Transcript BeReEm - Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

EmBeR
Grammaticalization of mental predicate
constructions in Polish
by
Iwona Kokorniak
and Malgorzata Fabiszak
Grammaticalization and Data, Rouen, France, 10-11 May 2012
Overview
1. Grammaticalization
2. Aspect in Slavic
3. Meaning of myśleć ‘think’
4. Aim of the study
5. Prefix semantics
6. Meaning analysis of Perfective prefixed forms
of myśleć
7. Quantitative data
8. Degrees of grammaticalization
Grammaticalization
•
•
•
Grammaticalization - “the attribution of a
grammatical character to a previously
autonomous word” (Meillet [1912] 1948: 131,
as quoted in Hopper 1991: 17)
The resultant forms are “grammatical”, i.e.
part of “grammar” (Hopper 1991: 34 fn. 2)
Instances of grammaticalization: Categories
which are morphologized might safely be
said to be part of grammar
Grammaticalization
•
Grammaticalization may take place by:
•
•
•
•
•
desemanticization,
bleaching,
emptying or loss of semantic or pragmatic
meaning,
increase in abstractness, or
increase in bondedness: forms may become
less free and more bound (Traugott and
Heine 1991: 4-7)
Grammaticalization
•
•
•
Semantic context, salience and relative
frequency constitute factors that
contribute to grammaticalization
Grammaticalization is a question of
degree: increased syntacticization in its
early stages, and increased loss of
morphosyntactic independence in its later
stages, ultimately leading to zero, i.e.
increased morphologization, and
phonologization” (Traugott and Heine
1991: 3)
the more grammaticalized a form, the
more frequent it is (Bybee at al 1991: 5990)
Grammaticalization
• Only certain lexical classes are likely
to become grammaticalized (Traugott
and Heine 1991: 7-8):
•
•
•
•
Prepositions
Postpositions
Affixes
Reflexives
• Aspect, number, tense and case,
among others, occur frequently across
languages as affixal morphology
Semantics of myśleć ‘think’
•
•
•
•
characterized by semantic generality and
impoverishment (Danielewiczowa 2002: 131)
Highly polysemous: translated as 1)‘to find relationships
between/among things (to meditate, cogitate,
understand, judge, consider, think deeply’, 2)’to
remember, care about something/somebody’ and 3)‘to
intend to do something’ (Doroszewski 2005, SPP)
myśleć ‘think’, when unaccompanied by any prefix, can
be considered an imperfective verb
its aspect may change into the perfective one by means
of adding a prefix
Aspect in Polish
•
•
•
It is obligatorily expressed by all verb forms, regardless of tense or other grammatical
categories, marked by a system of aspectual affixes (prefixes and suffixes)
A system of Prefectivizing prefixes (po-, na-, ob-, do-, etc.) and Imperfectivizing suffixes (a, -y/iwa, -wa, etc) is used to represent aspect
Verbs with no aspectual prefixes are usually Imperfective (IMPF)
e.g. myśleć (IMPF) – wymyślić (P) - wymyślać (IMPF)
•
•
Slavic prefixes were first semantically ‘heavy’, later developed their aspectual function of
Perfectivity (Comrie 1976: 89-90)
po- in Russian (also in Polish) the most neutral semantically (often forms strict aspectual
pairs): myśleć - pomyśleć
The meaning of aspect in
Slavic (Dickey 2000)
•
•
•
•
•
•
‘east-west aspect theory’ for Slavic languages
‘totality’ – central semantic category of the western perfective
(Czech, Slovak, Sorbian, Slovene)
‘temporal definitness’ – central semantic category of the
eastern perfective (Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Bulgarian)
a temporally definite event “is viewed as both (a) complete
whole and (b) qualitatively different from preceding and
subsequent states of affairs” (Dickey and Hutcheson 2003: 2728).
