|
Filozofski fakultet Univerzitet u Novom Sadu |
UDC: 811.111'367.625:811.163.41'367.625 81'362 DOI: 10.19090/gff.2021.1.31-46 |
THE EVENT-CANCELLING
SEMANTICS OF THE ENGLISH ASPECTUALIZER START
AND ITS SERBIAN EQUIVALENT KRENUTI
The paper revisits the issue of semantic equivalency of
two aspectual verbs, start and krenuti, which is proposed by Milivojević (2021a, 2021b). The present
analysis focuses on the causative and dynamic semantic features of start and krenuti, with the aim of a contrastive analysis of the aspectual
constructions headed by these two verbs. It is shown that both start and krenuti, provided that the necessary linguistic conditions are met,
have the ability to “cancel” the event initiated via constructional phase
modification. The conditions for such event-cancelling result from the lexical
semantics of start and krenuti, as well as from the semantic
co-composition on the level of the aspectual construction as a whole. The
theoretical frame of the analysis is the presupposition and consequence account
by A. Freed (1979). The contrastive analysis and presented theoretical
conclusions are backed by a parallel corpus of 200 English and Serbian
sentences compiled from the Corpus of Global
Web-Based English (GlowBE 2013) and the Corpus of Contemporary Serbian Language
(SrpKor 2013).
Keywords: aspectualizers, aspectual constructions,
aspectual event, temporal structure, presupposition and consequence,
event-cancelling
1. INTRODUCTION
As a specific semantic
class, phase or aspectual verbs (also called aspectualizers), which by
definition are complement-taking verb heads, denote the “initiation, termination,
or continuation of an activity” (Levin 1993:274). These verbs describe the
temporal segment resulting from the temporal structure of an event which is, in
turn, additionally determined by the aspectual interaction between the head
verb and its complement. The meaning expressed by the aspectualizers and their complements is therefore
understood as semantic co-composition[1],[2]
realized at the level of the aspectual construction as a whole. Nagy (2016: 84)
appropriately points out that this kind of theoretical analysis is closely in
line with the important outlines of construction grammar[3],[4].
Aspectualizers, along with their complements have so far received a significant
amount of attention in the grounding and subsequent relevant literature in
English and Serbian respectively (Antonić, 2000; Brinton, 1988; Dowty, 1977; Duffley 1999, 2006;
Freed, 1979; Ivić, 1983; Mair, 1990; Levin, 1993; Milivojević 2021a, 2021b; Mrazović&Vukadinović, 1990; Nagy, 2009, 2016; Newmeyer, 1975; Perlmutter, 1978; Piper et al., 2005; Pustejovsky, 1995 among others), yet the number
of contrastive studies is still relatively small. What is more, certain issues
in the behaviour of aspectual verbs remain unaccounted for in the literature;
one such open question is the phenomenon of aspectual event-cancellation. As
Duffley (1999:297) reports, the specific problem of “why it is that the
aspectual construction ‘start to V’ can
be used both in cases where the event was or was not initiated, whereas ‘begin to V’ always implies initiation”
still has not been completely answered for English. The present contrastive
analysis is an attempt intended as a contribution to this area of linguistic
research. We propose a detailed contrastive account of lexical and
constructional semantics of two aspectual verbs, i.e. the English aspectualizer
start and its Serbian equivalent krenuti with special focus to their
event-initiation and event-cancellation semantics, both on the lexical level
and on the level of the construction.
The research presented
in the paper was filtered through corpus data. The corpus of the present
research was compiled from the Corpus of Global
Web-Based English (GlowBE 2013) and
the Corpus of Contemporary Serbian
Language (SrpKor 2013). It contains 200 sentences in total, 100 sentences in
English and 100 sentences in Serbian. The primary criteria for the selection of
corpus examples were: 1) that the sentence includes one of the two aspectual
verbs under analysis and/or 2) that the aspectual construction appears in a
complex sentence where the aspectual proposition is coordinated with the
event-cancelling clause.
2. THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
The dominant
theoretical framework for the present analysis is the presupposition and
consequence theory proposed by Alice F. Freed (Freed, 1979). Freed introduces a
specified temporal structure of a prototypical aspectual event that may consist
of an onset, nucleus and coda.[5],[6]
Within her theoretical
model of aspectual analysis, Freed introduces the terms presupposition and consequence,
stating that phase verbs generally trigger an obligatory presupposition[7].
