DOCSLIB.ORG

The Expression of Predicative Possession in Belarusian and Lithuanian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Archivio della ricerca- Università di Roma La Sapienza The expression of predicative Possession in Belarusian and Lithuanian Lidia Federica Mazzitelli Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza” Johannes-Gutenberg Universität Mainz Table of contents List of abbreviations used in glosses 6 Introduction 9 I Part Possession: An introduction Chapter 1. An introduction to Possession 14 1.1 The Location Hypothesis 14 1.2 “Reference-point relationship” and “experiential gestalt”: cognitive approaches to 17 Possession 1.3 Possessive notions and the prototype approach 18 1.4 The semantic space of Possession: the “possessive notions” 20 1.5 Defining the semantics of Possession: three parameters 22 1.6 Possessive notions: further remarks 25 1.6.1 Physical Possession and Inanimate Alienable Possession 25 1.6.2 Temporary Possession 27 1.6.3 Social Possession 29 1.6.4 The possessive notions as they are presented in this work 29 Chapter 2. Encoding Possession in language 34 2.1 Attributive and predicative Possession 34 2.2 External possession 35 2.3 ‘Having’ and ‘belonging’: Two sides of the possessive relation 42 2.4 The typology of possessive constructions: Considering Heine (1997) and Stassen (2009) 45 2.4.1 Heine’s model: The ‘source schemas’ 42 2.4.2 Stassen’s model 45 2.5 The source schemas: a survey 47 2.5.1 Action schema 47 2.5.2 Location schema 48 2.5.3 The Companion Schema 49 2.5.4 The Goal schema 49 2 2.5.5 The Genitive and Equation schemas 50 2.5.6 The Source schema 50 2.5.7 The Topic schema 51 2.6 Possessive constructions and possessive notions: a typological outline 51 Part II Predicative Possession in Belarusian and Lithuanian Chapter 3. Belarusian and Lithuanian in context 54 3.1 The expression of predicative Possession in Baltic and Slavic 54 3.1.1 The expression of Possession in Baltic 55 3.1.2 The expression of Possession in Slavic 56 3.2 The expression of Possession in the languages of the Circum-Baltic Area 60 3.3 Belarusian and Lithuanian in contact 61 3.4. The sociolinguistic context of Belarusian and Lithuanian: a brief survey 63 3.4.1 The development of Lithuanian: external influences and puristic tendencies 63 3.4.2 Belarusian: an introduction 65 3.4.2.1 Language policies in Belarus’ and the standardisation process of modern Belarusian 66 3.4.2.2 The double Belarusian standard: taraškevica and narkamaŭka 69 3.4.2.3 The sociolinguistic situation in Belarus’ at the present time 71 Chapter 4. The sources of the data: the Belarusian and the Lithuanian corpus 75 4.1 The Lithuanian corpus 75 4.2 The Belarusian corpus 75 4.3 The Internet 77 4.4.Native speakers 78 Chapter 5. The source schemas and their realization in Belarusian and 80 Lithuanian 5.1. The Action schema in Belarusian 82 5.1.1 Abstract Possession 83 5.1.2 Inanimate Possession 83 5.1.3 Ownership 84 5.1.4 Social Possession 85 3 5.1.5 Inalienable Possession 85 5.1.6 Physical and Temporary Possession 87 5.1 .7 Trymac’ 91 5.2 The Action schema in Lithuanian 91 5.2.1 Abstract Possession 92 5.2.2 Inanimate Possession 93 5.2.3 Ownership 94 5.2.4 Social Possession 95 5.2.5 Physical and Temporary Possession 95 5.2.6 Inalienable Possession 97 5.3 The Location schema in Belarusian 99 5.3.1 Constructions with no possessive functions 99 5.3.2 U + Gen. 99 5.3.2.1 Abstract possession 100 5.3.2.2 Social Possession 101 5.3.2.3 Ownership 101 5.3.2.4 Inanimate Possession 102 5.3.2.5 Inalienable Possession 103 5.3.2.6 Temporary and Physical Possession 105 5.3.3 Pry 106 5.3.4 Za + Instr. 107 5.4 The Location schema in Lithuanian 108 5.4.1 Constructions without possessive meaning 108 5.4.2 Pas + Acc. 109 5.4.2.1 Possessive pas in the corpus 110 5.4.2.2 Possessive pas on the Internet 111 5.5 The Goal schema in Belarusian 114 5.5.1 Abstract Possession 114 5.5.2 Social Possession 115 5.6 The Goal schema in Lithuanian 117 5.6.1 Abstract possession 117 5.6.2 Social Possession 118 5.6.3 Inalienable Possession: “Incomplete” physical details 120 5.7 The Companion schema in Belarusian 122 4 5.8 The Companion schema in Lithuanian 124 5.8.1 Inanimate Possession 125 5.8.2 Temporary Possession 125 5.8.3 Abstract Possession 126 5.8.4 Inalienable Possession 126 5.8.5 Social Possession 128 5.9 The Source schema in Belarusian and Lithuanian 128 5.10 The Equation schema 129 5.11 The source schemas in Belarusian and Lithuanian: a survey 129 5.12 The Lithuanian ‘topicalised genitive’ and the Belarusian