Lexical indicators of aspectuality in modern Norwegian / Лексические показатели аспектуальности в современном норвежском языке
|
Introduction 4
I. Aspectuality as a subject of studies 7
1.1. Aspectuality and aspect: differences and similarities 10
1.2. The notion of aspectuality in some European languages 11
1.2.1. Slavic languages 12
1.2.2. Modern Greek 14
1.2.3. Latin 15
1.2.4. Romance languages 15
1.2.5. Germanic languages 17
1.3. Aspectuality and linguistic means of aspectual meanings expression in
modern Norwegian 23
1.4. Current descriptive and theoretical issues in modern studies on aspectuality
and aspect 28
Conclusions to Chapter I 31
II. Verbal particles as lexical indicators of aspectuality 32
2.1. Defining spatial orientation terms as particular parts of speech on the model of
phrases with ‘opp’ and ‘ned’ 32
2.2. Verbal particles as lexical indicators of aspectuality 34
2.3. Cases with ambiguous aspectual meaning 38
Conclusions to Chapter II 39
III. Adverbs and adverbial modifiers as lexical indicators of aspectuality 40
3.1. Adverbs as lexical indicators of aspectuality 41
3.1.1. Resultative 41
3.1.2. Cursive 42
3.1.3. Ingressive 43
3.1.4. «Barely» 44
3.1.5. Ambiguous cases 45
3.2. Adverbial modifiers as lexical indicators of aspectuality 47
3.2.1. Opp 47
3.2.2. Ned 50
3.2.3. Inn 52
3.2.4. Ut 54
3.2.5. Frem 55
3.2.6. Gjennom 56
Conclusions to Chapter III 56
IV. Verbal constructions as lexical indicators of aspectuality 58
4.1.1. Resultative 59
4.1.2. Cursive 62
4.1.3. Continuative 65
4.1.4. Habitual 66
4.1.5. Ingressive 67
4.1.6. Egressive 69
4.1.7. “Barely” 70
4.1.8. Iterative 72
Conclusions to Chapter 4 72
Conclusions 73
Attachments 75
References 76
Internet Resources 79
I. Aspectuality as a subject of studies 7
1.1. Aspectuality and aspect: differences and similarities 10
1.2. The notion of aspectuality in some European languages 11
1.2.1. Slavic languages 12
1.2.2. Modern Greek 14
1.2.3. Latin 15
1.2.4. Romance languages 15
1.2.5. Germanic languages 17
1.3. Aspectuality and linguistic means of aspectual meanings expression in
modern Norwegian 23
1.4. Current descriptive and theoretical issues in modern studies on aspectuality
and aspect 28
Conclusions to Chapter I 31
II. Verbal particles as lexical indicators of aspectuality 32
2.1. Defining spatial orientation terms as particular parts of speech on the model of
phrases with ‘opp’ and ‘ned’ 32
2.2. Verbal particles as lexical indicators of aspectuality 34
2.3. Cases with ambiguous aspectual meaning 38
Conclusions to Chapter II 39
III. Adverbs and adverbial modifiers as lexical indicators of aspectuality 40
3.1. Adverbs as lexical indicators of aspectuality 41
3.1.1. Resultative 41
3.1.2. Cursive 42
3.1.3. Ingressive 43
3.1.4. «Barely» 44
3.1.5. Ambiguous cases 45
3.2. Adverbial modifiers as lexical indicators of aspectuality 47
3.2.1. Opp 47
3.2.2. Ned 50
3.2.3. Inn 52
3.2.4. Ut 54
3.2.5. Frem 55
3.2.6. Gjennom 56
Conclusions to Chapter III 56
IV. Verbal constructions as lexical indicators of aspectuality 58
4.1.1. Resultative 59
4.1.2. Cursive 62
4.1.3. Continuative 65
4.1.4. Habitual 66
4.1.5. Ingressive 67
4.1.6. Egressive 69
4.1.7. “Barely” 70
4.1.8. Iterative 72
Conclusions to Chapter 4 72
Conclusions 73
Attachments 75
References 76
Internet Resources 79
In the modern world, language is more important than ever as a means of mutual understanding. Knowing your conversation partners mother language is opening up new vision perspectives and consequently developing critical thinking. Language, namely the knowledge of a certain language, definitely is of great help when it comes to understanding contradictory views and opinions on the same issue. Such a linguistic phenomenon as aspectuality primarily accounts for deeper understanding of the transmitted message since it touches on the non-qualitative, underlying aspects of language and the language-cultural link.
The notion of aspectuality continues to attract increasing interest due to its importance for profound linguistic analysis, deeper understanding of the target linguistic group’s cultural code and more efficient communication. This topic touches on all areas of language use, from academic research and corporate environment to personal communication. But due to its complexity researchers have always seen aspectuality and aspect as a controversial topic, the approach to which varies from language to language and from culture to culture.
