Kolloquium Slawistische Linguistik: Sommersemester 2021
7.4. Ewelina Mokrosz & Sławomir Zdziebko (Lublin): The structural size of Reduced Relative Clauses: insights from Polish
There is an almost unanimous agreement among researchers that participial Reduced Relative Clauses project at most as high as IP/TP. The evidence for such a state of affairs comes from the illocutionary dependence of RRCs, absence of overt or covert relativizing elements, unavailability of Topicalization/Focalization and the absence of tense marking within RRCs.
At the same time the literature usually points out to certain differences in the size of participial RRCs both within a single language and across languages (see e.g. Siloni 1995, Marvin 2002, Belikova 2008, Cinque 2020). Such works usually focus on the differences in the availability of aspectual and argument-structure related projections in participial RRCs of different kind and provenance.
It is our general aim to show that cross-linguistic differences in the size of participial RRCs may also include the presence versus the absence of the layers of structure associated with the broadly understood syntactic left periphery. In this talk we will focus on the evidence pointing to the availability of certain left-peripheral layers of structure in Polish.
In particular we will address:
- the availability of sentential negation in RRCs containing both passive and active participles in Polish as opposed to Hebrew, Arabic and French (see Siloni 1995, Hazout 2001)
- the availability of amount reading/maximalization in RRCs (in Polish and English)
- the (putative) availability of Focalization and Topicalization in RRCs in Polish
- the availability of WH-movement within RRCs (in Polish)
28.4. Dorota Klimek-Jankowska (Wrocław): Variation in aspect choices in general factual contexts in Polish, Czech and Russian (and other Slavic languages)
I will present the results of my quantitative research testing the variation in aspect choices in the so called general factual contexts in Polish, Czech and Russian. My goal in this research is to verify the micro-typology of Slavic aspect proposed by Dickey (2000 and subsequent works) on the basis of replicable procedures and a rich set of data elicited from native speakers. To this goal, I conducted a series of scenario-based online questionnaires in almost all Slavic languages (here I will focus mainly on Polish, Czech and Russian). I manipulated the type of context, rhetorical relations and information structure. I will propose a formal account of the observed patterns based on Ramchand (2008) formal theory of aspect and temporality but I will also point to some problems that still await explanation. Time-permitting, I will also mention the preliminary results of my questionnaires for other Slavic languages.
5.5. Wojciech Guz (Lublin) & Łukasz Jędrzejowski (Köln): Subordinate clauses as ActP modifiers. Evidence from concessive clauses in Polish
In this talk, we examine the syntax of concessive clauses in Polish introduced by the wh-word gdzie ‘where’, and compare their properties with those of adverbial clauses headed by the inherent concessive complementizer chociaż ‘although’. We argue that i) gdzie is base-generated as a concessive head in ActP in Krifka’s (to appear) terms, and that no movement from a lower position is involved, ii) concessive gdzie-clauses should be analyzed as disintegrated adverbial clauses adjoining outside the matrix clause structure, and iii) although concessive gdzie-clauses exhibit properties of subordinate clauses, they are syntactically not embedded and possess their own illocutionary force.
19.5. Vesela Simeonova (Tübingen): Locative and non-locative 'where' in Bulgarian
This talk explores the many uses of 'where' in Bulgarian. While there are some targeted studies (Rudin 2007 on multiple relatives, Krapova 2010 and Simeonova 2015 on 'where' as a complementizer in emotive factive and relative clauses, Rudin and Franks 2014 on concessives), a large part of the spectrum of readings that 'where' has (and doesn't have, cf. Wojciech Guz & Łukasz Jędrzejowski's talk from May 5!) and their theoretical implications remains undocumented. This talk begins to fill that gap.
28.5. Hagen Pitsch (Göttingen): The analytical conditional in Slavic and the particle/auxiliary distinction
The talk explores the cross-Slavic variation in analytic conditional forms (COND). There seem to be two major patterns: (i) COND with auxiliary verbs showing person/number agreement; and (ii) COND with auxiliary particles lacking agreement. However, Polish and East Slavic languages – belonging to group (i) and (ii), respectively – stand out in that their COND allow for infinitives and further impersonal forms excluded in the remaining Slavic languages. The talk offers a tentative formal syntactic account with a focus on the distinction between auxiliary verbs and particles.
