<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Dear Juergen,</p>
<p>To stick to English and to paraphrase you, it seems to me that
when the antecedent is a participant of the matrix event, there
are a couple of routinized lexical devices specialized in making
the event relation explicit:<br>
</p>
<p>(1a) <i>Sally gave the cup to Floyd, who proceeded </i><i>to
smash it to pieces. </i></p>
<p>(1b) <i>Sally gave the cup to Floyd, who went on </i><i>to
smash it to pieces. </i></p>
<p>Intuitively, what's distinctive about such devices is that they
seem to have a very special affinity with this type of relative
clause — a property that run-of-the-mill adverbs such as <i>immediately</i>
or <i>then</i> may not have, at least not to the same extent. <br>
</p>
<p>Let me pursue the same thread a little bit. I'm not a native
speaker of English, but my sense is that there may well be a
slight difference in acceptability between (2a) and (2b) and
between (3a) and (3b):</p>
<p>(2a) <i>Sally gave the cup to Floyd. He then proceeded </i><i>to
smash it to pieces. <br>
</i></p>
<p>(2b) (?) <i>Sally gave the cup to Floyd. He proceeded </i><i>to
smash it to pieces. <br>
</i></p>
<p>(3a) <i>Sally gave the cup to Floyd. He then went on </i><i>to
smash it to pieces. <br>
</i></p>
<p>(3b) (?) <i>Sally gave the cup to Floyd. He went on </i><i>to
smash it to pieces. </i></p>
<p>It's as if, to borrow Anna's term, the relative pronoun in (1a)
and (1b) exerted all by itself sufficient cohesive force to
license <i>proceeded</i> and <i>went on</i>. When you change the
hypotactic relation into a paratactic one, it might be a bit more
natural to insert a cohesive prop, i.e. <i>then</i> (or <i>immediately</i>).
But that's a just a hunch and I stand to be corrected by native
speakers as to the difference in acceptability, which is
admittedly very slight. <br>
</p>
<p>In any event, if <i>proceed </i>and <i>go on </i>do have the
function I'm attributing to them, this would nicely bring symmetry
into the system you propose, at least for English.<br>
</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Philippe<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">---
Philippe Bourdin
Professeur agrégé / Associate professor
Département d'études françaises
et Programme de linguistique
Bureau YH 264
Collège Glendon / York University
2275 Bayview Avenue
Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M6</pre>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-05-09 10:38 AM, Giacalone Ramat
Anna wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANPaqyYt7ZaQ3Tg2ms_GoFmMuQc15D0pHL7QnOWKX6oZPcRjQg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Juergen,
<div>in my paper "Persistence and renewal in the relative
pronoun paradigm: the case of Italian", Folia Linguistica
Historica 26, 2005, 115-138, I discuss narrative relative
clauses and their function in Old Italian. I suggest that the
emergence and diffusion of relative pronoun <i>il quale</i>
in Old Italian was modeled on the Latin "connecting relative"
(Rosén) or relativischer Anschluss (Lehmann) . It was used as
a device to enhance text cohesion..</div>
<div>Best</div>
<div>Anna</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Anna Giacalone Ramat
<div>Professor Emerita of Linguistics</div>
<div>The University of Pavia </div>
<div>Academia Europaea</div>
<div>Honorary Member of the Societas Linguistica
Europaea</div>
<div><br>
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici<br>
Strada Nuova 65<br>
I-27100-Pavia<br>
tel. +39 0382 984486<br>
email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:annaram@univ.it"
target="_blank">annaram@unipv.it</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.academia.edu/34500598/CV_CURR"
target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/34500598/CV_CURR</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2018-05-08 21:10 GMT+02:00 Bohnemeyer,
Juergen <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" target="_blank">jb77@buffalo.edu</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear
colleagues -- I’m looking for any leads regarding both
in-depth single-language and typological studies on a
phenomenon one might refer to under the makeshift labels
‘narrative relative clauses’ or ‘eventive relative clauses’.
I will stick here to the former label (NRCs), since the
latter is more ambiguous. NRCs are a type of non-restrictive
RCs that distinguish themselves from other kinds of
non-restrictive RCs by standing in a narrative rhetorical
relation to the matrix clause (or put differently, by
advancing a narrative story line to which the matrix clause
also contributes). Based on European languages, some
subtypes could be distinguished based on (i) the
“antecedent” of the RC - the matrix clause referent the RC
picks up - and (ii) the expression of the semantic relation
between the matrix and RC events:<br>
<br>
• Antecedent is a participant of the matrix event;
event relation implicit:<br>
Sally gave the cup to Floyd, who smashed it to
pieces<br>
• Antecedent is the matrix event itself; event
relation implicit:<br>
Sally gave the cup to Floyd, which irritated Sam<br>
• Antecedent is the matrix event itself; event
relation explicit:<br>
Sally gave the cup to Floyd, whereupon Sam left
the room in disgust<br>
<br>
B and C are presumably structurally distinct from ordinary
(non-restrictive) RCs. On the other hand, A-type NRCs are
interesting for the form-meaning mismatch or
semantic-pragmatic mismatch they involve. A more technical
definition of NRCs might be as follows:<br>
<br>
• Constructions involving a matrix clause and a
dependent clause;<br>
• The dependent clause should share some of the
language-specific properties of RCs that set them apart from
other types of dependent clauses/predications in the
particular languages;<br>
• The matrix clause event and the dependent clause
event are causally related and/or spatio-temporally
contiguous.<br>
<br>
I fully expect that the pragmatic functions of NRCs can be
partially or wholly fulfilled by other clause combination
constructions that do not have the language-specific
trappings of RCs. Such functionally related alternative
means are very much part of the interest driving this
investigation.<br>
<br>
Thank you in advance for any leads on this topic! -- Best —
Juergen<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Juergen Bohnemeyer, Associate Professor and Director of
Graduate Studies <br>
Department of Linguistics and Center for Cognitive Science <br>
University at Buffalo <br>
<br>
Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus * Mailing address:
609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 <br>
Phone: (716) 645 0127 <br>
Fax: (716) 645 3825 * Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu">jb77@buffalo.edu</a> * Web:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/%7Ejb77/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~<wbr>jb77/</a>
<br>
<br>
Office hours Tu 2-3:20 /Th 2:30-3:20<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>