2012 1 Slovne

Olga V. Mitrenina
St Petersburg State University
Philological Department,
St Petersburg

Abstract
This article takes a close look at pseudo-correlatives: multiple sentences in Middle
Russian with the pronoun kotoryj which in the rst clause. It will be argued that
they lack correlatives features and that korotyj in such constructions was not a
relative but an indenite pronoun, like the Russian nekotoryj, koe-kakoj. The pseu-
do-correlatives of Middle Russian are the result of the intermediate stage of the
process of the grammaticalization of kotoryj from indenite to relative pronoun
that caused the transformation of the compound constructions into the complex
sentence.
Key words
correlatives, relatives, Middle Russian, grammaticalization, pseudo-correlatives.
The Syntax of
Pseudo-Correlative
Constructions
with the Pronoun
Kotoryj (Which)
in Middle Russian
-

-
,
,
-
62 |
Slovne 2012 1
The Syntax of Pseudo-Correlative Constructions with
the Pronoun Kotoryj (Which) in Middle Russian
1. Introduction
1
TLis paper is dedicated to syntactic constructions sucL as {1) tLat I will call
pseudo-correlatives. TLey were observed in Old and Middle Russian starting
lrom tLe rst written texts ol tLe tL century and tLey died out at tLe begin-
ning ol tLe 18tL century, altLougL in Modern Russian tLey can occasionally
be lound in colloquial or dialectal speecL:
{1) A kotoraja gsdr loed poslanaja s nim <> i ta loed stala
v Volodimere.
and wLicL master Lorse sent witL Lim <> and tLat Lorse stayed
in Vladimir
As lor tLe Lorse tLat was sent witL StepLan, tLat Lorse stayed in
tLe city ol Vladimir, master. {Gr 362)
2
Pseudo-correlatives Lave been studied by many Russian linguists [Lom-
1cv 156; SANNlxov 165; 8oxovsxr 17; AxscNovA 186 among many
otLersj. TLey are traditionally described as lollows: {a) tLe subordinate clause
precedes tLe main clause; {b) tLe subordinate clause contains tLe relative , in-
terrogative pronoun kotoryj wLicL witL or witLout an NP
3
and tLe main
clause contains tLe demonstrative pronoun tot tLat witL or witLout tLe same
NP or some otLer pronoun corelerential witL tLe NP ol tLe subordinate clause;
and {c) tLe subordinate clause is preceded by tLe conjunction a {sometimes by
i, da and or no conjunction) and tLe main clause is preceded by tLe conjunc-
tion i {sometimes by a and or in some cases by no conjunction
4
).
TLus, tLe basic scLema ol pseudo-correlatives is at {2), altLougL it allows
lor some variation:
{2) [
CorCP {subordinate clause)
kotoryj NP
i
j
i
[
IP {main clause)
i