Similar theoretical claim is made in the relevant literature in Serbian.
According to Piper et al. (2005: 313) presupposition is part of semantics of
the aspectual verb which is obligatory and cannot be altered by negation. For
example, when aspectualizers begin
and start in English are contrasted,
the semantic difference between them is generally explained by the more complex
semantic value of start as compared to begin; A. Freed (1979)
states that the essential semantic difference between begin and start
lies in the fact that start refers to the onset of an event, while begin
invariably modifies the
first temporal segment of the nucleus. Although the two aspectualizers have
similar semantic presuppositions since they both presuppose the initiation of
an event, begin and start have different consequence relations;
while begin always entails a subsequent occurrence of the event, start
may also entail non-occurrence or event-cancellation:
1.
Barbara started/*began to study
for her exams last week but then she didn’t do any studying. (Freed 1979:71)[8]
In the examples below, not the nucleus activity of the event named in
the complement but only the onset of
this event had taken place. The sentence with phase verb begin cannot have such interpretation. It is therefore plausible to
suggest that in terms of phase marking starting
is prior to beginning, hence the
difference in the grammaticality of the examples in (2a) and (2b):
2.
a) She *began to
sing (but didn’t).
b) She started to sing (but didn’t).
The idea of the aspectual verb start
marking only the onset of the aspectual event is not new, and it has been noted
in the relevant literature. Nagy (2016) reports the following:
The fact that start refers to the onset, the very
beginning of a situation, and begin to the first temporal phase of the nucleus… is pointed out by
Wierzbicka (1988). Wierzbicka notes that start refers to the first part and begin to the first moment of an event,
which, in her opinion, is also shown by the fact that at races and similar
events the initial moment is usually called “start” rather than “begin”.
(Nagy 2009: 97)
If we turn to Serbian, we see that similar situation exists with the
pair of aspectualizers početi and krenuti. The difference in behavior of
these two verbs is shown in the examples (3a) and (3b) below:
3. a) *Počela je
da peva, ali nije zapevala.
b) Krenula je da peva, ali nije
zapevala.
In the example (3a), početi behaves like begin: the
non-occurrence of the event cannot be expressed with početi since the event is already in progress, while the example (3b) is fully
acceptable in Serbian. This again leads to a conclusion that, just like in
English, there is a difference in the time interval of the event which gets
modified by the aspectual verb – since krenuti
allows for the cancellation of the event, it seems to behave exactly like
the English aspectual verb start, so
we may conclude that in terms of temporal structure and semantic precedence, krenuti is prior to početi. Furthermore, based on the equivalent argument
structures on the syntactic level[9],
Milivojević
(2021b) concludes:
Although begin and start are close synonyms in English while početi and krenuti are
close synonyms in Serbian, the true overall linguistic equivalent of begin is početi, and the true overall linguistic equivalent of start is krenuti since only these contrastive pairs of aspectualizers
project the same type of arguments in the contrastive perspective.“(Milivojević
2021b: page 9, para 2).
The present analysis, however, shifts its
focus away from the lexical-projectionist approach of Levin (1993) and Milivojević (2021b). While
we revisit the issue of equivalency of the aspectual pair start and krenuti, the
present analysis more closely investigates the aspects of “additional” semantic features of the two
verbs, i.e. causality and dynamicity, with the primary aim of explaining
event-initiation and event cancellation phenomena illustrated in the above
examples (1–3).
3. THE “ADDITIONAL”
SEMANTICS OF ASPECTUAL VERBS START
AND KRENUTI
Apart from the ability to modify only the onset of the event expressed
in the complement when they are used as aspectual verbs, start and krenuti also
behave as full lexical verbs. When used as lexical verbs, they denote motion in
space and/or physical movement, which makes them semantically close to dynamic
motion verbs[10].
The dynamic meaning of start is also
listed in WordNet (4), whereas Rečnik srpskohrvatskoga književnog
jezika (RSKJ) lists the
dynamic, motion meaning for the lexical verb krenuti in Serbian (5):
4. START (v) start, go, get
going (begin or set in motion): I start at eight in the morning, ready, set, go!”
