Rolandas Mikulskas. “Copular constructions in Lithuanian. Valency, argument realization and grammatical relations in Baltic”

S aipsniai / A icles 257 GÖTZ KEYDANA Geo g-Augus -Uni e si ä Gö ingen Fields o esea ch: phonological econs uc ion: econs uc ion o phonological g amma s (accen ology, syllabi ica ion), phone ic g ounding o diach onic phonological p ocesses; his o ical syn ax, a gumen s uc u e and case, subo dina ion (mainly Vedic Sansk i ). ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS COPULAR CONSTRUCTIONS IN LITHUANIAN. VALENCY, ARGUMENT REALIZATION AND GRAMMATICAL RELATIONS IN BALTIC Ams e dam: Benjamins, 2017, x , 280 pp. ISBN 9789027259127 The book unde e iew is he ou h publica ion in a se ies on a gumen s uc u e in Bal ic. The au ho p esen s a ho ough in es iga ion o copula cons uc ions in Li huanian, i.e. cons uc ions wi h bū i and, o a lesse deg ee, o he copula -like e bs like i i and ap i. The analyses gi en a e couched in he amewo k o Cogni i e Linguis ics. Copula cons uc ions ha e been s udied ex ensi ely in he las decades, bo h om a ypological and om a heo e ical poin o iew. This in e es is pa ly due o he as ly di e en seman ics co e ed by CCs, anging om p ed- ica i e o equa ional, and om exis en ial o loca i e and possessi e. CCs a e also challenging om a syn ac ic poin o iew. How can we accoun o hei s uc u e? A e small clauses in ol ed? I so, wha is hei exac syn ac ic s a- us? How a e cases like he da i e in he mihi es -cons uc ion o he geni i e in cons uc ions like Onu ės žalios akys (p.24) licensed? The au ho gi es essen ially synch onic answe s o a leas some o he ques- ions men ioned ( he ca ea “essen ially” being due o he ac ha i some imes GÖTZ KEYDANA 258 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVII emained unclea o me i he claimed dependencies be ween di e en con- s uc ions a e o be unde s ood as diach onic o synch onic. Genuine a emp s a diach onic explana ions emain a he meek. E.g., he scena io o he de- elopmen o pseudocle s on p.129 is la gely i ele an since he au ho does no sea ch o any e idence o he alleged p ecu so s o pseudocle s in Old Li huanian). Con a y o a end in unc ional linguis ics in ecen yea s, he d aws his da a almos exclusi ely om in ui ion. Co po a, which migh ha e shed ligh on he dis ibu ion o he a ious cons uc ions discussed, we e no consul ed. This may be conside ed a d awback, especially when pseudocle s a e conce ned. As a non-na i e o Li huanian, I may well be misled, bu I am unde he imp ession ha his ype is ma ginal a bes . In he i s pa o his book, Mikulskas de elops a de ailed accoun o he syn ax and he seman ics o copula cons uc ions o Li huanian. The i s chap e discusses p oblems o ole assignmen and linking. The gis o his chap e is con incing: A emp s o de i e he a es ed cons uc ions om e bal subca ego iza ion do ace se ious p oblems in he case o e bs like bū i, whose “seman ic esou ces […] a e no su icien ” (p.26). In he second chap e , he au ho looks in o he seman ics o bū i in g ea - e de ail. He illus a es he inadequa eness o wha he calls he “ e bocen ic model” wi h he sp ay/load-al e na ion. Mikulskas ollows Goldbe g (1995) in ying his al e na ion o di e en cons uc ions and hus ul ima ely o di e en seman ic ames. Tu ning o bū i, he discusses he seman ic con ibu ion o he e b in a ious copula cons uc ions. He concludes ha he copula essen ial- ly p edica es iden i y; he seman ics o he a ious cons uc ions, hen, is due o i s p edica i e complemen s. Mikulskas’ a gumen s o he iden i