Serbo-Croatian Word Order: a Logical Approach
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Serbo-Croatian Word Order: A Logical Approach Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Vedrana Mihalicek, B.A., M.A. Graduate Program in Department of Linguistics The Ohio State University 2012 Dissertation Committee: Carl Pollard, Advisor Brian Joseph Michael White c Copyright by Vedrana Mihalicek 2012 Abstract This dissertation presents a formal theory of Serbo-Croatian grammar. The theory predicts acceptable form/meaning pairs for a substantial chunk of Serbo- Croatian. In particular, we analyze Serbo-Croatian declarative and interrogative main clauses, embedded clauses, a couple of different types of nominal modifica- tion, control and predication, as well pro- and encliticization. Linguistic expressions are represented as triples of typed terms, with each typed term modeling one of the following sets of properties of a linguistic sign: semantic (i.e. truth-conditional meaning), tectogrammatical (i.e. syntactic combi- natorial properties), and, finally, phenogrammatical properties which specify the expression’s linearization possibilities. The focus of our work is on word order in Serbo-Croatian, which is very free in some respects but extremely rigid in others. With phenogrammar and tectogram- mar as distinct components, we can isolate word order problems from tectogram- matical and semantic combination, and state theory-internal phenogrammatical generalizations. This is particularly important for the analysis of 2P enclitics, whose placement cannot be adequately characterized tectogrammatically. ii The most elaborate component is phenogrammar. We postulate many differ- ent phenogrammatical types and modes of combination. This enables us to create islands of fixed word order, while still allowing free reordering of higher-level phenogrammatical objects. Of special significance are phenogrammatical terms which denote sets of strings. Such terms represent possible pronunciations of ex- pressions which can be linearized multiple ways without a change in meaning. Essentially, we are modeling semantically insignificant reordering as phenogram- matical indeterminacy. Our choice of grammatical architecture is empirically motivated, but method- ological in nature. This dissertation purports to show that a decent theory of Serbo-Croatian word order can be given in a framework which does distinguish phenogrammar and tectogrammar; not that a comparable (or superior) theory cannot be given in one which does not. We do, however, believe that this project brings attention to languages with complex word order patterns and their role in delineating a realistic categorial grammar framework for linguistic analysis. iii Acknowledgments A year ago I was sure that I would never complete my thesis. Luckily, I was surrounded by people who had more confidence in me and this project than I did, and who offered practical help, support and encouragement, as well as much needed respite. I am very grateful to my advisor, Carl Pollard, for not giving up on me, despite my repeated threats to abandon linguistics and graduate school altogether. Over the years, he provided tons of encouragement, practical suggestions and advice. Really, most of what I learned in graduate school I can somehow trace back to Carl’s involvement: courses, conversations, emails, questions that I had to figure out how to answer. Even (or, especially!) frustrating interactions with Carl ulti- mately lead to my intellectual and personal growth, and I still wonder to what extent these were orchestrated by Carl, for pedagogical purposes. Brian Joseph has also been my ally for many years, encouraging me to present at conferences, sticking up for me through funding mishaps and always being a sympathetic ear for my graduate school woes. I’m sure he’s supported me behind the scenes in ways I’m not even aware of. iv While I barely knew Mike White prior to him joining my thesis committee, I was very lucky that he agreed to take on this role. He was an invaluable as- set, whose thoughtful and incisive comments significantly improved my thesis in many ways, and more importantly, forced me to examine and clarify my own atti- tudes and assumptions concerning various conceptual issues in linguistic theory. His no-nonsense attitude was much appreciated too, and, in retrospect, I wish I had included him in my graduate career earlier. I am also very grateful to the Linguistics Department staff for their technolog- ical (thanks Jim!) and administrative (thanks Julia!) help. A very special thanks goes to Claudia Morettini, Hope Dawson, Joanna Anderson and Julie McGory, who have been my friends and allies for many years, and tremendously helped make my graduate experience pleasant and relatively smooth, whether by offer- ing administrative and teaching support, scrubbing