Kalbotyra
Not a member yet
2154 research outputs found
Sort by
Mažosios baltų kalbos?
Get PDFThe present study deals with the identification of minor Baltic languages, namely Yatvingian, Curonian, Semigallian and Selonian. Although this question has received much attention in traditional Baltic studies, close analysis of the empirical data shows that the criteria for distinguishing these languages should be reconsidered. The present study revises the traditional classification of the minor Baltic languages and verifies hypotheses raised in the most important works by Būga (1958–1961), Dini (2000; 2014), Kabelka (1982), Karaliūnas (2015), Mažiulis (1994), Salys (1995), Zinkevičius (1984) and the Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language (2008). The question arises whether the minor Baltic languages could be distinguished on the basis of features discussed in the literature. Thorough analysis of their distinctive features and the prominence of the latter (see Figure 7) show absence of reliable linguistic data and clear arguments which would allow us to make a distinction between Yatvingian, Curonian, Semigallian and Selonian. The present study verifies the role of historical regions, place names and Lithuanian dialects in distinguishing these languages. Historical regions are not a reliable criterion because some Baltic tribes and areas had apparently independent languages, while other tribes and areas did not. Similarly, place names, recorded in Lithuanian and Latvian subdialects, cannot be regarded as a reliable criterion because the linguistic evidence they provide for the identity of these languages is insufficient. Individual place names should be thoroughly analyzed on the basis of archeological, historical, sociolinguistic and migration data, though these data may be difficult to obtain. The features of Lithuanian dialects and their geography, which should also be considered from a typological perspective, unfold from the substratum theory of the minor Baltic “languages”.Revision of the traditional classification of the minor Baltic languages yields paradoxical results. Firstly, distinguishing these languages on the basis of phonetic features, which turn out to be unreliable, seems to be inadequate. Secondly, today Lithuanian Baltic studies tend to emphasize the archaic character of the Baltic languages, which naturally implies stability, slow change, etc. However, emphasis on the archaic character of the Baltic languages implies not only differentiation of the minor Baltic languages but also considerable differentiation of the Lithuanian dialects (see Zinkevičius 1984, 9; 2006, 17). The results obtained are clearly contradictory.Analysis of the minor Baltic “languages” should combine both typophobic and typophilial1 approach. The former identifies differences and explores individual features, whereas the latter identifies similarities, establishes relations between entities and draws generalizations. Typophilial approach unavoidably leads to the typological research into Lithuanian and Latvian, the surviving Baltic languages. Both approaches may raise a hypothesis that the Baltic area is probably homogenous rather than divergent. The archaic character of the Baltic languages and their relatively slow change may be the result of their slight internal differentiation. Typophobic and typophilial approaches may be combined with dialectometrics, an effective method of analysis, which has not been applied in Lithuanian linguistics yet. The approaches and methods mentioned above could benefit both minor and major Baltic languages and their history.Viena iš išsamiai svarstytų ir, atrodytų, gerai ištirtų tradicinės baltistikos problemų yra mažųjų baltų kalbų – jotvingių, kuršių, žiemgalių, sėlių – identifikacija. Tačiau atidžiau panagrinėjus motyvus, argumentus bei empirinę medžiagą – visa tai, kuo remiamasi identifikuojant mažąsias baltų kalbas, šiame straipsnyje pateikiama tradicinės mažųjų baltų kalbų sampratos dekonstrukcija ir verifikuojamos hipotezės, mažųjų baltų kalbų klausimu pateiktos šiuose svarbiausiuose fundamentiniuose ir klasikiniuose veikaluose: Būga 1958–1961; Dini 2000; 2014; Kabelka 1982; Karaliūnas 2015; Mažiulis 1994; Salys 1995; Zinkevičius 1984; Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija 2008. Dekonstruojant keliamas klausimas: ar tikrai lingvistinėje literatūroje vardijamas ypatybes galima laikyti identifikacinėmis, t. y. ar jomis remiantis galima skirti (atskirti, išskirti) mažąsias baltų kalbas? Išnagrinėjus šias ypatybes, jų tarpusavio santykį ir identifikacinį svorį paaiškėjo (žr. 7 pav.), kad, deja, kol kas trūksta patikimų lingvistinių duomenų ir aiškių argumentų, kad būtų galima identifikuoti ir skirti jotvingių, kuršių, žiemgalių ir sėlių kalbas. Toliau straipsnyje verifikuojamas istorinių regionų, onomastikos faktų ir lietuvių kalbos dialektų ypatybių vaidmuo identifikuojant mažąsias baltų kalbas. Atlikus verifikaciją ir mažųjų baltų kalbų sampratos dekonstrukciją paaiškėjo du paradoksalūs dalykai, susiję su mažųjų baltų kalbų skyrimu remiantis keliomis iš principo tik fonetinėmis ypatybėmis ir lietuvių baltistikoje net ir šiais laikais gana populiaria baltų kalbų archajiškumo (ar senumo) idėja. Straipsnis baigiamas tyrimo perspektyvų siūlymais, kuriuos galima nusakyti trimis žingsniais: tipofilija, tipologija, dialektometrija
Epistemic qualifications of the English marker likely and its equivalents in Lithuanian
