Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:24:19.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On binding, lexical and superlexical prefixes, and si in the Baltic verb

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2017

Julija Korostenskiene
Julija Korostenskiene*
Affiliation:
Institute of Foreign Languages, Vilnius University, Lithuania
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present paper is concerned with a historical puzzle: the changing position of the marker si in the extant Baltic languages, Lithuanian and Latvian. Si appears before the root in prefixed verbs and verb-finally in prefixless verbs in Lithuanian and dialectal Latvian, as opposed to a consistently verb-final position in standard Latvian and in Slavic languages, specifically Russian. This ordering is examined within a larger picture of morpheme linearization – focusing primarily on Lithuanian, but also bringing in Latvian and Latgalian data – to account for the Baltic paradigm. Historically a pronoun, si is argued to have incorporated into the verbal structure, and to maintain nowadays a binding relation with the subject of the sentence. The placement of si within the verb is shown to depend on two factors: the type of the antecedent and the morphosyntactic composition of the verb. The findings presented here also provide new evidence against the Lexicalist Hypothesis.

Résumé

Cet article traite d'une question longuement débattue : la position variable du marqueur si dans les langues baltes existantes, soit le lituanien et le letton. Si apparaît avant la racine dans les verbes préfixés, et en position finale dans les verbes sans préfixe en lituanien et en letton dialectal, alors qu'elle figure toujours en position finale en letton standard et dans les langues slaves, spécifiquement le russe. Nous examinons cet ordonnancement dans le contexte de la linéarisation des morphèmes avec des données du lithuanien, mais aussi du letton et du latgalien, pour en arriver à une analyse du paradigme balte. Nous soutenons que si, jadis pronominal, a été incorporé dans la structure verbale, et entretient aujourd'hui une relation de liage avec le sujet de la phrase. Nous démontrons que le placement de si dans le verbe dépend de deux facteurs: le type de l'antécédent et la composition morphosyntaxique du verbe. Les résultats présentés ici apportent également de nouvelles preuves contre l'hypothèse lexicaliste.

Keywords

sibindingmorpheme linearizationphaseLexicalist Hypothesissiliagelinéarisation des morphèmesphasehypothèse lexicaliste.
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 449 - 501
Copyright
© Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I express my sincere and profound gratitude to the three Anonymous Reviewers for their insightful comments, useful references, and valuable suggestions on the drafts of the manuscript. I am also very thankful to Prof. Ronnie Wilbur at Purdue University, USA, for her generous advice and comments at the early stages of this study. I also extend my deep gratitude to the Editor of the Canadian Journal of Linguistics for her generous assistance finalizing the manuscript. All remaining errors are my own.

