Cover not available
Part of
Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic
Edited by Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau
[Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 2] 2015
► pp. 289–322

Passivization and argument structure in Lithuanian

I examine the connection between internal case marking, telicity and the ability of a verb to passivize in Lithuanian. Crucially, oblique passivization – verbs which take a case other than accusative, yet form agreeing passive participles – is observed, and raises questions of case preservation. Because not all oblique-case verbs allow passivization, I examine the standard approach to case theory, and, following Babby (1994) and Woolford (2006), propose that instances non-structural case can be further distinguished as either lexical and inherent case. Additionally, oblique passives are overwhelmingly found to be instances of actional, rather than statal, passives. Statal passives denote an object-oriented result, and thus a connection between telicity and accusative case is found, following similar conclusions for Slavic in Richardson (2007).
Published online: 5 August 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.2.06and
References
Ambrazas, Vytautas
2006 Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.Google Scholar
Anderson, Cori
2009 Oblique passivization: evidence from Lithuanian and Slavic. Issledovanija po slavjanskim jazykam [Studies in Slavic Languages] 14: 137–154.Google Scholar
2011 Case theory and case alternations: evidence from Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 2: 9–35.Google Scholar
2013 Case and event structure in Russian and Lithuanian. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University.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.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard
1986 The locus of case assignment and the direction of percolation. In Case in Slavic, Richard Brecht & James Levine (eds.), 91–117. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
1994 Case theory, in Noam Chomsky: Critical Assessments, Carlos Otero (ed), 630–652. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Babko-Malaya, Olga
1999 Zero morphology: a study of aspect, argument structure and case. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark
1988 Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit
1996 Passive without theta grids. In Morphological interfaces, Patrick Farrell & Steve Lapointe (eds), 60–99. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1986 Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000 Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Step By Step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–153. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 Derivation by Phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cuervo, Maria Cristina
2003 Datives at large. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Dowty, David
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eyþórsson, Þórhallur, Janne Bondi Johannessen, Signe Laake & Tor A. Åfarli
2012 Dative case in Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese: Preservation and non-preservation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35(3): 219–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filip, Hana
1999 Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Reference. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi
2004 Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English, in Aspectual Inquiries, Roumyana Slabakova & Paula Kempchinsky (eds), 95–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert
1992 Foundations of Generative Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert & Babby, Leonard
1984 On the interaction of lexical and syntactic properties: case structure in Russian. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 71–105.Google Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma
1973 Passivnye konstrukcii v litovskom jazyke [Passive constructions in the Lithuanian language]. Ph.D. Dissertation, Vilnius University.Google Scholar
2006 Passives in Lithuanian (with comparison to Russian). In Passive and Typology: Form and Function, Abraham Werner & Larisa Leisiö (eds), 29–61. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma & Nedjalkov, Vladimir
1988 Resultative, passive, and perfect in Lithuanian. In Typology of Resultative Constructions, Vladimir Nedjalkov (ed.), 369–386. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jablonskis, Jonas
1997 [1922] Lietuvių kalbos gramatika [Grammar of the Lithuanian language]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.Google Scholar
Knjazev, Jurij
1989a Resultative, passive, and perfect in Russian. In Typology of Resultative Constructions, Vladimir Nedjalkov (ed), 343–368. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989b Akcional’nost’ i statal’nost’: ix sootnošenie v russkix konstrukcijax s pričastijami na -n, -t [Actionality and statality: their relationship in Russian constructions with participles in -n, -t]. Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
1992 Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Lexical Matters, Ivan Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds), 29–54. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lavine, James
2000 Topics in the syntax of nonagreeing predicates in Slavic. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar
2010 Case and events in transitive impersonals. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 18(1): 101-130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Passives and near-passives in Balto-Slavic: On the survival of accusative. In Non-canonical Passives, Artemis Alexiadou & Florian Schäfer (eds), 185–211. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenartaitė, Kristina
2009 Tiesioginiai objektai ir ditranzityvinių konstrukcijų klausimas lietuvių kalboje [Direct objects and the problem of ditransitive constructions in Lithuanian]. In Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška[The nature and expression of grammatical functions], Axel Holvoet & Rolandas Mikulskas (eds), 69–98. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas & Asociacija “Academia Salensis”.Google Scholar
2010 Argumentų raiškos alternavimas lietuvių kalboje [Expressions of argument alternations in Lithuanian]. Doctoral dissertation. Vilnius University.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka
1995 Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005 Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan
2002 Verbs with dative objects in Icelandic. Íslenskt mál 24: 31–105.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4.2, Alexis Dimitriadis & Laura Siegel (eds), 201–225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas
2004 The position of morphological case in the derivation: a study on the syntax-morphology interface. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther
2011 Case, in Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, Cedric Boeckx (ed), 52–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina
2008 Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
2008 A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Kylie
2007 Case and Aspect in Slavic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoorlemmer, Maaike
1995 Participial passive and aspect in Russian. Utrecht: OTS.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
1984 The Passive: A Comparative Linguistic Analysis. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2006 Case alternations and the Icelandic passive and middle. Ms., lingBuzz/000124, downloaded 10/28/08.
Tenny, Carol
1994 Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan
1982 The impersonal passive in Lithuanian. Berkeley Linguistics Society 8: 508–524.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa
2000 Event structure in syntax. In Events as Grammatical objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky (eds), 145–185. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1957 Verbs and Times. Philosophical Review 56: 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Tom
1977 Transformations and the Lexicon, in Formal Syntax, Peter Culicover, Adrian Akmajian and Tom Wasow (eds), 327–360. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn
2006a Grammatical evidentiality in Lithuanian (a typological assessment). Baltistica 41(1): 33–49.Google Scholar
2006b Relations between actor-demoting devices in Lithuanian. In Passivization and Typology. Form and Function, Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds), 274–309. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1980 The Case for Surface Case. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1981 Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1: 81–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen
2006 Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37 (1): 111–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

SIGURÐSSON, EINAR FREYR & MILENA ŠEREIKAITĖ
2023. The dual face of structural object case: on Lithuanian genitive of negation. Journal of Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Šereikaitė, Milena
2022. Impersonals, passives, and impersonal pronouns: Lessons from Lithuanian. Syntax 25:2 ► pp. 188 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 november 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.