On the Polysemy Of the Lithuanian Už. A Cognitive Perspective

Adhering to the principle of motivated polysemy, this paper sets out to demonstrate how the principle works in interpreting numerous senses of the Lithuanian preposition už ‘behind, beyond’. The present investigation relies on the cognitive linguistic framework employed, first of all, by Lakoff (1987), Langacker (1987), Talmy (2000), Tyler and Evans (2003), and Tyler (2012), who mainly worked on English, and such linguists as Tabakowska (2003, 2010) and Shakhova and Tyler (2010), who attempted to investigate inflecting languages, such as Polish and Russian. Based on such semantic principles as types of Figure and Ground, their relationship (geometric, functional, etc.), contextual clues and pattern of usage, etc., the present paper demonstrates that the polysemy of už used with two cases, Genitive and Accusative, is not an array of arbitrary senses, but rather a motivated network. It posits a central sense of už based on Figure located in the back region of Ground. All other senses, namely, those of function, control, obstacle, sequential location, hiding and covering, boundary or border, spatial distance, temporal distance, quality distance, replacement, retribution and remuneration, and benefactive, are directly or indirectly derived from the central sense

When the search domain is back region in Baltic: The Latvian aiz as compared to the Lithuanian už

The paper sets out to examine prepositional polysemy in the Baltic languages. More precisely, the investigation focuses on the semantic structure of the Latvian preposition aiz + Gen. ‘behind, beyond’ as compared to the Lithuanian už + Gen. / Acc. ‘behind, beyond, for’ discussed in our previous paper (Šeškauskienė & Žilinskaitė-Šinkūnienė 2015). The methodology of research relies on the cognitive linguistic framework, mainly on the principle of motivated polysemy. Its key idea is that in the semantic network of the preposition all senses are seen as directly or indirectly linked to the central sense. In the case of aiz and už, the central sense encodes information about spatial configuration of Figure and Ground with the former located in the back region of the latter. A number of other senses, mostly concrete, derived from the central sense, overlap in Latvian and Lithuanian but demonstrate a differing degree of entrenchment. The most distinct differences are identifiable in the abstract senses

Apie laiką ir kalbą

The paper presents the former etymologies of the heterosemantic cognates Lith. valanda and La. valoda with a special focus on their relation and origin from the motion verbs described by Edīte Hauzenberga-Šturma. On the basis of the old writings and corpora we provide additional arguments to show that both time and language can be conceptualized as (cyclically) moving phenomena.Straipsnyje aptariamos anksčiau pasiūlytos lietuvių ir latvių kalbų heterosemantizmų valanda ir valoda etimologijos, pabrėžiant ir išplėtojant latvių kalbininkės Edītės Hauzenbergos-Šturmos aprašytą minėtųjų leksemų tarpusavio ryšį bei jų kilmę iš judėjimą reiškusių veiksmažodžių. Remiantis abiejų kalbų senųjų raštų ir tekstynų duomenimis, pateikiama papildomų argumentų, rodančių, kad tiek laiką, tiek kalbą galima suvokti kaip (cikliškai) judančius reiškinius

Spatial communication systems across languages reflect universal action constraints

The extent to which languages share properties reflecting the non-linguistic constraints of the speakers who speak them is key to the debate regarding the relationship between language and cognition. A critical case is spatial communication, where it has been argued that semantic universals should exist, if anywhere. Here, using an experimental paradigm able to separate variation within a language from variation between languages, we tested the use of spatial demonstratives—the most fundamental and frequent spatial terms across languages. In n = 874 speakers across 29 languages, we show that speakers of all tested languages use spatial demonstratives as a function of being able to reach or act on an object being referred to. In some languages, the position of the addressee is also relevant in selecting between demonstrative forms. Commonalities and differences across languages in spatial communication can be understood in terms of universal constraints on action shaping spatial language and cognition

