Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

On the Nature of the Accusative in Finnish

100%

Bielecki R.

|

2009

|

tom 51

|

nr 1

19-38

EN

Modern Finnish grammars display a clear tendency to eliminate the category of the accusative entirely, or to limit it only to manifestations which are heterophonic from manifestations of other cases (the nominative and genitive). However, in older grammars (from the first half of the 20th century), the accusative was considered a proper full member of the inventory of Finnish cases. The present paper can be seen as a defense of the former approach to the accusative, because the author believes that the new approach exposes only the paradigmatical aspect of this part of the Finnish language, concealing the syntagmatic aspect. By means of syntagmatic comparison, different types of grammatical neutralizations are brought into view. One of them is especially instructive for the case in question, because it reveals specific properties not only of the accusative, but also of the category of voice in Finnish.

2

Does the Genitive Operate in the Hungarian Case System?: II. The Ø-/nak-/nek-Genitive

100%

Bielecki R.

|

2011

|

tom 53

|

nr 1

25-40

EN

The present paper should be regarded as a direct continuation of the article Does the Genitive Operate in the Hungarian Case System? I. The é-Genitive. The core of the adopted approach represents the standpoint that present-day Hungarian cannot be conceived as a language exempt from any case syncretism. The possibility of distinguishing different case categories relevant for this language by referring only to the form of their markers (endings) is illusory. What is more, it creates a space where some phenomena remain imperceptible. The postulated attributive genitive category can be distinguished not only on the basis of its syntactic properties. The manifestations of this case also differ substantially from the manifestations of other recognized cases. It is difficult to regard the attributive genitive in Hungarian as syncretic with nominative or dative in the sense known in general linguistics, because the appropriate markers turn out to be insufficient in semifying (marking grammatically) the required meaning. They must be complemented by other markers attached to the head of the attributive syntagm (a diák/Ø könyv/e, a diák/nak a könyv/e ‘the student's book’). The properties of the distribution of the Hungarian attributive genitive with its two main manifestations (the endingless one: a diák könyve, and with ending: a diáknak a könyve) can be regarded as a contribution to the general theory of syntax; the genitive attributes of different grades are marked there substantially (a diák/Ø (III) könyv/e (II) cím/é/nek (I) a fordítás/a ‘the translation of the title (I) of the book (II) of the student (III)’) and not only by their linear order as in many Indo-European and Finno-Ugric languages. When the word fulfilling the attributive function belongs to the category of personal pronoun, concord can be identified between it and its head in person and number (az én könyv/em ‘my book, the book of mine’). The factual elision of personal pronouns resulting from their redundancy in this context gives no grounds to state that morphemes like -em in a könyv/em do not fulfil any syntagmatic function. Such an utterance constitutes a discrepancy with the analogous behaviour of personal pronouns in relation to finite verbal forms (olvas/ok ‘I read’ → olvas/ok ‘(I) read’) where no-one speaks of the irrelevancy of the personal endings in reference to their syntagmatic function. The necessity of distinguishing of socalled "marks" (here "possessor marks") is being questioned here; those morphemes are not deprived of fulfilling the syntagmatic function ascribed traditionally to the case endings in the case of nominal flexion. They are regarded here as parts of the discontinuative (genitive) case markers. The specific features of the Hungarian genitive include its sharp division into two subcategories: (i) the é-genitive and (ii) the Ø-/nak-/nek-genitive. Their complementary distribution, together with other discussed properties, additionally corroborates the relevance of distinguishing for them a common upper morphosyntactic category called the genitive case. And finally, Hungarian turns out to be a language where the accumulation of multiple case meanings, all being manifested substantially within the boundaries of one word, can be attested (a diák/om/é/é/t ‘the one of the one of my student’).

3

Does the Genitive Operate in the Hungarian Case System?: I. Theé-Genitive

100%

Bielecki R.

|

2010

|

tom 52

|

nr 2

7-25

EN

After three centuries of discussion concerning the genitive case in Hungarian, the authors of the latest academic grammars - in contrast to many of their predecessors - no longer distinguish this casal category. Different cases in Hungarian should, according to them, be distinguished only on the basis of their forms (endings). Such an extreme unilateral approach to this category seems to have simplified at first sight the description of the Hungarian language, erasing from it any case syncretism. From the point of the view defended in the present paper, however, talking about linguistic entities without taking into account their meaning is illusory; even in the case of meaningless speech segments such as phonemes it is the meaning of the segments in which they occur that constitutes the ultimate instance allowing them to be distinguished at all. The same applies to case. The moderate approach to the category of case adopted here, taking simultaneously into account its (i) morphological, (ii) semantic and (iii) syntactic properties, leads irrevocably to the restoration of the genitive in the description of the Hungarian language. As a specific feature of this language one should consider the sharp distinction between two subclasses of the genitive case: (i) the non-attributive (é-genitive) and (ii) the attributive genitive (Ø-/nak-/nek-genitive). Only the first of these (the é-genitive) will be discussed in detail. The second (the Ø-/nak-/nek-genitive) will be the subject of a continuation of the present paper. Recognition of the é-genitive seems to have been blocked by those of its properties which seem to be quite incongruous with those of other Hungarian cases. It is claimed, for example, that the marker -é - unlike the markers of other cases - seems not to express any syntagmatic function. This function is expressed by the case marker attached after the morpheme -é (A diákét (láttam) '(I saw) The student's one'). In the view of the author, however, the lack of syntagmatic function in the case of the morpheme -é is not so obvious. On the other hand, such "discrediting" properties for a case marker candidate, as the property of not occupying the final morphotactical position (diákét), can be viewed as entirely irrelevant for the category of case. The adopted approach seems to make possible a description of this fragment of the Hungarian case system from a more homogenous perspective, showing the interplay of different casal meanings within the boundaries of one word.

4

Voice and case in finnish in the light of Zabrocki’s theory of person

100%

Bielecki R.

|

2012

|

tom 54

|

nr 1

21-34

EN

Robert Bielecki. Voice and Case in Finnish in the Light of Zabrocki’s Theory of Person. Lingua Posnaniensis, vol. L IV (1)/2012. The Poznań Society for the A dvancement of the Arts and Sciences. PL ISSN 0079-4740, ISBN 978-83-7654-103-7, pp. 21-34. This paper attempts to demonstrate the properties of the categories of voice and case in Finnish in the light of Zabrocki’s theory of Person. The presented morphosyntactic, syntactic and semantic properties of words taking part in diathesis lead us to formulate sentences (theorems) belonging to the sphere of the postulated grammar of person of this language. In Finnish, particular personal meanings undergo both lexicalization (in the form of appropriate personal pronouns) and grammaticalization (in the form of personal endings). Moreover the Finnish language seems to operate with a collective personal meaning, where three particular communicative statuses do not undergo differentiation. This kind of personal meaning seems to be only grammaticalized in Finnish; it lacks a pronoun lexifying such a collective personal meaning. Because of the high degree of syncretism of the nominative and (endingless) accusative on the one hand and the passive and impersonal voice on the other, Finnish contains significant overlapping between passive structures - where the three personal meanings undergo specification - and impersonal structures - where the three personal meanings undergo unification. Notwithstanding, only in sentences of the type Kana on tapettu ‘One has killed the hen’, ‘The hen has been killed’ (and with smaller probability Kana tapetaan ‘One kills (will kill) the hen’, (‘The hen is (will be) killed’)) do we encounter total ambiguity in respect of the personal meaning semified by the predicate (the collective person vs. third person).