On the synchrony and diachrony of causal jako-że-clauses in Polish

2.1 Semantics

It is well known that causal relations can be expressed on three cognitive levels. They can operate on the content level, on the epistemic level, or on the speech act level (van Dijk 1977: 68–76; Frey 2016, 2023; Schiffrin 1987: 202; Sweetser 1990: 77; to provide but a few references). As the following examples show, jako-że-clauses can also operate on these three levels.

In the content domain, causal clauses usually encode a reason relation between two events – for example, in (7a), the rain is the reason for staying at home. The core property of these clauses is that the information conveyed in the matrix clause is presupposed, whereas the proposition in the subordination clause is asserted (see Larson 2004: 31–34 for more details and Arsenijević 2021: 13–15 for a similar account):

In (7b), in turn, the speaker provides the reason for why she or he thinks the matrix clause is true. Correspondingly, the speaker takes the car being in front of the garage to be a reasonable argument to assume that the matrix subject is at home. And in (7c), in the speech act domain, the speaker reveals the motivation for why she or he is performing a speech act.

Causal complementizers have been additionally divided into two groups, depending whether or not they convey a non-at-issue meaning. Causal clauses headed by English since, French puisque, and German denn have been claimed to be non-at-issue (e.g., Charnavel 2017, 2020; Scheffler 2013: 50–93), as their content cannot be directly dissented with, nor is their content relevant to the question under discussion (for more details about [non]-at-issueness, see Tonhauser 2012). On the other hand, causal clauses headed by because in English, parce que in French, and weil in German are taken to be at-issue. Jako-że-clauses are clearly at-issue, as their content can be directly dissented with:

In (9), speaker B denies the content of the jako-że-clause by using the demonstrative to ‘this’ with reference to the content of the subordinate clause and by negating it with the noun nieprawda ‘untruth’.

In what follows, I focus on jako-że-clauses operating on the content level, and do not elaborate on the other possible interpretations, as they express different reason relations and constitute distinct clause types; for more details, the interested reader is referred to Frey (2016), Larson (2004), Larson and Sawada (2012), and Morreall (1979).

2.2 Syntax

Although adverbial clauses can be introduced by a large number of adverbial complementizers, they can be divided into three main groups depending on the extent to which they are syntactically integrated into the matrix clause: central (= TP adjuncts), peripheral (= CP adjuncts), and disintegrated adverbial clauses (adjuncts attaching outside the clause structure). Different syntactic criteria help us to keep them apart. If an adverbial clause cannot appear on the right edge of the matrix clause and be part of it, then it must be analyzed as a disintegrated adverbial clause having its own illocutionary force. If, on the other hand, an adverbial clause is part of the matrix clause and can appear in the left periphery of it, then it is reasonable to examine to what extent it is sensitive to material occurring in the matrix clause to determine its integration status. Following Reinhart (1983: 122), I argue that quantificational binding is subject to a surface c-command condition, and adhere to the well-established view that the nominative case is checked in Spec,TP. Consequently, if an adverbial clause allows variable binding, then it is expected to be in the c-command domain of the quantificational phrase: a quantifier can bind an agreeing pronoun occurring in the subordinate clause iff the quantifier c-commands the pronoun (for more details, see Büring 2005: 83–93; Chomsky 1981: 183–230; Enç 1989: 62–64). Now, if an adverbial clause passes this test, then it cannot attach above TP because c-command would not be feasible, leading to the conclusion that the subordinate clause should be analyzed as a central adverbial clause. Table 1 summarizes the classification of adverbial clauses; for more details and tests, the interested reader is referred to Ángantýsson and Jędrzejowski (2023), Frey (2011, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2023), and Haegeman (2003, 2010, 2012). Against this background, we can safely conclude that causal jako-że-clauses operating on the content level are central adverbial clauses because they can occur in the left periphery of the matrix clause, as shown in (10a) and (10b), and because they allow variable binding, seen in (11).

These two syntactic tests show that content jako-że-clauses adjoin as TP adjuncts. Examples (10a) and (10b) illustrate that information-structural movements above the TP node, for example to FocP, are possible. Furthermore, jako-że-clause allow variable binding, as (11) shows: the quantifier każdy ‘every’ occurring in the Spec,TP of the matrix clause binds the possessive pronoun jego ‘his’ occurring in the subordinate clause – that is, każdy c-commands jego. This is the main argument for the TP adjunction of jako-że-clauses. It therefore follows that jako-że-clauses can be considered neither peripheral nor disintegrated adverbial clauses.

