Parentheticals and the dialogicity of signs

The term ‘parenthetical’ is applied to an almost unlimited range of linguistic phenomena, which share but one common feature, namely their being used parenthetically. Parenthetic use is mostly described in terms of embedding an expression into some host sentence. Actually, however, it is anything but clear what it means for an expression to be used parenthetically, from both a syntactic and a semantic point of view.Given that in most, if not all, cases the alleged host sentence can be considered syntactically and semantically complete in itself, it needs to be asked what kind of information the parenthetical contributes to the overall structure. Another issue to be addressed concerns the nature of the relation between parenthetical and host (explanation, question, etc.) and the question what is it that holds them together.Trying to figure out the basic function of parentheticals, the present paper proposes a semiotic analysis of parenthetically used expressions. This semiotic analysis is not intended to replace linguistic approaches, but is meant to elaborate on why parentheticals are so hard to capture linguistically. Taking a dynamic conception of signs and sign processes (in the sense of Peirce, Voloshinov and Bahtin) as starting point, parentheticals are argued to render explicit the inherent dialogicity of signs and utterances. This inherent dialogicity is hardly ever taken into consideration in linguistic analyses, which take the two-dimensional linearity of language as granted

‘Зная, как’ в словенском языке: идя по иному пути

For the linguistic expression of the concept of knowledge, the Slavic languages use verbs deriving from the Indo-European roots *ĝnō and *ṷei̭d. They differ in terms of the availability of both types of verbs in the contemporary standard languages and in terms of their semantic range. As will be shown in this paper, these differences are interesting not only from a language-specific lexicological point of view, but also in the context of the intersection of lexicon and grammar. Covering the domain of ‘knowing how,’ the *ĝnō-based verb in Slovene (znati) has been extending into the domain of possibility and, on this basis, developing into a modal verb. While this development is not surprising from a typological point of view, it is remarkable from a Slavic perspective, since this particular grammaticalisation path towards possibility is otherwise unknown to Slavic. This peculiar feature of Slovene, which most probably relates to its long-lasting and intensive contact with German, is illustrated in the present paper by comparing Slovene to Russian on the basis of three main questions: 1) the semantic range of vedeti / vedatʹ and znati / znatʹ, 2) the lexicalisation of ‘know how,’ and 3) the relation between knowledge, ability, and possibility. The focus is on contemporary Slovene and Russian, leaving a detailed diachronic investigation and the further embedding into a larger Slavic and areal perspective for future analyses.Для выражения понятия знания славянские языки используют глаголы, производные от индоевропейских корней *ĝnō и *ṷei̭d, но различаются условиями употребления обоих типов этих глаголов в современной литературной норме и условиями их семантического ранжирования. Как показано в настоящей статье, эти различия интересны не только с точки зрения лингвоспецифичности лексики, но также в контексте пересечения лексики и грамматики. Обслуживая сферу значений ‘зная, как’, словенский глагол с основой *ĝnō (znati) распространился и на семантическую сферу возможности и благодаря этому стал модальным глаголом. Хотя этот сдвиг и не удивителен с типологической точки зрения, он примечателен в общеславянской перспективе, поскольку этот особый путь грамматикализации в сторону семантики возможности в целом не известен прочим славянским языкам. Эта характерная черта словенского языка, которая, скорее всего, связана с длительными и интенсивными его контактами с немецким, проиллюстрирована в настоящей статье сравнением словенского языка с русским в трёх главных аспектах: 1) семантический диапазон глаголов vedeti / ведать и znati / знать, 2) лексикализация значения ‘знать, как’ и 3) взаимоотношения между понятиями знания, способности и возможности. Основное внимание уделено современным словенскому и русскому языкам, без подробных экскурсов в их историю, но с прицелом на дальнейшее исследование данного вопроса в широкой славянской и ареальной перспективе

Relative coordination. Kateri-/koteri-relatives in 18th century Slovene and Kajkavian

