Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

First-person- and third- person-oriented genericity in Russian Elena Paducheva (Moscow) SPE-6,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "First-person- and third- person-oriented genericity in Russian Elena Paducheva (Moscow) SPE-6,"— Presentation transcript:

1 First-person- and third- person-oriented genericity in Russian Elena Paducheva (Moscow) http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/ elena.paducheva@yandex.ru SPE-6, St.Petersburg, 10-14.06.2013

2 The paper deals with Russian generic-personal sentences (GPS) – this term being applied, in the first place, to subjectless sentences with the predicate of the second person singular (present or future tense), with the implied subject referring to the generalized first person and meaning something like me and those like me. (Some of the examples below are taken from the Russian National Corpus, http://www.ruscorpora.ru ) The paper deals with Russian generic-personal sentences (GPS) – this term being applied, in the first place, to subjectless sentences with the predicate of the second person singular (present or future tense), with the implied subject referring to the generalized first person and meaning something like me and those like me. (Some of the examples below are taken from the Russian National Corpus, http://www.ruscorpora.ru ) http://www.ruscorpora.ru (1) a. Est mnogo slov, kotorye proiznosish po privychke there are many words that pronounce as a habit. b. Vechno tebja zhdesh (L.Tolstoj) always wait for you [ one always has to wait for you] b. Vechno tebja zhdesh (L.Tolstoj) always wait for you [ one always has to wait for you] (2) S nachalstvom ne posporish with the authorities wont argue.

3 In Moltmann 2010 the meaning of generic one in English is described in basically the same way. It is claimed that this pronoun expresses first-person-oriented genericity. Taking into consideration the fact that in the American variety of English you is often used instead of one, I suggest that the implied subject of a Russian GPS (with the predicate of the second person) also expresses first- person-oriented genericity. In Moltmann 2010 the meaning of generic one in English is described in basically the same way. It is claimed that this pronoun expresses first-person-oriented genericity. Taking into consideration the fact that in the American variety of English you is often used instead of one, I suggest that the implied subject of a Russian GPS (with the predicate of the second person) also expresses first- person-oriented genericity.

4 Jespersen (Philosophy of grammar) about one and you; example from Martin Eden by Jack London. Jespersen (Philosophy of grammar) about one and you; example from Martin Eden by Jack London. Ruth: By the way, Mr. Eden, what is booze? You used it several times, you know. Oh, booze, its slang. Its whisky and beer – anything that will make you drunk. Ruth: Dont use you when you are impersonal. You is very personal, and your use of it just now is not precisely what you meant I dont just see that. Why, you said just now to me whisky and beer – anything that will make you drunk – make me drunk, dont you see? Well, it would, wouldnt it? Yes, of course, she smiled; but it would be nicer not to bring me into it. Substitute one for you, and see how much better it sounds. Ruth: By the way, Mr. Eden, what is booze? You used it several times, you know. Oh, booze, its slang. Its whisky and beer – anything that will make you drunk. Ruth: Dont use you when you are impersonal. You is very personal, and your use of it just now is not precisely what you meant I dont just see that. Why, you said just now to me whisky and beer – anything that will make you drunk – make me drunk, dont you see? Well, it would, wouldnt it? Yes, of course, she smiled; but it would be nicer not to bring me into it. Substitute one for you, and see how much better it sounds.

5 So one and you do not mean the same. Still it is clear that 2d person pronouns and verb forms express first-person-oriented genericity easier than the 1st person ones do, both in English and in Russian. Perhaps in some other languages as well. So one and you do not mean the same. Still it is clear that 2d person pronouns and verb forms express first-person-oriented genericity easier than the 1st person ones do, both in English and in Russian. Perhaps in some other languages as well.

