Amazon cover image
Image from Amazon.com

The Expression of Predicative Possession in Belarusian and Lithuanian : A Comparative Study of Belarusian and Lithuanian.

By: Series: Studia Typologica SerPublisher: Berlin/Boston : De Gruyter, Inc., 2015Copyright date: ©2015Description: 1 online resource (256 pages)Content type:
  • text
Media type:
  • computer
Carrier type:
  • online resource
ISBN:
  • 9783110412321
Subject(s): Genre/Form: Additional physical formats: Print version:: The Expression of Predicative Possession in Belarusian and Lithuanian : A Comparative Study of Belarusian and LithuanianDDC classification:
  • 491.7/995
LOC classification:
  • P299.P67 -- M39 2015eb
Online resources:
Contents:
Intro -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- List of Abbreviations -- Introduction -- Part I: Possession: an introduction -- 1 Defining possession -- 1.1 Approaches to a definition of possession -- 1.2 In quest for a prototype -- 1.3 Describing the semantics of possessive relations -- 1.3.1 Possessive notions -- 1.3.2 Three parameters -- 1.4 Possessive notions: further remarks -- 1.4.1 A revision -- 1.4.2 Physical possession and inanimate alienable possession -- 1.4.3 Temporary possession -- 1.4.4 Social possession -- 2 Encoding possession in language -- 2.1 Formal distinctions -- 2.1.1 Attributive and predicative possession -- 2.1.2 External possession -- 2.1.3 'Having' and 'belonging': two sides of the possessive relation -- 2.2 The typology of possessive constructions. Considering Heine (1997a) and Stassen (2009) -- 2.2.1 Heine's model: the 'source schemas' -- 2.2.2 Stassen's model -- 2.3 The source schemas: a typological survey -- 2.3.1 The Action schema -- 2.3.2 The Location schema -- 2.3.3 The Companion schema -- 2.3.4 The Goal schema -- 2.3.5 The Topic schema -- 2.3.6 The Genitive and Equation schemas -- 2.3.7 The Source schema -- 2.3.8 The development of a possessive interpretation: possible conceptual paths -- 2.3.9 Source schemas and possessive notions: a typological outline -- Part II: Belarusian and Lithuanian in context -- 3 The linguistic context of Belarusian and Lithuanian -- 3.1 The expression of predicative possession in Baltic -- 3.2 The expression of predicative possession in Slavic -- 3.3 The expression of possession in the languages of the Circum-Baltic area -- 3.4 Belarusian and Lithuanian in contact -- 4 The sociolinguistic context of Belarusian and Lithuanian -- 4.1 The development of Lithuanian: external influences and puristic tendencies -- 4.2 Belarusian: an introduction.
4.2.1 Language policies in Belarus and the standardization process of modern Belarusian -- 4.2.2 The sociolinguistic situation in Belarus at the present time -- 4.2.3 The double Belarusian standard: taraškevica and narkamauka -- Part III: Encoding predicative possession in Belarusian and Lithuanian -- 5 The sources of the data: the Belarusian and the Lithuanian corpora -- 5.1 The Lithuanian corpus -- 5.2 The Belarusian corpus -- 5.3 The Internet -- 5.4 Native speakers -- 6 The source schemas and their realization in Belarusian and Lithuanian -- 6.1 The Action schema in Belarusian -- 6.1.1 Abstract possession -- 6.1.2 Inanimate possession -- 6.1.3 Ownership -- 6.1.4 Social possession -- 6.1.5 Body-part possession -- 6.1.6 Physical and temporary possession -- 6.1.7 Trymac' 'hold' -- 6.2 The Action schema in Lithuanian -- 6.2.1 Abstract possession -- 6.2.2 Inanimate possession -- 6.2.3 Ownership -- 6.2.4 Social possession -- 6.2.5 Physical and temporary possession -- 6.2.6 Body-part possession -- 6.3 The Location schema in Belarusian -- 6.3.1 Constructions with no possessive functions -- 6.3.2 U + GEN -- 6.3.2.1 Abstract possession -- 6.3.2.2 Social possession -- 6.3.2.3 Ownership -- 6.3.2.4 Inanimate possession -- 6.3.2.5 Body-part possession -- 6.3.2.6 Temporary and physical possession -- 6.3.3 Pry + LOC -- 6.3.4 Za + INS -- 6.4 The Location schema in Lithuanian -- 6.4.1 Constructions without possessive meaning -- 6.4.2 Pas + ACC -- 6.4.2.1 Possessive pas in the corpus -- 6.4.2.2 Possessive pas on the Internet -- 6.5 The Goal schema in Belarusian -- 6.5.1 Abstract possession -- 6.5.2 Social possession -- 6.6 The Goal schema in Lithuanian -- 6.6.1 Abstract possession -- 6.6.1.1 Diseases -- 6.6.1.2 Age -- 6.6.1.3 Other abstract possessees -- 6.6.2 Social possession -- 6.6.3 Body-part possession: 'incomplete' physical details.
6.6.4 The dative case in Lithuanian: ambiguity between dative of interest and dative of possession -- 6.7 The Companion schema in Belarusian -- 6.8 The Companion schema in Lithuanian -- 6.8.1 Inanimate possession -- 6.8.2 Physical and temporary possession -- 6.8.3 Abstract possession -- 6.8.4 Body-part possession -- 6.8.5 Social possession -- 6.9 The Source schema in Belarusian and Lithuanian -- 6.10 The Equation schema in Belarusian and Lithuanian -- 6.11 Source schemas and possessive notions in Belarusian and Lithuanian: a comparison -- 6.12 The Lithuanian 'topicalized genitive' and the Belarusian constructions such as Valasy u jae byli svetlyja, Vocy u jae zjalënyja -- 6.12.1 The Lithuanian 'topicalized genitive' -- 6.12.2 The Belarusian constructions such as Valasy u jae byli svetlyja Vocy u jae zjalënyja -- 6.13 Competing strategies: the case of BKI constructions -- 6.14 Remarks about the expression of possession in Old Lithuanian and in Old Belarusian -- 7 Belarusian and Lithuanian 'have' -- 7.1 Mec' competing with u + GEN in Belarusian -- 7.1.1 Restrictions on the use of mec' -- 7.1.2 Belarusian and Russian in comparison: the use of Russian imet' -- 7.1.3 Mec' vs. u + GEN: non-semantic factors -- 7.2 Restrictions on the use of tureti -- 7.3 Restrictions on the use of tureti and mec': an attempt at an explanation -- 7.3.1 Mec' as semi-temporal and modal auxiliary in Belarusian -- 7.3.2 The auxiliary functions of mecca -- 7.3.3 Tureti as modal auxiliary -- 7.4 Mec' and tureti in resultative constructions -- 7.5 Belarusian and Lithuanian 'have' in an areal perspective -- 7.5.1 'Have' in Czech, Polish and Russian -- 7.5.2 Language contact and the development of the Belarusian and Lithuanian 'have' verbs -- 8 Conclusions -- 8.1 Semantic maps of predicative possessive constructions in Belarusian and Lithuanian.
8.2 Similarities and differences in the expression of predicative possession between Belarusian and Lithuanian -- 8.3 Language contact: Belarusian and Lithuanian in areal context. Final remarks -- 8.4 Belarusian and Lithuanian as 'transitional languages' -- Sources -- References -- Appendix -- Index of Authors -- Index of Languages -- Index of Subjects.
Summary: This book discusses the constructions used in Belarusian and Lithuanian to express predicative Possession. The work is written within a typological frame: the Belarusian and Lithuanian constructions are analyzed in the light of the typology of the possessive predicative constructions proposed by Heine (1997).
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Status Date due Barcode Item holds
Ebrary Ebrary Afghanistan Available EBKAF00098795
Ebrary Ebrary Algeria Available
Ebrary Ebrary Cyprus Available
Ebrary Ebrary Egypt Available
Ebrary Ebrary Libya Available
Ebrary Ebrary Morocco Available
Ebrary Ebrary Nepal Available EBKNP00098795
Ebrary Ebrary Sudan Available
Ebrary Ebrary Tunisia Available
Total holds: 0