y-seman- ics o he e b, howe e , a e a he weak. They seem o be based essen ially on his obse a ion ha “we use his adi ional e m [i.e. copula, G.K.] ha ing bo owed i om he analysis o he p oposi ion o iden i y as a logic s uc u e” (p.42). Apa om his pe i io p incipii we ind claims ha “i s [i.e. he copula’s, G.K.] s uc u al unc ion in cons uc ions o iden i y is also ob ious, and i al- lows us o speak o a ela i e independence o such e bs wi h espec o he second componen o he complex p edica e and assign he meaning o ‘iden i- y’ o hem” (p.43). To me, his is a om ob ious, and I would ha e liked o see some e idence suppo ing his assump ion. Wha hen, abou well- o med sen ences like ponas ne b olis, his ex. 2, p.2, o he epi ome o iden i y s a e- men s, Mai onis − ai Jonas Mačiulis, his ex.49, p.19? Chap e 3 is an ex ensi e s udy o he a ious a es ed copula cons uc ions o Li huanian. The chap e culmina es in a new classi ica ion dis inguishing as- c ip i e cons uc ions (wi h adjec i e complemen s) om equa i e cons uc ions (wi h nouns) which “may be u he classi ied in o desc ip ional-iden i ying Rolandas Mikulskas, Copula cons uc ions in Li huanian. Valency, a gumen ealiza ion and g amma ical ela ions in Bal ic Recenzijos / Re iews 259 and p ope ly iden i ica ional ones” (81). This classi ica ion is based on insigh - ul in e p e a ions, no howe e on dis ibu ion o g amma icali y judgemen s. See below on his poin . Chap e 4 se es o comple e he pic u e. Mikulskas discusses mo e ma - ginal ypes o copula cons uc ions be o e adding “Final ema ks” o he i s pa o his book in chap e 5. He e, he au ho again u ns o he exis en ial cons uc ion which, in his con incing analysis, is he basis o loca i e and possessi e cons uc ions. Thus, a he co e, bū i has wo unc ions. On he one hand, i deno es exis ence (allowing o loca i e and possessi e cons uc ions); on he o he , i se es as a copula deno ing iden i y (allowing o asc ip i e cons uc ions). The second pa o he book is de o ed o speci ica ional cons uc ions. An example o such a cons uc ion is Mikulskas’ ex. 211, p.98: Mūsų anglų kal- bos moky ojas y a Jonas Pe ai is. Cons uc ions like hese s and ou because o hei peculia in o ma ion s uc u e: “[T]he nominal wi h ole de ini eness [i.e. a s age-le el p edica e, G.K.] is always he opic whe eas ha wi h indi idu- al de ini eness [i.e. an indi idual-le el p edica e, G.K.] is i s commen ” (p.97). The o de in speci ica ional cons uc ions is ixed. Ra he unsu p isingly, he au ho claims ha hese cons uc ions a e based on “ he meaning o iden i y” (p.110) and ha hey di e om iden i y o equa- ion due o “ he seman ic and e e en ial p ope ies o hei nominals” (ibid.). These p ope ies, howe e , a e no spelled ou explici ly. Chap e 7 is de o ed o pseudocle s like Jeigu ko nemėgs u, ai cepelinų, Mi- kulskas’ ex.255, p.120, o Ką Ma ija pada ė, ai bėgo ma a oną. The la e ype is ema kable when compa ed o Engl. Wha Ma ia did was un a ma a hon (p.121) because o he ini e e b in he second pa . The au ho does no accoun o his di e ence. Pace Mikulskas i is ha dly su p ising ha “ he pos e bal (sub- jec ) nominal is always he nomina i e” (p.121). This is simply due o he ac ha he ins umen al in p edica i e cons uc ions is ied o a s age-le el ead- ing – ce ainly no o he posi ion ela i e o he copula. Also, “case a ac ion” in educed pseudocle s, which he au ho discusses on p.123 ., seems o be de- aul in languages wi h ich case sys ems. His analysis o he allegedly a ac ed nominals as a ibu i e is con incing. In chap e 8 Mikulskas