constructions like Valasy ŭ jae 133 byli svetlyja, Vočy ŭ jae zjalënyja 5.12.1 The Lithuanian ‘topicalised genitive’: considering Holvoet 2005 and 2003a,b: 134 5.12.2 The ‘topicalised genitive’ in contemporary Lithuanian 135 5.12.3 The Belarusian constructions like Valasy ŭ jae byli svetlyja, Vočy ŭ jae zjalënyja 137 5.13 Competing strategies in Belarusian and Lithuanian: the case of BKI constructions 139 5.14 Remarks about the expression of Possession in Old Lithuanian and in Old Belarusian 145 Chapter 6. Belarusian and Lithuanian ‘have’ 147 6.1 Mec’ and u + Gen. as competing strategies in Belarusian 147 6.1.1 Restrictions on the use of mec’ 147 6.1.2 Mec’ versus u + Gen.: non-semantic factors 150 6.2 Restrictions on the use of turėti 152 6.3. Restrictions on the use of turėti and mec’: an attempt at an explanation 153 6.4 ‘Have’ as a temporal and modal auxiliary 155 6.4.1 Mec’ as temporal and modal auxiliary in Belarusian 155 6.4.2 The auxiliary functions of mecca 161 6.5 Turėti as modal auxiliary 162 6.6 Mec’ and turėti in resultative constructions 163 6.7 Belarusian and Lithuanian ‘have’ in areal perspective 166 Conclusions 170 Appendix 173 References 188 5 List of abbreviations 1 first person 2 second person 3 third person ACC accusative ADESS adessive ADVERBIAL adverbial COMP complementizer COND conditional DAT dative DEF definite F feminine FUT future GEN genitive GER gerund IMP imperative INF infinitive INS instrumental ITER iterative LOC locative M masculine N neuter NEG negation NOM nominative NP noun phrase PaPA past participle active PART particle PRN pronoun PST past PE Possessee PGER past gerund PL plural PPA present participle active 6 PPP past participle passive PR Possessor PRED predicate PRS present REFL reflexive REL relative SG singular Q question particle VOC vocative 7 Dear Wormwood, […] the sense of ownership in general is always to be encouraged. The humans are always putting up claims to ownership which sound equally funny in Heaven and in Hell and we [the devils] must keep them doing so. […] We produce this sense of ownership not only by pride but by confusion. We teach them not to notice the different senses of the possessive pronoun—the finely graded differences that run from "my boots" through "my dog", "my servant", "my wife", "my father", "my master" and "my country", to "my God". They can be taught to reduce all these senses to that of "my boots", the "my" of ownership. Even in the nursery a child can be taught to mean by "my Teddy-bear" not the old imagined recipient of affection to whom it stands in a special relation (for that is what the Enemy [God] will teach them to mean if we are not careful) but "the bear I can pull to pieces if I like". And at the other end of the scale, we have taught men to say "My God" in a sense not really very different from "My boots", meaning "The God on whom I have a claim for my distinguished services and whom I exploit from the pulpit—the God I have done a corner in". And all the time the joke is that the word "Mine" in its fully possessive sense cannot be uttered by a human being about anything. In the long run either Our Father [the devil] or the Enemy [God] will say "Mine" of each thing that exists, and specially of each man. They will find out in the end, never fear, to whom their time, their souls, and their bodies really belong—certainly not to them, whatever happens. Your affectionate uncle, SCREWTAPE (C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters) 8 Introduction (i) The object of this work: the expression of predicative Possession in the Belarusian and Lithuanian context The main aim of this work is to elucidate how Belarusian and Lithuanian express predicative Possession: that is, it aims at presenting and analysing the syntactic means these two languages use to encode the possessive relation at the sentential level. Secondly, it also aims at analysing the role that the verbs for ‘have’(turėti in Lithuanian and mec’ in Belarusian) fulfil in these two languages, with particular regard to their non-possessive functions. The topic of the expression of Possession in the languages of the world cannot be described as underestimated, or underanalysed. Many works, some of which fundamental, have already been written on this subject, both with reference to general typology (inter alia, Seiler 1983, Heine 1997, Stassen 2009) and to Slavic and Baltic in particular (inter alia, Kalnyn’ and Mološnaja 1986, Clancy 2010).
Recommended publications
  • Animacy and Alienability: a Reconsideration of English

