Cover not available
Article published In:
Methods for Studying Variation in Partitives
Edited by Petra Sleeman and Anne Tamm
[Linguistic Variation 24:2] 2024
► pp. 323–371

Same yet different

Distributional differences in the use of partitive objects in Estonian and Finnish

| University of Turku
ORCID logo | Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary
The article compares the distributional differences in the use of the partitive object cases in Estonian and Finnish via multifactorial modeling in contrastive research using the European Parliament parallel text corpus. Based on previous contrastive research on Finnic, we expected the principles of object case marking to be similar for Estonian and Finnish (confirmed), and the partitive objects to be more numerous in Estonian than in Finnish (not confirmed, as countable objects with scalar verbs proved less likely to be partitive in Estonian). We hypothesized that multifactorial modeling in contrastive research design could help identify the causes for variation and unfold subtle differences between related language systems. Since preferences related to grammatical voice and constituent order revealed subtle differences between the systems, this hypothesis was confirmed.
Keywords: partitive, accusative, total, object case, Estonian, Finnish, Finnic, aspect, scalarity, boundedness, quantification, impersonal, passive, grammatical voice, word order, constituent order, verb classes in text registers, multifactorial modeling, mupdar, European Parliament corpus, contrastive research design
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous approaches based on corpora
  • 3.Objectives and hypotheses
  • 4.Data and methods
    • 4.1The data
      • Contents
      • Preprocessing and sampling
      • Manual annotation and variable description
    • 4.2MuPDARF as the statistical method
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Model 1: Finnish object case alternation
    • 5.2Model 2: Estonian object case alternation
    • 5.3Cross-linguistic predictions
    • 5.4Models 3 & 4: Clearly deviating predictions
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Limitations
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.23042.iva
References (121)
References
Ackerman, Farrell & John Moore. 2001. Proto-properties and grammatical encoding: A correspondence theory of argument selection. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ariste, Paul. 1968. A grammar of the Votic language (Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series 68). The Hague: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto & Vivienne Fong. 2000. The partitive constraint in optimality theory. Journal of Semantics 171. 281–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 1988. The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 191. 1–34.Google Scholar
Brattico, Pauli. 2012. Case assignment and phi-agreement in Finnish. SKY Journal of Linguistics 251. 29–59.Google Scholar
Csirmaz, Aniko. 2012. The case of the divisible phase. Syntax 15(3). 215–252.Google Scholar
Denison, Norman. 1957. The partitive in Finnish (Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian toimituksia B. 108). Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden kirjapaino.Google Scholar
Deshors, Sandra C. & Stefan Th. Gries. 2016. Profiling verb complementation constructions across new Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21(2). 192–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Order of object and verb (v2020.3). In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehala, Martin. 2001. Eesti keele baassõnajärjest [On the Estonian base word order]. In Reet Kasik (ed.), Keele kannul, 24–41. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool.Google Scholar
. 2009. Keelekontakti mõju eesti sihitiskäänete kasutamisele [The impact of language contact on the usage of the Estonian object cases]. Keel ja Kirjandus 31. 182–204.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati. 2015. Eesti ja soome keele lauseehituse võrdlemisest 1980. ja 1990. aastail [On comparing the syntax of Estonian and Finnish in the 1980ies and 1990ies]. Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja 251. 23–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2003. Estonian language (Linguistica Uralica. Supplementary Series 1). Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati, Tiiu Erelt & Kristiina Ross. 1997. Eesti keele käsiraamat [The handbook of Estonian]. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati, Reet Kasik, Helle Metslang, Henno Rajandi, Kristiina Ross, Henn Saari, Kaja Tael & Silvi Vare. 1993. Eesti keele grammatika II. Süntaks. Lisa: Kiri [The grammar of the Estonian language II. Syntax. Appendix: Orthography]. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati & Helle Metslang (eds.). 2017. Eesti keele süntaks [Estonian syntax] (Eesti keele varamu 3). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati, Helle Metslang & Karl Pajusalu. 2006. Tense and evidentiality in Estonian. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 201. 125–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Etxeberria, Urtzi, Tabea Ihsane, Ilja Seržant, Petra Sleeman & Anne Tamm (eds.). 2019. Workshop proposal. Variation in the expression of partitivity and partitive expressions, 14th International Conference of General Linguistics (CILG2020). Sevilla, June 26th, 2020. Vienna: MS.Google Scholar
