Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Construction-specific object case variation in Estonian David Ogren, University of Tartu BACKGROUND • RESEARCH GOALS Estonian distinguishes between partial and total objects Partial objects appear in the partitive case, total objects in the genitive or nominative (depending on the finite verb form, e.g. imperative mood → nominative total object) The total object is used only if all of the following criteria are met: • • - action is perfective/resultative - object referent is quantitatively bounded - object modifies an affirmative verb form • Given an affirmative sentence with an resultative verb and a quantitatively bounded object, the total vs. partial object opposition reduces to an aspectual opposition: imperfective → partial, perfective → total. Ema küpsetas • • Identify, describe, and quantify the significance of the factors influencing object case in da-infinitive constructions Place Estonian in the context of cross-linguistic studies on the topic of Differential Object Marking (DOM) • • Sentences containing various da-infinitive constructions with objects, in which all the basic criteria for total object usage are satisfied, were extracted from a set of written language corpora Sentences were coded for a range of features related to sentence structure and semantics • object case. However, OV order is more common in negative sentences (which require partial objects). In da-infinitive constructions, VO order favors the total object, OV the partial object: • On lihtne leida lahendus (GEN). On lihtne lahendust (PART) leida. ‘It is easy to find a solution.’ • This variation does not appear to be related to information structure • • Object construction (verb chain leida tahtma 'want to find') case is weakest in the object construction Weaker syntactic relationship between object and transitive finite verb → greater influence of word order on object case (compare also to finite clauses, where the syntactic relationship is as strong as possible and the effect of word order is nonexistent) Association between OV order and negation in finite clauses leads to an association between OV order and partial object usage in infinitival constructions Assessment construction (with phrase lihtne leida 'easy to find') OV order OV order 1. Object construction: infinitive phrase as object Tahan want.1SG find.INF solution.GEN Total object Partial object Partial object VO order ‘I want to find a solution.’ 2. Assessment construction: infinitive phrase in subject position, predicate adjective expresses an assessment of the action in the infinitive phrase VO order 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% On lihtne leida lahendus. is Purpose construction (verb leida 'to find') easy find.INF solution.NOM Post-nominal modifier construction (noun soov 'wish’) ‘It is easy to find a solution.’ 3. Purpose construction: infinitive phrase expresses the purpose of the action in the matrix clause Arutame probleemi, et leida lahendus. find.INF solution.NOM selgitus/selgitust. discuss.1PL problem.PART Is possible explanation.NOM/explanation.PART ‘We are discussing the PROBLEM in order to find a solution.’ Various factors which play no role in the choice of object case in finite clauses prove significant in da-infinitive constructions Total object leida lahenduse. On võimalik leida ‘It is possible to find an explanation.’ • Word order and object case In finite clauses, word order does not influence • Relationship between word order and object CONSTRUCTIONS EXAMINED In constructions where the object modifies the aspectually neutral da-infinitive form, the category of aspect is less salient than in finite clauses In such constructions, the partitive may be used even with verbs that do not ordinarily allow an imperfective reading. In some cases, both total and partial object are possible, with little or no difference in meaning: find.INF IMPLICATIONS koogi/kooki. THE PROBLEM: • SUMMARY MATERIAL & METHOD mother.NOM bake.PST.3SG cake.GEN/cake.PART ‘Mother baked/was baking a cake.’ • WORD ORDER AND OBJECT CASE CONJ OV order 4. Post-nominal modifier construction: infinitive phrase as post-nominal modifier Meil on soov leida lahendus. we.ADE is desire find.INF solution.NOM OV order Total object Total object Partial object Partial object VO order VO order 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ‘We have the desire to find a solution.’ ADJECTIVE SEMANTICS TOTAL OBJECT CASE VARIATION • • In the assessment construction, the partial object is more common when the predicate adjective is a) semantically negative, b) an assessment of difficulty, and c) processoriented. The total object prevails when the predicate adjective is a) semantically positive, b) a value judgment, and c) result-oriented. In the enabling-obligating construction (an exceptional sub-type of the object construction), the total object may appear in either the nominative or the genitive, with no clear difference in meaning: Soovitan sul osta jalgratas/jalgratta. recommend.1SG you.ADE buy.INF bicycle.NOM/bicycle.GEN ‘I recommend that you buy a bicycle.’ • • This construction is imperative-like both in meaning and in participant structure (the participant receiving the command/recommendation/etc is the subject of the non-finite clause), which likely motivates the use of the nominative total object. In this construction, the nominative total object is far more common with some verbs than with others, for no readily apparent reason: CONCLUSIONS • • Partial object % by adjective, assessment construction 100 • 90 80 70 Total object case in the enabling-obligating construction with various verbs 60 90% 50 80% 40 70% 30 60% 50% Nominative 20 40% Genitive 10 • 0 30% võimatu 'impossible' 20% raske 'difficult' lihtne 'easy, simple' võimalik 'possible' parem 'better' tähtis 'important' 10% 0% soovitama 'to recommend' käskima 'to command' võimaldama 'to enable' Examples: lubama 'to allow' COORDINATION AND TOTAL OBJECT CASE In coordinate structures in the enabling-obligating construction, the first conjunct may feature a genitive total object, while total objects in the second conjunct appear predominantly in the nominative: Näiteks arutame läbi ja soovitame teistelegi taasavada igas Eestimaa vallas vähemasti ühe avaliku külasauna ning sinna asutada mittetulundusühinguna kohalik saunaklubi. ‘For example, we are discussing and we recommend to others as well to re-open at least one public sauna (GEN) in each Estonian municipality and establish a non-profit local sauna club (NOM) there.’ The likely explanation: the distance between the finite verb and the second conjunct renders the finite verb (whose presence typically conditions the use of the genitive total object, as in the first conjunct) less salient in the mind of the language user. REFERENCES On tähtis leida hea is find.INF good.NOM job.NOM important töökoht. ‘It is important to find a good job.’ On võimatu leida head töökohta. is find.INF good.PART job.PART important • ‘It is impossible to find a good job.’ On lihtne leida hea töökoht is good.NOM job.NOM easy find.INF / head töökohta. good.PART job.PART ‘It is easy to find a good job.’ Explanation: 1. võimatu ‘impossible’ and raske ‘difficult’ are negative assessments → partial object dominates 2. parem ‘better’ and tähtis ‘important’ are positive value judgments → total object dominates 3. lihtne ‘easy’ is process-oriented, võimalik ‘ possible’ is resultoriented → partial object is more common with lihtne Due to the aspectual ambiguity of the dainfinitive, object case in da-infinitive constructions varies according to a number of parameters which play no role in the choice of object case in finite clauses. Word-order driven total vs. partial object variation, as well as construction-internal variation in total object case, does not serve any semantic or functional purpose. These constructions therefore represent an exception to the theory of de Hoop and Malchukov (2008), according to whom differential object marking can be explained by the constraints of DISTINGUISHABILITY and IDENTIFY. Likewise, as the meaning differences expressed by the total vs. partial object opposition are the same regardless of whether the opposition is symmetric (genitive vs. partitive) or asymmetric (nominative vs. partitive), Estonian represents an exception to the generalization put forth by Iemmolo (2013), who links asymmetric DOM to referential properties of the object and symmetric DOM to semantic properties. The lack of a semantic/functional explanation for these phenomena points to the need for a cognitive explanation based on comparisons with more common constructions: 1. Link between OV order and negation in finite clauses → link between OV order and partial object in da-infinitive constructions 2. Analogy between enabling-obligating construction and imperative → use of nominative total object 3. Analogy between adjectival and verbal polarity → influence of adjectival polarity on object case in assessment construction CORPORA USED de Hoop, Helen, and Andrej Malchukov 2008. Case-marking strategies. - Linguistic Inquiry 39: 565-587. etTenTen (Estonian internet corpus), Postimees, Eesti Päevaleht, Õhtuleht (newspaper corpora) Erelt et al. 2007 = Erelt, Mati, Tiiu Erelt, Kristiina Ross 2007. Eesti keele käsiraamat. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. All accessed via www.keeleveeb.ee Iemmolo, Giorgio 2013. Symmetric and asymmetric alternations in direct object encoding. - STUF – Language Typology and Universals 66-4, 378-403. Ogren, David 2014. Objekti kääne hinnangukonstruktsioonis: kas on võimalik osta auto või autot? - Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat, 59(1), 171-192. E-mail: [email protected]