Search

Adpositions localize an entity (Figure) with respect to another entity (Ground), designated by the complement of the adposition. Most Finnic adpositions are postpositions with a genitive Ground, while prepositions typically have a partitive Ground. This work is a cognitive-linguistic study of the synchronic and diachronic semantics of partitive-Ground adpositions. It is argued that adpositions with a partitive Ground select a proximal perspective to the locational relationship, while those with a genitive Ground select a distal perspective. Three alternative hypotheses are introduced and compared concerning the origin of two Finnish partitive-Ground adpositions, kohti ‘towards’ and päin ‘towards’: 1) These adpositions originated as instructive-case bodypart expressions of position (cf. selin ‘with one’s back at’), and their partitive Ground indicated a viewpoint person; 2) They were instructive forms with a meronymic-locative meaning, expressing a more precise target area within the Ground, together with a directionality toward that area; 3) The Ground of kohti and päin was originally a partitive object of ‘aiming’ or ‘shooting’ verbs, and the soon-to-be adpositions themselves were lexicalized adverbs of direction. Kokkuvõte. Tuomas Huumo: Milleks partitiiv? Kaassõnade laiendit markeeriva partitiivkäände motiividest läänemeresoome keeltes. Kaassõnad suhestavad trajektori orientiiriga, mida väljendab kaassõna laiend. Enamik läänemeresoome keelte kaassõnadest on tagasõnad, mille laiend on genitiivis, eessõnade laiend aga on tavaliselt partitiivis. Käesoleva töö eesmärgiks on selgitada partitiivis laiendiga kaassõnade sünkroonilist ja diakroonilist semantikat kognitiivse lingvistika vaatenurgast. Autor väidab, et partitiivlaiendiga kaassõnad valivad asukohasuhtele proksimaalse perspektiivi, erinevalt genitiivlaiendiga kaassõnadest, mis valivad distaalse ja holistilise perspektiivi. Autor pakub välja kolm alternatiivset hüpoteesi, mis puudutavad kahe soome keele partitiivlaiendiga kaassõna, kohti ja päin (mõlemad tähendusega ’suunas, poole’), päritolu: 1) kaassõnad grammatiseerusid instruktiivis kehaosaväljenditest (vrd. selin ’seljaga millegi poole’) ja nende partitiivlaiend väljendas esialgselt vaatleja asukohta; 2) vormid olid lokatiivsed instruktiivid, mis väljendasid meronüümiliselt täpsemat sihtala orientiiri sees; 3) partitiivlaiend oli esialgselt objekt ning väljendas suunatud tegevuse (nt. ’sihtima’, ’laskma’) sihtkohta, tulevased kaassõnad aga olid suunda täpsustavad adverbid.

In this paper, we present the results of a corpus study investigating the distribution of the three grammatical cases in Estonian (nominative, genitive, partitive) and the factors affecting the interpretation of syntactic role for nouns marked in these cases. Unlike previous studies, which have focussed on the properties of grammatical relations, we take the perspective of morphological case, and investigate the relative frequency of each case in both written and spoken corpora, according to the encoded grammatical roles, referential properties (animacy, number, countability) and syntactic context (word order, transitivity), as well as probing the differences according to register. We find that each case is prototypically, but not reliably, associated with a particular grammatical role, and that a cluster of features are available to assist speakers in identifying the function of a case-marked noun. Kokkuvõte. Merilin Miljan, Virve Vihman: Eesti keele grammatilised käänded kirjalikus ja suulises korpuses: sagedus, jaotumus ning süntaktilised rollid. Artiklis esitatakse tulemused korpusuuringust, mille eesmärgiks oli välja selgitada eesti keele grammatiliste käänete (nominatiiv, partitiiv, genitiiv) jaotumus ning tegurid, mis mõjutavad nende käänetega markeeritud nimisõnade süntaktiliste rollide tõlgendamist. Erinevalt varasematest töödest, mis keskenduvad grammatilistele suhetele ja (seejärel) nende käändetähistusele, lähtub selle uurimuse fookus eelkõige morfoloogiast, st käändest endast. N-ö käände perspektiivist vaatleme iga grammatilise käände esinemise sagedust kirjalikus ja suulises korpuses: milliseid süntaktilisi funktsioone see markeerib, markeeritava nimisõna omadusi (elusus, arv, loendatavus), süntaktilist konteksti (sõnajärg, transitiivsus) ning registri erinevusi. Leiame, et kuigi üldpildina eristub iga grammatilise käände puhul sagedaim süntaktiline põhiroll, toob detailsem analüüs välja nimisõna omaduste ja süntaktilise konteksti olulisuse nende rollide jaotumuses.

