Slavic relative clauses: the case of absolutive relativization (in Czech)

Slavic relative clauses:the case of absolutiverelativization (in Czech) Mirjam Fried Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague Constructional and Lexical Semantic Approaches to Russian March 24-26, 2011, St. Petersburg, Russia

Introduction • Classification of relative clauses • semantics: restrictiveness vs. non-restrictiveness • function: attributive vs. non-attributive • formation types: • RC coding strategies (relative position; nominalization, etc.) • coding of head N’s function in RC (cf. Comrie 1981) • internally headed RC • pronoun-retention (aka ‘echoing’/ ‘resumptive’ pronoun in RC) • relative pronoun • no overt indication

Slavic RCs • relative pronoun strategy (frequent in European lgs): e.g. kotoryj (R) & its equivalents in other languages • absolutive relativizer + personal pronoun (frequent in non-European lgs): e.g. deto (Blg), što (Mac), ki (Slovene), ieže (OCS) što (BR, R?) co (Cz, P?), kiž/kenž(U/LSorb) -- not well described or incorporated in RC family

In this talk… • Summarize the absolutive pattern in Czech: (based on qualitative & frequency-based quantitative evidence, Fried 2011) • corpus-based description of its properties & distribution • relationship to který-RCs within the same functional space, capturing the dynamic/fluid aspects of the pattern • Sketch a (sample) constructional analysis (e.g. Fillmore 1989, Fried & Östman 2004) • Revisit questions for investigating the absolutive patterns in other Slavic languages

Background • Relative clauses with který ‘which’: • restrictive/non-restrictive • no obligatory marking of (non-)restrictiveness • agreement in number/gender with head N • stylistically neutral (in terms of register, genre, text-type) • typologically: • relatively low on accessibility hierarchy • relatively less explicit • can be organized in a semantic & functional taxonomy

RCs with relative pronoun který (synthesis of Grepl & Karlík 1998 and Svoboda 1972) RC meaning/function II. non-determinative I. determinative A. restrictive A. explicative (6) B. non-restrictive (5) [TENproper N] [proper N] *TEN B. Continuative (7) *TEN 1. category 2. kind individuating (TEN) (TEN) 3. identification 4. characterization *TEN (TEN)

RCs with absolutive co (8) ta paní, co u nás bydlí, je moc hezká that woman CO at us lives is much pretty ‘the woman [CO] lives with us is very pretty’ (9) Ten člověk, co jste hoza mnou kdysi poslal, that man CO AUX.2PL 3SG.ACCafter me once sent {viděl jste ho ještě někdy potom?} ‘The man [CO] you sent [him] to me a while back, {did you ever see him again}?

A “non-standard” variant of relative pronoun?? • Relative clauses with co: • absolutive, non-declineable relativizer co • personal pronoun to indicate head N’s grammatical function in RC; agrees with head N in number/gender • often interchangeable with který • typologically (‘pronoun retention pattern’, Comrie 1981): • relatively high on accessibility hierarchy • relatively more explicit • lots of unanswered questions about their properties in Slavic…

Existing analyses • only restrictive meaning  no usage of type II • strongly deictic (also their hypothesized origin)  collocates with TEN ‘that’ on head N • head N cannot be a bare proper noun • resumptive (‘echoing’, ‘anaphoric’) pronoun: • no pronoun in NOM, i.e. SUB function (ex. 8) • optional in ACC (ex. 9a vs. 9b) • obligatory elsewhere

Existing analyses in relativization space RC meaning/function CO *CO II. non-determinative I. determinative A. restrictive A. Explicative (6) B. non-restrictive (5) [TENproper N] [proper N] *TEN B. Continuative (7) *TEN 1. category 2. kind individuating (TEN) (TEN) 3. identification 4. characterization *TEN (TEN)

kter-construction RC modification cat n #1 cat n cat vfin. RC role head role modifier morph. cat prorel. syn cat vfin. max [ ] morph. lex [ ] sem frame […] FE #1 [ ] lxm KTER- case [ ] case #4[ ] val {#1 [ case #4[ ] ] } num. #2[ ] num. #2[ ] gnd. #3[ ] gnd. #3[ ]

