Cover not available
Part of
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. 137–180

Alternations in argument realization and problematic cases of subjecthood in Lithuanian

| Klaipeda University | Vilnius University
The paper focuses on subject properties in Lithuanian sentences containing verbs participating in the swarm alternation. In neither variant of the Lithuanian swarm alternation can either of the two arguments (i.e., the locational and the non-locational argument) be considered a prototypical subject, i.e., be said to display properties on the lexical (semantic), grammatical, and discourse levels of representation that are typical of a prototypical subject. The discrepancies between subject properties on distinct levels of representation are triggered by a set of discourse-pragmatic and semantic features characteristic of the swarm alternation. One of the basic discourse-pragmatic features characteristic of some of its variants is that they function as presentational constructions and pragmatically their subjects are not construed as topics but as sentence foci. Subjects of presentationals are obligatorily marked by a focus pitch accent. This property of presentationals conditions a spread of subject properties over the (pro)nominal constituents of a clause. Other semantic-pragmatic properties contributing both to alternation in subject realization and discrepancies between subject properties on distinct levels of representation are: (i) the obligatory requirement of a location participant on the lexical-semantic and discourse-pragmatic levels of representation; (ii) the pragmatic requirement for verbs displaying presentational constructions to be informationally light in context; (iii) a decrease in agentivity properties of agent arguments triggered by the discourse-pragmatic function of presentationals and realized on the lexical-semantic and, in some instances, the (morpho)syntactic level of representation; (iv) the semantic-pragmatic requirement for non-locational arguments of the swarm alternation to be indefinite plurals or mass terms rather than singular NPs and to denote unidentifiable referents.
Published online: 16 May 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.1.04len
References (27)
References
Anderson, Stephen. 1971. The role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language 6: 387–396.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1994. Locative Inversion and Architecture of Universal Grammar. Language 70: 72–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. (1999). Argument Alternations, Lexical Polysemy and Thematic Roles: A Case Study . [URL]
(2001). The Semantic Asymmetry of ‘Argument Alternations’ (and Why it Matters). In Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 44 . Groningen: Center for Language and Cognition. [URL]
. 2000. ‘The Garden Swarms with Bees’ and the Fallacy of ‘Argument Alternation’. In Polysemy. Theoretical and Computational Approaches , Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock (eds), 111–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam (2005). A frame-based approach to case alternation: the swarm-class in Czech. Cognitive Linguistics 16(3): 475–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker & Haas, Florian (2011). On the distribution of subject properties in formulaic presentationals of Germanic and Romance: A diachronic-typological approach. In Impersonal Constructions , Anna Siewierska and Andrej Malchukov (eds.), 127–167. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 2008. The swarm alternation revisited. In Theory and Evidence in Semantics , Erhard Hinrichs and John Nerbonne (eds), 53–80. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2005. Intranzityvinių sakinių tipai: egzistenciniai, lokatyviniai ir posesyviniai sakiniai [Types of intransitive clauses: existential, locative and possessive clauses]. In Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai [Studies in Grammatical Functions], Axel Holvoet and Rolandas Mikulskas (eds.), 139–160. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kalėdaitė, Violeta. 2002. Existential Sentences in English and Lithuanian. A Contrastive Study [European University Studies, Linguistics 248]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a Universal Definition of ‘Subject’. In Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language, Charles N. Li and Sandra Thompson (eds.), 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenartaitė, Kristina. 2010. Argumentų raiškos alternavimas lietuvių kalboje [Alternations in Argument Realization in Lithuanian]. PhD thesis, Vilnius: Institute for the Lithuanian Language.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation . Chicago/ London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. English Object Alternations: a Unified Account . Unpublished draft. Stanford University. [URL]
and Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax–Lexical Semantics Interface . Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
and Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Livitz, Inna. 2006. What’s in a Nominative? Implications of Russian Non-Nominative Subjects for a Crosslinguistic Approach to Subjecthood . BA thesis, Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej and Akio Ogawa. 2011. Towards a typology of impersonal constructions. A semantic map approach. In Impersonal Constructions , Anna Siewierska and Andrej Malchukov (eds), 19–57. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V. 2007. Genitiv otricanija i Nabljudatel’ v glagolax tipa zvenet’ i paxnut’ [Genitive of negation and Observer with verbs of the type zvenet’ and paxnut’ ]. [URL]
Portero Muñoz, Carmen. 2011. A Functional Discourse Grammar approach to the Swarm-alternation as a case of conversion. In Morphosyntactic alternation in English: functional and cognitive perspectives , Pilar Guerrero Medina (ed), xxx–xxx. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Rowlands, Rachel. 2002: Swarming with bees: property predication and the swarm alternation . MA thesis, University of Canterbury. [URL]
Salkoff, Maurice. 1983. Bees are swarming in the garden: A systematic synchronic study of productivity. Language 59(2): 288–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & LaPolla Randy L. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Wiemer, Björn & Vaiva Žeimantienė
2016. Contexts for the choice of genitive vs. instrumental in contemporary Lithuanian. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 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.