1,721,041 research outputs found
Introduction
No full textLinguistic items in the heterogeneous set included among 'partitives' share the feature of expressing indefiniteness, at least in certain contexts and to a certain extent. In spite of being morphologically case markers (or prepositions), they do not behave as normal cases, in that they are not connected with a specific grammatical relation. Rather, they partly function as determiners or indefinite quantifiers. Diachronically, this peculiar function seems to develop out of a more typical case marking function. The complete change, including recategorization, from case marker to determiner is borne out by the development of the Romance partitive article. Remarkably, partitive markers treated in this volume should not be confused with partitives occurring in so-called partitive constructions (e.g., A piece of that cake). A dedicated partitive case occurs in Finnic languages and in Basque, and is usually said to indicate partial affectedness of patients (cf. Blake 2001: 151). This characterization obviously concerns the object-marking partitive, but the overall range of uses of these cases is wider and varies from one language to another. Even in Finnic and Basque, this definition does not cover all uses of the partitive case, as it does not reckon with the existence of partitive subjects. The name partitive assigned to this case in grammatical analyses of these languages reflects its core function as indicator of a ‘partial’ meaning. In some other languages a similar a function is attributed to a number of other cases, as in the case of the Hungarian partitive-ablative, and the partitive-genitive of various Indo-European languages (a separate partitive, lexically restricted, also exists in Russian). In grammatical analyses of those languages these cases are not called partitives, though some of their functions resemble those of dedicated partitive cases
Skalaarisuuden kielioppia: Kvanttoreiden ja astemääritteiden keskinäiset määrityssuhteet
Get PDFKirjoituksessa esitetään yleiskuva suomen kielen astemääritteiden sopivuudesta kvanttoreiden määritteiksi sekä ilmiön semanttisista ehdoista. Esimerkiksi ilmauksessa hyvin paljon astemäärite hyvin tarkentaa kvanttorin paljon ilmaisemaa kvantiteettia. Tarkastelun lähtökohtana on, että elementtien ilmaisema skalaarisuus on erityyppistä: kvanttoreiden skalaarinen merkitys toteutuu kvantiteettiskaalalla, astemääritteiden intensiteettiskaalalla. Kun astemäärite määrittää kvanttoria, kvanttorin ilmaisemaan kvantiteettiskaalaan liitetään astemääritteen ilmaisema intensiteettiskaala. Kvantiteettiskaalan ja intensiteettiskaalan on oltava yhteensopivia, jotta lopputulos olisi kielenmukainen. Siksi kaikki astemääritteet eivät sovi kaikkien kvanttorien määritteiksi. Vaikka melko paljon, erittäin vähän, melkein liikaa, ihan muutama ja erittäin harva ovat hyväksyttäviä, niin epäluontevia tai kielenvastaisia ovat ?melkein paljon, ?ihan usea, *erittäin liikaa ja *melko muutama, joissa edellä lueteltujen kielenmukaisten yhdistelmien aineksia on järjestelty toisin.
Kirjoituksessa esitetään ensin kvanttoreiden ja sitten astemääritteiden semanttinen ryhmittely, joka perustuu näistä aineksista kognitiivisen kielitieteen piirissä esitettyihin aiempiin kuvausmalleihin. Tämän jälkeen käydään systemaattisesti läpi eri astemääritetyyppien ja eri kvanttorityyppien yhteensopivuus. Tarkastelun tuloksena on, että avoimen skaalan astemääritteet (melko, hyvin, erittäin) sopivat ennen kaikkea normiviitteisten kvanttoreiden (vähän, paljon, harva, usea) määritteiksi. Erityyppiset sulkeisen skaalan astemääritteet taas sopivat määrittämään sellaisia kvanttoreita, joiden kvantitatiiviseen merkitykseen liittyy jonkinlainen raja. Useimmiten kyseessä on kvantiteetin maksimiraja (melkein kaikki, ihan jokainen), vähenevän tarkastelusuunnan kvanttoreilla myös minimiraja (aivan harva, ihan vähän). Mitä täsmällisempi kvanttorin ilmaisema raja on, sitä useammat sulkeisen skaalan astemääritetyypit sopivat sen määritteiksi.
