Article published in:
Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic
Edited by Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau
[Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 1] 2014
► pp. 1–41

Argument marking and grammatical relations in Baltic

An overview

| University of Warsaw | Vilnius University
| Vilnius University | Adam Mickiewicz University Poznan
Published online: 16 May 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.1.01hol
References

Sources

LiLa = Lietuviešu-latviešu-lietuviešu paralēlo tekstu korpuss
Availabe online at: http://​www​.korpuss​.lv​/lila/
LLVV = Latviešu literārās valodas vārdnīca
. 7.2 S-T 1991 Rāga: Zinātne.Google Scholar
Mio-2 = miljons-2.0, corpus of contemporary standard Latvian
Available online at: www​.korpuss​.lv.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., Robert M. W. Dixon, and Masayuki Onishi
(eds) 2001  Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aleksandravičiūtė, Skaistė
2013 The semantic effects of the Subject Genitive of Negation in Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 4: 9–38.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas
(ed) 1997  Lithuanian Grammar . Vilnius: Baltos lankos.Google Scholar
Ambrazas V
2001 On the development of nominative object in East Baltic. In Circum-Baltic Languages , vol. 2: Grammar and Typology [Studies in Language Companion Series 55], Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 391–412. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery D
2001 Non-canonical A/S marking in Icelandic. In: Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon, and Masayuki Onishi (eds), 85–111. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andronov, Aleksey V
2001 A survey of the case paradigm in Latvian. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54(3): 197–208.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter M
2013 Marking of subjects and objects in Lithuanian non-finite clauses: A typological and diachronic perspective. Linguistic Typology 17(3): 397–437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2003 ‘Oblique Subjects’ in Icelandic and German. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 70: 61–99. Available at: http://​org​.uib​.no​/iecastp​/barddal​/JB​-wpss​.pdf
Bayer, Josef
2004 Non-nominative subjects in comparison. In Non-nominative subjects , vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 49–76. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berg-Olsen, Sturla
1999  A syntactic change in progress: The decline in the use of the non-prepositional genitive in Latvian, with a comparative view on Lithuanian . MA thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
2000 The Latvian non-prepositional genitive – a case losing ground. Res Balticae 6, 95–146.Google Scholar
2001 Subjects and valency-changing mechanisms in Latvian. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54(3): 200–225.Google Scholar
2005  The Latvian dative and genitive: A Cognitive Grammar account . PhD thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2004 The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Non-nominative subjects , vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao& Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 77–112. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Language Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed), 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols
2011 Case marking and alignment. In The Oxford handbook of case , Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 304–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Partee, Barbara H., Testelets, Yakov, and Yanovich, Igor
2008 Russian genitives, non-referentiality, and the property-type hypothesis. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Stony Brook Meeting 2007 [Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistcs 16], A. Antonenko, J. F. Bailyn & C. Bethin (eds), 48–67. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Marina Chumakina and Greville G. Corbett
(eds) 2013  Canonical Morphology and Syntax . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1975 The antiergative: Finland’s answer to Basque. Chicago Linguistic Society 11: 112–121.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G
1986 The use of the genitive or accusative for the direct object of negated verbs in Russian: A bibliography. In Case in Slavic , Richard D. Brecht & James S. Levine (eds), 361–372. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark
2008 Semantic alignment systems: what’s what, and what’s not. In The typology of semantic alignment , Mark Donohue and Søren Wichmann (eds), 24–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Wichmann, Søren
(eds) 2008  The Typology of Semantic Alignment . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Endzelin, J[an]
1922  Lettische Grammatik . Riga: Kommisionsverlag A. Gulbis.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis & Kārlis Mǖlenbachs
1907  Latviešu gramatika . Rīga: K. J. Zichmanis.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana
2001 Nominal and verbal semantic structure: analogies and interactions. Language Sciences 23: 453–501. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 On accumulating and having it all. Perfectivity, prefixes and bare arguments. In Perspectives on aspect , H. J. Verkuyl, H. de Swart & A. van Hout (eds), 125–148. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Stephen and Lavine, James E
2006 Case and word order in Lithuanian. Journal of Linguistics 42(1): 239–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2001 Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Richard M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds), 53–83. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15: 535–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
1992 Bemerkungen über die Entwicklung des lettischen Kasussystems: Der Instrumental. In Colloquium Pruthenicum Primum. Papers from the First International Conference on Old Priussian , Wojciech Smoczyński and Axel Holvoet (eds), 143–149. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar
2010 Between morphosyntax and the paradigm: Some puzzling patterns of case distribution in Baltic and their implications. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42(2): 175–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Obliqueness, quasi-subjects and transitivity in Baltic and Slavonic. In The Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series 140], Ilja A. Seržant & Leonid Kulikov (eds), 259–284. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. Non-canonical subjects in Latvian: an obliqueness-based approach. In Contemporary Approaches to Baltic Linguistics , Peter M. Arkadiev, Björn Wiemer, Axel Holvoet eds Berlin De Gruyter. Crossref
Hopper, Paul and Thompson, Sandra
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas
2009 Fictive dynamicity, nominal aspect, and the Finnish copulative construction. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1), 43–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, Olga
2010 Genitive objects, existence and individuation. Russian Linguistics 34: 17–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013  Semantics of genitive objects in Russian . Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L
