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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the nominative-partitive subject alternation occurring with constructions containing the Finnish verb löytyä. The material used is taken from corpora and consists of a random sample of 779 observations, analyzed both quantitatively by means of statistical methods, and from a qualitative point of view. The research aims at investigating which variables influence the case alternation of subjects of constructions containing the verb löytyä. The chosen variables are subject number, subject divisibility, subject part of speech, word order, tense, agreement and subject lemma, the only random variable. With the help of regression analysis, the subject case is predicted on the basis of said variables and of interactions between them. The qualitative analysis will also discuss the relationship these morphosyntactic and semantic variables have with the existential interpretations of the clause as well as with the subject quantity and definiteness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]