9.6.Pavel Caha (Brno), Karen De Clercq (CNRS, LLF - UMR 7110) & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd (KU Leuven): Causative-inchoative alternations of deadjectival verbs in Czech
We analyze various patterns of the inchoative/causative alternation of de-adjectival verbs in Czech. Following Ramchand (2008), we assume that de-adjectival causatives contain three parts: the adjective denoting a state, a change-of-state component proc, and a causative component init. Adopting a Nanosyntax approach, we propose that various roots spell out a different number of these abstract heads, which then leads to different patterns of formation.
18.6. Masha Esipova (Oslo): Semantics of situations and pragmatics of prevention
In my talk, I will inspect two types of readings that emerge in a range of environments (e.g., in negated imperatives, under 'not want', under 'fear', etc.): (i) ABSTAIN readings, implying willingness to prevent someone from intentionally engaging in an activity, and (ii) AVOID readings, implying willingness to prevent a potentially unintended outcome. The ABSTAIN vs. AVOID distinction has a variety of grammatical reflexes cross-linguistically, e.g., (anti-)licensing of some-indefinites in English (Don't call anyone! vs. Don't call someone!). I will focus on perfective vs. imperfective aspect and (anti-)licensing of certain types of indefinites in Russian. I will argue that the relevant complements in ABSTAIN vs. AVOID cases have distinct compositional structures: there is a situation layer in AVOID, but not in ABSTAIN cases. This explains the relevant Russian facts about aspect and indefinites. The choice between the two compositional structures in the environments at hand is, in turn, driven by global pragmatic considerations about preventing unwanted scenarios. This explains the inferences arising in the two cases.
25.6. Natalija V. Bogdanova-Belgarjan (Staatliche Universität St. Petersburg/HSE): Русская повседневная речь: Диалог и монолог в корпусноом представлении
Наше выступление будет состоять из нескольких презентаций, в которых мы расскажем о двух речевых корпусах, которые созданы и уже несколько лет активно разрабатываются и анализируются в Санкт-Петербургском государственном университете.
Корпус русской повседневной речи «Один речевой день» (ОРД), записанный по методике 24-часовой записи (непрерывный мониторинг). Содержит речь 128 информантов и более 1000 их коммуникантов, более 1250 часов звучания, более 2800 коммуникативных маркроэпизодов. Среди информантов — 68 мужчин и 60 женщин, в возрасте от 18 до 83 лет, 10 профессиональных групп (рабочие, сфера обслуживания, образование, военные и пр.), 5 статусных групп (учащиеся, руководители, пенсионеры и т.д.) экстраверты и интроверты. Возраст коммуникантов — от 3 до 85 лет. Транскрипты содержат более 1 000 000 словоформ в расшифровках.
Корпус русской монологической речи «Сбалансированная аннотированная текстотека» (САТ), построенный по нашей собственной методике. Разные профессиональные группы информантов (медики, юристы, «компьютерщики», преподаватели, студенты), сбалансированные социологически и психологически. Около 800 текстов, более 50 часов звучания. 4 коммуникативных сценария: чтение, пересказ, описание изображения, рассказ на заданную тему.
Будут изложены принципы формирования обоих корпусов, количественные данные на сегодняшний момент и много иллюстраций. Если хватит времени, расскажем о сайте ОРД и словаре (бумажном и мультимедийном) прагматических маркеров русской повседневной речи, построенном на материале обоих корпусов, то есть отражающем и монолог, и диалог.
30.6. Edyta Jurkiewicz-Rohrbacher (Regensburg): When does Polish like infinitives? Accusative controllers in Polish
Abstract: The starting point is the article of Dziwirek (2000) who claims that accusative object control with infinitive complements is not possible in Polish beyond the verb nauczyć ‘to teach’ (and presumably other verbs with the root ucz*). Słodowicz (2008) who examines a sample of Polish control verbs distinguishes a group of inherent object control verbs including 2 more verbal roots allowing for accusative controllers with infinitive complements. The inspection of modern Polish dictionaries and corpus data shows that the group of accusative controllers allowing for infinitive complements is in fact slightly bigger. However, some of its members are “hidden” because infinitive complementation occurs mostly in the passive. In the talk, I discuss the syntactic and semantic properties of such verbs. I motivate their particular behavior referring to modality and causativity.
References: Dziwirek, Katarzyna. 2000. Why Polish doesn’t like infinitives. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 8: 57-82.
Słodowicz, Szymon. 2008. Control in Polish complement clauses. Munich: Sagner.