    Animacy and Alienability: a Reconsideration of English

    Running head: ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 1 Animacy and Alienability A Reconsideration of English Possession Jaimee Jones A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Spring 2016 ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ Jaeshil Kim, Ph.D. Thesis Chair ______________________________ Paul Müller, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Jeffrey Ritchey, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Brenda Ayres, Ph.D. Honors Director ______________________________ Date ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 3 Abstract Current scholarship on English possessive constructions, the s-genitive and the of- construction, largely ignores the possessive relationships inherent in certain English compound nouns. Scholars agree that, in general, an animate possessor predicts the s- genitive while an inanimate possessor predicts the of-construction. However, the current literature rarely discusses noun compounds, such as the table leg, which also express possessive relationships. However, pragmatically and syntactically, a compound cannot be considered as a true possessive construction. Thus, this paper will examine why some compounds still display possessive semantics epiphenomenally. The noun compounds that imply possession seem to exhibit relationships prototypical of inalienable possession such as body part, part whole, and spatial relationships. Additionally, the juxtaposition of the possessor and possessum in the compound construction is reminiscent of inalienable possession in other languages. Therefore, this paper proposes that inalienability, a phenomenon not thought to be relevant in English, actually imbues noun compounds whose components exhibit an inalienable relationship with possessive semantics.
  • Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns

    Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns

    Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns Mark Baker Rutgers University April 2018 Abstract: I argue that indexical shift is more like logophoricity and complementizer agreement than most previous semantic accounts would have it. In particular, there is evidence of a syntactic requirement at work, such that the antecedent of a shifted “I” must be a superordinate subject, just as the antecedent of a logophoric pronoun or the goal of complementizer agreement must be. I take this to be evidence that the antecedent enters into a syntactic control relationship with a null operator in all three constructions. Comparative data comes from Magahi and Sakha (for indexical shift), Yoruba (for logophoric pronouns), and Lubukusu (for complementizer agreement). 1. Introduction Having had an office next to Lisa Travis’s for 12 formative years, I learned many things from her that still influence my thinking. One is her example of taking semantic notions, such as aspect and event roles, and finding ways to implement them in syntactic structure, so as to advance the study of less familiar languages and topics.1 In that spirit, I offer here some thoughts about how logophoricity and indexical shift, topics often discussed from a more or less semantic point of view, might have syntactic underpinnings—and indeed, the same syntactic underpinnings. On an impressionistic level, it would not seem too surprising for logophoricity and indexical shift to have a common syntactic infrastructure. Canonical logophoricity as it is found in various West African languages involves using a special pronoun inside the finite CP complement of a verb to refer to the subject of that verb.
  • Inalienable Possession in Swedish and Danish – a Diachronic Perspective 27