Transitional zone – Serbo-Croatian and Polish, where the
perfective aspect is “a radial or polysemous category with a
secondary, local prototype” (Dickey 2000: 39)
Polish closer to the eastern group
Aspect in Slavic: A cognitive approach
(Janda 2004, 2007)
•
Distinction crucial to the entire aspectual system:
- completable actions – head towards a result, motivated by the
metaphor
A COMPLETABLE ACTION IS TRAVEL TO A DESTINATION
- non-completable actions – no heading towards a result; only them
can have Complex Act Perfectives known as Aktionsarten or
actionality (Janda 2007: 94) myśleć – pomyśleć (think for a while)
•
•
•
IMPERFECTIVE IS A FLUID SUBSTANCE
PERFECTIVE IS A DISCRETE SOLID
po-, pro- (prze-) are Perfective (DISCRETE SOLID) have perdurative
and delimitative meanings, focus on punctuality. Janda (2004, 2007)
Aspect in Polish: A cognitive
approach (Kochańska 2007)
•
•
•
Perfective – “sanctioned in Polish when the endpoints of the profiled
process fall properly within the conceptual viewing frame and are
therefore clearly ‘visible’ to the conceptualizer” (Kochańska 2007:
156).
Imperfective – used when “the conceptualizer specifically focuses on
the extended duration of the profiled process, conceptualizing its
temporal expanse as completely filling the adopted temporal viewing
frame; the processual endpoints are construed as coinciding with the
boundaries of the immediate scope, rather than falling properly within
them” (Kochańska 2007: 157)
Thus, present-time processes are always designated by non-past
imperfectives (Myślę o rozsądnym rozwiązaniu ‘I am thinking about a
reasonable solution’; non-past perfectives, on the other hand, have the
future-time meaning (Pomyślę o tym ‘I will think about it’
Aspectual pairs
•
•
within a network of verbs expressing a single
lexical meaning, Langacker (1999: 103), views
aspectual pairhood as a categorizing
relationship between a pair of imperfective and
perfective verbs that has a high degree of
entrenchment and ease of activation
myśleć ‘think’– depending on the context,
certain construals will be sanctioned and in
each case a different ‘pair of’ verbs, which are
mutually linked by an entrenched categorizing
relationship, is activated
Aim of the study
1)which prefixes combined with myśleć are
most grammaticalized and which are
not?
2) Why can they be considered as
grammaticalized / not grammaticalized?
Aspectual pairs of myśleć by Cockiewicz
(1992: 183)
•
- myśleć : pomyśleć (P); ‘think sth’
- myśleć : namyślić się ‘make up one’s mind’
•
- domyślić się (P): domyślać się (IMPF) ‘guess sth’
- obmyślić (P): obmyślać (IMPF) ‘think about’
- namyślić się (P): namyślać się (IMPF) ‘make up one’s
mind’
- przemyśleć (P) : przemyśliwać (IMPF) ‘think over/through’
-wymyślić (P): wymyślać (IMPF) ‘come up with’
- zamyślić się (P):zamyślać się (IMPF) ‘fall into deep thought’
- zmyślić (P): zmyślać (IMPF) ‘make up sth’
- rozmyślić się (P)‘change one’s mind’: rozmyślać ‘meditate’
Prefix semantics
•
do– indicates an approximation to a goal or result; some effort;
•
na– indicates an intensity of an action; expresses a cumulative
•
•
•
reaching the goal may involve encountering certain difficulties
along the way, where the trajector (TR) makes every effort to
achieve the goal despite any obstacles;
process
ob– the image schema involved here refers to a circular motion
of TR around LM
po– forms delimitative verbs to indicate (i) a short duration of
an action; (ii) a limited nature of an action; does not involve the
attainment of any obvious goal (atelic)
prze– may depict a three dimensional and bounded LM, such
as a tunnel in which the TR moves from one end to the other,
where the TR “gradually fills the whole volume of the landmark”
(Pasich-Piasecka 1993: 19)
Prefix semantics
•
•
•
•
•
•
roz– in its basic image schema represents the TR and landmark LM
constituting one entity before a change and taking different forms
afterwards. Thus, the comparison of the two states of the entity before
and after the change profiles different senses of roz-.
