• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

TARTU ÜLIKOOLI EESTI KEELE ÕPPETOOLI TOIMETISED 18 PUBLICATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ESTONIAN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TARTU 18 ESTONIAN: TYPOLOGICAL STUDIES V edited by Mati Erelt TARTU 2001 ESTONIAN: TYPOLOGICAL STUDIES V TARTU ÜLIKOOLI EESTI KEELE ÕPPETOOLI TOIMETISED 18 PUBLICATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ESTONIAN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TARTU 18 ESTONIAN: TYPOLOGICAL STUDIES V edited by Mati Erelt TARTU 2001 ESTONIAN: TYPOLOGICAL STUDIES V This work was supported by the Estonian Science Foundation, Grant No. 3259. Raamatukogu © University of Tartu, 2001 ISSN 1406-0183 Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastuse trükikoda Tiigi 78, Tartu 50410 Tellimus nr 651 CONTENTS Mati Erelt Some notes on the grammaticalization of the verb pidama in Estonian ......................................................7 Külli Habicht Lexicalization and grammaticalization - opposite phenomena? About some lexicalized verb forms of Old Written Estonian ....26 Reet Kasik Analytic causatives in Estonian..................... ................................77 Ago Kiinnap On some peculiarities of the Estonian language ....................... 123 Liina Lindström Verb-initial clauses in the narrative ............................................ 138 Merilin Mil] an Adjectival modification in Estonian and Estonian sign language ................................... 169 Enn Veldi Estonian and English: a lexicographer’s view. II 189 SOME NOTES ON THE GRAMMATICALIZATION OF THE VERB pidama IN ESTONIAN Mati Erelt University of Tartu 1. Two pidama-\erbs The Explanatory Dictionary of Estonian (EKS) tells us that there are two pidama-verbs in contemporary Estonian. One of them occurs mostly in the meanings ‘keep, hold, regard, etc.’, e.g. (1) Ta suudab veel mõõka käes pidada. ‘He can still hold the sword in his hand’. Kurjategijat peeti üksikkambris. ‘The criminal was kept in solitary confinement’. Ta ei suutnud naeru tagasi pidada. ‘He couldn’t help laughing’. Ta pidas mind kellekski teiseks. ‘He took me for someone else’. The other pidama-verb is first and foremost a modal verb expressing necessity (2) or has a closely related meaning that has developed from the modal meaning, as in sentence (3). (2) Te peate ära minema. ’You must leave’. (3) Ma pidin õhtul kinno minema, aga mõtlesin ümber. ‘I was to go to the cinema in the evening, but I changed my mind’. From the diachronic point of view it is a single verb, whereas the modal meaning has definitely developed from the non-modal meaning. The synchronic treatment of pidama as two different verbs is supported by the fact these verbs have different markers 8 The grammaticalization of the verb pidama in Estonian for the imperfect. The imperfect marker of the modal sense is the non-modal sense has the marker -s(i)-: ‘keep, hold etc.’ ‘must, have to’ ma pida-si-n me pida-si-me ma pid-i-n me pid-i-me sa pida-si-d te pida-si-te sa pid-i-d te pid-i-te ta pida-s nad pida-si-d ta pid-i nad pid-i-d The split of the pidama-vtvb took place only in the North Estonian dialect area and in the standard language, which is based on the latter because the late imperfect marker -si- is a North Estonian feature. In South Estonian the imperfect has the i- marker in all the verbs (cf. Laanest 1975: 152), and therefore there is no good reason to speak about two pidama-verbs. We will leave aside the relationship between the modal and non-modal senses of pidama and will focus only on the modal pidama-vQrb and its developments. 2. Modal and postmodal meanings of the verb pidama The verb pidama is a modal verb that encompasses both domains of modality: agent-oriented1 (i.e. dynamic and deontic) and epistemic domains. In addition to these meanings the verb pidama has at least three postmodal meanings: intentional (volitive), avertive, and quotative meanings.“ The following example sentences illustrate these meanings. Modal pidama (4) agent-oriented necessity a. dynamic necessity Ma pean mütsi pähe panema, sest väljas on juba külm. 1 The term ‘agent-oriented modality’ is used here in the sense proposed by Bybee and Fleischman (1995: 6): “Agent-oriented modality en­ compasses all modal meanings that predicate conditions on an agent with regard to the completion of an action referred to by the main predicate, e.g. obligation, desire, ability, permission and root possibility.” 2 Volitive and quotative meanings have sometimes been considered as subtypes of modality as well, see e.g. Palmer 1986. Mati Erelt 9 ‘I’ll have to put my hat on because it’s already cold outside’, b. deontic necessity Sa pead varsti koju minema. ‘You must go home soon’. (5) epistemic necessity Ta peab küll rumal olema, et niisuguse võimaluse kasuta­ mata jättis. ‘He must be stupid if he didn’t use this opportunity’. Postmodal pidama (6) intention Ma pidin täna linna minema, aga mõtlesin ümber. ‘I was to go to town today, but I changed my mind’. (7) avertive Ta pidi üllatusest pikali kukkuma. ‘He was struck dumb by the surprise’. (8) quotative Juta pidi haige olema. ‘Juta was said to be ill’. 