REFERENTIAL SYSTEMS OF SLAVIC, GERMANIC, AND ROMANCE

1. REFERENTIAL SYSTEMS OF SLAVIC, GERMANIC, AND ROMANCE Andrej A. Kibrik(Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy ofSciences)aakibrik@gmail.com Discourse Representation, Comprehension and Production in a Cross-linguistic Perspective Oslo, June 2011

2. Familiar facts: ‘he plays’ Reduced referential devices, “refs” for short ??

3. Basic questions • What performs the discourse act of reference in each case? • How can one put languages’ referential systems on equal footing? • What typological parameters are necessary and sufficient to account for the observed cross-linguistic diversity? • Cf. partial parameters such as “argument type”, “plus or minus pro-drop” • NB: All referential devices only exist for actual reference in discourse, performed in real time

4. Plan of talk • Discuss the data of three major groups of European languages • Propose a typology consisting of a set of easily identifiable parameters • Compare the European languages in terms of this typology • Note: This paper is a part of a typological study based on the material of 200 languages • A.A.Kibrik, Reference in discourse. Oxford: OUP, 2011.

5. Latin (Horace, Satires 1.5: 65ff.) a. Multa Cicirrus ad haec: much C. to these Cicirrus said much to this: b. donasse-t iam-ne catena-m ex vot-o Lar-ibus, present.Plpf.Conj-3Sg already-Qu chain-Acc.Sg from wish-Abl.Sg L.-Dat.Pl c. quaereba-t; ask.Impf-3Sg he asked whether he [=Sarmentus] had already devoted a chain to the Lares; d. scriba quod esse-t, scribe.Nom that be.Impf.Conj-3Sg though he [=Sarmentus] was a scribe e. nilo deterius domin-ae ius esse. nothing worse mistress-Gen.Sg right be.inf his mistress has no less rights over him. f. Rogaba-t denique cur umquam fugisse-t <...> ask.Impf-3Sg finally why sometime flee.Plpf.Conj-3Sg Finally he asked why he had ever fled<…> English free pronouns and Latin agreement endings are exactly equifunctional

6. Latin, also shared by other old Indo-European • Basic ref type: • Latin agreement markers (personal desinences) are genuine bound pronouns • Tenacity: • Bound tenacious pronouns

7. Tenacity vs. alternation    

8. Latin, also shared by other old Indo-European • Basic ref type: • Latin agreement markers are genuine bound pronouns • Tenacity: • Bound tenacious pronouns • NB: these two parameters are independent, see below • Sensitivity: • Subject position vs. non-subject position • Subject position – bound tenacious pronouns • Non-subject position – free alternating pronouns, e.g.: Eum ad eam cum alio agricola mitt-eba-nt. him to her with other(Abl) farmer(Abl) send-Impf-3Pl Yesterday they were sending him to her with another farmer

9. GERMANIC: English, German • Basic ref type: • free pronouns • This is the least common basic ref in the world

10. WALS composer: Dryer and Siewierska • Consistent languages: free, bound, zero

11. GERMANIC: English, German • Basic ref type: • free pronouns • This is the least common basic ref in the world • Tenacity: • free alternating pronouns • Sensitivities: • No sensitivity vis-à-vis syntactic position per se • Subject of non-first coordinate clause: zero • In really consistent free pronoun languages (e.g. some Gur languages in W. Africa) this is not the case

12. GERMANIC: English, German • Peculiarity: free pronouns plus less than referential subject agreement markers on the verb • Descent: • V2 principle applied to a Latin-style structure  obligatoriness of free subject pronouns in most clauses  obligatoriness of free subject pronouns in all clauses  gradual decay of subject agreement (very advanced but still incomplete in English) • Typological assessment: highly exotic system • Siewierska 2004: • Sample of 402 languages • The Germanic pattern is found only in: • Germanic • Some Romance influenced by Germanic, see below • East Slavic, see below • seven languages in Oceania

13. GERMANIC: English, German • Can Germanic-style agreement be referential? • There are some vestiges of referential use • Sounds good, cf. *Sound good • What's the new guy like? — Doesn't know how to play., cf.:What‘re the new guys like? — *Don't know how to play.(examples inspired by Stirling 2002: 1540) • Hinweis für Allergiker:Kann Spuren von Milch, Erdnüssen und anderen Nüssen enthalten • Perhaps Germanic agreement markers can be considered ancillary refs

