Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 523–562 | Cite as

Unmarked case in Estonian nominals

  • Mark Norris
Article

Abstract

This paper analyzes a case-marking alternation seen in the standard Estonian numeral-noun construction and pseudopartitive construction (e.g., tükk leiba ‘a piece of bread’). In nominative and accusative contexts, the second noun (N2) is marked with partitive case while the first noun/numeral (N1) is marked with the case of the pseudopartitive. In all other case contexts both nouns must bear the case of the pseudopartitive. I propose that the partitive case on N2 is an unmarked case in the sense of Baker (2015) and Marantz (1991), among others. It is assigned to complements of nouns that do not already have a case value. This derives the case-marking alternation as a matter of timing: nominative and accusative are assigned too late to affect case-marking internal to the pseudopartitive. I show that pseudopartitives are not amenable to an analysis in terms of case-stacking as has been proposed for similar phenomena. The analysis presented here also extends to collocations of numerals and pseudopartitives in Estonian. I also show how the analysis can be extended to account for differences between Finnish and Estonian, and I suggest a typology of pseudopartitive-marking predicted by the analysis I propose. The analysis has implications for case realization and assignment as well as pseudopartitive and DP structure.

Keywords

Estonian Case Pseudopartitives Numerals Morphology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project has a long history, and I am indebted to many people for their assistance at various stages of that history. Thanks are due especially to Mark Baker, Sandy Chung, Amy Rose Deal, Jorge Hankamer, Boris Harizanov, Ruth Kramer, Jim McCloskey, David Pesetsky, Melita Stavrou, and Anie Thompson. I am thankful for the very constructive comments of Julie Anne Legate and three anonymous NLLT reviewers. I would also like to thank audiences at LSA 2013 and BLS 41. I thank the following Estonian speakers for discussing their language with me: Katrin Jänese, Mervi Kalmus, Leelo Kask, Mirjam Kuusik, Kärt Lazić, Maarja Lutsar, Maire Moisto, and Siim Põldre. All errors are my own.

