Cover not available
Part of
Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic
Edited by Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau
[Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 2] 2015
► pp. 39–98

Lithuanian morphological causatives

A corpus-based study

ORCID logo | Vilnius University
| Vilnius University
We analyse morphological causative verbs in Lithuanian on the basis of an annotated corpus, studying the distribution of different causative suffixes across the valency types of base verbs, as well as the argument structure of the causatives themselves. We show that different causative suffixes are unevenly distributed with respect to the transitivity and agentivity of the base verbs and that morphological causatives in Lithuanian, being no longer productive, tend to pattern in their argument structure and interpretation together with ordinary transitive verbs. The not very numerous causatives based on transitive verbs are investigated, and it is shown that causatives based on “ingestive” verbs like ‘eat’ or ‘drink’ behave differently from causatives formed from other semantic types of bases, in particular in that they allow the expression of both participants of the caused event. The non-ingestive transitive verbs derive so called “curative” causatives which are peculiar in that they never allow regular overt expression of the agent of the caused situation and are therefore not valency-increasing in the strict sense of the term. Such causatives are also shown to undergo meaning shifts rendering them partly synonymous with their base verbs, the original causative semantics being lost.
Published online: 5 August 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.2.01ark
References (81)
DLKT – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas [Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian], [URL].
DŽ6e – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas [Dictionary of Modern Lithuanian], 6th ed. (3rd electronic ed.), ed. by Stasys Keinys (editor in chief), Laimutis Bilkis, Jonas Paulauskas, Vytautas Vitkauskas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2011, [URL].Google Scholar
LKŽe – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas [Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language], vols. 1–20, 1941–2002), electronic edition, ed. by Gertrūda Naktinienė (editor in chief), Jonas Paulauskas, Ritutė Petrokienė, Vytautas Vitkauskas, Jolanta Zabarskaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2005–2008, [URL].Google Scholar
PRPC – Polish-Russian Parallel Corpus, part of the Russian National Corpus, [URL]
References
Ackerman, Farrell & Moore, John. 1999. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic dimensions of causee encodings. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(1): 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Yu. 2011. Causatives which do not cause: Non-valency-increasing effects of a valency-increasing derivation. In Language at Large. Essays on Syntax and Semantics [Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory 2], Alexandra Yu. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds), 86–142. Leiden/Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amberber, Mengistu. 2002. Quirky alternations of transitivity: The case of ingestive predicates. In Language Universals and Variation, Mengistu Amberber & Peter Collins (eds), 1–20. Westport, CT: Prager.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas (ed.). 1985. Grammatika litovskogo jazyka [Grammar of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslas.Google Scholar
(ed.). 1997. Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2006. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika [Grammar of Modern Lihuanian]. 4th edn. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter M. 2011. Aspect and actionality in Lithuanian on a typological background. In Langues baltiques, langues slaves, Daniel Petit, Claire Le Feuvre & Henry Menantaud (eds), 57–86. Paris: Éditions CNRS.Google Scholar
. 2012. Stems in Lithuanian verbal inflection (with remarks on derivation). Word Structure 5(1): 7–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. From transitivity to aspect: Causative-inchoative alternation and its extensions in Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 4: 39–77.Google Scholar
. 2014. Review of Leonard H. Babby. The Syntax of Argument Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 22(2): 259–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1993. On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In Yearbook of Morphology 1992, Geert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Corpus linguistics in morphology: morphological productivity. In Corpus Linguistics. An international handbook, Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kyto (eds), vol. 2, 899–919. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of causative constructions: Cross-language similarities and differences. In Syntax and Semantics 6. The Grammar of Causative Constructions, Masayoshi Shibatani (ed), 261–312. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1978. Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology. Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Winfried P. Lehmann (ed), 329–394. Austin/London: The University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, William C. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Verbs. Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daugavet, Anna D. 2015. The lengthening of the first component of Lithuanian diphthongs in an areal perspective. In Contemporary Approaches to Baltic Linguistics, Peter Arkadiev, Axel Holvoet & Björn Wiemer (eds), 139–201. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo
Derksen, Rick. 1996. Metatony in Baltic [Leiden Studies in Indo-European, 6]. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2000. A typology of causatives: form, syntax and meaning. In Changing Valency. Case Studies in Transitivity, Robert M.W. Dixon & Aleksandra Yu. Aikhenvald (eds), 30–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DŽ2. 1972. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas [The Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian], 2nd edn, ed. by Jonas Kruopas. Vilnius: Mintis.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis. 1951. Latviešu valodas gramatika [Latvian Grammar]. Rīga: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In: Berkeley Linguistic Society 12: 95–107.Google Scholar
Galnaitytė, Elzė [Galnajtite È.A.]. 1980. Tipologija kauzativnyx glagolov kak sposoba dejstvija (na materiale russkogo i litovskogo jazykov) [Typology of causative verbs as an Aktionsart (based on Russian and Lithuanian data)]. In Aspektual’nost’ i sredstva eё vyraženija. Voprosy russkoj aspektologii V [Aspectuality and Its Expression. Issues in Russian Aspectology V][Učenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 537]. Tartu: Tartu University, 100–114.Google Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma. 1974. Diatezy i zalogi v sovremennom litovskom jazyke [Diathesis and voice in modern Lithuanian]. In Tipologija passivnyx konstrukcij. Diatezy i zalogi [Typology of Passive Constructions. Diathesis and Voice], Aleksandr A. Xolodovič (ed.), 203–231. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
. 1983. Refleksivnye glagoly v baltijskix jazykax i tipologija refleksivov [Reflexive Verbs in Baltic and the Typology of Reflexives]. Vilnius.
. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Passives in Lithuanian (in comparison with Russian). In Passivization and Typology. Form and Function, Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds), 29–61. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Reciprocal and reflexive constructions in Lithuanian (with references to Latvian). In Typology of reciprocal constructions, vol. 2, Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed), 633–672. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Causatives and Transitivity, Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds), 86–120. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 73]. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2009. Causative morphemes as non-valency increasing devices. Folia Linguistica 43(1): 67–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kozhanov, Kirill. forthcoming. Prefixation and argument structure in Lithuanian: transitivization. In Argument Realization in Baltic, Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds). Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kulikov, Leonid. 2001. Causatives. In Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), vol. 2, 886–898. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter,Google Scholar
Kumakhov, Mukhadin & Vamling, Karina. 2009. Circassian Clause Structure. Malmö: Malmö University.Google Scholar
Letuchiy, Alexander [Letučij, Aleksandr B.]. 2009a. Towards a typology of labile verbs: Lability vs. derivation. In New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions [Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs, 271], Patience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds), 247–268. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Letučij, Aleksandr B. 2009b. Kauzativ, dekauzativ i labil’nost’ [Causative, anticausative, and lability]. In: Aspekty polisintetizma: Očerki po grammatike adygejskogo jazyka [Aspects of Polysynthesis: Studies in Adyghe Grammar], Jakov G. Testelec (ed.), 372–428. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities.Google Scholar
. 2013. Tipologija labil’nyx glagolov [Typology of Labile Verbs]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.Google Scholar
Maldonado, Ricardo & Nava, Fernando E. 2002. Tarascan causatives and event complexity. In The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation, Masayoshi Shibatani (ed), 157–196. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masica, Colin. 1976. Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 2000. On the crosslinguistic parameterization of causative predicates: Implications from Japanese and other languages. In Argument Realization, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 135–169. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Naktinienė, Gertrūda. 2011. Parūpinamieji veiksmažodžiai Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodyne [Curative verbs in the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian]. Kalbos kultūra 84: 150–164.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language, 72]. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The grammar of eating and drinking verbs. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(6): 413–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov Vladimir P. & Georgij G. Sil’nickij. 1969. Tipologija morfologičeskogo i leksičeskogo kauzativov [Typology of morphological and lexical causatives]. In Tipologija kauzativnyx konstrukcij. Morfologičeskij kauzativ [Typology of Causative Constructions. Morphological Causative], Aleksandr A. Xolodovič (ed), 20–50. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Ostrowski, Norbert. 2006. Studia z historii czasownika litewskiego. Iteratiwa. Denominatiwa. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
Ožegov, Sergej I. s.d. Slovar’ russkogo jazyka [The Dictionary of Russian]. Moscow: Sovetskaja ènciklopedija.