The grammar of scalarity: On compatibility of degree modifiers and quantifiers in Finnish
The article presents an overall account of the suitability of Finnish degree modifiers (DM) as modifiers of quantifiers, and the semantic conditions of the phenomenon. For example, in the expression hyvin paljon ‘very much’, the DM hyvin ‘very’ modifies the quantifier paljon ‘much’ to further specify the quantity expressed.
The starting point of the analysis is that both quantifiers and DMs express a scalar meaning, but of a different kind. The scalar meaning of a quantifier is based on a quantity scale, while that of a DM is based on an intensity scale. When a DM modifies a quantifier, the intensity scale is appended to the quantity scale, to elaborate the quantitative meaning of the quantifier. For such a combination to be felicitous, the quantity scale and the intensity scale need to be compatible. This is why not all DMs are suitable to modify all quantifiers. While some combinations are felicitous, others result in ill-formedness.
The paper first presents semantic classifications of Finnish quantifiers and DMs, based on previous accounts of such elements (of other languages) in cognitive linguistics. The compatibility of different DM types with different quantifier types is then scrutinized systematically. The main result is that DMs of an open scale (‘fairly’, ‘very’, ‘extremely’) are suitable as modifiers of so-called normative quantifiers (‘little’, ‘much’, ‘few’, ‘many’), which behave like adjectives in that they set up pairs of antonyms distinguished by a norm. On the other hand, different types of closed-scale DMs are compatible with quantifiers whose quantitative meaning involves some kind of a limit. In many cases, the limit constitutes a maximal quantity (‘absolutely everything’, ‘almost everyone’). However, with normative quantifiers with a decreasing viewing direction the limit can be a minimal quantity (‘maximally few/little’). The more precise the limit expressed by a quantifier is, the better different closed-scale DM types suit to modify it.
Katseet kohti menetelmiä : Esimiehen alkajaissanat Suomen Kielen Seuran vuosikokouksessa 8.4.2021
Get PDFUudet rautaesiriput : Esimiehen alkajaissanat Suomen Kielen Seuran vuosikokouksessa 12.4.2022
Get PDFLokaalisen ja habitiivisen adverbiaalin vaikutusalasuhteet eksistentiaalilauseessa
Get PDFScope relations of local and habitive adverbials in existential sentences (englanti
Kvantiteetti ja aika II. Nominaalinen aspekti ja suomen predikatiivin sijanvaihtelu
Get PDFQuantity and time II: Nominal aspect and the case marking of the Finnish predicate nominal (englanti)1/2007 (111)Quantity and time II: Nominal aspect and the case marking of the Finnish predicate nominalThe article discusses nominal aspect as expressed in the Finnish copulative clause construction, in which the case marking of the predicate adjective (PA) indicates that the subject is understood as either a bounded entity (being a count noun) or an unbounded entity (being a mass noun). This can be seen in the opposition between Pyt on pyre [table.NOM be.PRES.3SG round.NOM] The table is round and Kahvi on musta+a [coffee.NOM be.PRES.3SG black+PAR] The coffee is black. In the first example the subject is a count noun and requires the PA to take the nominative case, whereas in the second example the subject is a mass noun and requires a partitive PA. In Finnish linguistics it has been argued that the nominative PA characterises the subject in a holistic way and attributes a quality to the referent of the subject as a whole, whereas the partitive PA expresses a distributive characterisation where the quality is independently attributed to each component of the subjects referent.The writer argues that the distributive meaning of the partitive PA often reflects a subjective dynamic conceptualisation, where the referent of the subject is scanned through in a serial way by the conceptualiser. In such cases it is not the nature of the subject as such but the nature of the conceptualisation that motivates the case selection. This can be seen in the following example, taken from a newspaper interview with a car driver who had been in an accident on an icy