6 There are other varieties of GPS in Russian – sentences with the generic ty you, ex. (3), (generic vy is also possible – when interpreted as a form of politeness, not plural): There are other varieties of GPS in Russian – sentences with the generic ty you, ex. (3), (generic vy is also possible – when interpreted as a form of politeness, not plural): (3) Chto ty budesh delat s bessovestnymi ljudmi! what will you do with dishonest people! Generic use of the implied subject of the imperative is also possible: Generic use of the implied subject of the imperative is also possible: (4) Podi dokazhi, chto ty ne verbljud go and prove that you are not a camel.

7 Other means of expressing first-person-oriented genericity – generic my we, ex. (5), and generic chelovek man, ex. (6): Other means of expressing first-person-oriented genericity – generic my we, ex. (5), and generic chelovek man, ex. (6): (5) Oxotno my darim, chto nam ne nadobno samim gladly we give what we need not ourselves. (6) S vozrastom chelovek stanovitsja bolee snisxoditelen k ljudskim slabostjam with age, a person becomes more forgiving of human weaknesses. The referential status of the 1st person pronoun in philosophical contexts, such as cogito ergo sum (Decartes), wont be discussed. The referential status of the 1st person pronoun in philosophical contexts, such as cogito ergo sum (Decartes), wont be discussed.

8 In what follows I deal with generic use of subjectless second person predicates, as in (1), (2), and of the second person pronouns, as in (3). In what follows I deal with generic use of subjectless second person predicates, as in (1), (2), and of the second person pronouns, as in (3). I am ready to accept that English generic one behaves approximately in the same way as you in the American variety of English. So I compare the English generic one described in Moltmann 2010 with the Russian first- person-generic ty you and the implied 2d person subject of the GPS. I am ready to accept that English generic one behaves approximately in the same way as you in the American variety of English. So I compare the English generic one described in Moltmann 2010 with the Russian first- person-generic ty you and the implied 2d person subject of the GPS.

9 The first obstacle. In Moltmann 2010 generic one is usually equated with the arbitrary PRO – or controlled PRO. But in Russian zero (and non-zero) 2d person subject of a GPS usually is not interchangeable with the arbitrary PRO. The first obstacle. In Moltmann 2010 generic one is usually equated with the arbitrary PRO – or controlled PRO. But in Russian zero (and non-zero) 2d person subject of a GPS usually is not interchangeable with the arbitrary PRO.

10 Russian GPSs are not synonymous with constructions implying arbitrary PRO. Generic one should rather be translated into Russian by an impersonal predicative construction, and not by a GPS or 2d person pronoun. Cf. example (1a) from Moltmann 2010 and its Russian equivalents (Ra)-(Rd): Russian GPSs are not synonymous with constructions implying arbitrary PRO. Generic one should rather be translated into Russian by an impersonal predicative construction, and not by a GPS or 2d person pronoun. Cf. example (1a) from Moltmann 2010 and its Russian equivalents (Ra)-(Rd): (1a) One can see the picture from the entrance = (Ra) Etu kartinu mozhno videt ot vxoda = it is possible to see the picture from the entrance (Ra) Etu kartinu mozhno videt ot vxoda = it is possible to see the picture from the entrance (Rb) *Etu kartinu mozhesh videt ot vxoda, lit. can see the picture from the entrance; (Rb) *Etu kartinu mozhesh videt ot vxoda, lit. can see the picture from the entrance; (Rc) ?Etu kartinu vidish ot vxoda, lit. see the picture from the entrance; (Rc) ?Etu kartinu vidish ot vxoda, lit. see the picture from the entrance; (Rd) ?Etu kartinu ty mozhesh videt ot vxoda, lit. you can see the picture from the entrance. (Rd) ?Etu kartinu ty mozhesh videt ot vxoda, lit. you can see the picture from the entrance. The literal translation, by a GPS with the modal verb in the 2d person, is definitely impossible, see (Rb). Sentences (Rc), (Rd) are not impossible but they are not neutral: there is kind of undue emphasis, which is out of place. The literal translation, by a GPS with the modal verb in the 2d person, is definitely impossible, see (Rb). Sentences (Rc), (Rd) are not impossible but they are not neutral: there is kind of undue emphasis, which is out of place.

