Slot: 29C-7 Dec. 29, 1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Panel: Particles and Clitics
Chair: Cindi Martin, University of Maryland,
College Park
Title: Russian eshche as a Pragmatically Obligatory Particle
Author: Alexei Shmelev, Moscow Pedagogical State
University; Irina Borisovna Levontina, Institute of Russian Language, Russian
Academy of Science
In the paper, we put emphasis on the use
of the particle eshche
in combination with a verb in future tense when eshche is pragmatically obligatory. The Russian
translation of Terminator’s expression I’ll be back! should say Ja eshche vernus’, with a particle being added. On the
other hand, the expression Ja vernus’
does not fail to be both natural and idiomatic. Here emerges the question as to
why the Russian text requires a particle in this case.
The conclusion
that follows is that the Russian language is sensitive to some context
parameter, which specifies how the speaker points to some future event. It
would be useful to answer such questions as:
1.
When is eshche optional?
2.
When eshche cannot be used?
3.
What is the
meaning alteration due to the use of eshche in the utterances related to future
events?
4.
What are
the reasons for wrong usage or pragmatic ambiguity of utterances which lack
obligatory eshche?
One should
distinguish the meaning of eshche
under analysis from other meanings of eshche in future contexts, and in particular
from the following ones: the additive stressed eshche in the meaning of ‘once again’ or ‘some
more’(Ja priedu k vam eshche!);
the additive unstressed eshche
(Ja eshche poishchu
v drugom meste); the
continual eshche meaning
‘for some time’ (Ja eshche zdes’ pobudu). These types of usage of eshche manifest its different meanings, which
can be also realized in other tenses while the meaning of eshche under consideration is realized
exclusively in the context of future.
The particle in
question means, “it is not true that the situation is irreversible”; it
introduces an implication that there is a different, contrary hypothesis on how
the events will unfold, implies that the event described is not going to happen
just after the moment of speech (that is why the sentence My eshche pogovorim
ob etom is used to
change the subject) and means that at the moment of speech the situation is
developing in such a way that it is impossible to make any predictions and
forecasts: the speaker admits that the addressee has some grounds to think that
it is going to happen “no longer” or “no more”, but warns that the latter
should not make a final conclusion yet. The meaning of ‘it is too early to make
any conclusions yet’ determines two pragmatic contexts for eshche in the meaning considered: ‘a day before
the fair’ (Ty eshche pozhaleesh’) and ‘everything was not lost, don’t get
upset yet’(Vse eshche budet xorosho, vse eshche naladitsja).
On
the basis of the explication suggested, if a person has to forgo something and
comforts her/himself that this is not final and in some indefinite future the
situation may, eshche
is obligatory or almost obligatory. On the other hand, there are contexts that
make the use of eshche
impossible(e.g., eshche
cannot be used if the utterance stipulates the terms under which the situation
will take place).
Title: Particle Combinations in Colloquial
Russian
Author: Svetlana McCoy-Rusanova, Rutgers
University
This paper addresses the problem of the
interpretation of utterances containing a free combination of the following
particles: дa, и, именно, как раз, -то, же, ведь, etc. One existing approach to colloquial
Russian particles, the so-called descriptive approach, sets its goal to identify
their multiple, context-dependent functions (Vasilyeva 1972, Minchenkov 2001,
etc.) The goal of the other approach, the so-called unifying approach, is to isolate the unique, context-independent meaning that
the particle contributes to the utterance (Parrott 1997, McCoy 2001, etc.).
This paper follows the
unifying approach and integrates the frameworks of Vallduví &Vilkuna 1998,
Yokoyama 1986, and Vallduví 1992. In short, the paper will defend the view that
each of the freely combined particles (as opposed to a fixed combination),
contributes a distinct meaning to the overall meaning of the utterance.
For example, the
sentence in (1), without particles, is a simple statement (He helped me). The particle -то, as a marker of
thematic contrast, contributes the following additional meaning: it evokes a
set of contextually-relevant propositions and marks the information as known to
the hearer but not currently activated in the discourse. The particle и, being a marker of
rhematic contrast, marks the second contrasting element within the proposition.
