Išilginių objektų predikacijos pobūdis. Subjektyvaus judėjimo sąvoka

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LII (2005), 23 – 39 The nature of predication of longitudinal objects. The concept of subjective motion ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS Institute of the Lithuanian Language It is common, in many languages, to characterise a road, a path or an oblong object by means of a directional verb of motion. This article offers a fairly detailed analysis of such instances of the prolonged object mode of predication, based on Lithuanian language material. The regularity of the phenomenon under discussion sheds doubt on attempts at explaining the use of such verbs of motion as serving the purposes of figurative speech and expressive imagery: it must spring from deeper cognitive sources. The cognitive nature of the prolonged object mode of predication is here examined with the aid of Langacker’s notion of subjective movement. Attention is also drawn to the semantic and grammatical peculiarities of verbs representing this type of predication. 0. INTRODUCTION 0.1. In many languages, it is common for a road, path, or other elongated object to be described by verbs denoting directed motion. Although the predication in such sentences does not indicate any objective motion, the motion verbs used in them raise no doubts for language users; that is, these sentences are accepted as grammatically well formed. For example, the following expressions sound perfectly natural: (1) The road goes along the river LKŽII 1073 (DŽ). (2) Across the plains runs a country road LKŽII 726 (RŠ). (3) Where does this road come from? LKŽII 1080 (DBK). 0.2. The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language data show that this use of motion verbs is somewhat more frequent in written texts than in spoken language. If we explained this fact by the influence of other languages on writers, we would merely confirm the universality of this linguistic phenomenon. Indeed, a sufficient number of instances of such use have also been recorded in dialects. The prevalence of the phenomenon under discussion attests to its systematic nature and a certain generality. On the one hand, not only a road, path, country road, or river, but also a field, meadow, slope, fence, forest, scar, and the like can be described by predicates of motion. In general, one could say that the spatial position of any object evaluated in terms of the dimension of length can be characterized in this way. We could call them, more briefly, LONGITUDINAL OBJECTS. Cf.: (4) Huge meadows stretched by the manor LKŽII 1073 (ŽD). (5) Mountains extend along the seacoast LKŽII 1073 (KII 11). (6) A brick wall ran around the town LKŽII 1073 (J. Balč). 24 | R O L A N D A S M I K U L S K A S (7) Those puddles even reach into another parish LKŽII 1091 (Rdm). (8) White and red stripes run lengthwise LKŽII 1073 (Rdm). On the other hand, the spatial position of a road or, more generally, of an elongated object is described in language not only by ordinary motion verbs. Such predication may follow not only the horizontal but also the vertical axis, cf.: (9) The road climbed gently up the hill LKŽV 793 (Pč). (10) Then there stretched down a beautiful slope LKŽVII 253 (Rš). (11) Look, my road emerged from the mountains onto the plain LKŽVIII 683 (Šlč). An irregular road configuration is described by verbs whose predication encompasses motion not only along a straight axis but also along a lateral axis, cf.: (12) The path turns toward a village, toward a homestead huddled beneath old poplars LKŽXIV 88 (V. Bub). (13) The well-trodden [path] meandered along the very edge of the cliff LKŽXIX 467 (J. Jabl). (14) A few more pronounced wrinkles meandered across his forehead LKŽXIX 461 (J. Ap). (15) A little path winds through the stubble fields LKŽXIX 474 (Rš). (16) A crooked little path curled across the fields LKŽXI 77 (T. Tilv). The geographical position of a road may be indicated in language not only by monovalent but also by bivalent verbs that presuppose an agent and a patient, thus expressing caused rather than spontaneous motion, cf.: (17) Gooseberry paths lead through the garden LKŽXVIII 942 (PnMŽ). (18) Many roads lead to the village by the seaside LKŽXVIII 942 (I. Simon). 0.3. The regularity of the phenomenon under discussion calls for a critical view of attempts to link this use of motion verbs with the aims of figurative language, that is, with the pursuit of vivid expression. The predication of elongated objects by means of motion verbs undoubtedly has deeper, cognitive causes. This article is devoted to uncovering them. The cognitive nature of the predication of elongated objects is explored on the basis of Langacker’s notion of subjective motion. Attention is also paid to the semantic and grammatical properties of the verbs used for this predication. 1.0. A natural question arises: how is it possible for verbs of motion to denote the static position of objects in space? What is the logic of such predication? It is commonly said that verbs of motion denote changes in the position of moving objects in space over time. By contrast, verbs denoting the static position of objects (e.g., sėdi, stovi, guli, ti̇̀so, etc.) do not denote any evolution of spatial relations. In this respect, they resemble verbs of state, which likewise denote no changes in a situation over time. Thus, the dynamism vs. stability of the spatial situation denoted would be the main semantic distinction between the verbs under discussion. Nevertheless, by using verbs of motion to describe the spatial configuration of a path or other longitudinal objects, language manages to overcome this IŠILGINIŲ OBJEKTŲ PREDIKACIJOS POBŪDIS | 25 essential distinction. A priori, such usage might be explained by a certain lability in the conception of motion. The basis of this lability lies in what verbs denoting motion and static position have in common. This commonality should reach to the very essence of the verb category, to its distinctive features. 1.1. It is generally maintained that the main feature distinguishing the verb from other grammatical categories is its temporality, or its connection with so-called absolute time (not to be confused with grammatical tense, which is deictic in nature and marks the relation of an action to the moment of speaking). In other words, the verb is capable of conveying the dynamics of the situation expressed. The latter could be imagined as a change in momentary static positions, or as a certain sequence of these positions arranged along the time axis. However, it would be difficult not to agree with Ronald W. Langacker (2002: 59–100), who observes that connections with time are not exclusive to the verb category. For example, the prepositions prieš and po, and the adverbs vakar or rytoj also denote temporal relations. Some prepositions termed complex can even denote changes in (spatial) positions over time. Langacker gives the English preposition across as an example when it is used with verbs of motion. Correspondingly, in Lithuanian, the prepositions skersai, išilgai, įžambiai, per, pro, kiaurai have similar properties. Cf.: (19) The fox runs across the road. (20) The hare bounds across the fallow field. Thus, one could argue that the semantic content of, for example, the preposition skersai, the verb kirsti (kelią), and the deverbal noun (kelio) kirtimas is the same: all these verbs denote a trajectory from one edge of a longitudinal object to the other, which, of course, takes a certain amount of time to traverse. 