11 In fact, there are contextual restrictions on the verb in a GPS. A semantic operator is needed that provides the verb with the modality of irrealis. In (1a), (1b) it is quantification. In (7)- (10) it is negation, explicit or implicit; in fact, (7)-(10) express impossibility: In fact, there are contextual restrictions on the verb in a GPS. A semantic operator is needed that provides the verb with the modality of irrealis. In (1a), (1b) it is quantification. In (7)- (10) it is negation, explicit or implicit; in fact, (7)-(10) express impossibility: (7) Tebja ne ubediš lit. wont persuade you = its impossible to persuade you; (8) Nichego ne podelaeš! do nothing = nothing to do; (9) Razve vse zapomniš? whether remember everything?; (10) V tramvae krasivuju zhenshchinu ne vstretiš in a tram wont meet a beautiful woman. The same in ex. (2): The same in ex. (2): (2) S nachalstvom ne posporiš with the authorities wont argue.

12 In (11) the modal context is created by the fact that the situation is conditioned; the condition is expressed in phrase ot takoj zhizni because of the life like this: In (11) the modal context is created by the fact that the situation is conditioned; the condition is expressed in phrase ot takoj zhizni because of the life like this: (11) Ozvereesh ot takoj zhizni become a beast because of the life like this. GPSs are often used in the context of conditional, causal, temporal or some other connection between different situations: GPSs are often used in the context of conditional, causal, temporal or some other connection between different situations: (12) Tishe edeš – dalshe budeš (Russian proverb) the slower go the further get.

13 The pronoun ty you can be interpreted generically if there is a possibility to interpret the situation as being not referential. In (13b) referentiality is cancelled with the help of the conjunction: The pronoun ty you can be interpreted generically if there is a possibility to interpret the situation as being not referential. In (13b) referentiality is cancelled with the help of the conjunction: (13) a. Xorošo, chto u tebja est dom [referential ty] its good that you have a house. b. Xorošo, kogda u tebja est dom [generic ty] its good when you have a house. b. Xorošo, kogda u tebja est dom [generic ty] its good when you have a house.

14 …an agent generalizes a self-ascription of a property by abstracting from the particuliarities of his own situation and thus ascribing the property to anyone else or rather anyone the agent can assume is as normal as he himself. Both of these components, the first-person connection, in whatever way it may manifest itself, and the generalization, are part of the meaning of generic one or so I will argue. (Moltmann 2010). …an agent generalizes a self-ascription of a property by abstracting from the particuliarities of his own situation and thus ascribing the property to anyone else or rather anyone the agent can assume is as normal as he himself. Both of these components, the first-person connection, in whatever way it may manifest itself, and the generalization, are part of the meaning of generic one or so I will argue. (Moltmann 2010).

15 1) Generalization A GPS usually denotes a repeatable situation – namely, it describes a situation that can take place with different participants, as in (14): A GPS usually denotes a repeatable situation – namely, it describes a situation that can take place with different participants, as in (14): (14) Slovo ne vorobej, vyletit – ne pojmaeš a word is not a sparrow – if it flies away wont catch it.

16 A GPS can also describe an event that concerns exactly one person, namely, the speaker. Then pronouns (and verbs) of the 1st and 2d person alternate – their reference being identical; see example from Knjazev 2008: A GPS can also describe an event that concerns exactly one person, namely, the speaker. Then pronouns (and verbs) of the 1st and 2d person alternate – their reference being identical; see example from Knjazev 2008: (15) Znaesh, na rabote ja tak vymatihvajus. Ezdiš po Moskve so vsyakimi inostrancami, gid- perevodchik. Menya mutit ot zvukov angliyjskoyj rechi.. Tak chto do domu doberešsya – i nikuda. (A. Gladilin). You know Im so exhausted at work. go back and forth through Moscow with foreigners, as a guide- translator I feel sick from the sounds of English speech. So get home and cannot move anywhere.

