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. 97–135

Non-canonical grammatical relations in a modal construction

The Latvian debitive

| University of Warsaw | Vilnius University
| University of Warsaw | Vilnius University
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.
Published online: 16 May 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.1.03hol
References (57)
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
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
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001. The perplexity of Dat-Nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24: 47–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2006. Control infinitives and case in Germanic: ‘Performance error’ or marginally acceptable constructions? In Case, Valency and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77], Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov, and Peter de Swart (eds), 147–177. 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, Oslo University.Google Scholar
Bergmane, Anna. 1959, 1962. Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika. I. Fonētika un morfoloģija . II. Sintakse . Rīga: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība.Google Scholar
Bielenstein, August. 1863/64. Die lettische Sprache nach ihren Lauten und Formen erklärend und vergleichend dargestellt . I–II. Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case . 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax . Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1975. The antiergative: Finland’s answer to Basque. Papers from the eleventh regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society 11, 112–121.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler Syntax . Oxford: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Haan, Ferdinand. 2006. Typological approaches to modality. In The Expression of Modality , William Frawley (ed), 27–69. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum. 2005. Norwegian Modals [Studies in Generative Grammar 74]. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis. 1901/1975. Ursprung und Gebrauch des lettischen Debitivs. Bezzenbergers Beiträge 26: 66–74 = id., Darbu izlase I, Rīga: Zinātne, 143–150.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis [J. Endzelin]. 1923. Lettische Grammatik . Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis. 1932/1980. Dažādas valodas kļūdas [ Various language mistakes ]. 3rd edn. Rīga: A. Gulbis. Reprinted Darbu izlase 3.2, Rīga: Zinātne, 9–45.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis & Mǖlenbachs, Kārlis. 1907. Latviešu gramatika . Rīga: K. J. Zichmanis.Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & Thomas, François. 1959. Syntaxe latine . 2e éd. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hansen, Björn. 2000. The German modal verb müssen and the Slavonic languages–the reconstruction of a success story. Scando-Slavica 46: 78–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Das slavische Modalauxiliar. Semantik und Grammatikalisierung im Russischen, Polnischen, Serbischen, Kroatischen und Altkirchenslavischen . München: Verlag Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 1981. Georgian Syntax. A Study in Relational Grammar [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 33]. Cambridge: University Press.Google 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, Robert M. W. Dixon and Masayuki Onishi (eds), 53–83. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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.Google 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. 1998. Notes on the rise and grammaticalization of the Latvian debitive. Linguistica Baltica 7: 101–118.Google Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
. 2007. Mood and Modality in Baltic . Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Google Scholar
. 2013. Obliqueness, quasi-subjects and transitivity in Baltic and Slavonic. In The Diachronic Typology of Non-prototypical Subjects , Ilja Seržants & Leonid Kulikov (eds), 257–282. 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, Axel Holvoet & Björn Wiemer (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Thompson, Sandra. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Subject and Topic , Charles N. Li (ed), 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2006. Object-, animacy- and role-based strategies. A typology of object marking. Studies in Language 30(1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. & de Hoop, Helen. 2011. Tense, aspect, and mood based differential case marking. Lingua 121: 35–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2010. Voice and non-canonical case marking in the expression of event-oriented modality. Linguistic Typology 14: 71–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nau, Nicole. 1998. Latvian [Languages of the World, Materials 217]. München & Lancaster: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and Modality . 2nd edn. Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. & Sag, Ivan A. 1994. Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar . Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prellwitz, Walther. 1904. Zur Entstehung des lettischen Debitivs. Bezzenbergers Beiträge 28: 319.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and Thematic Roles. Ergative, Accusative and Active . Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, Gilbert C. 1986. On anaphor binding in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4(1): 97–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rounds, Carol. 2001. Hungarian. An Essential Grammar . London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1974. The Nominative Object in Slavic, Baltic, and West Finnic . München: Verlag Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan & Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: the Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3(4): 441–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Shikunova, Alexandra
2023. Case and agreement puzzle in the Moksha debitive. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 2:2 ► pp. 193 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
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
Seržant, Ilja A. & Jana Taperte
2016. Differential Argument Marking with the Latvian debitive. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Spraunienė, Birutė, Auksė Razanovaitė & Erika Jasionytė
2015. Solving the puzzle of the Lithuanian passive. In Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 2], ► pp. 323 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 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.