aises he ques ion o subjec hood in speci ica ional cons uc ions. Despi e clea ag eemen pa e ns he concludes ha he subjec is he p e e bal nominal. The poin will be aken up below. The hi d and inal pa o he book is de o ed o aspec in copula cons uc- ions. Apa om lexicalized o ms like būna o in lec ional o ms like būda o, aspec is gene ally encoded by p e e bs o adposi ions. GÖTZ KEYDANA 260 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVII In chap e 11 he applies S assen’s s a i ica ional model o Li huanian copu- la cons uc ions. The esul s a e ha dly su p ising. C . he ollowing s a emen : “[T]he nominal encoding s a egy, pa icula ly i s a ie y wi h a non- e bal cop- ula in iden i ica ional sen ences, o e s he leas possibili ies o he exp ession o aspec ” (p.212). Tha copula -like e bs like e.g. ap i o e g ea e aspec ual po en ial han bū i almos amoun s o a uism. In chap e 12, a ious aspec ual and empo al possibili ies wi h di e en ypes o copula cons uc ions a e illus a ed. The su ey is imp essi e. How- e e , i ha dly sheds new ligh on he TA-sys em o Li huanian: The obse ed possibili ies a e, as one would ha e suspec ed, essen ially ied o he seman ics o he complemen s. The book ends wi h “gene al conclusions” and indices. Mikulskas’ book is a majo con ibu ion o he s udy o Li huanian syn ax. I has, howe e , se e e sho comings which lessen i s po en ial impac . A mi- no one conce ns Mikulskas’ a i ude owa ds wo k om au ho s o wha he calls “ he o mal pe suasion” (58,262). The au ho discusses o mal accoun s as a backg ound o his own app oach. Howe e , gi en he ple ho a o pape s he could ha e chosen om, his selec ion seems o ha e been guided by chance. Wo se s ill, Mikulskas does no do he wo k he e iews jus ice. Bo h his accoun o o mal seman ic and minimalis app oaches (o he s a e igno ed) a e g ossly inadequa e. He ob iously has no g asp o ype heo y, no does he unde s and he in icacies o minimalis analyses. Bu his ea men o o mal analyses al- so e eals a mo e undamen al p oblem: One o he hallma ks o wo k in he gene a i e adi ion is he way da a a e used in a sys ema ic ashion o elucida e pa e ns. Take, o ins ance, he ollowing examples adap ed om da a Mikul- skas quo es in his e iew o analyses by “ ep esen a i es o he o mal end” (p.62): (1) They conside ed alcohol ( o be) exci a o y. (2) They conside ed alcohol ( o be) wa e . (3) They conside ed Cice o *( o be) Tully. Da a like hese show unambiguously and independen ly o any in e p e- a ion o amewo k ha a leas in English he e is a syn ac ic di e ence be- ween equa i es (ex.3) and p edica i es (exs.1,2). Unde embedding, he copula is manda o y in he la e , while i may well be omi ed in he o me . Ob- se a ions like hese a e in aluable o wo easons: Fi s , hey a e independ- en o p emises. Second, o be desc ip i ely adequa e, any model o English copula cons uc ions should be able o accoun o hem. Mikulskas, howe - e , ha dly e e con ibu es obse able and es able da a like hese. Conce ning he example quo ed, he e en misses he poin , since his own analysis p edic s Rolandas Mikulskas, Copula cons uc ions in Li huanian. Valency, a gumen ealiza ion and g amma ical ela ions in Bal ic Recenzijos / Re iews 261 ha copula cons uc ions wi h pos e bal noun beha e exac ly alike – and he seems o sugges ha his is no supposed o be unde s ood as a peculia i y o Li huanian. Ins ead o si ing da a, Mikulskas ends o eso o in e p e a ions guided by his cogni i e amewo k o e en o a gumen a ab auc o i a e (e.g. p.59). In he ew ins ances whe e he