1.2. Given this state of affairs, Langacker proposes looking for the distinctive features of the verb not in the content of the situations or concepts it denotes, but instead focusing on the way this content is perceived. Emphasizing the temporal nature of the verb category, he observes that this property is grounded in the sequential scanning of the situation denoted. In other words, a part of speech that denotes a process entails a sequential scanning of all the phases of a situation unfolding over time. Other parts of speech that denote relations, such as prepositions, adjectives, adverbs, infinitives, and participles, by contrast, even if they have temporal associations, are nevertheless atemporal in the sense that the content of the concepts they express is perceived not sequentially but cumulatively. Although this mode of perception entails a certain phase of sequential scanning, gradual “assembly,” or simply concept formation, these categories in fact serve in language to make it possible to manipulate the holistic “products” of this creative process, or gestalts. For the latter, a temporal profile is irrelevant. 1.2.1. The verb, understood in this way, denotes processes. In this respect, it differs from parts of speech denoting atemporal relations. It is easy to see that, in this conception of the verb category, particular importance is assigned to the perceiver or speaker (listener) themselves 1 The concepts of the perceiver, or interpreter, and the speaker (listener) are not identical; however, if one accepts the cognitive linguists’ proposed assumption that cognitive, or mental, structures are isomorphic with semantic, or linguistic, structures, these concepts can substitute for one another in certain linguistic discourse contexts. 26 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS figure1. Accordingly, Langacker also distinguishes time into conceived time (conceived time) (t) and processing time (processing time) (T). The former is briefly defined as an OBJECT of perception, and the latter as a MEANS of perception. The events of the world familiar to us unfold in conceived time, which was introduced in place of traditional absolute time. Processing time is a new concept denoting the duration of cognitive operations. Taking these parameters into account, Langacker proposes that the predication of any process be described by the formula [rᵢ / tᵢ; C]ₜᵢ, which should be read as follows: at a certain moment of processing time Tᵢ, the conceptualizer (conceptualizer) C activates, or evokes, the concept of the stative relation rᵢ and subsequently associates it with the corresponding moment of conceived time tᵢ. The entire process can be represented by the formula: (i) [r₁ / t₁; C]ₜ₁ > [r₂ / t₂; C]ₜ₂ > [r₃ / t₃; C]ₜ₃ > … > [rₙ / tₙ; C]ₜₙ This formula lays out a continuous series of positions r₁, r₂, r₃,..., rₙ along the conceived-time axis t₁, t₂, t₃,...,tₙ, while the sequence of processing-time symbols T₁, T₂, T₃,..., Tₙ indicates that the conceptualizer C successively surveys, or scans, this complex structure. In summary, it may be observed that process predication, understood in this way, differs from atemporal complex predication, which also denotes a directed distribution of positions along the time axis, in that the processing-time parameter in the latter in fact plays no role or, in Langacker’s words, this predication lacks a time profile. 1.3. It is easy to see that the Langackerian conception of a process also includes states. These could be regarded as a limiting case in which some parameters of the process remain unchanged in the flow of conceived time, while the processing-time parameter remains significant. Put more simply, the same state of affairs is surveyed successively. Given that rᵢ = rᵢ + 1, the previously presented formula for a process can readily be adapted to describe the semantics of states, or stative verbs: (ii) … > [R / tᵢ; C]ₜᵢ > [R / tⱼ; C]ₜⱼ > [R / tₖ; C]ₜₖ > … In this formula, the symbol R denotes a situation that remains unchanged in the flow of conceived time but is scanned successively by the conceptualizer. The ellipses on both sides emphasize the imperfective nature of stative verbs. Langacker distinguishes them from perfective2 verbs, which can denote objective changes in a situation occurring over a certain period of (conceived) time. 2 Langacker does not directly associate the concept of perfectivity with the aspect category, but understands it as a property of the verb that signals a change in the situation being predicated. His perfective verbs include three (of the four) categories in Zeno Vendler’s (1967) classical classification—activity predicates (activities), accomplishment predicates (accomplishments), and achievement predicates (achievements). Logic IŠILGINIŲ OBJEKTŲ PREDIKACIJOS POBŪDIS 27 1.4. A typical subclass of perfective verbs consists of motion verbs. A moving object, either by itself or under the influence of an external force, covers a certain distance over a period of (conceived) time; thus, the change in the situation is defined by a change in the physical object’s position in space. In analyzing the capacity of motion verbs to express not only objective but also subjective motion, Langacker (2002: 149–166) proposes that the general nature of motion predication be described by a slightly modified version of the formula discussed above: (iii) [[m] l₁] t₁ > [[m] l₂] t₂ >...> [[m] lₙ] tₙ C T₁ T₂ Tₙ This formula should be read as follows: over the interval of processing time T₁, T₂,...,Tₙ, the observer/conceptualizer of motion C follows the path of motion l₁, l₂,..., lₙ, traced by the moving object m (mover) over the interval of conceived time t₁, t₂,... tₙ. If the local symbols are interpreted more broadly, this formula can also describe abstract motion. In an abstract process, the conceptualizer mentally follows changes in immaterial entities over time. The mental trajectory of changes consists of successively scanned positions on an imagined qualitative or quantitative scale. In English, motion verbs are used much more freely than in Lithuanian to characterize abstract processes of change, though examples of such usage can also be found in our language, cf.: (21) The athletes’ competition lasted two hours. (22) The concert is coming to an end. (23) Brother’s health is improving. 