Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
On the non-canonical marking of the highest-ranking argument in Lithuanian and Icelandic: Step towards a database
Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Baltic Languages, Finnish and German. Vilnius University, Lithuania.
2014 (English)In: Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic / [ed] Axel Holvoet, Nicole Nau, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2014, 301-361 p.Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This paper is a first report on an ongoing project aiming at building up a database of non-canonical argument marking in Lithuanian in contrast to other languages with relatively rich systems of morphological cases. The language with which we begin the comparison is Icelandic. The overarching aim consists not only in a unified inventorisation of relevant units, but in disclosing (i) regularities in the alternation of coding patterns and (ii) the factors underlying such variation. We will concentrate on case marking; this however implies agreement patterns as well, insofar as in these two languages only nominatival NPs trigger agreement on the finite verb (= predicate of the clause). We further concentrate on verbs with non-canonical marking of their highest-ranking argument (HRA); the notion of HRA is defined on the basis of the Actor-Undergoer Hierarchy as developed in Role & Reference Grammar (see 2.1). What we present here is not yet a comprehensive description of the whole body of data, but rather a problem paper which details some conceptual issues and highlights some prominent types of argument coding and their relation to lexical groups.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2014. 301-361 p.
Series
Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, ISSN 2352-0159
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-108411ISBN: 9789027259097 (print)ISBN: 9789027270399 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-108411DiVA: diva2:757611
Available from: 2014-10-23 Created: 2014-10-23 Last updated: 2016-09-13Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Non-canonical case-marking on core arguments in Lithuanian: A historical and contrastive perspective
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Non-canonical case-marking on core arguments in Lithuanian: A historical and contrastive perspective
2014 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

This thesis presents a description and analysis of non-canonical case-marking of core arguments in Lithuanian. It consists of an introduction and six articles, providing historical and/or contrastive perspective to this issue. More specifically, using data from Lithuanian dialects, Old Lithuanian and other languages such as Icelandic, Latin and Finnic for comparison, the thesis examines the development and current state of non-canonical case-marking of core arguments in Lithuanian The present work draws on empirical findings and theoretical considerations to investigate non-canonical case-marking, language variation and historical linguistics.

Special attention is paid to the variation in the case-marking of body parts in pain verb constructions, where an accusative-marked body part is used in Standard Lithuanian, and alongside, a nominative-marked body part in Lithuanian dialects. A common objective of the first three articles is to clarify and to seek a better understanding for the reasons for this case variation. The research provides evidence that nominative is the original case-marking of body parts in pain specific construction, i.e. with verbs, with the original meaning of pain, like skaudėti and sopėti ‘hurt, feel pain’. On the contrary, in derived pain constructions, i.e. with verbs like gelti with the original meaning of ‘sting, bite’ and diegti with the original meaning ‘plant’, accusative is the original case-marking of body parts. This accusative is explained by means of an oblique anticausative and it is argued furthermore that it is extended into the pain specific construction. The three last articles focus on the comparative and contrastive perspective. Their main results include the following: Lithuanian and Icelandic differ considerably in the frequency of using accusative vs. dative marking on the highest ranked argument. Accusative is more frequently used in Lithuanian while dative is dominant in Icelandic. The semantic fields of the dative subject construction have remained very stable, suggesting that the dative subject construction is inherited. It has, however, become productive in the history of Germanic, Baltic and Slavic. The similarities in Finnic and Baltic partiality-based object and subject-marking systems are due to Baltic influence.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, 2014. 94 p.
Series
Stockholm studies in Baltic languages, ISSN 0281-5478 ; 9
Keyword
Case-marking, non-canonical subjects, core arguments, Lithuanian, Old Lithuanian, Lithuanian dialects, pain verbs, oblique anticausative, Icelandic, historical linguistics, contrastive linguistics, Construction grammar, Role and Reference grammar
National Category
Languages and Literature
Research subject
Baltic Languages
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-108978 (URN)978-91-87235-75-7 (ISBN)978-91-87235-76-4 (ISBN)
Public defence
2014-12-12, hörsal 2, hus A, Universitetsvägen 10 A, Stockholm, 14:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Note

At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 1: In press. Paper 2: In press. Paper 3: In press.

Available from: 2014-11-20 Created: 2014-11-09 Last updated: 2016-12-30Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

On the non-canonical marking of the highest-ranking argument in Lithuanian and Icelandic(493 kB)128 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 493 kBChecksum SHA-512
bda29778726cdd74b60f6b77875d11240fb06d0e396e77e76e730cb380ea7393d3056c8a1c36a88c1d33080810d33254e7456ab018d3408326d1d939feaf24d8
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bjarnadottir, Valgerdur
By organisation
Department of Baltic Languages, Finnish and German
General Language Studies and Linguistics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 128 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 83 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf