Anaphoric correlatives in Ossetic and beyond Oleg Belyaev, Dag Haug All sourced examples are from the Ossetic National Corpus¹. I mark the source as “ONC” when the corpus does not include data about the source (unfortunately, this is sometimes the case). Un- sourced examples are elicited from native speakers; I have tried to keep them to a minimum in order to be as objective as possible. 1 General info on correlatives A classic example from Hindi:
(1) [[ jo laṛkii ]DPrel khaṛii hai ] [ vo ]DPmat lambii hai girl standing is she tall is ‘e girl who is standing is tall’ (Srivastav 1991) Two analyses in the literature (Srivastav 1991; Bha 2003): CP
CPrel СPmat
whi girli you gave flowers to I saw DPmat
heri CP
CP[rel]i СPmat
whi girl you gave flower to I saw DP
CPrel DPmat ti her In the former case, the mediation is said to be “anaphoric”. However, in all explicit analyses (that I know o) we still deal with variable binding, i.e. the correlate is like an “overt trace”, so the resultant semantics is the same as that of ordinary RCs, only derived differently. E.g. Srivastav provides the following semantics for the RC: (2) 휆푃.푃(휄푥(girl′(푥) ∧ stand′(푥))) e correlate is interpreted as a “phonetically realized trace”, thus the main clause is an open proposition, in this case 휆푥. tall’(푥). We substitute this into (2) and get: (3) 휆푃.푃(휄푥. girl′(푥) ∧ stand′(푥))(휆푥. tall’(푥)) ⇒ tall(휄푥. girl′(푥) ∧ stand′(푥)) Compare this to the standard semantics for relative clauses, i.e. set intersection (ine 1960; Partee 1975, 229; Larson and Segal 1995, 256; Zwart 2000, 378): (4) ⟦girl who is standing⟧ = 휆푥. girl(푥) ∧ stand(푥) If we combine this with a definite article, we will eventually get the same meaning as in 3: (5) a. ⟦the⟧ = 휆푃.휄푥.푃(푥) b. ⟦the girl who is standing⟧ = 휄푥. girl(푥) ∧ stand(푥)
1. http://corpus.ossetic-studies.org/en
1 c. ⟦the girl who is standing is tall⟧ = tall(휄푥. girl′(푥) ∧ stand′(푥)) So basically Srivastav’s analysis treats correlatives as definite RCs, only derived differently². In what follows I will show that for Ossetic and a few other languages, such an analysis meets with considerable difficulties, and we must rather analyze the linking between DPrel and DPmat as a kind of coreference. 2 e syntax of (simple) correlatives e basic structure of the correlative clause in Ossetic is illustrated by the following (the list of glosses is at the end of the paper): (6) a. [ didinǯ-ətɜ sə čəžg-ɜn ba-lɜvar kod-t-aj ], fed-t-on wəj flower- what girl- -present do--.2 see.--.1 DemDist[] fəd-ə father- b. fedton, [ didinǯətɜ sə čəžgɜn balɜvar kodtaj ], wəj fədə ‘I saw the father of the girl that you gave flowers to.’
at is, DPrel is preverbal, and is “resumed” in the main clause by DPmat containing a distal demonstrative. e subordinate clause may be located either in the le-peripheral position or im- mediately preceding the correlate. From the syntactic point of view, both DPrel and DPmat are full-fledged DPs, that can have their own modifiers such as numerals, adjectives, and even certain quantifiers: (7) … [ sə birɜ čingʷə-tɜ ba-kašt aχɜšton-ə ], wədon-ə midiš =dɜr what many book- -see[..3] prison- DemDist- content =zə nɜ roχ kod-t-a. 3SgEncl. oblivion do--.3 ‘He didn’t forget the content of the many books that he read in prison.’ (ONC: Gusalov B.M. I vozdastsja každomu, 2003) (8) [ jekup-ə kɜrt-ə sə ɜrtɜ fɜtk’ʷə-jə žaj-ə ], wədon-ə dərʁ-tɜ Ekup- garden- what three apple- grow-.3 DemDist.- fruit- raǯə ɜfšnajd ɜr-səd-əštə… long_ago gather. -go-..3 ‘e fruits from the three apple trees that grow in Ekup’s garden have been gathered long ago.’ (ONC: Max dug 4, 2008) As is typical for correlatives in different languages (including Hindi), the subordinate clause has two potential positions: le-adjoined to the main clause and le-adjoined to the correlate: (9) a. [ didinǯ-ətɜ sə čəžg-ɜn ba-lɜvar kod-t-aj ], fed-t-on wəj flower- what girl- -present do--.2 see.--.1 DemDist. fəd-ə father- b. fedton, [ didinǯətɜ sə čəžgɜn balɜvar kodtaj ], wəj fədə ‘I saw the father of the girl you gave flowers to.’
