Download Lexicalization of Serbian Verbs: Evidence from - e

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