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]