* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Lexicalization of Serbian Verbs: Evidence from - e
Lithuanian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ojibwe grammar wikipedia , lookup
Japanese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Scottish Gaelic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Malay grammar wikipedia , lookup
Zulu grammar wikipedia , lookup
Proto-Indo-European verbs wikipedia , lookup
Udmurt grammar wikipedia , lookup
Swedish grammar wikipedia , lookup
English clause syntax wikipedia , lookup
Old Irish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Portuguese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Germanic weak verb wikipedia , lookup
Ukrainian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Germanic strong verb wikipedia , lookup
Modern Hebrew grammar wikipedia , lookup
Macedonian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Chinese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Kannada grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old English grammar wikipedia , lookup
Spanish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek verbs wikipedia , lookup
Polish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Russian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Italian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Icelandic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Yiddish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Sotho verbs wikipedia , lookup
Georgian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Hungarian verbs wikipedia , lookup
Navajo grammar wikipedia , lookup
Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup
Kagoshima verb conjugations wikipedia , lookup
Pipil grammar wikipedia , lookup
Treball de fi de màster de Recerca Lexicalization of Serbian Verbs: Evidence from literal and figurative uses of Serbian verb cepati Gorana Lupurović Màster: Lingüística Teòrica i Aplicada Edició: 2015-2016 Directors: Dr. Louise McNally Any de defensa: 2016 Col⋅lecció: Treballs de fi de màster Programa oficial de postgrau "Comunicació lingüística i mediació multilingüe" Departament de Traducció i Ciències del Llenguatge Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 2 Theoretical Background ............................................................................................ 4 2.1. Basics of verb meaning ..................................................................................... 5 2.1.1. Polysemy .................................................................................................... 6 2.1.2. Manner/Result Complementarity ............................................................. 11 2.2 Figurative senses .............................................................................................. 15 2.2.1. Sense Extension of Verbs ......................................................................... 15 3 Descriptive Background on Serbian ....................................................................... 18 3.1. Prefix Meanings .............................................................................................. 22 3.1.1. Prefix PO- ................................................................................................. 24 3.1.2. Prefix OD- ................................................................................................ 24 3.1.3. Prefix IZ- .................................................................................................. 26 4 Corpus Analysis ...................................................................................................... 28 4.1. Verb CEPATI ..................................................................................................... 29 4.2. Verb OTCEPITI .................................................................................................. 31 4.3. Verb ISCEPATI .................................................................................................. 34 4.4 Verb POCEPATI .................................................................................................. 35 4.5. Discussion ....................................................................................................... 38 5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 44 References .................................................................................................................. 45 1 Abstract In this paper, four Serbian verbs (cepati „tear‟, otcepiti „tear off‟, pocepati „tear (up)‟ and iscepati „tear up‟) are analyzed in terms of their argument realization and their use (figurative and literal). The research explores the hypothesis of manner/result complementarity (Levin and Hovav Rappaport, 2011), according to which verbs can lexicalize either manner or result, but not both. It is suggested that cepati lexicalizes a result meaning, but additional result/manner meaning is yielded through cocomposition with different arguments and/or prefixation, as each prefix has an effect on the verb semantics. Verb phrases with otcepiti and iscepati do not allow for anticausatives when used literally and have demonstrated a very restricted figurative use, unlike the verb pocepati, which has a wide argument selection and can be used figuratively. The research confirms the hypothesis by McNally and Spalek (2015) that figurative uses (other than conceptual metaphors) go only with result predicates. Keywords: figurative meaning, literal meaning, prefixation, complementarity, Serbian result verbs, underspecified meaning 2 manner/result 1 Introduction This paper aims to explore the meaning and use of four Serbian verbs: cepati ‟tear‟, pocepati ‟tear (up)‟, otcepiti ‟tear off‟ and iscepati ‟tear up‟. The four verbs will be analyzed in terms of their argument selection, the meaning with different types of arguments and their use (literal and figurative). The special focus will be on whether the base verb cepati shows more properties of manner or result verbs. Also, it will be explored how much these verbs allow for figurative meanings and whether that is connected with their basic meaning.1 The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 addresses different works in the field of semantics that deal with verb meaning, polysemy and lexicalized meaning. For background on verb meaning, it focuses mostly on the works by Pustejovsky (1995) and Spalek (2012, 2014); when it comes to hypotheses about lexicalized meaning, the focus is on manner/result complementarity as proposed by Levin and Rappaport Hovav (2012). Section 3 provides a general introduction to relevant aspects of the Serbian language. Namely, it introduces the notions of aspect and prefixation in Serbian, with special focus to prefix meanings. After that, a brief discussion of each prefix is given, i.e. the basic meanings they have. Then, the four verbs are analyzed in terms of their argument selection, meaning and use. Finally, in the discussion, the four verbs are compared and it is hypothesized that cepati is a result verb, and that with addition of prefixes and different arguments, iscepati and otcepiti have additional manner meaning, whereas the use of prefix on pocepati simply further emphasizes the result meaning. In the Section 4, a short conclusion is given along with suggestions for further research. 1 In the analysis, all the examples will be glossed. This is the list of the glossing abbreviations used: ACC – accusative case, Aux – auxiliary, GEN – genitive case, IMPF – imperfective, INSTR – instrumental case, PF – perfective, PRESP – present participle, PRS – present, PP – past participle, REFL – reflexive particle. 3 2 Theoretical Background One factor that has been found important when trying to describe the nature and meaning of verbs is the choice of arguments (Spalek, 2014). It has been acknowledged (Asher, 2011; Marantz 1984; Pustejovsky, 1995; Spalek, 2010) that the choice of arguments can have strong effects on the verb. In her doctoral thesis, Spalek (2014) mentions authors such as Hanks and Jezek (2008) who also put emphasis on the type of arguments and their effects on the semantics of the verbs. This is connected with composition rules and mechanisms that are necessary in order to have a meaningful and grammatical structure (a verb phrase „VP‟). Thus, in order to better understand the nature of verbs, we should not analyze them in isolation, but rather in context with different types of arguments they can select for. Another way to see how a verb behaves and to explore its combinatorial capacity is to analyze literal and figurative uses (Marantz, 1984), which will be done in the analysis of the Serbian verbs mentioned. Not only are predicates sensitive to the semantics of their arguments, but depending on their use, the argument selection can be restricted. This can be illustrated by applying Asher‟s tests (2011) such as ellipsis (1) and copredication (2), with which he shows that there are different types of predications. 1. #On He je cepao papir Aux tear-IMPF paper i teritoriju. and territory „He tore the paper and the territory.‟ 2. #Petar je Petar Aux cepao papir a Marija tear-IMPF paper and Marija „Petar tore the paper and Marija the territory.