co RC construction ?? Absolutive RC modification cat n #1 cat n cat vfin. RC role head role modifier morph. cat ??. syn cat vfin. max [ ] lex [ ] #1 cat propers. sem frame […] morph. FE #1 [ ] lxm CO case [ ] case #4[ ] val {#1 [ case #4[ ] ] } num. #2[ ] num. #2[ ] gnd. #3[ ] gnd. #3[ ]

co RC construction ?? Absolutive RC modification cat n #1 cat n cat vfin. RC role head role modifier morph. cat ??. syn cat vfin. max [ ] lex [ ] sem frame […] FE #1 [ ] lxm CO case [ ] val {#1 [ case #4[ ] ] } num. #2[ ] gnd. #3[ ]

co RC construction: SUB function in RC Absolutive RC modification cat n #1 cat n cat vfin. RC role head role modifier morph. cat ??. syn cat vfin. max [ ] lex [ ] sem frame […] FE #1 [ ] lxm CO case [ ] val {#1 [ case NOM] } num. #2[ ] gnd. #3[ ]

co RC construction: OBL function in RC Absolutive RC modification cat n #1 cat n cat vfin. RC role head role modifier morph. cat ??. syn cat vfin. max [ ] lex [ ] #1 cat propers. sem frame […] morph. FE #1 [ ] lxm CO case [ ] case #4[ ] val {#1 [ case #4[ ] ] } num. #2[ ] num. #2[ ] gf obl gnd. #3[ ] gnd. #3[ ]

Remaining problems • ‘optionality’ of resumptive pronoun in ACC • additional, special patterns (cf. Fried, In press): • temporal RCs • quantifying RCs

ACC pronoun in RC (9) a. Ten člověk, cojste hoza mnou kdysi poslal, that man CO AUX.2PL 3SG.ACCafter me once sent {viděl jste ho ještě někdy potom?} ‘The man [CO] you sent [him] to me a while back, {did you ever see him again later}? b. {Připravil jsem si tu pro každého z vás tisíc korun} za tu práci, co jste ___ se mnou měli for that work CO AUX.2PL ACCwith me had ‘{For each of you, I have ready a thousand crowns here} for the work [CO] you had with me’

coRC construction: animate OBJ Absolutive RC modification cat n #1 cat n cat vfin. RC role head role modifier morph. cat ??. syn cat vfin. max [ ] lex [ ] #1 sem [anim +] cat propers. sem frame […] morph. case ACC FE #1 [ ] lxm CO case [ ] num. #2[ ] val {#1 [ gf obj ]]} num. #2[ ] gnd. #3[ ] gnd. #3[ ]

coRC construction: inanim. OBJ Absolutive RC modification cat n #1 cat n cat vfin. RC role head sem restrictive role modifier morph. cat ??. syn cat vfin. max [ ] lex [ ] sem [anim -] sem frame […] FE #1 [ ] lxm CO case [ ] val {#1 [ gf obj ]]} num. #2[ ] gnd. #3[ ]

coRC construction: inanim. OBJ Absolutive RC modification cat n #1 cat n cat vfin. RC role head role modifier sem ‘explicative’ (= type II-A) morph. cat ??. syn cat vfin. max [ ] lex [ ] #1 sem [anim -] cat propers. sem frame […] morph. FE #1 [ ] lxm CO case ACC case [ ] val {#1 [ gf obj ]]} num. #2[ ] num. #2[ ] gnd. #3[ ] gnd. #3[ ]

Special patterns (10)Temporal … od doby, co nám na Národní zavřeli Klub spisovatelů … ‘… from the time [CO] our Writers’ Club on Národníhas been closed down on us …’ (11) Quantifying {Byl to nuzák […];pomyslné vlastnictví lodí však vydalo} za všechny drachmy,cojichbylo v Helladě. for all drachmas.ACC CO 3PL.GEN was in Hellada ‘{He was a pauper […]; but the imaginary ownership of ships was equivalent} to all the drachmas [CO] were [of them] in Greece.’

co RC construction: OBL function in RC Absolutive RC modification cat n #1 cat n cat vfin. RC role head role modifier morph. cat ??. syn cat vfin. max [ ] lex [ ] #1 cat propers. sem frame […] morph. FE #1 [ ] lxm CO case [ ] case #4[ ] val {#1 [ case #4[ ] ] } num. #2[ ] num. #2[ ] gf obl gnd. #3[ ] gnd. #3[ ]

co RC construction: quantifying RC Absolutive RC modification cat n cat vfin. #1 RC univ. quant. ‘ALL’ role modifier cat n sem ‘property expressed by RC applies to all instances of head N; quantity is judged unusually high’ cat vfin. syn cat ??. max [ ] lex [ ] lxm CO #1 cat propers. sem … univ. scope marker ‘EVER’ sem quantity val {#1 [ ] } case GEN case [ ] morph. num. pl. num. pl. gnd. [ ]