    Inalienable Possession in Swedish and Danish – a Diachronic Perspective 27

    FOLIA SCANDINAVICA VOL. 23 POZNAŃ 20 17 DOI: 10.1515/fsp - 2017 - 000 5 INALIENABLE POSSESSI ON IN SWEDISH AND DANISH – A DIACHRONIC PERSP ECTIVE 1 A LICJA P IOTROWSKA D OMINIKA S KRZYPEK Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań A BSTRACT . In this paper we discuss the alienability splits in two Mainland Scandinavian language s, Swedish and Danish, in a diachronic context. Although it is not universally acknowledged that such splits exist in modern Scandinavian languages, many nouns typically included in inalienable structures such as kinship terms, body part nouns and nouns de scribing culturally important items show different behaviour from those considered alienable. The differences involve the use of (reflexive) possessive pronouns vs. the definite article, which differentiates the Scandinavian languages from e.g. English. As the definite article is a relatively new arrival in the Scandinavian languages, we look at when the modern pattern could have evolved by a close examination of possessive structures with potential inalienables in Old Swedish and Old Danish. Our results re veal that to begin with, inalienables are usually bare nouns and come to be marked with the definite article in the course of its grammaticalization. 1. INTRODUCTION One of the striking differences between the North Germanic languages Swedish and Danish on the one hand and English on the other is the possibility to use definite forms of nouns without a realized possessive in inalienable possession constructions. Consider the following examples: 1 The work on this paper was funded by the grant Diachrony of article systems in Scandi - navian languages , UMO - 2015/19/B/HS2/00143, from the National Science Centre, Poland.
  • 'Appositive Possession in Ainu and Around the Pacific'

    'Appositive Possession in Ainu and Around the Pacific'

    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2021 Appositive possession in Ainu and around the Pacific Bugaeva, Anna ; Nichols, Johanna ; Bickel, Balthasar Abstract: Some languages around the Pacific have multiple possessive classes of alienable constructions using appositive nouns or classifiers. This pattern differs from the most common kind of alienable/i- nalienable distinction, which involves marking, usually affixal, on the possessum, and has only one class of alienables. The Japanese language isolate Ainu has possessive marking that is reminiscent of the Circum-Pacific pattern. It is distinctive, however, in that the possessor is coded not as a dependent in an NP but as an argument in a finite clause, and the appositive word is a verb. This paper givesa first comprehensive, typologically grounded description of Ainu possession and reconstructs the pattern that must have been standard when Ainu was still the daily language of a large speech community; Ainu then had multiple alienable class constructions. We report a cross-linguistic survey expanding pre- vious coverage of the appositive type and show how Ainu fits in. We split alienable/inalienable into two different phenomena: argument structure (with types based on possessibility: optionally possessible, obligatorily possessed, and non-possessible) and valence (alienable, inalienable classes). Valence-changing operations are derived alienability and derived inalienability. Our survey classifies the possessive systems of languages in these terms. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2021-2079 Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-204338 Journal Article Published Version The following work is licensed under a Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.
  • The Pragmatics and Syntax of German Inalienable Possession Constructions University of Georgia1

    The Pragmatics and Syntax of German Inalienable Possession Constructions University of Georgia1

    The Pragmatics and Syntax of German Inalienable Possession Constructions 1 2 VERA LEE-SCHOENFELD , GABRIELE DIEWALD University of Georgia1; Leibniz Universität Hannover2 1 The Phenomenon and Previous Syntactic/Pragmatic Analyses The prototypical inalienable possession construction in German has a dative (DAT)-marked external possessor: (0) Bello hat mir die Hand geleckt. Bello has me.DAT the hand licked ‘Bello licked my hand.’ This is an instance of external possession because the understood possessor of the body part, the possessum, is expressed outside of the nominal phrase containing the possessum, showing up as 1 an object pronoun (mir ‘me.DAT) in the verbal argument domain. Notice that the literal translation of the dative does not work in English. This is because English generally prefers internal possessors and thus makes use of the possessive pronoun my rather than the object pronoun me in examples like (0) (see e.g. Haspelmath 2001, König and Gast 2012). In German inalienable possession constructions with a PP-embedded possessum, there is considerable variation between the prototypical possessor dative construction and four others, so that there are a total of five different construction types: external possession with a dative- marked possessor (1a), external possession with an accusative (ACC)-marked possessor (1b), internal possession, with a genitive (GEN)-marked possessor (2), and doubly-marked possession, with both external and internal possessor, where the external possessor is again either dative- marked (3a) or accusative-marked (3b).2 (1) a. Bello hat mir in die Hand gebissen. Bello has me.DAT in the hand bitten ‘Bello bit me in the hand.’ b.
  • External Possession and the Undisentanglability of Syntax and Semantics