‟ 4 teritoriju. territory In these two examples, it can be seen that the verb has different types of arguments, and since the two cannot be used in the same VP as the sentence becomes anomalous, there is a clear indication that the meaning of the whole VP is dependent on the argument of the verb (Spalek, 2010). 2.1. Basics of verb meaning One approach to explaining the meaning of verbs, found for example in Montague Grammar, is based on the Sense Enumeration Lexicon (SEL). As Asher (2011) points out, even though this theory proposes different senses of a verb depending on its use, it does not account for different entailments the predication can have in new contexts. As already seen in (1) and (2), a verb does not necessarily have to have a physical entity as its argument, but sometimes the argument can be something outside the physical world, which is also the case in (3). In (3a), the object is a physical entity (paper), in contrast to (3b), where the object is a political party, a concept used to describe a group of people with the same interests, beliefs and aims. Thus, verbs can certainly demonstrate a wider combinatorial capacity. 3. a) …ćutke je cepao silently Aux tear-IMPF hartiju na komadiće. paper small pieces into „… he was tearing up the paper into small pieces silently.‟ b) Mi smo navikli da se stranke cepaju. 2 we Aux used to that REFL parties tear-IMPF „We are used to having our parties tearing themselves apart.‟ However, in Montague Grammar, when words are observed in a context, they are assumed to already have one sense when they enter the process of composition. One 2 The verb in (3a) (cepati) is transitive, whereas in (3b) it is reflexive with anticausative use and no agent. 5 word can have different senses in the lexicon which do not need disambiguation when entering the composition process. What this type of theory does not account for is the role of the argument and different syntactic behaviors an argument can show. 2.1.1. Polysemy Linguists like Pustejovsky (1995) and Asher (2011) point out that the meaning in a new context cannot be predicted simply by giving a list of all potential senses of a verb. Also, words cannot be interpreted in isolation, i.e. outside their syntactic and semantic context (Spalek, 2014). Pustejovsky developed a new type of approach, the Generative Lexicon, according to which verbs are not assigned senses in advance and in isolation (which was the case in the SEL). Here, verbs acquire their distinct meanings in a context once they enter the process of composition. Also, it is not enough to rely solely on the division into thematic roles in order to understand certain processes and structures in a sentence. Pustejovsky (1995) suggests that the lexicon should not focus only on the meaning of verbs. Rather, in order to understand their behavior, what should also be taken into account are the verb‟s arguments (p. 10), which is also clear from the examples (1) and (2). The choice of different arguments may explain different verb patterns and behaviors (4). At first glance, the two sentences in (4) may seem as if the verb bake has the same meaning in both of them. But, when observing the arguments and the type of the affectedness described by the verb, it becomes clear that this verb has different meanings (Pustejovsky, 1995, p. 122). The event expressed in (4a) signifies change, whereas in (4b), creation. 4. a) John baked the potatoes. b) Mary baked a cake. 6 This theory relies on the concept of “underspecification”, which is a mechanism where “lexical representations are not fully specified until they enter the process of composition” (Spalek, 2014, p. 14). By having the lexical items underspecified, the role of the arguments is being emphasized, as they also contribute to specifying distinct senses of a verb. Every lexical entry can have potential senses, which are realized in a certain context. Furthermore, by having the lexical items underspecified, polysemy can be resolved. In his Generative Lexicon, Pustejovsky (1995) describes polysemy by stating that a verb is polysemous when it is truly ambiguous or it can have different meaning depending on the context. He relies on Weinreich (1964) by mentioning the notion “complementary polysemy” (p.28). This type of polysemy includes different senses which rely on the same basic meaning of the word, as exemplified in (5), where the word open can be used both as a noun and a verb. 5. a) If the store is open, check the price of coffee. b) Zac tried to open his mouth for the dentist. (Pustejovsky, 1995, p. 28) Within complementary polysemy, Pustejovsky (1995) introduces logical polysemy, which he defines as the type of complementary polysemy where there is no change in lexical category. An example would be the sense alternation in (6), where the noun New York can entail the meaning of a place or people. 6. a) John traveled to New York. b) New York kicked the mayor out of office. (p. 31) As the case in (6), the senses a noun can have seem to be systematically related. Context and discourse setting can help disambiguate the different senses, but still, as both senses seem relevant for the interpretation of the noun in context, one sense of the logically polysemous noun “seems more „focused‟ for purposes of a particular context” (Pustejovsky, 1995, p. 32). 7 In the Generative Lexicon, there are also distinct generative mechanisms in composition, and words possess complex and structured meanings. Pustejovsky develops a system involving different levels of representation, and the way he represents different lexical structures is given in Figure 1 for bake and Figure 2 for cake. One of these four levels is the qualia structure, which provides the information about objects and eventualities that are usually associated with the verb in question. What it accounts for is with what kind of objects a verb can combine with and get into the compositional process. So, since it carries the information about objects, the qualia structure is important for the meaning of a verb. Figure 1 GL representation of bake (Pustejovsky, 1995, p. 123) Figure 2 GL representation of cake (Pustejovsky, 1995, p. 123) There are three generative rules for combining meanings: coercion, selective binding and co-composition (Pustejovsky, 1995). Coercion is defined as follows: 7. “TYPE COERCION: a semantic operation that converts an argument to the type that is expected by a function, where it would otherwise result on a type error.” (Pustejovsky, 1995, p. 111) 8 In other words, an argument is shifted into a different type so that a verb can select for it without any semantic or syntactic restrictions (8). However, this mechanism was criticized by Asher (2011), who claims that coercions are actually more complex and they should also account for whether words change their meaning, too (not just their type). 8. a) John began a book. b) John began reading a book. c) John began to read a book. (Pustejovsky, 1995, p. 115) Co-composition is another rule which is used to resolve polysemy by assigning a special role to the properties of the object argument in the composition of the whole VP. In other words, in the compositional process, both the properties of the verb and its object argument are included. Pustejovsky (1995) describes co-composition as follows: 9. CO-COMPOSITION: “where multiple elements within a phrase behave as functors, generating new non-lexicalized sense for the words in composition.” (Pustejovsky, 1995, p. 61) This rule can explain the polysemy in (4). The verb bake has one underspecified meaning, but the creation/change meaning is derived thorough generative mechanisms including the nature of cake/potatoes (respectively) (Pustejovsky, 1995). In her doctoral thesis, Spalek (2014) analyzed three change-of-state verbs in Spanish: cortar „cut‟, congelar „freeze‟ and romper „break‟ with regard to their argument selection, argument realization possibilities and aspectual properties, where she also followed the „underspecification‟ approach to the meaning of verbs. She focused on the type of arguments these verbs acquire both in literal and figurative uses. Spalek (2012, 2014) claims that a verb has one core sense regardless its use. For example, in (10), the verb describes the „ceasing of a holding state or process‟ in 9 both uses – literal and figurative (p. 145). The meaning is underspecified, and a verb acquires its distinct sense in the composition with its theme arguments, which play an important role in establishing the meaning of the whole VP. 10. a) Juan Juan rompió la broke ventana. the window „Juan broke the window.‟ b) Juan Juan rompió la broke amistad (con Maria). the friendship with Maria „Juan broke up the friendship with Mary.‟ (Spalek 2014, p. 144) Furthermore, the choice of theme arguments (their semantics) has a strong influence on the choice of potential subjects (Spalek, 2014). For example, in (11a), she states that when it comes to cutting (cortar) a continuous stream, it can be performed only by entities characterized as being human or a group. In contrast, a subject cannot be a location-denoting noun acting as the theme argument with anticausative use of cortar, as in (11b). Thus, the argument selection possibilities are dependent on the semantics of the theme, which has strong influence on the semantics of the whole VP (Spalek, 2014). 11. a) Un empleado an employee cortó el gas de la zona para evitar explosiones. cut for avoid explosions the gas of the zone „An employee cut off the gas in the area in order to prevent explosions.