Acta Linguistica Lithuanica

LIV (2006), 123 – 129

Reviews

Reviews

BJÖRN WIEMER & MARKUS GIGER

Resultatives in the North Slavic and Baltic Languages: A Survey from Areal and Grammaticalization-Theoretical Perspectives

München: LINCOM Europa, 2005, viii + 143 S., ISBN 3-89586-476-5 (LINCOM Studies in Language Typology, 10)

A new and interesting book on Slavic and Baltic linguistics has recently appeared from the Munich-based publisher LINCOM Europa, whose contribution to publishing in linguistics generally deserves high regard and admiration: Björn Wiemer (Konstanz) and Markus Giger (Prague) have provided an extensive treatment of resultatives in the North Slavic and Baltic languages. The authors intended to summarize previous research, fill existing gaps, and shed further light on less thoroughly researched individual topics. As their theoretical basis, they chose the well-known typology of resultative constructions developed by the Leningrad school of V. P. Nedjalkov and S. E. Jakhontov (Nedjalkov 1983, 1988). I shall therefore set aside a discussion of the general theoretical questions related to the subject under consideration, since in the end this would come close to reviewing Nedjalkov and Jakhontov. Perhaps it is worth briefly mentioning to readers of this notice that, in this conception, the difference between the resultative and the perfect lies roughly in the aspect from which the verb’s semantics is viewed: when a verb occurs in the resultative form, attention is focused on a state presupposing a change; when it occurs in the perfect form, by contrast, attention is focused on a change presupposed by a state. Evidently, the resultative and the perfect are two sides of the same coin, which may consequently be the source of the dynamics of the entire aspectual-temporal grammatical category. The stative also joins the resultative and the perfect, differing from the resultative in that it no longer indicates a relation to a change of state. By virtue of their semantics, the resultative and perfect—or stative—forms of the verb naturally also interact with differ-

123

ent types of diathesis, and the constructions they help form may be subject-oriented, object-oriented, or primarily or secondarily possessive. This highly noteworthy continuum between aspect and diathesis is divided up in different ways in different languages. The monograph under review illustrates this instructively for the North Slavic and Baltic languages in the relevant sections.

Another theoretical component in Wiemer and Giger’s account is the assumption that, in other words, the interaction—which differs across languages—between the verb’s lexical input and the semantics of the construction formed by the resultative reflects the position of the resultative in the relevant system of verbal grammatical categories (or, viewed from an operational perspective, allows us to infer that position). The lexical properties of verbs thus play a significant role. Aktionsart components in the meaning of verbs can influence their behavior in resultative-perfective constructions: certain (transformative, mutative, terminative) components favor combination with the resultative, others (conclusive, semelfactive) favor it less, and still others (ingressive, egressive, etc.) disfavor it. The degree of compatibility between a lexical and a grammatical category also depends, however, on the degree to which the grammatical category is grammaticalized: the more grammaticalized it is, the fewer lexical restrictions there are on its use. The authors speak here, following Volkmar Lehmann (1999), of an expansion in the lexicon. This grammaticalization-oriented perspective 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 relations in which it participates, and these may also be brought about by a syntagmatic relation to a lexical element or a lexical category (cf. Vykypěl 2006: 50). More generally, the more grammaticalized an element is, the less the freedom to choose among the members of a category depends on the speaker’s intention to name something. Two kinds of relations must nevertheless be distinguished: those between categories and those between elements. From the perspective of language structure, one may assume that relations regulated (obligatory) to varying degrees exist only between categories, whereas the regulation of combinations between elements belonging to different categories is a matter of language usage (usage of the language structure). In

