This is a book review on an imporant comprehensive study of reference tracking devices in the languages of the world by a Russian linguist Andrej Kibrik. The study, being both a survey of the field and a summary of his own reseaarch on the topic, has been published by one of the leading publishers of linguistic literature, Oxford University Press.
In the review I discuss articles, which are included in the volume about grammatical relations and their coding in Baltic languages, edited by Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau, The volume includes Lithuanian, Latvian and Livonian data, which is analyzed both in formal and functional framework. The problems under analysis include differential object and subject marking, semantic motivation of valency patterns, the role of negation in the syntactic behavior of the verb and other interesting issues.
The present work is dedicated to the role of gestures in overcoming lexical access problems in patients with motor aphasia. The study is based on a corpus of narratives by brain-damaged individuals – «Russian CliPS» (Clinical Pear Stories), the videos from which were annotated in the linguistic annotator «ELAN», with the gestural layout included in the analysis. The results suggest that most often the difficulties with lexical access were related to the search for nouns and verbs, and gestures (deictic and rhythmic gestures, beats) facilitated lexical access in patients.
The paper describes Russian constructions with the markers of immediate past tol’ko, tol’ko-tol’ko, and tol’ko čto, such as On tol’ko / tol’ko-tol’ko / tol’ko čto prišel ‘He has just come’, and their relations with the resultative semantics. The main question posed in the article is whether the use of the three markers under analysis presupposes that the result of the situation persists at the moment of speech. I show that the meaning of immediate past does not necessarily correlate with the resultative meaning. The meaning of some immediate past constructions can contain the resultative component, while others lack it. In Russian, the markers tol’ko and tol’ko-tol’ko are tightly connected with the resultative meaning, while the marker tol’ko čto does not require either the presence or the absence of the result. The connection of tol’ko and tol’kotol’ko with resultative contexts follows from their semantics and discourse properties, which are also addressed in the paper.