‟ (p. 147) b) #Los the puentes se cortaron por sí Solos. bridges REFL cut off by self alone „The bridges cut off by themselves.‟ (p. 162) Even though each of the three verbs (cortar, congelar and romper) can select for different arguments, those arguments can be grouped according to their semantics and syntactic behavior. To account for that variety of meanings (and the restrictions 10 these can pose on the choice of other arguments), Spalek (2014) follows the so-called modern type theories (Asher, 2011; Chatzikiriakidis and Luo, 2013) and she relies on coercion as in (11), where gas is not physically being cut. Modern type theories serve as an alternative to Montague grammar by allowing more fine-grained types of entities. The goal here, though, is not to provide a formal account of this theory. In this paper, I will follow Spalek (2012) and Spalek (2014) in hypothesizing that the meaning of a verb is underspecified and depends on the context, and that literal and figurative meanings of a verb have one core meaning entailed throughout all of its uses. Also, in the analysis of Serbian verbs, I will analyze VPs in terms of argument selection and argument realization possibilities both in literal and figurative contexts. 2.1.2. Manner/Result Complementarity In the previous section, it has been mentioned that the meaning of a VP is contributed not only by the meaning of a verb but also by the meaning of other arguments in the phrase. Levin and Rappaport Hovav (2011) claim that it is possible to determine those meanings that are contributed only by the verb. They call that meaning lexicalized meaning. Lexicalized meaning has been defined as a verb‟s core meaning, which is always constant and it is not affected by the choice of different arguments or contexts. Its entailments are present in all the uses of a verb (Levin and Rappaport Hovav, 2011). As an example, they use the verb open which lexicalizes the meaning of “removing an obstruction to allow access to a formerly inaccessible space” (p. 2). All the other senses that this verb may have, such as the very manner of removing the obstruction, depends on the physical objects that are involved. For the present analysis, this is of importance, as the meaning of imperfective verb cepati 11 „tear‟ and the imperfective ones otcepiti „tear off‟, pocepati „tear (up)‟, iscepati „tear up‟ will be analyzed together with all the additional meanings that may occur as a result of different prefixes and/or arguments. These will also be analyzed with respect to the role of prefixes in terms of the meaning of a VP and whether manner or result are lexicalized and if some meanings are more prominent than others. The analysis will rely on the hypothesis by Levin and Rappaport Hovav (2011) that verbs can lexicalize either manner or result, but not both. In other verbs, verb roots can be associated with only one position in an event schema, either manner or result (which have distinct positions). An event schema could be defined as following: 12. “EVENT SCHEMA: a structural component representing an event type.” (Rappaport Hovav and Levin, 1998, p. 24) A root can be integrated into an event schema either as an argument or a modifier of predicates in the event schema. In Figure 3, manner has been integrated as a modifier. Figure 3 - Manner root in an event schema (Rappaport Hovav and Levin, 1998, p. 24) The hypothesis by Levin and Hovav Rappaport (2011) that verbs can lexicalize either manner or result (and not both) is defined as follows: 13. “MANNER/RESULT COMPLEMENTARITY: Manner and result meaning components are in complementary distribution: a verb lexicalizes only one.“ (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 2011, p. 2) For example, they claim that the verb cut in English is a result verb, and that the verb climb is a manner verb. The lexicalized meaning of cut is „a clean separation‟; whereas the instrument and the action that the instrument is involved in are not 12 lexicalized, but these meanings (the manner component) can be inferred in different contexts. In order to better illustrate the variety of instruments cut can have, Levin and Rappaport Hovav (2011) cite Bohenmeyer (2007), who mentions the following: “Cut verbs, too, are rather flexible about the action performed and the instrument used (I can cut an orange using anything from a knife or axe to a metal string or laser beam, and I can do it by bringing the blade to bear on the fruit or by dropping the fruit onto the blade from sufficient height).” (Bohnemeyer, 2007, p.159) So, if in some contexts the verbs can have senses in which they express manner or result (respectively), it does not mean that they lexicalize both meanings. As they state (2011), what is lexicalized is the entailed meaning, not the conventionally associated meaning. For example, in (14), wipe is a manner verb and clean is a result verb regardless of the additional material that is added in the sentence. Wiping does not mean that the table reaches the state of being the opposite of dirty/sticky/covered with crumbs. It does not guarantee a result. Whereas in (14b), the result is always present (the dress is no longer dirty) regardless the manner it is done. 14. a) I just wiped the table, but it‟s still dirty /sticky/ covered with crumbs. b) I cleaned the dress by soaking it in hot water/ pouring bleach over it/ saying “abracadabra”. (Levin and Rappaport Hovav, 2011, p. 3) One of the features of the result roots is that they specify scalar changes; in contrast, manner roots specify nonscalar changes. Scalar changes are defined as involving: 15. SCALAR CHANGE: “(…) an ordered set of changes in a particular direction of the values of a single attribute and so can be characterized as movement in a particular direction along the scale.” (Rappaport Hovav, 2008, p. 17). 13 Verbs of scalar change lexically specify a scale, like the following: warm, ripen, cool, fall, and ascend (Rappaport Hovav, 2008, p. 17). For example, the scale for the verb warm consists of ordered values of the state described with the adjective warm, and it involves an increase in the value [warm] (Rappaport Hovav, 2008). Result verbs are also characterized by having a zero-related nominal that refers only to a result (16a). In contrast, there are zero-related nominals that can be connected with manner verbs, but these do not refer to the result but rather to the very action expressed by that verb (16b). This is another argument Levin and Rappaport Hovav (2011) use in defining cut as a result verb (a cut). The noun cut refers to the physical result of cutting. 16. a) breakV/a breakN, crackV/a crackN, splitV/a splitN b) (give it) a wipe, (give it) a kick, (go for) a walk/ run (p. 6) Finally, a majority of result verbs are found in anticausative uses (17a), whereas verbs which clearly lexicalize manner are never found in such uses (17b). 17. a) The window broke. (cf. The boy broke the window.) b) *The table wiped. (cf. The waiter wiped the table.) (Levin and Rappaport Hovav, 2011 p. 6) In the present analysis, I will refer to the features of result/manner verbs in order to better understand the meaning and behavior of the Serbian verbs. Also, the discussion will support result/manner complementarity, according to which a verb can have either result or manner as its lexicalized meaning. Finally, the analysis will test the hypothesis by McNally and Spalek (2015) that verbs which lexicalize result/change can be used with a figurative meaning, whereas the manner lexicalizing ones have limited figurative uses. 14 2.2 Figurative senses Verbs can have as their arguments not only physical objects but entities outside the physical world, as well. Not only do verbs have the possibility of selecting for a variety of arguments, but together with their arguments they can be used so that the meaning of the VP is not literal but figurative. Spalek (2012) argues that verbs can have a single core meaning to cover both literal and figurative uses (though the VP acquires its specific sense in the composition with the argument). In her case study of the Spanish verb romper „break‟, Spalek (2012) also observed how this verb can have different meanings depending on the context and the type of arguments, some of which are: disappearing, lack of continuity and initiation of an event. How these different figurative meanings come about and in what way they are connected with the word‟s literal meaning has been observed in more detail in linguistic works dealing with metaphors and sense extension (Bowdle and Gentner, 2005; Pustejovsky and Rumshisky, 2010). 2.2.1. Sense Extension of Verbs When talking about different meanings of verbs, Pustejovsky and Rumshisky (2010) mention co-composition as an important factor for the meaning of a verb. They emphasize how the semantics of the arguments has strong effect on the meaning of verb, which they further support when explaining how verbs can extend their meaning from literal to metaphorical. According to them, different generative mechanisms as well as the type of arguments are responsible for extending (or not) meaning of verbs. Metaphorical interpretations are structured and scalar in nature and there are different degrees of metaphoricity (Pustejovsky and Rumshisky, 2010). 