5.
KRENUTI (v.) (neprel.) poći, uputiti se: Već samim jutrom krenusmo naprijed;
Kada krenu vode otud sa planine, dojezdiće opet mirno proljeće.
Like the lexical verbs, aspectualizers start and krenuti are also marked for dynamicity, while their
aspectual denotation frequently conflates with motion meaning (c.f. Antonić, 2000; Duffley 1999, 2006; Freed, 1979; Levin, 1993; Milivojević 2021a, 2021b; Nagy, 2009, 2016; Piper et al., 2005; Pustejovsky, 1995.) Due to its dynamic lexical semantics, start as an aspectualizer in English frequently combines with
dynamic complements, especially with dynamic achievements and activities. We
return to this issue in more detail in section 4 of the paper.
It is important to note at this point that phase verb krenuti belongs to the group of
secondary or “atypical” aspectualizers in Serbian (c.f. Antonić, 2000; Krstić, 2016; Milivojević, 2021a, 2021b; Piper
et al., 2005 among others)[11]. Krenuti is primarily a lexical verb which
denotes motion in space, but which expresses additional aspectual (and modal)[12]
meanings when it is used as a complement-taking verb. Serbian aspectual constructions constitute of
decomposed predicates, with phase matrix verbs. Krstić (2016: 15) stresses the
fact that secondary or “atypical” phase verbs, semantically stem from full,
lexical verbs with weakened lexical meaning, where the result of such semantic
change also influences lexical and grammatical relations on the syntactic
level. It is therefore plausible to claim that aspectual verb krenuti indeed contains traces of
dynamicity originating from the primary semantics of the lexical verb krenuti.
Next, we turn to causative semantics of the English aspectualizer start. Nagy (2016) and Duffley (1999,
2006) report that although both start and
begin are marked for causality since
they bring about an initiation of the event, start has an additional feature of causality which is missing from begin[13]. The causality feature of the verb start, and the absence of such semantic
causality in begin is illustrated in
the examples (6a) and (6b):
6. a) He
started me thinking about the problem.
b) *He began me
thinking about the problem.
The reported additional causality is at the interface of semantics and syntax,
since it not only attributes an additional feature to the primary lexical
semantics of the verb, but is reflected on the level of syntax as well, by
adding an additional NP argument to the construction.
Lexicographic sources in Serbian confirm the lexical causality of krenuti. RSKJ lists the following
causative meanings for the verb krenuti,
where all of these denotations refer to the initiation of the event: staviti u pokret, učiniti da se ko ili što
pokrene sa svoga mesta, maknuti, pomaknuti, zaljuljati, isterati, poterati,
izazvati, izmamiti. Sentences (7) and (8) are
examples of aspectual verb krenuti
with causative interpretation, extracted from SrpKor 2013[14]:
7. Uh, kako se
oseća zadah ustajale vode koja se ne miče! Davi, guši. Vetra daj da krene nepomičnu
trulu masu! Nigde vetrića ... (SrpKor 2013: Domanović, Radoje. Mrtvo more. Izabrane
satire.)
8. Ona je dugo
ubeđivala da je preko potrebno da se odmah pošalje naročito lice u
Petrograd, da krene neku medicinsku znamenitost prvog reda pa
da je prvim vozom dovede ovamo. Ali kćeri je odgovoriše. (SrpKor 2013:
Dostojevski, Fjodor Mihajlovič. Idiot.)
Having confirmed the additional semantic equivalency of the aspectual
verbs start and krenuti with respect to their semantic features of dynamicity and
causality, we now turn to discuss the linguistic conditions for
event-cancelling in English and Serbian.
4. THE CONTRASTIVE SEMANTICS
OF EVENT-CANCELLING
Event-cancelling
is primarily a semantic operation which happens on the constructional level. It
is caused by the co-composition of linguistic entities and temporal conditions,
and just like the integral meaning of the aspectul construction, it comes about
at the syntax-semantics interface. To state it more precisely, we
consider it as semantic co-composition
in the sense of the Generative Lexicon Theory[15].
