Conjunctions, Contextualizers, and Syntax Theory
Abstract
According to traditional grammar conjunctions are words joining clauses (or words / word combinations). Still, many conjunctions can join also sentences or longer fragments of texts, being in fact contextualizers (these are “soft” conjunctions), while some conjunctions are able to join only clauses (these are “hard” conjunctions). Many Russian conjunctions, both coordinate and subordinate, are soft, but there are also hard coordinate and subordinate conjunctions. Hard conjunctions and contextualizers have (at least) two semantic actants. The difference in the surface expression of semantic actants of conjunctions vs. contextualizers is discussed.
Full text
Conjunctions, Contextualizers, and Syntax Theory*1 Elena V. Uryson AbSTRACT: According to traditional grammar conjunctions are words joining clauses (or words / word combi‑ nations). Still, many conjunctions can join also sentences or longer fragments of texts, being in fact contextualizers (these are “soft” conjunctions), while some conjunctions are able to join only clauses (these are “hard” conjunctions). Many Russian conjunctions, both coordinate and subordinate, are soft, but there are also hard coordinate and subordinate conjunctions. Hard conjunctions and con‑ textualizers have (at least) two semantic actants. The difference in the surface expression of seman‑ tic actants of conjunctions vs. contextualizers is discussed. KEY wORDS: clause, conjunction, contextualizer, semantic actant, sentence, syntactic actant, text, the Russian language 1. INTRODUCTION By definition, aconjunction is aword that connects other words (cf. It became dark AND cold) or clauses (cf. It became light AND Igot up; I’ll get up WHEN it is light). Acon‑ textualizer is aword or an expression that joins text fragments. Cf. (1) We had lost our way in the forest. Everybody was hungry (P). | MEANTIME it was getting dark. The wind was strengthening (Q). Here, the contextualizer meantime joins two text fragments P and Q, each of them consisting of two sentences. Acontextualizer can join also two paragraphs. Cf. the transformation of text (1): (2) We had lost our way in the forest. Everybody was hungry (P). | MEANTIME it was getting dark. The wind was strengthening (Q). Such aposition is likely to be apeculiarity of contextualizers. It is needless to say that acontextualizer can join two sentences. Cf. (3) It became dark (P). | NEVERTHELESS, we moved forward (Q). * This work is supported by RGNF (grant no. 10-04-00273a), by OIFN RAN, and by the grant NSh-6577.2012.6.
8 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 1/2013 Acontextualizer can also occupy the position between two clauses. Cf. (4) We had lost our way in the forest (P), | MEANTIME it was snowing (Q). The class of contextualizers comprises adverbs (cf. meantime; hence ‘for this reason’), specific expressions (cf. in aword; in other words), etc. Some of the conjunctions are also apart of this class. Cf. (5) It became light. Birds began singing (P). | AND Igot up (Q). The conjunction AND joins here two text fragments P and Q, thus it is acontextualizer. The subject of this paper is Russian conjunctions. Iwill show that some of them can behave as contextualizers, while others cannot connect text fragments (s. 2). Iwill also discuss some theoretical questions relating to syntax of contextualizers (s. 3). 