u– in one of its image schemas the LM is construed as s a collection of
entities among which the selected TR is located; thus, the TR
constitutes part of the LM
wy– construal of the TR’s emergence from the LM, or its coming into
existence by leaving the bounded region of the LM; the container
image schema evoked
za– can represent a construal of ‘excess’ with intransitive perfective
verbs, being extended from the sense of ‘going beyond a boundary’
z– implies following a path and then veering off in another direction
(Dickey 2006, 2009, ms.; Przybylska 2001, 2006;
Piernikarski 1975; Śmiech 1986; Tabakowska 2003a)
The meaning of Perfective prefixed
forms of myśleć
• domyślić się ‘guess sth’– focus on the end point and result;
intensive-resultative verb (Dickey 2009)
• namyślić się ‘make up one’s mind’– focus on cumulative
nature process, and goal attainement
• obmyślić ‘think about’– the mental process has a circular
nature, which means that the object of thinking is considered from many
different perspectives
• pomyśleć ‘think sth’– beginning of an action but no end or result,
focus on process; A prefix overlaps with the meaning of a source verb
enough to produce a compound verb whose meaning is identical to that of
the impf source verb save for aspect (Dickey 2006: 12)
• przemyśleć ‘think over/through’–
implies the in-depth
nature of the mental activity; also points at its completeness and duration
The meaning of Perfective prefixed
forms of myśleć ctnd.
• rozmyślić się ‘change one’s mind’– an observed change in
the subject’s mental state - between the ‘normal’ process of the mental
activity represented by the unprefixed form into the ‘changed’ mental state
represented by the prefixed one;
• the reflexive pronoun emphasizes the internal mental change of the
subject, which may also bring about a change in the subject’s behaviour
frequently conceived of by observers as a negative one (Przybylska 2001:
279-280, Tabakowska 2003b)
• umyślić coś ‘set one’s mind on sth, decide’- the mental
process involves selection of one entity from a collection; the subject of
the process thus focuses his/her attention on the selected entity, with the
mental activity not being entirely conscious and goal-oriented
• wymyślić ‘come up with’– refers to a mental activity as a result
of which one or more ideas emerge from one’s mind; completeness of the
process, which is conscious and goal-oriented; punctual in nature
• zamyślić się ‘fall into deep thought’– an absorbtive verb, as it
construes a continuous process whose subject, by becoming deeply
engrossed in the activity, loses control over it;
• the mental activity occurs independently of the subject’s will, some
adverse consequences may be expected (Dickey ms.)
• zmyślić ‘make up sth, think sth up’- the subject involved in
the mental activity suddenly strays from the normal train of thought and
produces an unexpected idea (deviant result – a false proposition)
Prefix/Aspect frequencies; PWN Corpus
Prefix
donaobpoprzerozuwyzaz-
Imperf
Perf
Total
Ja to uzupełnię
542
350
892
59
32
91
44
47
101
0
998
998
28
225
253
180
64
244
0
26
26
269
1057
1326
31
185
185
33
25
58
Degrees of grammaticalization
Degrees of grammaticalization
•
Most grammaticalized aspectual pairs with myśleć:
myśleć (IMPF):pomyśleć ‘think sth’ (P),
•
Less grammaticalized aspectual pairs with suffixal
derivation:
przemyśleć (P):przemyśliwać (IMPF) ‘think through;
wymyślić (P):wymyślać (IMPF) ‘come up with sth’;
domyślić się (P):domyślać się (IMPF) ‘guess’; namyślić
się (P):namyślać się (IMPF) ‘make up one’s mind’;
obmyślić (P):obmyślać (IMPF) ‘think about’; zamyślić się’
fall into deep thought’ : zamyślać się; rozmyślić się
‘change one’s mind’: rozmyślać (IMPF) ‘cogitate’; umyślić
‘decide’;
•
Least grammaticalized affixed forms:
zmyślić : zmyślać ‘think up, make up sth’
Conclusions
• po- most grammaticalized: little semantic
value; grammatical – aspectual value
added; most frequent in the Perfective,
most bound in form
• prze- na-, wy-, do-, ob-, u-, roz- add both
semantic and grammatical value
• z- adds grammatical value, but most
importantly changes the semantic value
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bybee, Joan L., William Pagliuca and Revere D. Perkins. 1991. “Back to the future” ”, in:
Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. 2,
Focus on types of grammatical markers. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 59-90.
Cockiewicz, Wacław. 1992. Aspekt na tle systemu słowotwórczego polskiego czasownika...
Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Danielewiczowa, Magdalena. 2002. Wiedza i niewiedza: Studium polskich czasowników
epistemicznych. [Knowing and Not Knowing: A study of Polish epistemic predicates.]
