Subjectification: A Cognitive Grammar Approach of Finite and Infinitival Clauses in Ukrainian
Irena Turianska
Lublin
This paper analyses finite and infinitival clauses in Ukrainian from the point of view of subjectification as proposed by Langacker (1993) and further applied to French data by Achard (1998).
The analysis is based on the idea expressed in Achard that in contrast to finite clauses, the scene of the infinitival clause is viewed subjectively, i.e. from the vantage point of the subject of the embedded clause. In finite clauses the scene is viewed objectively, i.e. from the vantage point of the subject of the main clause.
The following examples illustrate finite and infinitival clauses in Ukrainian:
1.a. Marija znaje, ščo Petro pišow dodomu.
Mary knows that Peter has gone home.
1. b. Marija hoče jty dodomu.
Mary wants to go home.
In 1a (finite clause), which consists of the main clause, Marija znaje, and subordinate finite clause, ščo Petro pišow dodomu, the distance between the subject of the main clause Marija is the greatest: Marija is construed subjectively while the subject of the subordinate clause, Petro, is construed objectively. This is the so-called optimal viewing arrangement (OVA).
In 1b (infinitival clause), which consists of the main clause, Marija hoče, and subordinate clause, (Marija) jty dodomu, the "understood" subject of the embedded clause is Marija. Because the subject of the main clause Marija takes the vantage point of the "understood" subject of the embedded clause, we have here an instance of the egocentric viewing arrangement (EVA). In this case the subject of the main clause gets "on stage" region of the embedded clause, which means that the distance between the subject of the main clause and that of the embedded clause is minimal.
Subjectification is a matter of degree. One can establish a scale of subjectification: intermediate stages of the optimal viewing arrangement and egocentric viewing arrangement (OVA-EVA) relationships, corresponding to the degree of "finiteness" and "infinitivalhood".
A case in point is an example in 2:
2. Marija perekonala Petra pryjty.
Mary persuaded Peter to come.
Although in this example the subject of the main clause, Marija, is distinct from the subject of the subordinate clause, Petro, Marija assumes the vantage point of Petro (by making him come), which results in "partial" subjectification.