2017
DOI: 10.1017/cnj.2016.38
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On binding, lexical and superlexical prefixes, andsiin the Baltic verb

Abstract: The present paper is concerned with a historical puzzle: the changing position of the markersiin the extant Baltic languages, Lithuanian and Latvian.Siappears before the root in prefixed verbs and verb-finally in prefixless verbs in Lithuanian and dialectal Latvian, as opposed to a consistently verb-final position in standard Latvian and in Slavic languages, specifically Russian. This ordering is examined within a larger picture of morpheme linearization – focusing primarily on Lithuanian, but also bringing in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
(109 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Having argued for the applicability of Rizzi's analysis to Baltic languages, we formally account for the placement and interplay of the Latvian grammatical prefixes, viz., the incompatibility of jā-and nein Standard Latvian as well as marginal cases where both prefixes are encountered (e.g., Ivulāne 2015). The discussion is placed with reference to Lithuanian, which manifests a similar, yet significantly different relationship between the permissive and restrictive meanings of te-and the negative ne- (Korostenskiene 2017).…”
Section: A Generative Syntactic Perspective On Latvian Grammatical Pr...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Having argued for the applicability of Rizzi's analysis to Baltic languages, we formally account for the placement and interplay of the Latvian grammatical prefixes, viz., the incompatibility of jā-and nein Standard Latvian as well as marginal cases where both prefixes are encountered (e.g., Ivulāne 2015). The discussion is placed with reference to Lithuanian, which manifests a similar, yet significantly different relationship between the permissive and restrictive meanings of te-and the negative ne- (Korostenskiene 2017).…”
Section: A Generative Syntactic Perspective On Latvian Grammatical Pr...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Holvoet (2020) uses the term 'middle voice' as a cover term for the grammatical uses of reflexives. There are different types and subtypes of middles in Lithuanian: anticausative, deobjective, facilitative, etc.9Haspelmath (2011) suggests that the Lithuanian -si-could be considered as a clitic Korostenskiene (2017). arrives at the same conclusion on the basis of a detailed analysis within the…”
mentioning
confidence: 94%