Moscow, SMSUH, 15-17 October

http://ossetic-

studies.org/tmp2014/en/programme/

Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters 2014

Anton Zimmerling

(IMLR SMSUH)

http://imlr.mggu-sh.ru/ru/staff-ru/anton-zimmerling-ru

Thetic sentences: semantics and derivation

Approaching theticity

Baranov, Kobozeva (1983)

Sasse (1987, 1995).

Yanko (1991).

Fiedler and Schwarz (2010).

Themed session on theticity // LAGB 2013.

3

Thetic sentences Thetic sentences lack a thematic element and formal

features characteristic of thematic elements in categorical sentences in language L – linear position, accent marking etc.

Thetic sentences may lack a thematic element either due to:

deviating event structure that (normally) does not imply a topic vs focus articulation. = Context-Independent or ‘Thetic-A sentences’.

Possibility of reconstructing a theme in a broader context - Context-Dependent or ‘Thetic-B sentences’.

4

THETIC-A vs THETIC-B

SENTENCES

Context-Independent Thetic sentences, or ‘Thetic-A sentences’. The event structure normally does not imply a topic vs focus contrast (cf. Spring/night came <and the speaker is just stating that without saying anything particular about ‘spring’ or ‘night’>.

Context-Independent Thetic sentences, or ‘Thetic-B sentences’. The theme can be reconstructed from a broader context, e.g. in contexts the event’s history or a motivation for the speaker’s state of mind are explicated:

<Why are looking so gloom? > John died.

5

Alternative terminology

ENTITY-central thetics vs EVENT-central thetics.

Primary thetics vs Secondary thetics.

Descriptive thetics vs sentences with an inherent

theme (cf. Baranov, Kobozeva).

Rus. Бабушка спит (SV)

Бабушка руку сломала (SOV).

6

A classical conversation on

categorical and thetic sentences

Григорьев: (ударяя Семенова по морде) {AВот вам и зима настала}. {BПора печи топить}. Как по-вашему?

Семенов: По-моему, если отнестись серьезно к вашему замечанию, то, пожалуй [F действительно пора] [Tзатопить печку].

Григорьев: (ударяя Семенова по морде) А как по-вашему, [T зима] [в этом году [F будет [FP холодная или теплая]]?

Семенов: Пожалуй, судя по тому, что [лето] [было [дождливое]], [T зима] [F будет холодная]. Если [Tлето][Fдождливое], то зима [F всегда холодная].

7

Appendix: stative and psych

predicates

Григорьев: (ударяя Семенова по морде.) [TContr А вот мне] [FContr никогда не бывает холодно].

Семенов: Это совершенно правильно, что вы говорите, что [TВам] [F не бывает холодно]. [T У Вас] [F такая [FP натура]].Григорьев: (ударяя Семенова по морде.) [Я] [F не зябну].Семенов: {Ох!}Григорьев: (ударяя Семенова по морде) [WhЧто]

[Non-Wh ох]?

8

Functions and contexts

Introductive function (beginning of the story)

Descriptive function: (background descriptions,

existential statements).

Gnomic sentences (aphorisms and generic

statements etc.)

More dubious or more special:

‘Out of the blue’ (cf. headlines in mass media)

Interruptive/emphatic (emotions with

unexpected events).

9

(Vague) observations

Lexicalist theories of theticity: ability of forming

thetic sentences presumably depends on verb

semantics: BE, LIVE, SLEEP etc.

Claims that in language L only statives/

intransitives/unaccusatives etc. can form thetic

sentences with some diagnostic features (e.g.

subject inversion, subject deaccentuation etc.).

Ger. Es {war ein Konig in Thule}. Expl- VS

Рус. Жил в Фуле король. VS

10

Problems with cross-validation of

theticity Theories of theticity are data-oriented.

Feature fetichism. If language L has a feature (extra morpheme, syntactic element, some marked word order etc.) presumably associated with theticity, the linguists often claim that all sentences with this feature are thetic.

