1 / 26

Possessor Raising and Slavic Possessive Clitics

Possessor Raising and Slavic Possessive Clitics. Anton Zimmerling ( MGGU/RGGU) meinmat@yahoo.com http://antonzimmerling.wordpress.com//. SUMMARY. The paper discusses syntactic features of Slavic possessive clitics and Slavic constructions with the so called ‘Possessor Raising’.

pilis
Download Presentation

Possessor Raising and Slavic Possessive Clitics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Possessor Raising and Slavic Possessive Clitics Anton Zimmerling (MGGU/RGGU) meinmat@yahoo.com http://antonzimmerling.wordpress.com//

  2. SUMMARY • The paper discusses syntactic features of Slavic possessive clitics and Slavic constructions with the so called ‘Possessor Raising’. • I am proving that only a minority of Slavic languages have true phrase-level (NP-level or DP-level) possessive clitics and arguing against a generalized syntactic account of all Slavic constructions with Possessor Raising. • In descriptive terms the term ‘Possessor Raising’ refers to a quasi-synonymic semantic transformation when a phrase-level possessive operator located in an NP/DP and expressed by a clitic/free pronoun/NP is arranged as an argument of the clausal predicate. I am arguing that a different location of a possessive operator may both change syntactic structure or preserve it depending on the value morphosyntactic parameters assume in a given language.

  3. Possessor Raising and Possessive Shift • Possessor Raising is a operation preserving syntactic structure: it shown different stages of syntactic derivation of one and the same sentence. • Possessive Shift = alternation of different syntactic structures.

  4. Type A languages: • Phrase-level possessive operators and clause-level possessive operators are marked with different morphological cases. • E.g. Russian phrase-level possessives are genitives while Russian clause-level possessives are datives, cf. 1) Rus. Ona ne [NP doch’ Petrova-Gen/ego-Gen doch’] ‘She is not Petrov’s daughter/his daughter’ ~ 2) Ona emu-Dat ne docj/ Petrovu-Dat ne doch’’ • For this group of languages the analysis in terms of PR does not make much sense.

  5. Type B languages • Possessor Shift is bound to the use of pronominal clitics which are marked by the same overt case (dative) both on the phrase-level and on the clause-level. For this group of languages, a Raising analysis of clausal possessive forms remains possible. • In Modern Serbo-Croatian, dative possessives in clausal 2P are marginally acceptable, cf. Pennington (2010), but phrase-level dative possessives in SC are ungrammatical.

  6. Type C languages • Modern Bulgarian and Macedonian both have DP-level dative clitics – cf. Mišeska Tomić (2004), Franks, Junghanns & Law (2005) and mechanisms allowing for extracting dative clitics out of DP and placing them in clausal-second position (2P) – a position typically hosting Slavic argument and reflexive pronominal clitics, cf. Dimitrova-Vulchanova (1999), Franks & King (2008), Zimmerling (2008), Kosta & Zimmerling (2011)

  7. Problems and solutions • The two oldest Slavic idioms – Old Church Slavonic (OCS) and Old Northern Russian (ONR) – exemplify two extremes: ONR completely lacked dative possessives, while in OCS they were common both in clausal 2P and on the phrase-level. • Following Kosta & Zimmerling (2011) I am claiming that the majority of Slavic languages only have clause-level possessives and pattern them with argument dative clitics.

  8. The Possessive Relation 1. Possessor vsPossessee. Alienable vs inalienable possession. [Журинская 1978], [Журинская 1979] • Ножка стола ~ ножка от стола. Рот Маши, *рот от Маши. • Девушка с длинными ногами, *девушка с ногами. • У Маши голубые глаза. * У Маши глаза. *У Маши есть глаза.(Cf. in the fig. meaningУ Маши есть глаза, она все замечает). [Мельчук 1995] • У меня есть дочь ~ У меня дочь. [Янко 2001]

  9. Quasipossesivity: the form Two metalinguistic uses. 2a. A possessive construction is used for expressing different meanings. [Селиверстова 1990], [Циммерлинг 2000]. • Cf. У меня есть карта и У меня есть подозрение, что P. • O.Icel.mér er váncf. Rus. “у меня (букв. мне) есть надежда”; *mér er húsitintended: “I have a house”. • O.Icel. ég hefi vánlit. «I have (a) hope»; ég hefi húsitlit. «I have a house».

  10. Quasipossessivity: the semantics • 2b. Possessive and non-possessive relations between some predicate arguments are expressed simultaneously. • 2b1. On the semantic level, cf.[Грамматика 1980]. • Rus. У нее деньги в банке. (Locative Relation + Possessive Relation). • Rus. У Ивана в сарае радиостанция смонтирована(Locative Relation + Possessive Relation + Agentive Relation, cf.е – ср. Rus. Иван смонтировал радиостанцию в сарае). • У меня в квартире пол не метен(Locative Relation + Agentive Relation).

  11. Possessive Relation: Raising [Szabolcsi 1983], [Den Dikken 1998]. • Она пришила ребенку пуговицу > > [ ребенок (посессор) vs пуговица (объект обладания)]. PR = raising of a possessor element to some higher syntactic domain. • ?Он грубым приемом сломал [ногу Аршавина/его ногу]. > Он грубым приемом сломал Аршавину/ему ногу. • ?Пробка бутылки ~ пробка от бутылки.

  12. Applicative morphemes Hungarian: an applicative auxiliary element is added[Szabolcsi 1983, Szabolcsi 1994] • Mari-nakakalap-ja-i“Mary’s hats”, Cf. Rus. “Машины шляпы», «шляпы Маши» М. – Dat. the hat-Poss.3 • Mari-nakvan-nakkalap-ja-i “Mary has some hats”, Cf. Rus. «У Маши есть шляпы». М. – Dat. Be-3Pl. hat-Poss.3

  13. Case Marking on the Possessor Corean: [Doo-Won Lee 2004: 239] • а. [DPKimkyoswukacok] -i«Professor Kim’s family» K. professor family –Nom • b. [DP Kim kyoswu ton]- i «Professor Kim’s money» K. money - Nom • c. Kim kyoswu-ka/eykyekacok-iiss-ta«Professor Kim has a family» K. professor-Nom/Datfamily-Nom exist-Dec • d. *[DPKimkyoswukacok] –iiss-ta • f. Kim kyoswu-ka/eykye ton-I iss-ta. «Professor Kim has money» • g.*[DPKimkyoswutoni] –iiss-ta

  14. Slavic Languages • Pronominal clitics[Franks & King 2000], [Зализняк 2008]. Pronominal Dative clitics have non-trivial properties– they can be used both on the NP/DP-level and on the clause-clevel and express the Possessive Relation. • NP/DP-level Posssesive Clitics are attested in Bulgarian and Macedonian [Franks, Junghanns, Law2005]. Raising of phrase-level Possessive clitics and lowering of clause-level Possessive clitics are blocked or hampered[Pennington 2010] затруднен [Kosta, Zimmerling 2011]. • Two possible analyses of Bulgarian Possessive clitics – Possessive Raising is possible [Schürсks, Wunderlich 2004]. – Possessive Raising is only possible in some constructions expressing alienable possession [Cinque & Krapova 2011].

  15. Russian:No Possessor Raising • NP-level Russian non-agreeing possessive determiners are marked with Genitive, clause-level Russian non-agreeing possessive determiner are marked with Dative. • In this situation, Possessive Raising cannot be analyzed as on operation preserving syntactic structure. • Rus. Oна не [NP дочь Петрова-Gen/его-Gen дочь] ~ Она не дочь Петрову-Dat./ему-Datне дочь. “She is not Petrova’s daughter” • Russian lacks NP/DP-level possessive determiners in the Dative Case. • а. Я себе не враг. I REFL.DAT. not enemy • b. *Явстретил врага себе. I met enemy REFL.DAT

  16. Old Russian • Old Russian had both clause-level possessive clitics (merged in 2P according to Wackernagel’s law, normally - after the first phonetic word), and NP-level possessive clitics attached to nominal heads. • а. O.Rus. что воздамъ=тиPP противоу [NP благодѣянию=ти]? (Ипат. [1199], л. 244). What render.PRS.1SG you.DAT.2SG. for benefaction youDAT.2SG. • b. брата=ти Романа Богъ поялъ (Ипат. [1180], л. 217). Brother.ACC.SG. you.DAT.2SG. Roman.ACC.SG. God took.PRF.3SG.M. “God took your brother Roman from you”, cf. Rus. ‘Бог взял у тебя (твоего) брата Романа’ OR ‘Бог взят твоего брата Романа (у тебя)’.

  17. Bulgarian • Alienable possession а. Тя намери=ли [DP ужасни-те=си грешки]? She found.PST3.SG. Q horrible-the REFL.DAT. mistakes «Did she find her terrible mistakes?» • b. Тя намери=ли=си [DP ужасни-те ­­___ грешкиi]? She found.PST3.SG. Q REFL.DAT. horrible-the mistakes

  18. Bulgarian • Inalienable possession • (c) Той =ми =сеизкряска [PPв [DPухото ]] he me.DAT.SG. REFL.ACC shouted.PST.3SG. in ear.the ‘He shouted in my ear’. • (d) Той=се изкряска [PPв [DP ухото=ми ]] ‘the same’ • In(c) the clitic =ми is an argument of the main clausal predicate. It has the meaning of the Benefactor/Malefactor, in (d) the clitic=ми is a DP-level element, the DP being part of a PP.

