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= –
generoso, A PRED=‚GENEROSO‘(↑SUBJ)‘ SUBJ NUM=SGSUBJ GEN = MAS
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=+
generoso, A PRED=‚GENEROSO‘(↑SUBJ)‘ SUBJ NUM=SGSUBJ GEN = MAS
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)=+
V‘(↑S.PERS)=↓(↑S.NUM)=↓¬(↑S.HON)=+
--
--
--
--
NP(↑SUBJ)
(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+
V‘(↑S.PERS)=↓(↑S.NUM)=↓¬(↑S.HON)=+
--
--
NP(↑SUBJ)
(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+
V‘(↑S.PERS)=↓(↑S.NUM)=↓¬(↑S.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)=+
V‘(↑S.PERS)=↓(↑S.NUM)=↓¬(↑S.HON)=+
NP(↑SUBJ)
(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+
V‘(↑S.PERS)=↓(↑S.NUM)=↓¬(↑S.HON)=+
--
--
--
--
NP(↑SUBJ)
(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+
V‘(↑S.PERS)=↓(↑S.NUM)=↓¬(↑S.HON)=+
--
--
NP(↑SUBJ)
(↑PERS)=↓(↑NUM)=↓¬(↑HON)=+
V‘(↑S.PERS)=↓(↑S.NUM)=↓¬(↑S.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