Article published in:
Subjects in Constructions – Canonical and Non-Canonical
Edited by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo and Tuomas Huumo
[Constructional Approaches to Language 16] 2015
► pp. 141–173

Subjecthood of the agent argument in Estonian passive constructions

This paper tackles diachronic changes in the choice between elative and adessive case for marking the agent in Estonian periphrastic passive constructions in two time periods. In 1800–1850, the main agent-marking device was the elative case, whereas in the 1990s the elative was limited to inanimate actors, and the use of the adessive had increased considerably. However, the adessive can only be used for marking volitional, animate agents. Changes are observed with regard to semantic constraints, subject properties of the adessive and elative agents, and language contacts. Adessive arguments behave like non-canonical subjects in many constructions in Estonian, and the use of the adessive for marking agents in passives is strengthened by the possessive perfect construction in Eastern Circum-Baltic languages.
Published online: 14 January 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.16.06lin
References

References

Andrews, Avery
(1985) The major functions of the noun phrase. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 1: Clause structure (pp. 62–154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
(2006) Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1), 39–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, & Eythórsson, Thórhallur
(2003) The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 439–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beck, David
(2000) Semantic agents, syntactic subjects, and discourse topics: How to locate Lushootseed sentences in space and time. Studies in Language, 24(2), 277–317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P.
(2003) Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 473–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
(1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
(2008) What is a passive? In Z. Estrada Fernández, S. Wichmann, C. Chamoreau, & A. Álvarez González (Eds.), Studies in voice and transitivity (pp. 1–18). München: Lincom.Google Scholar
Croft, William
(2003) Typology and universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
EKG II = Erelt, Mati, Kasik, Reet, Metslang, Helle, Rajandi, Henno, Ross, Kristiina, Saari, Henn, Tael, Kaja, & Vare, Silvi
(1993) Eesti keele grammatika II: Süntaks. Lisa: Kiri. Tallinn, Estonia: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati
(1979) Eesti lihtlause probleeme. Tallinn: Eesti Raamat.Google Scholar
(2003) Syntax. In M. Erelt (Ed.), Estonian language. Linguistica Uralica Supplementary Series 1 (pp. 93–129). Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers.Google Scholar
(2004) Lauseliigendusprobleeme eesti grammatikas. In L. Lindström (Ed.), Lauseliikmeist eesti keeles (pp. 7–15). Tartu Ülikooli eesti keele õppetooli preprindid 1. Tartu.Google Scholar
(2013). Eesti keele lauseõpetus. Sissejuhatus. Öeldis. Tartu Ülikooli eesti keele osakonna preprindid 4. Tartu.
Erelt, Mati, & Metslang, Helle
(2006) Estonian clause patterns from Finno-Ugric to standard average European. Linguistica Uralica, 4, 254–266.Google Scholar
Grünthal, Riho
(2003) Finnic adpositions and cases in change. Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia 244. Helsinki: The Finno-Ugric Society.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
(2001) Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In A.Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon, & M. Onishi (Eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects (pp. 53–83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, & Tania Kuteva
(2006) The changing languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
(2001) Impersonals and passives in Baltic and Finnic. In Ö. Dahl & M. Koptjevskaja-
Tamm (Eds.), The Circum-Baltic languages. Grammar and Typology Vol. 2 (pp. 363–389). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L.
(1976) Towards a universal definition of “subject”. In Charles N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 303–333). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., & Dryer, Matthew S.
(2007) Passive in the world’s languages. In Timothy Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. (2nd ed.), Vol. I: Clause Structure (pp. 325–361). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klavan, Jane, Kesküla, Kaisa, & Ojava, Laura
(2011) The division of labour between synonymous locative cases and adpositions: the Estonian adessive and the adposition peal ‘on’. In Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi, & Jussi Ylikoski (Eds.), Studies on case, animacy and semantic roles (pp. 111–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koks, Helen
(2004) Subjekti ja objekti käitumisreeglid komplekslauses. In L. Lindström (Ed.), Lauseliikmeist eesti keeles (pp. 34–39). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli eesti keele õppetooli preprindid 1.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
(1994) Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina
(2005) Finiitverbi asend lauses. Sõnajärg ja seda mõjutavad tegurid suulises eesti keeles. Dissertationes philologiae estonicae universitatis tartuensis 16. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.Google Scholar
(2006) Infostruktuuri osast eesti sõnajärje muutumisel. Keel ja Kirjandus, 11, 875–888.Google Scholar
(2012) Tundekausatiivikonstruktsioon eesti moodi. Keel ja Kirjandus, 1, 30–47.Google Scholar