As compared to their contemporary varieties, 18th century Slovene and Kajkavian literary sources exhibit a larger range of relative clause constructions introduced by the interrogative-based pronouns kateri/koteri ‘which’. Systematising this variation promises to add to the debate on the typology of relativisation strategies and relative clause structures, and to allow for a closer understanding of the emergence of the relativising function for kateri/koteri (and cognates). Focusing in particular on the structures that are marginal or even obsolete in the contemporary varieties, the argument put forth in this paper is that in times of a developing literacy with specific needs in terms of content and elaboration, Latin might have served as a model for kateri-/koteri-constructions in 18th century Slovene and Kajkavian. More specifically, authors used language inherent means, i.e., interrogative pronouns of the type ‘which of two’, in new functions to adapt a structure available in Latin such as to meet particular genre-specific purposes. The fact that some of these structures went out of use with the diminishing role of the relevant genres illustrates how literary trends may coin functional and/or structural patterns that might appear marginal at first sight but are actually highly revealing for gaining insight into the processes that drive language contact and change

Prefixal articles across domains: Syntactic licensing in Albanian

In this article we venture to elucidate the origin of the Albanian subjunctive marker të-. We contend that this marker is historically linked to a morphosyntactic device which is traditionally described as linking article and which licenses nominal syntactic units as constituents of larger syntactic units. Based on the observation that there is a substantial distributional, functional and semantic overlap between nonfinite verbal forms marked with të- and finite subjunctive predicates, we propose that the subjunctive marker spread across host classes from nominals to nonfinite predicates and to finite subjunctive predicates. The spread into the finite verbal domain is areally fostered, while the licensing device itself is an independent Albanian development that possibly picks up a vertical, Indo-European signal

Aspects of conativity in Russian: towards a linguistics of attempt and success

The psychological notion ‘conation’ refers to “the element in psychological processes that tends towards activity or change and appears as desire, volition, and striving” (CED). Similarly, the term ‘conative’ figures also in linguistics, where it has been used in a variety of ways (see Vincent 2013 for an overview), among them as a label for the addressee-oriented function of language (Jakobson 1992 [1960]) as instantiated, e.g., by vocatives and imperatives, and as identifying “morphemes or constructions in which there is a sense of trying” (Vincent 2013: 284). This latter understanding is central for the present paper, which focuses on the konativnoe značenie ‘conative reading’ of the Russian ipfv1 aspect and conation as expressed by verbs of trying. Particular attention will be paid to the semantic conditions and pragmatic mechanism based on which the conative reading may arise. To this end, the lexical and event semantic properties of conative verbs and verbs of trying will be systematised and embedded into philosophical considerations on the nature of intention, attempt and action. This helps to elucidate the regularities underlying the linguistic expression of conation and provides a basis for further investigations on the linguistics of attempt at the semantics-pragmatics interface and in the context of closely related domains such as (anti-)resultativity (in the sense of Plungjan 2001) and the intersection of ability and modality. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces examples illustrating the linguistic expression of conativity in Russian, which is imbedded in a more general discussion concerning the relation of intention, attempt and success in section 3. Section 4 elaborates a semantic description of verbs allowing for a conative interpretation and of verbs of trying. This provides the basis for the comparison of implicit and explicit conativity in section 5. Section 6 offers a short outlook, embedding the topic of conativity into a broader context

Pairing peers and pears: Changing conventions of Gheg Albanian heritage speakers

Migration events splitting speaker communities and establishing novel contact situations are among the major drivers of language variation and change. While the precise processes that lead to change cannot usually be determined for past events with any certainty, the study of minority and heritage language usage in apparent time may provide insight into the contribution of the linguistic behavior underlying the dynamics. We capitalize on this and compare parts of speech usage in Pear Story renarrations across Gheg Albanian speakers of three generations in German-speaking environments, applying methods from information theory. The results suggest that the changing conventions in parts of speech usage across generations and places of residence can be attributed to changing linguistic behavior within the speaker community in the migration setting. These findings highlight the impact of changing sociocultural embedding and the roles of vertical and horizontal transmission in language change