17 And even iterativity is not obligatory: And even iterativity is not obligatory: (16) Odnazhdy obnaruzhivaeš, chto tebja net. Ty razbit na tysjachu kuskov, i u kazhdogo kuska svoj glaz, nos, uxo. (L.Ulickaja. People of our king) one day find out that you do not exist. You are broken into thousand of pieces, and each piece has its own eye, nose, ear NB. The fragment is the very beginning of the book. NB. The fragment is the very beginning of the book.

18 An example from Bulygina 1990: An example from Bulygina 1990: (17) S toboj serezno razgovarivaeš, a ty kak balabolka, lit. speak seriously to you and you behave as a chatterbox = I speak seriously to you, as I used to, and you behave as a chatterbox.

19 2) 1st person-orientation Egocentrical (i.e. indexical) linguistic entities, i.e. egocentricals, in Russian were thoroughly studied during the last two decades, see a survey in Paducheva 2012. Egocentricals are words, grammatical categories and constructions that presuppose the speaker as a participant of the situation described, such as edva li hardly in Hell hardly be in time. Egocentrical (i.e. indexical) linguistic entities, i.e. egocentricals, in Russian were thoroughly studied during the last two decades, see a survey in Paducheva 2012. Egocentricals are words, grammatical categories and constructions that presuppose the speaker as a participant of the situation described, such as edva li hardly in Hell hardly be in time. It is characteristic of egocentricals that they presuppose the speaker in a canonical communicative situation, i.e. in the dialogical register. Otherwise they can undergo projection. Two types of projection are to be distinguished: narrative projection and hypotactical projection. It is characteristic of egocentricals that they presuppose the speaker in a canonical communicative situation, i.e. in the dialogical register. Otherwise they can undergo projection. Two types of projection are to be distinguished: narrative projection and hypotactical projection.

20 GPS is an egocentrical construction. Prototypically, GPS refers to the speaker. But GPSs are used not only in canonical communicative situations but also in other types of discourse. So narrative projection is possible for the implied subject of GPS, see example (18) (from Knjazev 2008): GPS is an egocentrical construction. Prototypically, GPS refers to the speaker. But GPSs are used not only in canonical communicative situations but also in other types of discourse. So narrative projection is possible for the implied subject of GPS, see example (18) (from Knjazev 2008): (18) No kak postupit, kogda chuzhdoe segodnjashnemu dnju zhilo v nem samom. S soboj ved ne porvesh, ne perestanesh vstrechatsja. [V.Grossman. Life and fate] But what to do when something alien to todays life was alive in himself. cannot break with yourself, stop meeting yourself.

21 As for the hypotactical projection, its OK for English generic one, cf. Moltmann 2010: As for the hypotactical projection, its OK for English generic one, cf. Moltmann 2010: Generic one differs from a first-person pronoun such as I in English in that it need not relate to the speaker as the first person, but in embedded contexts relates to whoever is the agent of the attitude or speech act, for example John in (1c): Generic one differs from a first-person pronoun such as I in English in that it need not relate to the speaker as the first person, but in embedded contexts relates to whoever is the agent of the attitude or speech act, for example John in (1c): (1c) John thinks that one can see the picture from the entrance. (1c) John thinks that one can see the picture from the entrance.

22 On the contrary, the implied subject of a Russian GPS cannot undergo hypotactical projection. Only arbitrary PRO can be used in the Russian translation of English (1c): On the contrary, the implied subject of a Russian GPS cannot undergo hypotactical projection. Only arbitrary PRO can be used in the Russian translation of English (1c): (R1c) John s č itaet, č to ètu kartinu mo ž no videt ot vxoda John thinks that it is possible to see the picture from the entrance; (R1c) **John s č itaet, chto ètu kartinu vidi š ot vxoda [lit. John believes that see the picture from the entrance]