The allative case in Mikalojus Daukša's Postilla

<p class="Default"><strong>THE ALLATIVE CASE IN MIKALOJUS DAUKŠA’S <em>Postilla</em></strong></p><p class="Pa4"><em>Summary</em></p><p class="Pa4">A semantic analysis of the allative case in Daukša’s <em>Postilla </em>(1599) is performed in order to discuss various types of its use. The following 12 functions of allative are distin­guished, which reflect well-established patterns of grammaticalization of goal-marking morphemes (Rice et al. 2007).</p><p class="Pa4">I. Spatial functions.</p><p class="Pa4">1.1. Inanimate Goal of motion. The movement of the Figure (a verb of motion) is directed to the Goal expressed by the allative. This is the most basic meaning of the allative, e.g. Luke 24,28:</p><p class="Pa4"><em>du i</em><em>ǯ</em><em>g mokitiniu […] priârtinos miéſtelo</em><em>ṕ</em><em> kurío</em><em>ṕ</em><em> êio </em>18931,</p><p class="Pa4"><em>Dwá ʒ vcniow […] prʒybliyli ſido miáſtecká / do ktorego ßli </em>19811,</p><p class="Pa4">‘And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went’.</p><p class="Pa4">1.2. Goal of motion, when the Figure acquires a location in physical proximity to the Goal, e.g. Luke 24,24:</p><p class="Pa4"><em>Ir nuêío nêkurie i</em><em>ġ</em><em> mûſ grâbo </em>18925,</p><p class="Pa4"><em>Y chod</em><em>ʒ</em><em>ili niektor</em><em>ʒ</em><em>y </em><em>ʒ</em><em> náßych do grobu </em>1985,</p><p class="Pa4">‘And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre’.</p><p class="Pa4">This spatial meaning of the allative is frequent and is traditionally considered as the main one. Proximity, however, is determined by the context in the case of three dimen­sional Grounds, whereas with two-, one-dimensional or dimensionless Grounds it is deter-mined by the lexical meaning of the reference object.</p><p class="Pa4">1.3. Animate Goal of motion. The Figure acquires a location in the physical sphere of the person, e.g. John 1,11:</p><p class="Pa4"><em>Sawúmpiump atêio / ir ſáwíeii io ne priéme </em>434,</p><p class="Pa4"><em>Do właſnośći pr</em><em>ʒ</em><em>yßedł / á ſwoi go nie pr</em><em>ʒ</em><em>yili </em>4219,</p><p class="Pa4">‘He came unto his own, and his own received him not’.</p><p class="Pa4">1.4. Goal of direction or orientation. The Figure is static. It is motivated by the trans­formations <em>Figure’s motion towards Ground </em>→ <em>Figure’s orientation towards Ground </em>and <em>Figure’s motion towards Ground </em>→ <em>Figure’s extension towards Ground</em>:</p><p class="Pa4"><em>ítieſeu iſúmṗ rkás ſawȧs</em> 964,</p><p class="Pa4"><em>wyćigałem ku wam rce ſwoie</em> 9716,</p><p class="Pa4">‘I have spread my arms towards you’.</p><p class="Pa4">II. Non-spatial functions:</p><p class="Pa4">2. Purpose (purposes are destinations). This use type is very common. Allatives of this type correlate with the infinitive and dative of purpose.</p><p class="Pa4"><em>[žmonės] nêßa kríkßto</em><em>ṗ</em><em> S. maús waikęlús </em>34813,</p><p class="Pa4"><em>noßdo Chrʒtu świtego máłe ditki</em> 35927,</p><p class="Pa4">‘People carry little children to baptize’.</p><p class="Pa4">3. Abstract Goal of motion (state or emotion). The Figure (a person) moves towards or into a psychological condition, e.g. John 13,20:</p><p class="Pa4"><em>Wiſſôkes nſſkurís piktái dáro nopkncʒe ßwieſós / ir notêiṫ ßwieſóſṕ</em> 24036,</p><p class="Pa4"><em>ktory ʒle cyni / nienawidʒi świátłośći / y nie prʒychodʒi ná świátłość</em> 24915,</p><p class="Pa4">‘For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light’.</p><p class="Pa4">4. Addressee, e.g. Luke 1,34:</p><p class="Pa4"><em>Táre ta</em><em>ḋ</em><em> Mariá Angeło</em><em>ṕ</em><em> </em>4389,</p><p class="Pa4"><em>R</em><em>ʒ</em><em>ekłá tedy Márya do Anyołá </em>4547f,</p><p class="Pa4">‘Then said Mary unto the angel’.</p><p class="Pa4">5. Emotional target. The Figure (emotion) is directed to a Ground (a person, God, or an inanimate object).</p><p class="Pa4">6. Additive allative:</p><p class="Pa4"><em>Néſstoṗ purwóṗ êmes / sîłgiwâtos primâiße</em> 4064,</p><p class="Pa4"><em>do tego błotá iemſkiego / śiływotnprʒymießał </em>42011,</p><p class="Pa4">‘Power of life was added to the mud of the Earth’.</p><p class="Pa4">7. Standard of comparison. With <em>prilyginti </em>‘equate’, <em>pridėti </em>‘add’ the allative is used as the standard of comparative constructions.</p><p class="Pa4">8. Possessor. With <em>užgulėti</em>, <em>prigulėti</em>, <em>prieitis </em>‘belong, fit’ (Polish <em>należeć</em>) the allative is almost exclusively used with inanimate possessors.</p><p class="Pa4">9. Discourse organizing type. With <em>eiti </em>‘go’, <em>prieiti(s) </em>‘approach’, <em>sugrįžti </em>‘return’ the allative denotes the topic of the discourse:</p><p class="Pa4"><em>Bęt’ ſugrßkimę Siméono</em><em>ṗ</em><em> </em>43013,</p><p class="Pa4"><em>Ale ſiwroćmy do Symeoná</em> 44528,</p><p class="Pa4">‘Let’s go back to Simon’.</p><p class="Pa4">10. Allative of time (time is space). Usually the allative denotes a border of time ap­proached by the Figure.</p><p class="Pa4">11. Recipient. With <em>atsiųsti </em>‘send’, <em>atnešti</em>, <em>nunešti </em>‘bring’, <em>nešiojimas </em>‘bearing’ the allative is a person-recipient.</p><p>12. Benefactive.</p><p>The allative is not a clearly spatial case. Though its local meaning constitutes almost a quarter of the instances, it is quite heterogeneous: four spatial functions are distin­guished. The schematic meaning of the allative can be defined as Goal. This motivates the vast majority of its abstract functions. The traditional meaning of proximity is not fundamental for the allative; it is determined by the context and the lexical meaning of the reference object.</p

