scholarly journals Form, its meaning, and dictionary entries

2015 ◽  
pp. 133-143
Author(s):  
Violetta Koseska-Toszewa

Form, its meaning, and dictionary entriesAs we know, a language form is a unit which plays a specific form in the language, e.g. a semantic or syntactical one. We establish the function of a form based on its use (occurrence), i.e. its relation with the meanings of other forms in speech or in a text. The meaning of a form is the value of its function. In the traditional grammar, form is opposed to its meaning. However, various grammar schools have big problems with distinguishingbetween a form and its function. For example, the present tense form has a number of basic temporal meanings in Bulgarian as well as in Polish and Russian, and in none of those languages this is only the present time, (see past, future and habituality expressed using the present tense form). It is a big mistake not to distinguish between the meanings of article in article languages. For example, in Bulgarian the same form of article canexpress both uniqueness and universality (or, respectively: definiteness and indefiniteness). In the quoted book (Koseska-Toszewa 1982), I put forward a hypothesis on the development of the meaning of Bulgarian article. In my opinion, initially the article expressed uniqueness of an element (object), and then started to express also uniqueness of a set, which later, due to equalling two completely different semantically-logical structures, i.e. structures with universal and unique quantification, lead to a homonymy and to the article expressing also universality, i.e. indefiniteness. Similarly in English, French, Rumanian or Albanian, where the same form of article can express either uniqueness or universality. This proves that the above homonymy is of a general rather than typological (e.g. Balkan) character. Naturally, in the above languages the definite article form can also express uniqueness of an object or a set, so it also expresses definiteness. Ambiguity of the definite article form is a phenomenon exceeding the area of Balkan languages, and the only Balkanism is the position of the article — speaking more precisely,its postpositiveness (postpositive position). However, that position gives us no right to treat it differently than the English or French article. In Bulgarian, Rumanian and Albanian the postpositive article is written together with the name its concerns, but it is neither a unit belonging to the root of the word nor the ending of the word.The above observations, based first of all on the semantically-logical aspects of the definiteness category, have been confirmed by the language material from the Suprasl Code, where Bulgarian article does not occur in universally quantified nominal structures, but in uniquely quantified nominal expressions, denoting satisfaction of the predicate either by one element of the sentence or by the whole set treated as the only one.It is worth stressing that distinguishing between the form and its meaning in comparing the material 6 languages belonging to three different groups of Slavic languages (as is the case in the MONDILEX Project) will allow us to avoid numeorus substantiva mistakes and erroneous conclusions. Hence dictionary entries should be verified and made uniform in that respect before they are “digitalized”... Distinction between the form and its meaning in a dictionary entry is fully possible, as shown by works of Z. Saloni (2002) and A.Przepiórkowski (2008).

Author(s):  
Marleen Van Peteghem

Comparison expresses a relation involving two or more entities which are ordered on a scale with respect to a gradable property, called the parameter of comparison. In European languages, it is typically expressed through two constructions, comparatives and superlatives. Comparative constructions generally involve two entities, and indicate whether the compared entity shows a higher, lesser, or equal degree of the parameter with respect to the other entity, which is the standard of comparison. Superlatives set out one entity against a class of entities and indicate that the compared entity shows the highest or lowest degree of the parameter. Hence, comparatives may express either inequality (superiority or inferiority) or equality, whereas superlatives necessarily express superiority or inferiority. In traditional grammar, the terms comparative and superlative are primarily used to refer to the morphology of adjectives and adverbs in languages with synthetic marking (cf. Eng. slow, slower, slowest). However, while Latin has such synthetic marking, modern Romance languages no longer possess productive comparative or superlative suffixes. All Romance languages use analytic markers consisting of dedicated adverbs (e.g., Fr. plus ‘more’, moins ‘less’, aussi ‘as, also’) and determiners (e.g., Sp./It. tanto, Ro. atât ‘so much’). Superlatives are marked with the same markers and are mainly distinguished from comparatives by their association with definiteness. Another difference between comparatives and superlatives lies in the complements they license. Comparatives license a comparative complement, which may be clausal or phrasal, and which identifies the standard of comparison. As for superlatives, they license partitive PPs denoting the comparison set, which may be further specified by other PPs, a relative clause, or an infinitive clause. The Romance languages show many similarities with respect to the morphosyntactic encoding of comparatives and superlatives, but they also display important cross-linguistic differences. These differences may be related to the status of the comparative marker, the encoding of the standard marker, ellipsis phenomena in the comparative clause, and the dependence of the superlative on the definite article.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
М. В. Ермолова ◽  

There are two pluperfect forms in Pskov dialects: “to be (past tense) + vši-form” and “to be (past tense) +l-form”. The first one has a resultative meaning and should be considered in the row of other perfective forms with the verb to be in the present tense, future tense and in the form of subjunctive mood. The second one has a meaning of discontinuous past. Apparently, it is a grammeme of the past tense and it is opposed to the “simple” past tense by the meaning of the irrelevance of the action to the present. There are similar systems with two pluperfect forms in other Slavic and non-Slavic languages.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 387-415
Author(s):  
Björn Wiemer