2. HARD AND SOfT CONjUNCTIONS Some of the Russian conjunctions cannot join sentences or longer text fragments— they join only words or clauses. Iwill call such conjunctions hard. Hard conjunctions cannot behave as contextualizers. Other Russian conjunctions can join sentences and some of them join even longer text fragments. Iwill call such conjunctions soft. Soft conjunctions are contextualizers. It should be noted that only written texts with their markers of asentence end, but not oral speech with its prosody, are discussed in this paper. Probably, some pro‑ sodic contours may mark both aclause end and asentence end. However, this is be‑ yond the scope of the present work. My main suggestions are following. Neither soft nor hard conjunctions are quite uniform. In fact, conjunctions line up on ascale, so some of them are softer, while others are harder; absolutely soft and absolutely hard conjunctions occupy the opposite ends of the scale. As is often the case, it is necessary to describe each meaning of apolysemic word in its own right. In the case of aconjunction, it can be soft in one of its meanings but hard in another one. (Thus we should regard aconjunction in agiven meaning as aseparate entry; apolysemic conjunction is represented as aset of entries.) It seems likely that the ability of aconjunction to behave as acontextualizer is closely related to its stylistic features. Aneutral, widely used conjunction is most likely to be soft. As aresult, conjunctions with close meaning but contrasting stylistic properties can differ in their syntactic functions. Generally, subordinate conjunctions are harder than coordinate ones. Indeed, it is quite easy to find ahard subordinate conjunction. For example, the subordinate con‑ junction ČEM … TEM ‘the … the’ is absolutely hard; cf. ČEM noč temnej, TEM jarče zvëzdy ‘THE darker the night, THE brighter the stars’. The subordinate conjunction ČTO ‘that’ is also hard: it can join only the main and the subordinate clauses; cf. On skazal ej, ČTO snimaetsja vkino ‘He told her, THAT he is afilm actor’. The coordinate conjunction I‘and’,
ELENA V. UrYSON 9 much like English AND, is soft; cf. (5) and (18)–(19) below. Still, it appears that some co‑ ordinate conjunctions are hard, while some subordinate conjunctions are soft. Now let us regard some examples supporting these suggestions. 2.1 ThE cOOrDINATE cONjUNcTION A‘AND, bUT’ IN DIffErENT mEANINGS The Russian conjunction Ahas three main meanings, each of them representing aseparate entry (Krejdlin— Padučeva, 1974). Here is the list of them in outline (for more details see Uryson, 2002; 2004a): (i) “amarker of an abnormal effect”. More precisely: Q, aP ≈ ‘P is an abnormal effect of Q’. Cf. (6) P’esa slabaja (Q), Azal polon (P). ‘The play is poor (Q), BUT the hall is full of people (P).’ (In Russian there are two conjunctions corresponding to BUT— Aand NO ‘but’. They slightly differ in semantics (Uryson, 2004b; 2011). For simplicity, Iignore this differ‑ ence now.) (ii) “amarker of comparison”. More precisely: Q, aP ≈ ‘The speaker compares Q and P’. Cf. (7) On bogatyj (Q), Aona bednaja (P). ‘He is rich (Q), BUT/AND she is poor (P).’ (iii) “amarker of atopic change” (or alternatively “amarker of anarration turn”). Cf. (8) Ja stojal na ostanovke, ždal avtobusa (Q), amoroz byl gradusov tridcat’ (P). ‘Iwas standing at astop waiting for abus (Q), AND/BUT the frost was about 30degrees Celsius (P).’ (The first clause (Q) is about the subject, while the second one (P) is about the frost.) It is evident that the meaning of the conjunction Aagrees with the meaning of the context. It does not follow that this conjunction has an “empty” meaning: on this as‑ sumption it would be impossible to distinguish Russian conjunctions I‘and’, A‘and, but’ and NO ‘but’, which can be used in the same context. The conjunction Ain each of these meanings is soft. Cf. (9)–(11) where Ajoins text fragments. In (9) Ais “amarker of an abnormal effect”; in (10) Ais “amarker of com‑ parison’; and in (11) Ais “amarker of atopic change”. (9) Delo kvesne. Den’ udlinilsja, solnce svetit jarče. Na kalendare— seredina marta (Q). | Amoroz vsë žestče. Veter rezkij, severnyj (P). ‘The spring is near. The day is longer, the sun is brighter. It is the middle of March (Q). | BUT the frost is harder. The north wind is severe (P).’