1976 Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. Subject and Topic , Charles N. Li (ed.), 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1998 Partitive case and aspect. In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors , Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 265–307. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria and Wälchli, Bernhard
2001 The Circum-Baltic languages. An areal-typological approach. In Circum-Baltic Languages , vol. 2: Grammar and Typology [Studies in Language Companion Series 55 ], Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 615–750. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lavrin, B. A.
1963 Ob odnoj slavjano-balto-finskoj izoglosse. Lietuvių kabotyros klausimai 6: 87–107.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka
2005  Argument Realization . Cambridge: Cambridge Univerity Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L
2005 Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case , Mengistu Amberber & Helen de Hoop (eds), 73–117. London: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
2006 Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: Constraining co-variation. In Case, Valency and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77], Leonid. I. Kulikov, Andrej L. Malchukov, Helen de Hoop (eds), 329–357. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mīlenbahs, Kārlis
2009 [1890/1891] Par akuzatīvu un ģenitīvu pie noliegtiem tranzitīviem verbiem. In Kārlis Mīlenbahs. Darbu izlase divos sējumos . 1. sējums, 42–49. Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts.Google Scholar
Moore, John and Perlmutter, David M
2000 What does it take to be a Dative Subject? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 373–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mühlenbach, Karl
1902/3. Über die vermeintlichen Genitive oder Ablative auf -ů oder u im Lettischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 13: 220–260.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild
2007  Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Varieties of dative. In The Oxford Handbook of Case , Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 572–580. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nau, Nicole
1998  Latvian [Languages of the World/Materials 217]. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2011b Declension classes in Latvian and Latgalian: Morphomics vs. Morphophonology. Baltic Linguistics 2: 141–177.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
2008 Why are stative-active languages rare in Eurasia? A typological perspective on split-subject marking. In The typology of semantic alignment , Mark Donohue and Søren Wichmann (eds), 121–139. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki
2001 Introduction: Non-canonically marked subjects and objects. Parameters and properties. In Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon, and Masayuki Onishi (eds), 1–51. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Testelets, Yakov, and Yanovich, Igor
2011 Russian Genitive of Negation Alternations: The Role of Verb Semantics. Scando-Slavica 57(2): 135–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 The role of verb semantics in genitive alternations: genitive of negation and genitive of intensionality. In The Russian Verb [Oslo Studies in Language 4(1)], Atle Grønn & Anna Pazelskaya (eds), 1–29.Google Scholar
Perkova, Natalia
MS. Non-canonical argument marking in two-place predication: the case of the Baltic languages. Unpublished paper, Stockholm 2013.
Piccini, Silvia
2008 Traces of non-nominative alignment in Lithuanian: the impersonal constructions in Indo-European perspective. Baltistica 43(3): 437–461.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
2011 Case, grammatical relations, and semantic roles. In The Oxford Handbook of Case , Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds), 261–275. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raģe, S
1964 Erģemes, Lugazu un Valkas izloksnes fonētika un morfoloģija. Valodas un literatūras institūta raksti 8: 5–142.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja
2013a Rise of canonical objecthood with the Lithuanian verbs of pain. Baltic Linguistics 4: 187–211.Google Scholar
2013b Rise of Canonical Subjecthood. In The Diachrony of Non-canonical Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series 140], Ilja A. Seržant and Leonid Kulikov (eds), 309–336. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
forthcoming. Dative experiencer constructions as a Circum-Baltic isogloss. In Contemporary Approaches to Baltic Linguistics , Peter M. Arkadiev, Björn Wiemer, Axel Holvoet eds Berlin De Gruyter. Crossref
Seržant, Ilja A., Fedriani, Chiara, and Kulikov, Leonid
2013 Introduction. In The Diachrony of Non-canonical Subjects , Ilja A. Seržant, and Leonid Kulikov (eds) [Studies in Language Companion Series 140], ix–xxvi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á
2004 Icelandic non-nominative subjects: facts and implications. In Non-Nominative Subjects , Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds), vol. 2 [Typological Studies in Languages 61], 137–159. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan
1974  The Nominative Object in Slavic, Baltic, and West Finnic . München: Verlag Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku
1981 Split case-marking in verb types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19: 389–438.Google Scholar
1985 Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21: 385–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verma, Manindra & K[aravannur]. P.[uthanvettil] Mohanan
1990 Introduction to the experiencer subject construction, 1–11.
(eds) 1990  Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages . Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan and Thráinsson, Höskuldur
1985 Case and grammatical functions: the Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

Arkadiev, Peter M.
2016.  In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 37 ff. Crossref logo
Holvoet, Axel & Nicole Nau
2016.  In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Lavine, James E.
2016.  In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 107 ff. Crossref logo
Li, Yanzhi & Yicheng Wu
2018. The constructionalization and constructional change of noncanonical V-NP expressions in Mandarin Chinese. Studies in Language 42:4 ► pp. 886 ff. Crossref logo
Luraghi, Silvia, Merlijn De Smit & Iván Igartua
2020. Contact-induced change in the languages of Europe: The rise and development of partitive cases and determiners in Finnic and Basque . Linguistics 58:3 ► pp. 869 ff. Crossref logo
Nau, Nicole
2016.  In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 461 ff. Crossref logo
Nau, Nicole & Axel Holvoet
2015.  In Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 2], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Seržant, Ilja A.
2016.  In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 137 ff. Crossref logo
Zakrzewska, Ewa
2017.  In Argument Realisation in Complex Predicates and Complex Events [Studies in Language Companion Series, 180], ► pp. 213 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 july 2022. 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.