road: Tie+n pinta ol+i lasi+mais+ta [road+GEN surface.NOM be+PST.3SG glass+like+PAR] The road surface was like glass. Since the (whole) road surface is a bounded entity, the PA might be expected to take the nominative case, but the function of the partitive in this example is to reflect the nature of the experience of the driver, who is actually moving along the surface and encountering it in an incremental manner. This evokes a subjective serial conceptualisation of the road surface, even though the roads icy condition is continuous and holistic.The temporal sequentiality associated with the distributive interpretation is even more striking in copulative clauses which have an action noun as their subject. An action noun is a noun derived from a verb, and it profiles an action or event as lacking the temporality of a finite verb. The meaning of the action noun will be affected not only by the derivative affix and the degree of lexicalisation but also by the semantic nature of the stem verb from which it is derived, with some of the verbal semantic features of the stem verb being replaced by corresponding nominal features in the action noun. More precisely, the aspectual nature of the stem verb (bounded vs. unbounded) may be reflected in the count/mass distinction of the action noun. A general tendency is that action nouns derived from punctual, aspectually bounded verbs behave like count nouns in the copulative construction, taking the nominative PA, whereas action nouns derived from atelic verbs resemble mass nouns and take the partitive PA. In some cases both the nominative and the partitive are possible, although there may be a difference in meaning in the action noun subject: the nominative PA requires the action noun subject to be a count noun, thus designating a bounded event, whereas the partitive PA requires the subject to be a mass noun, designating an unbounded activity. An action noun that behaves like a count noun in a copulative clause profiles the whole action at one time, whereas an action noun behaving like a mass noun profiles the action in a progressive manner.It is argued that since activities are distributed in time rather than space, the distributive reading evoked by the partitive now necessarily (not optionally as with canonical nouns) requires a temporal order for the conceptualisation of the components. This is demonstrated by an interesting constraint in the use of durative modifiers in copulative clauses with an action noun subject: Hevose+n juoksu ol+i nopea+a/*nopea tunni+n [horse+GEN run be+PST.3SG fast+PAR/*NOM hour+ACC] For an hour, the horses run was swift. In this example, only the partitive and not the nominative PA is compatible with the durative modifier for an hour. This is because intuitively the nominative PA would require the subject to be interpreted as a count noun, designating a bounded event, but, as is well known in the linguistic study of aspect, bounded events cannot be re-bounded by durative modifiers (e.g. *John found the book for a second is awkward). The partitive PA in turn allows the action noun subject to be interpreted as a mass noun, indicating an unbounded event, thus permitting use of a durative modifier in the same way as in the unbounded John ran for an hour. The problem, however, is that action nouns are not verbs, and therefore they should not determine the aspectual contour of the clause. Instead, the aspectual meaning of a copulative clause should always be profiled by the copula verb to be, which is aspectually unbounded. Hence, all copulative constructions ought to allow direct durative modifiers. However, the use of durative modifiers is constrained due to the nominal aspect of the action noun. The distributive interpretation evoked by the partitive PA necessarily causes a serial scanning of the subjects referent because the referent is an event with a temporal extension. The situation resembles that found in sentences with an incremental theme, e.g. John ate the cake, where it is not the activity of eating as such but the quantitative extension of the cake that makes the situation bounded in time.Tuomas Huum
Onko jäädä-verbin paikallissijamääritteen tulosijalla semanttista motivaatiota?