In the laer case, the RC and DPmat form a constituent, since the RC must immediately precede DPmat, and two groups of RC+DPmat can be coordinated: 2. For universal interpretations she also has a conditional reading, but I omit this at this point.
2 (10) alan kɜš-ə, [[[ sə činəgi =ən ba-lɜvar kod-t-a aslan ], Alan read-.3 what book 3SgEncl. -present do--.3 Aslan
wəji ]DP, ɜmɜ [[ sə statʲjaj nə-ffəšt-a žawər ], wəjj ]DP ]CoP DemDist[/] and what article -write-..3 Zaur DemDist[/] ‘Alan is reading the book that Aslan gave him and the article that Zaur wrote.’
A demonstrative DPmat is obligatory; it is impossible not to have any correlate, or for the correlate to be expressed by an enclitic pronoun or a possessive proclitic (there are certain exceptions, but I will omit them here): (11) * [ či rba-sɜw-a ], dwar ba-jgom kɜn who. -go-.3 door -open do[.2] (‘(I) who comes, open the door.’)
(12) [ sə lɜpːui ɜrba-səd-i ], wəji /*∅i me= fšəmɜr u what boy -go-..3 DemDist[] 1SgPoss brother be..3 ‘e boy who came is my brother.’
(13) a. [ sə lɜpːui ɜrba-səd-i ], wəm-ɜni činəg rad-t-on what boy -go-..3 DemDist- book give..1
b. * [ sə lɜpːui ɜrba-səd-i ], činəg =əni rad-t-on what boy -go-..3 book 3SgEncl. give..1 ‘I gave the book to the boy who came.’ us I assume that syntactically, correlative clauses are adjuncts to either CP or DP. As I will show below, this has no important consequences for the semantics (at least not for the issue I am going to discuss). 3 Semantics 3.1 Why the linking is anaphoric Bridging Correlatives can have both an internal and an external “head”. In most cases the sub- ordinator and the correlate are coreferent as in referring to the same entity, but we also find some examples of bridging:
(14) [ afɜz-ɜj afɜz-mɜ =šɜ sə kɜnd-tɜi qɜw-ə ], wə-sə year- year- 3PlEncl. what remembrance- need-.3 DemDist-
χɜrz-tɜj∼i mɜ= χi-mɜ iš-ən. expense- 1SgPoss Refl- take-.1 ‘I take the expenses needed for the remembrances that they need every year on myself.’ (lit. ‘What remembrancesi they need every year, I take these expensesj∼i on myself.’) (ONC)
(15) [ pišmo sə boni ra-jšt-a ], wə-sə ižɜrj∈i ješt’a ɜmɜ verɜ-mɜ leer what day -receive-..3 DemDist- evening Esta and Vera- nə-ffəšt-a ladinɜ-jə χabar bɜlvərd-dɜr ba-žon-ən-ə təχːɜj. -write-..3 Ladina- story precise- -know- for ‘In the evening of the day when he received the leer, he wrote to Esta and Vera in order to get to know Ladina’s story more precisely.’ (lit. ‘On what day he received the laer, that evening he wrote …’) (ONC)
(16) danel, [ fɜštag-mɜ jɜ= χo-t-ɜm sə k’ami a-rvəšt-a ], wə-sə Danel last- 3SgPoss sister- what photo -send-..3 DemDist-
kostʲum-əj∼i, urš χɜdon ɜmɜ tar galstuč-ə lɜwwəd. suit- white shirt and dark tie- stand[..3]
3 ‘Danel stood in the same suit that he was in on the photo he sent to his sisters last time, white shirt and dark tie.’ (lit. ‘Danel, what photo he sent to his sisters last time, he stood in that costume, white shirt and dark tie.’) (ONC)
(17) [ adɜjmag χʷəždɜr sə vžag-əli zur-a ], wə-sə adɜməχatː-ɜjj∼i person beer what language- speak-.3 DemDist- nationality- u. be..3 ‘A person belongs to the nation whose language s/he speaks beer.’ (lit. ‘What languagei a person speaks beer, from that nationj∼i he is.’) (ONC: Ajlarov I., Gadžinova R., Kcoeva R. Poslovicy [Proverbs]. 2005) Interestingly, we find such indirect linking even when the relative clause is DP-adjoined: (18) ɜž χorž žəd-t-on, [ de= št’ol-əl sə k’am iš ], wə-sə lɜpːu-jə I well knew your on.table what photo is DemDist- boy ‘I knew well the boy whose photo is on your table.’ (lit. ‘I knew well, what photo is on your table, that boy.’) (ONC) Now these are impossible to accommodate to a variable binding/standard set intersection anal- ysis as far as I can see. So we need some kind of indirect anaphoric coreference to do the trick.