Recent synchronic and diachronic studies agree on the fact that ‘article-like’ des in French (henceforth desal) should not receive a partitive analysis. This paper zooms in on this debate and shows that the approaches put forward to circumvent a partitive analysis of desal come with a number of challenges. After having identified these challenges, we broaden our perspective towards bare partitives (i.e. partitive structures without an upstairs determiner) in French, Italian and Dutch. Especially this latter language is particularly interesting as its bare partitives have not undergone a process of fossilisation. On the basis of these comparative data, we present an analysis of desal as a member of the family of bare partitives. We argue that this partitive approach of desal not only adequately accounts for the synchronic and diachronic facts, but is also more elegant from a theoretical point of view and has a larger empirical coverage.

Students show deficient understanding on fraction division and supporting that understanding remains a challenge for mathematics educators. This article aims to describe primary students’ understanding of partitive fraction division (PFD) and explore ways to support their understanding through the use of sequenced fractions and context-related graphical representations. In a design-research study, forty-four primary students were involved in three cycles of teaching experiments. Students’ works, transcript of recorded classroom discussion, and field notes were retrospectively analyzed to examine the hypothetical learning trajectories. There are three main findings drawn from the teaching experiments. Firstly, context of the tasks, the context-related graphical representations, and the sequence of fractions used do support students’ understanding of PFD. Secondly, the understanding of non-unit rate problems did not support the students’ understanding of unit rate problems. Lastly, the students were incapable of determining symbolic representations from unit rate problems and linking the problems to fraction division problems. The last two results imply to rethink unit rate as part of a partitive division with fractions. Drawing upon the findings, four alternative ways are offered to support students’ understanding of PFD, i.e., the lesson could be starting from partitive whole number division to develop the notion of fair-sharing, strengthening the concept of unit in fraction and partitioning, choosing specific contexts with more relation to the graphical representations, and sequencing the fractions used, from a simple to advanced form.

In Latvian and Estonian existential clauses, the subject’s case form alternates between nominative vs. genitive (in Latvian) and nominative vs. partitive (in Estonian). This article is a study of the case-alternation systems of existential clauses and related clause types, locative and possessive clauses in these languages. It includes a corpusbased analysis of Latvian existential clauses that is being compared with Estonian corpus-based findings on similar clause types in Estonian. *** "Subjekti käändevaheldus läti ja eesti keele eksistentsiaallausetes" Nii eesti kui ka läti keeles esineb subjekti käändevaheldust. Läti keeles saab subjekt olla lisaks nominatiivile ka genitiivis, eesti keeles lisaks nominatiivile ka partitiivis. Artiklis võrreldakse subjekti käändevaheldust mõlema keele kirjaliku variandi eksistentsiaallauses, lisaks vaadeldakse ka eksistentsiaallausega seostuvaid lausetüüpe: lokatiiv- ja possessiivlauset. Läti keele subjekti käändevaheldus leiab aset eitavates lausetes verbiga nebut ‘mitte olema’, mida nimetame tinglikult eksistentsiaal-, possessiiv- ja lokatiivlauseteks. Kõigis lausetüüpides domineerib genitiivsubjekt mõjukalt nominatiivsubjekti üle. Eesti keele subjektikäände varieerumine ilmneb kõige produktiivsemalt eksistentsiaal- ja possessiivlausetes, seejuures on olulisemateks käändevaliku mõjuriteks lause polaarsus ja subjekti referendi kvantitatiivne määratletus. Esitame tänapäeva läti keele korpusematerjalil põhinevaid uuringutulemusi ning kõrvutame neid seniste uuringutega läti ja eesti keele kohta. Erinevalt varasematest seisukohtadest ilmneb, et lausetüübil peaaegu puudub mõju läti keele subjektikäändele. Uurime seetõttu peamisi subjekti käänet mõjutavate muutujate klastreid, keskendudes nende erinevatele realiseerumisvõimalustele. Peamised muutujad on subjekti referendi definiitsus, subjekti sõnaliik, subjektifraasi raskus ning subjekti paiknemine predikaadi ja määruse suhtes. Andmetest ei ilmne tugevaid reegleid, vaid ainult eelistuste tendentsid. Kõigis vaadeldavates lausestruktuuritüüpides on sagedasem genitiivsubjekt, kuid ülekaalukuse määr varieerub. Korpusematerjali suurim rühm subjekte on verbijärgsed indefiniitsed genitiivsubjektid. Nominatiivi kasutus on kõige sagedasem verbijärgsete definiitsete subjektide puhul, ületades kahekordselt nominatiivsubjektide osakaalu kogu uuritud korpusematerjalis. Teatud puhkudel on ka lausetüüp subjektikäände osaliseks mõjutajaks. Näiteks on eitavas lokatiivlauses, mille sõnajärg meenutab jaatavat lokatiivlauset, definiitne subjekt just nominatiivis. Artikkel esitab läti keele uuringutulemuste kõrvale tänapäeva eesti keele korpusematerjalil põhinevaid kvalitatiivseid ja arvulisi andmeid eesti keele võrreldavate subjektikäände tegurite ja tingimuste kohta.