15 Also, “in a set of different senses for a predicate, one sense represents an anchor, and other senses are related through some transformation(s) or not” (p. 8 & 9). They differentiate between non-metaphoric sense extension and metaphoric sense extension (which they further divide into weak and strong metaphors). What is responsible for the sense extension and the metaphoric meaning is the amount of modulation of the type of the argument in relation to satisfying the constraints in the qualia structure of the whole predicate. In other words, if the type of the argument has been modified but it still satisfies those constraints, that will lead to a nonmetaphoric sense extension. For example, in (18) the argument theme at the concert has been coerced from the type event to the type location (illustrated in Figure 4), but there is no sense extension. 18. The guests arrived at the concert. (p. 14) Figure 4 - Location-to-event coercion (Pustejovsky and Rumshisky, 2010, p. 14) The sense extension will take place when there are more substantial type modifications in the argument. If the theme arguments are scalar in nature, the meaning of the predicate becomes metaphoric (the authors use the term a “weak metaphor” for this type of sense modulation) (Pustejovsky and Rumshisky, 2010), as the case in (19). Here, the sense of location has been extended to the sense of a scalar attribute, as illustrated in Figure 5. A greater type modification and a strong metaphoric extension are exemplified in (20), where a process has been extended into a state (Figure 6). 16 19. a) The room finally arrived at a comfortable temperature. b) Mary has not arrived at her goal weight of 125 lbs. yet. (p. 15) Figure 5 - Weak metaphoric extension (Pustejovsky and Rumshisky, 2010, p. 15) 20. a) The woman arrived at an agreement after much discussion. b) The scientist finally arrived at a solution to the problem. Figure 6 - Strong metaphoric extension (Pustejovsky and Rumshisky, 2010, p. 15) 17 3 Descriptive Background on Serbian The Serbian language belongs to the southern branch of the Slavic languages (Klajn, 2004, p. 13). As the case with other Slavic languages, in Serbian, aspect is an obligatory grammatical category and it can be perfective or imperfective (Gehrke, 2008). One way to describe it is by saying that the imperfective aspect describes an event from an internal point of view, whereas the perfective aspect describes it from an external point of view (Gehrke, 2008). When speaking about this difference in aspect in Serbian, it should be mentioned that prefixes have an important role here. In most cases, when a prefix is added to a verb, it becomes perfective, as in (21b). The verbs in (21) form an aspectual pair. An aspectual pair consists of two forms of the same verb which differ semantically according to the aspectual meaning, but which are different formally (Novakov, 2005). 21. a) cepati b) is-cepati tearIMPF up-tearPF „tear‟ „tear up‟ In other words, an imperfective verb can be turned into a perfective one through the process of prefixation; though there are some verbs that show a perfective imperfective alternation without a prefix, such as the verbs baciti/bacati „throw‟ (Svenonius, p. 183), which also form an aspectual pair. Most pairs are such, that one partner is derived from an imperfective simple verb through the process of prefixation (Gehrke, 2008), like the verbs in (21). On the other hand, prefixed verbs may be imperfective, as well, in case a suffix or an infix, i.e. a change of base, is added. That process is called secondary imperfectivitzation (SI) as in (22). In (23), the two verbs differ in (im)perfectivity, and the difference is made by the change of 18 stress position (Piper & Klajn, 2013, p. 177). This means that prefixation does not necessarily lead to perfectivity (Piper & Klajn, 2013). 22. a) lomiti – b) pògledati – poglédati prelamati breakIMPF over-breakPF b) look-PF „break‟ b) „look‟ look-IMPF (Piper and Klajn, 2013, p. 180) There have been many attempts (Ivić, 1982; Novakov, 2005; Piper & Klajn, 2013; RiĎanovic 1976 and others) to describe aspect in Serbian and its connection to these forms of verbs. Novakov explains the perfective/imperfective opposition as being related to the situation viewed as whole/having structure (Novakov, 2005). For example, participles (present and past) in Serbian can serve to explain different uses of (im)perfective verbs. Namely, the present participle (čitajući „reading‟ in (23)) is made from imperfective verbs, whereas the past participle (pročitavši „having read‟ in (24a)) from perfective verbs (Ivić, 1982). Imperfective verbs, thus, allow access to the internal structure of a situation (23), while the perfective ones do not (24a) (Novakov, 2005). 23. Čitajući tu knjigu. read-IMPF.PRESP that book-ACC remembered sjetio se svog detinjstva. his childhood-GEN „While reading that book, he remembered his childhood.‟ (RiĎanović, 1976, p. 80) 24. a) Pročitavši read-PF.PP tu knjigu sjetio se svog detinjstva. that book-ACC remembered his childhood „Having read that book, he remembered his childhood.‟ b) *Čitavši read-IMPF.PP tu knjigu. sjetio se that book-ACC remembered svog detinjstva. his childhood „While reading that book, he remembered his childhood.‟ 19 c) *Pročitajući read-PF tu knjigu. sjetio se svog detinjstva that book-ACC. remembered his childhood „While reading that book, he remembered his childhood.‟ (Novakov, 2005, p. 48) In the example (23) the present participle (čitajući „reading‟) is used to express the internal structure of the situation; it implies a time frame within which one of its moments is connected with the moment denoted by the main verb sjetio se „remembered‟, which is perfective. As for (4a), the past participle (pročitavši „having read‟) expresses that the situation described with it happened before the situation denoted by the main verb sjetio se. In other words, it denotes a whole situation realized before the beginning of another situation (Novakov, 2005). The example in (24b) is ungrammatical as the imperfective verb has been used to form past participle and (24c) because the perfective verb has been used to form the present participle, which cannot describe a situation as a whole. Gehrke (2008) explains aspect in Slavic languages in a similar way. Apart from using the terms such as “internal point of view” and “external point of view”, she explains the perfective aspect as describing “a situation in its totality” (p. 149). She also states that internal or lexical prefixes3 introduce telicity, i.e. a verb with such a prefix expresses either an achievement or accomplishment. Furthermore, such verbs can be used with the in-adverbial4 (25a). 25. a) Is-cepao je up-tore-PF Aux pismo za pet minuta. letter-ACC in five minutes „He tore up the letter in five minutes.‟ 3 Lexical prefixes add a resultative meaning to the verb and they often specify result by changing the meaning of the verb. Superlexical prefifxes do not change the meaning of the verb and their role is purely perfectivizing. At the morpho-syntactic level, lexical prefixes appear closer to the verb than the superlexical prefixes (Arsenijević, 2006). 4 One of Vendler‟s tests (1967) for telicity. 20 b) *Cepao je tore-IMPF Aux pismo za pet minuta. letter-ACC in five minutes „He tore the letter in five minutes.‟ There are several diagnostics that can be used to distinguish between perfectivity and imperfectivity in Serbian. For example, only imperfective verbs can be used after početi „start and prestati „stop‟ (26); perfective verbs cannot (27) (Gehrke 2008). 5 26. a) Počeo je da cepa papir. started to tear-IMPF paper-ACC „He started tearing the paper.‟ b) Prestao je da cepa papir. stopped to tear-IMPF paper-ACC „He stopped tearing the paper.‟ 27. a) *Počeo je started da is-cepa/po-cepa/ot-cepi papir. COMPL up-/off-tear- PF.PRS paper-ACC „He started tearing up/apart the paper.‟ b) *Prestao je stopped da /is-cepa/po-cepa/ot-cepi papir. COMPL up-/off-tear- PF.PRS paper-ACC „He stopped tearing up/off the paper.‟ Then, as already mentioned in (23), only imperfective verbs can be used to form present participle by the addition of suffix –ći. In Serbian, the participle marks that the situation it denotes is simultaneous with that denoted by the main verb (Ivić, 1982). In contrast, only perfective verbs can be used to form past participle (28a), which is usually used to mark a situation preceding that denoted by the main verb (Ivić, 1982). 5 Gehrke (2008) focuses on Russian and Czech mostly. Here, I will follow the tests that can be applied to Serbian, and I will not consider those that cannot. 21 28. a) Cepajući papir, tear-PRESP.IMPF paper-ACC on peva. he sing-IMPF „He sings while he is tearing the paper.‟ b) *Is-cepajući/Po-cepajući/Ot-cepajući up-/off-tear-PRESP.PF papir, on peva. paper-ACC he sing-IMPF „He sings while he is tearing the paper.‟ 29. a) Is-cepavši/Po-cepavši/Ot-cepavši up-/off-tear- PP.PF papir, otišao je paper-ACC left-PF kući home „Having torn up/off the paper, he left home.‟ b) *Cepavši tear-PP papir, otišao je kući paper-ACC left-PF home „Having torn the paper, he left home.