(2013). Between Finnic and Indo-European: Variation and change in the Estonian experiencer-object construction. In Ilja A. Seržant & Leonid Kulikov (Eds.) The Diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects pp. 139 162 Amsterdam John Benjamins Crossref
Lindström, Liina, & Tragel, Ilona
(2006)  Mul on saba. Adessiivsest omajakonstruktsioonist. In K. Kerge & M.M. Sepper (Eds.), Finest linguistics. Proceedings of the Annual Finnish and Estonian Conference of Linguistics (pp. 386–399).
Lindström, Liina, & Tragel, Ilona
(2007) Eesti keele impersonaali ja seisundipassiivi vahekorrast adessiivargumendi kasutuse põhjal. Keel ja Kirjandus, 7, 532–553.Google Scholar
(2010) Possessive perfect construction in Estonian. Folia Linguistica, 44/2, 371–400.Google Scholar
Meerwein, Georg
(1994) Einige Anmerkungen zu Gemeinsamkeiten in den Tempussystemen der Sprachen des Ostseeraums. Linguistica Uralica, 3, 168–176.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helena
(2013). Coding and behaviour of Estonian subjects. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 4(2): 217–293. Crossref
Ney, A.
(1928) Kentütlev tehtaviku tegijanimetuseks! Manuscript in the Archive of the Estonian Dialect and Kindred Languages, University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki
(2001) Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and properties. In A.Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon, & M. Onishi (Eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects (pp. 1–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pihlak, Ants
(1993) A comparative study of voice in Estonian. Eesti Sisekaitse Akadeemia toimetised. Tallinn.Google Scholar
Rajandi, Henno
(1999) [1968] Eesti impersonaali ja passiivi süntaks. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituudi toimetised 3.Google Scholar
Raun, Alo, & Saareste, Andrus
(1965) Introduction to Estonian linguistics. Ural-Altaische Bibliothek XII. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Remmel, Nikolai
(1963) Sõnajärjestus eesti lauses. In Eesti keele süntaksi küsimusi. Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituudi uurimused VIII (pp. 216–389). Tallinn: Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus.Google Scholar
Ross, Kristiina
(1997) Kohakäänded Georg Mülleri ja Heinrich Stahli eesti keeles. In M. Erelt, M. Sedrik, & E. Uuspõld (Eds.), Pühendusteos Huno Rätsepale. Tartu Ülikooli eesti keele õppetooli toimetised 7 (pp. 184–201). Tartu.Google Scholar
Rätsep, Huno
(1978) Eesti keele lihtlausete tüübid. Tallinn: Valgus.Google Scholar
Sahkai, Heete
(2011) Eesti keele genitiivse agendifraasi süntaks. Keel ja Kirjandus, 1, 12–30.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A.
(2012) The so-called possessive perfect in North Russian and the Circum-Baltic area. A diachronic and areal account. Lingua, 122, 356–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
to appear. Dative experiencer constructions as a Circum-Baltic isogloss. In P. Arkadiev, A. Holvoet, & B. Wiemer (Eds.) Contemporary approaches to Baltic linguistics Berlin Mouton de Gruyter
Silverstein, Michael
(1976) Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Tael, Kaja
(1988) Sõnajärjemallid eesti keeles (võrrelduna soome keelega). Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut. Preprint KKI-56.Google Scholar
Timberlake, A.
(1976) Subject properties in the North Russian passive. In Charles N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 545–570). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Torn, Reeli
(2002) The status of the passive in English and Estonian. In H. Hendriks (Ed.), RCEAL working papers in English and applied linguistics 7 (pp. 81–106). Cambridge: Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
(2006)  poolt-tarind eesti keele impersonaalis ja passiivis. In P. Penjam (Ed.), Lause argumentstruktuur (pp. 108–121). Tartu Ülikooli eesti keele õppetooli preprindid 2. Tartu.Google Scholar
Torn-Leesik, Reeli
(2009) The voice system of Estonian. Language Typology and Universals (Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung), 62(1/2), 72–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torn-Leesik, Reeli, & Vihman, Virve-Anneli
(2010) The uses of impersonals in spoken Estonian. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 23, 301–343.Google Scholar
Uuspõld, Ellen
(1970) On the agent adverbial in the tud-construction. Annual meeting of the research group for generative grammar. Abstracts (pp. 38–43). Tartu State University. Department of Estonian.Google Scholar
Vainik, Ene
(1995) Eesti keele väliskohakäänete semantika kognitiivse grammatika vaatenurgast. (Ars grammatica.) Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Eesti Keele Instituut.Google Scholar
Vihman, Virve-Anneli
(2007) Impersonaliseeritud impersonaal kui konstruktsioonitasandi grammatisatsioon. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat, 52, 158–178.Google Scholar
(2008) Construction-based interpretation of implicit arguments. In N. Adams, A. Cooper, F. Parrill, & T. Wier (Eds.), CLS 40: The Panels (2004): Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 225–239). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Viitso, Tiit-Rein
(2003) Rise and development of the Estonian language. In M. Erelt (Ed.), Estonian Language. Linguistica Uralica Supplementary Series (Vol. 1, pp. 130–230) Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers.Google Scholar
Wiedemann, Ferdinand Johann
(1875) Grammatik der ehstnischen Sprache, zunächst wie sie in Mittelehstland gesprochen wird, mit Berücksichtigung der anderen Dialekte. St. Pétersbourg: Imprimerie de l’Académie Impériale des sciences.Google Scholar