124

language usage, some of these combinations between elements may be made more or less obligatory, while others may be excluded. From the perspective of language structure, however, this is based on the properties of elements determined by the internal structure of the respective categories or—if these are manifested—on their semantics (in the content plane). Phenomena such as government or valency consist in one content element being “required” by another; but this “requirement,” as a relation between elements (not between categories), may be regarded as established by a convention of usage: combinations between content elements that do not meet the requirements of government or valency are considered “nonsensical,” that is, combinations that do not form, and cannot form, a sense or part of the (current) world (the world is shaped in various ways as meaning by the elements of language and their various combinations). (Cf. Vykypěl 2006: 48–50, 70.) Similarly, a combination between a verb with a particular meaning and the resultative may also be considered “nonsensical”; such a combination can be used for various actualizations and expressive effects in an utterance, since the speaker is always free to choose among the members of an obligatory category. The obligatoriness of a category means that this very category (in our case, the tense-aspect category) is obligatory, not its members (in our case, the resultative). Here we encounter the general difficulty of assessing the so-called grammaticality or acceptability of various constructions with individual members of certain categories—a difficulty familiar to anyone who has ever asked a native speaker for their opinion about one sentence or another. This grammaticality constitutes a continuum that is functionally and stylistically, diastratically, dialectally, and so on, sometimes only indistinctly, yet nonetheless clearly structured. It should be emphasized that the authors of the book under review carefully take such factors into account in their discussion.

Another fact worth emphasizing is that the authors quite naturally include both Baltic languages alongside the North Slavic languages. I have the impression that comparison between Slavic and Baltic languages (as well as comparison among the individual Slavic languages!), when it does not aim at various historical-comparative reconstructions, is not pursued intensively enough (especially by Slavists), although it is very important. In this connection, prospective readers should also be given a brief outline of the book’s contents. In the first chapter (Introduction: Delimita-

125

…tion and statement of purpose; pp. 1–11) concisely presents and justifies the theoretical basis and aim of the work. The second chapter (pp. 13–28) deals with resultative constructions in Standard Russian. This is followed by an account of the situation in the northern (western) Russian dialects in the third chapter (pp. 29–41), which sometimes differs considerably from that in Standard Russian. The fourth chapter (pp. 43–51) presents the discussion of the Baltic languages. The fifth chapter (pp. 53–57) deals with Belarusian resultatives. The sixth chapter (pp. 59–68) is devoted to Ukrainian, and the seventh (pp. 69–81) to Polish resultatives (the comparison between Ukrainian and Polish resultative constructions in -no/-to in these chapters is both valuable and important, and has largely been lacking until now). The eighth chapter (pp. 83–86), on the former East Baltic Slavic languages (Polabian, Pomeranian, Slovincian) and present-day Kashubian, is valuable. The ninth chapter (pp. 87–95) deals with Czech, and the tenth (pp. 97–100) with Slovak. Sorbian is covered in the eleventh chapter (pp. 101–106). It should be noted that the order in which the individual languages are discussed has been chosen very rationally, since languages linked by important commonalities in the domain of resultatives follow one another. The twelfth chapter (pp. 107–121) offers a “synopsis of the facts, some conclusions, hypotheses and open questions.” It contains, however, not only a summary and outlook, but also a thorough re-examination of several points, such as the development of the actional properties of the resultative in interaction with the lexical meaning of the verb. In addition, there is a clear table bringing together the diathesis types of resultatives and their morphological features (pp. 122–123), as well as four fine maps that instructively illustrate the areal distribution of resultative constructions (pp. 125–133). The bibliography (pp. 135–143) is also included, although unfortunately it omits several cited works (p. 24: Bulachovskij 1954; p. 33: Moser 1998; p. 88, note 82: Šipková 1993).

While I said that it is commendable that the authors have also included Lithuanian and Latvian in their study, it is somewhat regrettable that the Baltic Finnic languages have not been given at least a small place in their monograph. A comparison with them would certainly be very interesting and stimulating. One might, for example, speculate about how the Latvian-Lithuanian, dialectal Belarusian, and northern Russian resultative construction esse + past active participle, which the authors themselves also describe as striking in comparison with the North Slavic standard languages (pp. 43, 111), is connected with the Livonian, Estonian, and Finnish perfect, which is likewise formed by the construction

126

esse + past active participle. A (historical-comparative) hairsplitter might further add that the claim that the Baltic and Slavic past active participles are etymologically related (pp. 44, 112) is not entirely accurate, since from a historical point of view the Baltic participle is suppletive: like the Slavic participle, it does go back to Indo-European *-w(e)s- in all cases except the masculine singular and plural nominative, but in the masculine nominatives the theme ē, marking the past, and the suffix -nt-, marking active diathesis, are present.