It is unclear whether thetic and categorial sentences share the same lexical-grammatical structure (numeration).

Problems with abstract categories (adjoined TP, FP) in formal frameworks.

Different combinations of non-zero sentence elements.

11

Problem

Derivation of word order and intonation of

Russian thetic sentences in the framework of

generative-transformational grammar and formal

typology

12

DATA: WORD ORDER

Modern Russian is a SVO language with

scrambling of arguments.

VS-word orders are attested both in thetic and

categorical sentences and possible with all verb

classes – unaccusatives, unergatives and

transitives.

VS, VSO, VOS-orders can be linked with different

types of information structure, so that each word

order allows two or more different communicative

readings [Kovtunova 1976].

13

DATA: ACCENT MARKING Russian is a language with direct accent marking of

communicative constituents (theme, rheme, focus of contrast etc.).

The theme in Russian declaratives gets a characteristic accent marking, the so called Intonation Construction 3 (IC-3) – steep rise with a fall on post-tonics (LH*L-L%).

The same intonation construction albeit in a higher register and wider range is used for marking Russian yes-no questions [Ode 2003].

14

TWO TYPES OF THETIC

SENTENCES IN RUSSIAN

A. Context-independent sentences like ↘ ↘ Vesnaprišla (SV)~ Prišla ↘ vesna (VS) ‘The spring came’

B. Context-dependent sentences called ‘sentences with an inherent theme’ in the Russian linguistic tradition [Baranov, Kobozeva 1983].

e.g. <Tixo! > ↘ Babuška spit .

‘<Quiet!> Grandma is sleeping/asleep’

NB. Both with SV(O) and VS(O) orders: Spit ↘ babuška

15

THETIC SENTENCES: A and B-

types

Both subtypes can be realized both with SV and

VS-orders, cf. [Kovtunova 1976], [Yanko 2008],

[Zimmerling 2008].

Both A and B -subtype lack an accented theme

marked with IC-3 [Yanko 2001].

Russian allows transitive thetic sentences, they

mostly fall with the context-dependent subtype B,

cf. example (1).

16

Diagnostics and puzzlesWord order is not diagnostic for distinguishing thetic

and categorical sentences in Russian. Theticsentences can have both SV(O) and VS(O) order, and for each linear combination attested in theticsentences a homonymous categorical sentence with the same numeration can be listed.

All thetic sentences lack an accented element prosodically marked as theme (Intonation Construction 3). But not all sentences lacking an accented theme and IC-3 are thetic.

Russian does not allow for accent marking of any post-focal elements (except for continuity markers).

17

TRANSITIVE THETIC-B

SENTENCES

1) <Pocemu tak malo narodu?>

<‘Why so few people here?>

0Direktor 0p’at’ 0sotrudnikov v

[FP↘↘komandirovkui ] 0poslal ti.

‘The director has sent five workers to a business

trip’.

Thetic, S-DO-IO-V, FP stands for ‘Focus Proper’.

18

Highlighting vs LA-grammar1. ‘Prosodic highlighting’.

Just change an accented theme with a deaccentedone, a rising accent with a falling one, a neutral prosody with a marked one, and you will get a well-formed sentence with a sequence of phrasal accents.

2. Linear-Accent transformations.

Combinations of phrasal accents are generated by rules changing both linear order and/or accent markings characteristic of topics, foci etc. LA-transformations are context-sensitive (or mildly context-sensitive) rules generating derived word orders and/or marked strings of phrasal accents.

19

ATTEMPT 1: to derive categoricals

from thetics

1. [King 1995] claims that Russian is a VSO language: SpecVP is subject position, and the tensed verb raises to I where it case marks the subject in SpecVP.

This entails that Russian categorical SV(O) sentences are derived by topicalization from thetic Russian VSO sentences.

