Pub Date : 2017-01-27DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2016.10368
E. Romero
This paper is a corpus-based study of the evidential realisations of object-oriented perception verbs in English and Spanish written and oral media discourse. The main aim of the study is to analyse and compare the different uses and complementation patterns taken by the English words look and sound and their Spanish counterparts se ve and suena. The procedure followed involves a contrastive analysis methodology: (i) description of data, (ii) juxtaposition and (iii) contrast. The data has been taken from oral and written media discourse corpora in English and Spanish. The study has revealed interesting similarities and differences in the uses and complementation patterns adopted by object-oriented perception verbs in both written and oral English and Spanish, thus making a contribution to a debate in which Spanish has been obviated to date.
本文基于语料库研究了英语和西班牙语书面和口头媒体话语中面向对象感知动词的证据实现。本研究的主要目的是分析和比较英语单词look and sound与西班牙语单词se ve和suena的不同用法和互补模式。所遵循的程序涉及对比分析方法：（i）数据描述，（ii）并置和（iii）对比。数据来自英语和西班牙语的口头和书面媒体话语语料库。这项研究揭示了面向对象的感知动词在英语和西班牙语的书面和口头使用和互补模式方面的有趣相似之处和差异，从而为迄今为止西班牙语被排除在外的争论做出了贡献。
{"title":"Object-oriented perception: towards a contrastive approach to evidentiality in media discourse","authors":"E. Romero","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2016.10368","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2016.10368","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is a corpus-based study of the evidential realisations of object-oriented perception verbs in English and Spanish written and oral media discourse. The main aim of the study is to analyse and compare the different uses and complementation patterns taken by the English words look and sound and their Spanish counterparts se ve and suena. The procedure followed involves a contrastive analysis methodology: (i) description of data, (ii) juxtaposition and (iii) contrast. The data has been taken from oral and written media discourse corpora in English and Spanish. The study has revealed interesting similarities and differences in the uses and complementation patterns adopted by object-oriented perception verbs in both written and oral English and Spanish, thus making a contribution to a debate in which Spanish has been obviated to date.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"82-104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45689526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-27DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2016.10365
M. Bondi, A. Sezzi
The paper pivots around the different roles of evidentials and the different ways in which evidence is represented in the discourse of popular and academic history, thereby exploring the dynamics of both genres from a discourse analytical perspective. The analysis is based on two corpora of academic and popular articles on history. In particular, it is focused on those lexico-grammatical resources for tracing the speaker’s source and mode of information that constitute the distinguishing features of the two genres. The analysis shows that the high frequency of saw in popular articles refers to the narrative of history, and to the evidence provided by historical characters and sources, rather than by the speaker. The frequency of the attributor according in academic journal articles, on the other hand, clearly qualifies as evidentiality in the narrative of historiography, and acts as a marker of the importance of sources in historical reasoning. The different frequencies thus seem to be related to the different communicative and social functions of the two genres and to be closely connected with the triptych of narratives (Bondi 2015) involved in historical discourse.
{"title":"Evidence (re)presentation and evidentials in popular and academic history: facts and sources speaking for themselves","authors":"M. Bondi, A. Sezzi","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2016.10365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2016.10365","url":null,"abstract":"The paper pivots around the different roles of evidentials and the different ways in which evidence is represented in the discourse of popular and academic history, thereby exploring the dynamics of both genres from a discourse analytical perspective. The analysis is based on two corpora of academic and popular articles on history. In particular, it is focused on those lexico-grammatical resources for tracing the speaker’s source and mode of information that constitute the distinguishing features of the two genres. The analysis shows that the high frequency of saw in popular articles refers to the narrative of history, and to the evidence provided by historical characters and sources, rather than by the speaker. The frequency of the attributor according in academic journal articles, on the other hand, clearly qualifies as evidentiality in the narrative of historiography, and acts as a marker of the importance of sources in historical reasoning. The different frequencies thus seem to be related to the different communicative and social functions of the two genres and to be closely connected with the triptych of narratives (Bondi 2015) involved in historical discourse.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"7-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46915138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-27DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2016.10377
J. Šinkūnienė
Johan van der Auwera is Professor of General and English Linguistics at the University of Antwerp. He holds undergraduate degrees in Germanic Philology and in Philosophy (1975). His PhD was on the philosophy of language (1980) and his ‘habilitationʼ was on the structure of the noun phrase (1990). He was/is a member (or chair) of expert committees for national and international research councils, most prominently, the European Research Council (2006–2013), the European Science Foundation (2005– 2010), the Belgian Research Councils (Flemish 2000–2009, French 2010–2015), the French, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian Research Councils (mandates with various lengths), as well as various national research assessment committees. He is a member of the Academia Europaea and was president of the Societas Linguistica Europaea in 2005. He has published 6 monographs and over 200 scholarly articles, most of them in refereed journals or collective volumes, in English, but some also in Dutch, French, German, Croatian, and Russian. He has edited 23 books or theme issues of journals and is on the board of 8 journals and book series, most prominently Linguistics, of which he has been the editor-in-chief since 2005. His Google scholar h-index is 29. His research focuses on grammatical semantics with special reference to conditionals, mood, modality, negation, indefinites, impersonals, and similatives from a synchronic and diachronic as well as an areal perspective, and occasionally from a historiographical point of view. Languages studied are English, including New Englishes and Creoles, Germanic languages, European languages and the totality of the worldʼs languages (typology).
