Zum Verhältnis zwischen Präsens und Futur im Litauischen: Präliminaria im Bereich sprechzeitenthobener Propositionen

The article examines non-deictic uses of present and future tense in Lithuanian. Narrative use, in which reference intervals match with singular events, is distinguished from suspended propositions characterized by lack of such reference intervals (habitual, dispositional and circumstantial modal, and conditional meanings). Present tense is frequently involved in both usage domains, while the future is rare in narrative use, but overlaps with present tense in certain types of suspended propositions. Moreover, its temporal-deictic use is inherently associated with suspended propositions and “linked” to them via epistemic implicatures. This, in contrast to the present, makes the future more likely to be employed in predictions which entail an observer.The analysis is supplemented by a brief comparison with non-deictic tense use in the nonpast-domain of Slavic languages, yielding a grid of criteria that should be used in crosslinguistic studies on tense-aspect systems based on stem derivation and the feature [±bounded]

A token-based investigation of verbal plurality in Lithuanian dialects

This paper examines the use of the verbal suffixes -(d)inė- and ‑dav‑ in Lithuanian dialects. Both suffixes express pluractionality, although of different types, and their distribution in Lithuanian dialects differs as well. Using corpus data, we find that in South Aukštaitian ‑dav‑ is rarer and -(d)inė‑ is more frequent than in East Aukštaitian; in Lithuanian dialects of Belarus -dav- is almost absent. We argue against the assumption that -(d)inėforms have extended into the domain of the past habitual at the expense of ‑dav‑ forms; a slightly higher token frequency of -(d)inė‑ in South Aukštaitian seems to apply irrespective of any particular tense. We also argue that only token-based analyses can substantiate claims concerning areal distribution of certain grammatical forms and constructions

Об условиях, выдвигающих то эпистемические, то эвиденциальные значения в болгарском языке

The article deals with tip effects between evidential and epistemic components in the meaning potential of evidential markers in Bulgarian, the focus being on sentential adverbs with inferential functions. We justify (and start with) the following assumptions: (i) for any unit we should distinguish its stable semantic meaning from its pragmatic potential which can be favored (or disfavored) by appropriate discourse conditions; (ii) there is a trade off between evidential and epistemic meaning components that are related to each other on the basis of mutual or one-sided implicatures; (iii) one-sided implicatures occur with certain hearsay markers whose epistemic implicatures can be captured as Generalized Conversational Implicatures (GCIs). On this basis, we show that (iv) GCIs work also with inferential markers; they can be classified depending on which component (the inferential or the epistemic one) can be downgraded more easily. A crucial factor favoring the inferential meaning is a perceptual basis of the inference. In general, (v) the more complicated the reconstruction of the cognitive (or communicative) basis leading to an inference, the clearer the epistemic function emerges while the evidential function remains in the background, and vice versa. The study is corpus-driven and also includes an attempt at classifying micro- and macro-contextual conditions that (dis)favor a highlighting of the evidential function.Статья посвящена условиям, при которых происходит попеременная актуализация то эвиденциального, то эпистемического компонента в семантическом потенциале эвиденциальных показателей болгарского языка. Сосредоточиваясь на сентенциальных наречиях с инферентивными функциями, мы опираемся на следующие предпосылки: (i) для каждой единицы следует отличать её устойчивое семантическое значение от прагматического потенциала, выявлению которого способствуют (или препятствуют) те или иные коммуникативные условия; (ii) эвиденциальные и эпистемические компоненты значения довольно легко вытесняют друг друга из позиции доминанты, причём процесс подавления то одного, то другого компонента обусловлен действием обоюдных или однонаправленных импликатур; (iii) однонаправленные импликатуры происходят с определёнными показателями репортивных значений, эпистемические импликатуры которых могут быть подведены под категорию обобщённой коммуникативной импликатуры (Generalized Conversational Implicatures, GCIs). На этом основании мы показываем, что (iv) GCIs срабатывают также в значении инферентивных показателей; они могут быть классифицированы в соответствии с тем, какой из компонентов (инферентивный или эпистемический) больше подвержен по давлению. Существенным фактором, способствующим выдвижению на передний план инферентивного компонента, является перцептивная основа инференции. В общем и целом, (v) чем сложнее реконструкция когнитивной (или коммуникативной) основы, ведущей к инференции, тем ярче на переднем плане укрепляется эпистемическая функция, тогда как эвиденциальная (инферентивная) функция остаётся в тени, и наоборот. Наше исследование можно признать экспериментально-эвристическим, и оно содержит попытку классификации условий микро- и макроконтекста, которые способствуют или препятствуют высвечиванию эвиденциальной функции

How much does pragmatics help to contrast the meaning of hearsay adverbs? : (part 1)