There has been a movement in philosophy, growing over the last twenty years, to treat dispositionality as irreducible and, in turn, offer dispositional accounts of important metaphysical matters such as the laws of nature, free will, causation, and modality. However, unlike the earlier turn towards possible worlds in metaphysics, the turn towards dispositions hasn’t had much impact in semantics. But this is, in my view, largely because semanticists have yet to consider what dispositional analyses of (say) tense, aspect, generics, or modals would look like. My aim in this paper is to push the dispositionality movement forward on the semantics front by considering a dispositional analysis of the progressive aspect.

Presentative constructions in Serbian allow two patterns [presentative particle NPGEN] and [presentative particle CLi NPiNOM]. This paper proposes derivations of these patterns. The premise is that the choice between the two patterns is determined by the the type of inert v0. Namely, the first pattern is derived if inert v0 can assign partitive case, i.e. v0 [PART], while the latter pattern is derived if v0 cannot assign partitive case. A special focus is put on the [CLi+NPi] pattern since it represents a case of the co-occurrence of a pronominal clitic and a co-indexed NP, which is not characteristic of Serbian. It is argued that the relationship between the NP and the co-indexed clitic is that of agreement. The X0 and the NP establish a relationship in which X0 assigns nominative case to the NP and the NP values X0’s [uφ:]. This agreement is taken to be the same kind of agreement that holds between an NPNOM and the X0 which is in charge of agreement with participles in Serbian. The only twist in presentative constructions is the absence of a verb in the numeration. This means that the φ-features checked in X0 cannot be pronounced as an integral part of a participle. Allowing certain morpho-phonological rules to pronounce boundless of features as various morphemes, it is proposed that the clitic is a spell-out of this bundle of features, resulting in the [CLi+NPi] pattern.

This article examines object case marking in a Finnish verb structure called the Projected Directive Construction, e.g. Liisa pyysi Matti-a lähte-mä-än ‘Liisa asked Matti to leave’ (Liisa.NOMINATIVE asked Matti-PARTITIVE leave-INF-ILLATIVE). The PDC is divided into three subtypes. Type A includes verbs such as pyytää ‘to request’, which take a partitive object regardless of the outcome of the action. Verbs used in type B, such as määrätä ‘to order’, take an accusative object despite the result of the action. Type C comprises verbs such as suostutella ‘to persuade’ taking either a partitive or an accusative object, depending on the outcome of the semiotic causation expressed in the clause. The object case marking in the three subtypes reflects the two-faceted nature of the construction: on the one hand, it is a construction used for reporting of speech, on the other, it is a causative construction. It seems that boundedness – as it has traditionally been defined – does not suffice to describe the alternation of the object case in the PDC. Kokkuvõte. Yrjö Lauranto: Projitseeritud direktiivsed konstruktsioonid ja objekti käände markeerimine soome keeles. Artiklis käsitletakse objekti käänet soome keele projitseeritud direktiivses konstruktsioonis (PDK), nt Liisa pyysi Matti-a lähte-mä-än ‘Liisa palus Matit ära minna’. PDK võib jagada kolme alltüüpi. Tüüp A sisaldab verbe nagu pyytää ‘paluda’, mis nõuavad partitiivobjekti, sõltumata tegevuse tulemusest. Tüüp B verbid nagu määrätä ‘käskida’ nõuavad akusatiivobjekti, sõltumata tegevuse tulemuslikkusest. Tüüpi C kuuluvad verbid nagu suostutella ‘veenda’, mis võivad võtta nii partitiivse kui akusatiivse objekti, sõltuvalt lausega väljendatud semiootilise põhjustatuse tulemusest. Kolme alltüübi käändemarkeering peegeldab konstruktsiooni kahetist olemust: ühelt poolt kasutatakse konstruktsiooni kõne vahendamiseks, teiselt poolt on tegemist kausatiivse konstruktsiooniga. Seega ei piisa PDK objekti käändevahelduse selgitamiseks vaid piiritletuse mõistest. Võtmesõnad: objekti käände markeerimine; piiritletus; akusatiiv; partitiiv; kõne ja mõtete vahendamine; projitseerimine; kausatiivne konstruktsioon; soome keel