Split antecedents Unlike in Hindi etc., Ossetic correlatives may stack, i.e. there may be several subordinate clauses at the le periphery corresponding to a single correlate (but not to several dif- ferent correlates). In this case we may have split antecedents, i.e. one correlate corresponding to a sum of all the DPrels:
(19) [ sard-ɜj sə konflikt-tɜi išt-a ], [ sə χarakter-tɜj ɜvdəšt-a ], life- what conflict- take-..3 what character- demonstrate-..3
wədoni+j wəd-əštə kadɜǯ-ə ɜrmɜg. DemDist. be-..3 legend- material
‘What conflictsi he took from life, what aractersj he demonstrated, theyi+j were legendary material.’ (ONC) (20) [ kalač-ə sə sɜl, sə bon wəd-i ], [ sə χɜžna wəd-i ], city- what goods what force be-..3 what richness be-..3 wədon ra-χašt-oj ɜfšɜd-tɜ. DemDist. -carry-..3 army-
‘What goodsi, what forcej, what rinessk there was in the city, the armies took themi+j+k away.’ (Max dug 8, 1996) (21) labažan =dɜr gašan-ə χʷəžɜn kʷə w-aid, χabib =dɜr, mɜχɜmɜt =dɜr, štɜj Labazan Gasan- like if be-.3 Khabib Makhamat then innɜ-tɜ =dɜr, [ kɜj žon-ə ] mɜ [ kɜj nɜ žon-ə ], wədon other- who. know-.3 and who. know-.3 DemDist. iwwəl =dɜr, wɜd kʷəd χorž w-aid! all then how good be-.3 ‘How good it would have been if Labazan had been like Gasan, and Khabib, and Makhamat, and also others, whomi he knows and whomj he doesn’t know, all of themi+j.’ (Max dug 11, 2012)
4 (22) žɜχː =ma šaw u, fɜlɜ [ =jəl šɜrd-ə sə χor-tɜ, sə dərʁ-tɜ, earth yet black be..3 but 3SgEncl. summer- what grain- what fruit- sə didinɜg-ǯən wəgɜrdɜn-tɜ fɜ-žənd-zɜn ], wədon ragasaw sɜšt-ət-əl what flower- meadow- -appear-[3] DemDist. in_advance eye-- a-waj-əns -flow-.3
‘e earth is still black, but what graini, what fruitj, what flower meadowsk will appear upon it in summer, theyi+j+k flow before the eyes in advance.’ (Max dug 4, 2004) (23) ɜvɜcːɜgɜn, fɜ-taršt-i ɜmɜ =ma =jɜ, [ sə mbɜl-ə ] mɜ [ sə ne probably -fear-..3 and Ptcl 3SgEncl. what befit-.3 and what mbɜl-ə ], wədɜ-tːɜ nəmaj-ən-mɜ vdɜld-i! befit-.3 DemDist.- list-- take_time-..3
‘He probably became afraid and began enumerating whati befit him and whatj didn’t, that kind of thingsi+j’ (ONC) Once again, split antecedence is not predicted for “normal” RCs, certainly not in Russian, and probably not in English (people who he knew (and) who he didn’t know may be OK, but *the boysi+j whoi was stanging (and) whoj was siing is clearly bad). However, this is not as clear as it seems: e.g., adjectives can behave in a way similar to split antecedence: red and white flags, красный и белый флаги (i.e. one red flag and one white flag). So the validity of the split antecedence argument depends on the other arguments, and on some details of the formalization.