{"title":"Modality, Semantic Maps and Lithuania: an interview with Johan van der Auwera","authors":"J. Šinkūnienė","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2016.10377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2016.10377","url":null,"abstract":"Johan van der Auwera is Professor of General and English Linguistics at the University of Antwerp. He holds undergraduate degrees in Germanic Philology and in Philosophy (1975). His PhD was on the philosophy of language (1980) and his ‘habilitationʼ was on the structure of the noun phrase (1990). He was/is a member (or chair) of expert committees for national and international research councils, most prominently, the European Research Council (2006–2013), the European Science Foundation (2005– 2010), the Belgian Research Councils (Flemish 2000–2009, French 2010–2015), the French, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian Research Councils (mandates with various lengths), as well as various national research assessment committees. He is a member of the Academia Europaea and was president of the Societas Linguistica Europaea in 2005. He has published 6 monographs and over 200 scholarly articles, most of them in refereed journals or collective volumes, in English, but some also in Dutch, French, German, Croatian, and Russian. He has edited 23 books or theme issues of journals and is on the board of 8 journals and book series, most prominently Linguistics, of which he has been the editor-in-chief since 2005. His Google scholar h-index is 29. His research focuses on grammatical semantics with special reference to conditionals, mood, modality, negation, indefinites, impersonals, and similatives from a synchronic and diachronic as well as an areal perspective, and occasionally from a historiographical point of view. Languages studied are English, including New Englishes and Creoles, Germanic languages, European languages and the totality of the worldʼs languages (typology).","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"294-304"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49277944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-27DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2016.10366
M. Carretero
This paper presents an analysis of the expression of evidentiality with the English nouns evidence, indication, proof and sign and their Spanish equivalents evidencia, indicacion, prueba and senal. The nouns are described as shell nouns having the properties of encapsulating, signalling and labelling. The delimitation of their evidential and non-evidential uses is determined by three factors: existence of a qualified proposition (Belief), non-occurrence within an irrealis context and constant value of the evidential qualification when the Belief refers to a plurality of events. The difficulties posed by the delimitation illustrate the problems involved in determining the scope of evidentiality when expressed by lexical devices belonging to the content of a proposition. A quantitative analysis was carried out on 400 occurrences of the nouns, extracted from two comparable corpora. The results reveal that all the nouns except two expressed evidentiality in most cases, that the linguistic context in which they appear shows great variation in terms of syntax and information structure, and that the labelling function is prominent. The results also uncover idiosyncratic evidential expressions with some of the nouns.