Falco, Michelangelo & Roberto Zamparelli. 2019. Partitives and partitivity. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics 4(1). 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graën, Johannes, Dolores Batinic & Martin Volk. 2014. Cleaning the Europarl corpus for linguistic applications. In Josef Ruppenhofer & Gertrud Faaß (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th edition of the KONVENS conference, 222–227, Hildesheim: Universitätsverlag Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Greenwell, Brandon M. 2017. pdp: An R package for constructing partial dependence plots. The R Journal 9(1). 421–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2021. Statistics for Linguistics with R. 3rd edition. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Sandra Deshors. 2014. Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: Two suggestions. Corpora 9(1). 109–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. EFL and/vs. ESL? A multi-level regression modeling perspective on bridging the paradigm gap. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1). 130–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Sandra C. Deshors. 2020. There’s more to alternations than the main diagonal of a 2×2 confusion matrix: Improvements of MuPDAR and other classificatory alternation studies. ICAME Journal 44(1). 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grünthal, Riho. 2003. Finnic adpositions and cases in change (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 244). Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
. 2023. Diachronic bottlenecks of the Uralic (ablative-)partitive. Linguistic Variation 23(1). 124–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habicht, Külli. 2001. Eesti vanema kirjakeele leksikaalsest ja morfosüntaktilisest arengust ning Heinrich Stahli keele eripärast selle taustal [On the lexical and morphosyntactic development of Old Written Estonian and the characteristics of Heinrich Stahl’s language] (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae. Universitas Tartuensis 10). Tartu: Tartu University Press.
Hakulinen, Auli & Fred Karlsson. 1975. Suomen akkusatiivi: funktionaalinen näkökulma [The Finnish accusative: a functionalist aspect]. Virittäjä 791. 339–363.Google Scholar
. 1979. Nykysuomen lauseoppia [Syntax of Modern Finnish]. Jyväskylä: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy & Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements”. In Tanya Mathews & Devon Strolovitch (eds.), SALT IX, 127–144. Ithaca: CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinämäki, Orvokki. 1984. Aspect in Finnish. In Casper de Groot & Hannu Tommola (eds.), Aspect bound: A voyage into the realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian aspectology, 153–177. Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Aspect and boundedness in Finnish. In Carl Bache, Hans Basbøll & Carl-Eric Lindberg (eds.), Tense, aspect and action. Empirical and theoretical contributions to language typology (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 12), 207–233. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Tobias Bernaisch & Stefan Th. Gries. 2017. Empirical perspectives on two potential epicenters: The genitive alternation in Asian Englishes. ICAME Journal 41(1). 111–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiietam, Katrin. 2002. Accusative – why not? Proceedings of the 11th Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics. Manchester: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
. 2003. Definiteness and grammatical relations in Estonian. Manchester: University of Manchester PhD dissertation.
Hiietam, Katrin & Kersti Börjars. 2003. The emergence of a definite article in Estonian. In Diane Nelson & Satu Manninen (eds.), Generative approaches to Finnic and Saami linguistics, 383–417. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hint, Mati. 2017. Partitiivi laienemine aspektituks objektikäändeks [Expansion of partitive case in the Estonian language into a counterpart of Indo-European accusative]. Mäetagused 691. 153–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoop, Helen de. 1996. Case configuration and NP interpretation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
. 2003. Partitivity. In Lisa Cheng & Rint Sybesma (eds.), The second Glot international state of-the-srticle book. The latest in linguistics, 179–212 (Studies in Generative Grammar 61). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 2003. Aspectual object marking with verbs of perception and cognition: A Finnish-Estonian study. In Elsa González Alvares & Andrew Rollings (eds.), Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 21. 223–228. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
. 2010. Nominal aspect, quantity, and time: The case of the Finnish object. Journal of Linguistics 461. 83–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. On the many faces of incompleteness: Hide-and-seek with the Finnish partitive object. Folia Linguistica 47(1). 89–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2013. Symmetric and asymmetric alternations in direct object encoding. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 66(4). 378–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ihsane, Tabea & Elisabeth Stark (eds.), 2020. Shades of partitivity: Formal and areal properties. Linguistics 58(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikola, Osmo. 1953. Viron ja liivin modus obliquuksen historiaa [On the history of the Estonian and Livonian oblique mood] (Suomi 106, 4). Helsinki: Suomen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
. 1972. Partitiivi subjektin, objektin ja predikatiivin sijana [The partitive as the case of the subject, the object, and the predicative]. Kielikello 51. 5–12.Google Scholar
Iva, Sulev. 2007. Võru kirjakeele sõnamuutmissüsteem [Inflectional morphology in the Võro literary language] (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitas Tartuensis 20). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. [URL] (1 January, 2010.)
