Optionality and Optimality of Russian Possessive Anaphora

Optionality and Optimality of Russian Possessive Anaphora Rosemarie Connolly Indiana University Bloomington UTA SCILT 4 November 2016 (1) b. On nosil svoju rubašku. he wore self’s sweater ‘He wore his own sweater.’ c. 1. The Problem: Russian Possessives On he nosil wore ego his rubašku. sweater ‘He wore his sweater.’ (someone else’s sweater) In Russian, despite prescriptive rules to the contrary (cf. Finkel’ and Baženov 1960: 343ff.), optionality exists for the choice of possessives even in locally c-commanded positions. Pronominal Possessives moj ‘my’ tvoj ‘your’ (sg.) ego ‘his’ eë ‘her’ naš ‘our’ vaš ‘your’ (pl.) ix ‘their’ Reflexive Possessive Inherent Possession svoj ‘self’s’ Ø (no overt possessive) Factors affection choice options include: • Emotional Distance from possessor to possessed NP • Referentiality of either the possessor or the possessed NP • Positive or Negative Set Reference of possessed NP • Collective vs. Discrete interpretation of either the possessor or the possessed NP 2. The Data 2.1 Neutral Contexts Usually, in locally bound, neutral contexts, the null possessive or the reflexive is preferred: a. 2.2. Non-Neutral Factors 2.2.1. Emotional Distance 3rd-person example (from Yokoyama and Klenin 1976: 251): Choices are not truly “optional” (Timberlake 1980, Yokoyama 1975, Yokoyama and Klenin 1976). (1) Based on this, use of the pronominal in non-neutral contexts is considered marked. On nosil Ø rubašku. he wore sweater ‘He wore a (presumably his own) sweater.’ (2) Vygovor direktora Vasju oskorbil. Nu i čto, čto on reprimand director Vasja insulted well and what what he ne NEG zametil, kak kakaja-to baba uronila { eë / Ø / svoj } notice how some-kind old-hag lost { her Ø self’s košelëk. wallet ‘The director’s reprimand insulted Vasja. Well so what if he didn’t notice that some-sort-of old hag dropped {her / Ø / self’s } wallet.’ Three-way choice in (2): pronominal eë = emotional distance null reflexive Ø = emotional neutrality reflexive svoj = emotional closeness The preferred choice in (2) is eë ‘her’. • The use of Nu i čto indicates the speaker’s irritation • The use of kakaja-to indicates that the woman is unknown to the speaker • The use of the derogatory baba rather than the neutral term ženščina ‘woman’ indicates the speaker’s attitude toward the woman. 1st-person examples involving emotional distance (2nd person works the same; from Pushkin’s Boris Godunov, cited in Yokoyama 1975: 78): (3) V sem’e moej ja mnil najti in family my I hoped find mnil osčastlivit’ hoped make-happy otradu, ja doč’ joy I daughter brakom… in-marriage ‘I hoped to find joy in my family, I hoped to make my daughter happy by marrying her off…’ (4) Kto who moim]/ [?so svoim] partnerom. ? [ with self’s partner my/ ‘All this couldn’t help but please me, and I began to rehearse with my/?self’s partner with even more enthusiasm.’ moju my ni umret, ja vsex NEG dies I all ubijca tajnyj: murderer secret Ja I uskoril Feodora sped-up Feodor Ja I otravil svoju sestru carinu… poisoned self’s sister czarina In (5), the reflexive is preferred because the possessed NP is not officially referential, since it refers to a vague class of people who had individually previously been the speaker’s partner. In (6), the partner is referential, referring to only the one partner with whom the speaker is rehearsing. Here the pronominal is preferred. končinu, end 2.2.3. Positive vs. Negative Set Reference (Timberlake 1980: 786) (7) Ja mnogo razdumyval o polnoj priključenij žizni I a lot thought about full adventures life džunglej i tože narisoval cvetnym karandašom jungle and also drew colored pencil *moju/ svoju pervuju kartinku. *my/ self’s first picture ‘I thought a lot about jungle life, full of adventures, and I also drew *my/self’s first picture with a colored pencil.’ Ved’ do ètogo ja vsegda družestvenno rabotal after all to that I always friendly worked ? [s moim]/ [so svoim] partnerom, kem by to [?with my/ [with self’s partner who COND that ni bylo. NEG was ‘After all, up to that time I had always worked in a friendly way with ?my/self’s partner, whoever he was.’ (8) Ja pokazal moe/ *svoe tvorenie vzroslym i sprosil, I showed my/ *self’s creation adults and asked ne strašno li im. NEG afraid Q them ‘I showed my/*self’s creation to the adults, and asked them if they weren’t terrified.’ Vse èto ne moglo ne all that NEG could NEG ešče bol’šim rveniem more great enthusiasm In (8), the picture is unique by being a particular terrifying (in the view of the speaker) creation. Therefore the pronominal is required. ‘Whoever dies, I am the secret murderer of all / I hastened Feodor’s demise / I poisoned self’s sister the czarina…’ In (3), the speaker is emotionally connected to his family and daughter. Thus the choice of the pronominal is preferred. In (4), the speaker is portraying an extreme emotional distance between himself and his sister, whom he killed. Thus the reflexive is preferred. 2.2.2. Referentiality (from Timberlake 1980: 782) (5) (6) radovat’ please prinjalsja began menja, i me, and zanimat’sja rehearse ja s I with [s [with In (7), the speaker is describing the first picture of a larger set, one of many. Thus the reflexive is required. 2.2.4. Collective vs. Discrete (Yokoyama and Klenin 1976: 263) • (9) • Kogda razdastsja zvonok, zajmite svoi/ *vaši mesta, when rings bell take self’s/ *your place každyj u svoego stolba. each at self’s post ‘When the bell rings, take up your positions, each one at his own post.’ (10) Skažite *svoi/ vaši uslovija, my vam pojdem *self’s/ your conditions we you go say navstreču. towards ‘Name your conditions, we will meet you half way.’ • This analysis only considers production and not necessarily perception, and therefore uses a unilateral OT approach. When a syntactic candidate enters EVAL, it is first evaluated for syntactic viability. Afterward, it can be reevaluated for semantic and pragmatic purposes (i.e., multistratal OT; Goldsmith 1993 and McCarthy and Prince 1993b; see Kager 1999: 381–86) Since all candidates have already been evaluated for syntactic viability, the possessive and the antecedent are syntactically bound, and the optimal choice between the three candidates is a tie. 5. Caveats • This is very much a work in progress. • My research background is heavily influenced by generative/MP syntax and not necessarily by OT. • All feedback will be much appreciated. 6. Constraints In (9), the audience is a group, a number of individuals moving to discrete (to each individual) locations. Therefore the reflexive must be used. In (10), the audience is a collective group with one set of conditions, rather than each individual having his or her own conditions. Thus the pronominal is required. Faithfulness Constraints (11) I-PRINCIPLE (I-PRIN): Say as little as possible, thus null possessives are preferred with α-marked features (based on Horn 1984: 13). (12) Q-PRINCIPLE (Q-PRIN): Say as much as possible, thus pronominals are preferred over reflexives (based on Horn 1984: 13). (13) MAXIO: Every component in the input has a corresponding lexicalized component in the output. 3. Objectives Consider this “optionality” within an Optimality Theoretic framework (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004, McCarthy and Prince 1993a,b). • Universal constraints, based on markedness and faithfulness to the input, are used to evaluate candidates. • The interaction between markedness and faithfulness constraints is what determines the ideal candidate choice. • Constraints are strictly ranked within a particular language. 4. Assumptions • Minimalist Program (MP) syntax plays the roll of GEN in Optimality Theory (OT); OT plays the evaluation role (e.g., Spell-out; cf. Chomsky 1995: 220) in MP syntax (following Broekhuis and Woolford 2013). • Features are all already encoded in the OT input, i.e., the information is structure-preserving (Heck et al. 2002), either through lexical specifications, derivational feature transfer, or speaker knowledge. Markedness Constraints (14) *1ST/2ND PERSON PRONOUN (*1/2PRO): Avoid possessive pronouns with 1st or 2nd person antecedents. (15) *AMBIGUITY (*AMB): Avoid ambiguity. (16) *OBVIATION (*OBV): Avoid obviation when features are valued [+], i.e.: 1st/2nd person » reflexives » 3rd person (17) *CLOSENESS (*CLOSE): Avoid possessive reflexives when the possessed NP is marked as emotionally close to the speaker. (18) *REFERENTIALITY (*REFER): No reflexive possessives with possessed NPs considered referential. (19) *NEGATIVE SET REFERENCE (*NEGSET): No reflexive possessives with possessed NPs considered not to belong to a set. (20) *COLLECTIVE (*COLL): No reflexive possessives with plural antecedent NPs considered collective. 