‟ Also, Milivojevic (2005) and Gehrke (2008) mention that the use of a prefix on a verb can block its use with the imperfective aspect. For example, if a prefix is added on a verb without an additional suffix, that verb cannot be used in the imperfective aspect, which can be seen in (29b), where a prefix has been added to the verb cepati, which thus cannot be used in the present participle. In most cases, prefixes are added to verbs which already have a separate existence of their own, as the verb cepati. 3.1. Prefix Meanings There are various prefixes in Serbian which can have different modificational meanings. In this paper, the prefixes iz-, od- and po- with the verb cepati are going to be analyzed. They can be analyzed as belonging to the group of prefixes with spatial meaning, which are the most numerous ones (Alexander, 2006). Like most other prefixes in Serbian, they resemble prepositions, and this is where they get the spatial meaning from (is- and iz „from‟, „out of‟; ot- and od „from‟; po- and po „on‟). Also, 22 as noted in Klajn (2002), a majority of verbal prefixes belong to the word class of prepositions. In Serbian, prepositions often refer to more than one spatial relation (Šarić, 2014). As Comrie (1976) mentions, this connection between prepositions and prefixes in Serbian could be compared to verb particles and separable prefixes in Germanic languages, such as up in English drink up or the Germanic prefix auf- in auftrinken (p. 89). Svenonius (2005), too states that Serbian prepositional prefixes act as some Germanic particles with spatial meaning. In her paper, Milivojević (2005) claims that phrasal verbs in English and perfective verbs in Serbian (verbs made by prefixation) are linguistically equivalent, and that particles/prefixes represent markers of telic aktionsart (30). 30. a) look up – po-gledati b) calm down – u-miriti c) call out – do-zivati d) slice off – od-seći e) walk away – ot-ići (Milivojević, 2005, p 69) Although there are various prefixes, each of which can be associated with different meaning, there seems to be a certain pattern, i.e. a certain amount of predictability to the system (Alexander, 2006). Since the verbs iscepati, otcepati and pocepati are made through prefixation and since they are all going to be analyzed in terms of their meaning and use – by analyzing the meaning of the preposition, at least some of the meanings of the verbs with the same prefix could be predicted (Alexander, 2006), both literal and metaphorical. Therefore, what follows is a short description of prefixes po-, od-, and iz-. 23 3.1.1. Prefix POPrefix po- represents one of the most neutral prefixes semantically (Comrie, 1976), and at the same time it is one of the most productive prefixes in Serbian (Novakov, 2005). So, quite often it is used just for perfectivization, i.e. to change the aspect of a verb (31). 31. a) Gledao watched-IMPF je film b) Po-gledao Aux movie watched-PF „He was watching the movie.‟ je film Aux movie „He watched the movie. This verbal prefix can have different meanings (Klajn, 2001 & Stevanović, 1986), some of which are spatial and distributive. It adds distributive and cumulative meaning when it acts as a superlexical prefix (Milićević, 2005). In contrast, when it is lexical, it changes lexical properties of verbs “regarding their argument structure and the affectedness of their arguments” (Milićević, 2005, p.286). In that case, as well, it can be added to both imperfective (32a) and perfective verbs (32b), which means that it allows for secondary imperfectivization. 32. a) po-sisati b) po-skočiti up-suck up-jump „suck‟ „hop‟ 3.1.2. Prefix ODPrefix od- is also a very productive verbal prefix in Serbian. It denotes separation of an entity from a source. That meaning is connected to the meaning of the preposition od which also signifies separation or detachment (Šarić, 2014). In their paper, Šarić and Tchizmarova 24 (2013) compare this prefix in Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian and Bulgarian focusing on the spatial meaning extensions in non-spatial domain. They state that the meaning of movement away from a source is associated with separation or detachment of a trajector from a landmark. Usually, what it expresses is the meaning „away from a source‟. Furthermore, some verbs with this prefix co-occur with the cognate preposition od „(away) from‟, highlighting even more the core meaning „moving away from the landmark‟ (Šarić & Tchizmarova, 2013), as in (33). The meaning found in (33) represents the concrete motion, which is usually self-caused and which can be intentional or unintentional. This prefix with the meaning of concrete separation implies the separation in the material integrity of an object or that the moved object and source object were in close physical contact (Šarić and Tchizmarova, 2013). 33. od kuće. Ot-išao je away-went-PF Aux from home-GEN „He went away from home.‟ There is also the meaning of abstract motion. When talking about non-spatial meaning, what Šarić & Tchizmarova (2013) claim is that non-spatial meanings apply the idea of movement/path to metaphorical movement/path (34). Also, when used metaphorically, the situation denoted by the verb means grow apart. When used with verbs of cutting (e.g., otcepiti), it is usually used in political contexts “implying „go one‟s own way, choose another option, leave a party/group” (Šarić and Tchizmarova, 2013, p. 21). Such examples will be elaborated more on in the section about the verb otcepiti. 34. a) otići b) otići na onaj svet „leave‟, „go home‟ leave to that world „die‟ (Šarić & Tchizmarova, 2013, p. 13) 25 3.1.3. Prefix IZ- Prefix iz- is too one of the most productive prefixes in Serbian. Its meaning is closely related to the meaning of the prepositional counterpart iz, which is illustrated in (35). The prepositional phrase iz kuće „out of the house‟ describes the meaning of a source, and the prefix iz- implies the momentary action and the meaning of „leaving the source‟. 35. a) David David je is-trčao. iz kuće. Aux out-ran-PF out of house-GEN „David ran out of the house.‟ (Bašić, 2007, p.2) Being close to the preposition makes it similar to Germanic particles. As observed by Milićević (2005), lexical iz- is in most cases comparable to the particles up (36a) and out in English (36b). In different contexts it is comparable to the preposition and adverbial use of out (37). 36. a) Iseckao up-cut-PF je meso. Aux meat-ACC „He cut up the meat.‟ „He cut the meat up.‟ (Milićević, 2005, p. 288) a) Iz-bacio out-threw-PF je loptu. Aux ball-ACC „He threw out the ball.‟ „He threw the ball out.‟ (Milićević, 2005, p. 288) 37. Iskočio je out-jumped-PF Aux kroz prozor through window-ACC „He jumped out (through the window).‟ „He jumped out (the window).‟ (Milićević, 2005, p. 289) 26 For the present analysis, its spatial meaning is not relevant as the verb iscepati does not imply moving away from a source or similar. The verb will be more analyzed in the following section, together with the arguments it selects for. However, though the spatial meaning is not emphasized through the preposition, it still can be compared to the Germanic particles as some examples can be translated using the particle up, which is also what follows later in the paper. 27 4 Corpus Analysis The present analysis explores the meaning and use of the Serbian verbs cepati, otcepiti, iscepati and pocepati. In order to make the research less intuitive and more empirical, all the examples that are going to be analyzed in the following sections are taken from Corpus of Contemporary Serbian (version SrpKor2013) Human Language Technologies Group, University of Belgrade (http://www.korpus.matf.bg.ac.rs). The data were collected during the period December 2015 – March 2016, and they were analyzed during the period March 2016 – June 2016. The three prefixed verbs (pocepati, otcepiti and iscepati) were chosen to be part of the analysis as enough examples with them were found. Verbs rascepiti „split‟, nacepati „chop‟ and precepiti „split‟ were left out from the analysis as their use is either very limited or even though these verbs exist in Serbian and are used, they were not found there (at least not a sufficient number of examples). Also, for some examples, it was necessary to use the Google search engine and ask some native speakers of Serbian for additional explanation and help for a better understanding of the verbs mentioned and the arguments they can(not) select for. In the following sections, the four verbs mentioned will be analyzed. 28 4.1. Verb CEPATI The verb cepati has both literal and figurative meanings and the arguments it combines with are present in its perfective pairs (otcepiti, iscepati and pocepati). The theme arguments of the verb used literally can be classified into two distinct groups: entities made of paper and entities made of cloth or fabric. In the first group, there is a great variety of arguments, and some of them are: a ticket, poster, text book, contract, etc., as illustrated in (38) and (39). The meaning of a VP used with such arguments usually implies complete destruction or separation, and the result is always present. 38. Dok je masa cepala plakate, bio while Aux crowd tore-IMPF posters-ACC Aux mu je prišao neki čovek… him Aux approached some man „While the crowd was tearing the posters, some man approached him…‟ 39. …dok su mu najbolji while Aux him best šešir. prijatelji cepali i gazili friends tore-IMPF and stamped hat „…while his best friends were tearing and stamping on his hat.‟ Another possible theme argument used with this verb is wood, and the VP then has the meaning „chop wood‟, as shown in (40).6 40. ...ustajao got up je rano, cepao drva, palio vatru. Aux early tore-IMPF wood-ACC lit up fire „… he would get up early, chop wood and light the fire up.‟ 6 The perfective counterpart with this meaning is nacepati, which will not be analyzed here as it is only used with this argument, and has no other meanings except the perfective meaning of „chop wood‟. 29 When used figuratively, the majority of theme arguments this verb selects for can be classified into one group – „a group of people united for territorial, economic, political or other reasons‟. So, a theme argument can be a political party (41), where it is implied that it is being torn apart, or a country (42), which is being separated into smaller countries. 41. Mi smo navikli da se stranke cepaju. we Aux used to to parties tear-IMPF REFL „We are used to having parties tear apart.‟ 42. ne daje nikome not gives nobody pravo (…) da cepaju zajedničku drţavu. right REFL parties tear-IMPF „…it does not give anybody the right to tear apart the common country.‟ In (41), the verb has reflexive meaning as it is used together with the reflexive particle se „oneself‟, and the theme argument is not an object but the subject of the clause, whereas in (42), apart from the theme argument, there is an agent (people), which shows that this verbs allows for both interpretations with these kinds of arguments. Some arguments which are also possible with the figurative meaning are: a basketball mesh, (a) part(s) (of something), oneself, the nucleus of the atom. The movement of hands is not implied with the meaning of VPs with these arguments, which is part of the core meaning of the verb cepati. As an illustration, in (43), the theme argument the atomic nucleus together with the verb has the meaning „nuclear fission‟, and literally translated it means „splitting the atom‟. 30 43. cepaju jezgro atoma i šalju which tear-IMPF nucleus-ACC atom and send rakete na kraj Sunčevog sistema. rockets to end Solar system (…)koje „…which split the atom and send rockets to the end of the Solar system.‟ As the verb is used imperfectively, it implies that the event denoted by it lasts for a certain period of time, i.e. it expresses an activity. By adding a prefix to this verb, it becomes perfective. What allows is the analysis of the prefixed verbs. 4.2. Verb OTCEPITI Through the analysis of the corpus, it has been found that in most cases the verb otcepiti is used to express figurative meanings. It has a very limited use when the meaning is literal7, and that one meaning could be explained as following: Tearing off a smaller piece of paper (from a newspaper, a notepad and similar), so that what has been torn off is smaller than its source; the torn off part does not become destroyed afterwards as it is usually torn off with some purpose (the agent wants to do something with/using it); The result of tearing is a complete separation or detachment, which is not the case with cepati. The example in (44) illustrates the literal meaning of the verb otcepiti. The theme argument is small pieces of paper, which have been torn off. This meaning is clearly connected what has been discussed in 3.1.2., as it signifies separation from a source, which in this case is the notepad. So, the prefix requires 7 There was only one example found in the corpus with literal meaning. Still, that one example illustrates well the meaning. Other examples with such meaning were found search the Google search engine and with the help of some native Serbian speakers. 31 for the third argument – the source. The action is performed by an agent (he) and it is done voluntarily and intentionally. 44. On iz blokčića ot-cepi dva he from notepad-GEN off-tore-PF two-ACC kvadratna komadića tamnozelene hartije. squared small pieces darkgreen paper-GEN „He tore off two small squared darkgreen pieces of paper from the notepad.‟ As for the figurative use, all the examples found express one unique meaning, which is „growing apart or separating oneself from a community or a party‟. The separation is complete and the two parts or sides are not attached anymore. In (45) Croatia separated itself from SFRJ 8 , and it stopped being a part of it. It became an independent country with no further connections with the country from which it seceded. Unlike the example (41) with cepati, here, the goal has been reached. 45. Hrvatska se vec bila otcepila. Croatia REFL already Aux seceded-PF „Croatia had already seceded‟ The arguments that can be seceded are a country, a church or a group (e.g., a political party). When it comes to countries (or different regions) as the argument being separated, it can be connected to the literal meaning previously mentioned under the condition the process of separation is imagined on a world map. In other words, it becomes clearer why this type of argument is used with the verb which literal meaning is tearing off a piece of paper. A country on a map could be imagined as a piece of paper being torn off from its source (a map). As for the other types of arguments (a church, political party, etc.), what they have in common is that they all 8 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 32 presuppose a group of people with the same goals/ideas/beliefs. In (46), the Montenegrin population actually refers to the Montenegrins, i.e. Montenegrin people, who wish to separate themselves (their part of the country) from the rest of the country. 46. Neistina je da crnogorsko stanovništvo untruth Aux that Montenigrin population ţeli da se ot-cepi-PF od wishes to REFL off-tear from Belgrade-GEN Beograda. „It is not true that Montenegrin population wishes to secede from Belgrade.‟ The corpus analysis also showed that this verb when used figuratively is used with a reflexive particle se ‟oneself‟, to express a self-caused movement. Also, a source is always presupposed, i.e. an entity from which something is being separated. There were no examples found including three arguments of the verb, i.e. when there is an agent, a theme and a source.9 What is interesting when it comes to the reflexive form of the verb, is that it cannot be used in the literal meaning, for example with a piece of paper. Namely, a piece of paper cannot tear itself, but it always requires an agent (47). 47. # Parče papira piece paper-GEN se ot-cepilo. REFL off-tore-PF ‟A piece of paper tore itself off.‟ Finally, it seems that this verb cannot be associated with any kind of scale as the the event denoted by it always results in two separated parts (they were once joined 9 Using the Google search engine, a couple of such examples were actually found .But, it is questionable whether they could be considered representative as for some native Serbian speakers they are considered anomalous. 33 together). In other words, something is either torn off/apart or not – there is nothing between these two states. In this way, it contrasts cepati, which does not imply that. 4.3. Verb ISCEPATI The verb iscepati has only a literal use, and the theme arguments it selects for can be classified into two groups: entities made of paper (most of the examples belong to this group, (48)) and entities made of cloth/material (49). 48. (…) tada sam is-cepao pokrivač čaršave. then Aux up-tore blanket-ACC and i bedspread-ACC „(…) then I tore up the blanket and the bedspread.‟ 49. U hodniku je in hallway Aux up-tore is-cepao obaveštenja i notices-ACC and stamped on zgazio ih them „In the hallway he tore up the notices and stamped on them.‟ The meaning that the VP implies with both types of arguments is that of destruction. The agent is always present, and performs the event denoted by the verb intentionally and voluntarily. Therefore, a reflexive anticausative use is not possible. For example, in (50), socks cannot be torn up by themselves.10 50. ?# Is-cepale su up Aux mi se čarape. me REFL socks-ACC „My socks got torn up.‟ What is interesting about this verb and the examples found in the corpus is that some kind of manner is implied. Namely, the agent always performs the event denoted by iscepati with some kind of aggression or violence. This is clearly illustrated in (51a). 10 It should be noted, though, that for some Serbian speakers this use of iscepati is acceptable. Still, such examples were not found in the corpus. 34 In contrast, if this verb is used with adverbs such as u miru „peacefully‟, it becomes unacceptable for some native Serbian speakers (51b). 51. a) (…) tamo ga šamarali dalje maltretirali there him slapped further tortured i is-cepali mu lična dokumenta and up-tore him personal documents-ACC „(…) they slapped him there, tortured and tore up his personal documents.‟ b) ?# U miru in peace je is-cepao lična dokumenta. Aux up-tore personal documents-ACC „He tore up the letters peacefully.‟ 4.4 Verb POCEPATI Unlike the previous two prefixed verbs and their restricted literal use, pocepati has been found both in literal and figurative uses, and the choice of arguments it selects for is wide and is similar to those of the base verb cepati. As for the literal use, the arguments can be divided into two main groups: entities made of paper (52) and entities made of cloth or material (53). No other arguments apart from those belonging to one of the groups were found in the corpus. 