Get PDFThe current study focuses on the epistemic qualifications realised by the English adjective and adverb likely and its equivalents in Lithuanian panašu ‘likely, it seems’ and tikėtina ‘believable, likely’, which derive from the semantic domain of comparison and belief. The aim of the study is to identify the functional similarities and differences of the markers in terms of their frequency, syntactic features (Complement-Taking-Predicates (CTPs), adverbials), functions, collocational profile and type of discourse (academic, newspaper). The English and Lithuanian data were drawn from the monolingual corpora, namely the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language (CCLL), Corpus of Academic Lithuanian (CorALit) and the bidirectional parallel corpus ParaCorpENàLTàEN. The quantitative and qualitative findings reveal that the closest cross-linguistic CTP and adverbial equivalents are likely and tikėtina ‘believable, likely’ because they are most frequent in formal registers (academic, newspaper discourse) and display similar collocational profiles and contexts of use. In contexts with explicit evidence and argumentation, they may acquire evidential functions. Although the CTP and adverbial panašu ‘likely, it seems’ shares similarities with likely and tikėtina ‘believable, likely’ in expressing the author’s degree of probability, it shows a different semantic profile from the latter due to its conceptual link with the original meaning of similarity and appearances. The study shows how markers that derive from the semantic domain of comparison vary in functional distribution in present-day English and Lithuanian and introduces their functional equivalents deriving from a different semantic domain
Intersubjective strategies in deontic modality: evidential functions of Spanish deber ‘must’
Get PDFThe principal aim of this study is to examine the Spanish modal verb deber ‘must’ in its deontic readings, relating it to the notions of evidentiality and intersubjectivity. Deber has often been compared to the modal verb tener que ‘have to’ and described in rather vague terms, for example as an expression of weak, internal obligation, but this paper proposes that it is better understood as an intersubjective verb. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses have been carried out, with a special focus on the in-depth qualitative study. It will be shown that deontic deber can convey evidential meanings when used in the conditional form. First, it can refer to a norm shared between the speaker and the hearer, and, second, it can convey an inferential process, a conclusion presented by the speaker, which is based on shared information, available to a larger group (or all) of the interlocutors. Evidentiality is regarded here as an intersubjective strategy, used when the speaker wants to reach consensus, arguing for the most reasonable, morally defensible way to act. Thus, this study also offers a new perspective of evidentiality, looking at this notion in interaction with deontic modality instead of epistemic modality, which is usually the case
Svenja Kranich. 2016. Contrastive pragmatics and translation: Evaluation, epistemic modality and communicative styles in English and German. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. P.p xiv + 204. ISBN 978 90 272 5666 9.
Get PDF..
Criticism and politeness strategies in academic review discourse: a contrastive (English-Italian) corpus-based analysis
Get PDFDrawing on a corpus-based approach, this paper explores the mitigation strategies used to soften criticism in English and Italian book review articles in the disciplinary field of linguistics. Most corpus-based analyses on academic criticism have focused on the use and function of politeness strategies in English academic review genres, mainly book reviews. Recently, an increasing number of studies on academic book reviews have examined the issue from a cross-cultural perspective. This study attempts to contribute to the area of cross-cultural research on reviewing practices by exploring how criticisms are managed in a somewhat neglected review genre in academic discourse studies – the book review article. Criticisms will be identified on the basis of their lexico-grammatical features and further categorized into “direct” and “mitigated” (Itakura & Tsui 2011, 1369). The mitigation strategies identified in both language corpora mainly involve the use of sequences of speech acts such as praise-criticism, criticism-praise, criticism-suggestion, praise-suggestion, and hedging. However, their distributions reveal differences in the two languages. While praise is prominently used in both English and Italian book review articles, Italian-speaking linguistics reviewers employ a lower proportion of hedges than their English-speaking colleagues and are more likely to opt for suggestions as a form of indirect criticism. The results demonstrate that linguistics reviewers writing in English and Italian deploy a considerable range of linguistic devices when expressing mitigated criticism of peers. Their use and distribution are discussed in relation to national/cultural writing conventions, but also differences between “large” and “small” disciplinary cultures (Holliday 1999). Some implications for EAP learners and practitioners are also considered
Flöck, Ilka. 2016. Requests in American and British English. A contrastive multi-method analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 264.