Existing analyses • only restrictive meaning  no usage of type II

Restrictiveness • only restrictive meaning  no usage of type II Hierarchy of semantic preferences: identification (type I-A-3) > characterization (I-A-4) > explicative (II-A) [ex. (11), (12)] > kind-of (I-A-2) > non-restr. determinative (I-B) > category (type I-A-1) > *continuative (II-B)

Existing analyses • only restrictive meaning  no usage of type II • strongly deictic  head N collocates with TEN ‘that’

Deixis • only restrictive meaning  no usage of type II • strongly deictic  head N collocates with TEN ‘that’ Hierarchy of deictic contexts (TEN N, co), cf. Fried 2011: N = Anim. sg > Inanim. sg > Anim. pl > Inanim. pl in %: 68 65 35 32 Individuation issue, rather than simply deixis: highly individuated/referential > less individuated

Existing analyses • only restrictive meaning  no usage of type II • strongly deictic (also their hypothesized origin)  collocates with TEN ‘that’ on head N • resumptive (‘echoing’, ‘anaphoric’) pronoun: • no pronoun in NOM, i.e. SUB function (ex. 8) • in ACC (exs. 9, 10) “more common” with inanimate head Ns and only “optional” with animate head Ns

Resumptive pronoun & animacy • resumptive pronoun is (almost) obligatory with animate Ns in OBJ function (animate Ns less expected to be non-subjects, therefore marked; for discussion cf. Fried 2010) • resumptive pronoun is dispreferred with inanimate Ns; presence/absence depends on semantic type of RC – explicative vs. restrictive

Existing analyses • only restrictive meaning  no usage of type II • strongly deictic (also their hypothesized origin)  collocates with TEN ‘that’ on head N • resumptive (‘echoing’, ‘anaphoric’) pronoun: • no pronoun in NOM, i.e. SUB function (ex. 8) • in ACC (exs. 9, 10) “more common” with inanimate head Ns and only “optional” with animate head Ns • co-clauses are not part of standard language

Stylistic register of absolutive co • non-determinative uses (type II) – tend to be used in emotional, expressive speech, but not exclusively so • special, formulaic patterns (quantifying, temporal) are register-neutral • rest is mixed

Synthesis • Most robustly attested RC with absolutive co: Function:determinative restrictive Semantics: individuation of head referent Head N: concrete, animate, singular entity Syntax: mix of pronoun-retention & no overt marking strategies • Non-random distribution of additional functions: spread from identification to non-restrictive contexts

Two relativization strategies in existing accounts: RC meaning/function CO *CO II. non-determinative I. determinative A. explicative A. restrictive B. non-restrictive [proper N] [TENproper N] B. continuative *TEN *TEN 1. category 2. kind individuating (TEN) (TEN) 3. identification 4. characteriz. (TEN) *TEN

Two relativization strategies in corpus sample: RC meaning/function CO II. non-determinative I. determinative A. explicative A. restrictive B. non-restrictive *CO [proper N] [TENproper N] B. continuative *TEN quantif. *TEN ( CO ) 1. category 2. kind individuating (TEN) (TEN) 3. identification 4. characteriz. (TEN) *TEN temporal

What to do next? • Absolutive relativization in Slavic e.g. deto (Blg), što (Mac), ki (Slovene), ieže (OCS) što (BR, R?) co (Cz, P?), kiž/kenž(U/LSorb) existing commentary: colloquial/non-standard; resumptive pronoun “optional” in non-NOM function, BUT: szczęśliwy ten wojak, co on domu przyjdzie ‘happy is the soldier thatCO [he] comes home’ (Rospond 1971)

What to do next? • Absolutive relativization in Slavic • What are its actual properties and distribution? • In what sense is the resumptive pronoun “optional”, and what determines its use? • Why is this strategy ‘missing’ in some languages? (or is it??)

Thank you!

Slavic relative clauses: the case of absolutive relativization (in Czech)