On tense and irrealis marking in triclausal constructions (and what distinguishes them from biclausal constructions)

Alexander Letuchiy

doi:10.1515/ling-2017-0034

Article

On tense and irrealis marking in triclausal constructions (and what distinguishes them from biclausal constructions)

Published/Copyright: December 22, 2017

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Linguistics Volume 56 Issue 1

Abstract

In this article, I consider Russian triclausal constructions (complex sentences including three clauses, one main and two dependent). More specifically, I analyze constructions where C1 (the main clause) embeds C2 (an embedded clause), while C2 in turn embeds C3. In the paper, I mainly concentrate on sentences where C2 is a clause with an unreal meaning, for instance, an argument clause hosted by the verb xotet’ ‘want’, and C3 is an adjunct (temporal) clause.

I pose the following questions:

How is tense assignment in C3 organized? Is it fully described by the rules of tense assignment that apply to biclausal structures?
The answer is that tense assignment in C3 varies significantly from one sentence to another: for instance, in C3 the tense can be interpreted with respect to the event in C2, which is atypical for Russian adjunct clauses. Moreover, in many cases all three of the existing variants (tense marking anchored to the moment of speech, to the event in C1, or to the event in C2) can be used.
Are there any syntactic phenomena that are typical for triclausal structures?
I claim that there is a special phenomenon, which can be called “syntactic doubling” or “copying,” whereby the verb form in C2 influences the form in C3. Importantly, the situation cannot be described in terms of classical form assignment, where the verb in C2 requires a particular form in C3: rather, the syntactic pattern of the verb in C2 allows different forms to be used in C3, the only requirement being that the forms in C3 and C2 are identical. Sometimes a version of doubling is also observed in biclausal structures, but only one of the types of doubling described here (doubling in argument clauses) can be found in biclausal constructions.
Another phenomenon specific to triclausal structures is represented by structures where C3 cannot be definitively assigned a structural position: in such cases it is unclear whether C3 is embedded under C1 or C2.
I conclude that triclausal constructions are not reducible to a combination of two biclausal constructions: C1 + C2 and C2 + C3. For the properties of C3, the properties of both C2 and C1 are relevant.

Keywords: triclausal constructions; complex clauses; syntactic doubling; tense; aspect; future tense; converb; participle; finiteness; subjunctive mood

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by grant #16-18-02071 from the Russian Science Foundation. I am extremely grateful to the participants of the 2012 workshop on grammatical categories in Mainz and the 2014 conference in the memory of Jakov Grot in Moscow for extremely deep questions and fruitful discussion. I also thank the audience of my talks at the School of Linguistics of Higher School of Economics in 2014 and 2016. I would like to thank specially Vera Podlesskaya, Ekaterina Lyutikova, and Olga Pekelis for discussions and remarks.

Appendix. Abbreviations

1: 1st person
2: 2nd person
3: 3rd person
ACC: accusative
ADJ: adjective
COMP: complementizer
COMPAR: comparative
DAT: dative
F: feminine
FUT: future
GEN: genitive
IMP: imperative
INF: infinitive
INS: instrumental
IPFV: imperfective
IRR: irrealis
LOC: locative
M: masculine
N: neuter
NEG: negation
PL: plural
PRS: present
PFV: perfective
PST: past
PURP: purpose marker/unreal complementizer čtoby
REFL: reflexive
SG: singular

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra & Robert Malcolm Ward Dixon (eds.) 2005. Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199279159.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra & Robert Malcolm Ward Dixon (eds.) 2006. Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Avrutin, Sergey & Maria Babyonyshev. 1997. Obviation in subjunctive clauses and AGR: Evidence from Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15. 229–262.10.1023/A:1005732301928Search in Google Scholar

Barentsen, Adrian. 1995. Shifting points of orientation in Modern Russian: Tense selection in ‘reported perception’. In Theo Janssen & Wim Van Der Wurff (eds.), Reported speech: Form and functions of the verb, 15–55. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.43.05barSearch in Google Scholar

Brecht, Richard. 1977. Čtoby or čto and by. Folia Slavica 1. 33–41.Search in Google Scholar

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2005. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282005.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Culicover, Peter. 1997. Principles and parameters: An introduction to syntactic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198700159.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Dobrushina, Nina R. 2012. Subjunctive argument clauses in Russian. Russian Linguistics 36(2). 121–156.10.1007/s11185-012-9088-0Search in Google Scholar

Engerer, Volkmar. 2013. Towards a theory of phases and phasal verbs in language typology. http://pure.iva.dk/ws/files/35044787/typology_v2_UFC_FoL_anonymous.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Hansen, Björn. 2004. The boundaries of grammaticalization. The case of modals in Russian, Polish and Serbian/Croatian. In Walter Bisang, Nicolaus Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 245–271. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197440.4.245Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin & Ekkehard König (eds.) 1995. Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110884463Search in Google Scholar

Kazenin, Konstantin I. & Yakov G. Testelets. 2004. Where coordination meets subordination. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions, 227–241. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.58.13kazSearch in Google Scholar