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Christina Sevdali. 2014. Opaque and transparent datives, and how they behave in passives. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17: 1–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman, and Melita Stavrou. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Christina Sevdali. 2015. Case alternations in Ancient Greek passives and the typology of case. Language 91: 442–481. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babby, Leonard. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 91–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babby, Leonard H. 1980. The syntax of surface case marking. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 1–32. Google Scholar
  6. Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its principles and parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker, Mark, and Nadezhda Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 593–642. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baker, Mark C. 2014. On dependent ergative case (in Shipibo) and its derivation by phase. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 341–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bittner, Maria, and Ken Hale. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1–68. Google Scholar
  11. Blevins, James P. 2008. Declension classes in Estonian. Linguistica Uralica 44: 241–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bobaljik Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s Phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi Theory: Phi-features across interfaces and modules, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  13. Brattico, Pauli. 2008. Kayne’s model of case and Finnish nominal phrases. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 31: 135–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brattico, Pauli. 2010. The two-part models and one-part models of nominal case: Evidence from case distribution. Journal of Linguistics 45: 47–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brattico, Pauli. 2011. Case assignment, case concord, and the quantificational case construction. Lingua 121: 1042–1066. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. PhD diss., Universitet i Tromsø. Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures in government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  19. Corver, Norbert, and Joost Zwarts. 2006. Prepositional numerals. Lingua 116: 811–835. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Csirmaz, Aniko. 2012. The case of the divisible phase: Licensing partitive case in Finnish. Syntax 15: 215–252. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Danon, Gabi. 2012. Two structures for numeral-noun constructions. Lingua 122: 1282–1307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deal, Amy Rose. 2016. Person-based split ergativity in Nez Perce is syntactic. Journal of Linguistics 52: 533–564. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1993. The internal structure of noun phrases in the Scandinavian languages. PhD diss., University of Lund. Google Scholar
  24. Ehala, Martin. 1994. Russian influence and the change in progress in the Estonian adpositional system. Linguistica Uralica 30: 177–193. Google Scholar
  25. Erelt, Mati, Tiiu Erelt, and Kristiina Ross. 2000. Eesti keele käsiraamat [Estonian language handbook]. Tallinn: Eesti keele sihtasutus. Google Scholar
  26. Erelt, Mati, Reet Kasik, Helle Metslang, Henno Rajandi, Kristiina Ross, Henn Saari, Kaja Tael, and Silvi Vare. 1993. Eesti Keele Grammatika II: Süntaks; Lisa: Kiri [Estonian grammar II: Syntax; Appendix: Written language]. Tallinn: Eest Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut. Google Scholar
  27. Feist, Timothy. 2010. A grammar of Skolt Saami. PhD diss., University of Manchester. Google Scholar
  28. Franks, Steven. 1994. Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 597–674. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  30. Giusti, Giuliana, and Nedžad Leko. 1995. On the syntax of quantity expressions in Bosnian. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 23–47. Google Scholar
  31. Giusti, Giuliana, and Nedžad Leko. 2005. The categorial status of quantity expressions. In Linguistici vidici, ed. Nedžad Leko, 121–184. Sarajevo: Forom Bosniae. Google Scholar
  32. Grestenberger, Laura. 2015. Number marking in German measure phrases and the structure of pseudo-partitives. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18: 93–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hankamer, Jorge, and Line Mikkelsen. 2008. Definiteness marking and the structure of Danish pseudopartitives. Journal of Linguistics 44: 317–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harley, Heidi. 2009. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Quantification, definiteness, and nominalization, eds. Anastasia Giannakidou and Monika Rathert, 321–343. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  35. Harley, Heidi, and Rolf Noyer. 1998. Mixed nominalizations, short verb movement, and object shift in English. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 28, eds. Pius N. Tamanji and Kiyomi Kusumoto, 143–158. Toronto: University of Toronto, Graduate Linguistic Student Association. Google Scholar
  36. Hiietam, Katrin. 2005. Case marking in Estonian grammatical relations. The University of Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 10. Google Scholar
  37. Ionin, Tania, and Ora Matushansky. 2004. A singular plural. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 23. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  38. Ionin, Tania, and Ora Matushansky. 2006. The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics 23: 315–360. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Julien, Marit. 2005. Nominal phrases from a Scandinavian perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Karlsson, Fred. 1999. Finnish: An essential grammar. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  41. Keine, Stefan. 2010. Case and agreement from fringe to core: A minimalist approach. Linguistische Arbeite. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In Projecting from the lexicon, eds. Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  43. Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 111: 315–376. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2001. ‘A piece of the cake’ and ‘a cup of tea’: Partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions in the Circum-Baltic languages. In The Circum-Baltic languages: Typology and contact, eds. Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm. Vol. 2, 523–568. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  45. Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 55–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Split ergativity based on nominal type. Lingua 148: 183–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Levin, Theodore, and Omer Preminger. 2015. Case in Sakha: Are two modalities really necessary? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33: 231–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 8, eds. German Westphal, Benjamin Ao, and Hee-Rahk Chae. DMLL: Cornell University. Google Scholar