Freed
(1979) generally accounts for the cases of aspectual event’s non-occurrence
such as those in the examples (1–3)[16]
by stating that, in English, aspectual start
modifies only the onset of the event, which is why, after the onset, the event
may not continue into the nucleus. Similar analysis of the semantics and
complementation of the phase verb krenuti, which reflects on the implications of
Freed’s model for Serbian, is offered in Milivojević (2021a, 2021b). Since, as
stated above, start is a phase
modifier which refers to the initial, integral part of the temporal structure
of the aspectual construction, and due to its “immediate” semantics which is
marked as causative and dynamic, its meaning frequently allows for various
semantic interpretations related to situations with an abrupt start, or a
“sudden causing” of the event. Furthermore, start,
due to its additional causality,
“can be used in
contexts when it refers not only to the temporality of the sentence but to the
initiating activity of the event (in the complement) as well. Begin, on
the contrary, cannot be used in such contexts, e.g. When are you going to
start/ *begin the fire? (Nagy, 2016:86)
Contrastively speaking, we argue that both start and krenuti frequently
combine with dynamic complements, i.e. semelfactives, achievements and
activities[17]
which are connected to sudden action or abrupt motion. In addition to this,
example (9) below shows that in English, event-cancelling may be blocked not
only by matrix verb semantics, but by the –ing aspectual complement as well:
9. a) She started
to cry/*crying, but then she didn’t cry. (activity verb)
b) She started to sneeze/*sneezing, but the she didn’t sneeze.
(semelfactive verb)
Nagy (2016:98) reports that, in English “in contrast to to-infinitive, the –ing construction after aspectual verbs makes reference to a
specific event or series of events which can be identified to be simultaneous
with the time phrase expressed by the matrix verb.” We conclude that such “actuality”, i.e. the dynamic reading of
the –ing complement blocks the
cancelling of the event in the complement in (9). Also, the –ing construction,
in terms of temporal structure, represents a non-temporal complement[18],
which cannot be segmented into phases. This means that the onset of the event
is not available to the phase verb for modification which further results in
blocking of event-cancelling. The equivalent situation is present with nominal
(NP) aspectual complements of krenuti
in Serbian:
10. a) *Krenula je s plakanjem, ali nije zaplakala.
Serbian aspectualizer krenuti
frequently semantically conflates motion, modality and phase when it is used in
the aspectual sense. This is accounted for in Milivojević (2021a, 2021b) where the
author argues that krenuti in Serbian, apart from the lexical meaning, expresses two additional
meanings and those are the aspectual meaning denoting the beginning of the
event and modal meaning denoting intention and/or volition. Milivojević (2021b) also claims that
regarding the lexical aspect of
the complements in internal argument position to the aspectual verb head, krenuti is equivalent to start, as it allows for different
dynamic verb situations (activities and semelfactives) in the complement
position. Consider (11a) and (11b) below:
11. a) Krenula
je da plače, ali nije zaplakala.
(activity)
b) Krenula je da zaplače, ali se predomislila.
(semelfactive)[19]
Appart from the prototypical instances of
event’s non-occurence[20],
there are more complex (sub)cases, or atypical cases of event-cancelling in
English and Serbian. Those are the situations where the initiated event which continues after the
onset does not develop the expected and/or predefined temporal structure. In
such insances, the event is clearly initiated, yet its continuation happens in
some kind of altered, incomplete, or unexpected way. To prove that the
event-cancelling operation takes place, we propose a test of syntactic
coordination. The complex proposition (or the sentence-complex) which contains
the aspectual proposition and another coordinated proposition has to be both
grammatically (syntactically) and semantically valid:
12.
a) Henry started to kick the
ball, but stopped.
b) Henry started to sneeze, but sharply coughed
instead.
c) ??Henry started to sneeze, but quickly changed his
mind.
13. a) Krenuo je da šutne loptu, ali se sapleo.
b) Krenuo je da kine, ali
se umesto toga zakašljao.
c) ??Krenuo je da kine,
ali se predomislio.