References

References

Ambrazas, Vytautas, ed. 2006. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika [A Grammar of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language]. 4th ed. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.Google Scholar
Andronov, Aleksey. 2010. Ocherki po prakticheskoj grammatike. Materialy k kursu latyshskogo yazyka. [Sketches on practical grammar. Materials for the course on the Latvian Language]. St. Petersburg.Google Scholar
Andronovas, Aleksejus. 1995. Priešdėlinių veiksmažodžių kirčiavimas morfologinės akcentologijos požiūriu [Stress patterns of prefixed verbs from the viewpoint of morphological accentology]. Baltistica 30(1): 93–100.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter. 2009. Teorija akcional'nosti i litovskij glagol. [A theory of actionality and the Lithuanian verb]. Balto-slavianskiye issledovaniya [Balto-Slavic Studies] 18: 72–94. Мoskva: Yazyki slavianskix kul'tur.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter. 2010. Notes on the Lithuanian restrictive. Baltic Linguistics 1: 9–49.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter. 2011a. Aspect and actionality in Lithuanian on a typological background. In Langues baltiques, langues slaves, ed. Petit, Daniel, Feuvre, Claire Le et Menantaud, Henri, 61–92. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter. 2011b. On the aspectual uses of the prefix be- in Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 2: 37–78.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter. 2014. Glagol'naja restriktivnost’ v litvoskom jazyke. [Verbal restrictivity in Lithuanian]. In Acta linguistica Petropolitana: Studia typologica octogenario Victori Khrakovskij Samuelis filio dedicata, 12–42. St. Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter. 2015. On the place of Lithuanian in the typology of aspectual systems. Paper presented at the Semantics and Structure of Linguistic Units, Klaipeda. https://www.academia.edu/12975486/Lithuanian_in_the_typology_of_derivational_aspectual_systems?auto=download (5.07.2015)Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter, Holvoet, Axel, and Wiemer, Björn. 2015. Baltic linguistics: State of the art. In Contemporary approaches to Baltic Linguistics, ed. Arkadiev, Peter, Holvoet, Axel, and Wiemer, Björn, 1–111. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babko-Malaya, Olga. 1999. Zero morphology: A study of aspect, argument structure, and case. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University. http://ling.rutgers.edu/images/10.1.1.112.6201.pdf (4.16.2016).Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2005. Overt copies in reflexive and control structures: A movement analysis. In University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 15, ed. Conroy, Anastasia, Jing, Chunyuang, Nakao, Chizuru, and Takahashi, Eri, 1–46.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1998. Morphology and syntax. In The handbook of morphology, ed. Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M., 151–190. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 2002. Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2): 183–224.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1997. The syntax of non-finite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2010. On NPs and clauses. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001225 (26.3.2016).Google Scholar
Bukšs, Mikelis, and Placinskis, Juris. 1973. Latgaļu gramatika un pareizraksteibas vōrdneica [Latgalian grammar and orthographic dictionary]. Latgaļ Pētnīceibas Instituts.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2013. Syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle, and Sportiche, Dominique. 2016. Anaphor binding: What French inanimate anaphors show. Linguistic Inquiry 47(1): 35–87.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Osten. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. New York: Basil Backwell.Google Scholar
Despić, Miloje. 2011. Syntax in the absence of determiner phrase. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. http://www.milojedespic.com/selected-papers/ (23.04.2016)Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anne Marie and Slabakova, Roumyana. 2005. Quantification and aspect. In Perspectives on aspect, ed. Verkuyl, Henk J., Swart, Henriette De, and Hout, Angeliek Van, 61–80. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Drummond, Alex, Kush, David, and Norstein, Norbert. 2011 print, 2012 online. Minimalist construal: Two approaches to A and B. In Oxford handbooks online. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549368.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199549368-e-018 (2.04.2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyakonova, Marina. 2009. A phase-based approach to Russian free word order. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: LOT publications.Google Scholar