14. ROMANCE: Spanish • The Latin system is kept, except for: • tenacity is extended to free non-subject pronouns (“clitic doubling”) y la chica pues le da-øle quita-ø and the girl then 3Sg.Dat hit-Pres.3Sg3Sg.Dat seize-Pres.3Sg al chicoal niño el sombrero to.the boyto.the boythe hat And the girl then takes the hat from the boy… (Comajoan 2006:73) • this tenacity is partial, it depends on several hierarchies: • indirect object > direct object • human > animate > inanimate • definite > indefinite • coreferential NP is pronominal > nominal • coreferential NP is preverbal (topicalized) > postverbal

15. ROMANCE: French • French is a complex hybrid of Romance and Germanic patterns • Its modern character can only be understood through history • In the 11th century Old French largely keeps the Latin system • Frequency of subject reference solely by personal desinences (Vance 1997): • 1167 – 55% • 1212 – 33% • 1375 – 26% • 1505 – 23% • This is due to Germanic syntactic influence (V2 principle) • By the 17th century the system we know as “standard French” has emerged, still conserved in the written form of the language

16. ROMANCE: French • But the real modern French is “colloquial French” (cf. Lambrecht 1981) • Three main processes leading to it include: • decay of subject agreement • tenacity is extended from free object pronouns (shared with other Romance) to free subject pronouns • free pronouns got (or are still getting) reinterpreted as bound pronouns • Basic ref type: • bound pronouns • Tenacity: • bound tenacious pronouns • Sensitivities: • no sensitivity vis-à-vis syntactic position • sensitivity vis-à-vis definiteness

17. ROMANCE: French • Bound tenacious pronouns Pierrei-la-voit, Marie Pierre sees Marie (Lambrecht 1981: 77) donc l'autre / elle a réussi à se barrer / # But the other one managed to escape l'allumage / ill'avait &ja [/] ill'avait jamais changé // # he had actually never changed ignition (Cresti and Moneglia (eds.) 2005, dialogue “Allumage”)

18. SLAVIC • Old Church Slavonic, Old Russian: no significant difference from Latin • The same system is largely kept in Polish (West Slavic)

19. South SLAVIC • Bulgarian Ivan gotărs-jat I.3Sg.M.Acc seek-Pres.3Pl They are looking for Ivan (Franks and King 2000: 53) • Macedonian Mu jadado-vna edn-o detekniga-ta 3Sg.N.Dat3Sg.F.Acc give-Aor.1Sg to one-N childbook-Def.F I gave the book to a child (Usikova 2005: 133) Indirect object tenacious pronouns cooccur even with indefinite full NPs

20. South SLAVIC • Spanish-style system • Tenacity: • tenacious pronouns • Sensitivities: • Syntactic position-based: • Subject position: bound tenacious pronouns • Non-subject position: free tenacious pronouns • Bulgarian: only definite object pronouns are tenacious • Macedonian: indefinite indirect object pronouns are tenacious as well

21. East SLAVIC: Russian • Non-subject position: free alternating pronouns • Remained intact, that is: • Same as in Old Slavic • Different from South Slavic • Subject position: A system surprisingly different from: • Old Slavic • West Slavic • South Slavic • Strong resemblance to the Germanic pattern • Free alternating subject pronouns • Combined with agreement on the verb

22. East SLAVIC: Russian Pattern 1: free pronouns + bound pronouns A on sejčas ne u neë živ-ët … But he now not at her live-Pres.3Sg But he does not live at hers now… S”exa-l … Dom snima-et move-Past.MSg house rent-Pres.3Sg He has moved… He is renting a house (Pavlova 2011) • According to the counts in a number of studies (Kibrik 1996, Grenoble 2001, Seo 2001) the frequency difference between the two patterns is as follows: • pronoun + agreement (pattern 1): between 2/3 and 3/4 • just agreement (plus “zero”) (pattern 2): between 1/3 and 1/4 • Agreement is often the only overt bearer of the referential function • Pattern 1 (dominant) is very Germanic-like • Pattern 2 (secondary but still strong) is non-Germanic • Agreement markers clearly deserve the status of ancillary refs • This system can thus be characterized as the Germanic pattern with a strong old Indo-European accent Pattern 2: (zero +)bound pronouns NB: no person agreement in the past

