Subject ellipsis in the main clause in Russian and the typology of correlatives

 
PIIS0373658X0002019-9-1
DOI10.31857/S0373658X0002019-9
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Affiliation: Russian State University for the Humanities
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameVoprosy Jazykoznanija
EditionIssue 6
Pages31-59
Abstract

This paper deals with the Russian words to, tak, no, kak, togda and tut when they are used as correlatives, that is, are linked to a subordinator across the clause boundary (cf. Esli zavtra budet xorošaja pogoda, to my pojdjom guljat’, ‘if the weather is good tomorrow, then we will go for a walk’). It is argued that to, tak, no and kak differ from togda and tut in that they interact with the possibility of subject ellipsis in the main clause: only when they are present in the sentence, is subject ellipsis allowed. The explanation I propose to this fact is based on three assumptions: (i) constructions with togda and tut, but not those with to, tak, no or kak, are a subtype of correlative relative constructions; (ii) to, tak, no and kak, but not togda or tut, serve to raise the degree of semantic and grammatical symmetry between clauses; (iii) symmetry is a factor relevant for ellipsis. The differences that the correlatives under discussion display in the elliptical context can therefore be seen as a manifestation of a more basic distinction between two types of correlatives.

Keywordscorpus, correlative, ellipsis, relative clause, subject
AcknowledgmentThis research was supported by the Russian Foundation for Humanitarian Research, grant No. 17-04-00517(а).
Received25.11.2018
Publication date26.11.2018
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in

Price publication: 0

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1706

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Apresyan 2012 — Apresyan V. Yu. «Tut» as a temporal proximity marker. Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii: Po materialam ezhegodnoi Mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Dialog». No. 11. Moscow: Russian State Univ. for the Humanities, 2012. Pp. 1–17.

2. Gladkii 2012 — Gladkii A. V. On the meaning of the conjunction ESLI. Semiotika i informatika. No. 18. Moscow: All-Union Institute of the Scientific and Technical Information, 1982. Pp. 43–76.

3. Dobrushina 2014 — Dobrushina N. R. Imperativ. Materialy dlya proekta korpusnogo opisaniya russkoi grammatiki [Imperative. Materials for the project of the corpus-based description of Russian grammar] (http://rusgram.ru). As manuscript. Moscow, 2014.

4. Zav’yalov 2008 — Zav’yalov V. N. Morfologicheskie i sintaksicheskie aspekty opisaniya struktury russkikh soyuzov: monografiya [Morphological and syntactic aspects of the description of the Russian conjunctions’ structure: a monograph]. Khabarovsk: Far Eastern State University for Humanities, 2008.

5. Kodzasov, Savvina 1987 — Kodzasov S. V., Savvina E. N. General features of coordinating constructions. Modelirovanie yazykovoi deyatel’nosti v intellektual’nykh sistemakh. Kibrik A. E., Narin’yani A. S. (eds.). Moscow: Nauka, 1987. Pp. 147–167.

6. Kreidlin 1975 — Kreidlin G. E. Dazhe lexeme. Semiotika i informatika. No. 6. Moscow: All-Union Institute of the Scientific and Technical Information, 1975. Pp. 102–114.

7. NKRYa — Natsional’nyi korpus russkogo yazyka [Russian National Corpus]. Available at: http://www.ruscorpora.ru.

8. Paducheva 1985 — Paducheva E. V. Vyskazyvanie i ego sootnesennost’ s deistvitel’nost’yu [Utterance and its relationships with reality]. Moscow: Nauka, 1985.

9. Paducheva 2014 — Paducheva E. V. Modal’nost’. Materialy dlya proekta korpusnogo opisaniya russkoi grammatiki [Modality. Materials for the project of the corpus-based description of Russian grammar] (http://rusgram.ru). As manuscript. Moscow, 2014.

10. Pekelis 2015 — Pekelis O. E. The marker to as a means for highlighting implicative relations (case study of esli… to ‘if… then’ conjunction. Voprosy Jazykoznanija. 2015. No. 2. Pp. 55–96.

11. Pekelis 2018 — Pekelis O. E. Korrelyaty. Materialy dlya proekta korpusnogo opisaniya russkoi grammatiki [Correlatives. Materials for the project of the corpus-based description of the Russian grammar] (http://rusgram.ru). As manuscript. Moscow, 2018.

12. RG 1980 — Russkaya grammatika: V 2 t. [Russian grammar: In 2 vol.]. Shvedova N. Yu. (ed.). Vol. I. Moscow: Nauka, 1980.

13. Sannikov 2008 — Sannikov V. Z. Russkii sintaksis v semantiko-pragmaticheskom prostranstve [Russian syntax in the semantic and pragmatic space]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh Kul’tur, 2008.

14. Testelets 2001 — Testelets Ya. G. Vvedenie v obshchii sintaksis [Introduction to general syntax]. Moscow: Russian State Univ. for the Humanities, 2001.

15. Uryson 2011 — Uryson E. V. Opyt opisaniya semantiki soyuzov [An attempt of description of conjunctions’ semantics]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh Kul’tur, 2011.

16. Kholodilova 2014 — Kholodilova M. A. Otnositel’nye pridatochnye. Materialy dlya proekta korpusnogo opisaniya russkoi grammatiki [Relative clauses. Materials for the project of the corpus-based description of Russian grammar] (http://rusgram.ru). As manuscript. Moscow, 2014.

