1

REFERENTIAL SYSTEMS OF SLAVIC, GERMANIC,

AND ROMANCE

Andrej A. Kibrik(Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences)

aakibrik@gmail.com

Discourse Representation, Comprehension and Production in a Cross-linguistic Perspective

Oslo, June 2011

2

Familiar facts: ‘he plays’Zero Japanese Ø asonda

Free pronoun English he played

Free pronoun ~ zero

Mandarin tā~Ø zà wánshuă ne

Bound pronoun Spoken French

i-žu (graphic il joue)

Agreement Latin lūd-it

Free pronoun plus agreement

German,English (pres.)

er spiel-t

Free pron. ~ zero plus agreement

Russian on~Ø igra-et

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 theseCicirrus said much to this:

b. donasse-t iam-ne catena-m ex vot-oLar-ibus,

present.Plpf.Conj-3Sg already-Qu chain-Acc.Sg from wish-Abl.SgL.-Dat.Plc. quaereba-t;

ask.Impf-3Sghe asked whether he [=Sarmentus] had already devoted a chain to the

Lares;d. scriba quod esse-t,

scribe.Nom that be.Impf.Conj-3Sgthough he [=Sarmentus] was a scribe

e. nilo deterius domin-ae ius esse.nothing worse mistress-Gen.Sg right be.infhis mistress has no less rights over him.

f. Rogaba-t denique cur umquamfugisse-t <...>ask.Impf-3Sg finally why sometime flee.Plpf.Conj-3SgFinally 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

English:ALTERNATING PRONOUNS

Latin:TENACIOUS PRONOUNS

English: referent activated

English: referent

non-activated

Latin: referent activated

Latin: referent

non-activated

Referents: plane of thought

Referential devices: plane of language

He played The boy played

Lus-it Puer lus-it

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 chicapues le da-ø le quita-øand thegirl then 3Sg.Dat hit-Pres.3Sg 3Sg.Dat seize-Pres.3Sgal chicoal niño el sombreroto.the boy to.the boy the hatAnd 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 pronounsPierre i-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 / il l'avait &ja [/] il l'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

BulgarianIvan go tărs-jatI. 3Sg.M.Acc seek-Pres.3Pl

They are looking for Ivan(Franks and King 2000: 53)

MacedonianMu ja dado-v na edn-o

dete kniga-ta3Sg.N.Dat 3Sg.F.Acc give-Aor.1Sg to one-N child

book-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

A on sejčas ne u neë živ-ët …But he now not at her live-Pres.3SgBut he does not live at hers now…

S”exa-l … Dom snima-etmove-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 1: free pronouns + bound pronouns

Pattern 2: (zero +)bound pronouns

NB: no person agreement in the past

23

East SLAVIC: RussianCommon

SlavicMiddle-late Old Russian (11th – 15th century)

Modern Russian (from the 17th century)

Perfect/past, 3Sg.M

da-l-ъ jes-tь da-l-ъ — on da-l-ø

Present, 3Sg da-etь da-etь on da-ët

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

Basic ref Ancillaryref

Sensitivities, examples

Subject Non-subject

Latin & Old IE

bound ten.

free alt. n/a

English,German

free alt. free alt. mostly non-referential, degraded personal desinences

S of non-first coord.clause

Spanish bound ten.

free ten. n/a animacy; pre- vs. postverbal

Colloquial French

bound ten.

bound ten.

non-referential, degraded personal desinences

definiteness

Bulgarian,Macedonian

bound ten.

free ten. n/a DO vs. IO

Russian free alt. free alt. referential personal desinences

degree of activation

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

pronounszero 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

i-č’kº’əncºa d-rə-pxyan

his-sons he-them-called‘He called his sons’

Kibrik 1988 Mithun 2003 Siewierska

2004 Corbett 2006 Distributed

argumenthood

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!