The article examines non-deictic uses of present and future tense in Lithuanian. Narrative use, in which reference intervals match with singular events, is distinguished from suspended propositions characterized by lack of such reference intervals (habitual, dispositional and circumstantial modal, and conditional meanings). Present tense is frequently involved in both usage domains, while the future is rare in narrative use, but overlaps with present tense in certain types of suspended propositions. Moreover, its temporal-deictic use is inherently associated with suspended propositions and “linked” to them via epistemic implicatures. This, in contrast to the present, makes the future more likely to be employed in predictions which entail an observer.The analysis is supplemented by a brief comparison with non-deictic tense use in the nonpast-domain of Slavic languages, yielding a grid of criteria that should be used in crosslinguistic studies on tense-aspect systems based on stem derivation and the feature [±bounded].


2021 ◽  
pp. 165-175
Author(s):  
Анатоль Багдзевіч

The passive participles of the present tense have been actively used only in Russian out of all Slavic languages since the 19th century and are a grammatical category that is not accepted by all native speakers of the standard Belarusian language as a normative one. During the development of Slavic languages, it has been experiencing two opposite tendencies: decline and revival. The article examines extralinguistic and intralinguistic factors that could have influenced the development of this verb form in a number of Slavic languages. According to the author, the bilingual Slavic-Greek consciousness of the creators of Slavic writing could have influenced the strengthening of these forms in the Russian language. The article analyzes possible connections of the Slavic participles of the present tense with the medial and passive participles of the Greek language in the light of their common origin from the Indo-European participle, as well as the process of development of participles during the restructuring of the voice category and in connection with the development of the aspect category.


Nordlyd ◽  
10.7557/12.51 ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Borik ◽  
Paz González ◽  
Henk Verkuyl

A way of improving on the description of the English tense system in Reichenbach [1947] is achieved by changing its matrix 3x3 design into a 2x2x2 set up, formed by 3 basic oppositions: <ol> <li>present vs. past</li> <li>synchronous vs. posterior</li> <li>incompleted vs. completed action</li> </ol> The advantages of the binary system over the Reichenbachian ternary system are the following: <ol> <li>the binary system is completely compositional;</li> <li>there is no tripartition between Past, Present and Future, but only the basic opposition between Past and Present remains. As we intend to show later, this is empirically supported by the Russian and Polish data;</li> <li>some concrete problems, for instance, the ambiguity of past perfect with temporal adverbials or more then one configuration for the same tense form [Future Perfect [will have written] or Past Future tense [would write]] do not arise.</li> </ol> The binary system can be naturally extended to apply for the tense systems of different groups of languages. Along with Germanic, we will consider two more groups of languages: Romance [e.g., French and Spanish] and Slavic [e.g., Russian and Polish]. The binary system, we will show, has the potential to be extended in order to capture the Romance data or shrunk to account for the Slavic data. The connection between tense and aspect, especially in Slavic languages is also described in this paper. Both temporal and aspectual differences in Slavic can be essentially captured by the same mechanism provided by the binary system. Some empirical facts, like, for instance, the absence of the present tense interpretation with perfective verb forms, will fall out naturally.


Linguistics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 679-712
Author(s):  
Anna Cardinaletti ◽  
Giuliana Giusti

AbstractThis paper presents the results of a pilot study on the distribution of indefinite determiners in contexts with narrow scope interpretation in current informal Italian. It individuates the available forms and presents their diatopic distribution. The research is based on data collected through an online questionnaire designed to detect optionality. The results show that in narrow scope indefinite contexts, i. e., negative statements, both the zero determiner and the definite article are widespread throughout the country. The partitive determiner is only found in episodic sentences and is limited to restricted geographic areas. In all contexts and areas, a large degree of optionality is found. In some context and area, however, it is possible to identify one form more prominent than the others. This can be related to the context, which may favour some specialized meaning of one specific form, e. g., saliency and small quantity, or to diatopic variation due to language contact with the dialect, as shown by comparing present-day informal Italian with the dialectal data reported in AIS and analysed in (Cardinaletti and Giusti. 2018. Indefinite determiners: Variation and optionality in Italo-Romance. In Diego Pescarini & Roberta D’Alessandro (eds.), Advances in Italian dialectology: Sketches of Italo-Romance grammars, 135–161. Amsterdam: Brill).


