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. 257–299

The independent partitive genitive in Lithuanian

ORCID logo | University of Konstanz | Vilnius University

The aim of the paper is to give a semantic description of the independent or bare partitive genitive (IPG) in Lithuanian in rather neutral, functional terms. The IPG is a multi-faceted category that bears on the domains of quantification and (in)definiteness. On its quantificational reading, the IPG encodes an implicit quantifier, arbitrary in its value. I have used the notion of (un)boundedness (re-)introduced in Paul Kiparsky’s (1998) seminal paper on the partitive case in Finnish. NP-internally, the IPG has two main readings: unbounded and bounded reading. The first reading provides the concept of the participant rather than ‘zooming in’ on particular instantiations. It is extremely weak referentially, probably the weakest option available in Lithuanian. This reading is restricted to those verbs in Lithuanian that allow their arguments to be kind-referring NPs (e.g., the subject of the existential to be, or object of to know). On the bounded reading, in turn, the IPG encodes an undetermined but delimited set, the reading is existential and resembles indefinite plurals. The individuals introduced by this reading are stored in the discourse model and may be picked up by anaphoric pronouns in the following discourse. They never constitute primary or foregrounded information of the message, though. Furthermore, I have claimed that the incremental-theme verbs and verbs of transfer in East Lithuanian interact with the IPG-marked object with respect to their aspectual properties. Here only the bounded reading of the IPG is available. This explains the ban on the occurrence of IPG in imperfective contexts in Lithuanian (such as progressive, which has no grammatical marking in Lithuanian, generic and iterated atelics) with incremental-theme verbs, because the imperfective interpretation induces an inherently unbounded event which is not compatible with the bounded reading of the IPG. Both bounded and unbounded values are assumed to be originally two different readings of the same implicit quantifier that have, however, acquired different distributions in the course of time.