Ivaska, Ilmari, Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny & Adriano Ferraresi. 2022. Formality in mediated and non-mediated discourse: Bringing together human judgements and corpus-driven detection. In Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny, Adriano Ferraresi, Ilmari Ivaska & Silvia Bernardini (eds.), Mediated discourse at the European Parliament: Empirical investigations, 29–61. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, Terho. 1979. Subject and object marking in Finnish: An inverted ergative system and an “ideal” ergative sub-system. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 79–102. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kanerva, Jenna, Filip Ginter, Niko Miekka, Akseli Leino & Tapio Salakoski. 2018. Turku neural parser pipeline: An end-to-end system for the CoNLL 2018 shared task. Proceedings of the CoNLL 2018 shared task: Multilingual parsing from raw text to universal dependencies. Brussels: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1985. Suomen verbi-ilmausten kvantiteetista ja kvaliteetista [On the quantitative and qualitative aspects of Finnish verb expressions]. Virittäjä 891. 429–446.Google Scholar
Kekki, Niina & Ilmari Ivaska. 2022. The use of synonymous adjectives by learners of Finnish as a second language: Applying the MuPDAR(F) approach. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 8(1). 67–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In Miriam Butt & Willem Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments, 265–307. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 1111. 315–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaas, Birute. 1996. Similarities in case marking in Estonian and Lithuanian. In Mati Erelt (ed.), Estonian: Typological studies 1 (Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu 4), 35–67. Tartu: Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu.Google Scholar
. 1999. Dependence of the object case on the semantics of the verb in Estonian, Finnish and Lithuanian. In Erelt, Mati (ed.), Estonian: Typological studies 3 (Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu 11), 47–83. Tartu: Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Kont, Karl. 1963. Käändsõnaline objekt läänemeresoome keeltes [The declined object in Baltic Finnic languages] (ENSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituudi uurimused IX). Tallinn: ENSV Teaduste Akadeemia.Google Scholar
Koponen, Eino. 1985. Suomen and viron objektista [On the Finnish and Estonian object]. Lähivõrdlusi, Lähivertailuja 11. 29–37.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity and the semantics of objective case. In Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), The syntax of time, 389–423. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Ivan Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical matters, 29–53. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1991. Contrasting languages: The scope of contrastive linguistics Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laanest, Arvo. 1975. Sissejuhatus läänemeresoome keeltesse [Introduction to Baltic Finnic languages]. Tallinn: Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Google Scholar
Larjavaara, Matti. 1991. Aspektuaalisen objektin synty [The birth of the aspectual object]. Virittäjä 95(4). 372–404.Google Scholar
. 2019. Partitiivin valinta [The choice of partitive]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Larsson, Lars-Gunnar. 1983. Studien zum Partitivgebrauch in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen [Studies on the usage of the partitive in the Baltic Finnic languages]. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsalensis.Google Scholar
. 2001. Baltic influence on Finnic languages. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic languages: Past and present, 237–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laugalienė, Asta. 2022. Lithuanian and Finnish object case corpus study. Vilnius: Vilnius University PhD dissertation.