“Intermediate” anaphoric indexation When two subordinate clauses are aached, the second of them may reference the subordinator of the first one, while both subordinators are split antecedents of the correlate in the main clause:
(24) [ sə lɜgi =mɜm χəl kod-t-a ] ɜmɜ [ jemɜi sə lɜpːuj fɜ-bəsɜw ], what man 1SgEncl. scold do--.3 and 3Sg. what boy -argument
wədoni+j šɜ= dəwwɜ =dɜr rašt štə DemDist. 3PlPoss two right be..3
‘e man whoi scolded me and the lad whoj argued with himi, both of themi+j are right.’ 3.2 Anecdotal evidence from other languages No one really explored this issue, but it seems that bridging was allowed in old Indo-European languages that had correlatives, specifically Hiite (there are also some putative examples from Latin and Old English): (25) PÍŠ ga-pár-ta=na=kán ku-in A-NA DÙ EME ši-pa-an-ta-aš nu UZUNÍG.GUG animal:== . to made tongue sacrifice intestines. UZUZAG.UDU ḫa-ap-pí-ni-it za-nu-zi shoulder. flame. burn..3 ‘He roasts the intestines and the shoulders of the animal³ whi he had sacrified to the artificial tongue.’ (lit. ‘What animal he had sacrificed to the artificial tongue, he roasts intestines and shoulder with the flame.’) (Probert 2006, 63)
We also know for a fact that in Hindi, it is only possible to use synonyms/hyponyms in DPrel and DPmat (McCawley 2004). According to some authors, even more radically, one can only repeat the same noun or use an epithet in DPmat (Pos 2005). If this is true (although no one systematically investigated this), then the variable binding analysis works for Hindi, and it has a different type of correlatives than Ossetic, Hiite and Latin.
3. PÍŠ ga-pár-t is really the name of an unknown animal rather than a generic term for animals.
5 3.3 How should it work? ere are different accounts of bridging that have been proposed in the literature, but what is clear that whatever account we use, variable binding/set intersection is not going to work. e closest parallel to the phenomena observed above is coreference-based (i.e. pronominal or definite DP) anaphora:
1. Bridging:
(26) When I go to a bari, the bartenderj∼i always throws me out.
2. Split antecedents:
(27) Петяi показал Васеj себяi,j,*i+j на фотографии.
(28) Петяi показал Васеj ихi+j на фотографии.
3. Finally, correlates are always (in all languages I know o) demonstratives, personal pronouns, or definite descriptions, i.e. the same kind of items that are used in pronominal/discourse anaphora. ere is no language where there is a special set of correlative pronouns.
In other words, correlatives are truth-conditionally more or less equivalent to a juxtaposition of two clauses with an anaphoric link between them:
(29) a. Which girli came, I saw heri.
b. A girli came. I saw heri. e only difference is the fact that the subordinate clause in correlatives is presupposed. In an informal DRT-like representation, the meaning of this sentence is something like: x y
휕 ( ) (30) came(푥) (휕 is Beaver (1992)’s presupposition operator) girl(푥) saw(1푠푔, 푦) 푦 = 푥 e crucial thing here is that we have two separate discourse referents, and not two occurences of the same variable. is means that instead of equality as in (30), we can substitute some other, more general relation, which can also include bridging, split antecedence, etc. For example, (18) can be represented as: x y
휕 ( be_on_table(푥) ) (31) photo(푥) know_well(1푠푔, 푦) boy(푦) 푥 ∈ 풜(푦) is is essentially equivalent to:
(32) ere is a photoi on the table. I knew the boyj∼i well.
6 3.4 Parallels in other constructions e closest thing in the typology of relative clauses is obviously resumption. Based on the gen- eralization in McCloskey (2002) that resumptives are always ordinary pronominals, Asudeh (2012) has developed an anaphoric analysis that treats them as being semantically identical to ordinary pronouns (but their contribution is deleted in the derivation, as they are “surplus” resources). Even bridging seems to be possible in English:
(33) You assigned me to a paperi which I don’t know anything about the subjectj∼i. (Prince 1990) (34) When you apply the brakes to stop does it seem like nothing is happening and then all of a sudden the cari seems as if the brakesj∼i have crabbed?⁴ However, as Ash Asudeh points out (p.c.), in English bridging arises due to resumptives not being a fully grammaticalized strategy, but rather a performance-based phenomenon (see the discussion in Asudeh 2012). Bridging is not aested for the majority of languages that have resumptives. But we do find bridging-like resumption in Japanese (the exact constraints on it must be investigated further; this is all I could find at the moment): (35) [ watakusi ga sono ito no namae o wasure-te sima-a ] o-kyaku-san I this person name forget- .- -guest- ‘the guest whose name I forgot’ (lit. ‘the guest, [such that] I forgot the name of that person’) (Kuno 1973, 237) (36) [ tarou ga 100 man yen o kasei-de ku-ru ] sono gaku no hanbun o Taro million yen earn- .- this amount half ‘half of the million yen, whi Taro owes’ (lit. ‘half of that amount, [such that] Taro owes a million yen’) (Inada 2009, 94) e obvious difference of Ossetic correlatives from resumption is that it’s “inside-out”. Also, anaphora is not just an additional device in this case, but in fact the only thing really connecting the two clauses (since the standard semantics for RCs don’t work at all). So correlatives are similar to RCs with resumptives, in a way, but in general should probably be thought of as a separate construction that, maybe, shouldn’t even be considered relativization. An interesting question is whether such bridging etc. is possible in canonical relatives that are double-headed (Cinque 2012). It shouldn’t be, but it’s never been checked explicitly, as far as I know. 3.5 Analysis 3.5.1 A short overview of LFG and Glue For the semantic composition and the syntax-semantics interface, we use LFG (Kaplan and Bres- nan 1982) and Glue Semantics (Dalrymple 1999). ere is no time to go into the details of these formalisms; the best expositions of LFG are Dalrymple (2001) and Bresnan (2001), while Glue Se- mantics is very clearly explained in Asudeh (2012). We will only be looking at the semantic side of things, so I will leave syntax untouched and provide only the semantic premises. Glue Semantics is basically a way to achieve compositionality in a system where you do not (and cannot) “read o” semantics directly from the syntax. So it pairs lambda-formulae with linear logic formulae (the “Glue”), i.e. “instructions” on how to combine expressions. e pairings of a meaning and a Glue expression are called “Meaning Constructors” (MCs). As a short example let us consider the sentence John saw David. (37) 퐽표ℎ푛 ∶ 푗 휆푥.휆푦. see(푦, 푥) ∶ 푑 ⊸ (푗 ⊸ 푠) 퐷푎푣푖푑 ∶ 푑
4. http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/forums/c4-technical-performance/ 127849-93-brake-pedal-very-hard-push.html (accessed 16.01.2014)
7 휆푥.휆푦. see(푦, 푥) ∶ 푑 ⊸ (푗 ⊸ 푠) 퐷푎푣푖푑 ∶ 푑 (38) 휆푦. see(푦, 퐷푎푣푖푑) ∶ 푗 ⊸ 푠 퐽표ℎ푛 ∶ 푗 see(퐽표ℎ푛, 퐷푎푣푖푑) ∶ 푠 So in this case the proof tree is fairly close to the syntactic structure. But there are cases where this is not so, and unfortunately our analysis of correlatives is one of these. As the meaning representation we can use any compositional formalism. In this analysis, we use PCDRT (Haug 2013), which is a compositional version of DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993) similar to CDRT (Muskens 1996) but with a more satisfactory treatment of anaphora. In particular, anaphoric resolution is provided by a function 풜 taking anaphoric drefs to antecedent (but not necessarily fully coreferential) drefs. By default 풜 results from pragmatic reasoning, but it can also be (partially) specified by the grammar. is is what we will do. 3.5.2 Semantics I analyze the subordinate clause as being of type 푡. us correlatives are like adverbial clauses, combined with the main clause via presupposition, and then anaphoric linking is superimposed (A girl is standing, she’s tall). e clauses are combined by the following MC:
(39) ⟦REL⟧ = 휆푃.휆푄.[|휕(푃)]; 푄 ∶ 푟푒푙 ⊸ 푚푎푖푛 ⊸ 푚푎푖푛 is MC stands for the relativizing determiner sə ‘what, which’ is a lexical item of type ⟨⟨푒, 푡⟩, ⟨⟨푒, 푡⟩, 푡⟩⟩ (i.e. an item that produces a generalized quantifier) that either introduce a new referent or activate an already mentioned one (the function 푎푛푡(푥) means that the dref must have an antecedent): (40) ⟦which⟧ =
a. 휆푅.휆푃.[푥 |푅(푥 )]; 푃(푥 ) ∶ (푠푢푏.푣 ⊸ 푠푢푏.푟 ) ⊸ ∀훼 .(푠푢푏 ⊸ 훼 ) ⊸ 훼
b. 휆푅.휆푃.[푥 |휕(푅(푥 )), ant(푥 )]; 푃(푥 ) ∶ (푠푢푏.푣 ⊸ 푠푢푏.푟 ) ⊸ ∀훼 .(푠푢푏 ⊸ 훼 ) ⊸ 훼 If the subordinator is just a relative pronoun like či, then the MC is simpler: (41) ⟦who⟧ =
a. 휆푃.[푥 | human(푥 )]; 푃(푥 ) ∶ ∀훼 .(푠푢푏 ⊸ 훼 ) ⊸ 훼
b. 휆푃.[푥 |휕(ℎ푢푚푎푛(푥 )), ant(푥 )]; 푃(푥 ) ∶ ∀훼 .(푠푢푏 ⊸ 훼 ) ⊸ 훼 is just gives us the combination of clauses, without any obligatory anaphora. e laer is handled by the following MC:
(42) ⟦BIND⟧ = 휆푃.휆푥.휆푦.푃(푥)(푦); [|푥 ∈ 풜(푦)] ∶ ∀훼 .(푠푢푏 ⊸ 푐표푟푟 ⊸ 훼 ) ⊸ 푠푢푏 ⊸ 푐표푟푟 ⊸ 훼 I omit the details of the syntax-semantics interface, because this requires familiarity with LFG in order to be understandable, and there is no time to explain in detail now. 4 Problems 4.1 Intensional readings What seems at first sight to contradict the anaphoric approach is that correlatives have intensional readings: (43) [ χetɜkːa-t-ə k’osta-jə sə qɜw-ə nɜ žon-əns ], aχɜm nɜj Khetagurov-- Kosta- what village- know-.3 such :Exst irəšton-ə Ossetia- ‘ere is no village in Ossetia where people do not know (about) Kosta Khetagurov.’ (44) [ dəwwɜ metr-ɜj bɜržond-dɜr či u ], aχɜm adɜjmag iš-kʷə two meter- high- who. be..3 such person -when fed-t-aj? see.--.2 ‘Have you ever seen a man who is higher than two meters?’
8 (45) ragon ɜmbišond-aw, [ kalm sə uš-ɜj fɜ-taršt ], aχɜm u ancient proverb- snake what woman- -fear[..3] such be..3 miška-jə uš nadi =dɜr! Mishka- wife Nadi ‘As the ancient proverb goes, Mishka’s wife Nadi is su a woman of whom a snake got frightened!’ (ONC) However, observe that the correlate is always aχɜm ‘such’⁵ in these cases, not a demonstrative. is pronoun is typically used for reference to properties, predicates, etc.:
(46) Soslan is intelligenti. Sui people are always successful.
(47) Alan [ has written a whole grammar on his own ]i. Sui scholars are very few.
(48) iron adɜm-mɜ [ χi-on-tɜ kɜrɜzi-jɜ čəžg ]… nɜ [ kur-əns ]i, wəj Ossetian people- Refl-- Recip- girl ask-.3 DemDist[]
u χʷəsaw-ə lʁəšt mi. aχɜmi mi ba-kɜn-ɜg nəmad vɜjj-ə be..3 God- curse- thing such thing -do- count. be.-.3 ɜvirqaw fəd-gɜn-ɜg-əl, qɜdd-ag adɜjmag-əl. unthinkable evil-do-- forest- people-
‘Among the Ossetians [ relatives ]… do not [ marry ea other ]i, it is a thing cursed by God. Someone who does sui a thing is considered an unthinkable evildoer, a wild person.’ (ONC) is can be handled using the theory of Chierchia (1984) and the corresponding notation. Ac- cording to this theory, each first-order property (i.e. predicate) has a corresponding object of type 푒. Chierchia uses the following notation: ∩ is a function from properties of type ⟨푒, 푡⟩ to the corre- sponding type 푒 object, while ∪, conversely, takes a type 푒 object and produces the corresponding ⟨푒, 푡⟩ property, i.e. ∪∩휆푥.푔표푟푖푙푙푎(푥) = 휆푥.푔표푟푖푙푙푎(푥) (McNally 2009). en we can assume the following alternative reading for the relativizer sə: ∩ (49) ⟦which⟧ = 휆푃.휆푥.푥 = 푃 ∶ (푠푢푏.푣 ⊸ 푠푢푏.푟 ) ⊸ ∀훼 .(푠푢푏 ⊸ 훼 ) ⊸ 훼 I.e. basically the subordinate clause which man saw a unicorn can be interpreted as ‘there exists a property of being a man who has seen a unicorn’. Let’s take the following sentence as an example: (50) [ iron-aw či zur-a ], aχɜm lɜǯ-ə agur-ən. Ossetian- who. speak-.3 such man- search-.1 ‘I am looking for su a man, who would speak Ossetic.’
x1 x2 x3
휕(푥 = ∩휆푥. ) speak(푥, 표푠푠) (51) search(1푠푔, 푥 ) ∪ 푥 (푥 ) ant(푥 ) 푥 ∈ 풜(푥 ) So here we do not presuppose that there is some person who speaks Ossetic, and then state that we’re looking for that specific person. We presuppose that there is a property of being a speaker of Ossetic, and then state that we are looking for a person possessing that property.
5. By the way, there seems to be no universally adopted term for such a pronoun. Maybe “property demonstrative” or “property pronominal”?
9 4.2 Universal readings ere are two alternative readings associated with correlatives (Dayal 1995): a specific reading and a universal one. Cf. the following example: (52) [ urok-t-ɜm sə lɜpːu nɜ sɜw-ə ], wəj dəwwɜ iš-ə lesson-- what boy go-.3 DemDist[] two receive-.3 ‘A boy who doesn’t go to the lessons gets a two.’ (53) asɜmɜž, [ χoš sə lɜpːu karšt-a ], wə-mɜ ba-səd-i Acamaz hay what boy cut-.3 DemDist -go-..3 ‘Acamaz came to the boy who mowed hay.’ (Max dug 9, 1996) Such universally-quantified correlatives have been analyzed as being akin to conditionals since (Srivastav 1991). e relationship between the subordinator and the correlate can then be seen as a kind of donkey anaphora. Also cf. a similar analysis of Serbo-Croatian correlatives in Arsenijević 2009. So the meaning of (52) will be like:
y (54) x ⇒ 푥 ∈ 풜(푦) ¬ work(푥) ¬ eat(푦)
4.3 Extending the analysis: abstract objects Ossetic is typologically interesting in that it uses correlatives for a much wider class of constructions than just relative clauses. Specifically they are widely used for complement and causal clauses: (55) ɜχšəžgon =mən wəd-i, [ sjezd-ə =šɜ kɜj joyous 1SgEncl. be-..3 conference- 3PlEncl. ba-žmɜšt-aj ], wəj -mix-..2 DemDist ‘I was happy that you excited them at the conference.’ (ONC: Bestaev G.G. Proizvedenija, 3 tom, 2004) (56) gogol-ə wasməš-t-ɜj iw-ə arχaj-ɜg plʲuškin-ə nom š-batː Gogol- work-- one- act- Plyushkin- name -sit[..3] direktor-əl, [ dɜʁɜl-t-ə bašt ɜzuχ jɜ= k’uχ-t-ə kɜj dard-t-a ], director- key-- bunch always 3SgPoss hand-- hold--.3 wəj təχːɜj DemDist[] for ‘e name of one of Gogol’s characters, Plyushkin, stuck to the director, because he always held a bunch of keys in his hands.’ (ONC) Incorporating this into the analysis is relatively straightforward, because anaphoric reference to such objects is well-developed. I use the notation from Asher (1993), e.g. for the sentence John informed Mary of Sue’s departure:
10 푣, 푤, 푢, 푒 , 푘 John(푣) Sue(푤) 푒 -inform(푣, 푤, 푘) (57) Mary(푢) 푒 푘 ≈ 푒 -depart(푢)
charf(푘) fact(푘) (Asher 1993, 161) Here ≈ is the “characterization relation” between some discourse referent and a DRS, while charf(푘) specifies the type of this relation, in this case fact; propositions use the notation charp(푥). To get this semantics in our compositional model, we can analyze subordinators such as kɜj ‘that’ and sɜmɜj ‘in order that’ (which also serves to refer to propositions), as having three functions: (1) they introduce an additional valency for a fact and a proposition, respectively, creating a sort of “shell” around the event; (2) they act as indefinite determiners for this factive or propositional argument; (3) they anaphorically link the fact/proposition to the correlate (as all other subordinators do, see above). e meaning constructors have the following forms:
(58) ⟦that⟧ = 휆푃.휆푥.[ | 푥 ≈ 푃, charf(푥), fact(푥)] ∶ 푟푒푙 ⊸ (푓푎푐푡 ⊸ 푟푒푙 ) 휆푃.[푥 | ]; 푃(푥 ) ∶ ∀훼 .(푓푎푐푡 ⊸ 훼 ) ⊸ 훼
(59) ⟦in order to⟧ = 휆푃.휆푥.[ | 푥 ≈ 푃, charp(푥), propos(푥)] ∶ 푟푒푙 ⊸ (푝푟표푝 ⊸ 푟푒푙 ) 휆푃.[푥 | ]; 푃(푥 ) ∶ ∀훼 .(푝푟표푝 ⊸ 훼 ) ⊸ 훼 As an illustration consider the following example: (60) mɜn fɜnd-ə, [ sɜmɜj žawər ɜrba-sɜw-a ], wəj. 1Sg. want-.3 in_order_to Zaur -go-.3 DemDist[/] ‘I want Zaur to come.’
x1 x2
x3
푥 ≈ Zaur(푥 ) 휕( come(푥 ) ) (61) charp(푥 ) propos(푥 )
want(1푠푔, 푥 ) ant(푥 ) 푥 ∈ 풜(푥 ) I.e. ‘there is the proposition that Zaur comes and I want that proposition to be true’. List of glosses : ablative; : accusative; : additive particle; : adjective; : allative; : aributive; .: auxiliary of directed action (in Japanese); .: auxiliary of finished action (in Japanese); : comitative; : complementizer; : comparative grade; : converb; : dative; Dem: demonstrative; Dist: distal deixis; Encl: enclitic pronoun; : equative; Exst: existential pred- icate; : future; : genitive; : habitual; : honorific; : imperative; : inessive-illative; : indefinite pronoun; : infinitive; : intransitivity marker; : negation; : nomina- tive; : perfective; : plural; Poss: possessive pronoun; : present; : past tense; Ptcl: particle; : participle; : preverb; Recip: reciprocal; Refl: reflexive; : subjunctive; : singular; : su- peressive-superlative; : transitivity
11 References Arsenijević, B. 2009. “{Relative {conditional {correlative clauses}}}.” In Correlatives cross-linguistically, 131–156. Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Asher, N. 1993. Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Dordrecht. Asudeh, A. 2012. e Logic of Pronominal Resumption. Oxford. Beaver, D. 1992. “e kinematics of presupposition.” In Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium, 17–36. Amsterdam. Bhatt, R. 2003. “Locality in correlatives.” NLLT 210:485–541. Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford. Chieria, G. 1984. “Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds.” PhD diss., University of Massachuses, Amherst. Cinque, G. 2012. “On Double-Headed Relative Clauses.” In Typological Studies: Word Order and Relative Clauses. Lon- don. Dalrymple, M., ed. 1999. Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: the resource logic approach. Cambridge, MA. . 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar. New York. Dayal, V. 1995. “antification in cor- relatives.” In antification in Natural Languages, 2:179–205. Dordrecht, Boston, and London. Haug, D. T. T. 2013. “Partial dynamic semantics for anaphora: compositionality without syntactic coindexation.” JoS. Inada, S. 2009. “On the “AMOUNT” relativization and its relatives.” Linguistic Research 25:85–102. Kamp, H., and U. Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht. Kaplan, R. M., and J. Bresnan. 1982. “Lexical-Functional Grammar: a formal system for grammatical representations.” In e mental representation of grammatical re- lations, 173–281. Cambridge, MA. Kuno, S. 1973. e structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA. Larson, R. K., and G. M. Segal. 1995. Knowledge of Meaning. Cambridge, MA. McCawley, J. D. 2004. “Re- marks on adnominal, adsentential and extraposed relative clauses in Hindi.” In Clause structure in South Asian languages, 291–313. Dordrecht. McCloskey, J. 2002. “Resumption, Successive Cyclicity, and the Locality of Operations.” In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, 184–226. McNally, L. 2009. “Properties, entity correlates of properties, and existentials.” In antification, definiteness & nominalization, 163–187. Ox- ford. Muskens, R. 1996. “Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation.” L & P, no. 19:143– 186. Partee, B. H. 1975. “Montague Grammar and transformational grammar.” LI 6:203–300. Potts, C. 2005. e logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford. Prince, E. 1990. “Syntax and discourse: a look at resumptive pronouns.” In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 482–497. Probert, P. 2006. “Clause boundaries in Old Hiite relative sentences.” TPhS 104 (1): 17–83. ine, W. V. O. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge, MA. Srivastav, V. 1991. “e syntax and semantics of correlatives.” NLLT, no. 9:637– 686. Zwart, C. J.-W. 2000. “A Head Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses in Dutch.” In e Syntax of Relative Clauses. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.
12