|
Converbs
Converbs are verb forms used adverbially, in the same way as participles are verb forms used adjectivally. Haspelmath (1995: 3) defines a converb as “a nonfinite verb form whose main function is to mark adverbial subordination”. Nonfinite here means lacking tense, aspect, mood, and agreement for arguments (although both the notion of nonfiniteness as such and as a defining criterion for converbs are not unproblematic, see Haspelmath 1995: 4). Converbs are defined as adverbial in their function as modifiers of everything but nouns and noun phrases, i.e. verbs, clauses, and sentences (1995: 7). Finally, subordi- nation is defined as being ‘embedded’ or ‘incorporated’ into a clause that is superordinate (1995: 8). In terms of form, converbs are commonly marked with suffixes on the verb stem, or less often prefixes and circumfixes, and even more rarely, vowel patterns. In some languages converbs can be formed periphrastically with particles.
Haspelmath (1995: 9–10) distinguishes three subtypes of converbs, based on their sub- jects: those that have an implicit subject (which cannot be expressed explicitly), those with explicit subjects (expressed for instance by different case forms), and free-subject converbs, where subjects may or may not be explicitly expressed. Converbs overlap to some extent with what Haspelmath calls co-predicative participles (1995: 17). This is particularly clear in Classical Greek and Latin, where participles are used adverbially, showing agreement with their head in terms of gender, number, and case (1995: 18). This use can be further related to the function of depictives (see previous section). In the Eu- ropean languages that have lost these kinds of agreement, it can be difficult to tell where participles end and converbs begin, although frequency can be one way of determining this according to Haspelmath (1995: 20).
In a discussion on the different meanings encoded by converbs, König (1995) posits a general domain of circumstantial relations as semantically central for their interpretation. Within this domain, König (1995: 66) argues for a sharp distinction between “manner” and “attendant circumstance”, with reference to Pusch (1980) and Halmøy (1982). Manner describes “two aspects of or dimensions of only one event”, whereas “two independent events or actions are involved” in the case of attendant circumstance (König 1995: 65– 66). A natural implication for converbs interpreted as encoding manner is a same-subject constraint. More specifically, when converbs encode manner, they “specify a dimension or parameter implicitly given in the meaning of the verb” (1995: 65–66). As a consequence,
the meaning encoded by a verb combined with a converb in one language may in another language be encoded by a verb alone.
In Hungarian (Uralic), the similarities and differences between manner adverbs and converbs are particularly clear. De Groot (1995) describes Hungarian manner adverbs as based on adjectives, to which one of two suffixes (with variants) is attached (-on/-en/-ön or -ul /-ül ). Converbs are instead verb forms to which the suffix -ve is attached, but they may be coordinated with adverbs.
(2.23) Hungarian (Uralic) (de Groot 1995: 288)
szerény-en
modest-adv
és
and
küszköd-ve
struggle-cvb
‘modestly and struggling’
Loeb-Diehl (2005) shows examples from other languages where property words in adverbial function take the form of converbs. For instance, this is the case in Maasai, where the converb is marked by a prefix that is also the infinitive marker. According to Haspelmath (1995: 28), converbs and infinitives are often quite similar.
(2.24) Maasai (Nilotic) (Tucker & Mpaayei 1955: 44)
roro
2sg-speak
a-kiti
inf-be.small
‘speak softly’
Abkhaz is another of Loeb-Diehl’s examples (also included in the sample of the present study, see appendix B). In example (2.25a), the converb takes a third person neuter subject, and in (2.25b) this is combined with a causative marker, which is a feature of converbs in certain languages.
(2.25) Abkhaz (Abkhaz-Adyge) (Hewitt 1979: 240)
y@-las-n@
it-be.quick-adv/pst.abs ‘The woman goes quickly’
d@-cè-yt’
she-go-fin
a-pè◦@s
the-woman
y@-r-las-n@
it-caus-be.quick-adv/pst.abs ‘The woman goes quickly’
d@-cè-yt’
she-go-fin
a-pè◦@s
the-woman
In summary, converbs are important for the discussion of adverbs for two reasons. Firstly, property words in adverbial function can be found in the form of converbs in different languages, as illustrated by Loeb-Diehl (2005). Secondly, converbs are the forms that verbs take when used adverbially, as shown by Haspelmath (1995) and the other chapters in the same volume (Haspelmath & König 1995). In adverbial function, converbs often denote manner in a wider sense than property words, as illustrated in the case of Hungarian (cf. example 2.23, where ‘struggling’ denotes a manner, but hardly a property), where property words are found as adverbs, and other types of manner encoded by verbs are
Summary and discussion
expressed by converbs. We shall return to this function of converbs in conjunction with the expanded version of Croft’s coding constructions for parts of speech that I will propose in chapter 3. The proposal there is that converbs instantiate action modification within predicating expressions.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