my disgusting tea mug, or having liquid lunches when needed. I’ve also had the privilege of having many outstanding colleagues in the de- partment over the years, who offered stimulating conversation, friendship and support. Thank you Dahee Kim, Bridget Smith, Scott Martin, Chris Worth, Lia Mansfield, Rachel Klippenstein, Na’im Tyson, and many others, for office parties, rides, cat sitting, sporcle competitions, happy hours, a hand-drawn map of Mid- dle Earth, and all kinds of other good times which I don’t remember; that’s how good they were. v My parents, Jelena and Zlatko Mihaliˇcek,always encouraged me to be inde- pendent and do my own thing, and although they couldn’t necessarily under- stand what I was doing or why, remained confident that I could do it nonetheless. I have always been taught that the only thing I have to do is die, everything else being a matter of choice. Had this not been instilled in me, I doubt very much that I ever would have had the courage to embark on my international education adventures over a decade ago. I also never would have been able to pursue education abroad without the gen- erous and unconditional financial support of the United Word College program, and the Wien Scholarship program at Brandeis University. Along the way, I’ve had many teachers who believed in me, inspired me and helped me develop an appreciation for the intellectual life, particularly Margaret and Eric Mace-Tessler at UWC of the Adriatic, and Ray Jackendoff, Jerry Samet and Jeffrey Poland at Brandeis. I would not be here today were it not for their influence. Last but not least, it’s unlikely that I would have been able to push through the past couple of years without Bart. He offered help (ranging from housework, to typesetting, to mathematical inspiration), listened to me and tolerated my erratic behavior. His own courage and refusal to be hampered by fear of failure is some- thing I hope to be able to emulate one day. Thank you, Bart, for your affection and companionship. vi Vita 2010 . M.A. The Ohio State University 2007-present . Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University 2006-2007 . University Fellow, The Ohio State University 2006 . B.A. Brandeis University 2002-2006 . Wien Scholar, Brandeis University Publications Mihalicek, V. and C. Pollard. 2012. Distinguishing phenogrammar from tec- togrammar simplifies the analysis of interrogatives. In deGroote, P. and M. Neder- hof, eds., Formal Grammar. LNCS 7395. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 130-145. Mihalicek, V. 2010. The ordering of wh words in multiple wh extraction in Serbo- Croatian. In Smirnova, A., V. Mihalicek and L. Ressue, eds., Formal Studies in Slavic Linguistics, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 103-120. Mihalicek, V. 2008. Instruments and accompaniments in Serbo-Croatian. In Smirnova, A. and M. Curtis, eds., Issues in Slavic Syntax and Semantics, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 116-130. vii Fields of Study Major Field: Linguistics viii Table of Contents Page Abstract . ii Acknowledgments . iv Vita .......................................... vii List of Tables . xiii 1. Introduction . 1 1.1 Goals and Background . 1 1.2 Empirical Considerations . 4 1.2.1 What Is Meant by Serbo-Croatian ............... 4 1.2.2 What Is Counted As Data . 5 1.2.3 The Scope of the Project . 6 1.3 Formal Considerations . 7 1.3.1 The Separation of Phenogrammar and Tectogrammar . 8 1.3.2 Phenogrammatical Indeterminacy and ‘Canonical’ Order 14 1.4 Overview of the Dissertation by Chapters . 20 2. Framework . 22 2.1 Background . 22 2.2 Phenogrammar . 25 2.2.1 Preliminaries . 25 2.2.2 Phenogrammatical Types . 30 ix 2.2.3 Lower Level Types and Functions . 31 2.2.4 Higher Level Types and Functions . 38 2.3 Tectogrammar . 47 2.3.1 Preliminaries . 47 2.3.2 Representing Inflectional Features . 48 2.3.3 N and NP type families . 49 2.3.4 S type family . 49 2.3.5 ( types . 50 2.3.6 ’ types . 51 2.4 Semantics . 52 2.4.1 Preliminaries . 52 2.4.2 Entailment . 53 2.4.3 Types . 54 2.5 Putting it all together . 55 2.5.1 Signs . 55 2.5.2 Rules . 56 3. Basic Word Order . 60 3.1 Introduction . 60 3.2 Data . 61 3.2.1 Lexical Noun Phrases . 61 3.2.2 Phrasal Noun Phrases . 68 3.2.3 Adverbial Modifiers . 74 3.3 Analysis . 77 3.3.1 Lexical Noun Phrases . 77 3.3.2 Phrasal Noun Phrases . 86 3.3.3 Adverbial Modifiers . 103 3.4 Conclusion . 110 4. Embedding, Predicatives and Control . 113 4.1 Introduction . 113 4.2 Embedded Declarative Clauses . 114 4.2.1 Data . 114 4.2.2 Analysis . 117 4.3 Predicatives . 120 x 4.3.1 Data . 120 4.3.2 Analysis . 124 4.4 Subject and Object Control . 136 4.4.1 Data . 136 4.4.2 Analysis . 145 4.5 Conclusion . 153 5. Enclitics . 156 5.1 Introduction . 156 5.2 Data . 157 5.2.1 Order . 157 5.2.2 Placement . 159 5.3 Analysis . 163 5.3.1 Clitics in Categorial Grammar .