Miller, Philip (eds.), Grammatical Interfaces in HPSG, 201–214. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In ESCOL '91: Proceedings of the Eigth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 234–253. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helena. 2012. On the case-marking of existential subjects in Estonian. SKY Journal of Linguistics 25, 151–204.Google Scholar
Moens, Marc & Steedman, Mark. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14 (2), 15–28.Google Scholar
Nelson, Diane C. 1995. X° Categories and Grammatical Case Assignment in Finnish. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Nelson, Diane C. & Toivanen, Ida. 2003. Counting and the grammar: Case and numerals in Inari Saami. In Nelson, Diane C. & Manninen, Satu (eds.), Generative Approaches to Finnish and Saami Linguistics, 321–340. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics 39 (1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. Constructive Case: Evidence from Australian Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 1979. Non-singular reference. In Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (ed.), Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems, 1–14. D. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piñon, Christopher. 1994. A Mereology for Aspectuality. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Rätsep, Hugo. 1977. Eesti keele ajalooline morfoloogia I [The diachronic morphology of the Estonian language]. Tartu: Tartu Riiklik Ülikool.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Rosen, Sara Thomas. 2001. The interpretive value of object splits. Language Sciences 23, 425–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roosmaa, Tiit, Koit, Mare, Muischnek, Kadri, Müürisep, Kaili, Puolakainen, Tiina & Uibo, Heli. 2003. Eesti keele arvutigrammatika: mis on tehtud ja kuidas edasi? [A formal grammar of Estonian: Experience and prospects]. Keel ja Kirjandus 3, 192–209.Google Scholar
Rutkowski, Paweł. 2001. Numeral phrases in Polish and Estonian. In Holmer, Arthur, Svantesson, Jan-Olof & Viberg, Åke (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, vol. 2, 181–190. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Sigurđsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012. Minimalist C/case. Linguistic Inquiry 43 (2), 191–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Case is uninterpretable aspect. In Verkuyl, Henk (ed.), Proceedings of Perspectives on Aspect Conference. Utrecht: University of Utrecht. http://www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius/papers/Svenonius02CUA.pdf.Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3 (1), 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamm, Anne. 2012. Scalar Verb Classes: Scalarity, Thematic roles, and Arguments in the Estonian Aspectual Lexicon (Biblioteca di Studi di Filologia Moderna 14). Florence: Firenze University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toivainen, Jorma. 1993. The nature of the accusative in Finnish. In Holmberg & Nikanne (eds.), 111–128.Google Scholar
Vainikka, Anne. 1993. The three structural cases in Finnish. In Holmberg & Nikanne (eds.), 129–159.Google Scholar
Vainikka, Anne & Maling, Joan. 1996. Is partitive case inherent or structural? In Hoeksema, Jacob (ed.), Partitives: Studies in the Syntax and Semantics of Partitive and Related Constructions, 179–208. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 2000. Suomen lauseopin perustet, 2nd edn. Helsinki: Edita.Google Scholar
Wickman, Bo. 1955. The Form of the Object in the Uralic Languages. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira, Maling, Joan & Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63 (2), 217–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar