Differential subject marking in Polish: The case of Genitive vs ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(i) Antecedents for reflexives (39) a. Jani bywal u swoichi / *jego i rodziców. JohnNOM was3.SG.M.HABIT at REFL / *his parents ‘John was from time to time at his parents home.’ b. Jani byl w swoimi / *jegoi pokoju. JohnNOM was3.SG.M in REFL / *his room ‘John was in his room.’ c. ? W swoim i pokoju byl Jani. in REFL room was3.SG.M JohnNOM Lit.: ‘In his room (there) was John.’ but: c.’ * W jegoi pokoju byl Jani. in his room was3.SG.M JohnNOM d. Janai nie bylo w jego i / *swoimi pokoju. JohnGEN NEG was3.SG.N in his / *REFL room ‘John wasn’t in his room.’ (ii) Control of po pijanemu (40) a. Jan (nie) bywal w domu [po pijanemu]. JohnNOM was3.SG.M.HABIT at home [while drunk] ‘Johni used (didn’t use) to be at home while he i was drunk.’ b. Jan (nie) byl w domu [po pijanemu]. JohnNOM was3.SG.M at home [while drunk] ‘Johni was (was not) at home while hei was drunk.’ c. ? W domu byl Jan [po pijanemu]. at home was3.SG.M JohnNOM [while drunk] d. * Jana nie bylo w domu [po pijanemu]. JohnGEN NEG was3.SG.N at home [while drunk] ‘Johni wasn’t at home while he i was drunk.’ The two tests show that GEN NPs do not bear the grammatical relation of subject (cf. (39d) and (40d)). Rather, given their case marking and “thematic properties” (lack of agentivity, see the 32
discussion above; a “theme-like” interpretation), these NPs seem to behave as (direct) objects (see Dziwirek 1994:154 for a suggestion along these lines). Thus, just like (direct) objects, they cannot serve as the antecedent of a reflexive pronoun (cf. (41a) and (39d)), nor can they control the fixed expression po pijanemu ‘while drunk’ (cf. (41b) and (40d)). (41) a. Zapytalam Ewei o jeji / *swojai mame. asked1.SG.F EveACC about her / *REFL mother ‘I asked Eve about her mother.’ (Dziwirek 1994:33) b. Jan pobil Ewe [po pijanemu]. JohnNOM beat-up3.SG.M EveACC [while drunk] OK ‘John beat up Eve while he was drunk.’ *‘John beat up Eve while she was drunk.’ (Dziwirek 1994:36) In contrast, the preverbal NOM NPs clearly have subject properties; cf. (39a/b) and (40a/b). As far as the postverbal NOM NP is concerned, the tested sentences in (39c) and (40c) are – in comparison with the perfectly well-formed examples with the preverbal NP subject in (39a/b) and (40a/b) – rather marked. This latter fact could be taken to mean that the postverbal NOM nominals in the cases at hand – despite their NOM marking and agreement with the finite verb, which are classified by Dziwirek as tests for final 1-hood 46 – are too low in the surface structure to serve as antecedent or controller for certain elements. In other words, in order to establish the right binding or control configuration some additional “repair” strategy is required, hence the markedness of (39c) and (40c). In sum, there seems in fact to be a correlation between agentivity and subjecthood. Those nominals that allow for an agentive interpretation (i.e., first of all, nominal arguments of bywac, and also, in certain cases – restricted to [+human] referents and preverbal position – nominal arguments of byc) clearly show subject properties. In contrast, those nominal arguments that do not allow for an agentive interpretation either have no subject properties at all (as in the case of GEN marked NPs in negated existential-locative byc clauses) or have a marked subject status (as in the case of postverbal NOM NPs in affirmative existential-locative byc clauses). Given these correlations, we would expect existential-locative constructions to display an ergative/unaccusative syntax, and constructions with bywac (and also with locative byc with a 33
Page 1 and 2: Differential subject marking in Pol
Page 3 and 4: that is neither intrinsically telic
Page 5 and 6: ‘John used to come to parties.’
Page 7 and 8: section 4, I will try to answer the
Page 9 and 10: ‘(In this hospital) no patient di
Page 11 and 12: waterGEN decrease3.SG.N.PAST.PERF /
Page 13 and 14: e dependent on the perfective aspec
Page 15 and 16: (14) a. b. (15) a. OK czytajacIMPER
Page 17 and 18: In fact, there is diachronic eviden
Page 19 and 20: JohnNOM BE3.SG.M.PRES.HABIT at part
Page 21 and 22: of why there should be a correlatio
Page 23 and 24: ywac has to be [+animate] (preferab
Page 25 and 26: prototypical subject (agentivity, v
Page 27 and 28: (32) a. Sera nie bylo w sklepie. (D
Page 29 and 30: NEG BE2.SG.IMP.HABIT as often in ni
Page 31: (38) a. Bozenki nie bylo wczoraj u
Page 35 and 36: a. przybyly ‘arrived’ b. upadly
Page 37 and 38: able to nominalize into complex eve
Page 39 and 40: GEN marked nominal in (3a) NOM mark
Page 41 and 42: more prominent than an argument whi
Page 43 and 44: some sense “externally” to the
Page 45 and 46: Spec,TP position is concerned, it c
Page 47 and 48: What about negated locative bywac a
Page 49 and 50: In the previous section we arrived
Page 51 and 52: Cetnarowska, B. (2000b). The Unerga
Page 53 and 54: Lakoff, G. (1966). Stative Adjectiv
Page 55: Spencer, A. and M. Zaretskaya (1998

Differential subject marking in Polish: The case of Genitive vs ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?