Examples (12a) and (13a) illustrate prototypical event-cancelling cases,
while (12b) and (13b) are event-substitutions. Turning to the problematic
semantic acceptability of (12c) and (13c), we see that when the coordination
test is applied, semantic features such as intentionality, volition, control
and so on interfere with the validity of the proposition-complex. As to the
question whether start presupposes
intentional causality, Dowty (1977) states that it can be marked both for
intentional and nonintentional causation, which is in line with Freed (1979)
who argues that both begin and start are unspecified regarding
the active attempt of the subject, but that an event which is marked for
causality does not necessarily presuppose an “intention” interpretation, but
rather that there was something or someone which was the cause of the event,
e.g. The flowers began/ started to wilt. What the syntactic coordination test proves is that the semantics of
the aspectual construction dictates the conditions of event-cancelling. In
other words, an involuntary, reflex action like sneezing cannot be cancelled by
voluntary counter-action.
Although examples like (12b)[21] are
not explicitly accounted for in Freed’s proposal, there is space for
calculating them into the analysis. Namely, if start refers only to the onset of the complement event, the
initiated action may either stop after the onset or it may continue in some
kind of altered or unexpected way, subsequently turning into a different
action. Before we define the criteria for aspectual event-cancelling based on
the present discussion, we briefly turn to discuss Duffley’s (1999) account.
Duffley disagrees with Freed and argues that start does not modify any segment of the temporal structure event;
what start denotes, in his view, is
just “breaking out of a state of rest” prior to the initiation of the event.
Due to the fact that start,
unlike begin, does not inherently
designate a segment of an event, the notion of breaking out of a state of rest
or inactivity which it denotes can also be construed merely as a movement
towards the first moment of the infinitive’s event, in which case the latter
will be understood to be non-initiated. (Duffley, 1999: 319)
While this account may generally suffice for the prototypical
event-cancellation cases with to-infinitive complements in English, it does not
account for situations like (12b). The denotation of start as “breaking out of a state of rest” where this action only
precedes another event (or its initiation) in an aspectually unrelated fashion,
disregards the causality of start,
therefore also excluding the option of the “non-initiated” event to continue.
To account for all relevant cases, i.e. (12a) (12b), as well as for the weaker
acceptability of (12c) we define the prototypical aspectual event-cancelling situation in English,
as constituting an aspectual construction with start combined with a dynamic aspectual complement, especially such
whose denotation is connected to sudden or momentary action. In line with this
conclusion, we propose that the
linguistic condition for event-cancelling with (henceforth LCEC) reads as
follows:
The aspectual
event can be cancelled if
1) START
initiates/causes the complement event,
2) START
modifies only the onset of the complement event
3) START and
the complement event are dynamic
In
addition to the primary LCEC requirements, the test of syntactic coordinaton
may be used to test the semantic validity of the proposition-complex.
The prototypical event-cancelling situation in
Serbian, like in English, constitutes an aspectual construction with krenuti combined with a dynamic
aspectual complement, especially such whose denotation is connected to dynamic
Aktionsart (e.g. dynamic acitivities or achievements) Additionally, in
prototypical cases krenuti conflates
phase, causality and motion denotation in such a way that its meaning can be
paraphrased as “physically start to initiate the event”, with motion in space
or physical movement evident at the time of the utterance (13a-b).
In addition to the previously discussed prototypical
event-cancelling situations,
examples (14–19) illustrate additional, atypical event-cancelling aspectual
constructions, i.e. event-substitution constructions with start and krenuti
extracted from GlowBE and SrpKor, respectively. The LCEC condition applies to
these examples in the same manner in which it applies to the prototypical
cases, the only difference being in the fact that the actual event-cancelling
in the examples below happens not by direct cancellation of the event, but by
event-substitution: in other words, the cancellation results in the altered
initiated event.
14. After struggling with various engine components for over an hour the thing
eventually started but firing on only seven cyllinders. As for the eighth, to
hell with it. (GlowBE
2013: https://ntz.info/gen/n01359.html)
15.
The excel.exe process got
started, but it just stays stuck. (GlowBE 2013: social.msdn.microsoft.com)
16.
We started to go home, but we ran out of gas. (GlowBE
2013: https://www.fanfiction.net)
17.
A Rebeke nigde.
Samo slika kako se zgurila pod njegovom rukom što je bila krenula da je udari,
sva trapava i pijana, sećanje na udarac pesnice o frižider. (SrpKor 2013: Grifitis,
Nil. Patrljak.)
18.
Odjednom se
pojavio ispred mog kabineta, ispod jakne izvadio drvenu palicu i krenuo
da me udari. Uspeo sam nekako da se zaštitim vratima. (SrpKor 2013: www.rts.rs (27.11.2008.))
