Cover not available
Part of
Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic
Edited by Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau
[Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 1] 2014
► pp. 1–41

Argument marking and grammatical relations in Baltic

An overview

 | University of Warsaw | Vilnius University
 | Vilnius University | Adam Mickiewicz University Poznan
Published online: 16 May 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.1.01hol
References (74)
Sources
LiLa = Lietuviešu-latviešu-lietuviešu paralēlo tekstu korpuss. Availabe online at: [URL]
LLVV = Latviešu literārās valodas vārdnīca . 7.2 S-T, 1991. Rāga: Zinātne.Google Scholar
Mio-2 = miljons-2.0, corpus of contemporary standard Latvian. Available online at: [URL].
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., Robert M. W. Dixon, and Masayuki Onishi (eds). 2001. Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aleksandravičiūtė, Skaistė. 2013. The semantic effects of the Subject Genitive of Negation in Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 4: 9–38.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas (ed). 1997. Lithuanian Grammar . Vilnius: Baltos lankos.Google Scholar
Ambrazas V. 2001. On the development of nominative object in East Baltic. In Circum-Baltic Languages , vol. 2: Grammar and Typology [Studies in Language Companion Series 55], Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 391–412. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery D. 2001. Non-canonical A/S marking in Icelandic. In: Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon, and Masayuki Onishi (eds), 85–111. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andronov, Aleksey V. 2001. A survey of the case paradigm in Latvian. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54(3): 197–208.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter M. 2013. Marking of subjects and objects in Lithuanian non-finite clauses: A typological and diachronic perspective. Linguistic Typology 17(3): 397–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2003. ‘Oblique Subjects’ in Icelandic and German. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 70: 61–99. Available at: [URL]
Bayer, Josef. 2004. Non-nominative subjects in comparison. In Non-nominative subjects , vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 49–76. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg-Olsen, Sturla. 1999. A syntactic change in progress: The decline in the use of the non-prepositional genitive in Latvian, with a comparative view on Lithuanian . MA thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
. 2000. The Latvian non-prepositional genitive – a case losing ground. Res Balticae 6, 95–146.Google Scholar
. 2001. Subjects and valency-changing mechanisms in Latvian. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54(3): 200–225.Google Scholar
. 2005. The Latvian dative and genitive: A Cognitive Grammar account . PhD thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2004. The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Non-nominative subjects , vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao& Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 77–112. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Language Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed), 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2011. Case marking and alignment. In The Oxford handbook of case , Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 304–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Partee, Barbara H., Testelets, Yakov, and Yanovich, Igor. 2008. Russian genitives, non-referentiality, and the property-type hypothesis. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Stony Brook Meeting 2007 [Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistcs 16], A. Antonenko, J. F. Bailyn & C. Bethin (eds), 48–67. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Marina Chumakina and Greville G. Corbett (eds) 2013. Canonical Morphology and Syntax . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1975. The antiergative: Finland’s answer to Basque. Chicago Linguistic Society 11: 112–121.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1986. The use of the genitive or accusative for the direct object of negated verbs in Russian: A bibliography. In Case in Slavic , Richard D. Brecht & James S. Levine (eds), 361–372. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2008. Semantic alignment systems: what’s what, and what’s not. In The typology of semantic alignment , Mark Donohue and Søren Wichmann (eds), 24–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Wichmann, Søren (eds). 2008. The Typology of Semantic Alignment . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endzelin, J[an]. 1922. Lettische Grammatik . Riga: Kommisionsverlag A. Gulbis.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis & Kārlis Mǖlenbachs. 1907. Latviešu gramatika . Rīga: K. J. Zichmanis.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 2001. Nominal and verbal semantic structure: analogies and interactions. Language Sciences 23: 453–501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. On accumulating and having it all. Perfectivity, prefixes and bare arguments. In Perspectives on aspect , H. J. Verkuyl, H. de Swart & A. van Hout (eds), 125–148. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franks, Stephen and Lavine, James E. 2006. Case and word order in Lithuanian. Journal of Linguistics 42(1): 239–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Richard M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds), 53–83. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15: 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 1992. Bemerkungen über die Entwicklung des lettischen Kasussystems: Der Instrumental. In Colloquium Pruthenicum Primum. Papers from the First International Conference on Old Priussian , Wojciech Smoczyński and Axel Holvoet (eds), 143–149. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar
. 2010. Between morphosyntax and the paradigm: Some puzzling patterns of case distribution in Baltic and their implications. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42(2): 175–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Obliqueness, quasi-subjects and transitivity in Baltic and Slavonic. In The Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series 140], Ilja A. Seržant & Leonid Kulikov (eds), 259–284. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Forthcoming. Non-canonical subjects in Latvian: an obliqueness-based approach. In Contemporary Approaches to Baltic Linguistics , Peter M. Arkadiev, Björn Wiemer, Axel Holvoet (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logo