In this work I explore the semantics of two case forms of the Finnish quantifier moni ‘many’: the regular nominative moni and the regular partitive monta [mon-ta many-PARTITIVE], which however has taken on a function similar to that of the nominative of numerals and is thus not a functional partitive anymore. This development has apparently motivated the rise of the pleonastic montaa [mon-ta-a many-PARTITIVE-PARTITIVE] to unambiguously mark the partitive. I argue that an important difference between moni and monta is the opposition between a distributive and a collective meaning: in ambiguous contexts, moni is clearly distributive and monta collective. I compare the two with the nominative form of the near-synonymous quantifier usea ‘several; a number of’ which in similar contexts displays ambiguity between the distributive and collective readings. The analysis sheds new light to the division of labor between the two (functional) nominative forms of moni, showing that they divide the functions of the nominative in an idiosyncratic way. Kokkuvõte. Tuomas Huumo: Moni või monta? Distributiivse ja kollektiivse tähenduse vastandus soome keele kvantori moni ‘mitu’ kahe käändevormi vahel. Artikkel käsitleb soome keele kvantori moni ‘mitu’ kahe käändevormi tähenduserinevusi. Võrdlusobjektideks on reeglipärane nominatiiv moni ning reeglipäraselt moodustatud partitiivivorm monta [mon-ta mitu-PARTITIIV ‘mitut’], millel siiski on tekkinud arvsõnade nominatiivile sarnane funktsioon ning mis seetõttu ei ole enam funktsionaalne partitiiv. See areng on tõenäoliselt motiveerinud ka pleonastilise, kahe partitiivilõpuga vormi mon-ta-a [mitu-PARTITIIV-PARTITIIV] teket, mis väljendab ühetähenduslikult partitiivi funktsioone. Artikli põhiväide on, et oluline erinevus vormide moni ja monta vahel on distributiivse ja kollektiivse tähenduse vastandamine: mitmetitõlgendatavates kontekstides annab moni edasi distributiivset, monta aga kollektiivset tähendust. Artiklis võrreldakse nimetatud kaht vormi lisaks ka semantiliselt lähedase kvantori usea ‘mitu; arvukas’ nominatiivivormiga. Usea on sarnastes kontekstides mitmetähenduslik ning võib edasi anda nii distributiivset kui ka kollektiivset tähendust. Kokkuvõttes valgustab analüüs seni käsitlemata vaatenurgast kvantori moni kahe (funktsionaalses mõttes nominatiivi-)vormi tööjaotust, mis on üsnagi idiosünkraatiline. Võtmesõnad: kvantor; kääne; partitiiv; kollektiivne vs. distributiivne tähendus; soome keel

Syncretism is the phenomenon where one (phonological) form is able to spell out more than one (grammatical) function. The P(repositional) element van (“from/of”) in Afrikaans represents an instance of syncretism: it is able to spell out many different functions including spatial, possessive and partitive functions. Any theoretical framework seeking to account for how form relates to function ought to provide an account of this phenomenon. Within the broad minimalist approach, Nanosyntax (NS) has yielded the most systematic and explicit accounts of syncretism (cf. e.g. Starke 2009; Caha 2006, 2009). This paper offers a nanosyntactic characterisation of the Afrikaans P element van, focusing specifically on its behaviour in Afrikaans partitive constructions and offering a tentative analysis to account for the seemingly irregular behaviour displayed by van in these constructions. The analysis is based on a modified syntactic decomposition of “the genitive zone” proposed by Caha (2009). The presence of an additional node, Specific (SPF), is argued for in the lowest layer of the structure that is encoded on the lexical entry for van. One merit of the proposed analysis is that it takes into account how van interacts with other word-level elements in the phrase.

