[Lingtyp] Narrative relative clauses

[Giacalone Ramat Anna]

Dear Juergen,
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 *il quale* 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..
Best
Anna

Anna Giacalone Ramat
Professor Emerita of Linguistics
The University of Pavia
Academia Europaea
Honorary Member of the Societas Linguistica Europaea

Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici
Strada Nuova 65
I-27100-Pavia
tel. +39 0382 984486
email: annaram at unipv.it <annaram at univ.it>
https://www.academia.edu/34500598/CV_CURR

2018-05-08 21:10 GMT+02:00 Bohnemeyer, Juergen <jb77 at buffalo.edu>:

> 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:
>
>         • Antecedent is a participant of the matrix event; event relation
> implicit:
>           Sally gave the cup to Floyd, who smashed it to pieces
>         • Antecedent is the matrix event itself; event relation implicit:
>           Sally gave the cup to Floyd, which irritated Sam
>         • Antecedent is the matrix event itself; event relation explicit:
>           Sally gave the cup to Floyd, whereupon Sam left the room in
> disgust
>
> 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:
>
>         • Constructions involving a matrix clause and a dependent clause;
>         • 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;
>         • The matrix clause event and the dependent clause event are
> causally related and/or spatio-temporally contiguous.
>
> 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.
>
> Thank you in advance for any leads on this topic! -- Best — Juergen
>
> --
> Juergen Bohnemeyer, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
> Department of Linguistics and Center for Cognitive Science
> University at Buffalo
>
> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus * Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall,
> Buffalo, NY 14260
> Phone: (716) 645 0127
> Fax: (716) 645 3825 * Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu * Web:
> http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>
> Office hours Tu 2-3:20 /Th 2:30-3:20
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20180509/4f31cd85/attachment.htm>