Who needs it? Variation in experiencer marking in Estonian ‘need’-constructions
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10140609 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Liina Lindström (0000-0003-1458-6682, University of Tartu, corresponding author), Virve-Anneli Vihman, Virve‐anneli Vihman (0000-0002-0874-1730, University of Tartu, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 53 |
| Issue | 04 |
| Pages | 789-822 |
| Publication date | 2017-01-09 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Linguistics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-2267 • E-ISSN: 1469-7742 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0022226716000402 |
| OpenAlex | W2569597425 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 13 |
| References cited | 34 |
In this paper, we tackle the twin issues of obligatoriness of semantic arguments and variation in their expression through a study of Estonian constructions denoting need. The variation under investigation consists in the choice of case-marking, between adessive and allative case, as well as the option to omit the oblique argument. We extracted and coded ‘need’-constructions from spoken and written corpora and used non-parametric classification methods for analysis. We found high rates of oblique experiencer omission in these constructions (nearly 60% across corpora). The most important predictors of overt expression of the experiencer in our models were participant-internal modality and the presence of nominal complements, meaning that both semantic and syntactic factors are relevant. The choice between two overt cases is affected by person, complement type, and referential distance. Topical experiencer arguments do not show the subject-like tendency to be omitted more often, but they are more likely to be marked with adessive case, suggesting that adessive is more grammaticalised as a structural, non-nominative, argument-marking case than the more semantic allative case. Our findings show that oblique, semantic arguments may be frequently omitted, and both semantic and syntactic factors may affect variation in case-marking
Argument (complex analysis · Complement (music · Dative case · Estonian · Expression (computer science · Linguistics · Meaning (existential · Nominative case · Oblique case · Variation (astronomy · Verb · Computer Science · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism · Philosophy · Psychology · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Täitsa lambist
Third-person overt pronoun and zero reference in Estonian. Insights from two experiments
Verb-second in spoken and written Estonian
Liage du possessif réfléchi en estonien
Murded, varieerumine ja korpusandmed. Eitussõna paiknemine võru ja seto eituslausetes
Eesti keele väliskohakäänete kasutus poolspontaanses kõnes automaatse transkriptsiooni põhjal
The use of the indefinite pronoun keegi ‘someone’ in Estonian dialects
Syntactic variation in ‘need’-constructions in Estonian dialects
Oblique complements in Estonian
Pronouns as referential devices in Estonian, Finnish, and Russian
The grass is not always greener
Bilingual Acquisition of Morphology
Adolescent Heritage Speakers
Regression Modeling Strategies
Auxiliaries
Prototypical Transitivity
Cohesion in English
Conditional variable importance for random forests
Unbiased Recursive Partitioning
Random Forests
Topic Continuity in Discourse
Datives and allatives
Acquisitive modals
Modal verbs in Balto-Finnic
The Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects
Varieerumine "tarvis-/vaja-"konstruktsioonides keelekontaktide valguses
Making choices in Russian
Cross-Linguistic Variation in the Treatment of Beneficiaries and the Argument vs. Adjunct Distinction
Arguments and Adjuncts as Language-Particular Syntactic Categories and as Comparative Concepts
Do We Need a Distinction between Arguments and Adjuncts? Evidence from Psycholinguistic Studies of Comprehension
Models, forests, and trees of York English
What do subject pronouns do in discourse? Cognitive, mechanical and constructional factors in variation
Modality's semantic map
Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse
| Citations per year | 1.44 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2017 - 2026 (10) |
| Highly cited | No |