Methodology for describing prepositions

The article presents various approaches to semantic analysis of prepositions. It starts with the descriptive and structural methods (e.g., Grabis 1959; Lindkvist 1972, 1976; Nītiņa 1978, 2007; Valiulytė 1976, 1997a, 1997b, 1998), taking into account componential analysis (Bennett 1975; Kilius 1977, 1980) and logical approach to prepositional semantics (Cooper 1968). The abovementioned works are mostly concerned with defining the semantic invariant or presenting the lists of the uses of the preposition without any additional information about the relations among the senses. Prepositional semantics received a fair amount of attention from the beginning of cognitive sciences in the early eighties of the 20th century. Rosch’s principles of categorization (Rosch 1978) and prototype theory led to understanding of the preposition as a natural category with the prototypical (or ideal) member, fuzzy boundaries and well interrelated senses (or use types, e.g., Herskovits 1986), which were represented as image-schemas or lexical networks (Lakoff 1987; Lindner 1983; Bellavia 1996; Dewell 1994, 1996; Meex 2001; Tyler, Evans 2003). Another approach to prepositional semantics was proposed by Steven C. Levinson and the Language and Cognition group at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (Levinson 1992, 2003; Levinson et al. 2003, 2006). It is an onomasiologically based method to investigate spatial description and conception, in which the locational situations are described according to either topological or angular (i.e., intrinsic, relative or absolute frames of reference) information, while the dynamic contexts – according to Talmyan typology of the verb-framed and satellite-framed languages (Talmy 2000) and other criteria