1.4.1. Sentences in which motion verbs describe the configuration of a road or another longitudinal object partly resemble sentences in which these verbs profi- from the point of view of logic, the concept of perfectivity itself, by denoting the end of a certain evolution, does not directly denote change, but is derived from the latter concept. In other words, perfectivity is implied by change. On the other hand, it is easy to see that not all the predicate categories listed above are inherently characterized by denoting change. For instance, activity predicates denote no directed change with a natural endpoint, cf.: Father walked around the garden and thought. However, the boundary of such activity predication can be drawn by the speaker, for example, by using a delimitative verb form; cf.: Father WALKED around the garden for a while and then sat down to work again. In this case, the verb’s perfectivity is associated not with the natural endpoint of the action but with the duration boundary drawn by the speaker or listener. Thus, the verb’s perfectivity, understood so broadly, is only partly determined by its semantic nature. In Langacker’s view, even the states we experience often have natural boundaries, which is why the verbs denoting them may also be interpreted as perfective under certain circumstances. Therefore, we cannot draw a strict (inherent) boundary between imperfective and perfective verbs. 3 The verb vykti, denoting an abstract process, is semantically far removed from its predecessor denoting concrete motion. The process denoted by such a verb in a sentence can be characterized not only in terms of duration—which, in the case of abstract motion, could be considered equivalent to the spatial distance covered in the case of concrete motion—but also in terms of place or manner; cf.: The athletes’ competition took place at the central city stadium. So far, the meeting is proceeding smoothly. 28 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS …denote abstract motion. However, there are also differences. First, what “moves” in these sentences also constitutes the trajectory of this movement. Yet this trajectory is not mental, as in the case of abstract motion, but is a fully real, geographically definable object. The predication in these sentences is also linked to real motion by the direction expressed in them, more or less explicitly; cf.: (24) One [road] goes to Grandma’s, another to the little boy’s LKŽII 1073 (KlvD 9). (25) Both looked at the country road winding through the homesteads into the birch grove LKŽXIX 462 (L. Dovyd). (26) Beyond Dargvainiai, the road runs along the Skujinė LKŽXIV 88 (Všv). On the other hand, the semantic content of these sentences does not denote any actual movement: the so-called moving subject remains stable over time. Thus, the verbs in these sentences in fact denote an imperfective process, which Langacker proposes describing with the formula (ii) given earlier, replacing the symbol R for a constant relationship with the more specific symbol [M] L for the location of a longitudinal object: (iv) ···> [[(M) L] tᵢ / C] Tᵢ > [[(M) L] tⱼ / C] Tⱼ > [[(M) L] tₖ / C] Tₖ >··· This formula shows that the observer, or perceiver, C successively registers the same spatial position, or location, L of the longitudinal object M at each moment tᵢ of the perceiver’s time. It is easy to see that a longitudinal object treated in this way is formally no different from an actual moving subject: both are defined in terms of a locational relationship. 1.5. A lexicographer, observing the use of the motion verbs under discussion, sees a clear case of semantic extension: inherently perfective motion verbs⁴ come to denote imperfective processes whose semantic content is equivalent to the profile of a longitudinal object’s constant spatial position. However, the semantic component of direction, which is essentially associated with the concept of motion, does not disappear from the predication of these sentences. In the case of predication of actual motion, the content expressed by direction consists of the object’s spatial positions Moreover, the grammatical properties of verbs denoting abstract and concrete motion differ: for example, different derivational formatives are used to form their event-aspect forms; cf.: The train arrived from Kaunas. The football match nevertheless took place. The perfective forms of this verb, which denotes concrete movement, are formed with the prefixes at-, nu-, par-, iš- and, in addition to marking the completion of the action, regularly indicate the direction of movement relative to the perceiver, or speaker (listener). In the case of abstract motion, the prefixed perfective form merely denotes the completion of the action. On the other hand, the fact that abstract motion can only be denoted by third-person forms shows that these verbs, when used in this way, remain essentially associated with the concept of motion. Indeed, the perceiver’s perspective is necessary for the predication of abstractly construed motion. The linguistic representatives of this perspective—the speaker and listener, respectively—make first- and second-person forms unavailable for the predication in question. 4 It is time to clarify that, when we speak of predicates of extended objects, we in fact have in mind only verbs denoting directed movement, such as eina, bėga, suka, (kur link), but not their non-directional counterparts vaikščioja, bėgioja, sukiojasi ir pan. The latter belong to the category of activity predicates and are essentially imperfective in nature (although they can be perfectivized by adding prefixes with a delimitative function; see footnote (2) for further discussion). IŠILGINIŲ OBJEKTŲ PREDIKACIJOS POBŪDIS | 29 change (in the flow of the perceived time), evaluated relative to the perceiver, or speaker (listener). When movement verbs describe a static situation, the perceiver activates the spatial-position dynamics necessary for perceiving the direction of the locations of extended objects. Put more simply, the speaker or listener themself successively scans, with their gaze or in their mind, the entire configuration of the path or other extended object described in the sentence, thereby effectively transforming it into something equivalent to a motion trajectory. That the direction of such a scan determines the choice of different predicates is clearly shown by sentence pairs such as the following, which describe essentially the same spatial position but imply opposite perceiver positions; cf.: (27) The bank here slopes gently down toward the riverside. (28) The riverbank here gradually rises upward. In analyzing the structure of the predication under discussion, it is important to note the special role played in it by the perceiver, which enables the content of the sentence to be interpreted correctly. From an external perspective, one might metaphorically say that the perceiver themself moves along the profiled object, thereby imparting a directional dimension to the motion predication expressed by the basic sentence. Of course, under normal circumstances, the person who formulates or interprets such a sentence does not perceive themself as moving along the trajectory in question. Nevertheless, even unconsciously and only abstractly, in the mind, the movement function transferred from the subject of predication enables language users to regard similar sentences as meaningful and interpret them correctly. This interpretation is made possible by the commonalities between successively scanning an extended object and perceiving actual directed movement. Langacker emphasizes the subjective nature of such movement based on mental scanning. Predication of subjective motion in fact consists of the initial, or accumulative, phase of perceiving a situation, which, as we know, is irrelevant to the