Having briefly examined jako-że-clauses in Present-Day Polish, I now turn to their diachrony. Firstly, I elaborate on the question when causal jako-że-clauses occurred in the history of Polish for the first time. Secondly, it is also interesting to examine how they came into being, as neither jako ‘as’ nor że ‘that’ express a causal meaning in Present-Day Polish on their own.

3.1 Etymology

The causal subordinate clause introduced by jako że can be decomposed into two elements that are still available in PDP: the relativizer jako ‘as’, that assigns a case value to its complement, seen in (12), and the declarative complementizer że ‘that’, which introduces canonical complement clauses, as in (13):

Not much is known about the history of jako że/jako iż. Brückner (1927) does not mention them at all; he only notes that jako was phonologically reduced to jak (lit. ‘how’). Decyk-Zięba et al. (2008: 54–55) trace jako back to the Proto-Slavic form *jakъ that is still attested in Czech (jako), in Lower Sorbian (ako), in Ukranian (jáko), and in Old Church Slavonic (jako). They also confirm Brückner’s observation that jako has been reduced to jak in MP, due to an accent shift, giving rise to a similar effect in other lexemes (e.g., tamo → tam ‘there’, tako → tak ‘so’, etc.; for more details on such processes in the history of Slavic languages, see Carlton 1991; Kapović 2005). Furthermore, Decyk-Zięba et al. (2008) point out that jako is mainly used as comparative preposition/relativizer that can relate different phrases, for example DPs or CPs, but they are silent about its use in connection with iż(e)/że as an adverbial causal complementizer.^[9]

3.2 Old Polish: up to 1543

Jako is an exceedingly frequent element in the oldest stage of Polish. To get a clear picture of how it was used in OP, I extracted and analyzed over 550 examples in which jako occurs. For an overview, the interested reader is referred to Table 3 in Appendix B.

As a comparative relativizer it can relate two XPs, for examples DPs as in (14a) or TPs as in (14b), comparing them as to some manner or degree of some property:

As a wh-word, jako can occur as a manner wh-word introducing finite clauses embedded, for example, under verbs of perceptions, as in (15a). But it can also occur in independent contexts, such as in (15b):

These functions are still available in PDP, but mainly with the phonologically reduced form jak, and not with jako. This also holds for the use of jako as a temporal complementizer, seen in (16a), or as a declarative complementizer, as in (16b):

In (16a), the dependent event expressed in the temporal jako-clause is a factual event immediately preceding the main event expressed in the matrix clause. Remarkably, the use of jako as a temporal complementizer is not very frequent in OP. In (16b), in turn, jako is employed as a declarative complementizer instead of że/iż ‘that’ (for more cross-linguistic details, see Legate 2010; Umbach et al. 2022).

Interestingly enough, in OP jako could be also used as a causal complementizer without being accompanied by a declarative complementizer:

This option is not available in PDP, neither with jako nor with jak:

I was not able to find any examples illustrating the use of jako in combination with iż(e)/że, in which the latter follows the former. However, the reverse word order can be attested:

The combination of Iże and jako in (19) does not give rise to a causal interpretation, though. Instead, Iże is to be analyzed as a focus particle, and jako as a comparative relativizer (see also footnote 8; for more details, see Meyer 2017).

3.3 Middle Polish: 1543–1765

The causal pattern attested in PDP is also present in the MP period. The combination of jako and of the declarative complementizer że or iż gives rise to a causal interpretation:

If only the complementizer jako is used, a comparison is expressed:

I was not able find any examples from MP in which jako would express only a causal meaning without że.

4.1 Step 1

Jako fulfills different functions in the OP period. Importantly, it can be used as an adverbial complementizer, introducing comparative clauses, as in (23a), and causal clauses, such as in (24a):

(23)

a.

i	nie	dał	jest	on	był	sobie	więce	chwał-y	jako
and	neg	give.l:ptcp.sg.m	be.3sg	he	be.l:ptcp.sg.m	refl	more	glory-gen	as
bog-u	czynić	był
God-dat	do.infv	be.l:ptcp.sg.m
‘and he didn’t want to be praised anymore, as he used to do with God’
(KTS, Kazania Gnieźnieńskie, 1420, Kazanie II: Na Boże Narodzenie, 5r)

b.

(24)

a.

Matko Boża,	ciebie	proszę,	jako	wiesz	lepiej
Mother of God,	you.acc	ask.1sg	as	know.2sg	better
‘Mother of God, I’m asking you, as you know better’
(KTS, Książeczka Nawojki, 29: 6–8)

b.