Pakerys, Antanas. 2002. Akcentologija [Accentology], vol. 2. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.Google Scholar
Pakerys, Jurgis. 2011. On derivational suffixes and inflectional classes of verbs in Modern Lithuanian, Lietuvių kalba 5 ([URL]).Google Scholar
. 2013. Naujųjų skolinių duomenų bazės veiksmažodžių morfologija [Verbal morphology in the Database of New Borrowings into Lithuanian]. Taikomoji kalbotyra 3 ([URL]).Google Scholar
Rackevičienė, Sigita. 2002. Morfologiniai lietuvių, norvegų ir suomių kalbų kauzatyvai [Morphological causatives in Lithuanian, Norwegian and Finnish]. Kalbotyra 51(1): 135–146.Google Scholar
. 2005. Typology of morphological causatives in Lithuanian, Finnish and Norwegian. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 23(1): 55–74.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian C. 2011. Licensing of instrumental case in Hindi/Urdu causatives. Nordlyd 38: 49–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saksena, Anuradha. 1980. The affected agent. Language 56(4): 812–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savičiūtė, Gertrūda. 1985. Parūpinamųjų veiksmažodžių semantika [Semantics of curative verbs]. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 24: 236–251.Google Scholar
. 1986. Dėl lietuvių kalbos kauzatyvinių konstrukcijų semantikos [On the semantics of the causative constructions in Lithuanian]. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 25: 157–167.Google Scholar
Senn, Alfred. 1966. Handbuch der Litauischen Sprache. Bd. I. Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.). 1976. Syntax and Semantics 6. The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2001. The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation [Typological Studies in Language, 48]. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Introduction. Some basic issues in the grammar of causation. In The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation [Typological Studies in Language, 48], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 1–22. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smoczyński, Wojciech. 1987. On the Balto-Slavic present stems in -dō. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 48: 197–212 (reprinted in: Wojciech Smoczyński, Studia Bałto-Słowiańskie 2, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2003, 42–51).Google Scholar
. 2005. Lexikon der altpreussischen Verben [Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 117]. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 1996. Causatives and Causation: A Universal-Typological Perspective. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Srishti, Richa. 2014. Not so high. The case of causee in South Asian Languages (Hindi, Kashmiri, Punjabi & Manipuri). In The Lexicon-Syntax Interface: Perspectives from South Asian languages, Pritha Chandra & Richa Srishti (eds), 197–216. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stang, Christian S. 1942. Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Skrifter utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-Filol. Klasse. No. 1. Oslo, 1–280.Google Scholar
. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo/Bergen/Tromsø: Universitetsvorlaget.Google Scholar
Svantesson, Jan Olof. 1983. Kammu Phonology and Morphology. Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 18.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1982. The impersonal passive in Lithuanian. Berkeley Linguistics Society 8: 508–524.Google Scholar
Toops, Gary H. 1989. The syntax and semantics of Lithuanian curative constructions. In The Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR, Howard Aronson (ed.), vol. 5, 249–282. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Ulvydas, Kazys (ed.). 1971. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika [Grammar of Lithuanian], vol. 2. Vilnius: Mintis.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2006. Relations between Actor-demoting devices in Lithuanian. In Passivization and Typology. Form and Function, Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds), 274–309. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xolodovič, Aleksandr A. (ed). 1969. Tipologija kauzativnyx konstrukcij. Morfologičeskij kauzativ [Typology of Causative Constructions. The Morphological Causative]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Young, Steven R. 1991. The Prosodic Structure of Lithuanian. Lanham/New York/London: The University Press of America.Google Scholar
Žeimantienė, Vaiva. 2011. Zur Verwendung und Bedeutung ausgewählter litauischer kurativer Verben mit Ausblick auf das Deutsche. Moderne Sprachen 55(2): 123–133.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Korostenskiene, Julija
2022. Baltic topmost superlexical prefixes as the left periphery of the verb: the permissive, the restrictive, the negative, and the debitive. Journal of Baltic Studies 53:3 ► pp. 325 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
Kozhanov, Kirill
2016. Verbal prefixation and argument structure in Lithuanian. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 363 ff. DOI logo
Nau, Nicole & Jurgis Pakerys
2016. Transitivity pairs in Baltic: between Finnic and Slavic. Lingua Posnaniensis 58:2 ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo
Pakerys, Jurgis
2016. On periphrastic causative constructions in Lithuanian and Latvian. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 427 ff. DOI logo
Riaubienė, Benita
2016. Resultative secondary predicates in the Baltic languages. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo
Wiemer, Björn & Vaiva Žeimantienė
2016. Contexts for the choice of genitive vs. instrumental in contemporary Lithuanian. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. The Middle Voice in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 5], 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.