interpretation of real motion. It is precisely during this phase of perception that the motion verb denoting the essentially static position of an object preserves the directional vector essential to its semantic nature. Langacker proposes describing this accumulative phase with the formula: (v) [m₁] l₁ / C T₁ > [m₁] l₁ / [m₂] l₂ / C T₂ > [m₁] l₁ / [m₂] l₂ / [m₃] l₃ / C T₃ > … > [m₁] l₁ / [m₂] l₂ / [m₃] l₃ / … / [mₙ] lₙ / C Tₙ It shows that, over the intervals of processing time T₁, T₂, T₃,..., Tₙ, the perceiver C, by scanning the extended object in a particular direction, successively activates the entire concept [M] L that characterizes its configuration, which then remains constant (in the flow of perceived time). This formula also makes it clear that it is precisely the axis of processing time that allows this successive scanning of an extended object to be interpreted as a kind of (abstract) motion. Thus, the use of predicates of extended objects and the correct interpretation of sentences containing them are based on the fact that the concept of motion is transferred from the objective axis of sentence predication, or pro- 30 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS of the thread, is transferred onto the subjectivity axis of the perceiver’s interpretation. Langacker defines this cognitive operation as SUBJECTIFICATION. 1.6. In discussing the processes of semantic extension and grammatical development associated with the concept of subjectification, Langacker (2002: 315–341) also elaborates more fully on his distinctive understanding of subjectivity itself. The latter is an integral part both of the perception of any real-world situation and of the corresponding linguistic predication. Just as a perceived situation presupposes a perceiver, a sentence in language always presupposes a language user (speaker or listener, respectively). The predication of a sentence cannot be conceived of without reference to the position occupied by its producer or interpreter in relation to the events being conveyed, the time and place of speaking, and the novelty or familiarity of the information—in other words, without reference to all the factors that define the circumstances of speaking. The semantic content of the situation profiled by a sentence therefore necessarily encompasses the context of speaking as well. Put differently, the circumstances underlying the predication expressed by a sentence are nothing other than a particular PERSPECTIVE associated with the figure of the speaker or listener. This perspective functions as the ground for predication and may be expressed in language by deictic grammatical and/or lexical means. Usually, however, most information associated with the perceiver’s perspective remains outside the bounds of sentence predication, that is, it is not explicitly expressed. Langacker observes that in the case of an optimal perspective, the perceiver’s position remains unnoticed, and is thus maximally SUBJECTIVE, thereby lending the situation profiled by the sentence the greatest possible degree of objectivity. This state of affairs is, of course, ideal. In language, various intermediate cases are common. For example, some information associated with the speaker’s figure, such as the speaker’s relative location, may be brought within the scope of sentence predication. The degree of objectivity of the situation designated by such a sentence then decreases. Cf. two sentences with motion verbs: (29) I look out—the father is coming home along the road from the forest. (30) Sometimes someone walks along the road. The first sentence is possible only under circumstances in which its author (who here is also the actual observer of the situation), the father, and the forest are located more or less along a single line. Moreover, the prefixed form of the verb is coming home indicates that the author of the sentence is most likely observing the situation from inside the house. The implied house becomes the point of reference relative to which the other participants in the situation are located in space. In the second sentence, the observer’s position is not clearly defined in relation either to the time or to the place of speaking. This important circumstance allows the situation designated by the second sentence to be assigned a greater degree of objectivity than in the first case. 1.6.1. Langacker describes the very situation profile expressed by a finite sentence as an asymmetrical relationship between two perceptual entities, which he calls the TRAJECTOR (trajector) and the LANDMARK (landmark). These terms denote the most general concepts of predication, akin to the figure and ground of perceptual psychology. Like the latter concepts, trajector and landmark are described in terms of relative prominence. Thus, the trajector and landmark are the most prominent participants in the situation profiled by a finite sentence. It should be remembered, however, that their prominence is assigned by the perceiver, who most often remains outside (or at the periphery of) predication. If we take the situation profile, defined as an asymmetrical relationship between trajector and landmark, to form the horizontal axis of sentence predication, then the other, vertical axis of predication, impli- IŠILGINIŲ OBJEKTŲ PREDIKACIJOS POBŪDIS 31 cating the perspective of the perceiver interpreting the situation, should be drawn perpendicular to the profile’s syntagm. Accordingly, the horizontal axis represents the objective side of predication, while the vertical axis represents the subjective side. During the aforementioned cognitive operation—subjectification—some objective information is redirected to the subjective axis of interpretation; that is, some of the semantic content predicated by the sentence is not profiled, but is realized through the perceiver’s interpretive capacities. 1.6.2. Now, bearing in mind Langacker’s distinction between objectivity and subjectivity in predication, let us consider the sentences of interest to us, in which a road or other longitudinal objects are described by verbs of motion. It is easy to see that these sentences are correctly interpreted with the help of the fact that most of the content objectively expressed by motion predicates is redirected to the perceiver’s subjective axis. In other words, the perceiver, or speaker (listener), by successively “scanning” in their gaze or mind all the spatial positions occupied by a longitudinal object, thereby supplies the temporal and distance-traversed characteristics essential to the concept of motion, taking the place of the subject of predication. Thus, the essence of subjectification in the sentences under discussion is the interpreter’s subjective movement along the object being described. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that by becoming an actant of subjective motion in this way, the perceiver does not become the sentence’s trajector. This is because the concept of subjectivity associated with the perceiver is, in principle, incompatible with the trajector’s prominence, even though it underlies it. Thus, outwardly, the organization of such a sentence is no different from that of sentences profiling actual motion. For example, in the sentence This road leads (goes) to the city, the road is the trajector of predication (and also the subject of the sentence), while the city functions as the landmark. The semantic content of such a sentence, however, has changed. Once the concept of motion has been redirected from the objective profile axis to the subjective axis of interpretation, the remaining objective content of predication denotes only the static position of the object, while the verb itself denotes an imperfective process. The imperfectivization of inherently perfective verbs of directed motion has serious grammatical consequences, but more on that later. Meanwhile, I would like to draw attention once again to the fact that something important from the concept of motion nevertheless remains in the semantic content of the sentences under discussion—namely, the concept of direction. This is most likely a condition without which the use of motion predicates in sentences of the type under discussion would be altogether impossible. As we already know, the vector of “motion” direction coincides with the direction in which the longitudinal object is surveyed. Therefore, the predication of such sentences always implies the observer’s, or perceiver’s, location. This location may be expressed explicitly; cf.: (31) From the threshold of your native cottage, across the yard, through the old orchard, across the meadow, a white path winds along the field LKŽXIX 462 (J. MARCIN). (32) Žilaitienė sat and sat, continually looking through the window at the narrow lane winding beyond the fence LKŽXIX 462 (J. BALT). (33) Could see at least half a kilometer of the highway winding in from the town LKŽXIX 466 (RŠ). (34) From the village one can see very beautifully how the river winds in from those, from those great forests LKŽXIX 462 (RŠ).5 5 It is generally possible to assume that in this and similar sentences the river is treated as a typical longitudinal object, such as a road; that is, the same scanning motion assists the interpreter here. There are, however, differences as well. First, because of the nature of the object itself. We can close our eyes to the fact that 32 | R O L A N D A S M I K U L S K A S However, the perceiver’s relative position with respect to direction is often not clearly defined in such sentences, but is simply taken for granted. The taken-for-granted position (the so-called default case) is one in which a road or another longitudinal object extends before the perceiver’s eyes (the perceiver may be the actual observer or a traveler) into the distance, i.e. is scanned perspectivally; cf.: (35) The well-trodden [path] wound along the very edge of the precipice LKŽXIXxix 467 (J. JABL). (36) That road winds and winds through that forest LKŽXIXxix 469 (Ms). (37) The little road turns into the alder grove LKŽXIVxiv 88 (KLT). (38) A little path ran across our field LKŽIIii 1073 (Pc). 1.6.3. To sum up, we can assert that in sentences in which motion verbs describe longitudinal objects, the perceiver’s relative location is necessarily included within the scope of predication, whereas in sentences profiling actual motion this location may remain outside the bounds of predication. For further research, it is important to note that the necessary inclusion of the perceiver within the scope of predication in the sentences under discussion ensures a close connection between the profiled situation and the moment of speech. As we shall soon see, this important circumstance has a certain influence on the choice of verbal aspect forms. 2.0. Since the motion verbs used in the sentences expressing the predication under discussion in fact denote only an imperfective process, one would naturally expect that only imperfective forms of these verbs are suitable for describing the configuration of a longitudinal object. Indeed, the data collected show that longitudinal objects are most often predicated by imperfective motion verbs. However, perfective forms are also possible under certain circumstances. Below, we will discuss in greater detail the relationship between the predication of longitudinal objects and the category of aspect, since it is apparently this relationship that determines restrictions on the use of certain tense forms of motion verbs. 2.1. A Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian (Ambrazas 1997: 289; see also Ambrazas 1999: 694) notes the distribution, with respect to imperfective/perfective aspect, of the tense forms of verbs formed with directional prefixes. The present-tense forms of these prefixed verbs generally have imperfective meaning, while their past and future tense forms have perfective meanings. It goes without saying that motion verbs are the most typical representatives of this distribution. In order to determine how far this di- A river, unlike a road, is in a certain sense a moving object. Suppose that from a distance we may not be able to make out the flow of the river’s water. However, it is difficult to set aside the knowledge that every river has an assigned current direction—from its upper reaches to its lower reaches—and therefore a river’s longitudinal configuration is always unidirectional. For this reason, an observer or speaker cannot simultaneously, i.e. without turning around, claim that the river winds this way (toward the village) and winds away (from the village). By contrast, when describing the configuration of a highway stretching in front of a village, the speaker is free to choose the direction of scanning, or, equivalently, the direction in which the object is profiled in the sentence. Similarly, owing to the established (natural) order of things, the direction in which a longitudinal object is profiled may be restricted in some other cases as well. For example, knowing that a person’s normal position (because of gravity) is on the ground, not in the sky, we can only say: The factory chimney rises (shoots) into the sky (upward), but not *The factory chimney descends (falls) to the ground (downward). IŠILGINIŲ OBJEKTŲ PREDIKACIJOS POBŪDIS | 33 If distribution is manifested in the discussed cases of predication of longitudinal objects, we should look more closely at the factors determining it. 2.1.1. First, it should be noted that the aspect of prefixed motion verbs is not directly linked to grammatical tense forms or, respectively, to their abstract deictic values. More precisely, the aspectual meanings of these verbs should be linked to the concrete process time expressed deictically (i.e., relative to the moment of speech) in a simple sentence, or to relative time in a complex sentence. In other words, the choice of aspect here depends on the predication of the entire process or on a sequence of two predications. When a simple sentence profiles the course of a particular process, the duration of this process fully encompasses the so-called reference time (reference time), which may or may not coincide with the moment of speech. For, given an appropriate narrative strategy, a process unfolding before an imagined observer—and thus the reference time—may be displaced either into the past or into the future⁶. Axel Holvoet (Holvoet, Čižik 2004: 152) calls this relation between process duration and reference time an inclusion relation, and considers it