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-206
Author(s):  
Desislava Dimitrova ◽  
Krasimir Kabakčiev

According to an aspectological model proposed by Kabakčiev in 1984, later developed and sophisticated, languages differ according to whether they mark aspect (perfectivity and imperfectivity) on verbs, as in the Slavic languages – among others, or through nouns/NPs featuring (non-)boundedness which is transferred onto verbs, as in the Germanic languages – among others. In this model of compositional aspect (CA), Bulgarian is a borderline case with a perfective-imperfective and an aorist-imperfect distinction and a definite article only (no indefinite), and the model is used to analyze Greek, a language exhibiting identical features. NP referents play a major role for the compositional explication of aspect. The study finds that Greek is of the same borderline/hybrid type of language as Bulgarian, featuring verbal aspect (VA) predominantly, but also peripherally CA. The aorist/imperfect distinction exists both in Greek and Bulgarian to offset the structural impact of the definite article. Analyzed are some conditions for the explication of CA in Greek and they are found similar to those in Bulgarian. However, there are specificites and differences between the two languages that must be further studied and identified. Keywords: verbal aspect, compositional aspect, definite article, article-aspect interplay, aorist-imperfect contrast


2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-232
Author(s):  
Sasa Marjanovic

From the perspective of the theory of lexicographic functions, this paper analyses in a metalexicographic manner the system of processing inflection data on the verbs of the Serbian language in M. Benson?s SerboCroatian-English Dictionary (BENSON 1993). The processing system is perceived through the prism of the needs of users whose native language is not Serbian in three situations: reception, production (which includes translation situations) and the situation in which the dictionary is used for gaining knowledge on verb inflection in the Serbian language. In the analysis of the dictionary, it has been noted that the processing system is made up of four lexicographic methods: 1) inflected forms of the verbs with a suppletive present base form and apophony in that base compared to the infinitive base form were included as headwords of particular dictionary entries with cross-references to the infinitive, but this was not done systematically and consistently; 2) as for the thematic verbs which are included in 36 separate accentual-conjugation types, type marks were provided with the verb, with cross-references to the introductory pages of the dictionary, where those marks were textually interpreted; 3) as for the thematic verbs which are not included in the aforementioned types, as well as all athematic verbs, inflection data were listed in the grammar section immediately after the headword; 4) for a smaller number of verbs, the model verb from which the inflection data should be analogically derived is listed in the dictionary entry itself. However, if a sound change in the present tense appears in verbs to which the third and fourth lexicographic method was applied, then a partial paradigm of the present tense in its full or shortened form was provided before the cross-reference to the typical verb in the form of a mark or a specific verb. The analysis showed that the first aforementioned lexicographic method meets the reception-related needs of the users of Benson?s dictionary. However, considering that it was not consistently applied, it does not satisfy those needs in all cases. The remaining three methods completely meet production-related needs, but it remains uncertain whether the applied methods are clear to the average user and, if so, to what extent. Therefore, the paper also offers a simplified version of Benson?s system of processing verb inflection, which would be more harmonized with the users? needs. However, Benson?s dictionary cannot serve as a handbook for gaining knowledge on verb inflection in the Serbian language, because the introductory pages and the grammatical appendix neither offer the rules on the formation of verb forms nor include complete paradigms of basic inflection types. The results of the analysis in the conclusion are applied to the draft of a new, proposed, French-Serbian dictionary, which additionally points to the advantages and shortcomings of applied lexicographic methods.


2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-55
Author(s):  
Marta Bjeletic

Contemporary etymological research is largely aimed at rethinking hitherto offered etymological solutions, especially for words that do not have a generally accepted interpretation. One of those words is PSl *kovyl? / *kovyl? ?feather-grass, Stipa pennata?, whose continuants are attested mainly in Eastern and Southern Slavic languages: Ru. kovy?, kovyl, Ukr. kovi?, kovila, Bel. kavy?, Bulg. kovil, koil, kofi l, Mac. kovil, kofi l, SCr. kovilje, Sln. kovilje. The etymological literature has drawn attention to the potential connection of PSl *kovyl? / *kovyl? with the verb *kovy?ati (s?) ?to swing, wobble, stagger?, even though this verb does not have a unanimously accepted interpretation either. This paper departs from the assumption that the phytonym and verb under consideration have a common origin, and that the prefi x *ko- is distinguished in both forms. The verb is related to PSl *v?lati, v?laj? ?to swing, swing on waves?, related to PSl *v?lna ?wave?, *valiti (s?) ?to roll?, and ultimately boils down to the IE root *?elH- ?to roll?. As among the continuants and derivatives of the PSl verb *v?lati there is a variation of the reduced vowels (-?- : -?-) at the root (cf. OCS v?lajati s? ?to oscillate (about waves)?, etc.), forms with the vocalism -?- could serve as a basis for the occurrence of the secondary ablaut *v?l- / *vyl-. Thus, from the unconfirmed prefixed form *ko-v?lati s? (a form without the prefix *v?lati s? is reconstructed!), an intense / iterative *kovyl(j)ati s? could be created in the same meaning. The variance of -ati / -jati can be explained from the original *kovylati, kovilj? (s?), with the subsequent spread of the palatal ? from the present tense stem to the infinitive stem. This also explains the variation of the palatal and non-palatal l at the end of the stem of the deverbal noun *kovyl? / *kovyl?.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document