Get PDF..
Latvian verbs of speaking and their relations to evidentiality
Get PDFThe paper offers a functional analysis of three Latvian verbs of speaking used in their indicative third person forms – saka, runā and stāsta ‘say(s), speak(s) and talk(s)’ – based on the Latvian language corpus online (www.korpuss.lv) and, additionally, on examples excerpted from Internet discourse. The article discusses semantic and syntactic similarities and differences between these words, the functions of particular constructions distinguished according to specific syntactic criteria (presence vs. absence of a subject), and the use of these verbs in combination with the Latvian verb form traditionally associated with (potential) evidential meanings, the oblique (atstāstījuma izteiksme). While the use of verbs of speaking for introducing reported speech is seen as unproblematic, the relationship between verba dicendi and evidentiality requires more attention and remains in focus throughout this study. In order to offer an in-depth overview of the nature of this relationship, the relations between reported speech and evidentiality, as well as the oblique and evidentiality, are also briefly considered. The paper concludes that the possibility of the three verbs functioning as evidential markers depends on considerations of theoretical/terminological nature (how to define evidentiality, should reported speech be considered part of it, etc.) and also, to some extent, on the way the subject is realized in verba dicendi constructions (specific human agent vs. non-specific empty subject and absent or zero subject)
Using corpora to track changing thought styles: evidentiality, epistemology, and Early Modern English and German scientific discourse
Get PDFMost research on evidentiality has focused on classifying evidential systems synchronically; meanwhile, diachronic studies on evidentiality seem to have focused on the development of specific items into evidential markers with little regard to discourse context. This paper begins to fill this gap by presenting the results of a corpus-based study of evidential markers in Early Modern scientific discourse in English and German. The Early Modern period witnessed the transition from scholastic-based models of science to more empirical models of enquiry; this study demonstrates a decrease in the use of markers of mediated information and an increase in the use of markers of direct observation and inference accompanying these sociohistorical developments
Prancūzų kalbos konstrukcijų su veiksmažodžiais devoir ‘privalėti’, falloir ‘reikėti’ multifunkcionalumas: prancūzų–lietuvių kalbų tekstynu paremtas tyrimas
Get PDFThe present study examines the morphosyntactic features and functions of the constructionsje dois dire (que) ‘I must say (that)’ and (il) faut dire (que) ‘it is necessary to say (that)’ in French and their correspondences in Lithuanian. The study is corpus-based and the data have been retrieved from the bidirectional parallel corpus CTLFR-LT-FR. The thorough semantic functional analysis of the construction je dois dire (que) ‘I must say (that)’ in theCTLFR-LT shows that the verbs devoir ‘must’ and dire ‘say’ clearly express the meanings of necessity and saying. However, in initial position the construction with the complementizer que ‘that’ represents a lexical variant and may not be functionally transparent. Its functional indeterminacy may be clarified by its prosodic realizations. The conceptual meanings of the verbs devoir ‘must’ and dire ‘say’ in the construction je dois dire (que) ‘I must say (that)’ are bleached and the construction may function as a marker that initiates conversation with the addressee, expresses the author’s argumentation and links clauses or parts of discourse. In initial and medial position, it may hedge an utterance or modify a word or a phrase. Thus the construction je dois dire (que) ‘I must say (that)’ is not primary in the communicative structure of the sentence and functions as a marker of author stance. The construction (il) faut dire (que) ‘it is necessary to say (that)’ is less frequent in the CTLFR-LT and displays minor structural variation. It shows traces of parentheticalization, namely deverbalization (omission of the