Adjectival definiteness marking in Lithuanian – one more puzzle piece: Qualitative adjectives that could but do not take definite forms (original) (raw)

Strong vs. weak definites: Evidence from Lithuanian adjectives

Definiteness across languages, 2019

While Lithuanian (a Baltic language) lacks definite articles, it can use an adjectival system to encode definiteness. Adjectives can appear in a bare short form as in graži ‘beautiful.nom.f.sg’ and a long form with the definite morpheme -ji(s) as in gražio-ji ‘beautiful.nom.f.sg-def’. In this paper, I explore definiteness properties of Lithuanian nominals with long and short form adjectives. Recent cross-linguistic work identifies two kinds of definites: strong definites based on familiarity and weak definites licensed by uniqueness (Schwarz 2009; 2013; Arkoh & Matthewson 2013; Jenks 2015; i.a.). Following this line of work, I argue that short form adjectives, in addition to being indefinite, are also compatible with situations licensed by uniqueness, and in this way resemble weak article definites. Long form adjectives pattern with strong article definites, as evidenced by familiar definite uses and certain bridging contexts parallel to the German data (Schwarz 2009). This study provides novel evidence for the distinction between strong versus weak definites showing that this distinction is not necessarily reflected in determiner patterns, but it can also be detected in the adjectival system

Towards a semantic map for definite adjectives in Baltic

The paper deals with semantic developments in the Lithuanian and Latvian definite adjectival forms. The basic function of definite adjectival forms in Baltic is to mark the definiteness of the noun phrase. However, the adjectival marking of definiteness creates an interesting situation in which the noun phrase has several slots for the marking of (in)definiteness. In certain cases, different values for definiteness may appear in different slots: the adjective may be in the definite form whereas the noun phrase as a whole may be viewed as indefinite and can occur with formal markers of indefiniteness such as indefinite pronouns. These cases afford certain insights into the periphery of definiteness and the mechanisms of extension of definiteness markers into the domain of indefiniteness. The factors involved in this spill-over of definiteness markers are (i) genericity, realised in the form of so-called definite generics, whose definite markers are often retained when descending from the level of kind-reference to that of individual reference (this is referred to here as rigid or fossilised generic definiteness), and (ii) nominalisation of the adjective, which enables the retention of definite marking when a noun phrase shifts from definite plural description to singular or plural indefinite description. An important factor in the spread of definite adjectives beyond the domain of definiteness of the noun phrase seems to be their ability to evoke ad hoc taxonomies. The instances of extended definiteness marking discussed in this paper have parallels in article languages that have only one slot for (in)definiteness marking. The presence of two slots for definiteness marking in Baltic brings to light the layered nature of the definiteness of many noun phrases, which leads to what is here called ‘definiteness conflicts’ and indeterminacy between the semantic zones of definiteness and indefiniteness.

Morphemic Structure of Lithuanian Words

Open Linguistics, 2016

The Lithuanian language is a typical flectional language that has a very sophisticated system of grammatical forms and many means of derivation; it is also characterized by uncertain boundaries between morphemes. All this makes the morphemic analysis of the Lithuanian language very complex. The aim of this research is to define and describe morphemic structural models of inflective parts of speech (i.e. nouns, adjectives, numerals, pronouns, and verbs) and regularities of their usage in contemporary Lithuanian.

Determination and modification: Topology of prenominal attributes in Lithuanian

Kalbotyra , 2018

This paper offers a description of the linear structure of the definite Lithuanian noun phrase (NP) with an emphasis on prenominal attributes. Morphological and syntactical coding of definiteness is examined through the comparison of NP structures in Lithuanian (a language with relatively ungrammaticalised marking of definiteness) and Swedish (a language with fully developed overt marking of definiteness). The special role of definite attributes, quantifiers and adjectival modifiers is shown through identifying key positions in a linear structure of the Lithuanian NP. A topology of the Lithuanian NP is then suggested reflecting the multi-layered nature of the referenceassigning process mirrored in multi-exponential marking of definiteness, with adjectival marking being a very important one. Variations in NP structures are described using Lithuanian and Swedish data focusing on the combinatorial possibilities of definite adjectival modifiers and other determiners.

Morphological adaptation of adjectival borrowings in modern Lithuanian

In this article, the following types of morphological adaptation of borrowed adjectives in Lithuanian are identified: (1) zero adaptation, (2) assignment to inflection class (IC), (3) addition of derivational suffix, (4) substitution of derivational suffix, (5) truncation of derivational suffix. Zero adaptation is very rare in internationalisms, but appears quite frequently in slang borrowings. Assignment to ICs is noted in internationalisms and slang borrowings with nearly complementary distribution of ICs in-us and-as. Addition of derivational suffixes is rare, but available in non-standard use and also possible, but difficult to prove, in internationalisms. Substitution of derivational suffixes is the main strategy for adaptation of internationalisms, the central role being played by the relational suffix-in-is. Truncation of derivational suffixes is very rare and is noted only in internationalisms where affixes of Latin origin can be occasionally deleted.

Lithuanian nominalizations and the case marking of their arguments [2016]

The article focuses on case marking of the arguments of deverbal nouns (action and agent nouns) in Lithuanian, with particular attention paid to argument alternation. As nominalizations derived from verbs taking nominative, accusative and genitive have already been studied, I mainly analyse nominalizations from verbs taking dative, instrumental and locative NPs, as well as PPs. Action nouns in Lithuanian retain more verbal features than agent nouns. Though action nouns tend to retain their oblique arguments, the choice of the argument with action nouns can depend on productivity, word order, semantic role and the animacy of the argument, while the alternation with agent nouns can depend on the form of the NP/PP and on the frequency of the word.

The origin of the Lithuanian illative

Baltistica 55.2, 2020

The paper deals with the origin of the Lithuanian illative case. The illative, found in Lithuanian since the very begin of its text records in the early 16th c., is a recent formation which, in the given form, may have emerged as late as after the disintegration of Proto-East-Baltic. In both numbers the illative case-forms of Lithuanian nouns emerged out of directional adverbs, which were in turn based on adverbially used case-forms of nouns. The marker of the Lithuanian illative is an inherited suffix of directional adverbs which is also attested in Germanic, Italic and probably also Tocharian. The situation in Tocharian makes it probable that the marker of Lithuanian illative was originally used for deriving adverbs not with primarily directional but rather with perlatival semantics.