17. Yanko 2001 — Yanko T. E. Kommunikativnye strategii russkoi rechi [Communicative strategies of Russian speech]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh Kul’tur, 2001.

18. Barker 2012 — Barker C. Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry. 2012. Vol. 43(4). Pp. 614–633.

19. Bhatt, Pancheva 2006 — Bhatt R., Pancheva R. Conditionals. The Blackwell companion to syntax. Vol. 1. Everaert M., van Riemsdijk H. (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. Pp. 638–687.

20. Cann, McPherson 1999 — Cann R., McPherson C. Interclausal cataphora in English. Ms. Univ. of Edinburgh, 1999.

21. Geis 1985 — Geis M. The syntax of conditional sentences. Studies in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Geis M. L. (ed.). Columbus (OH): Department of Linguistics, Ohio State Univ. Pp. 130–159.

22. Geis, Zwicky 1971 — Geis M., Zwicky A. On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry. 1971. Vol. 2. Pp. 561–566.

23. Iatridou 1994 — Iatridou S. On the contribution of conditional then. Natural Language Semantics. 1994. Vol. 2. Pp. 171–199.

24. Inkova 2014 — Inkova O. La corrélation en russe: Structures et interprétations. Berne: Peter Lang, 2014.

25. Ivlieva 2011 — Ivlieva N. Universal laziness of pronouns. Proceedings of SALT. 2011. Vol. 20. Pp. 720–734.

26. Izvorski 1996 — Izvorski R. The syntax and semantics of correlative proforms. Proceedings of the North Eastern linguistic society 26. Kusumoto K. (ed.). Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Student Association. Pp. 133–147.

27. Kehler 2002 — Kehler A. Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. Stanford (CA): CSLI Publications, 2002.

28. Lipták 2009 — Lipták A. The landscape of correlatives: an empirical and analytical survey. Correlatives cross-linguistically. Lipták A. (ed.). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2009. Pp. 1–47.

29. Livitz 2014 — Livitz I. Deriving silence through dependent reference: Focus on pronouns. PhD diss. New York Univ., 2014.

30. Madariaga 2018 — Madariaga N. Diachronic change and the nature of pronominal null subjects: The case of Russian. A synchronic and diachronic perspective. Null Subjects in Generative Grammar. Cognola F., Casalicchio J. (eds.). Oxford Univ. Press, 2018. Pp. 171–198.

31. Merchant (in print) — Merchant J. Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis. Van Craenenbroeck J., Temmerman T. (eds.). Oxford Univ. Press (in print).

32. Mitrenina 2010 — Mitrenina O. Correlatives: Evidence from Russian. Formal studies in Slavic Linguistics. Zybatow G., Dudchuk P., Minor S., Pshehotskaya E. (eds.). Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages 7.5 (Linguistik International, 25, pp. 135–151). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2010.

33. Pekelis 2016 – Pekelis O. E. Correlative markers, contrastiveness and grammaticalization: A comparative study of conditional correlatives in Russian and Italian. Italian Journal of Linguistics. 2016. Vol. 28 (2). Pp. 143–180.

34. Podlesskaya 1997 — Podlesskaya V. I. Syntax and semantics of resumption: Some evidence from Russian conditional conjuncts. Russian Linguistics. 1997. Vol. 21. Pp. 125–155.

35. Quirk et al. 1985 — Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman, 1985.

36. Roberts, Holmberg 2010 — Roberts I., Holmberg A. Introduction: parameters in minimalist theory. Parametric variation: null subjects in minimalist theory. Biberauer T., Holmberg A., Roberts I., Sheehan M. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Pp. 1–57.

37. Shushurin 2018 — Shushurin P. Null pronouns in Russian embedded clauses. Pronouns in embedded contexts at the syntax-semantics interface. Patel-Grosz P., Grosz P. G., Zobel S. (eds.). (Series: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Vol. 99.) Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing, 2018. Pp. 145–169.

38. Tiskin 2017 — Tiskin D. Movement out of adjunct clauses in Russian: evidence from semantics. Comparative Slavic Syntax and Semantics. Oslo Studies in Language. 2017. Vol. 9 (1). Pp. 33–43.

39. Trnavac, Taboada 2016 — Trnavac R., Taboada M. Cataphora, backgrounding and accessibility in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 2016. Vol. 93. Pp. 68–84.

40. Tsedryk 2013 — Tsedryk E. Internal Merge of nominative subjects and pro-drop in Russian. Proceedings of the 2013 Canadian Linguistics Association conference. Shan Luo (ed.). Univ. of Victoria. 2013.

41. van Oirsouw 1987 — van Oirsouw R. The syntax of coordination. London: Croom Helm, 1987.

42. te Velde 2006 — te Velde J. Deriving coordinate symmetries: A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match (Lingvistik Aktuell, 89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006.

43. Verstraete 2005 — Verstraete J.-C. Two types of coordination in clause combining. Lingua. 2005. Vol. 115. No. 4. Pp. 611–626.

44. Voitenkova-Kor Chahine 2001 — Voitenkova-Kor Chahine I. ESLI et l’expression de la condition en russe moderne. PhD diss. Université de Provence Aix-Marseille I, 2001.

45. Zwicky 1985 — Zwicky A. M. Clitics and particles. Language. 1985. Vol. 61. Pp. 283–305.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up