Embick, David, and Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David, and Noyer, Rolf. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles, 288–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis. 1971. Comparative phonology and morphology of the Baltic languages. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fennell, Trevor G. 1981. The first description of the Latvian debitive mood. Lituanus 27(4). http://www.lituanus.org/1981_4/81_4_04.htm (31.03.2016).Google Scholar
Felser, Claudia. 2000. Aspectual complement clauses and the (un-)availability of verb raising. In Verbal projections, ed. Janβen, Hero, 163–193. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filip, Hanna. 2000. The quantization puzzle. In Events as grammatical objects, from the combined perspectives of lexical semantics, logical semantics and syntax, ed. Pustejovsky, James and Tenny, Carol L., 3–60. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Galnaitytė, Elzė. 1962. Ginčytini lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžio veikslų klausimai [Debatable issues in Lithuanian verbal aspect]. Kalbotyra 4: 119–139.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Aspect, infinitival complements, and evidentials. In The composition of meaning: From lexeme to discourse, ed. ter Meulen, Alice G. B. and Abraham, Werner, 39–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma. 2007. Reciprocal and reflexive constructions in Lithuanian. In Reciprocal constructions, ed. Nedjalkov, Vladimir, 633–673. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goledzinowska, Magdalena. 2004. Syntactic transitivity of SE-reflexives in Polish. In Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 22, ed. Frigeni, Chiara, 93–120. University of Toronto: Linguistics Graduate Course Union.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2010. The syntax/morphology interface. Ms., University of Arizona. ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001531/current.pdf. (16.04.2015).Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding morphology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1): 31–80. http://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/staff/haspelmt/pdf/WordSegmentation.pdf (22.03.2016).Google Scholar
Hicks, Glyn. 2009. The derivation of anaphoric relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2001. Studies in the Latvian Verb. Krakow: Wydawnitctwo universytetu jagiellońskiego.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel, and Čižik-Prokaševa, Veslava. 2004. Veikslo priešpriešos tipai [Types of aspectual opposition]. In Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai [Studies in grammatical categories], ed. Holvoet, Axel and Semėnienė, Lorete, 141–162. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel, and Judžentis, Artūras. 2005. Beasmeniai sakiniai ir beasmeniškumo sąvoka. [Impersonal sentences and the concept of impersonality] In Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai [Studies of grammatical functions], ed. Holvoet, Axel and Mikulskas, Rolandas, 161–179. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.Google Scholar
Horiguchi, Daiki. 2015. Latvian attenuative pa-verbs in comparison with diminutives. In Contemporary approaches to Baltic Linguistics, ed. Arkadiev, Peter, Holvoet, Axel, and Wiemer, Björn, 235–263. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 69–96.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2000. Move! A minimalist theory of control. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2003. On control. In Minimalist syntax, ed. Hendrick, Randall, 6–81. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilze, Auziņa and Nešpore, Gunta, eds. 2014. Latviešu valodas darbības vārdu tabulas [Latvian verb tables]. Rīga: Norden AB.Google Scholar
Jakulienė, Audronė. 1969. DĖL wisesi tur ischpažinti [One must confess everything]. Baltistica 5(2): 197–198. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/viewFile/1743/1656 (17.04.2014).Google Scholar
Janda, Laura, and Lyashevskaya, Olga. 2013. Semantic profiles of five Russian prefixes: po-, s-, za-, na-, pro . Journal of Slavic Linguistics 21(2): 211–58.Google Scholar
Kabelka, Jonas. 1987. Latvių kalba [The Latvian Language] . Vilnius: Mokslas.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga. 2012. Degree semantics for Russian verbal prefixes: the case of pod- and do-. The Russian Verb, Oslo Studies in Language 4(1), ed. Atle Grønn and Anna Pazelskaya, 207–243. Oslo: University of Oslo. https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/osla/article/viewFile/144/275 (23.03.2016).Google Scholar
Kalnača, Andra. 2005. A study of aspect correspondences between Latvian and Finnish. Kalbų studijos / Studies About Languages 7: 26–29. Kaunas: University of Technology http://www.kalbos.lt/zurnalai/07_numeris/05.pdf (12.04.2016).Google Scholar
Kalnača, Andra. 2014. A typological perspective on Latvian grammar. Warsaw: de Gruyter Open. https://books.google.lt. (7.2.2016)Google Scholar