Warszawa: Katedra Lingwistyki Formalnej UW.
Dickey, Stephen M. 2000. Parameters of Slavic aspect: A cognitive approach. Stanford: CSLI.
Dickey, Stephen M. 2006. Aspectual pairs, goal orientation, and po- delimitatives in Russian.
Glossos 7. (http://seelrc.org/glossos/issues/7/dickey.pdf) (date of access: 9th Nov. 2009).
Dickey, Stephen M. 2009. Subjectification and the East-West aspect division. (Paper
presented at the 9th Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 16th Oct. 2009.).
Dickey, Stephen M. (manuscript). Subjectification and the Russian perfective.
Dickey, Stephen M. and Julie Hutcheson. 2003. “Delimitative verbs in Russian, Czech and
Slavic”, in: Robert A. Maguire and Alan Timberlake (eds.), American contributions to the
Thirteenth International Congress of Slavists. Columbus: Ohio Slavica, 23-36.
(http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/5473/1/Dickey%20%26%20Hutcheson%
20Delimitatives.pdf) (date of access: 9th Nov. 2009)
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Doroszewski, Witold (ed.). 2005. Słownik poprawnej polszczyzny. Warszawa: PWN.
Hopper, Paul. 1991. “On some principles of grammaticalization”, in: Bernd Heine and Elizabeth
C. Traugott (eds.). Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. 1. Focus on theoretical and
methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Bejamins, 17-35.
Janda, Laura. 2004. “A metaphor for aspect in Slavic”. Cognitive Linguistics 15/4: 471-427.
Janda, Laura. 2007. What makes Russian bi-aspectual verbs special?, in: Dagmar Divjak and
Agata Kochańska (eds.). Cognitive paths into the Slavic domain. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kochańska, Agata. 2007. “Conflicting epistemic meanings of the Polish aspectual variants in past
and fut ure uses: Are they a vagary of grammar?”, in: Dagmar Divjak and Agata Kochańska
(eds.). Cognitive paths into the Slavic domain. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 149-180.
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive application. Vol. 2.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Meillet, Antoine. [1912] 1948. “L’èvolution des forms grammaticales”, in: Antoine Meillet (ed.)
Linguistique historique at linguistique gènèrale. Paris: Champion, 130-148.
Pasich-Piasecka, Agnieszka. 1993. “Polysemy of the Polish verbal prefix prze-“, in:
Elżbieta Górska (ed.), Images from the cognitive scene. Kraków: Universitas.
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Piernikarski, Cezary. 1975. Czasowniki z prefiksem po- w języku polskim i czeskim: Na tle
rodzajów akcji w językach słowiańskich. [Verbs with the po- prefix in Polish and Czech: In the
background of Aktionsarten in Slavic languages]. Warszawa: PWN.
Przybylska, Renata. 2001. “Struktura schematyczno-wyobrażeniowa prefiksu czasownikowego
roz-“ [Image-schematic structure of the verbal prefix ‘roz-’] Polonica 21: 269-286.
Przybylska, Renata. 2006. Schematy wyobrażeniowe a semantyka polskich prefiksów
czasownikowych do-, od-, prze-, roz-, u-. [Image schemata and semantics of Polish verb
prefixes do-, od-, prze-, roz-, u-]. Kraków: Universitas.
Śmiech, Witold. 1986. Derywacja prefiksalna czasowników polskich. [Prefix Derivation of
Polish Verbs] . Wrocław: Ossolineum.
Tabakowska, Elżbieta. 2003a. Space and time in Polish: The preposition za and the verbal
prefix za-. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K.-U. Panther (eds.), Motivation in Language.
Studies in Honor of Günter Radden, 153-177. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tabakowska, Elżbieta. 2003b. The notorious Polish reflexive pronouns: A plea for Middle
Voice. Glossos 4. (www.seelrc.org/glossos/issues/4/tabakowska.pdf), (date of access: 9th
Nov. 2008)
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Bernd Heine. 1991. “Introduction”, in: Elizabeth C. Traugott and
Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. 2, Focus on types of grammatical
markers. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1-14.
Thank you for your attention

[email protected]
[email protected]