19.
A kad je voda
počela da ključa i da se puši, Monmorensi je to smatrao izazovom. I baš kad
bi krenuo da ga napadne, neko od nas bi mu ispred nosa odneo čajnik.
Tog dana je odlučio da bude brži. (SrpKor
2013: Džerom, K.
Džerom. Tri čoveka u čamcu.
ASPAC.)
5. CONCLUDING
REMARKS
The
present contrastive analysis had the primary aim of revisiting the semantic
equivalency of the English aspectual verb start
and its Serbian equivalent krenuti for
the purpose of defining the semantic conditions for event-cancelling (LCEC) in
aspectual constructions headed by these two verbs. We start from the lexical
contrast of start and krenuti, subsequently shifting the focus
of the analysis onto the constructional level. We propose that aspectualizers start and krenuti are semantically marked for dynamicity and causality, that
both verbs combine with the full range of the available aspectual arguments and
both semantically preceede their close synonyms begin and početi – in
terms of phase, start is prior to begin and krenuti is prior to početi.
Moreover, start and krenuti can both refer only to the onset
of the event denoted in the complement. The semantic proposition of the two
aspectual verbs is obligatory and cannot be altered under negation. The
prototypical event-cancelling situation in Englsih and Serbian constitutes an
aspectual construction combined with a dynamic aspectual complement. The
established LCAC condition is valid in the contrastive perspective as are all
the relevant semantic features of start
and krenuti. The theoretical conclusions proposed in this discussion could be tested
on larger corpora in English in Serbian – the present research was aimed at the
initial theoretical implications, since LCAC so far has not been fully
accounted for in the previous relevant approaches. Finally,
it should be noted that LCAC implicates a complex
syntax-semantics interface, with a significant degree of context integration,
and additional pragmatic implications, the issues which we leave open for
further research.
Nataša Milivojević
KONTRASTIVNA
ANALIZA FAZNIH GLAGOLA START I KRENUTI U KONSTRUKCIJAMA SA SEMANTIČKIM
NEGIRANJEM RADNJE
Sažetak
Rad se bavi kontrastivnom analizom semantičkih odlika faznih glagola start i krenuti u okviru aspektualne konstrukcije sa semantičkim negiranjem radnje (SNR). Kreće se od leksičkog nivoa analize, gde se uspostavlja ekvivalencija između dve glagolske lekseme, a od posebnog značaja za naše istraživanje su semantička svojstva dinamičnost i kauzalnost koja su ključna za semantičko negiranje radnje na nivou aspektualne konstrukcije u kojoj se fazni glagol start u engleskom, odnosno fazni glagol krenuti u srpskom jeziku nalazi na poziciji upravnog elementa. Prototipska aspektualna konstrukcija na koju je moguće primeniti mehanizam semantičkog negiranja radnje sastoji se od faznog glagola (start/krenuti) i obaveznog aspektualnog komplementa kojim se označava aspektualni događaj, tj. radnja. Naša diskusija potvrđuje da su oba fazna glagola nosioci svojstava dinamičnost i kauzalnost i da oba glagola u okviru aspektualne konstrukcije modifikuju nastup (tj. inicijalnu fazu) glagolskog događaja, što su preduslovi za semantičko negiranje radnje. U oba jezika, semantičko negiranje radnje podrazumeva da je i radnja označena komplementom, tj. radnja koja podleže semantičkom negiranju, nosilac dinamičke akcionalnosti. Ova tri preduslova, zajedno sa definisanom prototipskom strukturom konstrukcije neophodna su da bi semantičko negiranje radnje bilo moguće. Budući da se semantičko negiranje radnje odvija u međuodnosu semantike i sintakse, u radu se formulišu sintaksički testovi kojima se proverava gramatičnost i semantička validnost propozicije čija radnja je negirana.
Zaključci prikazani u radu provereni su na paralelnom korpusu od 200 rečeničnih primera kojima su obuhvaćene relevantne kontekstualizacije glagola start i krenuti, a koji su sakupljeni iz dva elektronska korpusa engleskog i srpskog jezika, GlowBE 2013 i SrpKor 2013.