adap s a s ic ly da a-d i en me hodology, he misses he impac o his obse a ions: Inspi ed by English da a he quo ed in a e iew o o mal analyses, he in oduces Li huanian binding da a on p.130. Unno iced by him, hey challenge his analysis as hey show ha Li huanian cle s o m a binding domain. Thus, ea ing hei pa s as syn ac ically independen (p.121) aises se ious ques ions. In one o he a e ins ances when he au ho himsel ac ually a gues wi h dis ibu ional pa e ns, he ails in a a he spec acula ash- ion: Commen ing on ex.149 on p.67, he claims he ph ase y a dėžėje o be “dis- con inuous” because “ he mo pheme o he loca i e case ep esen ing he LOC” is no di ec ly adjacen o he e b. Since he e is no way case ma king could possibly show up on he copula, his obse a ion is as ounding. E en mo e su - p ising is he ac ha Mikulskas con inues his line o hough by ema king on i being “no ewo hy” ha “ he loca i e p eposi ional ph ase [p ie eže o in ex.153] emains indi isible” (p.67). P eposi ion s anding is unknown in Li h- uanian. How, hen, could his pa e n be an issue? An example o he imp essionis ic me hodology Mikulskas applies elsewhe e is his discussion o subjec s in speci ica ional cons uc ions. Ag eemen in da- a like his ex.289, p.136, Šios mokyklos di ek o ius esan i okia Janina Pe ai ienė, poin s o subjec hood o he pos e bal cons i uen . Now, he au ho is ce ainly igh in claiming ha ag eemen is no su icien c i e ion ( hough i is ce ain- ly a s ong one). Since he seminal wo k o And ews (1976) and Zaenen, Ma- ling & Th áinsson (1985) a ious subjec es s ha e been de eloped which go a beyond simple ag eemen . Mikulskas, howe e , uses none o hese. Ra he , he eso s o he simple in ui ion ha an ag eemen -based analysis clashes wi h in o ma ion s uc u e. Dwelling on his example, i s uck me as no ewo hy ha , wha e e he cogni i e humd um, he au ho ’s analysis ends o eg ess o ex emely con- se a i e p emises based essen ially on adi ional g amma : The subjec in speci ica ional cons uc ions is he p e e bal cons i uen mainly because o he au ho ’s gene al uneasiness wi h he no ion o pos e bal subjec s in Li huanian. Equa i e and p edica i e cons uc ions wi h nouns a e opposed o p edica i e cons uc ions wi h adjec i es (asc ip i e cons uc ions acco ding o Mikulskas) simply because o he pa s o speech in ol ed. A inal poin I would like o men ion is he lack o o mal explici ness in Mikulskas’ wo k. Though he au ho claims o gi e a cons uc ion g amma GÖTZ KEYDANA 262 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXVII accoun o he da a, we nei he ind an explici lexical en y o bū i, no any accoun o he in e ac ion o his en y wi h cons uc ions. While he le el o g amma ical analysis may be a bi disappoin ing o some (including mysel ), he book ne e heless o e s he mos de ailed accoun o copula cons uc ions in Li huanian oday. This makes i an indispensable ool o anyone in e es ed in he syn ax o Li huanian. REFERENCES And ews A e y 1976: The VP complemen analysis in Mode n Icelandic. – No h Eas e n Linguis ic Socie y 6, 1–21. Goldbe g Adele E. 1995: Cons uc ions. A Cons uc ion G amma App oach o A - gumen S uc u e. Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess. Zaenen Annie, Joan Maling, Höskuldu Th áinsson 1985: Case and G am- ma ical Func ions: The Icelandic Passi e. – Na u al Language and Linguis ic Theo y 3: 441–483. Į eik a 2017 m. lapk ičio 10 d. GÖTZ KEYDANA Geo g-Augus -Uni e si ä Gö ingen Sp achwissenscha liches Semina Kä e-Hambu ge -Weg 3, 37073 Gö ingen, Ge many [email protected]