Kalnača, Andra, and Lokmane, Ilze. 2010. Defective paradigms of reflexive nouns and participles in Latvian. In Defective paradigms: Missing forms and what they tell us, ed. Corbett, Greville G., Baerman, Matthew, and Brown, Dunstan, 53–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kalnača, Andra, and Lokmane, Ilze. 2012. Semantics and distribution of Latvian reflexive verbs. In Multiple perspectives in linguistic research on Baltic Languages, ed. Usonienė, Aurelija, Nau, Nicole, and Dabašinskienė, Ineta, 222–257. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Katz, Graham. 2003. Event arguments, adverb selection, and the Stative Adverb Gap. In Modifying adjuncts, ed. Lang, Ewald, Maienborn, Claudia, and Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, 455–474. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kazlauskas, Jonas. 1968. Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika (kirčiavimas, daiktavardis, veiksmažodis) [A historical grammar of Lithuanian (the stress, the noun, the verb)]. Vilnius: Mintis.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, Paula. 2004. Romance SE as an aspectual element. In Contemporary approaches to Romance linguistics, ed. Auger, Julie, Clancy, J. Clements, , and Vance, Barbara, 239–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 61(1): 95–120.Google Scholar
Korostenskienė, Julija. 2014. Exploring Lithuanian reflexive verbs from the generative perspective. Darbai ir dienos/Deeds and Days 62: 59–80.Google Scholar
Lazdiņa, Sanita, and Marten, Heiko F.. 2012. Latgalian in Latvia: A continuous struggle for political recognition. Journal of Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe 11(1): 66–87. http://www.ecmi.de/fileadmin/downloads/publications/JEMIE/2012/LazdinaMarten.pdf (31.03.2016).Google Scholar
Lokmane, Ilze, and Kalnača, Andra. 2014. Modal semantics and the morphosyntax of Latvian debitive. In Modes of modality: Modality, typology, and universal grammar, ed. Leiss, Elisabeth and Abraham, Werner, 167–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alex. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger and the mapping to morphological structure. In Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, ed. Hammond, Michael P. and Noonan, Michael T., 253–271. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marelj, Marijana, and Reuland, Eric. 2013. Clitic SE in Romance and Slavonic revisited. In Current Studies in Slavic Linguistics, ed. Chahine, Irina Kor, 75–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mathiassen, Terje. 1997. A short grammar of Latvian. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2002. Two types of remnant movement. In Dimensions of movement: From features to remnants, ed. Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Barbiers, Sjef, and Gärtner, Hans-Martin, 209–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nau, Nicole. 2011. A short grammar of Latgalian. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Naua, Nikole. 2014. Latviešu valoda studentiem: skolotāja grāmata: metodisks līdzeklis [Latvian for students: Teacher's book: A toolkit] . Rīga: Latvian Language Agency.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearisation of chains in the minimalist program. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. http://ling.umd.edu/assets/publications/Nunes-95-UMdDiss-CopyTheory.pdf.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 1999. Linearization of chains and phonetic linearization of chain links. In Working minimalism, ed. Epstein, Samuel David and Hornstein, Norbert, 217–249. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina. 2009. Directional expressions cross-linguistically: Nanosyntax and lexicalization. In Nordlyd 36(1): Special issue on Nanosyntax, ed. Svenonius, Peter, Ramchand, Gillian, Starke, Michal, and Taraldsen, Knut Tarald, 7–39. Tromsø: CASTL. www.ub.uit.no/baser/septentrio/index.php/nordlyd/issue/view/31 (26.03.2016).Google Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina. 2011. The syntax and semantics of paths. (Course materials). http://egg.auf.net/11/abstracts/handouts/pantcheva-w1.pdf (23.08.2014).Google Scholar
Paslawska, Alla, and von Stechow, Arnim. 2003. Perfect readings in Russian. In Perfect Explorations, ed. Alexiadou, Artemis, Rathert, Monika, and Stechow, Arnim von, 307–362. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~astechow/Aufsaetze/pasl_stechow.pdf (2.12.2014).Google Scholar
Paulauskienė, Aldona. 1994. Lietuvių kalbos morfologija [Lithuanian Morphology]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.Google Scholar
Paulauskienė, Aldona. 2001. Lietuvių kalbos kultūra [Culture of the Lithuanian Language]. Kaunas: Technologija.Google Scholar
Paulauskienė, Aldona. 2006. Lietuvių kalbos morfologijos pagrindai [Essentials of Lithuanian Morphology]. Kaunas: Technologija.Google Scholar
Paulauskienė, Aldona, and Miliūnaitė, Rita. 2009. Kalbos patarimai: gramatinės formos ir jų vartojimas [Language Advice: Grammatical Forms and their Use], 1. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.Google Scholar