This paper examines the syntax of partitive constructions with superlatives in French and the realization of gender in constructions with an animate noun, and focuses on contexts that allow gender mismatches (la plus intelligente de mes gentils professeurs ‘the most intelligent of my kind professors’). We show that such mismatches are allowed in French superlative partitives that contain a default masculine noun. To account for the mismatches, we propose that the nouns involved have an unvalued gender feature that can be assigned a sex specification in the course of the derivation. For superlative partitives we propose that this specification takes place in a Gender Phrase in the outer DP. Furthermore, we show that quantified partitives (e.g. three of the books) behave differently from superlative partitives, a fact we try to explain in terms of ­structural differences. We distinguish between partitives with an of-complement and ­non-canonical partitives with an ‘among’-PP or a preposed ‘of’-phrase. We also claim that our data can provide further insight into the role of locality in semantic agreement: we compare superlative partitives to quantified partitives in terms of agreement, and suggest that the two types of partitives should be placed in different positions on an Agreement Hierarchy.

The partitive has often been acknowledged as problematic for L2 learners of Finnish. The purpose of this study was to identify possible instances of L1 influence in Estonian learners’ use of partitive predicatives and to explore the relation between L1 influence and L2 proficiency. Research materials (85,749 words) were selected from the Estonian subcorpus of the International Corpus of Learner Finnish and evaluated according to the CEFR proficiency scales (i.e. A1–C2). A frequency-error analysis revealed instances of both positive L1 influence (e.g. a virtual lack of partitive overuse errors) and negative L1 influence (e.g. frequent use of nominative plural instead of partitive plural predicatives). The latter error type was found to ultimately decrease with increasing L2 proficiency, suggesting an inverse relation between negative L1 influence and L2 proficiency. Nonetheless, interactions between L1 influence and several other variables also reflected the extremely complex nature of the phenomenon of L1 influence.

Recent literature suggests that children’s acquisition of DP is a process of gradual feature acquisition (Roeper 2006). This study looks at the acquisition of DP’s barrier feature from the perspective of the acquisition of the syntax of the English partitive construction. This study explores the contrast between the partitive and the pseudopartitive. An adjective preceding the partitive cannot modify the lower noun, but it can in an equivalent pseudopartitive construction. This study shows that children aged 3-5 do not make this distinction, suggesting that children don’t recognize partitive-internal DP as a barrier to adjectival modification.

Adposition phrases in morphologically impoverished languages have a function similar to nouns with morphological cases in morphologically rich languages, leading some researchers to argue that at least some cases belong to the category P. The aim of this paper is to investigate whether all cases can be analysed as Ps. The focus is on partitive case in Finnish. Whilst the ‘local’ cases in many languages appear to be strong candidates for analysis as members of the category P, it will be argued that partitive case (and genitive in languages where there is no distinct partitive) spells out a functional head between P and D, and that it properly belongs to the D-system (quantifiers or determiners), not the P-system. Thus morphological cases do not form a coherent category in syntax. Instead, morphological case paradigms relate to one of three different syntactic items: (i) uninterpretable features (structural cases), (ii) PP structures (cases expressing spatial or thematic relations), and (iii) determiner or quantifier projections (partitive, and partitive uses of genitive). Possible extensions of the analysis to other languages (German, Tongan and English) are explored.

In this paper I investigate a seemingly optional variation between accusative and partitive case in Finnish in yes/no questions and certain kinds of negative contexts. I discuss two possible approaches: (i) the focus/background approach, which argues that the presence or absence of a focus/background partition guides the case alternation, and (ii) the negative polarity item (NPI) approach, which argues that the ‘optional’ partitive case is NPI-like. This second approach is built on the observation that contexts in which the alternation is licensed are also contexts which license NPI ‘anyone’ in Finnish. In addition, in the second part of the paper, I discuss how these hypotheses fit in with the semantic consequences of accusative and partitive case interacting with two types of disjunction in yes/no and alternative questions.