Lees, Aet. 2015. Case Alternations in five Finnic languages: Estonian, Finnish, Karelian, Livonian and Veps (Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture 13). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leino, Pentti. 1991. Lauseet ja tilanteet. Suomen objektin ongelmia [Sentences and situations. Problems of the Finnish object]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina. 2017. Lause infostruktuur ja sõnajärg [The information structure and word order of sentences]. In Mati Erelt & Helle Metslang (eds.), Eesti keele süntaks (Eesti keele varamu 3), 547–565. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia & Tuomas Huumo (eds.). 2014. Partitive case and related categories (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 54). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marneffe, Marie-Catherine de, Christopher D. Manning, Joakim Nivre & Daniel Zeman. 2021. Universal Dependencies. Computational Linguistics 47(2). 255–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metslang, Helena. 2013. Grammatical relations in Estonian: Subject, object and beyond. (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis 33). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Metslang, Helle. 1994. Temporal relations in the predicate and the grammatical system of Estonian and Finnish. Oulu: Oulun Yliopisto.Google Scholar
. 1997. Eesti prefiksaaladverbist “ära” soome keele taustal [On the Estonian prefixal adverb “ära” from the viewpoint of the Finnish language]. Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja 91. 31–46.Google Scholar
. 2001. On the developments of the Estonian aspect: the verbal particle ära . In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic languages: Grammar and typology, vol. 2 (Studies in Language Companion Series 55), 443–479. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Sihitis [The object]. In Mati Erelt & Helle Metslang (eds.), Eesti keele süntaks (Eesti keele varamu 3), 258–277 Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helle & Külli Habicht. 2019. Partitive, genitive or nominative? Estonian DOM in written use through centuries. In Urtzi Etxeberria, Tabea Ihsane, Ilja Seržant, Petra Sleeman & Anne Tamm (eds.). Workshop proposal. Variation in the expression of partitivity and partitive expressions, 14th International Conference of General Linguistics (CILG2020). Sevilla, June 26th, 2020. Vienna: MS.Google Scholar
. 2023. Partitive, genitive or nominative? Estonian DOM in written use through centuries. Linguistic Variation 23(1). 157–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miljan, Merilin & Virve-Anneli Vihman. 2023. A corpus study of grammatical case forms in written and spoken Estonian: Frequency, distribution and grammatical role. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 14(3), 5–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Diane. 1998. Grammatical case assignment in Finnish. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Ojajärvi, Aulis. 1950. Sijojen merkitystehtävistä Itä-Karjalan Maaselän murteissa: Nominatiivi, genetiivi, akkusatiivi ja partitiivi: Vertaileva funktio-opillinen tutkimus [On the semantic functions of the cases in the East Karelian dialects of Maaselkä: The nominative, genitive, accusative, and partitive: A comparative functional study] (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 97). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Ogren, David Paul. 2018. Object case in Estonian da-infinitive constructions (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis 41). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Pool, Raili. 2007. Eesti keele teise keelena omandamise seaduspärasusi täis- ja osasihitise näite [The acquisition of total and partial objects by learners of Estonian as a second language] (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis 19). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Rajandi, Henno & Helle Metslang. 1979. Määratud ja määramata objekt [Defined and undefined object] (Eesti NSV TA Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut, Ars Grammatica). Tallinn: Valgus.Google Scholar
Rantanen, Timo, Harri Tolvanen, Meeli Roose, Jussi Ylikoski & Outi Vesakoski. 2022. Best practices for spatial language data harmonization, sharing and map creation – A case study of Uralic. In Søren Wichmann (ed.). PLOS ONE 17(6). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rantanen, Timo, Outi Vesakoski, Jussi Ylikoski & Harri Tolvanen. 2021. Geographical database of the Uralic languages. Zenodo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reime, Hannu. 1993. Accusative marking in Finnish. In Anders Holmberg & Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax, 89–109. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Remes, Hannu. 2004. Kaks aastakümmet kontrastiivseminare [Two decades of contrastive seminars]. Keel ja Kirjandus 41. 295–300.Google Scholar
Ritter, Ralf-Peter. 1989. Untersuchungen zum Partitiv im Vepsischen [Studies on the partitive in Veps] (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica. Band 26). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Rätsep, Huno. 1957. Aspektikategooriast eesti keeles [On the category of aspect in Estonian]. Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat 31. 72–77.Google Scholar
. 1978. Eesti keele lihtlausete tüübid [Types of Estonian simple sentences] (ENSV TA Emakeele Seltsi Toimetised 12). Tallinn: Valgus.Google Scholar
Saareste, Andrus. 1926. Akusatiivist meie grammatikais [On the accusative in our grammars]. Tartu: Eesti Keel. 101–105.Google Scholar
Sahkai, Heete, Anne Tamm & Anders Holmberg. 2023. Eesti keele otseste eriküsilausete sõnajärje aspekte [Aspects of the word order of Estonian main clause wh-interrogatives]. Keel ja Kirjandus 101. 987–1006. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schot-Saikku, Päivi. 1990. Der Partitiv und die kasusalternation [The partitive and case alternation]. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
SCLOMB. s.d. Studia comparativa linguarum orbis Maris Baltici. Parallel corpus. University of Turku.