The function of the particle именно is the unambiguous identification of the
referent, which adds yet another semantic layer to the sentence.
(1) (Именно) он(-то) мне (и) помог.
This analysis provides a
way to understand the interaction of discourse particles and constitutes a step
towards their formal description.
References
McCoy, S. (2001). Colloquial
Russian particles –TO, ŽE, and VED′ as set-generating (“contrastive”) markers:
A unifying analysis. Ph.D.
dissertation, BU.
Minchenkov, A. G. (2001) Russian
particles in English translation.
St.Petersburg: Ximera.
Parrott, L. (1997).
Discourse organization and inference: The usage of the Russian particles zhe
and ved’. Ph.D.
dissertation, Harvard.
Vallduví, E.& M. Vilkuna. (1998). On
rheme and contrast. Syntax and Semantics 29: 79-108.
Vallduví, E. (1992). The informational
component. NY: Garland.
Vasilyeva, A. N. (1972). Particles in
colloquial Russian: Manual for English-speaking students of Russian. Moscow: Progress.
Yokoyama, O. T. (1986). Discourse
and word order.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Title: The Prosody of 2P: An OT Approach to
Czech Clitics
Author: Charles Mills, Knox College
In the traditional view, prosodically deficient expressions comprise a primitive class which must be listed as such in the lexicon. More recently, however, Fried (1999) and Junghanns (2002) have proposed that Czech clitics be partitioned into two classes--those that are inherent, and those that are derived. In this paper, I go one step further and reunify the two in the other direction, claiming that clitics per se--as a distinct prosodic entity--do not exist, showing how residual clitic effects can be achieved through independent means. The advantages to such an analysis are clear: on the one hand, ad hoc features such as [+/-stress] are purged from the lexicon where they play no other role; on the other hand, the analysis is unified, albeit at the expense of the conventional notion of clitic. Since a refutation of the currently accepted view is of interest, I repeat two arguments here.
The strongest evidence in favor of inherent clisis comes from the clitic's need for a host. Clitics with a host are well formed (1a-b), those without one are not (1c).
(1) a. Jana si sedla.
'J. sat down.'
b. Sedla si.
c. * Si sedla.
Explaining clitic placement in terms of a formal deficiency, however, misses the generalization that the sentence-initial position is filled in Czech whether clitics are present or not. In (2a), for example, Jana occupies the topic position, and V undergoes preposing in (2b), with no clitics in sight. But if such movement takes place independently, then it cannot be to satisfy clitics' need for a host, which--in this light--is merely epiphenomenal.
(2) a. Jana ma knihu.
'J. has a book.'
b. Ma Jana knihu?
A second indication that the inherent view may not be correct comes from the status of stress itself. Stress is automatically assigned to the left edge of the word in Czech (3a), and as such does not play a distinctive role, as it can for example in Russian (4a-b) (' indicates stress on the following syllable). But if stress is not distinctive, then it cannot be listed in the lexicon. In other words, the lexical entry of clitics cannot make reference to prosody and the inherent view is ruled out.
(3) Czech
a. 'zamek
b. * za'mek
(4) Russian
a. 'zamok
b. za'mok
Looking further afield, we find that stress is suppressed in nonclitic expressions in 2P, as well. The fact that other expressions surface unstressed in one and the same environment suggests that we are dealing with a positionally conditioned phenomenon.
(5) a. 'To je 'pes.
b. 'Je to 'pes.
The remainder of the paper is devoted to an OT analysis of this emergent 'prosody of 2P'.
References
Fried, Miriam. "Inherent vs. derived clisis: evidence from Czech proclitics." Journal of Linguistics 35 (1999): 43-64.
Junghanns, Uwe. "Kitische Elemente in Tschechischen: eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme." Linguistische Beitrage zur Slavistik IX. Ed. Th. Daiber.
Munich:
Sagner, 2002. 117-150.