the primary grammatical characteristic of the imperfective aspect. Conversely, in his view, the absence of an inclusion relation grammatically characterizes the perfective aspect. For the moment of a completed process can only coincide with the reference time or precede it. This relative precedence is expressed in language by a subordinate temporal clause and depends only on the sequence of profiled processes, not on deictic time; cf.: (39) When the train arrived, a crowd of passengers poured onto the platform. (40) When the train arrives, a crowd of passengers pours onto the platform. (41) When the train arrives, a crowd of passengers will pour onto the platform. In all three cases, the predicate of the subordinate clause, which here is a prefixed motion verb, is perfective in meaning, and thus the distribution rule mentioned above is violated. Attention should be drawn to the second sentence, whose predicates, although expressed in present-tense forms, do not denote concrete present time (i.e., time coinciding with the moment of speech). The repeated processes profiled by this sentence are not located on the observer’s timeline. Sentences whose implied observer does not relate temporally to the processes they denote are close to counterfactual statements. In grammar they are also called gnomic expressions (Janda 2004: 491–492). Such expressions usually describe more permanent characteristics of situations or participants. Their predicates may be either imperfective or perfective verbs. In the latter case, they profile either a sequence of habitual events or the potential properties of a participant⁷. Verbs with the appropriate semantics are used to denote an agent’s abilities; these include motion verbs, cf.: (42) Petras covers this distance in an hour. (43) Mama takes her little daughter to kindergarten in twenty minutes. 6 One may also recall here the case of inverse perspective, in which present-tense verb forms are used to vividly convey past events, i.e., the events of the past are viewed through the eyes of the present. Accordingly, the reference time is also identified with the moment of speech. 7 These properties can also be adequately expressed by non-finite forms, such as the infinitive. 34 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS In both sentences, the prefixed motion verbs functioning as predicates are perfective and therefore also violate the aforementioned rule governing the distribution of tense forms with respect to aspect. To summarize, we can state that there are cases in language where the aspect of finite-clause predicates interacts with deictic tense: the use of imperfective or perfective forms in them is determined by other factors, rather than by whether an inclusion relation is present or absent. 2.2. Returning to cases of predication of longitudinal objects, we will note that comparing them with gnomic expressions is not promising. For the necessary inclusion of a perceiver within the scope of predication, or the close connection with the moment of speech, does not allow their content to be interpreted too generally. Thus, although predications of longitudinal objects designate their stable characteristics (as do gnomic expressions), the specific nature of their interpretation, which requires the cognitive operation of subjectification, nevertheless prevents the profiled situations from being detached too far from the moment of speech. This claim holds despite the fact that the sentences under discussion are not always uttered by their author, or perceiver, while actually standing in front of the object being described. 2.2.1. From what has been said, we can conclude that the relationship of inclusion (or its absence) involving the aspectual meaning of motion verbs used in predications of longitudinal objects remains relevant. Naturally, these predications, which generally indicate the geographical location of objects, most often use present-tense forms with an imperfective meaning. Of course, past-tense forms are also possible in historical narrative. The inclusion relation remains in such cases; cf.: (44)The wooden stairs, trampled for years, led to the second floor LKŽXVIII 942 (J. BALT). (45)The road was rugged and led across the fields LKŽXVIII 942 (A. VAIČIUL). (46)Green, tall oats stretched all the way to the marshes LKŽI 726 (J. ŠIMK). 2.3. In terms of aspect, the sentences with the predications under discussion are closest to sentences profiling actual motion, in which movement toward or away from the speaker or perceiver is expressed explicitly. These relative directions of motion are also implied in subjective motion (i.e., the scanning of a longitudinal object). When the actual or imagined approach of an object is expressed by prefixed motion verbs⁸, only present-tense forms are possible in either case. Of course, in making this claim one should set aside gnomic and other counterfactual expressions that can denote actual motion. We see that the distribution, with respect to aspect, of the tense forms of the prefixed motion verbs used in these cases accords with the rule formulated by the authors of the Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian. It seems that certain qualifications are needed here only for the corresponding prefixed derivatives of the verb vesti ‘lead’, which denotes caused motion. Cf. the sentences: (47) a) Grandmother is leading the goat to the barn. b) Grandmother leads the goat away to the barn. (48) a) The road leads into the forest. b) The road leads into the forest DŽ⁴. 8In this respect, derivatives with the prefixes at- and nu- can be compared. IŠILGINIŲ OBJEKTŲ PREDIKACIJOS POBŪDIS 35 The semantic difference between the a and b variants of these sentences is that the latter emphasize the (real or imagined) distancing of the object being led from the perceiver. Of course, one can imagine linguistic circumstances that would call for such emphasis, but our linguistic intuition tells us that in both cases the b sentences sound somewhat unnatural, whereas the a variants are entirely acceptable. The reasons for this unusualness should probably be sought in the semantic structure of this verb, which, unlike verbs of motion, presupposes not one but two actants—an agent and a patient9 (respectively, the subject and object of the sentence). The transitive agent position in sentence b of example 48 seems to invite a gnomic interpretation of the sentence10, which also implies an eventive aspectual meaning; yet an eventive verb is in principle impossible here. This contradiction also explains the unusualness of such a sentence. In the case of actual motion, too, sentences with the predicate lead sound more natural when the process they denote is not tied to a particular moment of speech, cf.: (49) Grandmother still leads the goat into the barn, but not the cow anymore. (50) When I take the horse to the lake to water it, I usually go swimming too. When speaking in the present tense about actions planned for the near future, the eventive aspect can be chosen to emphasize the precedence of one action over another, cf.: (51) I’ll take the child to kindergarten and then run to work. (Mother mulls over the morning’s plans) It is apparently the conventionality of precisely such sentences that makes it difficult to use present-tense prefixed forms of the verb lead, as well as of other verbs denoting caused motion, to express relative directions of distancing or approaching. 