    External Possession and the Undisentanglability of Syntax and Semantics

    External Possession and the Undisentanglability of Syntax and Semantics Luke What is language? (Page 1) The Intuitive View of Language Well, languages are made of sound. And language has meaning. So language is ‘sound with meaning.’ (Aristotle) Saussure’s signifinnt (sound) and signifi (meaning) !ut language is far more than that""" In fact, most of linguistics is the study of the traits of language apart from meaning and sound per se# S!nta$ Phonolog! # Sound and meaning # Phonology # Syntax # $ormal semantics # Mor&hology %dramati&ation' Can I have an orange? inguistics ' the study of the lower iceberg Linguistics generally is the study of what makes us diferent from other apes. )If we want to study the lower iceberg, we ha+e to hold the upper iceberg onstant,- (An assum"tion of Stru tural and .enerati+e Linguisti s,) Traditional Generative Linguistics )techni/ues which enable 0linguists] 0...1 to determine the state and structure of natural languages winthount seminntic reference- (2homsky 1953) )I think that we are for ed to onclude that grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning.” (Chomsky 1957: 17) )*s&ects” Theory of (rammar ,-./01 (from Searle 1368) The Theoretical Problem S!ntax precedes semantics… (Interpreti+e) Primi ficie, shouldn’t the linguistic s!stem know the semantics of a sentence it makes9 Additionall!, the s!nta tic engine has to rule out semanticall! anomalous sentences. Selectional features and Subcat $rames *the *o! ela"sed. ela"se 0;, re/uires 0<tem"oral1 =P1 Why do this when semanti s will alread! >?:?9 an anomalous senten e9 If s!nta$ "re edes semanti s, there is alwa!s redundincy.
  • A Morphosyntactic Investigation of Nominal Possession in Tigrinya

    A Morphosyntactic Investigation of Nominal Possession in Tigrinya

    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2013-05-28 Projecting possessors: A Morphosyntactic Investigation of Nominal Possession in Tigrinya Gebregziabher, Keffyalew Gebregziabher, K. (2013). Projecting possessors: A Morphosyntactic Investigation of Nominal Possession in Tigrinya (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/27453 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/741 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Projecting possessors: A Morphosyntactic Investigation of Nominal Possession in Tigrinya By Keffyalew Gebregziabher A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS CALGARY, ALBERTA May 2013 © Keffyalew Gebregziabher 2013 Abstract In this dissertation, I examine the grammatical expression of possession in Tigrinya, a lesser-studied Semitic language of Ethiopia and Eritrea. I show that possession in Tigrinya is encoded by two strategies, which differ in both structure and function: (i) PREDICATIONAL STRATEGY has the particle nay and is used for alienable possession; (ii) ARGUMENTAL STRATEGY or BARE POSSESSION has no nay and is used for inalienable possession. To account for such differences, I propose different treatments for both types of possession.
  • Appositive Possession in Ainu and Around the Pacific