I take the use of jako as a comparative relativizer to be original and to have paved the way for the causal use of jako. Sanfelici and Rodeghiero (2024) observe a related grammaticalization path with respect to siccome ‘because’ in the history of Italian. In my view, jako-że-clauses developed in a similar way. Structurally, no radical changes are involved, as jako is a C-head throughout taking a TP-complement,^[10] regardless of what kind of adverbial relation it introduces.^[11] What changes is its semantics. Several properties that both comparative and causal clauses have in common underpin their diachronic affinity. Firstly, they express two interrelated events: the event expressed in the subordinate clause can either provide the manner in which the matrix event takes place or entail the reason why the matrix event takes place. Secondly, in both cases the dependent event needs to be factual and temporally contiguous to the main event. Finally, as Sanfelici and Rodeghiero (2024) persuasively show, the change towards a causal reading is additionally favored when the dependent event shares its participants with the main event.

(25)

a.

Jako-ś	raczył	wybawić	z	piekł-a	ojce,
as-2sg.aux	deign.l:ptcp.sg.m	disembarrass.infv	from	hell-gen	fathers.acc
racz	też	wybawić	z	grzech-ów	dusze	nasze.
deign.imper.sg	also	disembarrass.infv	from	sins-gen	souls.acc	our
‘As/Since you deigned to deliver our fathers from hell, deign to deliver our souls from sin too.’
(KTS, Modlitwy Wacława, 104r, 13–14; 104v, 1–2)

b.

Due to these properties, ambiguous (comparative vs. causal) cases are unavoidable. In (25a), the event expressed in the subordinate clause can be interpreted either as the manner in which God deigned to deliver the fathers from hell or as the reason why he should deign to deliver our souls from sin. In both scenarios, the event expressed in the subordinate clause is factual and temporally it precedes the event expressed in the matrix clause. Finally, both the matrix clause and the subordinate clause share the same participant: it is an implicit argument God, which is associated with the event of redemption. Sanfelici and Rodeghiero (2024) provide an elegant formal account of the semantic shift from a comparative to a causal interpretation. For the purposes of this article, it suffices to know that this process was completed in the OP period. As (24a) illustrates, pure causal jako-clauses without any other interpretation possibilities exist already in OP.

4.2 Step 2

Jako is an ambiguous adverbial C-head. It can introduce comparative, temporal or causal clauses. To disambiguate the adverbial relation expressed by jako, the declarative complementizer że/iż is recruited into the left periphery of the causal clause.^[12] The combination jako + że/iż is restricted to a causal meaning, that is, the causal presupposition becomes syntactically encoded:

(26)

a.

Inne	przy	tym	wielkiego	walor-u	sztuki	są	bez	cen-y,	tak	dla
other	at	the	big	value-gen	pieces	are.3pl	without	price-gen	so	for
dawnośc-i,	jako	że	onym	podobnych	żaden	dom	dom-owi	austriackiemu
antiquity-gen	as	that	those	similar	no	house	house-dat	Austrian
walecznośc-ią	onych	nabyci-a	nie	zrównia.
bravery-inst	their	obtaining-gen	neg	equate.3sg
‘Comparatively, other pieces of big value are without a price, just for antiquity, because there are no other Austrian houses that would be equal with this one by being able to obtain them.’
(KorBa, 1612, Diariusze, p. 163)

b.

When a jako-clause is used as a causal clause, a dependency relationship between the matrix clause and the subordinate clause emerges. Concretely, the event expressed in the subordinate clause causes the event expressed in the matrix clause to take place. To syntactically mark this subordinate dependency the declarative complementizer, which usually introduces complement clauses, że/iż is added. Sanfelici and Rodeghiero (2024) make a similar observation about siccome ‘because’ followed by che ‘that’ in various Venetian dialects. No such dependency relationship is involved when jako is employed as a comparative relativizer relating two propositions. In this case, both propositions are interrelated with regard to some property giving rise to an equivalence relation, and jako itself is deemed to encode this relation (for similar cases of comparative clauses and more details, see Bücking 2017).

4.3 Step 3

Having syntacticized the pragmatic causal inference, jako-że/iż is a single C-head expressing a causal relation:

(27)

a.

Zostaniemy	w	dom-u,	jako że/iż	pada	deszcz.
remain.1pl	in	house-loc	because	fall.3sg	rain
‘We’re going to stay at home because it’s raining.’

b.

Jako-że/iż is frozen in the sense that none of its elements can be dropped (see (5a) and (5b)). This is mainly due to the fact that jako itself lost its causal meaning altogether. This process must have happened before the accent shift and the drop of final vowels, as jak ‘how’ can introduce comparative and temporal clauses in PDP, but not causal clauses. Presumably, this led Blümel and Pitsch (2019: 5) to the assumption that the meaning of jako że is opaque.