Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T15:18:52.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who needs it? Variation in experiencer marking in Estonian ‘need’-constructions1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2017

LIINA LINDSTRÖM  and
VIRVE-ANNELI VIHMAN
LIINA LINDSTRÖM*
Affiliation:
University of Tartu
VIRVE-ANNELI VIHMAN*
Affiliation:
University of Tartu
*
Author’s address: Institute for Estonian and General Linguistics, University of Tartu, Jakobi 2, 51014 Tartu, Estonia[email protected]
Author’s address: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we tackle the twin issues of obligatoriness of semantic arguments and variation in their expression through a study of Estonian constructions denoting need. The variation under investigation consists in the choice of case-marking, between adessive and allative case, as well as the option to omit the oblique argument. We extracted and coded ‘need’-constructions from spoken and written corpora and used non-parametric classification methods for analysis. We found high rates of oblique experiencer omission in these constructions (nearly 60% across corpora). The most important predictors of overt expression of the experiencer in our models were participant-internal modality and the presence of nominal complements, meaning that both semantic and syntactic factors are relevant. The choice between two overt cases is affected by person, complement type, and referential distance. Topical experiencer arguments do not show the subject-like tendency to be omitted more often, but they are more likely to be marked with adessive case, suggesting that adessive is more grammaticalised as a structural, non-nominative, argument-marking case than the more semantic allative case. Our findings show that oblique, semantic arguments may be frequently omitted, and both semantic and syntactic factors may affect variation in case-marking.

Keywords

argument omissionexperiencermodalityvariation in case-marking
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , 10 November 2017 , pp. 789 - 822
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

This work was supported by the Estonian Research Council, grant PUT90 (Estonian Dialect Syntax), and by the (European Union) European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence in Estonian Studies). The paper was completed while the second author held a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (grant no. 623742, 2014–2016). The authors also wish to thank Laura Janda for commenting on an earlier version of this paper and three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees whose comments helped to greatly improve the paper. Any remaining faults are our own.

Abbreviations used in the paper are listed at the end; we follow the conventions of the Leipzig Glossing Rules, which can be found athttp://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php.

