Article published In:
Linguistic Variation: Online-First ArticlesSame yet different
Distributional differences in the use of partitive objects in Estonian and Finnish
The article compares the distributional differences in the use of the partitive object cases in Estonian and
Finnish via multifactorial modeling in contrastive research using the European Parliament parallel text corpus. Based on previous
contrastive research on Finnic, we expected the principles of object case marking to be similar for Estonian and Finnish
(confirmed), and the partitive objects to be more numerous in Estonian than in Finnish (not confirmed, as countable objects with
scalar verbs proved less likely to be partitive in Estonian). We hypothesized that multifactorial modeling in contrastive research
design could help identify the causes for variation and unfold subtle differences between related language systems. Since
preferences related to grammatical voice and constituent order revealed subtle differences between the systems, this hypothesis
was confirmed.
Keywords: partitive, accusative, total, object case, Estonian, Finnish, Finnic, aspect, scalarity, boundedness, quantification, impersonal, passive, grammatical voice, word order, constituent order, verb classes in text registers, multifactorial modeling, mupdar, European Parliament corpus, contrastive research design
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Previous approaches based on corpora
- 3.Objectives and hypotheses
- 4.Data and methods
- 4.1The data
- Contents
- Preprocessing and sampling
- Manual annotation and variable description
- 4.2MuPDARF as the statistical method
- 4.1The data
- 5.Results
- 5.1Model 1: Finnish object case alternation
- 5.2Model 2: Estonian object case alternation
- 5.3Cross-linguistic predictions
- 5.4Models 3 & 4: Clearly deviating predictions
- 6.Discussion
- 7.Limitations
- 8.Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (121)
Ackerman, Farrell & John Moore. 2001. Proto-properties
and grammatical encoding: A correspondence theory of argument
selection. Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariste, Paul. 1968. A
grammar of the Votic language (Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series
68). The Hague: Mouton & Co.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Anttila, Arto & Vivienne Fong. 2000. The
partitive constraint in optimality theory. Journal of
Semantics 171. 281–314. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brattico, Pauli. 2012. Case
assignment and phi-agreement in Finnish. SKY Journal of
Linguistics 251. 29–59.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Denison, Norman. 1957. The
partitive in Finnish (Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian toimituksia B.
108). Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden kirjapaino.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deshors, Sandra C. & Stefan Th. Gries. 2016. Profiling
verb complementation constructions across new Englishes. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics 21(2). 192–218. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Order of object and verb
(v2020.3). In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The
world atlas of language structures online. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ehala, Martin. 2001. Eesti keele baassõnajärjest [On the Estonian base word
order]. In Reet Kasik (ed.), Keele
kannul, 24–41. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2009. Keelekontakti mõju eesti sihitiskäänete kasutamisele [The
impact of language contact on the usage of the Estonian object cases]. Keel ja
Kirjandus 31. 182–204.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erelt, Mati. 2015. Eesti ja soome keele lauseehituse võrdlemisest 1980. ja 1990. aastail [On comparing the syntax of Estonian and Finnish in the 1980ies and
1990ies]. Lähivõrdlusi.
Lähivertailuja 251. 23–34. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
(ed.). 2003. Estonian
language (Linguistica Uralica. Supplementary Series
1). Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erelt, Mati, Tiiu Erelt & Kristiina Ross. 1997. Eesti keele käsiraamat [The handbook of
Estonian]. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erelt, Mati, Reet Kasik, Helle Metslang, Henno Rajandi, Kristiina Ross, Henn Saari, Kaja Tael & Silvi Vare. 1993. Eesti keele grammatika II. Süntaks. Lisa: Kiri [The grammar of the
Estonian language II. Syntax. Appendix:
Orthography]. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erelt, Mati & Helle Metslang (eds.). 2017. Eesti keele süntaks [Estonian
syntax] (Eesti keele varamu
3). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erelt, Mati, Helle Metslang & Karl Pajusalu. 2006. Tense
and evidentiality in Estonian. Belgian Journal of
Linguistics 201. 125–136. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Etxeberria, Urtzi, Tabea Ihsane, Ilja Seržant, Petra Sleeman & Anne Tamm (eds.). 2019. Workshop
proposal. Variation in the expression of partitivity and partitive expressions, 14th International Conference of General
Linguistics (CILG2020). Sevilla, June 26th,
2020. Vienna: MS.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Falco, Michelangelo & Roberto Zamparelli. 2019. Partitives
and partitivity. Glossa: a Journal of General
Linguistics 4(1). 1–49. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Graën, Johannes, Dolores Batinic & Martin Volk. 2014. Cleaning
the Europarl corpus for linguistic applications. In Josef Ruppenhofer & Gertrud Faaß (eds.), Proceedings
of the 12th edition of the KONVENS
conference, 222–227, Hildesheim: Universitätsverlag Hildesheim.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Greenwell, Brandon M. 2017. pdp: An R package for
constructing partial dependence plots. The R
Journal 9(1). 421–436. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gries, Stefan Th. & Sandra Deshors. 2014. Using
regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: Two
suggestions. Corpora 9(1). 109–136. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2015. EFL
and/vs. ESL? A multi-level regression modeling perspective on bridging the paradigm
gap. International Journal of Learner Corpus
Research 1(1). 130–159. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gries, Stefan Th. & Sandra C. Deshors. 2020. There’s
more to alternations than the main diagonal of a 2×2 confusion matrix: Improvements of MuPDAR and other classificatory
alternation studies. ICAME
Journal 44(1). 69–96. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grünthal, Riho. 2003. Finnic
adpositions and cases in change (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia
244). Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2023. Diachronic
bottlenecks of the Uralic (ablative-)partitive. Linguistic
Variation 23(1). 124–156. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Habicht, Külli. 2001. Eesti vanema kirjakeele leksikaalsest ja morfosüntaktilisest arengust ning Heinrich Stahli keele eripärast selle
taustal [On the lexical and morphosyntactic development of Old Written
Estonian and the characteristics of Heinrich Stahl’s language] (Dissertationes Philologiae
Estonicae. Universitas Tartuensis 10). Tartu: Tartu University Press.
Hakulinen, Auli & Fred Karlsson. 1975. Suomen akkusatiivi: funktionaalinen näkökulma [The Finnish
accusative: a functionalist
aspect]. Virittäjä 791. 339–363.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 1979. Nykysuomen lauseoppia [Syntax of Modern
Finnish]. Jyväskylä: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy & Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar
structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements”. In Tanya Mathews & Devon Strolovitch (eds.), SALT
IX, 127–144. Ithaca: CLC Publications. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heinämäki, Orvokki. 1984. Aspect
in Finnish. In Casper de Groot & Hannu Tommola (eds.), Aspect
bound: A voyage into the realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian
aspectology, 153–177. Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 1994. Aspect
and boundedness in Finnish. In Carl Bache, Hans Basbøll & Carl-Eric Lindberg (eds.), Tense,
aspect and action. Empirical and theoretical contributions to language typology (Empirical Approaches
to Language Typology 12), 207–233. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heller, Benedikt, Tobias Bernaisch & Stefan Th. Gries. 2017. Empirical
perspectives on two potential epicenters: The genitive alternation in Asian Englishes. ICAME
Journal 41(1). 111–144. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hiietam, Katrin. 2002. Accusative –
why not? Proceedings of the 11th Postgraduate Conference in
Linguistics. Manchester: University of Manchester.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2003. Definiteness
and grammatical relations in
Estonian. Manchester: University of Manchester PhD dissertation.
Hiietam, Katrin & Kersti Börjars. 2003. The
emergence of a definite article in Estonian. In Diane Nelson & Satu Manninen (eds.), Generative
approaches to Finnic and Saami
linguistics, 383–417. Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hint, Mati. 2017. Partitiivi laienemine aspektituks objektikäändeks [Expansion
of partitive case in the Estonian language into a counterpart of Indo-European
accusative]. Mäetagused 691. 153–180. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2003. Partitivity. In Lisa Cheng & Rint Sybesma (eds.), The
second Glot international state of-the-srticle book. The latest in
linguistics, 179–212 (Studies in Generative Grammar
61). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huumo, Tuomas. 2003. Aspectual
object marking with verbs of perception and cognition: A Finnish-Estonian
study. In Elsa González Alvares & Andrew Rollings (eds.), Studies
in Contrastive
Linguistics 21. 223–228. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2010. Nominal
aspect, quantity, and time: The case of the Finnish object. Journal of
Linguistics 461. 83–125. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2013. On
the many faces of incompleteness: Hide-and-seek with the Finnish partitive object. Folia
Linguistica 47(1). 89–111. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2013. Symmetric
and asymmetric alternations in direct object encoding. STUF – Language Typology and
Universals 66(4). 378–403. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ihsane, Tabea & Elisabeth Stark (eds.), 2020. Shades
of partitivity: Formal and areal
properties. Linguistics 58(3). ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ikola, Osmo. 1953. Viron ja liivin modus obliquuksen historiaa [On the history of the
Estonian and Livonian oblique mood] (Suomi 106,
4). Helsinki: Suomen Kirjallisuuden Seura.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 1972. Partitiivi subjektin, objektin ja predikatiivin sijana [The
partitive as the case of the subject, the object, and the
predicative]. Kielikello 51. 5–12.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Iva, Sulev. 2007. Võru kirjakeele sõnamuutmissüsteem [Inflectional morphology in
the Võro literary language] (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitas Tartuensis
20). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. [URL] (1 January, 2010.)
