Anti-resultativity in Latin
Abstract
The paper examines the semantic domain of anti-resultativity (absence of result) as well as lingual means of its rendering in Latin. It has been made explicit that anti-resultativity denoting unreached or cancelled result is verbalized through grammatical and lexical means.
An unsuccessful result can be realized in three directions: temporary cessation of the situation, which does not exclude the possibility of its further continuation (interrupted action); the subject’s attempt to achieve the result (a deliberate action); ending the situation at the point that is as close as possible to the finale.
The termination of a situation with its possible continuation and logical ending is expressed solely at the lexical level with the help of phase verbs with termination semantics (desino, desisto, cesso) or circumstantial indices that indicate the absence of a result until a certain moment (nondum). The main role is given to the context.
The means of expressing a deliberate but not realized action is the imperfect (so-called imperfectum de conatu), the conative meaning of which arises due to the interaction of the actional semantics of predicates (mainly telic verbs) and context and can be interpreted as pragmatic implicature. Explicitly intended action is also expressed by syntagmas with verbs of the corresponding semantics (conor, tempto + infinitive).
Termination of a situation at a critical point close to completion is treated in the article as proximity (partial resultativity). It is implemented exclusively at the lexical level with the help of the adverbs paene and, more rarely, prope.
Plusquamperfect is used to express cancelled result.
The anti-resultative meanings of the Latin imperfectum, as well as that of plusquamperfectum, are consequences of the pragmatic implicature that arises under the influence of the context and/or under the influence of the communicative situation. In the first case, the lack of result can be considered as an implication of durativity, if there is no information about reaching the final point, but only the situation is advised towards it. The anti-resultative meaning of the plusquamperfectum is due to the inherent time interval of the time frame and the connection to the secondary reference point.
Downloads
References
Batiukova, O., Bertinetto, P. M., Lenci, A., Zarcone, A. (2012). Semantic priming study of Russian aspect and resultativity. Oslo Studies in Language, 4/1, pp. 177 – 206.
Bertocchi, A. (1996). Some Semantic and Pragmatic Properties of paene. In A. Bammesberger & F. Heberlein (Eds.). Akten des VIII. Internationalen Kolloquiums zur lateinischen Linguistik. Heidelberg: C. Winter, pp. 457 – 472).
Blase, H. (1903) Tempora und Modi. Genera Verbi. // Historische Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. III/I. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
Comrie, B. Tense (1985). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ernout A., Thomas F. (1964). Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck.
Forcellini, Ae. (1965). Lexicon totius Latinitatis. Patavii: Forni. Available at: lexica.linguax.com/forc2.php
Haverling, G. V. M. (2010). Actionality, tense, and viewpoint. // New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. 2: Constituent Syntax: Adverbial Phrases, Adverbs, Mood, Tense. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 277 – 523.
Hedin, E. (2000). The type-referring function of the Imperfective. I// Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 227 – 264.
Hofmann, J. B., Szantyr, A. (1965). Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik: mit dem allgemeinen Teil der lateinischen Grammatik. München : Beck.
Katz, R. M. Jr. (2016) The Resultative in Gothic. Ph. D Thesis. Athens (Georgia).
Kühner, R., Stegmann, C. (1997). Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. 2.1. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Kuteva, T. (1998). On Identifying an Evasive Gram. Action Narrowly Averted. Studies in Language, 22/1, pp. 113 – 160.
Kuteva, T. (2001). Auxiliation. An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuteva, T. (2009). Grammatical categories and linguistic theory: elaborateness in grammar. I // Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 2, London: SOAS, pp. 13 – 28.
Maysak, T. A., Tatevosov, S. G. (2001). Yadernyye formy glagol’noy paradigmy [Core-forms of verbal paradigm]. // Bagvalinskiy yazyk. Grammatica. Teksty. Slovari [Bagvalian language. Grammar. Texts. Dictionaries].Moscow: IMLI RAN, pp. 345 – 346 [in Russian].
Malchukov, A. L. (2004). Towards a Semantic Typology of Adversative and Contrast Marking. Journal of Semantics, 21(2), pp. 177 – 198.
Martin, R. (1971). Temps et Aspect. Essai sur l’emploi des temps narratifs en moyen français. Paris: Klincksieck.
Mellet, S. (1988). L’imparfait de l’indicatif en latin classique: temps, aspect, modalité. Paris: Societé pour l’information grammaticale,
Mellet, S. (1993). Temps, Aspect et Aktionsart. À propos des prétérits latins. In L. Isebaert (Ed.) Miscelanea linguistica Graeco-Latina. Namur: Societé des Etudes Classiques, pp. 183 – 193.
Mellet, S., Joffre M. D., Serbat G. (1994). Grammaire fondamentale du Latin. Le signifie du verbe. Louvain – Paris: Peeters.
Nedjalkov, V. P. (Ed.) (1988). Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamin.
Oldsjö, F. (2000). Tense and Aspect in Caesar’s Narrative. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
Palomanes Ribeiro, R. M (2015). Resultative Constructions in romance languages: a study based on Cognitive Construction Grammar. Caligrama. Revista de estudios romanicos, 20 (2), pp. 95 – 113.
Pinkster, H. (1983). Tempus, Aspect and Aktionsart in Latin (Recent trends 1961–1981). In H. Temporini, W. Haase (Eds.) Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: ANRW: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, 2: Prinzipat. 29/ 2. Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, pp. 270 – 319.
Pinkster, H. (1990). Latin Syntax and Semantics. London – New York: Routledge.
Pinkster, H. (2015). The Oxford Latin Syntax 1: The simple clause. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Plungyan, V. A. (2001). Antiresulatativ: do i posle rezultata [Antiresultative: before and after result] Available at: http://www.philology.ru/linguistics1/plungyan-01.htm] [in Russian].
Plungian, V. A., van der Auwera, J. (2006). Towards a typology of discontinuous past marking. STUF - Language Typology and Universals.Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 59/ 4, pp. 317 – 349.
Schwellenbach, S. (2013). The syntax-semantics interface of avertive and proximative in Romance. In S. Chiriacescu (Ed.). Proceedings of the VI Nereus International Workshop “Theoretical implications at the syntax/semantics interface in Romance”. Arbeitspapier 127. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz, pp. 117 – 134.
Serbat, G. (1980). Le parfait de l’indicatif actif en latin. In G. Serbat (Ed.) Le sens du parfait de l’indicatif en Latin. Colloque de Morigny 2 decembre 1978. Paris: Universite de Paris-Sorbonne. pp. 12 – 54.
Sichinava, D. V. (2013). Tipologiya pluskvamperfekta. Slavyanskiy pluskvamperfekt [Typology of Plusquamperfect. The Slavic Plusquamperfect]. Мoscow: AST-PRESS KNIGA [in Russian].
Vіncent, N. (2013). Conative. Linguistic Typology, 17, pp. 269 – 289.
Wheeler, A. L. (1906). The syntax of the imperfect indicative in early Latin. Classical Philology, 1/4, pp. 357 – 390.
Wołanin, H. (2012). Gramatyka opisowa klasycznej łaciny w ujęciu strukturalnym. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka.
Ziegeler, D. (2006). Interfaces with English aspect: Diachronic and empirical studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