10 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 1/2013 (10) Katja— intelligentnaja devuška iz xorošej sem’i. Ejo roditeli— vrači. Ona eščë vdetstve rešila stat’ xirurgom (Q). | ADaša— prostaja, iz sela. Mama uneë do‑ jarka. Otec byl traktoristom, pil irano umer. Ni okakom universitete Daša ne po‑ myšljaet (P). ‘Kate is an intellectual girl of agood family. Her parents are physicians. Being asmall girl she has already decided to be asurgeon (Q). | BUT/AND Daša is an ordinary girl. Her mother is adairymaid. Her father was atractor driver, drank hard and died early. Daša does not think about studying at auniversity (P).’ (11) Stoju na ostanovke, ždu avtobusa. Sumka umenja nepodëmnaja (Q). | Amoroz gradusov tridcat’. Vokrug ni duši (P). (The verbs in the Russian text are in the Praesens historicum.) ‘Iwas standing at astop waiting for abus. My bag was extremely heavy (Q). | AND/BUT the frost was about 30 degrees Celsius. There was not asingle person around (P).’ In all the meanings discussed the conjunction Acan join paragraphs, so in all these meanings it is absolutely soft. Still, this conjunction has another meaning in which it is hard. Cf. (12) Vyxožu ja včera iz doma (Q), Avnašem dvore stoit mašina moego prijatelja (P). ‘Yesterday Ileft my home (Q), AND (suddenly saw that) there is my friend’scar in the yard (P).’ This example expresses the meaning ‘Q, the subject suddenly reveals that P’, which is due to the conjunction A. To make sure, let us omit the conjunction in this sentence: (13) Vyxožu ja včera iz doma (Q), vnašem dvore stoit mašina moego prijatelja (P). ‘Yesterday Ileft my home (Q), there was my friend’scar in the yard (P).’ Example (13) does not contain the conjunction and as aresult does not express the meaning ‘the subject suddenly reveals that…’. We are dealing here with aseparate meaning of A. It has been described in Sannikov (1989, pp. 176–177). Iwill call this entry “amarker of sudden disclosure”. Cf. another example (by V.Z.Sannikov): (14) Tronul gubu (Q), Aumenja iz ‑pod guby— klyk (P). (V. Majakovskij). ‘Itouched my lip (Q), AND (suddenly discovered that) there is afang from un‑ der the lip (P).’ It is easy to verify that Aas “amarker of sudden disclosure” can join only clauses. Let us transform the sentence (12) into atext consisting of two sentences, cf. (15) Vyxožu ja včera iz doma (Q). Avnašem dvore stoit mašina moego prijatelja (P). ‘Yesterday Ileft my home (Q). AND there was my friend’scar in the yard (P).’
ELENA V. UrYSON 11 Example (15) does not express the meaning ‘Isuddenly saw/revealed that…’. In this text the conjunction Amarks “atopic change” (or “anarration turn”): the first sen‑ tence contains information about the speaker, while the second one is about his friend’scar in the yard. So, (12) and (15) differ not only in syntax, but also in seman‑ tics. Due to this semantic difference each of these examples presupposes its own text. Let us imagine that sentence (12) is the beginning of atext. The most probable contin‑ uation of this text is: ‘Iwas amazed: when did he park?’. So, the whole text deals with the subject’ssurprise caused by finding the car in the yard. As for sentence (15), its most conceivable continuation is: ‘Some time ago Ihad permitted my friend to park his car in my yard. And now Ithought that…’. This continuation deals with the sub‑ ject’sfriend and his car— that is the topic of the sentence (15). It should be noted that A“amarker of atopic change” can join clauses, cf. (8). Strictly speaking, sentence (12) can also contain the conjunction Ain this meaning. Due to this, (12) has two meanings: ‘Q, AND (the subject suddenly discovers that) P’ vs. ‘Q, AND (atopic change) P’. Each of these meanings requires its own specific prosody. So, these meanings differ in their surface realization. The point is that the conjunction A“amarker of sudden disclosure” can join only clauses but not sentences. Thus, the conjunction Ain this meaning is hard. 2.2 ThE cOOrDINATE cONjUNcTIONS I, ATAKŽE, DA ‘AND’ The conjunction Iconnecting two clauses expresses one of its two main meanings (for more details see Uryson, 2000; 2011): (i) “amarker of anormal effect”. More precisely: Q, iP ≈ ‘P is anormal effect of Q’. Cf. (16) P’esa slabaja (Q), Ipublika na neë ne idët (P). ‘The play is poor (Q), AND the hall is empty (P).’ (ii) “amarker of atopic change absence” (or alternatively “amarker of anarra‑ tion turn absence”). Cf. (17) Sijalo solnce (Q), Idul veter (P). ‘The sun was shining (Q), AND the wind was blowing (P).’ (Both clauses (Q) and (P) deal with the weather at the described moment.) It is easy to see that the conjunction Iin the first meaning (“amarker of anormal ef‑ fect”) correlates with the conjunction Ain its first meaning (“amarker of an abnor‑ mal effect”). These two meanings can be represented as antonyms. In asimilar man‑ ner, the conjunction Iin the second meaning (“amarker of atopic change absence”) correlates with the conjunction Ain its third meaning (“amarker of atopic change”). The meaning of I‘and’ agrees with the meaning of the context. Nevertheless, it is convenient to describe Ias apolysemic conjunction but not as an “empty conjunction” with broad syntactic functions and no specific meaning.
12 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 1/2013 The conjunction Iin these two meanings is soft. Cf. (18)–(19): in both examples Ijoins text fragments; in (18) it is “amarker of anormal effect”; in (19) it is “amarker of atopic change absence”. (18) On vsegda pomogal mne, byl rjadom vtrudnuju minutu. Deti očen’ ego ljubili (Q). | Ija stala dumat’, čto naši otnošenija mogut byt’ pročnymi. Ja načala nadejatsja na nego (P). ‘He always helped me in my difficulties. My children liked him (Q). | AND Ibegan to think that our relations can be durable. Ibegan to rely on him (P).’ (19) Sneg taet. Lyži končilis’ (Q). | Iden’ uže očen’ dlinnyj. Nebo večerom byvaet zeleno‑ vatym (P). ‘The snow is melting. Skiing came to an end (Q). | AND the day is already very long. In the evenings the sky is greenish (P).’ In many cases the conjunction I‘and’ (no matter what its meaning is) joins two para‑ graphs, so it is absolutely soft in both meanings. Now let us consider the conjunction ATAKŽE ‘and’, lit. ‘and also’. Although it con‑ sists of two parts and is spelt as two separate words, it is in fact one word. The con‑ junction is bookish, in contrast to neutral I‘and’. ATAKŽE, similarly to I, can join words or clauses. We will consider ATAKŽE connecting clauses. ATAKŽE ‘and’ resembles I“amarker of atopic change absence”. (It should be men‑ tioned that contrary to I, ATAKŽE cannot mark “anormal effect”.) There is aslight semantic difference between ATAKŽE and I“amarker of atopic change absence”: ATAKŽE signals that the piece of information P is given as an addition to Q. Cf. (20) Vdome razbity okna (Q), ATAKŽE vybita dver’ (P). ‘The windows are broken in the house (Q), AND (ALSO) the door is knocked out (P).’ (21) Vkonce semidesjatyx godov vrjade stran bylo zapreščeno ispol’zovanie freonov (Q), ATAKŽE sokraščeno samo proizvodstvo freona (P). ‘In the end of the seventies in some countries the use of Freons was forbidden (Q), AND (ALSO) the making of Freon was cut down (P).’ In these examples ATAKŽE joins clauses that have acommon group. Cf. Vdome ‘in the house’ in (20); Vkonce semidesjatyx godov vrjade stran ‘in the end of the seventies in some countries’ in (21). It is apeculiar syntactic feature of this conjunction that in narration it normally cannot join clauses that have no common part. Because of this, one could believe that ATAKŽE is ahard conjunction. However, in special cases ATAKŽE can join sentences and even longer text fragments. Cf. (22) Objasnite, prav li ja, sil’nejšij povelitel’ zemel’ islama, trebuja, čtoby xalif bag‑ dadskij podčinjalsja mne (Q)? ATAKŽE objasnite, čto ja dolžen delat’, esli xalif mne ne pokorjaetsja (P)? (V.Jan).