Pirnat, Žiga. 2015. Genesis of the Genitive of negation in Balto-Slavic and its evidence in contemporary Slovenian. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 10: 3–52. https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/18309/01_Pirnat.pdf (26.04.2016).Google Scholar
Prauliņš, Dace, and Moseley, Christopher. 2015. Colloquial Latvian: The complete course for beginners. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2004. Time and event: the semantics of Russian prefixes. Nordlyd 32(2): Special issue on Slavic prefixes, ed. Peter Svenonius, 323–361. Tromsø: CASTL. https://www.ub.uit.no/baser/septentrio/index.php/nordlyd/article/view/72/68. (2.5.2012).Google Scholar
Razanovaitė, Auksė. 2010. Apie lietuvių senųjų raštų atoninę įvardžio formą te ‘tave’ [On the atonic form of the pronoun te ‘you’ in old Lithuanian writings]. Baltistica 45(2): 261–264.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, and Siloni, Tai. 2005. The lexicon–syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 389–436.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2006. Agreeing to bind. In Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, ed. Broekhuis, Hans, Corver, Norbert, Huybregts, Riny, Kleinhenz, Ursula, and Koster, Jan, 505–513. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2007. Binding conditions: How can they be derived? Paper presented at St. Petersburg-Utrecht University. slioussar.narod.ru/reuland/reuland07_ho2.doc. (3.6.2016).Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi, and Roberts, Ian. 1989. Complex inversion in French. In Probus 1(1), ed. Wetzels, W. Leo, 1–30. Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Rojina, Nina. 2004. English particles, Russian prefixes and prepositional phrases. Master's thesis. University of Tromsø. http://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/189. (6.11. 2014).Google Scholar
Romanova, Eugenia. 2004. Superlexical vs. lexical prefixes. Nordlyd 32(2), special issue on Slavic prefixes, ed. Peter Svenonius, 255–278. Tromsø: CASTL. http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/nordlyd/ (15.06.2014).Google Scholar
Romanova, Eugenia. 2007. Constructing perfectivity in Russian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø. http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/handle/10037/904.Google Scholar
Rosinas, Albertas.1995. Baltų kalbų įvardžiai: morfologijos raida [Baltic pronouns: Development of morphology], Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.Google Scholar
Sawicki, Lea. 2000. Remarks on the category of aspect in Lithuanian. Linguistica Baltistica 8: 133–142.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2011. Passive of reflexive verbs. Paper presented at the Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop. Amsterdam. http://ifla.uni-stuttgart.de/institut/mitarbeiter/florian/papers/PoRs.pdf (12.12.2013).Google Scholar
Slabakova, Roumiana. 2005. Perfective prefixes: what they are, what flavours they come in and how they are acquired. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 13: The South Carolina Meeting, ed. Franks, Steven, Gladney, Frank Y., and Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Mila, 324–341. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Sola, Jaume. 2002. Clitic climbing and null subject languages. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 225–255.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 2014. French reflexive se: Binding and merge locality. In Locality, ed. Aboh, Enoch Oladé, Guasti, Maria Teresa, and Roberts, Ian, 104–138. Oxford: OUP. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001273/current.pdf (2.02.2014).Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 1989. Zum Wandel der morphotaktischen Positionsregeln des Baltischen Reflexivzeichens [On the change of the position of morphotactic rules of Baltic reflexive markers]. Folia Linguistica Historica 9(1): 13–27.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 2012. A review of Nicole Nau, A Short Grammar of Latgalian . Baltic Linguistics (3): 193–196.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 1996. The optionality of particle shift. In Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 47–75. Tromsø: CASTL.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2003. Limits on P: Filling in holes vs. falling in holes. In Nordlyd. Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 31(2), ed. Anne Dahl, Kristine Bentzen, and Peter Svenonius, 431–445.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2004. Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. In Nordlyd, 32(2), Special issue on Slavic prefixes, ed. Svenonius, Peter, 205–253. Tromsø: CASTL. http://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlyd/article/view/68/64 (2.2.2012).Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2007. 1 … 3–2. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles, 239–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2008a. Projections of P. In Syntax and semantics of spatial P, ed. Asbury, Anna, Dotlacil, Jakub, Gehrke, Berit, and Nouwen, Rick, 63–84. John Benjamins: Amsterdam. http://www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius/paperspage.html (24.03.2016).Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2008b. Russian prefixes are phrasal. In Formal Description of Slavic Languages, ed. Zybatow, Gerhild, Szucsich, Luka, Junghanns, Uwe, and Meyer, Roland, 526–537. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000043. (4.11.2013).Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2010. Spatial P in English. In Cartography of Syntactic Structures, ed. Cinque, Guillermo and Rizzi, Luigi, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius/paperspage.html (24.03.2016).Google Scholar