Ivaska, Ilmari, Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny & Adriano Ferraresi. 2022. Formality
in mediated and non-mediated discourse: Bringing together human judgements and corpus-driven
detection. In Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny, Adriano Ferraresi, Ilmari Ivaska & Silvia Bernardini (eds.), Mediated
discourse at the European Parliament: Empirical
investigations, 29–61. Berlin: Language Science Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Itkonen, Terho. 1979. Subject
and object marking in Finnish: An inverted ergative system and an “ideal” ergative
sub-system. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity.
Towards a theory of grammatical
relations, 79–102. London: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kanerva, Jenna, Filip Ginter, Niko Miekka, Akseli Leino & Tapio Salakoski. 2018. Turku
neural parser pipeline: An end-to-end system for the CoNLL 2018 shared task. Proceedings of the
CoNLL 2018 shared task: Multilingual parsing from raw text to universal
dependencies. Brussels: Association for Computational Linguistics.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1985. Suomen verbi-ilmausten kvantiteetista ja kvaliteetista [On the
quantitative and qualitative aspects of Finnish verb
expressions]. Virittäjä 891. 429–446.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kekki, Niina & Ilmari Ivaska. 2022. The
use of synonymous adjectives by learners of Finnish as a second language: Applying the MuPDAR(F)
approach. International Journal of Learner Corpus
Research 8(1). 67–96. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive
case and aspect. In Miriam Butt & Willem Geuder (eds.), The
projection of
arguments, 265–307. Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Klaas, Birute. 1996. Similarities
in case marking in Estonian and Lithuanian. In Mati Erelt (ed.), Estonian:
Typological studies 1 (Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu
4), 35–67. Tartu: Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 1999. Dependence
of the object case on the semantics of the verb in Estonian, Finnish and
Lithuanian. In Erelt, Mati (ed.), Estonian:
Typological studies 3 (Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu
11), 47–83. Tartu: Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kont, Karl. 1963. Käändsõnaline objekt läänemeresoome keeltes [The declined object in
Baltic Finnic languages] (ENSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituudi uurimused
IX). Tallinn: ENSV Teaduste Akadeemia.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Koponen, Eino. 1985. Suomen and viron objektista [On the Finnish and Estonian
object]. Lähivõrdlusi,
Lähivertailuja 11. 29–37.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity
and the semantics of objective case. In Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), The
syntax of
time, 389–423. Cambridge: The MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic
relations as links between nominal reference and temporal
constitution. In Ivan Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical
matters, 29–53. Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1991. Contrasting languages: The scope of
contrastive linguistics Berlin: De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kruger, Haidee & Gert De Sutter. 2018. Alternations
in contact and non-contact varieties: Reconceptualising that-omission in translated and non-translated English using the
MuPDAR approach. Translation, Cognition & Behavior. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Laanest, Arvo. 1975. Sissejuhatus läänemeresoome keeltesse [Introduction to Baltic Finnic
languages]. Tallinn: Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Larjavaara, Matti. 1991. Aspektuaalisen objektin synty [The birth of the aspectual
object]. Virittäjä 95(4). 372–404.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Larsson, Lars-Gunnar. 1983. Studien zum Partitivgebrauch in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen [Studies on the usage of the partitive in the Baltic Finnic
languages]. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsalensis.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2001. Baltic
influence on Finnic languages. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic
languages: Past and
present, 237–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Laugalienė, Asta. 2022. Lithuanian
and Finnish object case corpus
study. Vilnius: Vilnius University PhD dissertation.
