Whata contrastiveanalysisofcopulasentences ... · Whata contrastiveanalysisofcopulasentences cantellusaboutthedevelopmentofthe Romancepronominal addresssystems SASCHA GAGLIA [email protected]

What a contrastive analysis of copula sentencescan tell us about the development of the

Romance pronominal address systemsSASCHA GAGLIA

SGAGL I [email protected]

1INAR 05, Sheffield (UK), June 2019

Outline1 Introduction

2 Previous Research

3 Analysis

3.1 French

3.2 Spanish

3.3 Italian

3.4 Diachronic Synopsis

4 Results

2

1 Introduction

3

ExamplesPolite copula sentence Conflicting Grammatical

Category

(1a) Mod. French Vous2PL êtes2PL loyalSG.MAS ‚You are loyal.‘ NUM

(1b) Old Spanish Vos2PL sodes2PL ondradoSG.MAS ‚You are honored.‘ NUM

(1c) Mod. Eur. Sp. Usted3SG es3SG generosoSG.MAS ‚You are generous.‘ No conflict

(1d) Old Italian Voi2PL siete2PL generosoSG.MAS ‚You are generous.‘ NUM

(1e) Mod. Italian Lei3SG.FEM è3SG generosoSG.MAS ‚You are generous.‘ GEN

4

Research questions

I. How must SUBJECT, PREDICATE and PREDICATIVE ADJECTIVE be specified?

II. What kinds of diachronic changes can be observed regarding their specification(s)?

III. What are the reasons for the different developments in French, Spanish & Italian?

5

POLITENESS-feature in Bavarian GermanBavarian German needs a morpho-syntactic politeness feature because of a distinct politeness morphem(Simon 2003):

(2a) heid sing-st oba schee neutral address

today sing-2SG really nice

(2b) heid sing-a(n)-s oba schee formal address [+POLITE]today sing-POL really nice

(2c) heid sing-and-s oba schee 3PL

today sing-3PL really nice

6

2 Previous Research

7

‚Hybrid Agreement‘ in Wechsler (2011)Vous SUBJ INDX PERS=2

INDX NUM=PLCONC NUM=PL

CONC GEN=

êtes PRED SUBJ INDX PERS=2SUBJ INDX NUM=PL

loyal XCOMP SUBJ CONC NUM=SG or semantically [Singular]SUBJ CONC GEN=MAS or semantically [Male]

8(see also Comrie 1975, Pollard & Sag 1994, Kathol 1999, Wechsler & Hahm 2011)

3 Analysis

9

(GAGLIA IN PRESS, A & B)

Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG)Lexicon = Inventory of lexical entries;

in the traditional model: simple feature sets

c(onstituent)-Structure = Level of syntactic structure

f(unctional)-Structure = Level of feature unifications

(e.g. Kaplan & Bresnan & 1982)

10

Coming back to Modern French Vous SUBJ PERS=2

NUM=PL

êtes PRED PERS=2NUM=PL

loyal XCOMP NUM=SGGEN=MAS

Proposal:1) HON=+ for vous (→ Lexicon)2) Constraint (→ c-Structure)

M

11

3.1 French

12

Lexiconvous, Pron PRED=‚PRO‘ êtes, V PRED=‚ÊTRE‘

PERS=2 SUBJ PERS=2NUM=PL SUBJ NUM = PLHON=+

loyal, A PRED=‚LOYAL‘SUBJ NUM=SGSUBJ GEN = MAS

13

c-Structure: French

14

S

VP

AP

f-Structure: French

15

s(emantic)-Structure:loyal(addr,x=1,male)

16

s(emantic)-Structure:loyal(addr,x=1,male)

prag(matic)-Structure:(honorerspk, honoredaddr)

3.2 Spanish

17

c-Structure: Old Spanish

18

VP

APNP

S

f-Structure: Old Spanish

19

s-Structure:generoso(addr,x=1,male)

Lexicon: Old Spanish (revised)vos, Pron PRED=‚PRO‘ sodes,V PRED=‚SER(↑SUBJ,↑XCOMP)‘