Published online: 16 May 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.1.07ser
References
Aissen, Judith
2003 Differential Object marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas
(ed) 2006  Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika . A Grammar of Modern Lithuanian . Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter
2011 Aspect and Actionality in Lithuanian on a typological background. In Langues baltiques, langues slaves , Daniel Petit, Claire Le Feuvre & Henri Menantaud (eds), 61–92. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard H.
2001 The genitive of negation: a unified analysis. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Bloomington Meeting 2000 [Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 9], Steven Franks, Tracy Holloway King & Michael Yadroff (eds), 39–55. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco
1997  Il dominio tempo-aspettuale: Demarcazioni, intersezioni, contrasti . Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
1994  Case . Second Edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit
2005 Some notes on the syntax of quantity. In Aspectual Inquiries [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 62], Paula Kempchinsky & Roumyana Slabakova (eds), 41–68. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir, Elena V. Paducheva, Barbara H. Partee, Yakov G. Testelets & Igor Yanovich
2008 Russian genitives, non-referentiality, and the property-type hypothesis. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Stony Brook meeting [Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 16), Andrei Antonenko, John F. Bailyn & Christina Y. Bethin (eds), 48–67. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publishers.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1998 Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In Actance et Valence dans les Language de l’Europe , Jack Feuillet (ed), 193–258. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gryuter.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N.
1977 A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 413–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Champollion, Lucas
2010  Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1978 Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language , Winfred Lehmann (ed), 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville
1994 Systems of grammatical number in Slavonic. Slavonic and East European Review 72(2), 201–217. A revised version of: Systems of grammatical number in Slavonic. In Studies in Number and Quantification , David Gil (ed), European Science Foundation Programme in Language Typology: Theme 7, Noun Phrase Structure: Working Paper no. VII/19.Google Scholar
2000  Number [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, Alan
2000  Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen
1981 On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded-unbounded) distinction. In Syntax and Semantics , vol. 14: Tense and Aspect , Philip J. Tedeschi & Annie Zaenen (ed), 79–90. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1984 Perfectivity in Slavonic and other languages. In Aspect Bound. A Voyage Into the Realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian Aspectology , Casper de Groot & Hannu Tommola (eds), 3–22. Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1989 Boundedness and the Structure of Situations. Leuvense Bijdragen 78, 275–308.Google Scholar
1991  A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English . Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse
1995 On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(1), 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny S.
1997 Quantifiers and Selection. On the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. ([URL])
Dowty, David
1991 Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection, Language 67, 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis
1951  Latviešu valodas gramatika [Grammar of the Latvian Language]. Riga: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana
1989 Aspectual Properties of the AN-Construction in German. In: Tempus — Aspekt — Modus. Die lexikalischen und grammatischen Formen in den germanischen Sprachen [Tense — Aspect — Mood. Lexical and Grammatical Forms in the Germanic Languages] [Linguistische Arbeiten 237], Werner Abraham & Theo Janssen (eds), 259–292. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven & James E. Lavine
2006 Case and word order in Lithuanian. Journal of Linguistics 42(1), 239–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1979  On Understanding Grammar . New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2004 On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59], Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds), 17–44 Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
1991  Transitivity and Clause Structure in Polish . Warsaw: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen
2003 Partitivity. In The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book , Lisa Cheng & Rint Sybesma (eds), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas
2010 Nominal aspect, quantity, and time: The case of the Finnish object, Journal of Linguistics 46, 83–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jablonskis, Jonas
1957  Rinktiniai raštai . I tomas. Vilnius: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga
2005 Genitive case: A modal account. In Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 2, Yehuda Falk (ed).Google Scholar
2012  Semantics of Genitive Objects in Russian. A Study of Genitive of Negation and Intensional Genitive Case . Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London: Springer.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Denis Paperno
2012 Overview. In Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language , Edward L. Keenan & Denis Paperno (eds), 941–950. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1998 Partitive case and aspect. In The projection of arguments. Lexical and compositional factors, Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 265–307. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo, Jussi Ylikoski & Katja Västi
(eds) 2011  Case Animacy and Semantic Roles [Typological Studies in Language 99]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
1989  Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen . München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Krasovitsky, Alexander, Matthew Baerman, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett
2011 Changing semantic factors in case selection: Russian evidence from the last two centuries. Morphology 21, 573–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Bernhard Wälchli
2001 The Circum-Baltic languages: An areal-typological approach. In Circum-Baltic Languages: Typology and Contact vol. 2, Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 615–750. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1971 Słowiański genetivus po negacij. In: Sesja naukowa międzynarodowej komisji budowy gramatycznej języków słowiańskich , Stanisław Urbańczyk (ed.), 11–14. Wrocław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Lestrade, Sander & Helena de Hoop
2011 On case and tense: the role of grounding in differential case marking. Unpublished manuscript, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian
1985 Natürlichsprachliche Quantoren – Zur Verallgemeinerung des Begriffs der Quantifikation. Studium Linguistik 17/18, 79–113.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher
1999 Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markova, Nina
1988 Roditel’nyj padež prjamogo objekta v russkom fol’klore Karelii [Direct object genitive in the Russian folklore of Karelia]. Jazyk russkogo fol’klora [The Language of Russian Folklore], E B Artemenko (ed), 96–104. Petrozavodsk: Petrozavodskij gosudarstvennyj universitet.Google Scholar
McNally, Louise
1998 Existential sentences without existential quantification, Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 353–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehlig, Hans Robert
2006 Glagol’nyj vid i vtoričnaja gomogenizacija oboznačajemoj situacii: K upotrebleniju delimitativnogo sposoba dejstvija v russkom jazyke [Verbal aspect and secondary homogenization of the situation: On the use of the delimitative aktionsart in Russian]. In Semantika i Struktura slavjanskogo vida 4 [Semantics and Structure of Slavic Aspect 4], Volkmar Lehmann (ed), 235–276. München: Sagner.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helle
2001 On the developments of the Estonian aspect. In: Circum-Baltic Languages vol. 2: Grammar and Typology , Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), 443–479. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neidle, Carol
1988  The Role of Case in Russian Syntax . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paducheva
1997: Padučeva, Elena V. 1997 Roditel’nyj sub”ekta v otricatel’nom predloženii: sintaksis ili semantika? [Subject Genitive of Subject in a negated sentence: syntax or semantics?]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2, 101–116.Google Scholar
Paducheva, Elena V.
1998 On non-compatibility of Partitive and Imperfective in Russian. Theoretical Linguistics 24(1), 73–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paducheva
2005: Padučeva, Elena V. 2005 Ešče raz o genitive sub”ekta pri otricanii [Once again about the subject genitive with negation]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 5, 84–99.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H.
1986 Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalised quantifiers , Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & Martin Stokhof (eds.), 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1995 Quantificational Structures and Compositionality. In Quantification in Natural Languages , Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara H. Partee (eds), 541–601. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pulishers.Google Scholar
2008 Negation, intensionality, and aspect: Interaction with NP semantics. In: Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect [Linguistik Aktuell 110], Susan Rothstein (ed), 291–317. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. & Vladimir Borschev
2002 Genitive of negation and scope of negation in Russian existential sentences. In: Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: the Second Ann Arbor Meeting 2001 [ Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 10 ], Jindrich Toman (ed), 181–200. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
2004 The semantics of Russian genitive of negation: The nature and role of perspectival structure. In: Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14, Robert B. Young (ed), 212–234. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Paykin, Katia
Forthcoming. Russian Partitives and Verbal Aspect. In Partitivity , Silvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logo
Pesetsky, David M.
1982 Paths and categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard van Orman
1960  Word and Object . Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rachilina, Ekaterina V.
(ed) 2008  Ob”ektnyj genitiv pri otricanii v russkom jazyke . Moscow: Probel.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
2002 Recent activity in the theory of aspect: Accomplishments, achievements, or just non-progressive state? Linguistic Typology 6, 199–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A.
2012a Morphosyntactic properties of the partitive genitive in the subject position in Ancient Greek. Indogermanische Forschungen 117, 187–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012b  Pragmatics and Semantics of the bare Partitive Genitive in Ancient Greek . Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 65(2), 113–136.Google Scholar
Forthcoming-a. Independent partitive genitive in Russian and North Russian. To appear in Contemporary approaches to dialectology: The area of North, Northwest Russian and Belarusian vernaculars [Slavica Bergensia 13], Ilja A. Seržant & Björn Wiemer (eds). Bergen: University of Bergen.
Forthcoming-b. Independent partitive as a Circum-Baltic isogloss . Forthcoming paper . DOI logo
Smith, Carlotta
1997  The Parameter of Aspect . 2nd edition. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei & Mikhail Ivanov
2009 Event structure of non-culminating accomplishments. In Cross-linguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect and Modality , Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop & Andrej Malchukov (eds), 83–130. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tenny, Carol
1994  Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface . Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan
2004  A Reference Grammar of Russian . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ([URL])
Traugott, Elisabeth
2003 Constructions in Grammaticalization. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics , Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds), 624–646. Malden Mass.: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1957[1967]  Linguistics in Philosophy . Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J.
1972  On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects . Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle & Louise McNally
2005 On the property analysis of opaque complements, Lingua 115(6), 885–914. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Thomas Ede
1993 On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1(2), 149–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

Bruno, Jone
2015. The morphological, syntactic and semantic interface of the verb GIVE in Lithuanian. In Causation, Permission, and Transfer [Studies in Language Companion Series, 167], ► pp. 327 ff. DOI logo
Holvoet, Axel & Nicole Nau
2016. Introduction. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kalnača, Andra & Ilze Lokmane
2023. Partitive genitive constructions and agreement variations in Latvian. Linguistic Variation 23:1 ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Kozhanov, Kirill
2016. Verbal prefixation and argument structure in Lithuanian. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 363 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
Seržant, Ilja A.
2015. An approach to syntactic reconstruction. In Perspectives on Historical Syntax [Studies in Language Companion Series, 169], ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
2016. The nominative case in Baltic in a typological perspective. In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
2021. Typology of partitives. Linguistics 59:4 ► pp. 881 ff. DOI logo
Seržant, Ilja A., Katarzyna Maria Janic, Darja Dermaku & Oneg Ben Dror
2021. Typology of coding patterns and frequency effects of antipassives. Studies in Language 45:4 ► pp. 968 ff. DOI logo
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 11 march 2023. 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.