Lees, Aet. 2015. Case
Alternations in five Finnic languages: Estonian, Finnish, Karelian, Livonian and Veps (Brill’s Studies
in Language, Cognition and Culture
13). Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leino, Pentti. 1991. Lauseet ja tilanteet. Suomen objektin ongelmia [Sentences and
situations. Problems of the Finnish
object]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lindström, Liina. 2017. Lause infostruktuur ja sõnajärg [The information structure and
word order of sentences]. In Mati Erelt & Helle Metslang (eds.), Eesti
keele süntaks (Eesti keele varamu
3), 547–565. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Luraghi, Silvia & Tuomas Huumo (eds.). 2014. Partitive
case and related categories (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology
54). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marneffe, Marie-Catherine de, Christopher D. Manning, Joakim Nivre & Daniel Zeman. 2021. Universal
Dependencies. Computational
Linguistics 47(2). 255–308. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Metslang, Helena. 2013. Grammatical
relations in Estonian: Subject, object and beyond. (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae
Universitatis Tartuensis 33). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Metslang, Helle. 1994. Temporal
relations in the predicate and the grammatical system of Estonian and
Finnish. Oulu: Oulun Yliopisto.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 1997. Eesti prefiksaaladverbist “ära” soome keele taustal [On the
Estonian prefixal adverb “ära” from the viewpoint of the Finnish language]. Lähivõrdlusi.
Lähivertailuja 91. 31–46.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2001. On
the developments of the Estonian aspect: the verbal particle
ära
. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic
languages: Grammar and typology, vol. 2 (Studies in Language Companion Series
55), 443–479. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2017. Sihitis [The
object]. In Mati Erelt & Helle Metslang (eds.), Eesti
keele süntaks (Eesti keele varamu
3), 258–277 Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Metslang, Helle & Külli Habicht. 2019. Partitive,
genitive or nominative? Estonian DOM in written use through
centuries. In Urtzi Etxeberria, Tabea Ihsane, Ilja Seržant, Petra Sleeman & Anne Tamm (eds.). Workshop
proposal. Variation in the expression of partitivity and partitive expressions, 14th International Conference of General
Linguistics (CILG2020). Sevilla, June 26th,
2020. Vienna: MS.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2023. Partitive,
genitive or nominative? Estonian DOM in written use through centuries. Linguistic
Variation 23(1). 157–189. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Miljan, Merilin & Virve-Anneli Vihman. 2023. A
corpus study of grammatical case forms in written and spoken Estonian: Frequency, distribution and grammatical
role. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric
Linguistics, 14(3), 5–44. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ojajärvi, Aulis. 1950. Sijojen merkitystehtävistä Itä-Karjalan Maaselän murteissa: Nominatiivi, genetiivi, akkusatiivi ja partitiivi:
Vertaileva funktio-opillinen tutkimus [On the semantic functions of the cases in
the East Karelian dialects of Maaselkä: The nominative, genitive, accusative, and partitive: A comparative functional
study] (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne
97). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ogren, David Paul. 2018. Object case in Estonian
da-infinitive constructions (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis
41). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Pool, Raili. 2007. Eesti keele teise keelena omandamise seaduspärasusi täis- ja osasihitise
näite [The acquisition of total and partial objects by learners of Estonian
as a second language] (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis
19). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Rajandi, Henno & Helle Metslang. 1979. Määratud ja määramata objekt [Defined and undefined
object] (Eesti NSV TA Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut, Ars Grammatica). Tallinn: Valgus.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rantanen, Timo, Harri Tolvanen, Meeli Roose, Jussi Ylikoski & Outi Vesakoski. 2022. Best
practices for spatial language data harmonization, sharing and map creation – A case study of
Uralic. In Søren Wichmann (ed.). PLOS
ONE 17(6). ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rantanen, Timo, Outi Vesakoski, Jussi Ylikoski & Harri Tolvanen. 2021. Geographical
database of the Uralic languages. Zenodo. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reime, Hannu. 1993. Accusative
marking in Finnish. In Anders Holmberg & Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Case
and other functional categories in Finnish
syntax, 89–109. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Remes, Hannu. 2004. Kaks aastakümmet kontrastiivseminare [Two decades of
contrastive seminars]. Keel ja
Kirjandus 41. 295–300.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ritter, Ralf-Peter. 1989. Untersuchungen zum Partitiv im Vepsischen [Studies on the partitive
in Veps] (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica. Band
26). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rätsep, Huno. 1957. Aspektikategooriast eesti keeles [On the category of aspect in
Estonian]. Emakeele Seltsi
Aastaraamat 31. 72–77.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 1978. Eesti keele lihtlausete tüübid [Types of Estonian simple
sentences] (ENSV TA Emakeele Seltsi Toimetised
12). Tallinn: Valgus.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Saareste, Andrus. 1926. Akusatiivist meie grammatikais [On the accusative in our
grammars]. Tartu: Eesti Keel. 101–105.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sahkai, Heete, Anne Tamm & Anders Holmberg. 2023. Eesti keele otseste eriküsilausete sõnajärje aspekte [Aspects
of the word order of Estonian main clause wh-interrogatives]. Keel ja
Kirjandus 101. 987–1006. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schot-Saikku, Päivi. 1990. Der Partitiv und die kasusalternation [The partitive and case
alternation]. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
SCLOMB. s.d. Studia
comparativa linguarum orbis Maris Baltici. Parallel
corpus. University of Turku.
