Article published in:
Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic
Edited by Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau
[Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 1] 2014
► pp. 207–255

Differential object marking in Latgalian

| Adam Mickiewicz University Poznan | Vilnius University
This article discusses variation in object marking in Latgalian, based on sources where this phenomenon is most pronounced. Differential object marking in Latgalian consists in the choice of the genitive instead of the accusative for objects of transitive verbs. Genitive marking regularly appears in negated clauses and in constructions with the supine. It is optionally used in clauses that portray a situation as unreal, unlikely, or undesired from the point of view of the speaker. Apart from these clause-related factors, genitive marking is common though less regular with mass nouns and count nouns in the plural in descriptions of single events, while for habitually occurring events the accusative is used. The use of the partitive genitive is increasingly coupled with prefixing of the verb. A further type is the use of the genitive with cumulative verbs. There is also a small group of non-derived verbs that select the genitive. Those that have a nominative subject tend to become transitive verbs in modern written Latgalian.
Published online: 16 May 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.1.06nau
Sources

Sources

Ādama stāsts. Mazsalaciešu dzīve, ieradumi un tikumi Ā. Purmaļa autobiogrāfijā 19. un 20. gs. mijā
2008 Ed. Sanita Reinsone. Rīga: Zinātne.Google Scholar
KS =
Kur sauleitei sāta , short story by Ilze Sperga published 2008 on her former web-site at http://​saprge​.wordpress​.com
Mar =
Marabeju kolns , short story by Ilze Sperga, published 2011 on her web-site at http://​www​.naktineica​.lv​/?p​=5490.
Miljons-1.0 = corpus of contemporary Latvian, 1 million words
. Access through www​.korpuss​.lv. [accessed in August 2013]
Miljons-2.0 = corpus of contemporary Latvian, 3.5 million words
. Access through www​.korpuss​.lv. [accessed April-August 2013]]
MuLa-1.0 = corpus of contemporary written Latgalian, 1 million words
. Access through www​.korpuss​.lv. [accessed April-August 2013]
UP = Ulanowska, Stefania
1895 Łotysze Inflant polskich, a w szczególności gminy Wielońskiej, powiatu Rzeżyckiego. Obraz etnograficzny. Część III. Zbiór wiadomości do antropologii krajowej , t. XVIII, 232–406.Google Scholar
VL = texts written by Valentins Lukaševičs
published in a Latvian newspaper ( Latvijas Avīze ) and on the Internet, available at the portal www​.lakuga​.lv.
References
Bossong, Georg
1991 Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In New analyses in Romance linguistics, Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds), 143–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bukšs, Miķelis & Placinskis, Jurs
1973  Latgaļu volūdas gramatika un pareizraksteibas vōrdneica [Latgalian Grammar and orthographic dictionary]. 2nd edn. München: Latgalischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Cibuļs, Jurs & Leikuma, Lidija
2003  Vasals! Latgaliešu valodas mācība . Rīga: n.i.m.s.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Malchukov, Andrej L.
2008 Case marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 565–587. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Endzelin, Jan
1922  Lettische Grammatik . Riga: Kommisionsverlag A. Gulbis.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana
2005 On accumulating and having it all. Perfectivity, prefixes and bare arguments. In Perspectives on aspect, Henk J. Verkuyl, Henriëtte de Swart & Angeliek van Hout (eds), 125–148. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gāters, Alfrēds
1977  Die lettische Sprache und ihre Dialekte . The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2001 Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects [Typological Studies in Languages 46], Alexandra Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds), 56–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15: 535–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, Olga
2010 Genitive objects, existence and individuation. Russian Linguistics 34: 17–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013  Semantics of genitive objects in Russian . Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leikuma, Lidija
2010 Par dažiem Latgales latviešu folkloras pieraksta jautājumiem: Lettische Volkslieder (1869). Baltu Filoloģija 19: 53–70.Google Scholar
Lindāne, Irma
1986  Dignājas izloksne . Rīga: Zinātne.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L.
2005 Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case, Mengistu Amber & Helen de Hoop (eds), 73–117. London: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nau, Nicole
2011a  A short grammar of Latgalian . München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2011b Declension classes in Latvian and Latgalian: Morphomics vs. Morphophonology. Baltic Linguistics 2: 141–177.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild
2007  Prototypical transitivity [Typological Studies in Languages 72]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael
2007 Complementation. In Language typology and syntactic description. Volume II: Complex constructions, Timothy Shopen (ed), 52–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki
2001 Introduction: Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and Properties. In Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects [Typological Studies in Languages 46], Alexandra Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds), 1–51. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius
2012ms A typological perspective to differential object marking. Manuscript, version 24 Aug 2012 <http://​people​.uta​.fi​/∼kaius​.sinnemaki​/dom​_web​.pdf > (02 March 2013).
Strods, Pīters
1933  Pareizraksteibas vōrdneica . Rēzekne [published by the author].Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku
1985 Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21: 385–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ūsele, Veneranda
1998  Tilžas izloksnes apraksts . Rīga: Latviešu valodas institūts.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Arkadiev, Peter M.
2016.  In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 37 ff. Crossref logo
Holvoet, Axel & Nicole Nau
2016.  In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Seržant, Ilja A.
2021. Typology of partitives. Linguistics 0:0 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 february 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.