ELENA V. UrYSON 13 ‘Explain to me, the most potent ruler of Islamic countries, am Iright to re‑ quest the Baghdad caliph to obey me (Q)? AND ALSO explain to me: what should Ido if the caliph does not obey me (P)?’ (23) Ja vynužden potrebovat’, čtoby vy podpisali ètu bumagu. Objazatel’stvo nikuda ne uezžat’ vbližajšie dva mesjaca. Ijavljatsja po moemu vyzovu, esli vètom vozniknet neobxodimost’ (Q). ATAKŽE očen’ očen’ sovetuju vam: vspomnite nakonec, gde vy byli pjatnadcatogo ijunja (P). (I. Efimov). ‘Iam obliged to demand that you sign this document. It is your promise not to leave for anywhere in the next two months. And to come to me if Icall you (Q). AND ALSO Iadvise you to recollect where you were on the fifteenth of June (P).’ It is easy to see that neither (22) nor (23) is anormal narration. In these examples both Q and P express requests. ATAKŽE can join sentences only in such aspecific con‑ text. Strictly speaking, this conjunction is soft, but it is not nearly as soft as I. In fact, ATAKŽE is close to hard conjunctions. Let us now turn to the conjunction DA. It has interesting stylistic features be‑ ing colloquial in some contexts and slightly poetic in others. DA can join clauses and in that case it is aclose synonym of the conjunction I“amarker of atopic change absence”. There is asmall semantic difference between them: using DA the speaker estimates the state of affairs— (s)he believes that not only Q and P but also more situations could have aplace in the described moment. In other words, DA expresses that there are few elements in the described set of situations {Q, P}. Cf. (24) Zolotye iskry leteli vtemnotu (Q), DA vdali, po polotnu, krasnel fonar’ poslednego vagona (P). (B. Zajcev). ‘Golden sparks flew into the dark (Q), AND the red lantern of the last carriage lightened along the railway (P) (nothing more was seen).’ DA freely joins clauses, cf. (24). It can also connect sentences: it is possible to trans‑ form the compound sentence (24) into two sentences. Cf. (25) Zolotye iskry leteli vtemnotu (Q). DA vdali, po polotnu, krasnel fonar’ poslednego vagona (P). ‘Golden sparks flew into the dark (Q). AND the red lantern of the last carriage lightened along the railway (P) (nothing more was seen).’ But due to its meaning the conjunction DA can hardly join longer text fragments. In the strict sense, DA is asoft conjunction, but it is close to hard ones. 2.3 SOmE SUbOrDINATE cONjUNcTIONS The conjunctions POTOMU ČTO ‘because’ and XOTJA ‘though’ are soft. In texts (26) and (27) these conjunctions join fragments consisting of two or more sentences. Cf.
