Cover not available
Part of
Beyond Emotions in Language: Psychological verbs at the interfaces
Edited by Bożena Rozwadowska and Anna Bondaruk
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 263] 2020
► pp. 75–112

Chapter 3
Encoding inception in the domain of psych verbs in Polish

| University of Wrocław

The chapter argues that Polish psych verbs are simple eventualities denoting states in both their imperfective and perfective forms. It is argued that the perfectivising prefixes deriving perfective psych verbs belong to the category of superlexical prefixes in the typology of among others, Romanova (2004) and Svenonius (2004) and function to delimit the temporal dimension of the (stative) event, generating inceptive (or inchoative) state. The perfective forms are argued to be simple events, which do not assert change of state. In this respect, Polish OE psych verbs differ from their English and German counterparts, which have been analysed as achievements in the literature (e.g., van Voorst, 1992; Rothmayr, 2009).

Keywords: psychological verbs, subject experiencer verbs, object experiencer verbs, lexical aspect, grammatical aspect, lexical prefixes, superlexical prefixes, event structure, simple events, inceptive events
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Prefixation as an event structure diagnostic
    • 2.1Lexical and superlexical prefixes
      • 2.1.1 Lexical prefixes
      • 2.1.2Superlexical prefixes
    • 2.2 Syncretism of prefixes
    • 2.3Event structure
    • 2.4Event structure and prefixation
    • 2.5Prefixation and aspectual classes
    • 2.6Event structure of psych verbs
      • 2.6.1SE verbs and states
      • 2.6.2SE verbs as simple events
      • 2.6.3The event structure status of OE verbs
    • 2.7Interim conclusion
  • 3.Lexicalization of inception
    • 3.1Inception and the verb root
    • 3.2The morphology of inception
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.263.03bia
References
Arad, M.
(1998) Psych-notes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 203–223.Google Scholar
Bar-el, L.
(2005)  Aspectual distinctions in Squamish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia.
Biały, A.
(2005) Polish psychological verbs at the lexicon-syntax interface in crosslinguistic perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2012) The multilayer analysis of prefixes in Polish. In J. Błaszczak, B. Rozwadowska, & W. Witkowski (Eds.), Current issues in generative linguistics: Syntax, semantics and phonology (pp. 124–139). Wrocław: Center for General and Comparative Linguistics (CGCL).Google Scholar
Binnick, R. I.
(1991) Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borik, O.
(2002)  Aspect and reference time (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Utrecht.
Borik, O., & Reinhart, T.
(2004) Telicity and perfectivity: Two independent systems. In L. Hunyadi, G. Rakosi, & E. Toch (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Logic and Language (LOLA) (pp. 13–34). Debrecen, Hungary.Google Scholar
Braginsky, P.
(2008)  The semantics of prefix za- in Russian (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bar-Ilan University.
Fábregas, A., & Marín, R.
(2017) On non-dynamic eventive verbs in Spanish. Linguistics 55(3), 451–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filip, H.
(1999) Aspect, eventuality types, and nominal reference. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
(2003) Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11(1), 55–101.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, J.
(2013)  The semantics of syntactic choice: An analysis of English emotion verbs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University.
Grimshaw, J.
(1990) Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grzegorczykowa, R.
(1984) Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego: Morfologia [Grammar of contemporary Polish: Morphology]. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Kagan, O.
(2016) Scalarity in the verbal domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, I.
(2010) The locative syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
(1999) Two structures for compositionally derived events. In T. Matthews & D. Strolovitch (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 9 (pp. 199-223). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
(2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Lexicalized meaning and manner/result complementarity. In B. Arsenijevic, B. Gehrke, & R. Marin (Eds.), Studies in the composition and decomposition of event predicates (pp. 49–70). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pantcheva, M.
(2007) Bulgarian spatial prefixes and event structure. In M. Bašić, M. Pantcheva, M. Son, & P. Svenonius (Eds.), Special issue on space, motion and result. Nordlyd, 34(2), 320-344.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D.
(1995) Zero syntax: Experiences and cascades. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L.
(2000) On stativity and causation. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Events as grammatical objects (pp. 417–444). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G.
(2004) Time and the event: The semantics of Russian prefixes. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), Special issue on Slavic prefixes. Nordlyd, 32(2), 323–361.Google Scholar
(2008) Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romanova, E.
(2004) Superlexical vs. lexical prefixes. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), Special issue on Slavic prefixes. Nordlyd, 32(2),255–278.Google Scholar
Rothmayr, A.
(2009) The structure of stative verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S.
(2004) Structuring events. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rozwadowska, B.
(1997) Towards a unified theory of nominalizations: External and internal eventualities. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.Google Scholar
(2005) A new perspective on event participants in psychological states and events. In J. Koster, H. van der Hulst, & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2020) Polish psych verbs as non-achievements. In B. Rozwadowska & A. Bondaruk (Eds.), Beyond Emotions in Language. Psychological verbs at the interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. S.
(1997) The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P.
(2004) Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), Special issue on Slavic prefixes. Nordlyd, 32(2), 205–253.Google Scholar
Tolskaya, I.
(2007) Unifying prepositions and prefixes in Russian: Conceptual structure versus syntax. In M. Bašić, M. Pantcheva, M. Son, & P. Svenonius (Eds.), Special issue on space, motion and result. Nordlyd, 34(2), 345–370.Google Scholar
van Voorst, J.
(1992) The aspectual semantics of psychological verbs. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 65–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiland, B.
(2012) Prefix stacking, syncretism and the syntactic hierarchy. In M. Zikova & M. Docekal (Eds.), Slavic languages in formal grammar. Proceedings of FDSL 8.5, Brno 2010 (pp. 307–324). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Żychliński, S.
(2011) A recalcitrant nature of Object Experiencers. In M. Pawlak & J. Bielak (Eds.), New perspectives in language, discourse and translation studies (pp. 77–90). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Rozwadowska, Bożena
2020. Chapter 2. Polish psych verbs as non-achievements. In Beyond Emotions in Language [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 263], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.