Intro -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- List of Abbreviations -- Introduction -- Part I: Possession: an introduction -- 1 Defining possession -- 1.1 Approaches to a definition of possession -- 1.2 In quest for a prototype -- 1.3 Describing the semantics of possessive relations -- 1.3.1 Possessive notions -- 1.3.2 Three parameters -- 1.4 Possessive notions: further remarks -- 1.4.1 A revision -- 1.4.2 Physical possession and inanimate alienable possession -- 1.4.3 Temporary possession -- 1.4.4 Social possession -- 2 Encoding possession in language -- 2.1 Formal distinctions -- 2.1.1 Attributive and predicative possession -- 2.1.2 External possession -- 2.1.3 'Having' and 'belonging': two sides of the possessive relation -- 2.2 The typology of possessive constructions. Considering Heine (1997a) and Stassen (2009) -- 2.2.1 Heine's model: the 'source schemas' -- 2.2.2 Stassen's model -- 2.3 The source schemas: a typological survey -- 2.3.1 The Action schema -- 2.3.2 The Location schema -- 2.3.3 The Companion schema -- 2.3.4 The Goal schema -- 2.3.5 The Topic schema -- 2.3.6 The Genitive and Equation schemas -- 2.3.7 The Source schema -- 2.3.8 The development of a possessive interpretation: possible conceptual paths -- 2.3.9 Source schemas and possessive notions: a typological outline -- Part II: Belarusian and Lithuanian in context -- 3 The linguistic context of Belarusian and Lithuanian -- 3.1 The expression of predicative possession in Baltic -- 3.2 The expression of predicative possession in Slavic -- 3.3 The expression of possession in the languages of the Circum-Baltic area -- 3.4 Belarusian and Lithuanian in contact -- 4 The sociolinguistic context of Belarusian and Lithuanian -- 4.1 The development of Lithuanian: external influences and puristic tendencies -- 4.2 Belarusian: an introduction.

