40 лет Санкт-Петербургской типологической школе

Храковский В. С.

Cette conception est parfaitement compatible avec celle que nous avons d'evelopp'ee ci-dessus [40] : elle n'en est qu'un 'elargissement. Dans la perspective de la transitivit'e graduelle, les verbes (ou phrases) que nous avons d'efinis comme transitifs, c'est-`a-dire ceux qui admettent la CBM, deviennent les plus transitifs, et, parmi les verbes consid'er'es comme intransitifs, certains, lorsqu'ils sont accompagn'es de deux actants, se laissent analyser comme seulement moins transitifs, ils d'esignent des proc`es `a deux participants qui s''ecartent plus ou moins de l'action prototypique.

40

Et que nous appelons

«th'eorie de la transitivit'e restreinte», par opposition `a la «th'eorie de la transitivit'e g'en'eralis'ee».

La transitivit'e morphosyntaxique varie d'un maximum (la CBM et les verbes qui y entrent) et un minimum (la construction uniactan-cielle). Corr'elativement, la transitivit'e s'emantique varie d'un maximum (l'action prototypique) `a un minimum (les proc`es `a un seul participant).

Les variations sont elles-m^emes variables selon les langues: au sein du tableau g'en'eral, dont les grandes lignes sont communes `a toutes les langues, chacune a son propre choix de variations morphosyntaxiques et s'emantiques, c'est-`a-dire sa propre 'echelle de transitivit'e.

Abr'eviations

R'ef'erences

Benveniste E. Probl`emes de linguistique g'en'erale. Paris, 1974.

Dum'ezil G. Etudes comparatives sur les langues caucasiennes du nord-ouest. Paris, 1932.

Dum'ezil G. Le verbe oubykh. Etudes descriptives et comparatives. Paris, 1975.

Gross M. Remarques sur la notion d'objet direct en francais II Langue francaise. 1969. № 1.

Guiraud-Weber M. Les propositions sans nominatif en russe moderne. Paris, 1984.

Haspelmath M. A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin; N. Y., 1993.

Hopper P. J, & Thompson S. A. Transitivity in grammar and discourse I I Language. 1980. № 56.

Lazard G. L'actance. Paris, 1994.

Lazard G. Ergativity//Linguistic Typology. 1997. № 1.

Lazard G. Actancy. Berlin; N. Y., 1998a (trad, de [Lazard 1994]).

Lazard G. D'efinition des actants dans les langues europ'eennes // Feuillet J. ('ed.). Actance et valence dans les langues de l'Europe. Berlin — New York, 19986.

Lazard G. La linguistique est-elle une science? // Bulletin de la Soci'et'e de linguistique de Paris, 94/1.1999.

Lazard G. Etudes de inguistique g'en'erale: typologie grammaticale. Leuven; Paris, 2001.

Lazard G. & Peitzer L. Structure de la langue tahitienne. Paris; Louvain, 2000.

Paris C. L'abzakh (dialecte dutcherkesse occidental) // Actances. 1991. № 5.

M. Leinonen

Possessive resultative perfects in Komi-Zyryan

Komi-Zyryan, which belongs to the Uralic languages and to the branch of Permic languages, is an agglutinative language with the predominant order SVO. Except for the order of the main constituents, it is a typical determiner-head language with postpositions, possessive suffixes, 15 cases, no gender, no congruence between adjectival attributes and their heads, and no copula in the present tense.

1. The tense system

The temporal categories include the simple tenses (present and past, the future tense is expressed morphologically in the third person only), and the so-callpd analytic or compound tenses. Between these stands the perfect-like construction based on a past participial form without copula, sometimes called the 2nd past, sometimes unwitnessed past, and in the new grammar of Komi unwitnessed perfect. The copula may have the forms of the simple past and the 2nd past with the participial marker — dm(a), which is neutral as to active or passive. This together with the lexical verb forms produces the analytic constructions. The order of the copula and the lexical verb may vary. The term

«unwitnessed» equals evidentiality and covers in the language system the same basic variants of «indirectness» as in the Turkic, Georgian, Bulgarian etc. languages where the category is being studied: quotation, hearsay, conjecture and mirativity (see e. g. [Journal of Pragmatics 2001; Johanson & Bo Utas 2000; Guentchdva 1996]).

The paradigm of vetlyny «to go»:

In the above paradigm, the tenses are labeled by terms that give an approximate content to the categories. In the grammar, the author of the section on the verb, E. A. Cypanov, cautiously uses simply numbers for the past tenses: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th past.

2. The impersonal construction with reflexive suffix

In the literary language and the majority of the dialects, for the first person of the perfect/unwitnessed past an impersonal construction is preferred. It consists of the genitive form of the personal pronoun/animate noun and the participle-based form with the 3rd person reflexive suffix — s'"oma. The meaning of the construction is always that of an involuntary or non-conscious action:

Menam dyr uz's'"oma

I-GEN long sleep-REFL-PERF-3 SG

«I have slept/overslept».

The construction is specialized for the meaning of involuntary action in other tenses as well, and has parallels in other Finno-Ugric languages in that the demotion of the subject (nominative), adding a reflexive suffix (in Finnish, a causative suffix), the directionality, controllability of the action is cancelled. Unplanned actions are often expressed by this construction:

A menam taj"o k"odzyd lunjasys kezl"o bytt'"o t"od"om"on

but I-GEN this cold days-POSSDEF during as.if knowingly

vajs'"oma gortys' medrad'ejtana kn'iga"os

bring-REFL-PERF-3SG home-ELAT most.favored book-ACC

«But for these cold days I happened to have brought as if knowingly from home my most favourite book» [I. Toropov 1988:157].