<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
Thank you everybody for your helpful contributions to my problem.
Let
me start by asking those of you who mentioned relevant
publications
to concede me a PDF if they have it. (An emeritus <span
lang="en-US">no
longer has that easy access to library services.)</span></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
<span lang="en-US">Far from</span> wanting to terminate the
discussion at this point, let me take up some issues that have
been
raised and we might wish to pursue. Since some of the
interventions
appear to make slightly different conceptual presuppositions, I
ask
for your indulgence for <span lang="en-US">defining</span> some
concepts <span lang="en-US">just to make sure that we are not
talking
past each other.</span></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
Disregarding first and second person pronouns, the distinction
between a pronoun and a determiner is essentially not a semantic
one,
i.e. it does not (necessarily) involve the morphosemantic features
(like demonstrative, interrogative etc.) marked on these
formatives,
but is just merely a structural one: a pronoun can represent an
NP, a
determiner is a constituent of an NP. (Both of these definitory
stipulations need some refinement, which we can forego here.) Many
proforms, including importantly demonstratives in many languages,
have both uses. This is also the case in Cabecar.</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
Some demonstrative pronouns may be used as an anaphor. Where there
is
a deictic paradigm of demonstratives, usually not just any
demonstrative can serve as an anaphor. Commonly it is an unmarked
member of the paradigm, typically the one that some of us call
medial. This is, again, the case in Cabecar. Sometimes (not in
Cabecar), both ‘this’ and ‘that’ can take up referents of the
preceding context.</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
Now if such a demonstrative appears at the margin of an NP, the
problem arises whether it is a pronoun or a determiner. If
determiners have a fixed position other than at the end of the NP,
a
demonstrative appearing in that position cannot be a determiner.
That
is, again, the case in Cabecar.</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
Besides demonstratives, third person pronouns can serve in
intraclausal anaphora. In my previous post, I silently presupposed
that they, too, can be used as instant resumptives (though not in
Cabecar). The conditions under which one or the other is used are
a
topic for an entire workshop.</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
<br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
@ Stef, Edoardo, Yury:</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
There are different processes of intraclausal anaphora. Only
instant
resumption leads to an appositional construction. Another
possibility
is for an anaphoric or personal pronoun to attach to the
dependency
controller and then develop into a pronominal index or
referentiality
marker. Such personal pronouns are typically clitic. The Cabecar
demonstrative is definitely not clitic. On the contrary, it serves
as
a prop for clitics.</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
The Koine personal pronoun in the relative clause is superficially
another case of intraclausal anaphora. However, I think it first
of
all represents the domain nominal inside the relative clause, thus
introducing a new relativization strategy which, in Modern Greek,
is
to supersede the relative pronoun strategy.</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
<br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
@ Randy:</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
<span lang="en-US">The two Old Chinese examples do look similar to
the Cabecar case. The Cabecar resumptive has focus in some, but
not
in all cases. It also follows second mentions (instead of
replacing
them). Interestingly, Cabecar </span><span lang="en-US"><i>jé</i></span><span
lang="en-US">
does not develop into a copula. Instead, it takes an existent
copula-like formative as enclitic. I will probably soon launch
another post on this formative, which also functions as an
information-structure articulator.</span></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
<br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
@ Marianne:</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
I have too few recordings to tell for sure. The following seems to
be
the case: The resumptive can always combine with the antecedent
into
one phonological word. With left-dislocation, however, it may
optionally follow a hanging intonation plus pause, as in many
other
languages.</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
<br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
@ Zygmunt. Matthew, James:</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
Some of you mention demonstratives following different kinds of
nominal expressions. Assume the language in question has
postnominal
determiners. One criterion for distinguishing resumptive pronouns
from determiners here is the completeness of the paradigm: If it
comprises all of the deictic values present in demonstratives, the
formative in question is probably a determiner. If the formative
that
can appear in that position reduces to the anaphoric member of the
paradigm, it is probably a resumptive pronoun.</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
This regards, in particular, proforms following relative clauses.
In
the spirit of the discussion with Jürgen [next], it seems quite
possible to me that a “recapitulating” pronoun serving the
following context as a point of reference for the preceding
relative
clause may be especially necessary for such constructions whose
nominal nature is not sufficiently explicit.</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
<br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
@ Matthew:</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
<span lang="en-US">In the example about </span><span lang="en-US"><i>those
people who have not …</i></span><span lang="en-US">, </span><span
lang="en-US"><i>those</i></span><span lang="en-US">
is clearly a determiner. I would guess it emphasizes the
formation of
a subset (or in the singular, the singling out of an
individual).</span></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
<br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
@ Jürgen [sent directly to me]:</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
Some formatives which combine with nominal expressions may have
distributional restrictions in the sense that they do not combine
directly with nominalized clauses. In English, e.g., most
prepositions do not govern a <i>that</i> clause. Cabecar
postpositions do not have such a problem. They simply follow what
happens to be the last constituent of a nominalized clause. Still,
it
may be true that instant resumption is the more preferred the more
complex a nominal expression is and the less its nominal nature is
transparent. The neutral demonstrative may be some kind of NP <i>par
excellence</i>, something that stands for the pure category
‘NP’.
It represents its antecedent qua nominal expression for the
context,
and that is what it does as an instant resumptive. (Discourse is
full
of grammatical formatives which do nothing but redundantly signal
the
grammatical category of something which belongs to that category,
anyway.)</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
<br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
@ Don:</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
These data do look similar to the Cabecar case. However, assume
there
is such a thing as instant resumption as characterized before.
Then
the question arises whether it is a possible cradle for the
development of determiners, as some had assumed formerly for
Cabecar. You then need to answer at least two questions:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US"> What happens to the semantic determination (or
referentiality) of the NP once the demonstrative becomes its
determiner? Instant resumption – at least in Cabecar – is
possible with semantically indefinite antecedents, as in
“fruits, cereals, cabbage, that we grow” [real example]. The
resumptive is necessarily definite. Once it is converted into
a determiner, the NP would then be definite.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US"> How does the entire deictic or referential
paradigm of postnominal determiners arise? The resumptive is
definite and deictically neutral. How do indefinite proforms
and demonstratives with different deictic features join the
paradigm of determiners?</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
My inability to answer these questions has led me to despair about
the hypothesis that the prenominal determiners of Cabecar are
being
replaced by postnominal ones or, more generally, that postnominal
determination may arise through the grammaticalization of
intraclausal anaphors.</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
Now on your questions:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US"> Instant resumption in Cabecar is indifferent to
the referentiality of the antecedent. It is also indifferent
to its topic/focus distinction, with one exception: it does
not follow the third person pronoun, which presupposes
givenness of its referent.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US"> The resumptive, not the antecedent, carries the
plural suffix and the postposition, if any, that would attach
to the antecedent if there were no resumptive. However, such
contextual circumstances are neither a necessary nor a
sufficient condition for the resumptive to occur.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US"> The phonological conditions remain to be
investigated.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US"> The resumptive does follow first and second
person pronouns, amazingly. This is one of the circumstances
which make me diagnose an advanced degree of
grammaticalization.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
<br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
@ Julie:</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"
lang="en-US">
Although a preposed demonstrative cannot originate by instant
resumption, the variation of prenominal vs. postnominal determiner
does raise the question of how these constructions and the
sequential
order come about. The syntactic function of the determiner, i.e.
the
nature of its syntactic relation to the lexical nominal
expression,
is possibly unique in grammar. One symptom of it is the fact the
noun
phrase has been renamed determiner phrase in certain quarters. It
seems quite possible to me that it starts out as an apposition of
a
demonstrative pronoun and a lexical NP. Next thing we would want
to
know is what determines which of the two comes first …</p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; background: transparent }p.western { so-language: en-US </style><br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-size:90%">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></p>
<table style="font-size:80%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</body>
</html>