[Lingtyp] lexical aspect / actionality / Aktionsart in verb serialization / verb compounds / lexical affixes etc.

Thu May 23 22:57:23 UTC 2024

Hi Adam,

This is an interesting question and one that seems surprisingly
under-researched, now that you mention it, regarding serial verb
constructions. Specific papers may have mentioned something about lexical
aspect, but a specific reference discussing this in general isn't coming to
mind at the moment.

Of course aspectual functions of verbs in (or grammaticalized from) SVCs
are widely reported. For an overview of semantic types, see my presentation
here:
https://swl8.sciencesconf.org/data/pages/Ross_Lovestrand_SWL8.pdf
That is also mentioned in chapter 4 of my dissertation (with a broader
overview of SVCs and their typology) here:
https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.5546425

Of the four main types surveyed here, posture SVCs often express
imperfective aspect. It wouldn't surprise me if there were lexical aspect
restrictions on the verbs that combine with posture verbs like that, but
I'm not aware of a general discussion about it.

My dissertation also gives an overview of pseudocoordination constructions
('go and get', etc.), which are similar to SVCs (but have 'and' linking the
verbs). That includes the TAKE AND construction, although it should be
noted that this function of TAKE is very different from SVCs: in SVCs, TAKE
usually serves an argument-increasing function (e.g. instrumental 'take
knife cut bread', etc.), while in pseudocoordination ('He took and left')
the function of TAKE is exceptionally intransitive,* functionally similar
to GO AND, often expressing surprise or suddenness. (More about this in my
dissertation.) It has often been observed for these constructions that
(varying by language and construction type) they may be restricted to
agentive, intentional, in-control, etc., subjects or actions. See for
example Weiss (2008, linked below) on Russian subjects controlling the
action in this construction. This is not directly connected to lexical
aspect, but does overlap with questions of verb selection; for example,
stative verbs seem unlikely in a construction like "Go [/take] and know
Spanish!".
https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-11813

[*TAKE can also be used transitively in pseudocoordination more like SVCs,
as in English "He took the money and ran" or "He took the knife and cut the
bread" but that's not as widely studied or as clearly grammaticalized as
the TAKE AND type. Interestingly, this intransitive-like TAKE is also not
widely used similarly in SVCs cross-linguistically.]

More generally, it is interesting that aspect is a common function in SVCs,
but probably not tense per se, so this suggests to me that aspect is more
integrated with the SVCs, while tense is something about the clause as a
whole. It is generally stated (in most definitions of SVCs) that both verbs
must share TAM, including both tense and aspect, but that may be slightly
overstated, because some languages seem to allow at least some flexibility
for aspectual combinations while tense matching seems to be exceptionless.
In other words, some languages appear to permit the verbs in SVCs to differ
in aspect as long as they combine in a way that is compatible with
interpretation as a single event. By strict (and traditional) definition
some scholars might exclude these as SVCs, but regardless they are
multi-verb constructions that could be of interest to you. As one example,
see Lovestrand (2018:98-103) on Barayin for specific restrictions on
grammatical combinations of (distinct) aspect marking in SVCs.
Lovestrand, Joseph. 2018. Serial verb constructions in Barayin: Typology,
description and Lexical-Functional Grammar. University of Oxford Ph.D.
dissertation.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:39406562-02d3-46f5-abf3-180d22225925

In summary, this does seem to be a relevant question for further study. It
seems plausible that there may be some restrictions based on event
structure for which verbs can combine, but I don't know of any
generalizations to report at the moment because it hasn't been studied
extensively from a comparative perspective.

Daniel

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 11:01 AM Paul Hopper via Lingtyp <
lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> wrote:

>
> A couple of papers of my own on this topic:
>
> Paul Hopper, 2007 “Emergent Serialization in English: Pragmatics and
> Typology.” In Jeff Good, ed., *Language Universals and Language Change, *
> 520-554*.* Oxford U. Press.
>
> Paul Hopper, 2007 “Verb serialization with *to take* in English, with a
> note on French and German.” *Combat pour les Langues du Monde: Hommage à
> Claude Hagège *ed. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest, 199-210, Editions L’Harmattan.
>
> Paul Hopper, 2002 “Hendiadys and auxiliation in English.” *Complex
> Sentences in Grammar and Discourse,* ed. Joan Bybee and Mickey Noonan,
> 145-173. Benjamins.
>
> Coseriu 1996, mentioned by Paolo Ramat, also some discussion by me in the
> Jeff Good 2007 volume, proposes syntactic diffusion to explain the spread
> of 'take' in Europe. Maybe, but 'take' is common as the first term in
> serialization constructions, see e.g. Carol Lord 1993 Historical Change in
> Verb Serialization (Benjamins) on West African languages and a lot more
> studies. One intriguing aspect is the emergent grammar of hendyadic
> combinations like *go ahead and, turn around and, *and many others,
> including, at a further point on the spectrum, *pick up the phone and,
> roll up one's sleeves and, look NP in the eye and,* etc. It might be hard
> to draw a line between the grammatical and the idiomatic identification of
> aspect.
>
> There is a large bibliography reflecting a variety of approaches. I'm
> aware of Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen's work on hendiadys from an Interactional
> Linguistics perspective, for example.
>
> - Paul Hopper
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 9:06 AM Randy J. LaPolla via Lingtyp <
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam,
>> Modern Mandarin Chinese does not have causative accomplishment and
>> causative achievement verbs, and so to express the sense of such verbs,
>> e.g. I broke a cup, one uses a serial verb construction where the first
>> verb expresses the causal action and the second verb expresses the
>> resulting accomplishment or achievement, e.g. [I hit-broke a cup]. This has
>> been recognised for some 40+ years, so is discussed in any grammar of
>> Chinese since then. This sort of thing is also found in some other
>> Sino-Tibetan languages. See Matisoff 1969 (attached) or his 1973 Grammar of
>> Lahu (U of California Press) for discussion of Lahu examples.
>>
>> Randy
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22 May 2024, at 5:29 PM, Adam James Ross Tallman via Lingtyp <
>> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I'm interested in combinations of lexical elements (serial verb
>> constructions or verb compound constructions or whatever) and whether there
>> is anything specific work which has described, classified or theorized
>> about these in terms of lexical aspect. I guess the question is:
>>
>> When V1 combines with V2, what happens to the actionality class of the
>> combination? Is one just subordinated to the other or is there some way in
>> which the aspects of each are coerced?
>>
>> I've seen a lot of discussions about how pieces of such constructions
>> might evolve into grammatical aspect markers (e.g. "finish" gradually
>> becomes a completive marker), but I wonder why there appear to be few
>> descriptions of the actionality classes of lexical combinations?
>>
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adam J.R. Tallman
>> Post-doctoral Researcher
>> Friedrich Schiller Universität
>> Department of English Studies
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> __________
>
> Paul J. Hopper
>
> Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Humanities
>
> Department of English
>
> Dietrich College of Humanities & Social Sciences
>
> Carnegie Mellon University
>
> Pittsburgh PA 15213, USA
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240523/1fcd8c97/attachment.htm>