  19. Bulgarian • No extraction out of PPs seems to be possible. •   е. *Аз=имисля [PP -за [DP oчите __]] Iher.DAT.3SG.F.think.PRS.1SG. foreyes.the intended: ‘I am thinking of her eyes’. • Consequently, in examples like (c), we do not have any extraction either: the possessive clitic is base-generated in the main clause. c.Той =ми =сеизкряска [PPв [DPухото ]]

  20. Conclusions Is there Possessor Raising in Russian? • No, unless one postulates a special syntactic conception it order to find it. Is there Possessor Raising in UG? • Yes,in some Cases Possessor Raising is possible as a purely syntactic operation, in other cases it pertains to semantics and one must postulate a synonymy of different possessive (or quasi-possessive constructions). For this case we reserve the notion Possessor Shift. • Universal semantic relations correspond to similar but not identical syntactic patterns..

  21. Acknowledgments • The paper is prepared with financial support of the Russian Foundation for the Humanities (RGNF), project 11-04-00282a “Typology of morphosyntactic parameters”.

  22. REFERENCES (1) • Журинская М.А. Именные посессивные конструкции в языках Меланезии. – В кн.: О языках, фольклоре и литературе Океании. М., 1978. • ЖуринскаяМ.А. О выражениизначениянеотторжимости в русскомязыке. – В кн.: Семантическое и формальноеварьирование. М., 1979 • Славянскоеи балканскоеязыкознание: Категорияпосессивности. М., 1992. • БондаркоА.В. (ред.). Теорияфункциональнойграмматики: локативность, бытийность, посессивность, обусловленность. СПб, 1996. • Мельчук И.А. (1995). Русский язык в модели «Смысл - Текст».Wiener SlawistischerAlmanach. Sonderband 39. М.-Вена.

  23. REFERENCES (2) • Арутюнова Н.Д., Ширяев Е.Н. (1983) Русское предложение. Бытийный тип. М., Наука. • Селиверстова О.Н. Контрастивная синтаксическая семантика. М., 1990. • Зализняк А.А. Древнерусские энклитики. М.,2008. • Циммерлинг А.В. Обладать и быть рядом. – В кн.: - Логический анализ языка. Языки пространств. Н.Д.Арутюнова, И.Б.Левонтина (ред.). М., 2000, 179-188. • Грамматика 1980. Русская грамматика. Т. 1, М., Наука. 1982. • Янко, Т.Е. (2001) Коммуникативные стратегии русской речи. М., Языки славянской культуры.

  24. REFERENCES (3) • Cinque, Guglielmo and IlyanaKrapova. (2011) “The Case for Genitive Case in Bulgarian”. Lilia Schürcks, UrtziEtxeberria, Anastasia Giannakidou and Peter Kosta (eds.) The Structure of NP and Beyond (Studies in Generative Grammar). Berlin, London: de Gruyter (to appear). • Don-Won Lee. Possessor-Raising in Existential Constructions. In: Studies in Generative Grammar, Vol. 14, No.2, (2004), 235-242. • Szabolcsi, Anna. The Possessor that Ran away from Home. The Linguistic Review 3: 89-102 (1983). • Baker, Mark. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1988. • Den Dikken, Marcel. Predicate Inversion in DP. In: Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, ed. Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder 177-214. Amsterdam-Philhadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998.

  25. REFERENCES (4) • Lilia Schűrcks & Dieter Wunderlich. (2003). “Determiner-Possessor Relation in the Bulgarian DP”. Martine Coene & Yves D'hulst (eds.) From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. Amsterdam: Benjamins 2003, 121-139. • Franks, Steven, UweJunghanns and Paul Law. (2005) “Pronominal Clitics in Slavic”. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 12 (2004) 1-2, 3-36. • Franks, Steven & Tracy King. (2000) A handbook of Slavic clitics. New York: Oxford University Press. • MišeskaTomić, Olga. (2004) “The South Slavic Pronominal Clitics”. Journal of Slavic linguistics, 12 (1-2): 213-48, 2004.

  26. REFERENCES (5) • Kosta, Peter & Anton Zimmerling. (2011). Slavic Clitic Systems in a Typological Perspective. Lilia Schürcks, UrtziEtxeberria, Anastasia Giannakidou and Peter Kosta (eds.) The Structure of NP and Beyond (Studies in Generative Grammar). Berlin, London: de Gruyter (to appear ). • Pennington, James J. (2010). Kombinovanjeobjektaadnominalnogposesivnogdativa s dopunamaglagola u jednojklauzi u bosansko-hrvatsko-srpsko-crnogorskom. University of Ohio. Ms.

More Related