    Appositive Possession in Ainu and Around the Pacific

    Appositive possession in Ainu and around the Pacific Anna Bugaeva1,2, Johanna Nichols3,4,5, and Balthasar Bickel6 1 Tokyo University of Science, 2 National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, Tokyo, 3 University of California, Berkeley, 4 University of Helsinki, 5 Higher School of Economics, Moscow, 6 University of Zü rich Abstract: Some languages around the Pacific have multiple possessive classes of alienable constructions using appositive nouns or classifiers. This pattern differs from the most common kind of alienable/inalienable distinction, which involves marking, usually affixal, on the possessum and has only one class of alienables. The language isolate Ainu has possessive marking that is reminiscent of the Circum-Pacific pattern. It is distinctive, however, in that the possessor is coded not as a dependent in an NP but as an argument in a finite clause, and the appositive word is a verb. This paper gives a first comprehensive, typologically grounded description of Ainu possession and reconstructs the pattern that must have been standard when Ainu was still the daily language of a large speech community; Ainu then had multiple alienable class constructions. We report a cross-linguistic survey expanding previous coverage of the appositive type and show how Ainu fits in. We split alienable/inalienable into two different phenomena: argument structure (with types based on possessibility: optionally possessible, obligatorily possessed, and non-possessible) and valence (alienable, inalienable classes). Valence-changing operations are derived alienability and derived inalienability. Our survey classifies the possessive systems of languages in these terms. Keywords: Pacific Rim, Circum-Pacific, Ainu, possessive, appositive, classifier Correspondence: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 2 1.
  • Fundamentals of Modern Belarusian

    Fundamentals of Modern Belarusian

    Fundamentals of Modern Belarusian By Chris Marchant Introduction ii Chapter 1 Spelling Rules 1 Chapter 2 Noun Declension 5 Chapter 3 Additional Points on Noun Declension 17 Chapter 4 Irregular Plurals 21 Chapter 5 Adjective Declension 23 Chapter 6 Comparative and Superlative Adjective 27 Chapter 7 Personal Pronouns 31 Chapter 8 Possessive and Demonstrative Pronouns 33 Chapter 9 Interrogative and Relative Pronouns 37 Chapter 10 Numerals 39 Chapter 11 1st Conjugation Verbs 45 Chapter 12 2nd Conjugation Verbs 49 Chapter 13 Miscellaneous Verbs 51 Chapter 14 Reflexive Verbs 53 Chapter 15 Past Tenses 55 Chapter 16 Present and Future Tenses 57 Chapter 17 The Imperative 59 Chapter 18 Verbs of Motion 63 Chapter 19 Verbal Prefixes 67 Chapter 20 Gerunds and Participles 71 Chapter 21 The Nominative Case 73 Chapter 22 The Accusative Case 75 Chapter 23 The Genitive Case 79 Chapter 24 The Dative Case 83 Chapter 25 The Instrumental Case 85 Chapter 26 The Prepositional Case 87 Chapter 27 Prepositional Oddities 89 Chapter 28 Conditional Sentences 91 Chapter 29 Adverbs 93 Chapter 30 Conjunctions and Particles 97 GNU Free Documentation License 101 i While living in several former republics of the USSR, I learned to speak Russian, the lingua franca of CIS countries. Russian is spoken by the majority of adults in the CIS, and has served me well wherever I have traveled in the former Soviet Union. Russian is the dominant language in Belarus. Nevertheless, Belarusian still holds a prominent position in Belarusian society as a symbol of Belarusian identity and nationalism. Many government documents are printed only in Belarusian and most street signs are in Belarusian.
  • Genericity and Definiteness in English and Spanish*

    Genericity and Definiteness in English and Spanish*

    Learning definite determiners: genericity and definiteness in English and Spanish* Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux1, Alan Munn2, Cristina Schmitt2, Michelle DeIrish1 University of Toronto1 and Michigan State University2 1. Introduction Languages are characterized by an intricate system of form-to-sense correspondences. In the vocabulary part of the mental lexicon, researchers believe that children solve part of the mapping problem by making use of the linguistic context in which lexical items appear (Gillette et al. 1999). A more complex variant of this problem is the problem of mapping form to sense in the functional subdomain of the mental lexicon, where the problem of polysemy is often complicated by complex grammatical constraints. We are particularly interested in the crosslinguistic comparison of the acquisition of functional elements such as the definite determiner, which can have comparable syntactic distributions across languages, but map into overlapping but non-identical semantic spaces. This paper is part of ongoing work (Pérez-Leroux, Munn and Schmitt, 2003, Pérez-Leroux, Munn and Schmitt, in press) examining the development of the acquisition of the definite determiner in contexts where a) the definite does not have its canonical use/interpretation of referring to a unique and specific discourse-identified entity; and b) there is cross-linguistic and intra-linguistic variation in the distribution of non-canonical uses. We present here two studies examining the effect of the determiner and tense on children’s generic interpretations in English and Spanish. 2. Linguistic background The syntactic literature has identified a series of differences on the syntax/semantic mappings of noun phrases across languages, even in situations where languages share comparable morphosyntactic inventory of determiners and number, as is the case of the Romance and the Germanic languages (Chierchia 1998, Longobardi 1994, 2001, Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992).
  • Joanna Aleksandra Getka a Discontinuation