The first investigations into aspectuality were taken by Ch. Ph. Reiff in his Grammaire raisonnee de la langue russe, 1828-1829. One of the first researchers in the field is also Karl Brugmann, who performed the first systematic study on the issue and implemented the term aspectuality. Other important figures in the field are Russian linguists V. A. Plungian, A. V. Bondarko, M. I. Steblin-Kamensky, V. P. Berkov, V. V. Ivanitsky, E. M. Tchekalina, A. N. Livanova, Y. S. Maslov, German researcher B. Kortmann, Norwegian scholars J. T. Faarlund, S. Lie and K. I. Vannebo, Swedish researcher A. Noreen, Finnish linguist A. Mustajoki.
The core problem in this field of research is, firstly, the lack of a common international terminology regarding even the very term of aspectuality, secondly, the lack of a clear unified classification of aspectual meanings and their markers/indicators even within the same language.
Aspectuality, aspect initially means "view", "point of view", "way of seeing". This linguistic category is responsible for conveying additional information about the speaker's perception of how exactly the situation unfolds over time. Each nation, culture hence each language has a unique set of means expressing aspectuality, in academia commonly referred to as markers or indicators of aspectuality.
This paper focuses on the notion of aspectuality in context of the Norwegian language. Although the Norwegian verb has no such grammatical category as perfective versus imperfective aspect, which one may find in the Slavic languages, f. ex. Russian, it nevertheless has various means of expressing aspectuality. However, previously mentioned difficulty regarding unified terminology and proper classification also applies to aspectuality research in the Norwegian linguistic environment.
The aim of the paper is to extend current knowledge of how aspectuality is being lexically marked in the modern Norwegian language through identification, analysis and description of its lexical indicators.
The paper pursues the following objectives:
1) study and analyze relevant works devoted to the research of aspectuality;
2) work with Norwegian textual resources in order to find, analyze and classify lexical indicators of aspectuality;
3) examine how the found indicators convey aspectual meanings;
4) identify special features of aspectual meanings lexical marking in modern Norwegian language.
It is urgent to underline that the aim of the study is not to mention and list or analyze all of the aspectual indicators existing in the Norwegian language.
...
The notion of aspectuality continues to attract increasing interest due to its importance for profound linguistic analysis, deeper understanding of the target linguistic group’s cultural code and more efficient communication. This topic touches on all areas of language use, from academic research and corporate environment to personal communication. But due to its complexity researchers have always seen aspectuality and aspect as a controversial topic, the approach to which varies from language to language and from culture to culture.
The first investigations into aspectuality were taken by Ch. Ph. Reiff in his Grammaire raisonnee de la langue russe, 1828-1829. One of the first researchers in the field is also Karl Brugmann, who performed the first systematic study on the issue and implemented the term aspectuality. Other important figures in the field are Russian linguists V. A. Plungian, A. V. Bondarko, M. I. Steblin-Kamensky, V. P. Berkov, V. V. Ivanitsky, E. M. Tchekalina, A. N. Livanova, Y. S. Maslov, German researcher B. Kortmann, Norwegian scholars J. T. Faarlund, S. Lie and K. I. Vannebo, Swedish researcher A. Noreen, Finnish linguist A. Mustajoki.
The core problem in this field of research is, firstly, the lack of a common international terminology regarding even the very term of aspectuality, secondly, the lack of a clear unified classification of aspectual meanings and their markers/indicators even within the same language.
Aspectuality, aspect initially means "view", "point of view", "way of seeing". This linguistic category is responsible for conveying additional information about the speaker's perception of how exactly the situation unfolds over time. Each nation, culture hence each language has a unique set of means expressing aspectuality, in academia commonly referred to as markers or indicators of aspectuality.
This paper focuses on the notion of aspectuality in context of the Norwegian language. Although the Norwegian verb has no such grammatical category as perfective versus imperfective aspect, which one may find in the Slavic languages, f. ex. Russian, it nevertheless has various means of expressing aspectuality. However, previously mentioned difficulty regarding unified terminology and proper classification also applies to aspectuality research in the Norwegian linguistic environment.
The aim of the paper is to extend current knowledge of how aspectuality is being lexically marked in the modern Norwegian language through identification, analysis and description of its lexical indicators.
The paper pursues the following objectives:
1) study and analyze relevant works devoted to the research of aspectuality;
2) work with Norwegian textual resources in order to find, analyze and classify lexical indicators of aspectuality;
3) examine how the found indicators convey aspectual meanings;
4) identify special features of aspectual meanings lexical marking in modern Norwegian language.
It is urgent to underline that the aim of the study is not to mention and list or analyze all of the aspectual indicators existing in the Norwegian language.
...
The paper shows how aspectuality as a complex pragmatic phenomenon can be indicated by lexical means of the language. In the course of work with the sample there have been examined over 250 cases of aspectual indication by means of lexis, the paper provides and explains more than 100 examples of their usage. The paper shows how aspectuality is being lexically marked in the modern Norwegian language, represented in: journalistic texts in editions of different scale and subject matter; scientific and popular scientific articles; modern literary texts. As the result of linguistic research, most of the lexical indicators of aspectuality have been given a category regarding their belonging to a part of lexis, the aspectual meaning denoted and their plane of expression.