{"title":"Noun Phrases as expressions of evidentiality: an analysis of four English abstract nouns and their Spanish equivalents","authors":"M. Carretero","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2016.10366","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2016.10366","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents an analysis of the expression of evidentiality with the English nouns evidence, indication, proof and sign and their Spanish equivalents evidencia, indicacion, prueba and senal. The nouns are described as shell nouns having the properties of encapsulating, signalling and labelling. The delimitation of their evidential and non-evidential uses is determined by three factors: existence of a qualified proposition (Belief), non-occurrence within an irrealis context and constant value of the evidential qualification when the Belief refers to a plurality of events. The difficulties posed by the delimitation illustrate the problems involved in determining the scope of evidentiality when expressed by lexical devices belonging to the content of a proposition. A quantitative analysis was carried out on 400 occurrences of the nouns, extracted from two comparable corpora. The results reveal that all the nouns except two expressed evidentiality in most cases, that the linguistic context in which they appear shows great variation in terms of syntax and information structure, and that the labelling function is prominent. The results also uncover idiosyncratic evidential expressions with some of the nouns.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"29-58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49043377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-27DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2016.10374
Audronė Šolienė
This paper deals with the three types of modality – epistemic, deontic and dynamic. It examines the relation between the synchronic uses of the modal auxiliary must and the semi-modals have to and have got to as well as their Lithuanian translation correspondences (TCs) found in a bidirectional translation corpus. The study exploits quantitative and qualitative methods of research. The purpose is to find out which type of modality is most common in the use of must, have to and have got to; to establish their equivalents in Lithuanian in terms of congruent or non-congruent correspondence (Johansson 2007); and to determine how Lithuanian TCs (verbs or adverbials) correlate with different types of modality expressed. The analysis has shown that must is mostly used to convey epistemic nuances, while have to and have got to feature in non-epistemic environments. The findings show that must can boast of a great diversity of TCs. Some of them may serve as epistemic markers; others appear in deontic domains only. Have (got) to, on the other hand, is usually rendered by the modal verbs reikėti ‘need’ and turėti ‘must/have to’, which usually encode deontic modality.
{"title":"(Non)epistemic modality: English must, have to and have got to and their correspondences in Lithuanian","authors":"Audronė Šolienė","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2016.10374","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2016.10374","url":null,"abstract":"This paper deals with the three types of modality – epistemic, deontic and dynamic. It examines the relation between the synchronic uses of the modal auxiliary must and the semi-modals have to and have got to as well as their Lithuanian translation correspondences (TCs) found in a bidirectional translation corpus. The study exploits quantitative and qualitative methods of research. The purpose is to find out which type of modality is most common in the use of must, have to and have got to; to establish their equivalents in Lithuanian in terms of congruent or non-congruent correspondence (Johansson 2007); and to determine how Lithuanian TCs (verbs or adverbials) correlate with different types of modality expressed. The analysis has shown that must is mostly used to convey epistemic nuances, while have to and have got to feature in non-epistemic environments. The findings show that must can boast of a great diversity of TCs. Some of them may serve as epistemic markers; others appear in deontic domains only. Have (got) to, on the other hand, is usually rendered by the modal verbs reikėti ‘need’ and turėti ‘must/have to’, which usually encode deontic modality.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"223-245"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49242734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-27DOI: 10.15388/Klbt.2016.10378
Anna Ruskan
{"title":"Svenja Kranich. 2016. Contrastive pragmatics and translation: Evaluation, epistemic modality and communicative styles in English and German. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. P.p xiv + 204. ISBN 978 90 272 5666 9.","authors":"Anna Ruskan","doi":"10.15388/Klbt.2016.10378","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/Klbt.2016.10378","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"305-311"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49483135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-27DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2016.10367
Joanna Chojnicka
The paper offers a functional analysis of three Latvian verbs of speaking used in their indicative third person forms – saka, runā and stāsta ‘say(s), speak(s) and talk(s)’ – based on the Latvian language corpus online (www.korpuss.lv) and, additionally, on examples excerpted from Internet discourse. The article discusses semantic and syntactic similarities and differences between these words, the functions of particular constructions distinguished according to specific syntactic criteria (presence vs. absence of a subject), and the use of these verbs in combination with the Latvian verb form traditionally associated with (potential) evidential meanings, the oblique (atstāstījuma izteiksme). While the use of verbs of speaking for introducing reported speech is seen as unproblematic, the relationship between verba dicendi and evidentiality requires more attention and remains in focus throughout this study. In order to offer an in-depth overview of the nature of this relationship, the relations between reported speech and evidentiality, as well as the oblique and evidentiality, are also briefly considered. The paper concludes that the possibility of the three verbs functioning as evidential markers depends on considerations of theoretical/terminological nature (how to define evidentiality, should reported speech be considered part of it, etc.) and also, to some extent, on the way the subject is realized in verba dicendi constructions (specific human agent vs. non-specific empty subject and absent or zero subject).
