Papers by Benita Riaubienė
The article discusses morphosyntactic and semantic properties of the constructions conveying resu... more The article discusses morphosyntactic and semantic properties of the constructions conveying resultative secondary predication in Lithuanian and Latvian. The Baltic languages have developed specific formal encoding patterns for resultatives although some parallels with neighbouring Slavic and Finnic languages can be inferred. The meaning of the resultative construction in Baltics can be generated in a few ways depending on the semantics and the argument structure of the verb. I propose that actional properties as well as the retention or transformation of the argument structure of the verb allow three types of resultatives to be distinguished.
The paper examines Lithuanian posture constructions such as stovi stačias ‘stands uprightʼ which ... more The paper examines Lithuanian posture constructions such as stovi stačias ‘stands uprightʼ which have been briefly discussed in Holvoet (2008). However, a more exhaustive examination has not been carried out yet. The discussion is based on 1002 examples from The Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language.
Some of the secondary predicates occurring in posture constructions exhibit semantic features of either resultatives or depictives, while the others cannot be clearly judged as resultatives or depictives since they show both kinds of features. The encoding of the secondary predicates also oscillates between the depictive and the resultative marking. Thus the purpose of the paper is to establish the factors which determine different semantic interpretations and different formal marking of the construction.
The author follows Holvoet (2008) in assuming that the semantic structure of the constructions depends on the semantic features of the verb. It is proposed that the lexical aspect and the lexical meaning of the verb determine a resultative, a depictive or a “neutralized” (“intermediate”) interpretation of the construction.
As the data show, the secondary predicate is usually encoded by an adjective (depictive-like marking), however, sometimes it is expressed by an adverb (resultative-like marking) as well. It is assumed that the choice between the adjective and the adverb is determined by the lexical features of the secondary predicate rather than of the verb. Some of the posture notions seem to be more oriented towards the participant of an event and thus opt to be expressed by an adjective, while others are more oriented towards the event and therefore are encoded by an adverb.
It is hypothesized that the reason for the oscillating marking lies in the constructions with a neutralized meaning. The cases which are ambiguous between the depictive and the resultative meaning constitute a precondition for establishing the double marking. This twofold marking is then extended to the constructions which carry clearly the depictive or the resultative meaning.
Straipsnyje aptariama rezultatinės antrinės predikacijos sąvoka, atskiriami tikrieji rezultatyvai... more Straipsnyje aptariama rezultatinės antrinės predikacijos sąvoka, atskiriami tikrieji rezultatyvai nuo tariamųjų rezultatyvų. Pastarieji neturi vieno iš esminių rezultatyvų bruožų – priežastinio santykio tarp pirminės ir antrinės predikacijos ir todėl priskiriami nagrinėjamo reiškinio periferijai. Toliau pristatomi rezultatyvų raiškos būdai lietuvių, rusų ir lenkų kalbose, aptariama šių raiškos būdų distribucija ir pateikiamas jos paaiškinimas. Daroma išvada, kad nors lietuvių kalbos rezultatyvai ir turi panašumų su kaimyninių slavų kalbų rezultatyvais, jų raišką lemia kitokie semantiniai veiksniai. Straipsnyje nevengiama remtis ir kitų kalbų duomenimis.
1. Prūsistikos veikaluose dūriniams paprastai skiriama palyginti nedaug dėmesio -J. E n d z e l y... more 1. Prūsistikos veikaluose dūriniams paprastai skiriama palyginti nedaug dėmesio -J. E n d z e l y n a s (1944,(59)(60)(61), V. M a ž i u l i s (2004, 22) pasitenkina jų klasifikacija pagal pirmojo dėmens formą. Tradiciškai skiriami vadinamieji kamieno dūriniai, kurių pirmuoju dėmeniu eina (i)a, ā, ē, i, u ir priebalsinio kamieno formos, ir linksnio dūriniai, kurių pirmasis dėmuo yra linksnio forma. Kai kuriose gramatikose dūriniai atskirai visai neaptariami (plg. T r a u t m a n n 1910; S c h m a l s t i e g 1974).
Uploads
Papers by Benita Riaubienė
Some of the secondary predicates occurring in posture constructions exhibit semantic features of either resultatives or depictives, while the others cannot be clearly judged as resultatives or depictives since they show both kinds of features. The encoding of the secondary predicates also oscillates between the depictive and the resultative marking. Thus the purpose of the paper is to establish the factors which determine different semantic interpretations and different formal marking of the construction.
The author follows Holvoet (2008) in assuming that the semantic structure of the constructions depends on the semantic features of the verb. It is proposed that the lexical aspect and the lexical meaning of the verb determine a resultative, a depictive or a “neutralized” (“intermediate”) interpretation of the construction.
As the data show, the secondary predicate is usually encoded by an adjective (depictive-like marking), however, sometimes it is expressed by an adverb (resultative-like marking) as well. It is assumed that the choice between the adjective and the adverb is determined by the lexical features of the secondary predicate rather than of the verb. Some of the posture notions seem to be more oriented towards the participant of an event and thus opt to be expressed by an adjective, while others are more oriented towards the event and therefore are encoded by an adverb.
It is hypothesized that the reason for the oscillating marking lies in the constructions with a neutralized meaning. The cases which are ambiguous between the depictive and the resultative meaning constitute a precondition for establishing the double marking. This twofold marking is then extended to the constructions which carry clearly the depictive or the resultative meaning.
Some of the secondary predicates occurring in posture constructions exhibit semantic features of either resultatives or depictives, while the others cannot be clearly judged as resultatives or depictives since they show both kinds of features. The encoding of the secondary predicates also oscillates between the depictive and the resultative marking. Thus the purpose of the paper is to establish the factors which determine different semantic interpretations and different formal marking of the construction.
The author follows Holvoet (2008) in assuming that the semantic structure of the constructions depends on the semantic features of the verb. It is proposed that the lexical aspect and the lexical meaning of the verb determine a resultative, a depictive or a “neutralized” (“intermediate”) interpretation of the construction.
As the data show, the secondary predicate is usually encoded by an adjective (depictive-like marking), however, sometimes it is expressed by an adverb (resultative-like marking) as well. It is assumed that the choice between the adjective and the adverb is determined by the lexical features of the secondary predicate rather than of the verb. Some of the posture notions seem to be more oriented towards the participant of an event and thus opt to be expressed by an adjective, while others are more oriented towards the event and therefore are encoded by an adverb.
It is hypothesized that the reason for the oscillating marking lies in the constructions with a neutralized meaning. The cases which are ambiguous between the depictive and the resultative meaning constitute a precondition for establishing the double marking. This twofold marking is then extended to the constructions which carry clearly the depictive or the resultative meaning.