Get PDFHow fictive dynamicity motivates directional case marking in the locative argument of jäädä 'remain' (englanti)4/2005 (109)HOW FICTIVE DYNAMICITY MOTIVATES DIRECTIONAL CASE MARKING IN THE LOCATIVE ARGUMENT OF JD REMAINA fundamental observation of cognitive linguistics is that language reflects our cognitive bias towards dynamism (Talmy 2000), in that we often use semantically dynamic elements when referring to static situations. The writer refers to this phenomenon as fictive dynamicity. Cognitive linguists generally agree that expressions incorporating this phenomenon reflect a dynamic conceptualisation of a static situation and that this arises because the conceptualiser selects a certain perspective and approaches the situation directionally. The best-known examples of fictive dynamicity are expressions of fictive motion (e.g. the phrase The road goes from A to B), but fictive dynamicity also manifests itself at more abstract, grammatical levels of language.The article examines the semantic motivation underlying the directional (to) case marking of the locative argument of the Finnish verb jd remain (e.g. Hn j+i koulu+un [s/he remain+PAST.3SG school+ILLATIVE] s/he remained at school). The meaning would seem to indicate no change, and so the verb might be expected to take a static argument instead of the illative case. However, the writer argues that the meaning of jd in fact indicates a fictive change which manifests itself as a deviation from a projected course of events, and that this fictive change motivates the directional case marking in its arguments.In general, the selection of a locative case is motivated by the nature of the situation designated, i.e. the static cases designate a setting or a location where the participants are continuously situated, whereas the directional cases designate a source or a goal of motion (or other kind of change). In Finnish, however, it has often been observed that many verbs require their locative modifiers to take a directional case even though the situation they designate includes neither motion nor a change that would motivate the use of these cases. By contrast, similar meanings are conveyed in many Indo-European languages through the use of semantically static expressions instead.The first part of the article summarises the conclusions of earlier studies, and the writer argues that even though expressions with directional cases may be static from a strictly spatial point of view, many of them nevertheless indicate a change that takes place at a more abstract level, e.g. in internal states or perceptive-cognitive relationships. It is argued that such dynamic meanings are the motivation for the use of the directional cases. The writer then examines the semantics of jd more closely, going through its dictionary meanings and showing that in fact many of these meanings are dynamic (e.g. changes of state). He also compares jd with its straightforwardly static counterpart pysy stay, and shows that the latter is actually a static verb proper, whereas jd is more dynamic. It is also demonstrated that jd is actually a punctual verb which only profiles the inceptive phase of a state and not the continuous state itself (presence in a location, state, etc.). This is clear in the change-of-state reading of the verb but less apparent in its static reading. However, the writer demonstrates that even in the latter case, remaining is itself a punctual relationship, though the state that temporally precedes it may be similar to the state that temporally follows it. Furthermore, jd contrasts the inceptive phase of a state with a projected course of events in which such inception would not have occurred but the entity would have left its location. This represents the inceptive phase of a state as a deviation from a projected course of events, i.e. it limits the designated situation by discounting any alternative development. The writer argues that this deviation creates a (fictively) dynamic meaning for the sentence in question and is also the main motivation for the use of the to cases in the locative arguments.Tuomas Huum
Hyvin edessä, ihan yläpuolella, melkein vierellä – Mitä astemääritteet kertovat akseligrammien semantiikasta
Get PDFAbstrakti. Projektiiviset grammit (kieliopilliset sanat, esimerkiksi edessä, oikealla, yläpuolella) asemoivat muuttujan (Figure) kolmiulotteiseen koordinaatistoon, jonka suhteutuskohtana on kiintopiste (Ground). Grammeilla on lisäksi skalaarisia merkityksiä, joita voidaan korostaa astemääritteiden avulla. Artikkelissa tarkastellaan suomen projektiivisten grammien esiintymismahdollisuuksia astemääritteiden kanssa, jotka ilmaisevat joko avointa (melko, hyvin) tai sulkeista skaalaa (melkein, aivan). Tarkastelussa erottuu kolme astemääritteen ja grammin yhteisesiintymän päätyyppiä. Tyypissä (1) muuttuja sijaitsee säiliömäisen kiintopisteen (kuten rakennuksen) sisäpuolella. Skalaarinen merkitys perustuu tällöin muuttujan vähenevään etäisyyteen kiintopisteen yhdestä sisärajasta (esimerkiksi seinästä): mitä lähempänä muuttuja sijaitsee rajaa, sitä korkeampi skalaarisuus (Istuin teatterissa melko edessä ~ ihan vasemmalla). Tyypissä (1) esiintyy niin avoimen kuin sulkeisen skaalan astemääritteitä. Kahdessa muussa päätyypissä muuttuja sijaitsee kiintopisteen ulkopuolella, ja skalaarisuus perustuu joko (2) muuttujan ja kiintopisteen välisen etäisyyden vähenemiseen (Auto seisoi ihan ’välittömästi’ oven edessä) tai (3) muuttujan skalaarisesti vähenevään poikkeamaan koordinaatiston jostain akselista (Lamppu riippui melkein ~ täsmälleen ’suoraan’ pöydän yläpuolella). Tyypeissä (2) ja (3) esiintyy vain sulkeisen skaalan astemääritteitä.