{"title":"Latvian verbs of speaking and their relations to evidentiality","authors":"Joanna Chojnicka","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2016.10367","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2016.10367","url":null,"abstract":"The paper offers a functional analysis of three Latvian verbs of speaking used in their indicative third person forms – saka, runā and stāsta ‘say(s), speak(s) and talk(s)’ – based on the Latvian language corpus online (www.korpuss.lv) and, additionally, on examples excerpted from Internet discourse. The article discusses semantic and syntactic similarities and differences between these words, the functions of particular constructions distinguished according to specific syntactic criteria (presence vs. absence of a subject), and the use of these verbs in combination with the Latvian verb form traditionally associated with (potential) evidential meanings, the oblique (atstāstījuma izteiksme). While the use of verbs of speaking for introducing reported speech is seen as unproblematic, the relationship between verba dicendi and evidentiality requires more attention and remains in focus throughout this study. In order to offer an in-depth overview of the nature of this relationship, the relations between reported speech and evidentiality, as well as the oblique and evidentiality, are also briefly considered. The paper concludes that the possibility of the three verbs functioning as evidential markers depends on considerations of theoretical/terminological nature (how to define evidentiality, should reported speech be considered part of it, etc.) and also, to some extent, on the way the subject is realized in verba dicendi constructions (specific human agent vs. non-specific empty subject and absent or zero subject).","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"59-81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46732669","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-27DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2016.10371
P. Mur-Dueñas
When publishing the results of their research, scholars need to convince their readers of the validity of their claims, adjusting their writing to the prevailing discursive and rhetorical conventions. Hedges play a crucial role in persuading readers of such validity. Previous cross-cultural research in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) has revealed significant differences in the use of these interpersonal features in research articles (RAs) in different languages and publication contexts. In this paper, hedging modal verbs will be contrastively analysed in a corpus of RAs written by English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) users and by native English scholars affiliated to Anglophone institutions in the field of Business Management. The frequency of use of hedging modal verbs, their main functional uses, and their particular phraseological realizations will be examined. The results will help us gain an insight into how new knowledge claims are negotiated in international English-medium publications in this discipline as well as into the particular shaping of ELF written academic communication.
{"title":"Modal hedging verbs in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Business Management research articles","authors":"P. Mur-Dueñas","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2016.10371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2016.10371","url":null,"abstract":"When publishing the results of their research, scholars need to convince their readers of the validity of their claims, adjusting their writing to the prevailing discursive and rhetorical conventions. Hedges play a crucial role in persuading readers of such validity. Previous cross-cultural research in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) has revealed significant differences in the use of these interpersonal features in research articles (RAs) in different languages and publication contexts. In this paper, hedging modal verbs will be contrastively analysed in a corpus of RAs written by English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) users and by native English scholars affiliated to Anglophone institutions in the field of Business Management. The frequency of use of hedging modal verbs, their main functional uses, and their particular phraseological realizations will be examined. The results will help us gain an insight into how new knowledge claims are negotiated in international English-medium publications in this discipline as well as into the particular shaping of ELF written academic communication.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"153-178"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42313819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-27DOI: 10.15388/KLBT.2016.10376
R. Whitt
Most research on evidentiality has focused on classifying evidential systems synchronically; meanwhile, diachronic studies on evidentiality seem to have focused on the development of specific items into evidential markers with little regard to discourse context. This paper begins to fill this gap by presenting the results of a corpus-based study of evidential markers in Early Modern scientific discourse in English and German. The Early Modern period witnessed the transition from scholastic-based models of science to more empirical models of enquiry; this study demonstrates a decrease in the use of markers of mediated information and an increase in the use of markers of direct observation and inference accompanying these sociohistorical developments.