Ključne reči: fazni
glagol, fazna konstrukcija, komplement, temporalna struktura, presupozicija i
posledica, semantičko negiranje radnje
SOURCES
GlowBE 2013: Davies, Mark. Corpus
of Global Web-Based English (GlowBE): 1.9 billion words
from speakers in 20 countries (GloWbE). Available online at https://corpus.byu.edu/glowbe/(Accessed: 1.3.2021).
SrpKor 2013: Vitas, Duško – Utvić, Miloš. „Korpus savremenog srpskog jezika (SrpKor), verzija SrpKor2013“. Grupa za jezičke tehnologije Univerziteta u Beogradu, Available online at http://www.korpus.matf.bg.ac.rs/korpus/
(Accessed:
1.3.2021).
Stevanović, M. –Marković, S. –Matić, S. –Pešikan,
M. (ured.) (1967–1976). Rečnik
Matice srpske I-VI: Rečnik
srpskohrvatskoga književnog jezika. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, Zagreb: Matica
hrvatska.
WordNet 1998: Christiane Fellbaum
(ed.) WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Available online at https://wordnet.princeton.edu/(Accessed: 1.3.2021).
REFERENCES
Antonić, I. (2000). Aspekatska
vrednost predikacije s faznim/modalnim glagolom na primeru rečenice s
temporalnom klauzom. Južnoslovenski
filolog, 56 (1–2), 93–101.
Brinton, L. (1988). The Development of English Aspectual Systems.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, D. R. (1977). Toward a
Semantic Analysis of Verb Aspect and the English ‘Imperfective’ Progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 1,
Issue 1, 45–77.
Duffley, P. J. (1999). The use of the
infinitive and the -ing after verbs denoting the beginning, middle and end of
an event. Folia Linguistica XXXIII/3–4,
295 – 331.
Duffley, P. J. (2006). The English gerund-participle in cognitive
grammar. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.
Freed, A. (1979). The Semantics of English Aspectual
Complementation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Goldberg, A. (2009). Constructions
and Semantic Frames. In: Rappaport Hovav, M., E. Doron and I. Sichel (eds.). Syntax,
Lexical Semantics and Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ivić, M. (1983). Lingvistički ogledi. Beograd: Prosveta.
Kljakić, S. (2020).
Semantičko-sintaksički međuodnos faznog glagola i komplementa u engleskom i
srpskom jeziku – kontrastivni pristup (Nepublikovana doktorska disertacija).
Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet u Novom Sadu, Novi Sad.
Krstić, M. (2016). Leksički krnji
glagoli i njihova upotreba u savremenom ruskom i srpskom jeziku (Nepublikovana
doktorska disertacija). Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet u Novom Sadu, Novi
Sad.
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A
Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Milivojević, N. (2016). Konstrukcioni idiomi u engleskom i srpskom
jeziku. E-disertacija10. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet. http://digitalna.ff.uns.ac.rs/sadrzaj/2016/978-86-6065-384-2
Milivojević, N. (2021a). O
analitičkim predikatima sa glaglom krenuti
u srpskom jeziku: leksičko-projekcionistički pristup. Srpski jezik, studije srpske i slovenske,26, Naučno društvo za negovanje
i proučavanje srpskog jezika, Beograd. (in press)
Milivojević, N. (2021b). A
contrastive account of phase verbs begin
and start in English and Serbian. Nasleđe, 21st Century English: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives,
Kragujevac. (in press)
Mrazović, P.–Vukadinović, Z. (1990). Gramatika srpskog jezika za strance.
Sremski Karlovci, Novi Sad: Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovića, Dobra
vest.
Nagy, T.
(2009). The Semantics of Aspectualizers in English. (PhD dissertation),
Debrecen University
Nagy, T. (2016). On Aspectualizers in English: A Corpus Based
Approach. Cluj-Napoca: Scientia Publishing House.
Mair, C. (1990). Infinitival Complement Clauses in English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Newmeyer, F., J. (1975). English Aspectual Verbs. The Hague: Mouton.
Perlmutter, D., M. (1970). The two verbs begin. In: Jacobs R., A. and Rosenbaum
P., S. (eds.), Readings in English
Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn.107–119.