    Joanna Aleksandra Getka a Discontinuation

    Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Bia?orutenistyczne http://bialorutenistyka.umcs.pl Data: 19/03/2021 10:16:43 DOI:10.17951/sb.2020.14.279-295 Studia Białorutenistyczne 14/2020 LINGUISTICS ISSN: 1898-0457 e-ISSN: 2449-8270 Licence: CC BY 4.0 Joanna Aleksandra Getka University of Warsaw (Poland) Email: [email protected] ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5857-7257 A Discontinuation or a Preservation of the (Old) Belarusian Writing Tradition in the 18th Century? Contributions to the Discussion on the Development of the Literary Belarusian Language as Applied to Publications of the Basilian Printing Oices in Supraśl and Vilnius Przerwanie czy przetrwanie (staro)białoruskiej tradycji piśmienniczej w XVIII wieku? Przyczynki do dyskusji nad rozwojem literackiego języka białoruskiego na materiale wydań bazyliańskich drukarni z Supraśla i Wilna Заняпад ці эвалюцыя (стара)беларускай пісьмовай традыцыі ў XVIII стагоддзі? Да пытання пра дыскусію вакол развіцця літаратурнай беларускай мовы (на матэрыяле выданняў базыльянскіх тыпаграфій Супрасля і Вільні) UMCSAbstract The article presents elements of simple speech, the 18th century Ruthenian language, the testaments to which are the religious texts of that period published by theBasilian printing ofice in Supraśl (Sobranije pripadkov, 1722, Kratkoje soslovije, 1759, Pouczenije o obrjadach, 1788). The analysis of the Supraśl texts is supplemented by an analysis of a xtte published by the monastic printing ofice in Vilnius (Ecphonemata Liturgiey Greckiey 1671) inhe t Church Slavonic language but using the Latin script. Due to a variety of factors: whether political ones or scholarly stereotypes, religious texts were omitted in language research (on simple speech, Ruthenian language) and the Belarusian writing of the 18th century.
  • The Belarusian Language: the History and the Present1

    The Belarusian Language: the History and the Present1

    MIKALAY R. PRYGODZICH Doctor of Philology, Head of the Department of the History of the Belaru- sian Language, Belarusian State University ALENA V. KORSHUK Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of English and Speech Communica- tion, Belarusian State University The Belarusian Language: the History and the Present1 The formation of the Belarusian literary language is attributed to the 14th – 16th centuries when the written language on Belarusian territory absorbed the specific local phonetic, lexical, semantic, and grammatical features. The Belarusian written language of the ancient times was forming on the basis of the written heritage of the Eastern-Slavic language and the living dialects of the former Drygavichy, Kryvichy, and Radzimichy tribes. The old Belaru- sian literary language reached its highest level of development in the 14th – 16th centuries when it became the official language of the Great Principality of Lithuania and was used in the most important spheres of social life. Chronicles, diplomatic correspondence, magisterial work, legal provisions and state documents were officially registered as well as belles-lettres, sci- entific and religious literature was written in that language. However, by the end of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th century, the scope of the use of the old Belarusian literary language had gradually diminished. Under the new political and social-economic condi- tions of Liublin Union (1569) the application of the Belarusian language was considerably restrained, and Warsaw Confederation of 1696 substituted Polish for it. The Belarusian language remained only in the Uniate Basilican schools and local dialects. The appearance of a new Belarusian written language and the formation of a new Belarusian literary language is connected with the revival of the Belarusian nation and the liberation movement in the Russian Empire of the 19th, early 20th centuries.