Empiric and theoretical problems: not all Russian VS(O) sentences are thetic, and some Russian thetic sentences are possible with the SV(O) order.

20

ATTEMPT 2: SVO & A-scrambling [Bailyn 2004] claims that Russian is a SVO language

without verb raising but with A-scrambling of objects.

Both King and Bailyn interpret Russian VSO sentences like (2a) as thetic.

(2a) [F Posadili … [T 0ded ] ti ↘ repku]. planted gramps-NOM turnip-ACC

(2b) [T ↗ [NPDed]] [F [VP posadil ↘repku].

gramps-NOM planted turnip-ACC

‘Gramps planted a turnip.’

Both (2a) and (2b) are categorical, not thetic structures.

(2’) Categorical, V-S-O, dislocated VP, deaccentedthematic subject. T and F stand for ‘Theme’ and ‘Rheme’.

21

ATTEMPT 3: LA-transformations, no

basic order

[Paducheva 1985] and [Yanko 2001] give up the

postulate of base word order in Russian and

analyze pairs of sentences which have the same

numeration but different communicative structure

in terms of the LA transformations, i.e. rules

changing both linear order and/or accent

markings.

With their analysis, thetic variants of a numeration

can be derived from categorical variants and vice

versa.

22

All thetics are derived from

categorials in Russian

I argue that all Russian thetic sentences irrespective of their surface order (SV, VS, VSO, SVO) are derived from categorical sentences by deaccenting their theme.

I also argue that theme deaccenting results from Left Focus Movement i.e. an operation moving a postverbal complement X which has the focus accent (schematically -↘ X ) to the left for its governing verbal category.

The moved element gets a reinforced focus accent (schematically - ↘↘X ): [VP V° ↘X] ↘↘Xi

…V° ti.

23

LEFT FOCUS AND SUBJECT

DEACCENTING

Russian does not allow post-focal accented themes

[Zimmerling 2008].

If a focal element moves outside vP and crosses the

position of an accented thematic subject marked with

IC-3 (schematically - ↗ X), the subject gets

deaccented (schematically –0X):

[NP ↗ S°] [VP V° ↘ X] ↘↘ Xi [0S]…V° ti .

This explains why Russian thetic sentences can be

realized both with SV and VS-orders:

↘↘ S0V structures like Babuška spit ‘Grandma is

asleep’ are just inverted variants of 0V ↘ S structures.

24

DERIVATION CHAIN (3a) ↗ Babuška ↘ spit.

grandma-Nom sleeps

‘Grandma is sleeping.’

Categorical, SV.

(3b) 0Spit [F ↘babuška].

sleeps grandma-Nom

‘Grandma is sleeping.’

Thetic, VS, topic-focus inversion.

(3c) [F ↘↘ Babuška]i spit ti.

grandma-Nom sleeps

‘Grandma is sleeping.’

Thetic, SV, Left Focus movement.

25

VS orders are multifunctional in

(languages like) Russian

Neither King’s nor Bailyn’s analysis fits Russian VS-sentences.

VS-orders apart from marking theticity in Russian can also mark three types of categorical sentences.

The inverted verb can be

a) the theme (↗ V)

b) the rheme (↘V)

c) part of the dislocated rheme (V).

In all these cases the verb gets different accent markings.

26

LA-rulesA class of world’s languages has rules that change

the placement and accent markings of syntacticelements – LA-transformations [Kovtunova 1976],[Paducheva 2008], [Yanko 2001], [Yanko 2008],[Zimmerling 2014].

LA-transformations have communicative motivations.

LA-transformations link together pairs of sentences with the same numeration but different linear order and/or accent marking.

LA-transformations are non-synonymic: they can change the boundaries of communicative constituents.

27

Accent Markings

IC-1 X

IC-2 X

IC-3 X

IC-6 X

Eliminated phonological accent 0X

28

Incompleteness marker and

metatony

The placement of an incompleteness accent

marker (resembling a topic accent) on a element

normally taking a focus accent is a mechanism of

text prosody, not phrasal prosody.

