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. 97–135

Non-canonical grammatical relations in a modal construction

The Latvian debitive

| University of Warsaw | Vilnius University
| University of Warsaw | Vilnius University
The aim of the paper is to account for the pattern of grammatical relations with the debitive, an inflectional form of the Latvian verb expressing necessity. The authors argue that the debitive construction displays what they call diffuse grammatical relations. They show that neither of the arguments in the debitive construction shows clear subject or object properties, and introduce the notion of a demoted intransitive subject occurring alongside a less-oblique datival argument, in a configuration reminiscent of ditransitive structures with demoted direct objects. Such patterns with diffuse grammatical relations are also assigned lexically, not only in Latvian but also in Lithuanian, many Slavonic languages and some Germanic languages such as Icelandic; in the case of the debitive, the diffusemess of grammatical relations is associated with the modal character of the construction, a factor known to induce non-canonical argument marking. The authors also dwell on the diachronic implications of the issues raised in the article, introducing the notion of obliqueness adjustments, i.e., changes in the case-marking of arguments bringing it in line with syntactic obliqueness.
Published online: 16 May 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.1.03hol
References

References

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
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
Barðdal, Jóhanna.
2001 The perplexity of Dat-Nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24: 47–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur.
2006 Control infinitives and case in Germanic: ‘Performance error’ or marginally acceptable constructions? In Case, Valency and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77], Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov, and Peter de Swart (eds), 147–177. 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, Oslo University.Google Scholar
Bergmane, Anna
1959 1962  Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika. I. Fonētika un morfoloģija . II. Sintakse . Rīga: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība.Google Scholar
Bielenstein, August
1863/64  Die lettische Sprache nach ihren Lauten und Formen erklärend und vergleichend dargestellt . I–II. Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
2001  Case . 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blansitt, Edward L.
1984 Dechticaetiative and dative. In Objects:Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations , Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages 2001.] Frans Plank (ed), 127–150. London & New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Boeder, Winfried
1979 Ergative Syntax and Morphology in Language Change: The South Caucasian Languages. In Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations , Frans Planck (ed), 435–480. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
1986  Italian Syntax . Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William.
1994  The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World . Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1975 The antiergative: Finland’s answer to Basque. Papers from the eleventh regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society 11, 112–121.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray.
2005  Simpler Syntax . Oxford: University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Haan, Ferdinand
2006 Typological approaches to modality. In The Expression of Modality , William Frawley (ed), 27–69. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum.
2005  Norwegian Modals [Studies in Generative Grammar 74]. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis.
1901/1975 Ursprung und Gebrauch des lettischen Debitivs. Bezzenbergers Beiträge 26: 66–74 = id., Darbu izlase I, Rīga: Zinātne, 143–150.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis
[J. Endzelin] 1923  Lettische Grammatik . Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis.
1932/1980  Dažādas valodas kļūdas [ Various language mistakes ]. 3rd edn. Rīga: A. Gulbis. Reprinted Darbu izlase 3.2, Rīga: Zinātne, 9–45.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis & Mǖlenbachs, Kārlis.
1907  Latviešu gramatika . Rīga: K. J. Zichmanis.Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & Thomas, François.
1959  Syntaxe latine . 2e éd. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Fennell, Trevor G.
1973 The subject of Latvian verbs in the debitive mood. In Baltic Literature and Linguistics , Arvids Ziedonis, Jaan Puhvel, Rimvydas Šilbajoris & Mardi Valgemäe (eds), 213–221. Columbus, Ohio: Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies.Google Scholar
Hansen, Björn.
2000 The German modal verb müssen and the Slavonic languages–the reconstruction of a success story. Scando-Slavica 46: 78–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001  Das slavische Modalauxiliar. Semantik und Grammatikalisierung im Russischen, Polnischen, Serbischen, Kroatischen und Altkirchenslavischen . München: Verlag Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C.
1981  Georgian Syntax. A Study in Relational Grammar [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 33]. Cambridge: University Press.Google 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, Robert M. W. Dixon and Masayuki Onishi (eds), 53–83. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 The Behaviour-before-Coding Principle in syntactic change. In Essais de Typologie et de Linguistique Générale: Mélanges Offerts à Denis Creissels , Franck Floricic (ed), 541–554. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de l’École Normale Supérieure.Google Scholar