Artykuł stanowi próbę rozróżnienia zakodowanych semantycznie oraz uwarunkowanych pragmatycznie komponentów znaczenia polskich i niemieckich reportatywnych przysłówków zdaniowych (ang. allegedly, reportedly, supposedly). W części pierwszej przedstawiamy badania korpusowe stanowiące empiryczną podstawę naszych rozważań. W części drugiej na podstawie teorii Uogólnionych Implikatur Konwersacyjnych (Generalized Conversational Implicatures, GCI) pokazujemy, w jaki sposób mechanizmy komunikacyjne przyjęte w ujęciach neo-Grice'owskich prowadzą do GCI nadających przysłówkom reportatywnym zabarwienie epistemiczne. Odróżniamy przy tym GCI towarzyszące użyciu wszystkich przysłówków reportatywnych oraz te implikatury, które wiążą się z ich indywidualnymi cechami na głębszym poziomie struktury znaczeniowej. Następnie poruszamy problem ogólniejszy, dotyczący przypuszczalnych hierarchii czynników, które wywołują (lub znoszą) implikatury epistemiczne u jednostek leksykalnych wyrażających źródło informacji. Uważamy, że jednostki te wykazują na poziomie dyskursu wiele właściwości dotyczących styku semantyki i pragmatyki, które dotychczas przypisywano tylko gramatycznym eksponentom ewidencjalności.The present study aims at differentiating between semantically-coded and pragmaticallyconditioned meaning components of Polish and German sentence adverbs whose meaning is conventionally associated with hearsay (≈ Eng. allegedly, reportedly, supposedly). In the first part, we present a systematic corpus study of hearsay adverbs in Polish and German providing the empirical basis for our analysis and conclusions. In the second part, we provide reasons why our objective should be reached on the basis of Generalized Conversational Implicatures (GCIs), and we show which particular communicative principles distinguished in Neo-Gricean frameworks can sensibly be considered as triggers of GCIs that evoke 'epistemic overtones' in the use of hearsay adverbs. We differentiate between GCIs which work for all relevant adverbs and implicatures which only apply to more individual properties of hearsay adverbs on more specific levels of their meaning structure. In accordance with this more descriptive task, we discuss general issues concerning presumable hierarchies of factors that influence (trigger or cancel) epistemic implicatures in the usage of lexical markers of information source. We argue that many discourse properties on the semantics-pragmatics interface which are characteristic of grammatical evidentials also hold true for lexical markers of information source

How much does pragmatics help to contrast the meaning of hearsay adverbs? : (part 2)

Artykuł stanowi próbę rozróżnienia zakodowanych semantycznie oraz uwarunkowanych pragmatycznie komponentów znaczenia polskich i niemieckich reportatywnych przysłówków zdaniowych (ang. allegedly, reportedly, supposedly). W niniejszej, drugiej części artykułu na podstawie teorii Uogólnionych Implikatur Konwersacyjnych (Generalized Conversational Implicatures, GCI) pokazujemy, w jaki sposób mechanizmy komunikacyjne przyjęte w ujęciach neo-Grice'owskich prowadzą do GCI nadających przysłówkom reportatywnym zabarwienie epistemiczne. Rozróżniamy przy tym GCI towarzyszące użyciu wszystkich przysłówków reportatywnych oraz te implikatury, które wiążą się z ich indywidualnymi cechami na głębszym poziomie struktury znaczeniowej. Następnie poruszamy problem ogólniejszy, dotyczący przypuszczalnych hierarchii czynników, które wywołują (lub znoszą) implikatury epistemiczne u jednostek leksykalnych wyrażających źródło informacji. Uważamy, że jednostki te wykazują na poziomie dyskursu wiele właściwości dotyczących styku semantyki i pragmatyki, które dotychczas przypisywano tylko gramatycznym eksponentom ewidencjalności.The present study aims at differentiating between semantically-coded and pragmaticallyconditioned meaning components of Polish and German sentence adverbs whose meaning is conventionally associated with hearsay (≈ Eng. allegedly, reportedly, supposedly). In the current part of the study, we argue why our objective should be reached on the basis of Generalized Conversational Implicatures (GCIs), and we show which particular communicative principles distinguished in Neo-Gricean frameworks can sensibly be considered as triggers of GCIs that evoke 'epistemic overtones' in the use of hearsay adverbs. We differentiate between GCIs which work for all relevant adverbs and implicatures which only apply to more individual properties of hearsay adverbs on more specific, "deeper" levels of their meaning structure. In accordance with this more descriptive task, we discuss general issues concerning presumable hierarchies of factors that influence (trigger or cancel) epistemic implicatures in the usage of lexical markers of information source. We argue that many discourse properties on the semantics-pragmatics interface which are characteristic of grammatical evidentials also hold true for lexical markers of information source

Chapter О роли приставок и суффиксов на ранних и поздних этапах истории славянского вида

In the stem-derivational perfective-imperfective opposition of Slavic the role of prefixes and suffixes has to be assessed jointly. The article evaluates the diachronic backdrop and parameters appropriate for classificatory categories. Special attention is paid to the criteria applied by aspectologists to determine aspect pairs and to aspect triplets. The assessment ends up with a paradox resulting from Maslov’s criteria of ‘trivial pairednessʼ, which require not only identical lexical meaning, but an ontology for which telic events are the sole basis in the derivation of aspect pairs

Diachrony and typology of Slavic aspect: What does morphology tell us?