Seilenthal, Tõnu. 1988. Aspektist ja muust eesti ja soome keeles. Esialgseid märkmeid [On aspect and other things in Estonian and Finnish. Preliminary notes]. Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja 31. 52–59.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A typological perspective on differential object marking. Linguistics 52(2). 281–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sleeman, Petra & Giuliana Giusti (eds.). 2021. Partitive determiners, partitive pronouns and partitive case (Linguistische Arbeiten 580). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sleeman, Petra & Silvia Luraghi (eds.). 2023. Partitives cross-linguistically: Dimensions of variation. Linguistic Variation 23(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sulkala, Helena. 1996. Expression of aspectual meanings in Finnish and Estonian. In Mati Erelt (ed.), Estonian: Typological Studies 1 1, 165–217. Tartu: Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Tael, Kaja. 1988. Sõnajärjemallid eesti keeles (võrrelduna soome keelega) [Word order patterns in Estonian (compared to Finnish)]. Tallinn: Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Google Scholar
Tamm, Anne. 2004. Relationships between Estonian verbs, aspect, and object case. Budapest: ELTE PhD dissertation.
. 2012. Scalar verb classes: Scalarity, thematic roles, and arguments in the Estonian aspectual lexicon. Firenze: Firenze University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The partitive concept versus linguistic partitives: From abstract concepts to evidentiality in the Uralic languages. In Silvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Partitive cases and related categories (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 54), 87–152. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamm, Anne & Natalia Vaiss. 2019. Setting the boundaries: Partitive verbs in Estonian verb classifications. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat. Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics 151. 159–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei & Mikhail Ivanov. 2009. Event structure of non-culminating accomplishments. In Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop & Andrei Malchukov (eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect, and modality, 83–129. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tauli, Valter. 1983. Estonian grammar II. Syntax (Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia, 14). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Tveite, Tor. 2004. The case of the object in Livonian: A corpus based study (Castrenianumin toimitteita 62). Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Vainikka, Anne. 1989. Deriving syntactic representations in Finnish. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.
Vainikka, Anne & Pauli Brattico. 2011. The Finnish accusative. Biolinguistica Fennica Working Papers 21. 33–58. [URL]. (4 Jun, 2023.)
Vainikka, Anne & Joan Maling. 1996. Is partitive case inherent or structural? In Jack Hoeksema (ed.), Partitives. Studies on the distribution and meaning of partitive expressions, 179–208. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, Enric & Maria Vilkuna. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. In Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax (Syntax and Semantics 29), 79–108. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk. 1993. A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1989. Free word order in Finnish: Its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki: University of Helsinki PhD dissertation.
VISK = Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. [URL] (June 3, 2023.)
Wright, Marvin N. & Andreas Ziegler. 2017. ranger: A Fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and R. Journal of Statistical Software 77(1). 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie & Stefan Th. Gries. 2015. Prenominal adjective order preferences in Chinese and German L2 English: A multifactorial corpus study. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5(1). 122–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yli-Vakkuri, Valma (ed.). 1993. SCLOMB 1. Studia comparativa linguarum orbis Maris Baltici 1. Tutkimuksia syntaksin ja pragmasyntaksin alalta [Studies from the areas of syntax and pragmasyntax] (Turun Yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 43), Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 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.