Hopper, Paul and Thompson, Sandra. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 2009. Fictive dynamicity, nominal aspect, and the Finnish copulative construction. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1), 43–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2010. Genitive objects, existence and individuation. Russian Linguistics 34: 17–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Semantics of genitive objects in Russian . Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. Subject and Topic , Charles N. Li (ed.), 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors , Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 265–307. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria and Wälchli, Bernhard. 2001. The Circum-Baltic languages. An areal-typological approach. In Circum-Baltic Languages , vol. 2: Grammar and Typology [Studies in Language Companion Series 55 ], Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 615–750. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lavrin, B. A.1963. Ob odnoj slavjano-balto-finskoj izoglosse. Lietuvių kabotyros klausimai 6: 87–107.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization . Cambridge: Cambridge Univerity Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2005. Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case , Mengistu Amberber & Helen de Hoop (eds), 73–117. London: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej.2006. Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: Constraining co-variation. In Case, Valency and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77], Leonid. I. Kulikov, Andrej L. Malchukov, Helen de Hoop (eds), 329–357. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mīlenbahs, Kārlis. 2009 [1890/1891]. Par akuzatīvu un ģenitīvu pie noliegtiem tranzitīviem verbiem. In Kārlis Mīlenbahs. Darbu izlase divos sējumos . 1. sējums, 42–49. Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts.Google Scholar
Moore, John and Perlmutter, David M. 2000 What does it take to be a Dative Subject? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 373–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mühlenbach, Karl. 1902/3. Über die vermeintlichen Genitive oder Ablative auf -ů oder u im Lettischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 13: 220–260.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Varieties of dative. In The Oxford Handbook of Case , Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 572–580. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nau, Nicole. 1998. Latvian [Languages of the World/Materials 217]. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Declension classes in Latvian and Latgalian: Morphomics vs. Morphophonology. Baltic Linguistics 2: 141–177.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2008. Why are stative-active languages rare in Eurasia? A typological perspective on split-subject marking. In The typology of semantic alignment , Mark Donohue and Søren Wichmann (eds), 121–139. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki. 2001. Introduction: Non-canonically marked subjects and objects. Parameters and properties. In Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon, and Masayuki Onishi (eds), 1–51. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Testelets, Yakov, and Yanovich, Igor. 2011. Russian Genitive of Negation Alternations: The Role of Verb Semantics. Scando-Slavica 57(2): 135–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The role of verb semantics in genitive alternations: genitive of negation and genitive of intensionality. In The Russian Verb [Oslo Studies in Language 4(1)], Atle Grønn & Anna Pazelskaya (eds), 1–29.Google Scholar
Perkova, NataliaMS. Non-canonical argument marking in two-place predication: the case of the Baltic languages. Unpublished paper, Stockholm 2013.
Piccini, Silvia. 2008. Traces of non-nominative alignment in Lithuanian: the impersonal constructions in Indo-European perspective. Baltistica 43(3): 437–461.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2011. Case, grammatical relations, and semantic roles. In The Oxford Handbook of Case , Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds), 261–275. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raģe, S. 1964. Erģemes, Lugazu un Valkas izloksnes fonētika un morfoloģija. Valodas un literatūras institūta raksti 8: 5–142.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja. 2013a. Rise of canonical objecthood with the Lithuanian verbs of pain. Baltic Linguistics 4: 187–211.Google Scholar
. 2013b. Rise of Canonical Subjecthood. In The Diachrony of Non-canonical Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series 140], Ilja A. Seržant and Leonid Kulikov (eds), 309–336. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. forthcoming. Dative experiencer constructions as a Circum-Baltic isogloss. In Contemporary Approaches to Baltic Linguistics , Peter M. Arkadiev, Björn Wiemer, Axel Holvoet (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logo
Seržant, Ilja A., Fedriani, Chiara, and Kulikov, Leonid. 2013. Introduction. In The Diachrony of Non-canonical Subjects , Ilja A. Seržant, and Leonid Kulikov (eds) [Studies in Language Companion Series 140], ix–xxvi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. 2004. Icelandic non-nominative subjects: facts and implications. In Non-Nominative Subjects , Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds), vol. 2 [Typological Studies in Languages 61], 137–159. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1974. The Nominative Object in Slavic, Baltic, and West Finnic . München: Verlag Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. Split case-marking in verb types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19: 389–438.Google Scholar
1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21: 385–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verma, Manindra & K[aravannur]. P.[uthanvettil] Mohanan. 1990. Introduction to the experiencer subject construction, 1–11.
(eds). 1990. Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages . Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: the Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Luraghi, Silvia, Merlijn De Smit & Iván Igartua
2020. Contact-induced change in the languages of Europe: The rise and development of partitive cases and determiners in Finnic and Basque. Linguistics 58:3 ► pp. 869 ff. DOI logo
Li, Yanzhi & Yicheng Wu
2018. The constructionalization and constructional change of noncanonical V-NP expressions in Mandarin Chinese. Studies in Language 42:4 ► pp. 886 ff. DOI logo
Zakrzewska, Ewa D.
2017. Complex verbs in Bohairic Coptic. In Argument Realisation in Complex Predicates and Complex Events [Studies in Language Companion Series, 180], ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Arkadiev, Peter M.
2016. Long-distance Genitive of Negation in Lithuanian. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Holvoet, Axel & Nicole Nau
2016. Introduction. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lavine, James E.
2016. Variable argument realization in Lithuanian impersonals. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo
Nau, Nicole
2016. Argument realization in Latvian action nominal constructions. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 461 ff. DOI logo
Seržant, Ilja A.
2016. The nominative case in Baltic in a typological perspective. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Nau, Nicole & Axel Holvoet
2015. Voice in Baltic. In Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 2], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.