4.2.1 Language policies in Belarus and the standardization process of modern Belarusian -- 4.2.2 The sociolinguistic situation in Belarus at the present time -- 4.2.3 The double Belarusian standard: taraškevica and narkamauka -- Part III: Encoding predicative possession in Belarusian and Lithuanian -- 5 The sources of the data: the Belarusian and the Lithuanian corpora -- 5.1 The Lithuanian corpus -- 5.2 The Belarusian corpus -- 5.3 The Internet -- 5.4 Native speakers -- 6 The source schemas and their realization in Belarusian and Lithuanian -- 6.1 The Action schema in Belarusian -- 6.1.1 Abstract possession -- 6.1.2 Inanimate possession -- 6.1.3 Ownership -- 6.1.4 Social possession -- 6.1.5 Body-part possession -- 6.1.6 Physical and temporary possession -- 6.1.7 Trymac' 'hold' -- 6.2 The Action schema in Lithuanian -- 6.2.1 Abstract possession -- 6.2.2 Inanimate possession -- 6.2.3 Ownership -- 6.2.4 Social possession -- 6.2.5 Physical and temporary possession -- 6.2.6 Body-part possession -- 6.3 The Location schema in Belarusian -- 6.3.1 Constructions with no possessive functions -- 6.3.2 U + GEN -- 6.3.2.1 Abstract possession -- 6.3.2.2 Social possession -- 6.3.2.3 Ownership -- 6.3.2.4 Inanimate possession -- 6.3.2.5 Body-part possession -- 6.3.2.6 Temporary and physical possession -- 6.3.3 Pry + LOC -- 6.3.4 Za + INS -- 6.4 The Location schema in Lithuanian -- 6.4.1 Constructions without possessive meaning -- 6.4.2 Pas + ACC -- 6.4.2.1 Possessive pas in the corpus -- 6.4.2.2 Possessive pas on the Internet -- 6.5 The Goal schema in Belarusian -- 6.5.1 Abstract possession -- 6.5.2 Social possession -- 6.6 The Goal schema in Lithuanian -- 6.6.1 Abstract possession -- 6.6.1.1 Diseases -- 6.6.1.2 Age -- 6.6.1.3 Other abstract possessees -- 6.6.2 Social possession -- 6.6.3 Body-part possession: 'incomplete' physical details.

6.6.4 The dative case in Lithuanian: ambiguity between dative of interest and dative of possession -- 6.7 The Companion schema in Belarusian -- 6.8 The Companion schema in Lithuanian -- 6.8.1 Inanimate possession -- 6.8.2 Physical and temporary possession -- 6.8.3 Abstract possession -- 6.8.4 Body-part possession -- 6.8.5 Social possession -- 6.9 The Source schema in Belarusian and Lithuanian -- 6.10 The Equation schema in Belarusian and Lithuanian -- 6.11 Source schemas and possessive notions in Belarusian and Lithuanian: a comparison -- 6.12 The Lithuanian 'topicalized genitive' and the Belarusian constructions such as Valasy u jae byli svetlyja, Vocy u jae zjalënyja -- 6.12.1 The Lithuanian 'topicalized genitive' -- 6.12.2 The Belarusian constructions such as Valasy u jae byli svetlyja Vocy u jae zjalënyja -- 6.13 Competing strategies: the case of BKI constructions -- 6.14 Remarks about the expression of possession in Old Lithuanian and in Old Belarusian -- 7 Belarusian and Lithuanian 'have' -- 7.1 Mec' competing with u + GEN in Belarusian -- 7.1.1 Restrictions on the use of mec' -- 7.1.2 Belarusian and Russian in comparison: the use of Russian imet' -- 7.1.3 Mec' vs. u + GEN: non-semantic factors -- 7.2 Restrictions on the use of tureti -- 7.3 Restrictions on the use of tureti and mec': an attempt at an explanation -- 7.3.1 Mec' as semi-temporal and modal auxiliary in Belarusian -- 7.3.2 The auxiliary functions of mecca -- 7.3.3 Tureti as modal auxiliary -- 7.4 Mec' and tureti in resultative constructions -- 7.5 Belarusian and Lithuanian 'have' in an areal perspective -- 7.5.1 'Have' in Czech, Polish and Russian -- 7.5.2 Language contact and the development of the Belarusian and Lithuanian 'have' verbs -- 8 Conclusions -- 8.1 Semantic maps of predicative possessive constructions in Belarusian and Lithuanian.

8.2 Similarities and differences in the expression of predicative possession between Belarusian and Lithuanian -- 8.3 Language contact: Belarusian and Lithuanian in areal context. Final remarks -- 8.4 Belarusian and Lithuanian as 'transitional languages' -- Sources -- References -- Appendix -- Index of Authors -- Index of Languages -- Index of Subjects.

This book discusses the constructions used in Belarusian and Lithuanian to express predicative Possession. The work is written within a typological frame: the Belarusian and Lithuanian constructions are analyzed in the light of the typology of the possessive predicative constructions proposed by Heine (1997).

Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.

Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, Michigan : ProQuest Ebook Central, 2019. Available via World Wide Web. Access may be limited to ProQuest Ebook Central affiliated libraries.

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.