Piper, P.–Antonić,
I.–Ružić, V.–Tanasić, S.–Popović, Lj.&Tošović, B. (2005). Sintaksa
savremenoga srpskog jezika, Prosta
rečenica. Beograd: Institut za srpski jezik SANU.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vendler,
Z. (1957). Verbs and Times. The Philosophical Review, 66, 143–160.
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
KONTRASTIVNA ANALIZA FAZNIH GLAGOLA START I KRENUTI U KONSTRUKCIJAMA SA SEMANTIČKIM NEGIRANJEM RADNJE
* natasa.milivojevic@ff.uns.ac.rs
[1] The
term is used in the sense of the Generative Lexicon (Pustejovsky, 1995).
[2] According
to Milivojević (2016: 59) “co-composition is the cover term for syntax-semantics interface;
this is the process of mapping meaning onto structure whereby the head and the
complement influence each other through a number of typeshifts and coercions.“
[3] Goldberg
(2009) views any natural language
as a repertoire of more or less complex patterns, i.e. constructions that
integrate form and meaning in a conventionalized, non-compositional
ways. In other words, a natural language is a continuum of constructions
which result from deep-structure projections of argument structure.
[4] Aspectualizers are not considered to determine the overall
semantics of an aspectual construction in its entirety, since the meaning of
aspectual complementation results from the integration of the meaning and
function of the aspectual verb into the semantics of the full aspectual
construction. We further agree with Nagy in her claim that a difference in form
more often than not signals a difference in meaning, therefore different types
of complementation with the same aspectual verbs will convey different
meanings, or at least additional, subtle shades of the existing meanings.
[5] The onset is a temporal segment prior to the nucleus of an event, i.e.
the moment before the event is actually initiated; the nucleus is the time
segment during which the activity is in progress and coda is the finishing
segment which brings an event to its close.
[6] For an extensive discussion on
Freed’s theory and its implementation to Serbian see Kljakić, 2020.
[7] This
generally means that sentences
and propositions containing phase verbs have predictable presuppositions and
consequences. Freed defines presupposition as specific prior knowledge shared
by the speaker and the hearer, and consequence is what the hearer learns after
the utterance is stated in a particular linguistic context.
[8] The
sources for the sentential examples are consistently cited in the paper; the
examples which lack the source citation were proposed by the author of the
paper.
[9] Start and krenuti both allow for a full range of the available (clausal and nominal) aspectual complements in English and Serbian. For full discussions see Freed, 1979; Kljakić, 2020; Levin, 1993; Milivojević, 2021a, 2021b; Nagy, 2009, 2016.
[10] Duffley
(1999) reports on another sense unique to the use of start, and that is the sense of sudden movement as a result of
surprise or fear, e.g. She put the bottle
on the coffee table beside him, banging it down hard. He started at the sound,
his concentration broken. (Duffley, 1999:314)
[11] Other
secondary aspectualizers are uzeti i stati. (Piper et.al., 2005: 313)
[12] See Milivojević, 2021a.
[13] Levin
(1993) uses the term “causative alternation”.
[14] Some
of the listed causatively marked constructions are stylistically marked in
Serbian, i.e. they belong to literary style, or are partly obsolete and/or
archaic. However, the primary focus of our research is the availability of the
construction in Serbian. We leave the closer stylistic analysis of the language
data open for future research.
[15] C.f. Pustejovsky, 1995.
[16] Freed’s account bears the
equivalent implications for Serbian in contrast to English. For detailed
discussion, see Kljakić, 2020.
[17] In the sense of Vendler, 1957.
[18] This term in the general
literature on aspectual analysis as a rule marks the absence of (phase)
segmentation of the given structure.
[19] Milivojević
(2021b) discusses the issue of the prefixed verbs in the aspectual complements
in Serbian, offering arguments for the cases in which the overall construction
can be treated as aspectual. Since we are only concerned with the contrastive
Aktionsart features of the complements, we do not discuss the issue of
perfective complementation here, yet we indicate that, in the cases where
prefixed verbs appear in the complement, the prefix primarily marks
semelfactive Aktionsart, not the perfective aspect.
[20] For an
extensive discussion see Duffley 1999, 2006; Freed, 1979; Nagy 2009, 2016,
among others.
[21] Subsequently also for (13b) in
the contrastive perspective, i.e. if Freed’s model is applied to Serbian.