14 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 1/2013 (26) Maša vsë delaet dlja Peti. Ona pomogala ego mame, kogda ta byla vbol’nice. Ona našla dlja nego xorošuju rabotu. Ona daët emu den’gi vdolg (Q). POTOMU ČTO ona do six por ljubit ego. Vse eë plany svjazany snim (P). ‘Maša does everything for Petja. When his mother was in hospital Maša helped her. Maša managed to find agood job for Petja. She lends money to him (Q). BECAUSE she still loves him. She links her future to him (P).’ (27) My dolgo iuporno delali ètu rabotu. Sideli nočami. Tščatel’no proverjali točnost’ rasčetov (Q). | XOTJA ètot proekt nam vsem uže nadoel. Každyj iz nas iskal druguju rabotu (P). ‘We had been doing this work persistently and for along time. We sat working at night. We thoroughly checked the calculations for accuracy (Q). | THOUGH we had been already bored with this project. Each of us had been searching for another job (P).’ It is possible to transform these examples, so that each fragment P and Q is aparagraph. Thus, both conjunctions POTOMU ČTO ‘because’ and XOTJA ‘though’ are absolutely soft. The main Russian neutral temporal conjunction KOGDA ‘when’ usually joins clauses, cf. (28) Ja zakryl knigu (Q), KOGDA stalo sovsem temno (P). ‘Iclosed the book (Q), WHEN it grew quite dark (P).’ KOGDA can also join sentences, but not in all contexts. Cf. the abnormal transforma‑ tion (29) of sentence (28) and the normal text (30). (29) ??Ja zakryl knigu (Q). KOGDA stalo sovsem temno (P). ‘Iclosed the book (Q). WHEN it grew quite dark (P).’ (30) Petja časami igraet vkompjuternye igry. On boltaet po telefonu ine prikasaetsja kučebnikam (Q). Kogda otca net doma (P). ‘Petja plays computer games for hours. He chatters over the phone and does not touch his textbooks (Q). WHEN his father is not at home (P).’ In the normal text (30) the speaker underlines the fact that the situations Q take place— this information is new and unexpected (for the addressee). He also under‑ lies the temporal relation of Q and P. In such acase KOGDA can behave as asoft con‑ junction joining sentences or longer text fragments. In other words, in such acontext KOGDA behaves as acontextualizer. In (28)–(29) both situations Q and P are trivial and expected, so nothing should be underlined. In such acase acomplex sentence, like (28), cannot be transformed into two sentences, cf. (29). KOGDA functions here as ahard conjunction. In general, KOGDA is close to hard conjunctions; it can be acontextualizer only in particular contexts. In this regard the neutral subordinate conjunction KOGDA is similar to the bookish coordinate conjunction ATAKŽE. Another Russian temporal conjunction VTO VREMJA KAK ‘while’ is hard— it joins only clauses. Cf.
ELENA V. UrYSON 15 (31) On byl ženat na bednoj dvorjanke, kotoraja umerla vrodax (Q), VTO VREMJA KAK on naxodilsja votezžem pole (P). (A. S.Pushkin). ‘He was married to apoor noblewoman who died giving birth to achild (Q), WHILE he was hunting (P).’ Note that VTO VREMJA KAK ‘while’ is abookish conjunction in contrast to the neu‑ tral one KOGDA. 2.4 cONcLUSION Russian conjunctions (both coordinate and subordinate) differ in their ability to join clauses vs. sentences vs. longer text fragments. Furthermore, aconjunction in one of its meanings and the same conjunction in another meaning can contrast in their syntactic properties. It follows that syntactic features of aconjunction should be de‑ scribed in adictionary; aconjunction in each meaning should be described as asep‑ arate lexical entry with its syntactic peculiarities. It is of interest to consider syntactic properties of conjunctions in different lan‑ guages. It is quite possible that in some languages conjunctions act as contextualizers, in other words they are generally soft. It may appear that there are also languages in which conjunctions are in general hard, and for the most part they cannot behave as contextualizers. 3. CONTExTUALIZERS AND SYNTAx THEORY In this section Iwill compare conjunctions and contextualizers in terms of the act‑ ant theory. 3.1 INITIAL ASSUmPTIONS For simplicity let us consider conjunctions in the position between two clauses but not between sentences or longer text fragments. Let us call the first position hard. Aconjunction is apredicate describing acertain situation (or astate of affairs) with two participants (=semantic actants) P and Q, each of them in its turn being asituation. Cf. (32) P ← WHEN → Q [e.g. When you come (P), Iwill leave (Q).] (33) P ← IF → Q [e.g. If Peter comes (P), Maša will be glad (Q).] Let us assume that the first semantic actant of asubordinate conjunction is expressed by the subordinate clause (P); so the main clause (Q) expresses its second semantic actant. Let us represent it as follows: (33a) When P, Q : P = 1, Q = 2.