23 In (19) the 2d person pronoun ty with the 1st- person-generic interpretation is possible in the embedded position, but only because it is co- referent with the arbitrary PRO (= the implied 1st person generic subject) of the predicative neprijatno unpleasantin the main sentence: In (19) the 2d person pronoun ty with the 1st- person-generic interpretation is possible in the embedded position, but only because it is co- referent with the arbitrary PRO (= the implied 1st person generic subject) of the predicative neprijatno unpleasantin the main sentence: (19) Kak neprijatno videt, chto ty chto-to terjaesh v glazax ljudej ottogo, chto goloden i beden. How unpleasant it is to realize that you lose something in the eyes of the people because are hungry and poor. (example from Zalizniak Anna 2012)

24 See (20), which is the Russian translation of example (8a) from Moltmann 2010: See (20), which is the Russian translation of example (8a) from Moltmann 2010: (8a) One sometimes thinks ones life is too short. The pronoun ty (i.e. the possessive tvoj) with the 1st person generic interpretation is possible in the subordinate clause in (20). But it is because it is co-referent with the implied subject of the GPS in the main clause – licensed by the context of quantification (inogda = sometimes): The pronoun ty (i.e. the possessive tvoj) with the 1st person generic interpretation is possible in the subordinate clause in (20). But it is because it is co-referent with the implied subject of the GPS in the main clause – licensed by the context of quantification (inogda = sometimes): (20) Inogda dumaeš, č to tvoja ž izn sliškom korotka sometimes think that your life is too short.

25 Thus, the implied subject of a GPS can be accounted for as the 1st person PRO in generic use. Its semantic and referential properties become clearer when compared with those of the implied subject of the indefinite personal sentence (IPS) in its generic variety. Thus, the implied subject of a GPS can be accounted for as the 1st person PRO in generic use. Its semantic and referential properties become clearer when compared with those of the implied subject of the indefinite personal sentence (IPS) in its generic variety. In Russian the first-person-oriented genericity, as in GPS, is opposed to the third-person-oriented genericity, represented by generic use of the 3d person PRO in the IPS: In Russian the first-person-oriented genericity, as in GPS, is opposed to the third-person-oriented genericity, represented by generic use of the 3d person PRO in the IPS: (21) Cypljat po oseni schitajut count chickens in the automn [generic use of the 3d person PRO].

26 The generic 1st person PRO differs from the 3d person plural PRO in several respects. The generic 1st person PRO differs from the 3d person plural PRO in several respects. 1. Generic 1st person PRO refers, in the first place, to the speaker; while the 3d person PRO rather excludes the speaker. In (22) the speaker opposes himself to those who revile the autumn: (22) Dni pozdnej oseni branjat obyknovenno. No mne ona mila (Pushkin) Days of the late automn – scold them usually. But for me it [i.e. the automn] is nice.

27 Another example: Another example: (23) a. Kogda uez ž ajt, ostavljajut adres. A ja ne ostavila. when go away leave the address, but I didnt. b. Kogda uez ž aeš, ostavljaeš adres. *A ja ne ostavila. when go away leave the address, but I didnt. b. Kogda uez ž aeš, ostavljaeš adres. *A ja ne ostavila. when go away leave the address, but I didnt. A GPS cannot exclude the speaker from the set of possible agents of the situation described. A GPS cannot exclude the speaker from the set of possible agents of the situation described.

28 2. Generic 1st person PRO is eager to enter co- reference relationships, cf.: (24) Podalshe polozhiš, poblizhe vozmeš the farther put the safer take it back; And the 3d person PRO is not characteristic of co- reference marking. And the 3d person PRO is not characteristic of co- reference marking. (25) Po platju vstre č ajut, po umu provo ž ajut meet you according to your dress, see you off according to your wit. In fact, IPS lowers the rank of the participant: it is thrown out of the field of vision and doesnt make an appropriate antecedent. In fact, IPS lowers the rank of the participant: it is thrown out of the field of vision and doesnt make an appropriate antecedent.