52. Onda sam se nasmejao i then Aux REFL laughed po-cepao and up-tore pismo. letter-ACC Then I laughed and tore up the letter. 53. Vratio se kući, po-cepao svoju odeću… returned REFL home up-tore his clothes-ACC He returned home, tore up his clothes… 35 The examples in (52) and (53) are different from the example in (54), where the theme-argument is still an item of clothing but the verb is used together with the reflexive particle se. What this means is that the whole VP has a different meaning. Namely, the theme argument (shoes) has been torn up not because somebody wanted them to be, but it happened by accident or over a course of time. 54. Kad vidim da when see patike po-cepaju, se that REFL shoes up-tear-PF kupujem… ja im I them buy „When I see the shoes have torn, I buy them then…‟ In (54), the agent is not present, and the same example cannot be reformulated by making the agent explicit and using the adverbial for purpose namerno „on purpose‟. It results in an anomalous sentence, as illustrated in (55). 55. # Kad when vidim da sam namerno po-cepao patike… see that REFL on purpose up-tore-PF shoes „When I see the shoes have torn, I buy them then…‟ However, when the adverbial namerno is omitted, the sentence becomes acceptable but it no longer means that something has been done on purpose, but that it is a result of something done by accident, in which case the verb is anticausative (56). Pocepati allows for anticausatives only with items of clothing. Finally, this meaning implies that the material has not been destroyed completely, but only a small part of it. 56. Po-cepale su up-tore-PF mi se pantalone kada sam izlazila Aux me REFL pants when Aux went on na binu, zaglavila mi se štikla u podu.11 onto stage got stuck me REFL heel in floor „My pants tore while I was coming on the stage, my heel got stuck in the floor.‟ 11 http://arhiva2.gloria.rs/Article.aspx?ArticleID=644 (28th May, 2016). 36 What is interesting about this verb is that unlike otcepiti and iscepati, it can be used with some kind of proportional modification. In other words, one thing (e.g., paper) can be torn into two, three, four or n pieces, as illustrated in (57). So, it could be said that this verb presupposes a scale in its meaning, and that it has distributive meaning. The end-value of the scale could be the meaning of complete destruction as illustrated in (58), where the passport is destroyed. 57. Skinuo potkošulju i sam took off Aux undershirt je po-cepao na tri and up-tore-PF Aux dela…12 into three parts „I took off the undershirt and tore it into three pieces/parts…‟ 58. Ţeno, daj pasoš da ga po-cepam, ja se Woman give passport to it up-tear-PF I REFL odavde ne vraćam! from here not return „Woman, give me the passport so I can tear it up, I am not coming back from here!‟ When it comes to figurative meanings, the main type of theme arguments found are those which could be described as some kind of party (most often, a political party) as in (59). 59. Reformistička stranka se po-cepala na nedavnoj konvenciji… Reformist up-tore at recent convention party REFL „Reformist party broke up at the recent convention…‟ Here, the presence of an agent is possible when a person/people make(s) a party become torn (60). Also, the same theme arguments can be used as a subject, when they are used with the reflexive verb pocepati se, already shown in (56). The 12 http://www.vreme.com/cms/view.php?id=297934 (2016, June 17) 37 meaning this type of VP has is associated with a group being separated into smaller groups. 60. Kako su Čedomir M. i Momčilo T. po-cepali SDP (…) How Aux Čedomir M. and Momčilo T. up-torn SDP „How Čedomir M. and Momčilo T torn SDP apart.‟ Other arguments found with figurative use are a basketball mesh, a part of body (nostril) and a cliff13. The first two are connected with the meaning of destruction, and the last one as being destroyed and separated into two halves. Another figurative meaning which is possible with this verb is split one’s side laughing, as shown in (61). Namely, this example was not found in the corpus, but it is quite commonly used in the informal language. The theme argument here is oneself, i.e. a person “splits” himself/herself from laughter. 61. Kako se ne po-cepati od smeha!? 14 how REFL not up-tear-PF of laughter „How not to burst out of laughter!?‟ 4.5. Discussion If Levin and Rappaport Hovav (2011) are correct, verbs can lexicalize either manner or result, but not both simultaneously. The aim of this paper was to try to determine which meaning cepati lexicalizes. What it seems is that it is a result verb; however, there are some cases that present a challenge, as the following discussion summarizes. 13 14 The VP with the argument the cliff may be considered to have literal meaning. http://mondo.rs/a730790/Zabava/Ludi-svet/Kako-se-ne-pocepati-od-smeha.html (2016, June 17) 38 Firstly, cepati is imperfective and expresses an activity, so the situation it describes is unbounded. But still, the theme argument is always affected by the process of tearing. This verb cannot be used to claim that the theme argument of tearing has been preserved in its material integrity. For example, in (62), the whole VP implies that there has been damage to the theme argument (the contract), even though the contract may not be completely torn or destroyed. 62. Kabila bi menjao mišljenje, cepao ugovor (…) Kabila Aux change opinion contract-ACC tear-IMPF „Kabila would change his opinion, tear the contract (...)‟ According to Levin and Rappaport Hovav (2011), if a verb demonstrates anticausative use, it should be treated as a result verb. Cepati has been found in such uses, both with literal and non-literal meanings. The theme argument thus can be entities made of cloth15 (63), or a political party/country (64). The former use does not imply complete destruction of the material, whereas the latter one does imply complete separation or detachment. 63. (…) čarape se cepaju samo kad nemamo rezervne. 16 socks tear-IMPF only when not have spare REFL „(…) socks tear only then when we do not have the spare ones.‟ 64. Mi smo navikli da se stranke cepaju. we Aux used to to parties tear-IMPF REFL „We are used to having parties tear apart.‟ If the verb does actually prove to be a result verb, this would also confirm the hypothesis by McNally and Spalek (2015) and explain the existence of figurative 15 It should be noted that anticausatives with such arguments were not present in the corpus, but a few examples were found using the Google search engine. So, the example may not be a reliable one. To a native Serbian speaker, such uses are acceptable, though. 16 http://www.venomafashionfreak.com/2015/09/floral-and-lace.html (2016, May 28) 39 uses. Namely, what they have observed is that figurative uses go only with result predicates, whereas manner predicates have a restricted figurative use. Since cepati has a wide figurative use, this would suggest it has a result meaning. However, there are some cases which present a puzzle when it comes to classifying cepati as a manner or result verb. Namely, when used literally, it always implies the movement of hands. In the examples found in the corpus, hands have never been mention as that is the part of the core meaning of the verb. When using the hands is emphasized, the VP is acceptable (65), in contrast to when some other types of instruments are used (66). 65. Cepao je pismo rukama. tore-IMPF Aux letter-ACC hands-INSTR „He was tearing the letter with his hands.‟ 66. Cepao je pismo #makazama/noţem tore-IMPF Aux letter-ACC scissors/knife-INSTR „He was tearing the letter with a scissors/knife/machine.‟ The fact that hands are only present with physical entities could suggest that this manner meaning is brought about through co-composition with the arguments, and it is not lexicalized. If the theme argument is different, hands are not implied. This again proves the importance of the argument selection for the VP meaning, as already observed by Spalek (2014). The prefixation of cepati does not only lead to a change from imperfective to perfective, but also new senses are brought about by different argument selection and use, and by the meaning of the prefixes. What is clear is that the prefix carries the meaning of a result (Arsenijević, 2006), and all the three verbs have that meaning. What all the three verbs have in common is that they do not allow for an 40 anticausative use in their literal meanings, and they all have the meaning of complete destruction or separation then. The exception would be pocepati which allows for the anticausative in its literal use, but only with one type of argument: entities made of cloth or fabric. In this use, the verb does not have the meaning of complete destruction, but only one part of the theme argument is affected. For example, socks in (67) are not destroyed completely but only one part of them, i.e. a tear was created as the socks got torn, but they still remain in one piece. Only then can the anticausative be used. 67. (…) najlon čarape koje su se pocepale ne morate nylon socks Aux REFL torn must da bacate17 to throw which not „(…) you do not have to throw away nylon socks which got torn.