References

Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing NP antecedents. London: Routledge & Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Endresen, Anna, Janda, Laura A., Makarova, Anastasia & Nesset, Tore. 2013. Making choices in Russian: Pros and cons of statistical methods for rival forms. Russian Linguistics 37.3, 253–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2004. The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Bhaskararao, Peri & Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata (eds.), Non-nominative subjects (Typological Studies in Language 61), vol. 2, 77–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blansitt, Edward L. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A. & Wirth, Jessica (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (Typological Studies in Language 17), 173–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1980. Wanna and the gradiance of auxiliaries. In Brettschneider, Gunter & Lehmann, Christian (eds.), Wege zur Universalien Forschung, 292–299. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1998. Le marquage de l’expérient dans les langues de l’Europe. In Feuillet, Jack (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, 259–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Breiman, Leo. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45.1, 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2009. Spatial cases. In Malchukov, Andrej & Spencer, Andrew (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 609–625. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation in the treatment of beneficiaries and the argument vs. adjunct distinction. Linguistic Discovery 12.2, 41–55.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In Pustejovsky, James (ed.), Semantics and the lexicon, 55–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter (eds.). 2009. Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Duvallon, Outi & Chalvin, Antoine. 2004. La réalisation zéro du pronom sujet de première et de deuxième personne du singulier en finnois et en estonien parlés. Linguistica Uralica XL.4, 270–286.Google Scholar
EKG II = Mati Erelt, Reet Kasik, Helle Metslang, Henno Rajandi, Kristiina Ross, Henn Saari, Kaja Tael & Silvi Vare. 1993. Eesti keele grammatika II. Süntaks [Grammar of Estonian II: Syntax]. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati.2013. Eesti keele lauseõpetus. Sissejuhatus. Öeldis [Estonian sentence structure. Introduction: The predicate]. Tartu: Preprints of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu 4.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati & Metslang, Helle. 2006. Estonian clause patterns: From Finno-Ugric to standard average European. Linguistica Uralica XLII.4, 254–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erelt, Mati & Helle, Metslang. 2008. Kogeja vormistamine eesti keeles: nihkeid SAE perifeerias [Expression of the experiencer in Estonian: Shifts in the periphery of SAE]. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat [Yearbook of the Estonian Mother Tongue Society] 53, 9–22.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1983. Introduction. In Givón, T. (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, 5–41. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69.2, 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hansen, Björn. 2014. The syntax of modal polyfunctionality revisited: Evidence from the languages of Europe. In Leiss, Elisabeth & Abraham, Werner (eds.), Modes of modality: Modality, typology, and universal grammar (Studies in Language Companion Series 149), 89–126. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrell, Frank E. Jr. 2001. Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin.2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Aikhenvald et al. (eds.), 53–83.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. Arguments and adjuncts as language-particular syntactic categories and as comparative concepts. Linguistic Discovery 12.2, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hint, Helen. 2015. Third-person pronoun forms in Estonian in the light of Centering Theory. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 6.2, 105–135.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2007. Mood and modality in Baltic. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Hornik, Kurt & Zeileis, Achim. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15.3, 651–674.Google Scholar
ISK = Auli Hakulinen, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Jaakola, Minna. 2003. Kokijarakenteen kontrastointia [Contrasting experiencer constructions]. In Muikku-Werner, Pirkko & Remes, Hannu (eds.), Viro ja suomi: kohdekielet kontrastissa. Lähivertailuja [Estonian and Finnish: Contrasting target languages. Close comparisons] 13, 167–177.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. 2013. Quantitative methods in Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. In Janda, Lura A. (ed.), Cognitive linguistics: The quantitative turn. The essential reader, 1–32. Berlin & Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jokela, Hanna.2012. Nollapersoonalause suomessa ja virossa. Tutkimus kirjoitetun kielen ainestosta [Zero-person clauses in Finnish and Estonian: A study on written language] (Annales universitatis turkuensis, ser. C tom. 334). Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Kaalep, Heiki-Jaan & Muischnek, Kadri. 2002. Eesti kirjakeele sagedussõnastik [Frequency dictionary of Standard Estonian]. Tartu.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi & Vihman, Virve-Anneli. 2007. Invisible arguments: Effects of demotion in Estonian and Finnish. In Lyngfelt, Benjamin & Solstad, Torgrim (eds.), Demoting the agent: Passive, middle and other voice phenomena, 111–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kehayov, Petar. 2009. Olema-verbi ellipsist eesti kirjakeeles [Ellipsis of the copula in Standard Estonian]. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat54, 107–152.Google Scholar