29 3. The difference in the grammatical number of the predicate is also relevant. In a single use the plural form of the GPS predicate doesnt express plurality of the subject: a singular person counts her chickens or reviles the late autumn. But in the context of the anaphoric reference the plural of the 3d person PRO reveals itself; e.g., in example (26) (from Bulygina, Shmelev 1997) the first clause introduces a set of running men referred to in the second clause: (26) Skoro begut – dalnix ne zhdut when run fast do not wait for those behind.

30 4. The verb with the 3d person PRO has the subjunctive mood: (27) Esli by vybory mogli č to-to izmenit, ix davno by otmenili if elections could have influenced anything would have prohibited them long ago. But the predicate of a GPS cannot be in the subjunctive. Sentence (28), a GPS equivalent of an example from Moltmann 2010, has no counterfactual version in Russian: But the predicate of a GPS cannot be in the subjunctive. Sentence (28), a GPS equivalent of an example from Moltmann 2010, has no counterfactual version in Russian: (28) Esli ty angel, ty ni č elovek, ni bo ž estvo if you are an angel you are neither human nor divine.

31 Conclusions First. Russian ty you and PRO, both being 1st person-oriented generics and translational equivalences for the English one, have different appropriateness conditions. So it would be misleading to call them the same name. The difference is to be described. First. Russian ty you and PRO, both being 1st person-oriented generics and translational equivalences for the English one, have different appropriateness conditions. So it would be misleading to call them the same name. The difference is to be described. Second. Comparison of the English one with the Russian ty you gives rise to a suspicion that English one and American you are not quite alike. Second. Comparison of the English one with the Russian ty you gives rise to a suspicion that English one and American you are not quite alike.

32 References Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Языковая концептуализация мира (на материале русской грамматики). М.: Языки рус. культуры, 1997. Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Языковая концептуализация мира (на материале русской грамматики). М.: Языки рус. культуры, 1997. Knjazev Ju.P. Адресатное и обобщенно-личное значения форм 2-го лица // Динамические модели: Слово. Предложение. Текст: Сб. ст. в честь Е.В.Падучевой: ЯСК 2008. Knjazev Ju.P. Адресатное и обобщенно-личное значения форм 2-го лица // Динамические модели: Слово. Предложение. Текст: Сб. ст. в честь Е.В.Падучевой: ЯСК 2008. Paducheva E.V. Высказывание и его соотнесенность с действительностью. М.: Наука, 1985. Paducheva E.V. Высказывание и его соотнесенность с действительностью. М.: Наука, 1985. Paducheva E.V. Неопределенно-личное предложение и его подразумеваемый субъект. Вопросы языкознания, 2012, 1, 27-41. http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf1/Neopr_Lichn_VYa.pdf. Paducheva E.V. Неопределенно-личное предложение и его подразумеваемый субъект. Вопросы языкознания, 2012, 1, 27-41. http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf1/Neopr_Lichn_VYa.pdf. http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf1/Neopr_Lichn_VYa.pdf Moltmann, Friederike. 2010. Generalizing Detached Self-Reference and the Semantics of Generic One. Mind & Language 25.4:440–473. http://semantics.univ-paris1.fr/pdf/Generic%20one%202011.pdf. Moltmann, Friederike. 2010. Generalizing Detached Self-Reference and the Semantics of Generic One. Mind & Language 25.4:440–473. http://semantics.univ-paris1.fr/pdf/Generic%20one%202011.pdf. http://semantics.univ-paris1.fr/pdf/Generic%20one%202011.pdf Zalizniak Anna A. Второе лицо: семантика, грамматика, нарратология //Логический анализ языка. Адресация дискурса. М.: Индрик, 2012. С. 24-40. Zalizniak Anna A. Второе лицо: семантика, грамматика, нарратология //Логический анализ языка. Адресация дискурса. М.: Индрик, 2012. С. 24-40.


Download ppt "First-person- and third- person-oriented genericity in Russian Elena Paducheva (Moscow) SPE-6,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google