The aim of the paper is to account for the pattern of grammatical relations with the debitive, an inflectional form of the Latvian verb expressing necessity. The authors argue that the debitive construction displays what they call diffuse grammatical relations. They show that neither of the arguments in the debitive construction shows clear subject or object properties, and introduce the notion of a demoted intransitive subject occurring alongside a less-oblique datival argument, in a configuration reminiscent of ditransitive structures with demoted direct objects. Such patterns with diffuse grammatical relations are also assigned lexically, not only in Latvian but also in Lithuanian, many Slavonic languages and some Germanic languages such as Icelandic; in the case of the debitive, the diffusemess of grammatical relations is associated with the modal character of the construction, a factor known to induce non-canonical argument marking. The authors also dwell on the diachronic implications of the issues raised in the article, introducing the notion of obliqueness adjustments, i.e., changes in the case-marking of arguments bringing it in line with syntactic obliqueness.
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.
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.
Barðdal, Jóhanna.2001. The perplexity of Dat-Nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24: 47–70.
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, Oslo University.
Bergmane, Anna. 1959, 1962. Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika. I. Fonētika un morfoloģija. II.
Sintakse
. Rīga: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība.
Bielenstein, August. 1863/64. Die lettische Sprache nach ihren Lauten und Formen erklärend und vergleichend dargestellt. I–II. Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler.
Blake, Barry J.2001. Case. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blansitt, Edward L.1984. Dechticaetiative and dative. In Objects:Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages, 2001.] Frans Plank (ed), 127–150. London & New York: Academic Press.
Boeder, Winfried. 1979. Ergative Syntax and Morphology in Language Change: The South Caucasian Languages. In Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, Frans Planck (ed), 435–480. London: Academic Press.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William.1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1975. The antiergative: Finland’s answer to Basque. Papers from the eleventh regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society 11, 112–121.
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray.2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: University Press.
De Haan, Ferdinand. 2006. Typological approaches to modality. In The Expression of Modality, William Frawley (ed), 27–69. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Eide, Kristin Melum.2005. Norwegian Modals [Studies in Generative Grammar 74]. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Endzelīns, Jānis.1901/1975. Ursprung und Gebrauch des lettischen Debitivs. Bezzenbergers Beiträge 26: 66–74 = id., Darbu izlase I, Rīga: Zinātne, 143–150.
Endzelīns, Jānis [J. Endzelin]. 1923. Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Endzelīns, Jānis.1932/1980. Dažādas valodas kļūdas [
Various language mistakes
]. 3rd edn. Rīga: A. Gulbis. Reprinted Darbu izlase 3.2, Rīga: Zinātne, 9–45.
Endzelīns, Jānis & Mǖlenbachs, Kārlis.1907. Latviešu gramatika. Rīga: K. J. Zichmanis.
Ernout, Alfred & Thomas, François.1959. Syntaxe latine. 2e éd. Paris: Klincksieck.
Fennell, Trevor G.1973. The subject of Latvian verbs in the debitive mood. In Baltic Literature and Linguistics, Arvids Ziedonis, Jaan Puhvel, Rimvydas Šilbajoris & Mardi Valgemäe (eds), 213–221. Columbus, Ohio: Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies.
Hansen, Björn.2000. The German modal verb müssen and the Slavonic languages–the reconstruction of a success story. Scando-Slavica 46: 78–92.
Hansen, Björn.2001. Das slavische Modalauxiliar. Semantik und Grammatikalisierung im Russischen, Polnischen, Serbischen, Kroatischen und Altkirchenslavischen. München: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Harris, Alice C.1981. Georgian Syntax. A Study in Relational Grammar [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 33]. Cambridge: University Press.
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, Robert M. W. Dixon and Masayuki Onishi (eds), 53–83. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. The Behaviour-before-Coding Principle in syntactic change. In Essais de Typologie et de Linguistique Générale: Mélanges Offerts à Denis Creissels, Franck Floricic (ed), 541–554. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de l’École Normale Supérieure.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15: 535–567.
Holvoet, Axel. 1998. Notes on the rise and grammaticalization of the Latvian debitive. Linguistica Baltica 7: 101–118.
Holvoet, Axel. 2005. Agreement strategies in infinitival clauses in Baltic. In Prace Bałtystyczne 2. Język, literatura, kultura [Baltic Studies 2. Language, Literature, Culture], Ona Vaičiulytė-Romančuk & Norbert Ostrowski (eds), 31–41. Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski.
Holvoet, Axel. 2007. Mood and Modality in Baltic. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Holvoet, Axel. Forthcoming. Non-canonical subjects in Latvian: An obliqueness-based approach. In Contemporary Approaches to Baltic Linguistics, Peter M. Arkadiev, Axel Holvoet & Björn Wiemer (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hopper, Paul. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. Approaches to Grammaticalization vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 19.1], Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), 17–36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hopper, Paul & Thompson, Sandra.1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299.
Keenan, Edward L.1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed), 303–333. New York: Academic Press.
Lightfoot, David. 1974. The Diachronic Analysis of English Modals. In Historical Linguistics. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh, 2nd-7th Sept., 1973. Vol. I:
Syntax, Morphology, Internal and Comparative Reconstruction
, John Anderson and Charles Jones (eds), 219–249. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin & Comrie, Bernard.2010. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions
. A Comparative Handbook, Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds), 1–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Malchukov, Andrej L. & de Hoop, Helen.2011. Tense, aspect, and mood based differential case marking. Lingua 121: 35–47.
Narrog, Heiko. 2010. Voice and non-canonical case marking in the expression of event-oriented modality. Linguistic Typology 14: 71–126.
Nau, Nicole. 1998. Latvian [Languages of the World, Materials 217]. München & Lancaster: Lincom Europa.
Noonan, Michael. 2007. Complementation. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. II. Complex Constructions. 2nd edition, Timothy Shopen (ed), 52–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Onishi, Masayuki. 2001. Introduction. In Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon and Masayuki Onishi (eds), (eds) 2001, 1–51. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Palmer, Frank R.2001. Mood and Modality. 2nd edn. Cambridge: University Press.
Perlmutter, David M. & Postal, Paul P.1983. Some proposed laws of basic clause structure. In Studies in Relational Grammar, David M. Perlmutter (ed), 81–128. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Pollard, Carl J. & Sag, Ivan A.1994. Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Prellwitz, Walther. 1904. Zur Entstehung des lettischen Debitivs. Bezzenbergers Beiträge 28: 319.
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and Thematic Roles. Ergative, Accusative and Active. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Rappaport, Gilbert C.1986. On anaphor binding in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4(1): 97–120.
Rounds, Carol. 2001. Hungarian. An Essential Grammar. London/New York: Routledge.
Sands, Kristina & Campbell, Lyle.2001. Non-canonical subjects and objects in Finnish. In Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon and Masayuki Onishi (eds), 251–305. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann.2003. Case: abstract vs. morphological. In New Perspectives on Case Theory [CSLI Lecture Notes 156], Ellen Brandnerand Heike Zinsmeister (eds), 223–267. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann.2004. Icelandic non-nominative subjects. Facts and implications. In Non-Nominative Subjects. Vol. 2 [Typological Studies in Language 61], Peri Bhaskararao& Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 137–159. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Timberlake, Alan. 1974. The Nominative Object in Slavic, Baltic, and West Finnic. München: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Woolford, Ellen.2003. Burzio’s generalization, markedness and locality constraints on nominative objects. In New Perspectives on Case Theory [CSLI Lecture Notes 156] Ellen Brandner and Heike Zinsmeister (eds), 299–327. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan & Thráinsson, Höskuldur.1985. Case and grammatical functions: the Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3(4): 441–483.
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.