Šepetytė, Ritutė. 2006. Dėl žodžių iliustravimo jų vediniais aiškinamuosiuose lietuvių kalbos žodynuose. [On word illustration by their derivatives in Lithuanian explanatory dictionaries] In Leksikografija ir leksikologija 1: Aktualūs aiškinamųjų lietuvių kalbos žodynų klausimai [Lexicography and lexicology: Topical issues for the explanatory Lithuanian dictionaries], 209–220. Vilnius: LKI.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Universals of Human Language 4, ed. Greenberg, Joseph H., 625–649. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2008. Intermediate prefixes in Russian. In Formal approaches to Slavic Lingustics: The Stony Brook Meeting 2007, ed. Antonenko, Andrei, Baylin, John F., and Bethin, Christina Y., 423–442. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2009a. Mnozhestvennaya prefiksaziya i anatomiya russkogo glagola [Multuple prefixation and the anatomy of the Russian verb]. In Korpusnye issledovaniya po russkoj grammatike [Corpus-based Studies in Russian Grammar], ed. Kisseleva, Xenia, Plungian, Vladimir, Rakhilina, Ekaterina, and Tatevosov, Sergei, 92–156. Moscow: Probel.Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2009b. Building intensive resultatives. Paper presented at Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18. Cornell University, New York. http://darwin.philol.msu.ru/staff/people/tatevosov/intensive_resultatives.pdf (2.09.2015).Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2013. Mnozhestvennaya prefiksaciya i fiziologiya russkogo glagola [Multiple prefixation and physiology of the Russian verb]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 3: 42–89.Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2015. Severing imperfectivity from the verb. In Slavic grammar from a formal perspective, ed. Zybatow, Gerhild, Biskup, Petr, Guhl, Marcel, Hurtig, Claudia, Mueller-Reichau, Olav, and Yastrebova, Maria, 465–494. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tolskaya, Inna. 2015. Verbal prefixes in Russian: Conceptual structure versus syntax. Journal of Linguistics 51: 213–243.Google Scholar
Ulvydas, Kazimieras, ed. 1971. Lietuvių kalbos gramatika [A Grammar of Lithuanian]. Vol 2. Morfologija. Vilnius: Mintis.Google Scholar
Vaičiulytė-Semėnienė, Loreta. 2012. Daiktavardžio predikatyvo morfosintaksinio žymėjimo koreliacija su veiksmažodžio veikslu [The correlation between the morphosyntactic marking of the noun predicative with the verbal aspect]. Lietuvių kalba, 6. http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php/lietuviu-kalba/article/view/45 (1.11.2015).Google Scholar
Vaišnienė, Daiva. 2013. Dėl priešdėlinių veiksmažodžių sangrąžos afikso kirčiavimo šiaurės žemaičių patarmėje [Accentuation of the reflexive affix of the prefixal verbs in the Northern Samogitian Subdialect] Žmogus ir žodis 1: 197–200.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk. 1993. A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 2007. Dumping Lexicalism. In Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, ed. Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles, 353–383. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Žaucer, Rok. 2009. A VP-internal/resultative analysis of 4 “VP-external” uses of Slavic verbal prefixes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa. http://www.ung.si/~rzaucer/papers/Zaucer_2009_PhD-thesis.pdf (22.2.2015)Google Scholar
Zinkevičius, Zigmas. 1981. Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika [A Historical Grammar of Lithuanian]. Vol 2. Vilnius: Mokslas.Google Scholar
Zinkevičius, Zigmas. 1996. Lietuvių kalbos istorija [A History of the Lithuanian Language]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.Google Scholar

Literary Works Cited

Decree on the adaptation and renewal of religious life. Perfectae caritatis. Proclaimed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_perfectae-caritatis_en.html (20.06.2016).Google Scholar
Dekretas dėl vienuoliškojo gyvenimo tinkamo atnaujinimo Perfectae caritatis. Visuotinio Vatikano II Susirinkimo dokumentai. 1965 spalio 28 d. http://www.lcn.lt/b_dokumentai/vatikano_2s/perfectae-caritatis.html (20.06.2016).Google Scholar

Data Sources

Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas – The Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language. (1992-). http://tekstynas.vdu.lt/tekstynas/.Google Scholar