Abstract. Tuomas Huumo: What degree modifiers reveal about the meaning of Finnish spatial grams? Projective spatial grams (‘in front of’, ‘to the right of’, ‘above’) localize Figure (F) in a three-dimensional coordinate system with Ground (G) as its origin. This paper addresses the compatibility of Finnish projective grams with degree modifiers (DM). DMs comprise two types: a) open-scale DMs (‘somewhat’, ‘rather’, ‘very’) and b) closed-scale DMs (‘almost’, ‘quite’, ‘completely’). Three types of scalar meaning are observed. The first one (1) applies when F is inside G, and the scalar conceptualization is based on a decreasing distance between F and one extremity of the inside of G. In type (1), both open- and closed-scale DMs are felicitous. The two other types concern situations in which F is outside G and the scalar meaning is based on either (2) a decreasing distance between F and G or (3) an increasing preciseness of F’s alignment on an axis. In (2) and (3), only closed-scale DMs are felicitous.
Kokkuvõte. Tuomas Huumo: Mida kõnelevad astmemäärused soome keele projektiivsete grammide tähenduse kohta? Projektiivsed grammid (‘ees’, ‘paremal’, ‘kohal’) lokaliseerivad kujundi (Figure) kolmemõõtmelises koordinaatsüsteemis, mille alguspunktiks on taust (Ground). Artiklis analüüsitakse soome keele projektiivsete grammide koosesinemise võimalusi kaht tüüpi astmemäärustega: a) avatud skaala astmemäärused (intensiivsusmäärused, nt ‘natuke’, ‘üsna’, ‘väga’) ja b) suletud skaala astmemäärused (täielikkusastme määrused, nt ‘peaaegu’, ‘täiesti’). Autor eristab kolme astmemääruse ja grammi koosesinemise põhitüüpi. Tüübis (1) asub kujund kolmemõõtmelise tausta seespool. Skalaarne tähendus põhineb kujundi ning tausta siseruumi ühe serva vahelise kauguse vähenemisel: mida lähemal paikneb kujund servale, seda kõrgem on skalaarsus (nt ‘Istusin teatris üsna ees ~ päris vasakul’). Tüübis (1) esinevad nii avatud kui suletud skaala astmemäärused. Ülejäänud kahes tüübis paikneb kujund väljaspool tausta, ning skalaarsus põhineb kas (2) kujundi ja tausta vahelise kauguse vähenemisel (nt ‘Auto seisis peaaegu ~ täitsa ukse ees’) või (3) kujundi asendi väheneval kõrvalekaldel koordinaatsüsteemi teatud teljest (nt ‘Lamp rippus peaaegu ~ täpselt laua kohal’). Tüüpides (2) ja (3) esinevad ainult suletud skaala astmemäärused
- …
