Polish being “ergative”? The riddle of “X NOT BE AT
Y”-Constructions |
|
Joanna
Błaszczak (Potsdam) |
I. In this talk I am going to make an
unorthodox claim that Polish in some sense behaves like an ergative language.
Moreover, I will argue that applying a kind of analysis proposed for ergative
languages to Polish existential-locative constructions offers an elegant and
simple solution to otherwise puzzling data.
II. The relevant piece of data is given
in (1)-(2). In Polish there is one type of construction which bears a strong
resemblance to the constructions found in split-ergative languages like Hindi
or Georgian. In the latter languages a special Case marking, i.e., the ergative
marking is triggered by a particular tense or aspect; cf. (1). Similarly in Polish,
depending on the aspectual properties of the verb być ‘to be’ the “subject NP” [the term “subject” is used here in a
purely descriptive pre-theoretical sense] is marked either for NOM or GEN; cf.
(2).
III. The proposed analysis will proceed
in a few steps. First, I will show that the GEN marking of the “subject NP” in
(2a) cannot be simply subsumed under the general rule of Genitive of Negation
in Polish (GoN) since (i) only direct objects of transitive verbs are subject
to the rule of GoN in Polish (cf. e.g.Witkoś 1998), and (ii) unlike in (2), the
aspect of the verb does not seem to have any influence on the Case marking of
the direct object (irrespective of the aspectual properties of the verb, the
object is marked for GEN in negated sentences); cf. (3). Neither can (2a) be
explained by claiming that GEN in (2a) is GoN of the Russian sort. GoN in
Russian shows a broader distribution, applying among other to subjects of
“existential predicates”; cf. 4 (Babby 1980). However, as far as the influence
of aspect on the Case marking is concerned, also in Russian there seems to be
no direct connection between the aspect of the verb and the Case of its object
(Pereltsvaig 1999 contra Timberlake 1975). On the contrary, Pereltsvaig claims
that GoN can be used in Russian when the verb is used generically (‘habitual
use’). However, this goes contra what we observe in (2).
Next, it will be shown that the facts in (2)
cannot be explained by appealing to some special properties of existential
constructions. As pointed out by Grzegorek (1984:107), in Polish other
“notional verbs” can replace być ‘to
be’ in existential constructions; cf. (5). However, unlike negated być no other “notional verb” requires
its subject to be marked for GEN; cf. (6). (This contrasts with the situation
found in Russian, as evidenced by (4)).
IV. To solve the puzzle posed by the
data in (2) I will assume that (2a) displays an ergative structure known form
(split)-ergative languages. Mahajan (1994, 2000) and Hoekstra (2000) among
others take transitivity to be a derived property. The “ergative pattern”,
normally restricted to perfective sentences, is claimed to be basically
unaccusative. Ergative Case marking results from the the non-incorporated
preposition (of the possessor/locative phrase). (In Accusative languages this
preposition is incorporated into BE resulting in HAVE and NOM marking of the
possessor; cf. Kayne 1993).
I will show that something along these lines is
also going on in the Polish example (3a): BE is a non-Case-assigning predicate
taking (a small clause consisting of) a NP as an internal argument and a PP as
an external one. P(reposition) does not incorporated into BE. In affirmative
sentences a NP can be assigned Case only by T (hence the NOM marking) since
there is no other Case assigner in the clause; in negative sentences, however,
there is a closer Case assigner than T, namely NEG(egation) (hence the GEN
marking).
For this analysis to go through it must be
shown that (i) there is an aspectual difference between być and bywać; desirably
in terms of być being perfective (to
explain why być but not bywać triggers an ergative pattern); and
(ii) there is a structural difference between być and bywać: być being an unaccusative predicate and bywać being unergative; the “subject” NP
would be accordingly in the former case an internal argument, and in the latter
case an external argument. Given that GoN-rule applies only to internal
arguments, the lack of the GEN marking in (2b) could be attributed to this
fact. I will present evidence for these claims respectively.
(1) a. siitaa ne vah ghar khariidaa (thaa) Hindi
Sita-FEM-ERG that house-MASC buy-PERF-MASC be-PAST-MASC
‘Sita had bought that house.’
b. siitaa vah ghar khariidegii
Sita-FEM-NOM that house buy-FUT-FEM
‘Sita will buy that house.’
(2) a. Jana nie było na
przyjęciu. Polish
John-GEN NEG BE-3.SG.NEUT.PAST at school
Lit.:
‘There was no John at the party.’ / ‘John was not at the party.’
b. Jan nie bywał na
przyjęciach.
John-NOM NEG BE-3.SG.MASC.PAST.HABIT at parties
Lit.: ‘John
was not at parties.’ / ‘John didn’t use to come to parties.’
(3) a. Nie czytałam tej
gazety.
NEG read-1.SG.FEM.PAST.IMPERF [this newspaper]-GEN
‘I didn’t
read this newspaper
b. Nie przeczytałam tej gazety
NEG read-through-1.SG.FEM.PAST.PERF [this newspaper]-GEN
‘I didn’t
read (completely) this newspaper.”
c. W
młodości nie czytywałam gazet.
in
youth NEG read-1.SG.FEM.PAST.HABIT newspapers-GEN
‘In my
youth I didn’t use to read newspapers.’
(4) Zdes’ ne voditsja losej.
here NEG roam-3.SG.PRES elks-GEN
‘No elks roam here.’
(5) Wzgórze porastała trawa.
hill-ACC grow-3.SG.FEM.PAST grass-NOM.SG.FEM
‘There
was grass on the hill.’
(6) a. Wzgórze nie porastała trawa/*trawy.
hill-ACC NEG grow-3.SG.FEM.PAST grass-NOM/*GEN
‘There
was no grass on the hill.’
a.’ *Wzgórze nie porastało trawy.
hill-ACC NEG grow-3.SG.NEUTR.PAST grass-GEN
References:
Babby, L. (1980). Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.
Grzegorek, M. (1984). Thematization in
English and Polish. A Study in Word Order [= Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. Seria Filologia Angielska NR 18]. Poznań.
Hoekstra, T. (2000). The Nature of Verbs and Burzio’s Generalization. In: Reuland, E. (ed.) (2000), 57-78.
Kayne, R. (1993). Towards a modular theory of
auxiliary selection. Studia
Linguistica 47: 3-31.
Mahajan, A. (1994). The ergativity parameter: have-be alternation, word order and split ergativity. Proceedings of NELS 24: 317-331.
Mahajan, A. (2000). Oblique Subjects and Burzio’s Generalization. In: Reuland, E. (ed.) (2000), 79-102.
Pereltsvaig, A. (1999). The
Genitive of Negation and Aspect in Russian. Ms., McGill University.
Timberlake, A.
(1975). Hierarchies in the genitive of negation. SEEJ 19: 123-138.
Witkoś,
J. (1998). The Syntax of Clitics: Steps
towards a Minimalist Account. Poznań: motivex.