Discourseoriented case studies on the usage of forms from the grammatical core have been conducted by Sawicki (2004, 2010, 2012). Sawicki (2004) is a study of text func
tions of Lithuanian “neuter” participles (ending in unstressed a; see Section 2.3.2.3) on the basis of a small newspaper corpus. Sawicki (2010) examined the distribution of unprefixed and prefixed verbal forms and found interesting correlations with the narrative background/foreground distinction. Finally, Sawicki (2012) deals with Lith.
kad and na, used as turnopening particles. Macienė (2002) investigated the textual functions of Lithuanian diminutives in contemporary belletristic and journalistic texts. Nau (2010) analyzed the discoursepragmatic functions of the Latvian particle neba in internet fora.
In her case study based on Latgalian fairytales from the late nineteenth century, Nau (2008) demonstrates how participles and infinitives are exploited as means of represented speech, i.e., of “giving voice” to a character (vs. the narrator’s speech). Nau stresses that for this dimension of speech the distinction between direct and indirect becomes irrelevant, and it differs from evidentiality.
Similarly to Nau’s study, a first attempt at a principled and corpusbased account of reported speech vs. hearsay vs. quotation in Latvian is by Chojnicka (2012a,b).
Somehow related to the differentiation of “speaking subjects” (and to quota
tives) in narrative discourse is the reinterpretation of various grammatical forms (e.g., the imperative, analytical hortatives, or modal auxiliaries) as ‘interpretive deontics’. This has been described, among other languages, for Lithuanian and Latvian by Holvoet (2005b) and Holvoet and Konickaja (2011).
3.4.1 Pronouns: Specific forms and uses
Kibrik (1987, 2011: 62–67) coined the notion of “referential conflict” and proposed a typology of ways how languages can solve such a conflict (Kibrik 2011: 287–333).
A typical case comes up if, in a narrative setting, two human referents of equal sex are introduced one after another and, at some point, within a chain of senten
ces, ambiguities may arise which one of the two is being mentioned. Compare an invented, but characteristic, example (10):
(10) English
a. Johni invited Jamesk to meet at 6 pm.
b. He? however didn’t want to sit in some boring café.
Some European languages are able to solve such ambiguities by choosing a marked pronoun; such pronouns usually derive from demonstrative pronouns and function as indicators that it is not the most topical referent (antecedent) that is “picked up” anaphorically, but its more rhematic “rival”. Apart from German, where this technique is used freely, Russian and Lithuanian, in principle, allow for the same distinction.20 See the following translational equivalents to the English text in (10):
(11) German
a. Hansi lud Horstk ein, sich um 18 Uhr zu treffen.
b. Er? / Derk wollte aber nicht in irgendeinem langweiligen Café sitzen.
(12) Lithuanian
a. Jonasi pakvietė Jurgįk, kad susitiktų 18 valandų.
b. Tačiau jis? / šisk nenorėjo sėdėti kažkokioje nuobodžioje kavinėje.
This and similar mechanisms were surveyed on a European background for Lithuanian by Wiemer (1999). However, to date, there are no empirical studies of when referential conflicts really arise, how they are (or might be) resolved, and to what extent paradigmatic contrasts of pronouns are involved.
Apart from logophoric constructions based on clausal complementation (see Section 2.3.2.4), Latgalian (and also, but less consistently, Latvian) knows an oppo
sition between anaphoric and logophoric pronouns, which has developed out of the inventory of former demonstrative pronouns. According to Nau (2006), in many Latgalian dialects, nonattributive pronouns of the š-series are consistently used as
20 For examples and discussion concerning Russian, cf. Berger and Weiss (1987: 32–52).
a means to mark coreference between the speaker of a reported speech act and an anaphoric pronoun in an embedded clause (cf. 13) (adapted from Nau 2006: 61):
(13) Latgalian
Tagad j-isi suoka runuot, t-ys bruolān-si, now henom start.pst.3 talk.inf demnom.sg.m cousin(m)nom.sg
lai es precejūs ar j-ū≠i / š-ūi.
comp 1sg.nom marry.pst.pa.nom.sg.f with he=acc / logacc.sg.m ‘Now hei started to say, this cousini, that I should marry him
[= the uncle≠i / = the cousini].’
Clauses containing the logophoric pronoun are often accompanied by partici
pial predicates, which themselves function as reportive markers as well, both in dependent and independent clauses (see Section 2.3.2.4).
3.4.2 Parentheticals and other means of taking stance
Briefly, parentheticals can be understood as discoursedriven downgrading of information “above” the propositional and illocutionary content of an utte
rance (cf. Kaltenbửck 2007, Moroz 2010, Wiemer 2010c: 104–106). It is important to stress that parentheticals are not a separate class of words or phrases, since basically anything can be “parentheticalized”. In this respect, parentheticals can be considered as nonconventionalized pieces of discursively secondary informa
tion; they cannot be focused or addressed.
Probably, Durys (1927) was the first one to have drawn attention to paren
theticals (Lith. įterpiniai) in Lithuanian. Among his more recent followers, one should mention Balkevičius (1963, 1998) and the section on ‘Parenthetical Words and Phrases’ written by Zelma Dumašiūtė in LKG (1976: III, 698–719). For the first time in Lithuanian, Balkevičius (1963: 267, 275) seems to have captured parenthe
ticals as units that serve to make prominent the speaker’s subjective (emotional, cognitive) point of view. Akelaitis (2002, 2003) concentrated on parentheticals based on predicative units (verbs, adjectives).21
However, in Lithuanian, parentheticals have been studied primarily by Aurelija Usonienė and her collaborators, mostly in a rather strict corpus driven approach. Usonienė claims that the most common parenthetical expressions serving the purposes of hedging and marking of epistemic stance and/or evidential functions “are synchronically traceable back to complement taking
21 We are grateful to Birutė Ryvitytė for supplying us with the information conveyed in this paragraph.
predicate clauses functioning as parenthetical elements in the sentence”
(Usonienė, this volume: Section 1). For similar studies taking into consideration units of different prominence, cf. Usonienė and Šolienė (2010) and Šinkūnienė (2012). Alosevičienė (2006) provided a comparative study of hedges in Lithuanian and German political discourse, differentiating evaluative, epistemic, emphatic, and distancing as well as metalinguistic hedges.
We do not know of any similar work done on Latvian or Latgalian.