Crosslinguistic variation in partitives An introduction (original) (raw)

Crosslinguistic variation in partitives

Partitives cross-linguistically, 2022

Since then, comparative studies that focus on different facets of partitives crosslinguistically have multiplied, even across theoretical borders, as reflected in numerous conferences and publications. The PARTE network originates in several workshops that were organized by Elisabeth Stark and colleagues at the University of Zurich in 2014 and 2016 that brought together syntacticians and typologists. Although the PARTE network comprises 11 universities and institutions and 18 researchers, the partitivity network in a broader sense is much larger, and includes researchers who presented their work on partitivity at workshops in Venice in 2017, Pavia in 2019 and Frankfurt in 2019. Most of the contributors of this special issue on "Partitives cross-linguistically" are members of the extended network. The collaboration resulted already in several volumes and special issues, more specifically Falco & Zamparelli (2019); Ihsane & Stark (2020); Ihsane (2020) and Sleeman & Giusti (2021). Members and contributors of the PARTE network have focused on different aspects of partitivity, and have tried to shed light on the relation between the various items which are referred to as 'partitives' in the literature, including their diachronic development, as we discuss in Section 2.

Typology of partitives

2021

This paper explores the coding patterns of partitives and their functional extensions, based on a convenience sample of 138 languages from 46 families from all macroareas. Partitives are defined as constructions that may express the proportional relation of a subset to a superset (the true-partitive relation). First, it is demonstrated that, cross-linguistically, partitive constructions vary as to their syntactic properties and morphological marking. Syntactically, there is a cline from loose – possibly less grammaticalized – structures to partitives with rigid head-dependent relations and, finally, to morphologically integrated one-word partitives. Furthermore, partitives may be encoded NP-internally (mostly via an adposition) or pronominally. Morphologically, partitives primarily involve markers syncretic with separative, locative or possessive meanings. Finally, a number of languages employ no partive marker at all. Secondly, these different strategies are not evenly distributed in the globe, with, for example, Eurasia being biased for the separative stragey. Thirdly, on the functional side, partitives may have functions in the following domains in addition to the true-partitive relation: plain quantification (pseudo-partitives), hypothetical events, predicate negation and aspectuality. I claim that the ability to encode plain quantification is the prerequisite for the other domains. Finally, it is argued that there is a universal preference towards syncretism of two semantically distinct concepts: the proportional, true-partitive relation (some of the books) and plain quantification (some books).

Luraghi & Kittilä: Typology and diachrony of partitive case markers

Partitive cases constitutes a rather heterogeneous category. They may be defined formally, when the notion is confined primarily to languages with a dedicated partitive case, such as Finnish and Basque. From a functional perspective, in turn, also other languages may have morphemes that express the same function, e.g. other cases (such as the genitive in several Indo-European languages) or other formal means (adpositions, verbal cross-reference etc.). Functionally, partitive case markers can be used to express an array of functions. Typically, they are related to expression partiality or indefiniteness, but often also to lower transitivity. What is most notable is that there is no link between partitive cases and a specific grammatical relation: partitive cases can code subjects and direct objects; in addition, they may code adverbials and appear with adpositions in some languages. Formal and functional properties of partitive case markers are discussed thoroughly in this paper from a cross-linguistic perspective. The paper also includes a discussion of the diachrony of partitive case markers.

Partitivity and case marking in Turkish and related languages

Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2017

The paper discusses the conditions for case marking on partitive constructions in direct object position in Turkish and some related languages. We focus on Turkish and then turn to some details of corresponding constructions in some other Turkic languages and in Standard Mongolian. Turkish exhibits Differential Object Marking, which primarily depends on the semantic-pragmatic factor of specificity. Partitive constructions with the ablative for the superset in Turkish come in different forms, depending on how the subset expression is realized: (a) by a lexical noun as head, (b) by the classifier tane 'item', functioning as a "dummy noun", and (c) by a numeral, quantifier or adjective. Case marking of the direct object is optional for (a), and obligatory for (most instances of) (c). This type of obligatory case marking is dependent on the obligatory marking of the adjective, quantifier or numeral with a default 3 rd person singular agreement suffix, which then requires case marking. Construction (b) does not allow for case marking, when the classifier is bare; when the classifier is followed by the default 3 rd person singular agreement marking, that marking requires obligatory case morphology, just like in construction (c). We hypothesize that structural case marking can either express the semantic-pragmatic condition of specificity in terms of referential anchoring or it must obey a formal condition, namely the requirement of the agreement suffix to be followed by overt case. The languages we have studied show an interesting micro-variation. They differ (among other properties) with respect to classifiers-in particular, with respect to whether they have [+human] classifiers or not. In addition, one language among the languages under investigation, namely Kirghiz, substitutes the agreement marker in its function as a filler of the partitive's nominal head by a different marker: a morpheme expressing a set. Here, the agreement marker is used to express specificity, given that its presence is not required for formal reasons. In direct object partitive constructions with subset expressions that are expressed as full noun phrase/lexical noun heads (option (a) above), overt accusative case indicates specificity in most of the investigated languages. In options (b) and (c), the investigated languages provide different patterns when marking the referential status of the partitive heads, thus indicating the variation among these languages with respect to the nominal category feature of the partitive heads involved.

Partitivity and object marking in Finnish and Lithuanian

2020

Lithuanian and Finnish both have alternations in object marking involving the notion of partitivity. In Finnish, the case of the direct object of transitive verbs alternates between the accusative and the partitive. Partitive is the default case for the object of a transitive verb and a special feature is required for the assignment of the accusative. In Lithua nian, the case of the direct object of transitive verbs alternates between the accusative and the partitive genitive. Some functions of the Finnish parti tive and the Lithuanian partitive genitive in object marking are identical, but some are markedly different. This paper offers an overview of the fac tors that have been discussed in the literature as affecting the use of parti tive cases, and also a comparison of their relevance and relative ranking in Finnish and Lithuanian.