From a Balticist perspective, the discussion of nonstandard Lithuanian resultative constructions with turėti is also interesting (pp. 47–48 and 109): on the one hand, the rarely attested construction with a past passive participle, and, in particular, on the other, the construction with a past active participle, which has received less attention than it deserves. As regards the emergence of such a construction in Lithuanian, a proponent of areal—or even Sprachbund—linguistics might evidently assume that this involves a certain interpenetration of two areas with different perfect-resultative constructions: the “Western European” area (WE), with habere + past passive participle (PPP), and the “Northeastern European” area (NEE), with esse + past active participle (PPA):

This also opens up the possibility of further conceptualizing (grammaticalizing) the difference between būti + PPA and turėti + PPA, perhaps by having the first construction express the perfect and the second the resultative.

The discussion of evidential and narrative forms in the northern Russian and Belarusian dialects is also of interest to Balticists (pp. 38–39 and 55); these are formed through impersonal and perfective constructions comparable to those found in the Baltic languages. Here too, a connection with the Baltic Finnic languages can be posited, as the authors themselves also mention.

127

All these are fascinating topics for Baltic studies (though not only for Baltic studies!) that merit further, more detailed treatment.

Finally, a note on Sorbian should be added. In the subchapter on distinguishing the resultative from the passive in Sorbian, we read: “The two written languages are therefore characterized by the results of the confrontation between the dialectal system (corresponding to German) and a system without a specific auxiliary for the actional passive, as found in Czech” (pp. 102–103). I believe that such a view—one in which the written language (standard language) is understood as the outcome of confrontations and interactions among heterogeneous and sometimes opposing forces, as a dynamic entity, functionally and stylistically stratified into several possibly competing systems—is more adequate, roughly in the sense of the functional-structuralist Prague conception of the synchronic dynamics of the language system, than other more or less explicitly declared or unconscious static models, whether purist or, conversely, “anti-purist and demystifying” (the latter tendency seems recently to be growing ever stronger in the case of Sorbian—at least among some researchers). If language in general, and Sorbian in particular, is understood as an instrument of communication that has to fulfil all kinds of functions, then neither the “natural,” “non-artificial” colloquial system, with its “German” distinction between resultative and passive, nor the “pure,” “genuinely Slavic” standard-language system, with its “Czech” lack of a clear formal distinction between resultative and passive, is better. “Better” is a functionally and stylistically stratified national language in the sense of the Prague theory of language culture: language culture should strive for functional differentiation, a wealth of linguistic resources, and their appropriate use. In the case of the resultative and passive in Upper Sorbian, this may therefore mean, for example, that three functionally and stylistically distinct subsystems coexist, as the authors also describe on p. 103 (see also p. 120): the colloquial system, in which passive and resultative are distinguished and the passive is formed with the auxiliary hodwać (< German werden), borrowed from German; the publicistic standard-language system, in which passive and resultative are likewise distinguished, but the passive is expressed by a non-borrowed auxiliary buch, bu etc.; and finally, the literary standard-language system, in which passive and resultative are not distinguished.

As with all interesting works, one could of course also, in the work under review,

128

The book may suggest alternatives for some individual solutions or interpretations. This is also why the work is highly recommended to anyone interested in the topic under discussion: it is almost exhaustive, offers a number of new solutions, and introduces new topics.

LITERATURE

Lehmann, V. 1999: Sprachliche Entwicklung als Expansion und Reduktion. In: T. Anstatt, Hrsg., Entwicklungen in slavischen Sprachen. München: Otto Sagner (Specimina Philologiae Slavicae. Supplementband 66), 169–254.

Nedjalkov, V. P., Hrsg., 1983: Tipologija rezul’tativnyx konstrukcij (rezul’tativ, stativ, passiv, perfekt). Leningrad: Nauka.

Nedjalkov, V. P. ed., 1988: Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam– Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Vykypěl, B. 2006: Essais zur Prager Typologie (mit einer Bibliographia typologica Pragensis). München: LINCOM Europa. (LINCOM Studies in Language Typology, 14.)

Bohumil Vykypěl

Institute of the Czech Language of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Etymological Department, Veveří 97, CZ-60200 Brno, [email protected]

129