PERS=2 SUBJ PERS=2NUM=PL SUBJ NUM=PLHON=+ SUBJ HON=+

tú, Pron PRED=‚PRO‘ eres,V PRED=‚SER(↑SUBJ,↑XCOMP)‘ PERS=2 SUBJ PERS=2NUM=SG SUBJ NUM=SGHON= – SUBJ HON= –

generoso, A PRED=‚GENEROSO‘(↑SUBJ)‘ SUBJ NUM=SGSUBJ GEN = MAS

20

Modern Chilean Spanish

Threeway branching T/V-system in the singular consisting of tú, vos and usted ; free variationbetween 2SG- and 2PL-forms:

(3a) Tú eres generoso. 2SG-2SG= Tuteo (T)

(3b) Tú eríh generoso. 2SG-2PL = Voseo (mixto) verbal (T)

(3c) Vos eríh generoso. 2PL-2PL = Voseo auténtico (T)

(3d) Vos eres generoso. 2PL-2SG = Voseo pronominal (T)

(3e) Usted es generoso. 3SG-3SG= Ustedeo (V)

21

Lexicon: Chilean Spanishtú, Pron PRED=‚PRO‘ eres, V PRED=‚SER(↑SUBJ,↑XCOMP)‘

PERS=2 SUBJ PERS=2NUM=SG SUBJ NUM=SGHON= – SUBJ HON= –

vos, Pron PRED=‚PRO‘ eríh, V PRED=‚SER(↑SUBJ,↑XCOMP)‘PERS=2 SUBJ PERS=2NUM=SG SUBJ NUM=SGHON= – SUBJ HON= –


22

c-Structure: Mod. Chil. Spanish

23

S

NP

VP

AP

f-Structure: Chil. Spanish

24

s-Structure:generoso(addr,x=1,male)

3.3 Italian

25

Lexicon: Old Italian

26

voi, Pron PRED=‚PRO‘ siete,V PRED=‚ESSERE(↑SUBJ,↑XCOMP)‘ PERS=2 SUBJ PERS=2NUM=PL SUBJ NUM=PLHON=+ SUBJ HON=+

tu, Pron PRED=‚PRO‘ sei,V PRED=‚ESSERE(↑SUBJ,↑XCOMP)‘ PERS=2 SUBJ PERS=2NUM=SG SUBJ NUM=SGHON= – SUBJ HON= –

c-Structure: Old Italian

27

NP

VP

AP

S

f-Structure: Old Italian

28

s-Structuregeneroso(addr,x=1,male)

Lexicon: Modern Italian

29

lei, Pron PRED=‚PRO‘ è, V PRED=‚ESSERE(↑SUBJ,↑XCOMP)‘ PERS=3 SUBJ PERS=3NUM=SG SUBJ NUM=SGGEN= FEM HON=+


c-Structure: Modern Italian

30

AP

VP

NP

S

f-Structure: Modern Italian

31

s-Structuregeneroso(addr,x=1,male)

3.4 Synopsis

32

Old/Mod. Fr. Old Sp. >>> >>> Mod. Eur.Sp.

Col. Chil. Sp. Mod. Chil. Sp.

Old It. Mod. St. It.

Lexi

con

(T)

tuPERS=2

NUM=SG

túPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

túPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

túPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

vosPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

túPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

†

( tú )( PERS=2 )

( NUM=SG )( HON= – )

túPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

vosPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

tuPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

tu PERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

(V)

vousPERS=2

NUM=PLHON=+

vosPERS=2

NUM=PLHON=+

vosPERS=2

NUM=PLHON=+

VMPERS=3

NUM=SG

ustedPERS=3

NUM=SGHON=+

ustedPERS=3

NUM=SGHON=+

vosPERS=2

NUM=PLHON=+

VMPERS=3

NUM=SG

ustedPERS=3

NUM=SGHON=+

voiPERS=2

NUM=PLHON=+

†

leiPERS=3

NUM=SGGEN=FEM

HON=+

c-St

ruct

ure

V‘(↑SUBJ)

(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+

NP(↑SUBJ)

(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+

V‘(↑S.PERS)=↓(↑S.NUM)=↓¬(↑S.HON)=+

NP(↑SUBJ)

(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+


--

--

--

--

NP(↑SUBJ)

(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+


--

--

NP(↑SUBJ)

(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+


NP(↑SUBJ)

(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓(↑GEN)=↓¬(↑HON)=+

--

Old/Mod. Fr. Old Sp. >>> >>> Mod. Eur.Sp.

Col. Chil. Sp. Mod. Chil. Sp.

Old It. Mod. St. It.

Lexi

con

(T)

tuPERS=2

NUM=SG

túPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

túPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

túPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

vosPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

túPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

†

( tú )( PERS=2 )

( NUM=SG )( HON= – )

túPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

vosPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

tuPERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

tu PERS=2

NUM=SGHON= –

(V)

vousPERS=2

NUM=PLHON=+

vosPERS=2

NUM=PLHON=+

vosPERS=2

NUM=PLHON=+

VMPERS=3

NUM=SG

ustedPERS=3

NUM=SGHON=+

ustedPERS=3

NUM=SGHON=+

vosPERS=2

NUM=PLHON=+

VMPERS=3

NUM=SG

ustedPERS=3

NUM=SGHON=+

voiPERS=2

NUM=PLHON=+

†

leiPERS=3

NUM=SGGEN=FEM

HON=+

c-St

ruct

ure

V‘(↑SUBJ)

(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+

NP(↑SUBJ)

(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+


NP(↑SUBJ)

(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+


--

--

--

--

NP(↑SUBJ)

(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+


--

--

NP(↑SUBJ)

(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+


NP(↑SUBJ)

(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓(↑GEN)=↓¬(↑HON)=+

--

4 Results

35

Results

I. How must SUBJ, PREDICATE and the PREDICATIVE ADJECTIVE be specified?

LEX: O. Fr./Mod. Fr. vous, O. Sp. vos, O. It. voi as NUM=PL, HON=+;

Mod. Chil. Sp. vos is morpho-syntactically NUM=SG

Mod. It. lei as GEN=FEM, HON=+

c-STR: O. Fr./Mod. Fr.: NUM-Constraint for V‘

O. Sp., O. It.: NUM-Constraint for NP and V‘

Mod. It.: GEN-Constraint for NP and V‘

36

Results (continued) II. What kinds of diachronic changes can be observed regarding their specifications?

FR: constant formal opposition; Nullsubject > obligatory Subject-CLs

EUR. SP: vos (NUM=PL, HON=+) → vos (NUM=SG) → NULL

CHIL. SP: vos (NUM=PL, HON=+) → vos (NUM=SG) (towards NULL?)

IT: voi (NUM=PL, HON=+) → (qu)ella (GEN=FEM, HON=+) → lei (GEN=FEM, HON=+)

??generalization of→ lui (GEN=MAS, HON=+)

III. What are the reasons for the different developments?

- Socio-pragmatic pressure

- Feature dependent pressure

37

BibliographyComrie, B. 1975. Polite Plurals and Predicate Agreement. Language 51.406-18.

Gaglia, S. (in press, a). Die Grammatik der Höflichkeitsanrede im Französischen, Italienischen und Spanischen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. [= Habilitation thesis, Goettingen, 2018]

Gaglia, S. (in press, b). Las interfaces gramaticales en el sistema de tratamiento pronominal-verbal del castellano europeo y chileno desde una perspectiva sincrónica y diacrónica. Figueroa Candia, M. et al. (eds.), [Volume on recent trends in Chilean linguistics]. Wilmington: Vernon Press. [Paper]

Gaglia, S. & Rivadeneira, M. (submitted). Las formas de tratamiento en Chile: Convergencia de rasgos gramaticales y sociolingüísticos. [Paper]

Kaplan, R. & Bresnan, J. 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation. Bresnan, J. (ed.): The Mental representation of grammatical reations. Cambridge: MIT Press. 173-281.

Kathol, A. 1999. Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. Levine, R.D. et al. (ed.): Studies in Contemporary Phase

Structure Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. 223-274.

Pollard, C.l. & Sag, I.A. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford: CSLI.

Simon, H. 2003. Für eine grammatische Kategorie ‚Respekt‘ im Deutschen: Diachronie, Synchronie und Typologie der deutschen

Anredepronomina. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Wechsler, S. 2011. Mixed agreement, the person feature, and the index/concord distinction. NLLT 29.999-1031. 38

Documents

Whata contrastiveanalysisofcopulasentences ... · Whata contrastiveanalysisofcopulasentences cantellusaboutthedevelopmentofthe Romancepronominal addresssystems SASCHA GAGLIA [email protected]