In this article we consider the Slavic perfective/imperfective opposition, a well-known example of viewpoint aspect which establishes a classificatory grammatical category by means of stem derivation. Although Slavic languages are not unique in having developed a classificatory aspect system, a survey of such systems shows that the Slavic perfective/imperfective opposition is a particularly rare subcase of such systems, first of all because it combines prefixing with suffixing patterns of derivation. We therefore explore the morphology involved, tracing its development from Proto-Indo-European into Early Slavic. The emergence of Slavic aspect is atypical for grammatical categories, and it deviates considerably from mainstream instances of grammaticalization in many respects. We show that there is a strong tendency (i) towards abandonment of highly lexically conditioned and versatile suffix choices in Proto-Indo-European and in Common Slavic, which led to fewer and more transparent suffixes, and (ii) towards concatenation, away from originally non-concatenative (fusional) schemata. Furthermore, we compare Slavic with some other Indo-European languages and inquire as to why in Europe no other Indo-European group beyond Slavic went so far as to productively exploit newly developed prefixes (or verb particles) merely for use as aspectual modifiers of stems and to combine them with a (partially inherited, partially remodelled) stock of suffixes to yield a classificatory aspect system. The Slavic system, thus, appears quite unique not only from a typological point of view, but also in diachronic-genealogical terms. Based on this background, amplified by some inner-Slavic biases in the productivity of patterns of stem derivation, we pose the provocative question as to whether the rise and consolidation of the stem-derivational perfective/imperfective opposition in Slavic was favoured by direct and indirect contacts with Uralic (Finno-Ugric) and Altaic (Turkic) populations at different periods since at least the time of the Great Migrations

Unity and diversity in grammaticalization scenarios

The volume contains a selection of papers originally presented at the symposium on “Areal patterns of grammaticalization and cross-linguistic variation in grammaticalization scenarios” held on 12-14 March 2015 at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz. The papers, written by leading scholars combining expertise in historical linguistics and grammaticalization research, study variation in grammaticalization scenarios in a variety of language families (Slavic, Indo-Aryan, Tibeto-Burman, Bantu, Mande, "Khoisan", Siouan, and Mayan). The volume stands out in the vast literature on grammaticalization by focusing on variation in grammaticalization scenarios and areal patterns in grammaticalization. Apart from documenting new grammaticalization paths, the volume makes a methodological contribution as it addresses an important question of how to reconcile universal outcomes of grammaticalization processes with the fact that the input to these processes is language-specific and construction-specific

Unity and diversity in grammaticalization scenarios

The volume contains a selection of papers originally presented at the symposium on “Areal patterns of grammaticalization and cross-linguistic variation in grammaticalization scenarios” held on 12-14 March 2015 at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz. The papers, written by leading scholars combining expertise in historical linguistics and grammaticalization research, study variation in grammaticalization scenarios in a variety of language families (Slavic, Indo-Aryan, Tibeto-Burman, Bantu, Mande, "Khoisan", Siouan, and Mayan). The volume stands out in the vast literature on grammaticalization by focusing on variation in grammaticalization scenarios and areal patterns in grammaticalization. Apart from documenting new grammaticalization paths, the volume makes a methodological contribution as it addresses an important question of how to reconcile universal outcomes of grammaticalization processes with the fact that the input to these processes is language-specific and construction-specific

Unity and diversity in grammaticalization scenarios

The volume contains a selection of papers originally presented at the symposium on “Areal patterns of grammaticalization and cross-linguistic variation in grammaticalization scenarios” held on 12-14 March 2015 at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz. The papers, written by leading scholars combining expertise in historical linguistics and grammaticalization research, study variation in grammaticalization scenarios in a variety of language families (Slavic, Indo-Aryan, Tibeto-Burman, Bantu, Mande, "Khoisan", Siouan, and Mayan). The volume stands out in the vast literature on grammaticalization by focusing on variation in grammaticalization scenarios and areal patterns in grammaticalization. Apart from documenting new grammaticalization paths, the volume makes a methodological contribution as it addresses an important question of how to reconcile universal outcomes of grammaticalization processes with the fact that the input to these processes is language-specific and construction-specific