‟ Pocepati and iscepati select for the same type of arguments when used literally: entities made of paper (e.g., a letter, a passport) and entities made of cloth or fabric (e.g., a jacket, a shirt). When it comes to the first group of theme arguments, both VPs have similar meaning, which is complete destruction. Also, there is always a theme and an agent (usually, a person). The corpus analysis showed, though, that with pocepati there are no additional meanings regarding the manner of the event; whereas most of the examples with iscepati imply aggression and violent manner of tearing, as in (68). 17 http://www.lepotaizdravlje.rs/lifestyle/inspirisemo-vas/tri-razloga-zbog-kojih-ne-treba-da-bacitestare-najlon-carape/ (2016, May 28). 41 68. (…) tamo ga šamarali, dalje maltretirali i there him slapped further tortured and up-tore mu lična dokumenta. his personal documents is-cepali „(…) they slapped him there, tortured and tore up his personal documents.‟ As for the other type of theme arguments, the two verbs have different meanings and different morpho-syntactic realizations. Iscepati does not allow for the anticausative use. In contrast, pocepati, as mentioned before, can have an anticausative use, and the meaning is then different (illustrated in (63)). So, it could be said that pocepati implies the result meaning. Pocepati allows for figurative uses with different meanings, which could be connected to the fact that it also has different meanings when used literally separation/destruction). (e.g., The most complete common separation/destruction figurative use is vs. no separating something/oneself into “n” parts, which could be related to the literal use when a physical object is torn into several parts (in which case the anticausative is not allowed). So, it seems as though this verb demonstrates different meanings and uses, the morpho-syntactic behavior in the literal use is connected with the possibility of the verb being used figuratively. Still, further research on both verbs (with a bigger corpus and a larger number of native Serbian speakers) could provide a better and more specific answer regarding this question. What the present analysis suggests is that the prefix and argument selection does not imply additional manner meaning, and that the role of the prefix is only a perfectivizing one. As for iscepati, the prefix and choice of arguments introduce additional manner meaning. The lack of figurative uses with iscepati could again be explained through the hypothesis by McNally and Spalek (2015). 42 When it comes to otcepiti, its use is quite restricted (both literal and figurative) and it is closely connected to the meaning of the preposition od, which is what makes it different from the meaning of separation with cepati. The figurative meaning is closely related to the literal meaning of „tearing off a piece paper (from its source)‟. The verb allows for the anticausative use only with figurative meaning. Since the verb lacks an anticausative variant in its literal use, it does not possess a scale and since it implies a specific manner of movement from the source, it could be suggested that it shows manner verb properties. Still, the verb implies concrete detachment and separation of an entity from a source. So, it could be compared to iscepati in terms of the manner meaning brought about the introduction of a prefix and co-composition with theme arguments. For all the three verbs, both the choice of arguments and the prefix play an important role in determining specific senses the VP can have. All three prefixes yield an additional result meaning, but as shown, some verbs (iscepati and otcepiti) show properties of manner verbs, too. Hopefully, further research could provide a more detailed answer to this. 43 5 Conclusion This focus of this paper was the analysis of the Serbian verbs cepati, otcepiti, pocepati and iscepati in terms of their meaning and use. The analysis of the base verb cepati suggests that (following Levin & Hovav Rappaport (2011)) it is a result verb though there are some exceptions which should be explored in further research. The manner meaning found with this verb could be explained via co-composition with the theme arguments it selects for. As for the prefixed verbs, it is clear that their meaning and use is strongly determined by the prefix and argument selection. Verbs otcepiti and iscepati show properties of manner meanings, and their figurative use is restricted. On the other hand, pocepati implies result and it can be found in nonliteral uses. This is also consistent with the hypothesis by McNally and Spalek (2015) that figurative uses go with result predicates. Still, in further research, more emphasis should be put on the meanings of prefixes and their syntactic features. Finally, this paper will hopefully open new discussions about lexicalized meaning when it comes to Serbian verbs and the role of prefixes and arguments on different uses (literal/figurative). 44 References Alexander, R. (2006). Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, A Grammar: with sociolinguistic commentary. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Arsenijević, B. (2010). Syntactic complexity and semantic opacity of manner in manner-expressing verbs. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University. Asher, N. (2011). Lexical Meaning in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. (2001). Metaphor in discourse. The Langauge of Word Meaning, 262-289. Bašić, M. (2007). Serbian Ps with and without iz and the Superset Principle. Nordlyd, 34(2), 300-319. Bowdle, B. F. & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112, 193-216. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gehrke, B. (2008). Ps in Motion: On the semantics and syntax of P elements in motion events. (Doctoral dissertation). Utrecht: Utrecht University. Ivić, M. (1982), O nekim principima glagolske prefiksacije u slovenskim jezicima, Južnoslovenski filolog, 33, 51- 61. Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1991). Wiping the state clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition, 41, 123-151. Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1980). Lexicalized meaning and manner/result compelementaritzy. In B. Arsenijević, B. Gehrke, & R. Marin (Eds), Studies in the Composition and Decomposition of Event Predicates. Dodrecht: Springer. McNally, L. & Spalek, A. (2015, January). The logical semantic underpinnings of cross-linguistic variation in „figurative‟ uses of verbs. Presented at the workshop Formal Semantics Meets Cognitive Semantics, Nijmegen. Milićević, N. (2004). The Lexical and Superlexical Prefix iz- and its Role in the Stacking of Prefixes. In Svenonius (Ed), Nordlyd: University of Tromso Working Papers on Language and Linguistics, 32 (2), 279-300. Milivojević, N. (2005). Particles and Prefixes in English and Serbian. ELOPE, 2 (12), 65-75. Novakov, P. (2005). Glagolski vid i tip glagolske situacije u engleskom i srpskom jeziku. Novi Sad: Futura publikacije. 45 Novakov, P. (2007). Telicity in English and Serbian. British and American Studies 13, 299- 307. Piper, P. & Klajn, I. (2013), Normativna gramatika srpskog jezika. Novi Sad: Matica srpska. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Pustejovsky, J. & Rumshisky, A. (2010). Mechanisms of sense extension in verbs. In G.-M. de Schryver (Ed), A Way with Words: Recent Advances in Lexical Theory and Analysis. A Festschrift for Patrick Hanks. Kampala: Menha Publishers. Rappaport Hovav, M. (2008). Lexicalized Meaning and the Internal Temporal Structure of Events. In S. Rothstein, (Ed), Crosslinguistic and Theoretical Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, 13-42. RiĎanović, M. (1976). A Synchronic Study of Verbal Aspect in English and SerboCroatian. Cambridge, Mass: Slavica. Šarić, Lj. (2014). Prostor u jeziku i metafora: Kognitivnolingvisitčke studije o prefiksima i prijedlozima. Zagreb: Jesenski i Turk. Šarić, Lj. & Tchizmarova, I. (2013). Space and Metaphor in Verbs Prefixed with OD-/OT- „FROM‟ in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and Bulgarian. In Lj, Šaric (Ed.). Oslo Studies in Language, 5 (1), 7-33. Spalek, A. (2012). Putting order into literal and figurative uses of verbs: romper as a case study. In Borealis An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 1 (2): 141167. Spalek, A. (2014). Verb Meaning and Combinatory Semantics: A Corpus-Based Study of Spanish Change of State Verbs. (Doctoral dissertation). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Stevanović, M. (1981), Savremeni srpskohrvatski jezik I, II. Beograd: Naučna knjiga. Svenonius, P. (2004). Slavic prefixes and morphology: An introduction to the Nordlyd volume. In Svenonius (Ed), Nordlyd, 32 (2), 177-204. Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Online resources: Utvić, M. & Vitas, D. Corpus of Contemporary Serbian (version SrpKor2013) Human Language Technologies Group, University of Belgrade. (2015, December 2016, March). Retrieved from http://www.korpus.matf.bg.ac. http://mondo.rs/a730790/Zabava/Ludi-svet/Kako-se-ne-pocepati-od-smeha.html (2016, June 17) 46 http://www.vreme.com/cms/view.php?id=297934 (2016, June 17) http://www.venomafashionfreak.com/2015/09/floral-and-lace.html (2016, May 28) http://www.lepotaizdravlje.rs/lifestyle/inspirisemo-vas/tri-razloga-zbog-kojih-netreba-da-bacite-stare-najlon-carape/ (2016, May 28) http://arhiva2.gloria.rs/Article.aspx?ArticleID=644 (2016, May 28) 47