2011 On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15: 535–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
1998 Notes on the rise and grammaticalization of the Latvian debitive. Linguistica Baltica 7: 101–118.Google Scholar
2005 Agreement strategies in infinitival clauses in Baltic. In Prace Bałtystyczne 2. Język, literatura, kultura [Baltic Studies 2. Language, Literature, Culture], Ona Vaičiulytė-Romančuk & Norbert Ostrowski (eds), 31–41. Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski.Google Scholar
2007  Mood and Modality in Baltic . Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Google Scholar
2013 Obliqueness, quasi-subjects and transitivity in Baltic and Slavonic. In The Diachronic Typology of Non-prototypical Subjects , Ilja Seržants & Leonid Kulikov (eds), 257–282. 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, Axel Holvoet & Björn Wiemer (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref
Hopper, Paul
1991 On some principles of grammaticalization. Approaches to Grammaticalization vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 19.1], Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), 17–36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Thompson, Sandra.
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L.
1976 Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Subject and Topic , Charles N. Li (ed), 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo.
2006 Object-, animacy- and role-based strategies. A typology of object marking. Studies in Language 30(1): 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David
1974 The Diachronic Analysis of English Modals. In Historical Linguistics. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh, 2nd-7th Sept., 1973 . Vol. I: Syntax, Morphology, Internal and Comparative Reconstruction , John Anderson and Charles Jones (eds), 219–249. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin & Comrie, Bernard.
2010 Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions . A Comparative Handbook , Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds), 1–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. & de Hoop, Helen.
2011 Tense, aspect, and mood based differential case marking. Lingua 121: 35–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko
2010 Voice and non-canonical case marking in the expression of event-oriented modality. Linguistic Typology 14: 71–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nau, Nicole
1998  Latvian [Languages of the World, Materials 217]. München & Lancaster: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael
2007 Complementation. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description . Vol. II. Complex Constructions . 2nd edition, Timothy Shopen (ed), 52–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki
2001 Introduction. In Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon and Masayuki Onishi (eds), (eds) 2001, 1–51. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R.
2001  Mood and Modality . 2nd edn. Cambridge: University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. & Postal, Paul P.
1983 Some proposed laws of basic clause structure. In Studies in Relational Grammar , David M. Perlmutter (ed), 81–128. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. & Sag, Ivan A.
1994  Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar . Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prellwitz, Walther
1904 Zur Entstehung des lettischen Debitivs. Bezzenbergers Beiträge 28: 319.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
1999  Cases and Thematic Roles. Ergative, Accusative and Active . Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, Gilbert C.
1986 On anaphor binding in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4(1): 97–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rounds, Carol
2001  Hungarian. An Essential Grammar . London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sands, Kristina & Campbell, Lyle.
2001 Non-canonical subjects and objects in Finnish. In Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon and Masayuki Onishi (eds), 251–305. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann.
2003 Case: abstract vs. morphological. In New Perspectives on Case Theory [CSLI Lecture Notes 156], Ellen Brandnerand Heike Zinsmeister (eds), 223–267. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
2004 Icelandic non-nominative subjects. Facts and implications. In Non-Nominative Subjects . Vol. 2 [Typological Studies in Language 61], Peri Bhaskararao& Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 137–159. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan
1974  The Nominative Object in Slavic, Baltic, and West Finnic . München: Verlag Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen.
2003 Burzio’s generalization, markedness and locality constraints on nominative objects. In New Perspectives on Case Theory [CSLI Lecture Notes 156] Ellen Brandner and Heike Zinsmeister (eds), 299–327. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan & Thráinsson, Höskuldur.
1985 Case and grammatical functions: the Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3(4): 441–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Holvoet, Axel & Nicole Nau
2016.  In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► 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
Seržant, Ilja A. & Jana Taperte
2016.  In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 199 ff. Crossref logo
Spraunienė, Birutė, Auksė Razanovaitė & Erika Jasionytė
2015.  In Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 2], ► pp. 323 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 october 2021. 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.