Knjazev, Mikhail Yu. 2009. Predikatnye aktanty s mestoimeniem to v russkom jazyke: Grammatičeskij status [Sentential arguments with the pronoun to in Russian: Grammatical status]. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg University Undergraduate thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Letuchiy, Alexander B. 2013. A strange variant of Russian čtoby-constructions: Irreality and tense marking. In Irina Kor Chahine (ed.), Current studies in Slavic linguistics (Studies in Language Companion Series 146), 149–166. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.146.09letSearch in Google Scholar

Mal’čukov, Andrei L. 2001. Opyt isčislenija taksisnyx značenij (na materiale tungusskix jazykov) [Towards a typology of taxis meanings (on the basis of data from Tungusic languages)]. In Sadje A. Shubik (ed.), Issledovanija po jazykoznaniju. K 70-letiju A.V. Bondarko [Research in linguistics. On the occasion of A.V. Bondarko’s 70th birthday], 186–197. Saint Petersburg: Nauka.Search in Google Scholar

Noonan, Michael. 2007. Complementation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 2: Complex constructions, 52–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619434.002Search in Google Scholar

Padučeva, Elena V. 2014. Ėkspletivnoe otricanie i semantika sojuza poka [Expletive negation and the meaning of the subordinator poka]. In Vladimir A. Plungjan, Michael A. Daniėl’, Ekaterina A. Ljutikova, Sergei G. Tatevosov & Olga V. Fedorova (eds.), Jazyk. Konstanty. Peremennye. Pamjati Aleksandra Evgen’eviča Kibrika [Language. Constants. Variables. In memory of Alexander Evgen’jevich Kibrik], 339–350. Moscow: Aleteja.Search in Google Scholar

Sannikov, Vladimir Z. 2008. Russkij sintaksis v semantiko-pragmatičeskom prostranstve [Russian syntax in the semantico-pragmatic space]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.Search in Google Scholar

Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A Plea For Monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 29–120.10.1023/A:1022225203544Search in Google Scholar

Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2009. A typology of purpose clauses (Typological studies in language 88). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.88Search in Google Scholar

Sebba, Mark. 1987. The syntax of serial verbs: An investigation into serialisation in Sranan and other languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cll.2Search in Google Scholar

Shirjaev, Evgeni N. 1986. Bessojuznoe složnoe predloženie v sovremennom russkom jazyke [Unmarked complex clause formation in modern Russian]. Moscow: Nauka.Search in Google Scholar

Shopen, Timothy (ed.) 2007. Language typology and syntactic description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618437Search in Google Scholar

Stiebels, Barbara. 2007. Towards a typology of complement control. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 47. 1–80.10.21248/zaspil.47.2007.344Search in Google Scholar

Szucsich, Luka. 2009. Obviation and Feature Sharing in Subjunctive/Conditional Clauses. In Gerhild Zybatow, Petr Biskup, Uwe Junghanns & Denisa Lenertová (eds.), Studies in Formal Slavic Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and Information Structure: Proceedings of FDSL-7 [Linguistik International 21], 209–220. Frankfurt am Main Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Szucsich, Luka. 2010. Obviation und temporale Abhängigkeit bei Subjunktiven. Zeitschrift für Slavistik 54(4). 398–415.10.1524/slaw.2009.0027Search in Google Scholar

Testelets, Jakov G. 2001. Vvedenie v obščij sintaksis [Introduction to general syntax]. Moscow: RGGU.Search in Google Scholar

Volkov, Oleg S. 2014. Tipologija glagol’nyx pokazatelej s aspektual’no-fazovoj semantikoj [Typology of verbal markers with aspectual-phasal semantics]. Moscow: Moscow State University Undergraduate thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Weiss, Daniel. 1995. Russian converbs: A typological outline. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13), 239–282. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110884463-008Search in Google Scholar

Xolodilova, Maria. 2013. Statističeskie svojstva vspomogatel’nyx glagolov u russkix glagolov moč’ i xotet’ [Statistical properties showing the auxiliary status of Russian verbs moč’ ‘can’ and xotet’ ‘want’.]. In Alexander V. Bondarko, Maria D. Voejkova, Ekaterina V. Raxilina & Elizaveta G. Sosnovceva (eds.), Glagol’nye i imennye kategorii v sisteme funkcional’noj grammatiki [Verbal and nominal categories in the system of functional grammar], 311–317. Saint Petersburg: ILI RAN.Search in Google Scholar

Xrakovskij, Viktor S. (ed.) 2009. Tipologija taksisnyx konstrukcij [Typology of taxis constructions]. Мoscow: Znak.Search in Google Scholar

Zaliznjak, Andrei A. & Elena V. Padučeva. 1975. K tipologii otnositel’nogo predloženija [Towards typology of the relative clause]. Semiotika i informatika 6. 51–101.Search in Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21. 109–132.10.1017/S0022226700010008Search in Google Scholar

Сulicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 195–217.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-12-22

Published in Print: 2018-1-26

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0034

Keywords for this article

triclausal constructions; complex clauses; syntactic doubling; tense; aspect; future tense; converb; participle; finiteness; subjunctive mood