  49. Matushansky, Ora. 2008. A case study of predication. In Studies in formal Slavic linguistics: Contributions from formal description of Slavic languages 6.5, eds. F. Marušič and R. Žaucer, 213–239. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Google Scholar
  50. McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  51. McGarry, Lauren. 2015. Concord in East Slavic numerical constructions: A cross-linguistic assessment of Pesetsky 2013. Bachelor’s Thesis, Georgetown University. Google Scholar
  52. McGarry, Lauren. 2016. East Slavic paucal constructions: A cross-Slavic assessment of Pesetsky 2013. Handout of a talk presented at the 2016 LSA annual meeting, January 7, 2016. Google Scholar
  53. Miljan, Merilin. 2008. Grammatical case in Estonian. PhD diss., University of Edinburgh. Google Scholar
  54. Miljan, Merilin, and Ronnie Cann. 2013. Rethinking case marking and case alternation in Estonian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36: 333–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moravcsik, Edith. 1995. Summing up Suffixaufnahme. In Double case: Agreement by suffixaufnahme, ed. Frans Plank, 451–484. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  56. Nelson, Diane, and Ida Toivonen. 2000. Counting and the grammar: Case and numerals in Inari Sami. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 179–192. Google Scholar
  57. Nemvalts, Peep. 1996. Case marking of subject phrases in modern standard Estonian. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell International. Google Scholar
  58. Nevis, Joel. 1984. A non-endoclitic in Estonian. Lingua 64: 209–224. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nevis, Joel. 1986. The comitative, terminative, abessive and essive as clitics in Estonian. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 7: 79–98. Google Scholar
  60. Norris, Mark. 2015. Case-marking in Estonian pseudopartitives. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 41, eds. Anna E. Jurgensen, Hannah Sande, Spencer Lamoureux, Kenny Baclawski, and Alison Zerbe, 371–395. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar
  61. Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2006. Small nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 433–500. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pesetsky, David. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Plank, Frans, ed. 1995. Double case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  64. Poole, Ethan. 2015. A configurational account of Finnish case. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 21. Google Scholar
  65. Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Vol. 68 of Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Richards, Norvin. 2012. Lardil “case stacking” and the timing of case assignment. Syntax 16: 42–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1998. Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 1–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in Modern Hebrew noun phrases. Syntax and Semantics 25: 37–60. Google Scholar
  69. Rutkowski, Paweł. 2001. Numeral phrases in Polish and Estonian. In 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, eds. Arthur Holmer, Jan-Olof Svantesson, and Åke Viberg. Vol. 2, 181–190. Lund: Lund University Press. Google Scholar
  70. Rutkowski, Paweł. 2002. The syntax of quantifier phrases and the inherent vs. structural case distinction. Linguistic Research 7: 43–74. Google Scholar
  71. Schütze, Carson. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4: 205–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1977. Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In Formal syntax, eds. Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 285–316. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  73. Seppänen, Aimo. 1983. Finnish ‘kaksi poikaa’. Studia Linguistica 37: 161–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1993. The structure of the Icelandic NP. Studia Linguistica 47: 177–197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stavrou, Melita. 2003. Semi-lexical nouns, classifiers and the interpretation(s) of the Pseudopartitive Construction. In From NP to DP. Volume I: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases, eds. Martine Coene and Yves D’Huist. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  76. Tamm, Anne. 2007. Perfectivity, telicity, and Estonian verbs. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 30: 229–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tamm, Anne. 2011. Scalarity and dimensionality across categories: Estonian pseudopartitive constructions. Linguistica Uralica 47: 22–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tucker, Matthew A. 2013. Building verbs in Maltese. PhD diss., University of California, Santa Cruz. Google Scholar
  80. Vainikka, Anne. 1989. Deriving syntactic representations in Finnish, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  81. Vainikka, Anne. 1993. The three structural cases in Finnish. In Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax, 129–159. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  82. Vainikka, Anne, and Joan Maling. 1996. Is partitive case inherent or structural. In Partitives: Studies on syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions, ed. Jacob Hoeksma, Groningen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics, 179–208. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  83. Watanabe, Akira. 2006. Functional projections of nominals in Japanese: Syntax of classifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 241–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 111–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Woolford, Ellen. 2008. Differential subject marking at argument structure, syntax, and pf. In Differential subject marking, eds. Helen de Hoop and Peter de Swart, 17–40. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  86. Yip, Moira, Joan Maling, and Ray Jackendoff. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63: 217–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zabbal, Youri 2005. The syntax of numeral expressions. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Modern Languages, Literatures, and LinguisticsUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations