Björn Wiemer & Markus Giger. „Resultativa in den nordslavischen und baltischen Sprachen. Bestandaufnahme unter arealen und grammatikalisierungstheoretischen Gesichtspunkten“

Minutes Linguistics Lithuanica LIV (2006), 123 - 129 Reviews Reviews ByOrn Wiemer & Markus GIGER Resultativa in the North Slavic and Baltic Languages. Inventory under area and grammaticalization theoretical Points of view Miinchen: LINCOM Europe, 2005, viii + 143 S., ISBN 3-89586-476-5 (LINCOM Studies in Language Typology, 10) Im Miinchener Publishers LINCOM Europe, whose publishing Contribution to Linguistics general high Evaluation and deserves admiration, is recently an interesting Slavic-Baltic Book published by: Bjérn Wiemer (Constanz) and Markus Giger (Prague) have the Resultativa in the North Slavic and Baltic Languages carefully treated. Die Authors intended to research to summarize, existing Like to fill out and less explored Explore individual zu topics more closely. As a theoretical Base they have the well-known Typology of results Constructions of the Leningrad School of V. P. Nedjalkov and H.E. Yakhontov elected (Nedjalkov 1983, 1988). Eine Discussion of the general theoretical Questions related to the treated subject related, I thus exclude, because this wierde last At the end of one Discussion of Nedjalkov and Jachontov approach. Maybe it is for the Readers of this message only briefly perceived that the Difference between Resultitive and Perfect in this Conception approximately im aspect exists, from which the Semantics of des Verbs is seen: If a Verb der in resulting form appears, the Attention to the one Requiring change state of concentrated; if, on the es other hand, in the Perfect form appears, the Attention to the by one condition assumed Change is concentrated. Obviously put Resultitive and Perfect Two Pages of a Miinze represent, which consequently the Source for the Dynamics of the whole aspect-temporal grammatical category can be. Zum Resultitive and Perfectly joins the Tripod, that im Difference to Resulting no Relationship to Change of a state indicates more. Due to their Semantic interact the Results week Perfect or not. Tripod forms of the Verbs of course also with different types of diathesis, and the 123 constructions formed by them can be subject-oriented, object-oriented, primary or secondary possessive. This very remarkable continuum between aspect and diathesis is structured differently in different languages. At appropriate places this is shown instructively in the monograph discussed for the North Slavic and Baltic languages. Another theoretical component in Wiemer and Giger is the premise that —in other words, the different interaction (interaction) in different languages between the lexical input of the verb and the semantics of the construction formed by the resultative reflects the position of the resultative in the relevant system of verbal grammatical categories (respectively ~ from the operational point of view —lets us conclude on this position). The lexical characteristics of the verbs therefore play a significant role. Actional components in the meaning of the verbs can influence the behavior of the verbs in the resultative-perfect constructions: certain (transformative, mutative, terminative) components are favourable for the connection with the resultative, others (conclusive, semelfaktive) are less favourable, and still others (ingressive, egressive, etc.) are unfavorable. The Ma of connectability between a lexical and a grammatical category, however, also depends on the Maf& of the grammaticalization of the grammatical category: The more grammaticalized it is, the less lexical restrictions there are for its use. The authors speak here with Volkmar Lehmann (1999) of an expansion in the lexicon. This grammaticalistic view can also be linked to the structuralist concept of neutralization: the grammatical status of a linguistic element is inversely proportional to the number of paradigmatic neutralization relationships in which it stands, whereby these can also be triggered by a syntagmatic relationship to a lexical element or a lexical category (cf. Vykypél 2006: 50). More generally, the more grammaticalized an element is, the less the freedom of choice among the members of a category depends on the speaker- 's intention of naming it. However, two types of relationships must necessarily be distinguished: those between categories and those between elements. From the point of view of the language structure, it can be assumed that in different mafe regulated (obligate) relations exist only between categories, while the regulation of the combinations between the elements from different categories belongs to the linguisticus (usus of the language structure). Im 124 Some of these can be Combinations between elements are made more or less mandatory and others are excluded. However, this is based on the Point of view of language structure out on the through the inner Structure of the respective categories certain properties of the elements or when these — are manifested on their — Semantic (in Plan of contents). So bestehen Phenomena such as Reaction or Valence in that a Content element by another ,,required“ is, but this »Desire* as Relationship between Elements (not between categories) can be as by a Convention of Consider Usus Given: Connections between Content elements that Demands of the Reaction or valence not correspond, will fiir held to be “unsenseful”, i.e. For those who do not remember Sinn, keinen Part of the (current) Shape or can shape the world (by the Elements of language and its various Combinations will be the World as the Meaning of in various way shaped). (Vgl. Vykypyl 2006: 48-50, 70.) Ahnlich can a Connection between a Verb with a specific Meaning and the Resulting also for a ,,unsinnige“ be kept in touch, and such a Connection can be fir different Updates and updates Expressions of the use statement, because the Speaker always has the Freedom, among the Structuring an obligatory Choose a zu category. Die Obligation of a Category means the Obligatoritat just this Category (in our Fall of those who Tempus-Aspect-Category), not their Glieder (in our Fall of those of the Resultivs). One encounters here the general Difficulty, the so-called. Grammar Alith or Acceptability of different constructions with individual Structuring of certain evaluate zu categories that anyone who has ever Native speakers according to his Opinion about this or that sentence has asked, is familiar. Diese Grammatikalitat represents a functional-stylistic, diastratic, dialectal, etc. sometimes only vague, but probably structured Continuum yet. Es It should be emphasized that the Authors of the book discussed at their Ausfiihrungen solche Factors carefully report. Another highlight The fact is that the Authors quite naturally the North Slavic zu Languages also the two Baltic have added languages. I have this Gefiehl, that the Comparison between Slavic and Baltic Languages (but also that between the individual Slavic Languages! ), which does not include various historical-comparative reconstructions Aim has not intense enough (in particular from the Slavists) is maintained, er although is very important. In diesem Connectivity is the potential readers also sketchwise iiber the Content of the Buchs informs. Im first Chapters (Introduction: Eingren125 zung and task definition; S. 1-11) are concisely the theoretical Base and the Task of the Work presented and summarized. Im second Chapters (S. 13-28) the Resultative constructions im Standard Russian handled. This is followed by the Description of the situation the in north(west)russian Mundarten im dritten Chapters (S. 29-41), Who are afraid of that im Standard Russian sometimes differs significantly. The fourth Chapters (S. 43-51) brings the Celebrations zu the Baltic Languages. Im fifth Chapters (S. 53-57) will the Georgians be white Resultsive treated. The sixth Chapters (S. 59-68) is the Ukrainian, the seventh (S. 69-81) the Polish Dedicated to performance (sch6n and important is this in Chapters of the Comparison between Ukrainian and Polish resulting constructions on -no/-to, which was previously missing). Valuable is the eighth Chapters (S. 83-86) zu the former Baltic Slavic Languages (Polabian, Pomeranian, Slovene) and today's Kashubian. The ninth Chapters (S. 87-95) deals with the Czech, the tenth (S. 97-100) das Slovak. Das Sorbian is found eleven im Chapters (S. 101-106). Es It should be noted that the Order of in Treatment of individual language has been chosen very rationally, because so follow languages on each other, which through important Common features im Area of are connected. The Twelfth Chapters (S. 107-121) brings a ,,Overview of the Facts, some Inferences, hypotheses and open Questions". However, it does not only contain Summary and view, but will be es here some points once again griindlich treated, such as the Question of Development of the stock Properties at Resultatiin ve there Interaction with the lexical Meaning of the Verbs. This is accompanied by a iibersichtliche Table, in which Diathesis types of results and their morphological peculiarities are compiled (S. 122-123), and four beautiful Maps that instructive the area Distribution of the results Show constructions (S. 125-133). Also that Bibliography is not missing (S. 135-143), Unfortunately, however, some cited Work (S. 24: Bulakhovsky 1954; S. 33: Moser 1998; S. 88, Anm. 82: Sipkova 1993). When I said that it is commendable that the es Authors in their Treatise also Lithuanian and have incorporated Latvian, is so somewhat to complain that not zu also the Baltic Finns Languagin es of their Monograph at least a small have found a place. Der Comparison with them would certainly be very interesting and exciting. One could, for example, speculate how the Latvian-Lithuanian, dialectally Weirussian and northern Russian resultative constructions + Participle Prateritum Active, which also the Authors (S. 43, 111) even as against the northern Slavic 126 standard languages conspicuously, with the Livonian, Estonian and Finnish perfectly connected, which also through the Construction esse + Participle Prateritum is actively formed. Ein (historical and comparative) Haarspalter would also add that the claim that the Baltic and the Slavic Participle Prateritum Active are etymologically related (S. 44, 112), is not entirely correct, because the Baltic Participle is from the historical Viewpoint from suppletivisch: goes although Es like the Slavic Participin le allen Auger case Nominative Singular and Plural Masculine in Indo-European *-w(e)szuriick, in den Nominative Masculinum are, however, the Topic as Symbol for Past and the Suffix -ntals Signs for the active Diathesis included. From Baltic Sight are furthermore the Executions to Lithuanian non-standard linguistic resulting constructions with turéti interesting (S. 47-48 and on the 109), one hand zu those rarely occupied with Participle Prateritum Passive, especially but on the other hand those zu with Participle Prateritum Active, which so far less Attention was given as it deserved. What the Creation of such Construction im As for Lithuanian, one could Anhänger der Area resp. even the Sprachbundlinguistik obviously assume that here a certain es um Penetration of two Areas with different perfect-resultative constructions goes, the ,,Western European* Areas (WE) with habere + Participle Prateritum Liabilities (PPP) and the ,,north-eastern eurasian* (NOE) with esse + Participle Prateritum Active (PPA): (1) WE (Lithuanian rare) habere + PPP > Lithuanian 7 colloquialSq ly habere + PPA (2) NOE (Lithuanian standardesse + PPA linguistic) Somit 6ffnet at the same time also the Possibility to Difference between biti + PPA and turéti +PPA possibly further in the way intellectualize zu (grammaticalize) that the first Construction Perfect, the second Resultatively expressed. Also Baltic interesting are the Considerations on Evidentialis and Narrative the in North Russian and Weirussian Dialects (S. 38-39 and which by 55), comparable impersonal and perfective Constructions like the Baltic in languages are formed. Here too, a Relationship with the Baltic Finns languages set up, as well as the Mention the authors. 127 All these are exciting Baltic (but not only Baltic!) Topics of zu another, even more detailed Treatment. Finally, there is still a Sorbian Note added. Im Subchapter on Delimitation of the Resultives against the Liabilities im Sorbian reads: "The two Written languages are therefore characterized by the Results of the Confrontation of the dialectal (dem German equivalent) Systems with a System without specific Auxiliary for the action Passive, like that es Czech language knows* (S. 102-103). I believe that such a opinion, in which the Written language (default language) as Result of Confrontations, by interactions of heterogeneous and sometimes opposite forces, as a dynamic, several each other possibly in competing Systems subdivided, functional-stylistically stratified entity is understood, for example im Senses of the functional-structuralist Prague synchronous Dynamics of the language system, is more adequate than others, more or less declared or unconsciously static models, whether ob they are purist or vice versa _,,counter-puristically demystifying“ are (the latter Tendency seems im Falle des Sorbians recently at — least with some researche- - rs to become stronger and stronger). If general language and specifically the Sorbian as a communication instrument is understood, that all kinds of functions zu erfiillen has, is so neither that ,,natural“,,not kinetic* colloquial System with the German” Distinction between Resultitive and Passive, even that ,,pure“,,truly Slavic“ standard language System with the ,,czech“ Absence of a clear formal Difference between Resultitive and Passive is better. ,,Besser“ is a functional-stylistically stratified national language im Sinne der Prager Theory of Language culture: English Die Language culture should be um functional Differentiation, um richness of an linguistic means and their um adequate Believe me. Im Faldes le Resultives and Liabilities im In Upper Sorbian this can consequently mean, for example, that three functional-stylistically distinct subsystems exist side by side, as well as the me es Authors on s. 103 described (cf. also S. 120): the colloquial System, in dem Passive and be held apart and the Passive with the out of the Germans borrowed auxiliary verb hodwaé German werden) is formed, the (< publicistic-standard language System, in dem Passive and resultingly also be distinguished, but the Passive through a non-borrowing Auxiliary verb bu book, etc. expressed, and finally the fictional-standard language System without Distinction between Passive and Resultive. Like all in interesting You could work naturally also in the discussed 128 Book ftir some individual lectures or Interpretations suggest alternatives. That is why the Work, however, to everyone who is for the treated Topic interested, highly recommenzu d: It is almost exhaustive, brings a A series of new Slogans, sets new Themes. LITTERACY LEHMANN, V. 1999: Linguistics Development as Expansion and Reduction. In: T. Instead, ed., Developments of Slavic in Languages. Miinchen: Otto Sagner (Specimen Philologiae Slavicae. Supplement band 66), 169-254. NEDJALKOV, P., V. ed., Typology of resulting 1983: constructions (resultative, stative, passive, perfect). Leningrad: Science. NEDJALKOV, V. P, ed., 1988: Typology of Resultive Constructions. Amsterdam— Philadelphia: John Benjamins. VykYPEL, B. 2006: Essais zur Prager Typology (with one Bibliographia typologica Pragensis). Munich: LINCOM Europe. (LINCOM Studies in Language Typology, 14.) Bohumil Vykypyl Constitution for the language éesky AV GR etymological division Veverit 97, CZ-60200 Brno vykypel- @iach. cz 129