Seilenthal, Tõnu. 1988. Aspektist ja muust eesti ja soome keeles. Esialgseid märkmeid [On aspect and other things in Estonian and Finnish. Preliminary notes]. Lähivõrdlusi.
Lähivertailuja 31. 52–59.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A
typological perspective on differential object
marking. Linguistics 52(2). 281–313. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sleeman, Petra & Giuliana Giusti (eds.). 2021. Partitive
determiners, partitive pronouns and partitive case (Linguistische Arbeiten
580). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sleeman, Petra & Silvia Luraghi (eds.). 2023. Partitives
cross-linguistically: Dimensions of variation. Linguistic
Variation 23(1). ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sulkala, Helena. 1996. Expression
of aspectual meanings in Finnish and Estonian. In Mati Erelt (ed.), Estonian:
Typological
Studies
1
1, 165–217. Tartu: Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tael, Kaja. 1988. Sõnajärjemallid eesti keeles (võrrelduna soome keelega) [Word order
patterns in Estonian (compared to
Finnish)]. Tallinn: Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tamm, Anne. 2004. Relationships
between Estonian verbs, aspect, and object
case. Budapest: ELTE PhD dissertation.
. 2012. Scalar
verb classes: Scalarity, thematic roles, and arguments in the Estonian aspectual
lexicon. Firenze: Firenze University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2014. The
partitive concept versus linguistic partitives: From abstract concepts to evidentiality in the Uralic
languages. In Silvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Partitive
cases and related categories (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology
54), 87–152. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tamm, Anne & Natalia Vaiss. 2019. Setting
the boundaries: Partitive verbs in Estonian verb classifications. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika
Ühingu aastaraamat. Estonian Papers in Applied
Linguistics 151. 159–181. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tatevosov, Sergei & Mikhail Ivanov. 2009. Event
structure of non-culminating accomplishments. In Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop & Andrei Malchukov (eds.), Cross-linguistic
semantics of tense, aspect, and
modality, 83–129. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tauli, Valter. 1983. Estonian
grammar II. Syntax (Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia,
14). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tveite, Tor. 2004. The
case of the object in Livonian: A corpus based study (Castrenianumin toimitteita
62). Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vainikka, Anne. 1989. Deriving
syntactic representations in
Finnish. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.
Vainikka, Anne & Pauli Brattico. 2011. The
Finnish accusative. Biolinguistica Fennica Working
Papers 21. 33–58. [URL]. (4 Jun, 2023.)
Vainikka, Anne & Joan Maling. 1996. Is
partitive case inherent or structural? In Jack Hoeksema (ed.), Partitives.
Studies on the distribution and meaning of partitive
expressions, 179–208. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vallduví, Enric & Maria Vilkuna. 1998. On
rheme and kontrast. In Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The
limits of syntax (Syntax and Semantics
29), 79–108. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verkuyl, Henk. 1993. A
theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal
structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vilkuna, Maria. 1989. Free
word order in Finnish: Its syntax and discourse
functions. Helsinki: University of Helsinki PhD dissertation.
VISK = Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive grammar of
Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. [URL] (June 3,
2023.)
Wright, Marvin N. & Andreas Ziegler. 2017. ranger:
A Fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and R. Journal of
Statistical
Software 77(1). 1–17. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wulff, Stefanie & Stefan Th. Gries. 2015. Prenominal
adjective order preferences in Chinese and German L2 English: A multifactorial corpus
study. Linguistic Approaches to
Bilingualism 5(1). 122–150. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yli-Vakkuri, Valma (ed.). 1993. SCLOMB 1. Studia comparativa linguarum orbis Maris Baltici 1. Tutkimuksia syntaksin ja pragmasyntaksin
alalta [Studies from the areas of syntax and
pragmasyntax] (Turun Yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja
43), Turku: University of Turku.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)