2.1. Agent-oriented necessity The verb pidama expresses both dynamic and deontic modality. Dynamic necessity is the agent’s need to do something caused by some characteristics of the agent himself or some external circumstances (but not the will of the speaker or some other person). Deontic necessity refers to an agent-external need that is realized as obligation. The source of the obligation is usually the speaker, but it may be some social or ethical norm as well. Both kinds of agent-oriented modality are directed into the future; both assume intentional action on the part of the agent. Dynamic necessity implies that the action will be performed in the future; in the case of deontic necessity it remains open, however. If someone needs to go to the toilet, then he or she will go there. On the other hand, if someone is forced to go to the toilet, then this person may do it (if he or she really has the need to urinate), but he or she need not go there (if he or she has no need to urinate). 2 10 The grammaticalization of the verb pidama in Estonian Deontic modality differs from dynamic modality in that in the former agent-orientation is not that strong any more. The agent need not be expressed explicitly, as in the sentence Lamp peab esikus põlema ‘The light must be on in the entrance hall’, where the agent can be treated as an implicit person, who is responsible for the light being on (cf. Uuspõld 1989: 170). As deontic modality has developed from dynamic modality, then it is not surprising that there is no clear-cut line between the two agent-oriented modalities, and many sentences allow both interpretations. The corpus examples of the verb pidama confirm this. (9) dynamic necessity Minult oodatakse mingite imenippide paljastamist, aga siin pean käed üles tõstma. lI’m expected to disclose some magic tricks, but here I have to give up’. Võidu saavutamiseks oli ainult üks võti: pidin riskima ja üritasin sooritada tapva ründelöögi enne teda. ‘There was only one key to success: I had to take risks, and I tried to execute the lethal attack before him’. (10) obligation Raudtee parandamine nõuab ühist hoolt, millesse oma toeka panuse peab andma ka vabariigi tööstus. ‘The repair of the railway requires joint care, where the republic’s industry has to make a substantial contribution’. (11) dynamic necessity / obligation Peame olema valmis vastu astuma mis tahes agressioonile. See on meie kõigi ühine soov ning seda nõuab meilt ka ühiskond. ‘We must be ready to stand up against any aggression. That’s our common wish, and society expects it from us’. Agent-oriented pidama occurs in various tense forms. In addition to the indicative, the agent-oriented pidama may occur in the conditional as well, in that case expressing less strong obligation, as in (12): Mati Erelt 11 (12) Valitsus peaks arvestama sellega, et põlevkivi hinna järsk tõus tõstab kohe ka elektrienergia hinda .. ‘The government should reckon that a steep increase in the price of oil shale will immediately raise also the electricity rate 2.2. Epistemic necessity = inferential evidentiality In the case of epistemic modality there is a proposition and not a predicate in the scope of modality. The speaker believes that the event is certain or highly probable. I agree with van der Auwera and Plungian (1998: 85) in that epistemic necessity belongs to the subtype of evidentiality termed ‘inferential’. It is one of the three subtypes of evidentiality, the others being attested and reported evidentiality (Willett 1988).3 Inferential evidentiality is the subtype of evidentiality that identifies the evidence as based on reasoning. If the verb pidama expresses inferential evidentiality it is either in the indicative, as in (13) or (14), or in the conditional, as in (15) and (16). The epistemic-evidential interpretation is more evident if the evidence on the basis of which the conclusion is drawn is explicit in the sentence, as in (13). The fact that the subject is inanimate and the action expressed by the infinitive is non-intentional need not make the sentence unambiguously epistemic. As noted, in the case of deontic modality, too, the explicit subject may be inanimate, and the infinitive may express a state or a non-intentional process, as in the previous example sentence Lamp peab esikus põlema. (13) Ta peab/pidi küll rumal olema, kui ta sellest kohast loo­ bub/loobus. ‘He must/must have been stupid if he gives/gave up this position’. 3 Estonian is a language that has a special grammatical morpheme -vat for the expression of reported or quotative evidentiality (diachronically the marker of the partitive case of the present participle): Ta olevat haige ‘He is said to be sick’.

Load more

  206

Copy Link