The metatony >> can be ignored in tonal

grammar.

а) Нас должны бояться.

b) Нас должны бояться, а мы их –нет.

29

b) Нас должны бояться, а мы их –нет.

30

Нас должны бояться.

31

Left Focus Movement

Left Focus Movement involves movement of the

element taking the focus accent or movement of

a larger fragment of syntactic structure including

such and element), лto the left for the predicate

head. [Zimmerling 2008; Циммерлинг 2008].

Лёня [F подал тезис [FP Брейдину]].

Лёня Брейдину [F [FP тезис] i подал ti].

[F Лёня Брейдину [FP тезис] i подал ti].

32

Лёня Брейдину [F [FP тезис] i подал ti]

33

[F Лёня Брейдину [FP тезис] i подал ti].

34

Focus Dislocation

Лёня [F подал тезис[FP Брейдину]].

[F Подал Лёня тезис [FP Брейдину]], но ответа так и не получил.

См. [Падучева 1984], [Янко 2001].

35

[F Подал Лёня тезис [FP Брейдину]], но ответа так и не получил.

36

Topic – Focus Inversion 1. Topic – Focus Inversion involves two transformations with a

different vector.

The most important operation is Rheme topicalization. The former rhematic elements gets topicalized and is moved to Left Periphery.

The shifting of the former Theme into a position in the Right Periphery is a secondary process and be interpreted as an instance of Remnant Movement (Remnant Right Focus Movement).

(1) [T ↗ Моцарт] [FP ↘ играет] [[T↗ Играет ] i tj ] [F [FP ↘Моцарт ] j t i ].

( 2) [T Гуси и [TP ↗ лебеди]] [F опротивели [FP ↘ Марусе] [[TОпротивели [TP ↗ Марусе] i tj ] [F гуси и [FP ↘ лебеди] t i].

(3) [T ↗ Котенок ] [F сидит [FP ↘ на шкафу]] [[T ↘ На шкафу] itj] [F сидит [FP ↘ котенок ] t i] .

37

ContrastThe meaning of contrast combines compositionally

with both Themes and Rhemes [Yanko 2001].

Hас должны бояться. (basic structure)

Hас должны бояться, а мы их – нет.(basic structure, with a superimposed accent marker of

incompleteness).

Нас 0 должны 0 бояться, а не мы их. (Derived structure, deaccenting of post-focal elements, contrast).

38

LA-rules and remnant movementLA-transformations can be defined as Mildly-Context-

Sensitive Rules. [Zimmerling 2007],[Zimmerling 2008]

It is possible to distinguish overt movement of

syntactic elements and Remnant Movement.

InПосадилi 0дед ti ↘ репку the verb посадилundergoes overt movement to the Left Periphery and

gets a non-zero accent marking ‘’, according to the

change of its communicative status: 0X / X’.

Deaccenting of the NP дед, which ends up in a

postverbal position due to verb movement, is

Remnant Movement: ↗ X /0X .

39

Conclusions

In languages falling in the same class as

Russian, thetics and categoricals can be

analyzed as variants of one an the same

numeration.

Predictions: LA-rules, multifunctional VS orders,

accent marking of communicative status.

In Russian, thetic sentences can be analyzed as

derived from the corresponding categoricals.

40

Acknowledgments

The paper is written with financial support of the

project of the Russian Foundation of Sciences,

14-184-03270 «Word orders typology, syntax-to-

communicative perspective interface and

information structure in world’s languages. I am

grateful to TMP-2014 audience, in particular, to

Irina Kobozeva, Tanya Yanko and Ekaterina

Lyutikova for valuable suggestions and

improvements. The responsibility for all

shortcomings is on the author.

41

References (1) Баранов А.Н., Кобозева И.М. (1983) Семантика общих вопросов

в русском языке (категория установки). Изв. АН СССР. Сер. лит. и яз. Т.42, N7.