Kehayov, Petar & Torn-Leesik, Reeli. 2009. Modal verbs in Balto-Finnic. In Hansen, Björn & de Haan, Ferdinand (eds.), Modals in the languages of Europe, 363–401. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Klavan, Jane, Kesküla, Kaisa & Ojava, Laura. 2011. Synonymy in grammar: The Estonian adessive case and the adposition peal ‘on’. In Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Studies on case, animacy and semantic roles, 113–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Mauner, Gail & Bienvenue, Breton. 2003. Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition 89, 67–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuteva, Tania. 2001. Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea. 1992. Välttämättömyys ja persoona. Suomen murteiden nesessiivisten rakenteiden semantiikkaa ja kielioppia[Necessity and person: The semantics and grammar of necessive structures in Finnish dialects]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea & Vilkuna, Maria. 1993. Case-marking in necessive constructions and split intransitivity. In Holmberg, Anders & Nikanne, Urpo (eds.), Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax (Studies in Generative Grammar 39), 23–48. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lestrade, Sander. 2010. The space of case. Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina. 2010. Kõnelejale ja kuulajale viitamise vältimise strateegiaid eesti keeles [Strategies of avoidance of reference to the speaker and hearer in Estonian]. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 55, 88–118.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina. 2013. Between Finnic and Indo-European: Variation and change in the Estonian experiencer-object construction. In Seržant, Ilja A. & Kulikov, Leonid (eds.), The diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects, 141–164. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina. 2015. Subjecthood of the agent argument in Estonian passive constructions. In Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Huumo, Tuomas (eds.), Subjects in constructions – canonical and non-canonical, 141–173. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina, Kalmus, Mervi, Klaus, Anneliis, Bakhoff, Liisi & Pajusalu, Karl. 2009. Ainsuse 1. isikule viitamine eesti murretes [First-person singular reference in Estonian dialects]. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 54, 159–185.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina & Tragel, Ilona. 2010. The possessive perfect construction in Estonian. Folia Linguistica 44.2, 371–399.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina, Uiboaed, Kristel & Vihman, Virve-Anneli. 2014. Varieerumine tarvis/vaja-konstruktsioonides keelekontaktide valguses [Variation in tarvis/vaja constructions in the light of language contact]. Keel ja Kirjandus 8–9, 609–630.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helena. 2013. Coding and behavior of Estonian subjects. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics (ESUKA – JEFUL) 4.2, 217–293.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2010. Voice and non-canonical case marking in the expression of event-oriented modality. Linguistic Typology 14, 71–126.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical transitivity (Typological Studies in Language 72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, Stephanie & Toivonen, Ida. 2011. Derived arguments. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/.Google Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki. 2001. Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and properties. In Aikhenvald et al. (eds.), 1–51.Google Scholar
Pajusalu, Erna. 1958. Adessiivi funktsioonid eesti murretes ja lähemates sugulaskeeltes [Functions of the adessive case in Estonian dialects and closely related languages]. Keel ja Kirjandus 4/5, 246–258.Google Scholar
Penjam, Pille. 2006. Tulema-verbi grammatilised funktsioonid eesti kirjakeeles [Grammatical functions of the verb tulema‘come’ in Standard Estonian]. Keel ja Kirjandus 1, 33–41.Google Scholar
Penjam, Pille. 2011. Eesti kirjakeele subjektilised ja adessiivadverbiaaliga tarvitsema-konstruktsioonid [Tarvitsema‘need’-constructions with subjects and adessive adverbials in Standard Estonian]. Keel ja Kirjandus 7, 505–525.Google Scholar
R Development CoreTeam. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Accessible at http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Ross, Kristiina. 1997. Kohakäänded Georg Mülleri ja Heinrich Stahli eesti keeles [Local cases in the Estonian of Georg Müller and Heinrich Stahl]. In Mati Erelt, Meeli Sedrik & Ellen Uuspõld (eds.), Pühendusteos Huno Rätsepale[Festschrift for Huno Rätsep], 28.12.1997. Tartu Ülikooli eesti keele õppetooli toimetised 7, 184–201.Google Scholar
Sepp, Pille. 2010. Pronoomeni kasutus MSN-vestlustes [The use of pronouns in MSN chats]. BA thesis, Department of Estonian, University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2003. Reduced pronominals and argument prominence. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Nominals: Inside and out, 119–150. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Boulesteix, Anne-Laure, Kneib, Thomas, Augustin, Thomas & Zeileis, Achim. 2008. Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics 9.1, 307.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Baayen, R. Harald. 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24.2, 135–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Catherine E. & Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2012. What do subject pronouns do in discourse? Cognitive, mechanical and constructional factors in variation. Cognitive Linguistics 23.4, 711–748.Google Scholar
Tutunjian, Damon & Boland, Julie E.. 2008. Do we need a distinction between arguments and adjuncts? Evidence from psycholinguistic studies of comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 2, 631–646.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan & Plungian, Vladimir A.. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 1.2, 79–124.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, Kehayov, Petar & Vittrant, Alice. 2009. Acquisitive modals. In Hogeweg, Lotte, de Hoop, Helen & Malchukov, Andrej (eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect and modality, 271–302. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg & Ogiermann, Eva. 2011. How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of Polish trzeba x (‘one needs to x’). Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(3), 263–287.Google Scholar