7. Tableaux (see attached) • Lack of evidence to suggest rankings for *CLOSE, *NEGSET, *REFER, and *COLL, so they are left unranked with respect to each other. • I-PRIN only applies in the most neutral of contexts (cf. T1a). 8. Avenues for Further Research • Gathering more contemporary data from the Russian National Corpus. • Compare these findings to similar phenomena in Polish and Bulgarian (derived from respective national corpora). • Potentially using Stochastic OT (e.g., Boersma and Hayes 2001) to consider the variation. References Boersma, Paul and Bruce Hayes. (2001) “Empirical Tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm.” Linguistic Inquiry 32(1): 45–86. Broekhuis, Hans and Ellen Woolford. (2013) “Minimalism and Optimality Theory.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. Marcel den Dikken, 122–61. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, Noam. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Finkel’, A. M. and N. M. Baženov. (1960) Kurs sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka. Kiev. Goldsmith, John. (1993) “Harmonic Phonology.” In The Last Phonological Rule: Reflections on Constraints and Derivations, ed. John Goldsmith, 21–60. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Heck, Fabian, Gereon Müler, Ralf Vogel, Silke Fischer, Sten Vikner, and Tanja Schmid. (2002). “On the Nature of the Input in Optimality Theory.” The Linguistic Review 19: 345–76. Horn, Laurence R. (1984) “Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-Based and R-Based Implicatures.” In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context, ed. by D. Schriffrin, 11–42. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Kager, René. (1999) Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, Stephen C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mattausch, Jason. (2004) “Optimality Theoretic Pragmatics and Binding Phenomena.” In Optimality Theory and Pragmatics, ed. by Reinhard Blutner and Henk Zeevat, 63–90. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Timberlake, Alan. (1980) “Reference Conditions on Russian Reflexivization.” Language 56(4): 777–96. Yokoyama, [Tsuneko] Olga. (1975) “Personal or Reflexive? A Functional Approach.” Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics 1: 75–112. Yokoyama, Olga and Emily Klenin. (1976) “The Semantics of ‘Optional’ Rules: Russian Personal and Reflexive Possessors.” In Sound, Sign, and Meaning: Quinquagenary of the Prague Linguistic Circle, ed. Ladislav Matejka, 249–70. Ann Arbor: Dept. of Slavic Languages, University of Michigan. 7. Tableaux (tableau numbers correspond to example numbers) a.  b. c. Ø svoju ego *AMB Q-PRIN *1/2PRO *COLL *REFER *NEGSET *CLOSE *OBV MAXIO On[αclose] rubaška[αrefer] I-PRIN T1a. On nosil X rubašku * *! *! * * a. b.  c. Ø svoju ego *AMB Q-PRIN *1/2PRO *COLL *REFER *NEGSET *CLOSE *OBV MAXIO On[+close, +refer] rubaška[+refer] I-PRIN T1b. On nosil X rubašku *! * * * *! * a. b. c.  Ø svoj eë *AMB Q-PRIN *1/2PRO *COLL *REFER *NEGSET *CLOSE *OBV MAXIO baba[–close, –refer] košelëk[αrefer] I-PRIN T2. …kakaja-to baba uronila X košelëk *! *! * *! * * *AMB * Q-PRIN * *1/2PRO *COLL * *REFER *! *NEGSET *CLOSE Ø svoej moej *OBV a. b. c.  MAXIO sem’e[+close, +refer, +coll] I-PRIN T3a. V sem’e X … *AMB * Q-PRIN * *1/2PRO *COLL * *REFER *! *NEGSET *CLOSE Ø svoju moju *OBV a. b. c.  MAXIO doč’[+close, +refer] I-PRIN T3b. … ja doč’ X … *! * * a. b.  c. Ø svoju moju *AMB Q-PRIN *1/2PRO *COLL *REFER *NEGSET *CLOSE *OBV I-PRIN sestru[–close] MAXIO T4. Ja otravil X sestru carinu… *! * *! a. b.  c. Ø svoim moim *AMB Q-PRIN *1/2PRO *COLL *REFER *NEGSET *CLOSE *OBV MAXIO partnerom [–refer] I-PRIN T5. … rabotal s X partnerom… *! * *! a. b. c.  Ø svoim moim *! *! * * *AMB Q-PRIN *1/2PRO *COLL *REFER *NEGSET *CLOSE *OBV MAXIO partnerom [+refer] I-PRIN T6. … zanimat’sja s X partnerom… a. b.  c. Ø svoju moju *AMB Q-PRIN *1/2PRO *COLL *REFER *NEGSET *CLOSE *OBV I-PRIN kartinku[–set] MAXIO T7. … narisoval … X pervuju kartinku… *! * *! a. b. c.  Ø svoe moe *AMB Q-PRIN *1/2PRO *COLL *REFER *NEGSET *CLOSE *OBV I-PRIN tvorenie[+set] MAXIO T8. … pokazal X tvorenie… *! *! * * * a. b.  c. Ø svoi vaši *AMB Q-PRIN *1/2PRO *COLL *REFER *NEGSET *CLOSE *OBV MAXIO (Vy)[–coll] mesta[–coll] I-PRIN T9. … zajmite X mesta… *! * *! *! * * *AMB *! Q-PRIN *! *1/2PRO *NEGSET *CLOSE *OBV *COLL Ø svoi vaši *REFER a. b. c.  MAXIO (Vy)[+coll] uslovija[+refer] I-PRIN T10. Skažite X uslovija…