formal subject il), omission of the complementizer que ‘that’, syntactic mobility in the sentence, semantic bleaching of the verbs falloir ‘need’ and dire ‘say’, alternation with mental verbs (Pusch 2007), interpersonal and intertextual functions. The structure (il) faut dire + NP‘it is necessary + NP’ clearly expresses the meaning of necessity to say. The Lithuanian constructions turiu pasakyti/pripažinti ‘I must say/admit’ and reikia pasakyti/pripažinti ‘it is necessary to say/admit’ in the CTLLT-FR are not statistically significant and functionally they do not differ from the equivalent constructions in French. The data in the CTLFR-LT-FR and the CCLL (Contemporary Corpus of the Lithuanian Language) reveal that the constructions under study are not dominant either in French or Lithuanian but possible in authentic language use. Although the generalizations made above should be corroborated by more empirical data, the present study contributes to the research on parenthetical constructions in French and Lithuanian and can be supplemented by the analysis of the constructions in academic discourse.Le Corpus parallèle de Textes Littéraires CTLFR-LT-FR comportant deux composantesCTLFR-LT et CTL LT-FR a montré que les tournures je dois dire (que) et (il) faut dire (que)ne sont pas extrêmement fréquentes dans le français écrit mais suffisamment présentes pour permettre la description de leur variation structurale et l’analyse des sens qu’elles peuvent exprimer.Comme les deux verbes devoir et falloir peuvent véhiculer une obligation et une nécessité il fallait donc s’attendre à trouver un certain nombre d’occurrences qui expriment une modalité déontique. Les occurrences qui étaient classifiées comme appartenant à l’usage déontique correspondent à la structure (il) faut dire/je dois dire +NP, tandis que les autres suivent le schéma (il) faut/je dois dire+Ø et ont une valeur parenthétique. Pour l’identification de la valeur des structures (il) faut dire/je dois dire que+CP l’analyse prosodique aurait pu être bien pertinente.Au niveau morphosyntaxique les unités analysées s’apparentent beaucoup à des constructions parenthétiques par leur érosion sémantique, liberté de position, variabilité morphologique (présence ou absence du pronom il, du complémentateur que). Sur le plan pragmatique elles peuvent fonctionner comme connecteurs textuels portant la relation d’adversativité et par leur pouvoir énonciatif multifonctionnel elles ressemblent aux adverbes modalisateurs. Les indices énumérés ci-dessus peuvent être interprétés comme marqueurs de la pragmaticalisation des unités je dois dire (que) et (il) faut dire (que) en français.Ce travail se veut une modeste contribution à l’étude de telles structures dont le vaste inventaire d’occurrences dans le français reste à être décrit de manière systématique.Straipsnyje aptariamas prancūzų kalbos vienetų je dois dire (que) ‘turiu pasakyti, (kad)’ ir (il) faut dire (que) ‘reikia pasakyti, (kad)’ morfosintaksinis statusas ir funkcijų įvairovė autentiškos prancūzų kalbos vartosenoje. Remiantis lingvistinėje literatūroje publikuotais tyrimais apie mentalinių ir sakymo veiksmažodžių (verba cogitandi ir verba dicendi) multifunkcionalumą ir reikšmių įvairovę, šiame darbe analizuojamos lygiagrečiajame CTLFR-LT-FR tekstyne rastų minėtų veiksmažodinių konstrukcijų reikšmės ir funkcijos. Aiškinamasi, ar prancūzų kalbos veiksmažodžiai devoir ‘privalėti’, falloir ‘reikėti’, dire ‘sakyti’, įeinantys į struktūrinių vienetų je dois dire (que) ‘turiu pasakyti, (kad)’ ir (il) faut dire (que) ‘reikia pasakyti, (kad)’ sudėtį, išlaiko savo konceptualiąsias reikšmes ir kokiomis aplinkybėmis šie vienetai virsta pragmatiniais žymikliais, įgaudami jiems tipiškų bruožų. Mokslinėje literatūroje vyraujanti nuomonė pasitvirtina – sintaksinis mobilumas, struktūrinis sustabarėjimas, leksinių reikšmių blukimas, pragmatinių funkcijų įvairovė – tai požymiai, rodantys kalbos vienetų statuso pasikeitimą sakinyje ar didesniame teksto fragmente. Tokie vienetai praranda pagrindinę – informacijos perteikimo sakinio komunikacinėje struktūroje – poziciją ir tampa parentezinėmis konstrukcijomis, papildomai aiškinančiomis išreikštos propozicijos turinį arba teksto atkarpoje jungiančiomis kelis pasakymus