{"title":"Using corpora to track changing thought styles: evidentiality, epistemology, and Early Modern English and German scientific discourse","authors":"R. Whitt","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2016.10376","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2016.10376","url":null,"abstract":"Most research on evidentiality has focused on classifying evidential systems synchronically; meanwhile, diachronic studies on evidentiality seem to have focused on the development of specific items into evidential markers with little regard to discourse context. This paper begins to fill this gap by presenting the results of a corpus-based study of evidential markers in Early Modern scientific discourse in English and German. The Early Modern period witnessed the transition from scholastic-based models of science to more empirical models of enquiry; this study demonstrates a decrease in the use of markers of mediated information and an increase in the use of markers of direct observation and inference accompanying these sociohistorical developments.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"267-293"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48597115","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-27DOI: 10.15388/Klbt.2016.10369
Erika Jasionytė-Mikučionienė
The verbs of coming and going as a means of modality have been investigated in a number of languages: Russian (Majsak 2005; Bourdin 2014), Latvian (Walchli 1996, 2000), Estonian (Penjam 2006), Finnish (Kangasniemi 1992) and others. However, with the exception of some observations made by Walchli (1996) or Nau (2012), the realization of modality by ‘come’ or ‘go’ verbs in Lithuanian has not been thoroughly examined. Thus, the present paper is concerned with a diachronic as well as synchronic variation pertaining to two Lithuanian verbs of motion that contain the root ‘go’, i.e. pareiti ‘come home, return’ and prieiti ‘approach on foot’ as well as their reflexive counterparts. The article seeks to establish to what extent the verbs under analysis have developed modal meanings in Contemporary Lithuanian as well as the earliest period of the language (16th–17th centuries) and to account for the possible diachronic evolution of modal meanings. It focuses on both qualitative as well as quantitative parameters. The data have been collected from the old written Lithuanian texts (16th–17th centuries) and the corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, namely its subcorpus of fiction texts. The text sample on which the study is based shows that the modal constructions with the Lithuanian verbs of motion based on the root ‘go’ appear in the 16th century. It is only the reflexive forms pareitis(i) (‘PREF-go-REFL’) and prieitis(i) (‘PREF-go-REFL’) that have potential to realise non-epistemic modality: the analysed material did not reveal any instances where non-reflexive forms pareiti and prieiti are used to convey modality. The predominant modal meaning of the reflexive verbs pareitis(i) and prieitis(i) concerns the meaning of participant-external as well as deontic necessity. As for Contemporary Lithuanian, the ‘go’-derived necessive constructions are rather marginal in the contemporary system of modality: the verbs under analysis are more common in spoken Lithuanian or dialects than in written Lithuanian. Moreover, semantic distribution among the reflexive verbs under consideration differs in Old and in Contemporary Lithuanian. Deontic necessity takes the leading position among the reflexive verb pareitis(i) in Old Lithuanian, whereas participant-external necessity predominates among the reflexive verb prisieiti in Contemporary Lithuanian.
{"title":"On the modal functions of Lithuanian verbs of coming","authors":"Erika Jasionytė-Mikučionienė","doi":"10.15388/Klbt.2016.10369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/Klbt.2016.10369","url":null,"abstract":"The verbs of coming and going as a means of modality have been investigated in a number of languages: Russian (Majsak 2005; Bourdin 2014), Latvian (Walchli 1996, 2000), Estonian (Penjam 2006), Finnish (Kangasniemi 1992) and others. However, with the exception of some observations made by Walchli (1996) or Nau (2012), the realization of modality by ‘come’ or ‘go’ verbs in Lithuanian has not been thoroughly examined. Thus, the present paper is concerned with a diachronic as well as synchronic variation pertaining to two Lithuanian verbs of motion that contain the root ‘go’, i.e. pareiti ‘come home, return’ and prieiti ‘approach on foot’ as well as their reflexive counterparts. The article seeks to establish to what extent the verbs under analysis have developed modal meanings in Contemporary Lithuanian as well as the earliest period of the language (16th–17th centuries) and to account for the possible diachronic evolution of modal meanings. It focuses on both qualitative as well as quantitative parameters. The data have been collected from the old written Lithuanian texts (16th–17th centuries) and the corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, namely its subcorpus of fiction texts. The text sample on which the study is based shows that the modal constructions with the Lithuanian verbs of motion based on the root ‘go’ appear in the 16th century. It is only the reflexive forms pareitis(i) (‘PREF-go-REFL’) and prieitis(i) (‘PREF-go-REFL’) that have potential to realise non-epistemic modality: the analysed material did not reveal any instances where non-reflexive forms pareiti and prieiti are used to convey modality. The predominant modal meaning of the reflexive verbs pareitis(i) and prieitis(i) concerns the meaning of participant-external as well as deontic necessity. As for Contemporary Lithuanian, the ‘go’-derived necessive constructions are rather marginal in the contemporary system of modality: the verbs under analysis are more common in spoken Lithuanian or dialects than in written Lithuanian. Moreover, semantic distribution among the reflexive verbs under consideration differs in Old and in Contemporary Lithuanian. Deontic necessity takes the leading position among the reflexive verb pareitis(i) in Old Lithuanian, whereas participant-external necessity predominates among the reflexive verb prisieiti in Contemporary Lithuanian.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"69 1","pages":"105-120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44173372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：