Cover not available
Part of
Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality: Crosslinguistic perspectives
Edited by Dalila Ayoun, Agnès Celle and Laure Lansari
[Studies in Language Companion Series 197] 2018
► pp. 239–260

Chapter 11
Non-finiteness, complementation and evidentiality

The Lithuanian Accusativus cum Participio in a cross-linguistic perspective

| Vilnius University
| University of Manchester
The relatedness of non-finite constructions and evidentiality has been observed in various European languages. Passive matrix verbs plus infinitive in English, the corresponding though less productive pattern in Dutch, reportive passives in Danish, and evidential participial constructions in Lithuanian have all received attention in the literature. We continue this line of investigation, focussing on the Accusativus cum Participio, found in contemporary Lithuanian only with verbs of communication, cognition and perception. Our quantitative and qualitative corpus-based analysis investigates its distribution in different types of discourse and provides evidence to support the claim that the use of the non-agreeing ‘be’-participle is obligatory because it marks a proposition. We compare our account with similar uses of non-finite verb in other languages.
Keywords: Lithuanian, accusative plus participle, proposition, finiteness, Latin
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and method
  • 3.Types of participles and the AcP construction
  • 4.Results and discussion
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgement
  • List of abbreviations
  • Notes
  • Data sources
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.197.11uso
References (37)
Data sources
CCLLCorpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language – <[URL]>
CorALit Corpus of Academic Lithuanian (Corpus Academicum Lithuanicum – <[URL]>)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas. 1990. Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė [Historical Syntax of Participles in the Lithuanian Language]. Vilnius: Mokslas.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. 2011. The Domain of Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter. 2012. Participial complementation in Lithuanian. In Clause-linkage in Cross- linguistic Perspective: Data-driven Approaches to Cross-clausal Syntax, Volker Gast & Holger Diessel (eds), 285–334. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borkin, Ann. 1973. To be or not to be . Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistic Society, Claudia Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark & Ann Weiser (eds), 44–56. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2009. Evidentiality. Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 6(1): 9–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic Meaning. A Crosslinguistic and Functional-cognitive Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi. 1994. Sull’origine della costruzione dicere quod: Aspetti sintattici e semantici . Florence: La nuova Italia.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. & Hengeveld, Kees. 1991. The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of perception-verb complements. Linguistics 29: 231–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 1992. The English Infinitive. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Felser, Claudia. 1998. Perception and control: A Minimalist analysis of English direct perception complements. Journal of Linguistics 34: 351–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco, Paolo. 2013. Latin Accusativus cum Participio: Syntactic description, evidential values and diachronic development. Journal of Latin Linguistics 12: 173–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gronemeyer, Claire. 1997. Evidentiality in Lithuanian. Lund University Working Papers 46: 93–112.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2007. Mood and Modality in Baltic. Krakow: Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego.Google Scholar
Lavine, E. James. 2010. Mood and a transitivity restriction in Lithuanian: The case of the inferential evidential. Baltic Linguistics 1: 115–142.Google Scholar
Leumann, von Manu, Hofmann, Johann & Szantyr, Anton. 1972. Lateinische Grammatik. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Lowe, John M. 2015. Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit. The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms. Oxford: OUP.Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Vol.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. Ed. 2007. Finiteness. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk & Colleman, Timothy. 2010. Believe-type raising-to-object and raising-to-subject verbs in English and Dutch. A contrastive investigation in diachronic construction grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(2): 157–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1987. Complementation. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 2, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 42–140. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization. A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective [Human Cognitive Processing 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ørsnes, Bjarne. 2011. Passives and evidentiality: Danish reportive passives and their equivalents in German. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 43(1): 21–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spraunienė, Birutė, Razanovaitė, Auksė & Jasionytė, Erika. 2015. Solving the puzzle of the Lithuanian passive. In Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 3], Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds), 323–365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tasmowski, Liliane. 1989. A look at sembler + infinitive from different Angles. In Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon. Studies in Honour of Wim de Geest, Dany Jaspers, Dany, Wim Klooster, Yvan Putseys & Pieter Seuren (eds), 403–438. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Usonienė, Aurelija & Šinkūnienė, Jolanta. 2017. Potential vs use: Revisiting an evidential participial construction in Lithuanian. In Evidentiality Revisited: Cognitive Grammar, Functional and Discourse-Pragmatic Perspectives [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 271], Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Gerda Haβler & Marta Carretero (eds), 297–340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn. 1996. The story of –ing: A subjective perspective. In The Construal of Space in Language and Thought, Martin Pütz & René Dirven (eds), 417–454. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Iconicity in English complement constructions. In Complementation. Cognitive and Functional Perspectives [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 1] Kaoru Horie (ed.), 199–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2000. Infinite predication as a marker of evidentiality and modality in the languages of the Baltic Region. STUF 53(2): 186–210.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2006. Grammatical evidentiality in Lithuanian (A typological assessment). Baltistica 36: 33–49.Google Scholar
. 2010. Hearsay in European languages: Toward an integrative account of grammatical and lexical marking. In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova, 59–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Stathi, Katerina. 2010. The database of evidential markers in European languages. A bird’s eye view of the conception of the database (The template and problems hidden beneath it). STUF 63(4): 275–289.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1): 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woodcock, Eric Charles. 1959. A New Latin Syntax. London: Methuen.Google Scholar