The main findings of the paper are:
1. The notion of aspectuality has different definitions, and the main subjects of linguistic discussion are whether it is limited to the verb and whether it is identical with verbal aspect. It has been found that regarding the modern Norwegian language, aspectuality is neither limited to the verb nor identical with the verbal aspect (or rather with what is often understood as verbal aspect, namely the category of terminativeness or non-terminativeness, as in the Slavic languages).
2. Both of the phenomena aspect and aktionsart are present in modern Norwegian: aksjonsart is “packed” in the semantics of small single lexical units, while aspect is expressed by constructions. The author of the paper refers to both as “aspectuality” due to its their belonging to one generic concept a nd the popularity of the term in the linguistic community.
3. Aspectuality in modern Norwegian is not grammaticalised, as in for example Slavic languages. In Norwegian, it is mostly expressed with verbal modification carried out by other lexical units.
4. Spatial localization terms may be difficult to define as parts of speech because many of them, having the same plane of expression, may in different contexts perform different functions. In modern Norwegian spatial localization terms may be spatial adverbs, verbal particles of adverbial modifiers, or belong to the diffuse zone of intersection of these.
5. Opp, it, ned, frem, over, med (in order from the most to the least frequent) are verbal particles of the sample used to convey aspectual meanings in combination with the verb. Regarding their identification as particles, the presence of a “shift of meaning”, which happens as a consequence of lexicalisation of the form, is the main feature that shows a spatial localization term to be a particle.
6. Temporal adverbs may act as lexical aspectual indicators and modify the meanings of verbs and/or verbal phrases - due to their semantics, making them convey the character of the course of action in time and add or remove a limit for the action. It is often the belonging of the adverb to the semantic field of speed detection that makes this adverb modify the utterance, conveying an aspectual meaning.
7. The adverbial modifiers used as aspectual indicators in the sample are directional terms: opp, ned, inn, ut, frem, gjennom (in order from the most to the least frequent).
8. Verbal constructions, considered phraseological units with fixed lexical structure and a projected variable, are more efficient to be described as lexical units.
9. Among all the parts of lexis in the sample, verbal constructions are most widely represented.
10. The range of aspectual meanings expressed by adverbial modifiers is narrower than that expressed by verbal particles, constructions and adverbs.
11. The resultative aspect is the most frequent type of action in the sample. Intensification of action may be considered its semantic “catalyst”.
The conclusions of the research may be interpreted as promising, but not necessarily complete. Therefore, the paper may serve as a starting point for future studies and discussion.
The main findings of the paper are:
1. The notion of aspectuality has different definitions, and the main subjects of linguistic discussion are whether it is limited to the verb and whether it is identical with verbal aspect. It has been found that regarding the modern Norwegian language, aspectuality is neither limited to the verb nor identical with the verbal aspect (or rather with what is often understood as verbal aspect, namely the category of terminativeness or non-terminativeness, as in the Slavic languages).
2. Both of the phenomena aspect and aktionsart are present in modern Norwegian: aksjonsart is “packed” in the semantics of small single lexical units, while aspect is expressed by constructions. The author of the paper refers to both as “aspectuality” due to its their belonging to one generic concept a nd the popularity of the term in the linguistic community.
3. Aspectuality in modern Norwegian is not grammaticalised, as in for example Slavic languages. In Norwegian, it is mostly expressed with verbal modification carried out by other lexical units.
4. Spatial localization terms may be difficult to define as parts of speech because many of them, having the same plane of expression, may in different contexts perform different functions. In modern Norwegian spatial localization terms may be spatial adverbs, verbal particles of adverbial modifiers, or belong to the diffuse zone of intersection of these.
5. Opp, it, ned, frem, over, med (in order from the most to the least frequent) are verbal particles of the sample used to convey aspectual meanings in combination with the verb. Regarding their identification as particles, the presence of a “shift of meaning”, which happens as a consequence of lexicalisation of the form, is the main feature that shows a spatial localization term to be a particle.
6. Temporal adverbs may act as lexical aspectual indicators and modify the meanings of verbs and/or verbal phrases - due to their semantics, making them convey the character of the course of action in time and add or remove a limit for the action. It is often the belonging of the adverb to the semantic field of speed detection that makes this adverb modify the utterance, conveying an aspectual meaning.
7. The adverbial modifiers used as aspectual indicators in the sample are directional terms: opp, ned, inn, ut, frem, gjennom (in order from the most to the least frequent).
8. Verbal constructions, considered phraseological units with fixed lexical structure and a projected variable, are more efficient to be described as lexical units.
9. Among all the parts of lexis in the sample, verbal constructions are most widely represented.
10. The range of aspectual meanings expressed by adverbial modifiers is narrower than that expressed by verbal particles, constructions and adverbs.
11. The resultative aspect is the most frequent type of action in the sample. Intensification of action may be considered its semantic “catalyst”.
The conclusions of the research may be interpreted as promising, but not necessarily complete. Therefore, the paper may serve as a starting point for future studies and discussion.