2.4. Verbs of motion denote an action quantifiable in terms of space and time and are therefore, in principle, perfective in the sense that they can be perfectivized. Prefixed forms of these verbs generally mean that, having covered the required distance, the moving object reaches an intended boundary, traverses the far vs. near or up vs. down oppositions, crosses the inside vs. outside boundary, changes direction of motion, overcomes a natural obstacle, and so on. These meanings essentially correspond to the content of the eventive aspect, and thus prefixed motion verbs are inherently eventive. Their non-finite forms make this clear. Sentences using past- or future-tense prefixed forms of motion verbs allow their eventive meaning to unfold fully. This is because the deictic temporal perspective makes it possible to quantify an action that has been completed or is intended to be completed, and to assess it as a whole, as a certain achieved result. Thus, prefixes on motion verbs are the clearest markers of the eventive aspect. However, this grammatical function of prefixes is blocked in sentences whose profiled action takes place at a specific present time. It can be said that in such cases prefixes in the structure of the derivatives under discussion perform a purely semantic function: they indicate the direction of motion. 9In the case of Path predication, the patient, or object, is construed very vaguely. 10The reason for such an interpretation could be the greater agency of a transitive subject than of an intransitive one. The degree of agency correlates with the “energy-transfer chains” and “initiative” hierarchies that function naturally in the language system (cf. Langacker 2002: 238–239). Various “gnomic” characteristics “stick” more readily to the prototypical agent, which is usually the subject of a transitive sentence. 36 | ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS 2.4.1. Aldona Paulauskienė (1979: 67; 76–77) has emphasized the incompatibility between the basic aspectual meanings of an event and the concrete present tense. Laura Janda, seeking to uncover the very origins of the aspect category, links it to the metaphor of the idealized cognitive model (ICM) of matter. This model is effective in accounting for the use of aspect in Slavic languages. Her analysis (Janda 2004: 471–527) justifiably allows the meanings of eventive aspect in Slavic languages (especially Russian) to be compared with the properties of solid substances in the matter ICM, and the meanings of imperfective aspect, correspondingly, with the properties of fluid substances. If eventive aspect is perceived by a language user as a solid body, with all the implications that follow from this, then it is self-evident that on the time axis it cannot be located at a point already occupied by another solid body—the speaker or, respectively, the perceiver. By contrast, imperfective aspect, conceptualized as a fluid substance, can be compatible with the speaker’s position on the time axis, that is, with the moment of speaking. Such a cognitive explanation, grounded in these essential differences between forms of matter, seems perfectly suitable for accounting for the interaction of aspect with deictic time in Lithuanian as well. In essence, it is also consistent with Holvoet’s proposed criterion of the presence or absence of an inclusion relation. 2.4.2. Among motion verbs, those prefixed derivatives that in sentences denote an object’s (real or imagined) approach toward or movement away from the perceiver seem to be most closely associated with the concrete present tense. These are generally derivatives with the prefixes at-, nu-, par- (the latter only in cases of actual motion). As we have already mentioned, in expressing a relative direction of movement, such prefixed verbs necessarily also bring the speaker or, respectively, the perceiver into the scope of predication; cf.: (52) A certain man is coming along the road. (53) This dirt road comes from the forest. (54) Toward the lake, a path winds along the edge of the rye field. It seems much more difficult to interpret the process denoted by such predication perfectively than in cases where the perceiver remains outside the scope of predication; cf.: (55) The warned conspirators hurriedly leave through the emergency exit. (56) A group of pupils runs out into the schoolyard and starts playing. The predicate runs out in sentence 56 is apparently to be interpreted as eventive aspect. 2.5. Sentences containing prefixed motion verbs may differ not only in the predication structure of the process they profile, but also in scope. Forms of eventive-aspect derivatives with the prefixes į-, iš- generally denote only the crossing of the boundary between the spatial opposition of inside vs. outside; that is, their predication is concentrated on this transition segment and is close to what is called the immediate scope of predication11. Only the segment of the action (i.e. movement) that is relevant to crossing the boundary falls within the direct scope of predication. The event profiled by such sentences has virtually no duration and is reported ex post. Therefore, the predicates įbėgti, išeiti, išvažiuoti and 11 Apie šį terminą žr. Langacker 2002: 318–319. IŠILGINIŲ OBJEKTŲ PREDIKACIJOS POBŪDIS | 37 In some aspects of the interpretation of aspectual meaning, etc., they resemble the previously mentioned Vendlerian achievement predicates12 (achievements) *rasti* ‘find’, *atsidurti* ‘find oneself’, *pasiklysti* ‘get lost’, and so on. When these prefixed verb forms denote movement occurring at a specific present time, the meaning of progressive aspect is not always clearly perceived. In many cases, it is difficult to distinguish it from the meaning of perfective aspect, cf.: (57) Jonukas runs into the classroom, out of breath. (58) Jonukas ran into the classroom, out of breath. It is interesting to note that, because of the narrow scope of predication, the meaning of progressive aspect may be less salient in the case of road or other extended-object predication as well, cf.: (59) At this point, the highway curves into the main road. (60) An entire tract of land reaches the Baltic Sea LKŽII 1101 (J. JABL). (61) The cemetery adjoins the churchyard LKŽII 1103 (RŠ). (62) A rooster stands on the fence, its tail reaches down to the ground, while its voice goes up to the sky (a bell) LKŽII 1101 LTR (PNmR). 