Lambrecht, K. 1987. Sentence focus, information structure, and the thetic-categorical distinction. Berkely Linguistics Society 13. 366-382.

Sasse H.-J. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited // LINGUISTICS 25/3. 1987. Pp. 511-580.

Sasse H.-J. `Theticity' and VS order: a case study. Sprachtypologieund Universalienforschung 48. 1/2. 1995.

Т.Е. Янко. Коммуникативная структура с неингерентной темой // Научно-техническая информация. 1991. Сер. 2, № 7.

I. Fiedler and A.Schwarz (eds.), The Expression of Information Structure: a documentation of its diversity across Africa, 233-260. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2010.

42

REFERENCES (2)

И.И. Ковтунова 1976. Современный русский язык: Порядок слов и актуальное членение предложения. М.

Грамматика 1980. Русская грамматика. Т. 1, М., Наука. 1982. Е.В.Падучева. 1984. Коммуникативная структура

предложения и понятие коммуникативной парадигмы // НТИ, Сер. 2. N 10.

Levelt W. Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA, 1989.

Кодзасов С.В. Кривнова О.Ф. Фонетика в модели речевой деятельности. // Прикладные аспекты лингвистики. М., 1989. С. 239, 139-157.

Кривнова О.Ф. Интонационно-паузальное членение речи в контексте модели речепорождения. Язык и речевая деятельность, т. 10-11 (2011), 95- 105

43

References (3) Е.А.Брызгунова. Фонологический метод при изучении

морфологического и синтаксического аналитизма в русском языке. Язык и речевая деятельность 10-11 (2011), 45-59.

С.В.Кодзасов. 1996. Комбинаторная модель фразовой просодии // Просодический строй русской речи. М.

С.В.Кодзасов. 1996а. Законы фразовой акцентуации // Просодический строй русской речи. М.

O. Yokoyama. 2001. Neutral and non-neutral intonation in Russian: A reinterpretation of the IK system //. Die Welt derSlaven. XLVI. 1-26.

С. Оде. 1995. Интонационная система русского языка в свете данных перцептивного анализа // Проблемы фонетики, Вып. II. М., 200-215.

44

References (4)Светозарова Н.Д. Интонационная система

русского языка. Л., 1982.

Н.Д. Светозарова. 1993. Акцентно-ритмические инновации в русской спонтанной речи // Проблемы фонетики, Вып. 1. М., 189-198.

Г.Н. Иванова-Лукьянова. 2004. Культура Устной Речи. Интонация, паузирование, логическое ударение, темп, ритм. М., Флинта. Наука.

Е.А.Лютикова. О двух типах инверсии в русской именной группе. Русский синтаксис в научном освещении, 2012.

45

References (5)Е.В.Падучева. Высказывание и его соотнесенность с

действительностью М., УРСС, 2008.Т.Е. Янко. 2001. Коммуникативные стратегии

русской речи. М.: Языки славянской культуры.Т.Е. Янко. 2007. Актантная структура как фактор

фразовой просодии. Три принципа выбора акцентоносителя коммуникативно релевантного акцента // Типология языка и теория грамматики. Материалы международной конференции, посвященной 100-летию со дня рождения С.Д.Кацнельсона. СПб.

Т.Е.Янко. Интонационные стратегии русской речи. М., Языки славянских культур, 2008.

46

References (6)

А.В.Циммерлинг. Локальные и глобальные правила в синтаксисе. Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии. Вып. 7 (14). М.: РГГУ, 2008. С. 551-563.

А.Zimmerling. 2008. Locative Inversion and Right

Focus Movement in Russian. Moscow.

A.Zimmerling. 2014. A Rule-Based Approach to

Free Word Order Languages // The 2014

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

WorldComp'14. Vol. 1. CSREA Press. P. 61-67.

47