23. East SLAVIC: Russian • Hypothesis on the rise of the Russian pattern: • First emerged in late Old Russian in the past tense due to morphological restructuring of the perfect and the loss of person marking (Kibrik 2004) • The evidence of Old Novgorod birchbark letters (11-12 centuries) seems to confirm this hypothesis • Pavlova 2011: the quantitative difference can still be observed in modern Russian: significantly more clauses without a pronominal subject in the non-past tenses

24. East SLAVIC: Russian • An additional hypothesis: Germanic influence • It is unlikely that so similar and exotic patterns emerged so closely by mere accident • Specific route of influence • Hanseatic influence through the Baltic (13-17th centuries)? • This hypothesis remains to be tested • it does not contradict the first hypothesis • they could have operated in conjunction

25. Conclusion: framework for a description of a language’s referential system • Preferred type of basic ref: zero vs. free pronoun vs. bound pronoun • Pronouns: alternating vs. tenacious • Sensitivities: • Whether the language is consistent or not • What bases for sensitivities are attested • participant position • What options are used depending on sensitivities • Ancillary refs • Present or not • Degree of referential capacity

26. Conclusion: language profiles

27. A final note • Are the profiles indicated above for certain languages absolutely stable? • Cf. Indian English, as imitated by G.D.Roberts in “Shantaram”: • This is the most beautiful of hotels. Please, just see it the room. Please, Mr. Lindsay, just see it the lovely room • Thank you too much, Mr. Lindsay. Is very best, first number, Johnnie Walker. • It is still English, with unrestricted zero anaphora and tenacious pronouns • So we can outline the basic guideposts of a typology, but natural languages will always try to escape it, fluctuate • This especially concerns syntactic phenomena; morphology is more robust tenacious object pronouns zero subject

28. Thank you • Dziękuję • Gracias • Takk

29. Parameter 1: Basic types of referential devices • Full vs. reduced • Three basic types of reduced referential devices (refs) • Free pronouns • Bound pronouns • Zero refs • This talk: mostly third person reference Overt refs

30. Tenacity and argumenthood  • Kibrik 1988 • Mithun 2003 • Siewierska 2004 • Corbett 2006 • Distributed argumenthood • i-č’kº’əncºad-rə-pxyan his-sons he-them-called ‘He called his sons’ 

31. Parameter 3: Sensitivities • Consistent languages • Zero reference - Yidiny • Free recessive pronouns - Lyélé • Bound tenacious pronouns – Abkhaz • Inconsistencies/sensitivities: • Clause participant position • Construction type • Referent’s level of activation • Referent’s definiteness, specificity, etc. • various degrees of consistency in a language’s commitment to a certain referential device – some languages use a variety of devices whose heterogeneity may be very high

32. Sensitivity A: Clause participant position • Latin • Subject: bound tenacious pronouns • Object: free recessive pronouns • Gela (Oceanic Austronesian, Solomon Islands, Crowley 2002) • Subject: free tenacious • Object: bound tenacious • …most other combinations attested as well…

33. Sensitivity B: Referent’s level of activation • In Mandarin, zero and free pronoun tā occur with comparable frequency • Interpreting available analyses (Hedberg 1996, Li and Thompson 1979, Giora 1996, Chu 1998, Pu 2001, inter alia) it appears that zero is used at the highest level of referent activation, while the third person pronouns at a somewhat lowered level.

34. What all this is good for? • For profiling individual languages’ referential systems • After profiles of a significant number of languages is available, for the construction of a fully-fledged typology of referential systems • For an individual language, details of its referential system must be assessed against the background of the basic characterization

35. On a sad note • In this domain – one of the worst misnomers in linguistics, • picked up by linguists of various theoretical views with a surprising ease • Pro-drop

36. Which languages are pro-drop? • Those that use zero reference, such as Yidiny or Japanese • Those that use insensitive bound pronouns, such as Abkhaz • Those that use bound pronouns, sensitive to clause participant position, such as Latin • Those that use sensitive free pronouns, such as Mandarin or Russian • In other words, all unEnglish languages

37. The parameter of Englishness • Siewierska and Bakker 2005 • A sample of 428 languages • 96.2% of languages are “pro-drop” • This “parameter” completely fails to account for the diversity of unEnglish languages • Plea: DROP PRO-DROP!