2.6. Finally, one should not omit the fact that, under certain circumstances, perfective forms of motion verbs can also be meaningfully used in cases of road predication. For example, an adequate description of travel experiences may require an achievement predicate, which, as we know, can only be a perfective verb. A linguistic situation conducive to this usually arises when, at a certain stage of a journey, the road’s configuration changes unexpectedly, or when, at the end of a journey, the traveler finds themselves in an unexpected place, cf.: (63) The road13 led us out to the edge of the forest. (64) The path led onto a puddle LKŽII 1086 (A 1884, 21). (65) The little road turned into the forest, winding between tall pines LKŽXIV 103 (V. BUB). (66) The path curved into a field track LKŽXIX 468 (J. AVYŽ). (67) Look, my road emerged from the mountains onto the plain LKŽVIII 683 (ŠLČ). It should be noted that the predication in these sentences encompasses not the entire configuration of the road, but only the stretch that comes directly into the traveler’s view. It is precisely the traveler’s perspective that makes possible the (re)perfectivization of such predicates. For the stretch of road immediately within the scope of predication is interpreted by the traveler—or, respectively, the speaker—not as a static configuration, but as a dynamic travel experience, that is, in the conceptualizer’s 12 For the inherent semantic aspectual properties of these predicates, see Holvoet, Čižik (2004: 146–151). 13 In sentences with an imperfective predicate, this patient or object position is not clearly defined; here it is expressed explicitly. Nevertheless, the actants of this sentence are not fully-fledged (i.e., prototypical)—this is clearly shown by the fact that the sentence cannot be passivized, cf.: * We had been led by the road to the edge of the forest. 38 | R O L A N D A S M I K U L S K A S an event unfolding in time. Of course, the stretch of road opening up before the traveler’s eyes can normally also be described using imperfective motion verbs, although such cases are not typical, cf.: (68) And once again our road runs on. It runs toward fraternal Latvia LKŽ1 726 (J. BALT). However, only in the circumstances of travel, when the observer’s gaze surveys just a certain (distinctive in some way) stretch of road, can perfective forms of motion verbs be deliberately chosen. 2.6.1. Finally, it should be said that the perfective forms required for such dynamic interpretations and the previously discussed imperfective forms, determined by the perceiver’s holistic, or global, perspective, constitute only a semantic opposition. A grammatical aspectual opposition, such as in the case of actual motion predication, is unlikely here because holistic and traveler perspectives are difficult to reconcile, cf.: (69) Grandfather walked and walked, and reached the forest. (70) *The path ran along the field and emerged at the edge of the forest. CONCLUSIONS 1. The basis for using verbs denoting directed motion in the predication of longitudinal objects is the cognitive operation of subjectification. This, in turn, is underpinned by the notion of subjective motion, which involves the situation perceiver’s successive, directed scanning, or surveying, of a longitudinal object. 2. When motion verbs function as predicates of longitudinal objects in sentences, they essentially denote only their static, i.e., unchanging over time, position. Used in this way, these verbs are semantically equivalent to stative verbs. 3. In the valency structure of motion verbs used to describe longitudinal objects, a directional adverbial complement becomes obligatory. It is the conditio sine qua non. of the predication under discussion. The directional vector modifying the predication of longitudinal objects coincides with the direction of scanning, or surveying, of the object chosen by the perceiver / observer implied by this predication, who is in fact the speaker or listener. 4. Imperfective motion verbs most often serve as predicates of longitudinal objects, since they usually denote only an imperfective process in this context. Consequently, if prefixed forms of motion verbs that emphasize the perceiver’s / observer’s relative location are chosen to predicate these objects, they can only be in the present tense. 5. Cases in which prefixed present-tense forms of motion verbs can have a perfective meaning (e.g., in generic sentences) are not possible in the predication of longitudinal objects for one important reason: the necessary inclusion of the perceiver’s / observer’s position within the scope of this predication determines a close link between the profiled situation and the moment of speech, making a generalized treatment of that situation impossible. 6. Under certain circumstances, perfective forms of motion verbs may be chosen for road predication. These circumstances are associated with a sequential, or traveler’s, perspective. The stretch of road extending before the traveler’s eyes may be in- IŠILGINIŲ OBJEKTŲ PREDIKACIJOS POBŪDIS 39 is interpreted dynamically (with an occurrence-category predicate chosen to describe it) when the configuration of this stretch or its apparent endpoint strikes the traveler as unexpected. Such dynamically interpreted forms of event aspect, which require an eventive predicate, and forms of process aspect, determined by a holistic, or comprehensive, perspective of perception, constitute a semantic rather than a grammatical opposition. ABBREVIATIONS DŽ4 – Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, ed. St. Keinys, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 2000. LKŽI – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 1 (2nd ed.), ed. J. KRUOPAS, Vilnius: Mintis, 1968. LKŽII – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 2 (2nd ed.), ed. J. KRUOPAS, Vilnius: Mintis, 1969. LKŽV – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 5, ed. K. ULVYDAS, Vilnius: State Publishing House for Political and Scientific Literature, 1959. LKŽVII – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 7, ed. J. KRUOPAS, Vilnius: Mintis, 1966. LKŽVIII – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 8, ed. J. KRUOPAS, Vilnius: Mintis, 1970. LKŽXI – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 11, ed. K. ULVYDAS, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1978. LKŽXIV – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 14, ed. K. ULVYDAS, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1986. LKŽXVIII – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 18, ed. V. VITKAUSKAS, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 1997. LKŽXIX – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language 19, ed. V. VITKAUSKAS, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 1999. LITERATŪRA AMBRAZAS, V., red., 1997: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Trečiasis pataisytas leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. AMBRAZAS, V., red., 1999: Veikslas. Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, par. K. Morkūnas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. HOLVOET, A., ČIŽIK, V. 2004: Veikslo priešpriešos tipai. Holvoet, A., Semėnienė, L., red., Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 141–162. JANDA, L. A. 2004: A metaphor in search of a source domain: The categories of Slavic aspect. Cognitive Linguistics 15, 471–527. LANGACKER, R. W. 2002: Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, 2nd ed., Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. PAULAUSKIENĖ, A. 1979: Gramatinės lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžio kategorijos, Vilnius: Mokslas. VENDLER, Z. 1967: Linguistics in Philosophy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Rolandas Mikulskas Gauta 2005 01 27 Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio 5, 10308 Vilnius [email protected]