tot {NP
i
) j
[
CorCP {subordinate clause)
and wLicL NP
i
j
i
[
IP {main clause)
and tLat {NP
i
) j
1
I am indebted to katerina Lyutikova lor Ler generous sLaring ol ideas during our
numerous discussions ol pseudo-correlatives. I am also gratelul to MiLail Kopotev,
ALti Nikunlassi, and Dmitry Gerasimov lor tLeir Lelplul comments and suggestions.
All errors are my own responsibility.
2
TLe lollowing sources are used lor tLe examples:
Gr: XVII . XVIII , , 16
Kot: o1koa . ., AukrA1oaA . . -
XVII XVIII , , 164.
Mor: - XVII ., 1, 133.
Mos: XVII , , 168.
3
TLe question ol wLetLer Russian Las DP or only NP is still an open problem, so I will
generally use tLe term NP tLrougLout tLe paper, but some linguists can take it as DP.
4
Svetlana Aksenova in [ AxscNovA 186 j Las counted tLe conjunction used between two
clauses in 257 cases ol sucL constructions in tLe late period ol Middle Russian {17tL
beginning ol tLe 18tL centuries ). In 183 {71 %) ol tLese cases, tLe conjunction i was
used between tLe clauses and in 62 {24 %) no conjunction was used.
| 63
2012 1 Slovne
Olga Mitrenina
TLis scLema is similar to a regular correlative construction tLat is widely
used in Modern Russian [Ml1cNlNA 2010j:
3) Kakuju mainu uvidit, tu , takuju {mainu) i prosit.
wLat car sees, tLat , sucL {car) and asks
WLatever car Le sees, Le asks lor it.
Correlative constructions sucL as {3) are classied as complex relative
sentences witL a preceding subordinate clause; tLe subordinate clause con-
tains tLe relative pLrase and tLe main clause contains tLe demonstrative
pLrase tLat is modied by tLe subordinate pLrase [8uA11 2003: 485486j.
8ecause ol tLe similarity ol tLese Middle Russian constructions {1 ) to
regular correlative constructions {3 ), RajesL 8Latt, lollowing dward Keenan,
classies tLem as correlatives [ 8uA11 2003 : 41 j. Russian linguists Lave also
traditionally classied sucL Middle Russian constructions as complex relative
sentences witL a preceding subordinate clause, altLougL tLey Lave also noted
tLat tLe relationsLip ol subordination between tLe two clauses is weakened
and botL clauses are to a large extent independent [ 8oxovsxr 17 : 560;
SumxlNA 154 : 177; KAccvsxAA 154 : 212 j. TLe reasons lor considering
tLe relationsLip ol subordination between tLe two clauses to be weakened
Lave traditionally been stated as lollows : { a ) tLe repetition ol tLe same NP in
tLe rst and tLe second clauses ; { b ) tLe necessity ol tLe demonstrative pro-
noun tot tLat belore tLe repeated NP tLat lorms a sort ol correlative connec-
tion witL kotoryj in tLe preceding subordinate clause ; and { c ) tLe presence ol
tLe coordinating conjunction between two clauses.
None ol tLese tLree reasons is enougL to prove tLat tLe relationsLip
ol subordination between two clauses is weakened. TLe repetition ol tLe
same NP in two clauses is quite possible in correlative constructions sucL
as {3) and tLe demonstrative pronoun is always needed in tLe main clause
ol regular correlatives [8uA11 2003j, so botL ol tLese leatures are typical
lor classical correlative constructions wLere tLe relationsLip ol subordina-
tion between two clauses is not at all weakened. As lor tLe lunctional word
i and between two clauses, it does not necessarily need to be a coordinat-
ing conjunction. TLere are two more lunctional words i: a so-called begin-
ning {nainatelnyj) conjunction i tLat was used in Old Russian to mark tLe
beginning ol tLe clause, and a particle i tLat is used in modern correlative
constructions, as in example {3).
In tLe next section I will present some syntactic data sLowing tLat pseu-
do-correlatives dier lrom Modern Russian correlatives, pointing to tLe lack
ol subordination between tLe clauses ol a pseudo-correlative.
64 |
Slovne 2012 1
The Syntax of Pseudo-Correlative Constructions with
the Pronoun Kotoryj (Which) in Middle Russian
2. Structural Differences between Correlatives and
Pseudo-correlatives
Pseudo-correlatives reveal a number ol structural dierences in comparison
to modern Russian correlative constructions. In tLis section I will describe tLe
most crucial ol tLese dierences. TLe data presented in tLis section proves tLat
tLere was no strong correlative relationsLip between two clauses in pseudo-
correlatives. All tLe examples are lrom Middle Russian {17tL beginning
ol tLe 18tL centuries).
2.1. Third-person Pronouns instead of Demonstrative Pronouns
In pseudo-correlatives tLe demonstrative pronoun is used in most ol tLe cas-
es, altLougL tLird-person pronouns can also be used in pseudo-correlatives
in Middle Russian,
5
as in {4); tLe demonstrative is required lor tLe correlatives
in Modern Russian [8uA11 2003: 43j. TLe use ol tLird-person pronouns
is impossible in Modern Russian correlatives witL tLe exception ol lew col-
loquial constructions [LAr1cvA 2003: 144j.
{4) Da kotoryja loedi i korovy prislany i iL" kormit neim.
And wLicL Lorses and cows sent and tLem leed notLing
As lor tLe Lorses and cows tLat were sent Lere, tLere is no lood
lor tLem. {Kot 41, elisLevy)
TLe tLird-person pronoun in Russian was Listorically a demonstrative
pronoun and in Old Russian it was sometimes used as a demonstrative, but in
Middle Russian it was not demonstrative but an anapLoric pronoun.
2.2. No Maximalizing Semantics Required
Mark de Vries {alter Downing and otLers) denes as an implicational Univer-
sal G5 tLat correlatives Lave maximalizing semantics [Vlcs 2002: 38j. TLis is
true lor Modern Russian correlatives tLat can reler only to a unique individual
or to a wLole group. 8ut pseudo-correlatives can reler to a part ol some group;
tLe word many can be used in tLe second clause, a usage tLat violates Mark
de Vriess implicational universal:
{5) A kotorye de novye krestjane i prili i u mnogiL i dvory ne
and wLicL PRT new peasants and came and at many and Lomesteads not
postavleny.
are.built
As lor tLe new peasants wLo are said to Lave come, many ol tLem
Lave not even built tLeir Lomesteads yet. {Mor 10)
5
According to [AxscNovA 186j in 257 cases ol constructions witL tLe preposition
ol tLe kotoryj-clause in Middle Russian {17tLbeginning ol tLe 18tL centuries), tLird-
person pronouns were used in 48 {1 %) ol tLem.
| 65
2012 1 Slovne
Olga Mitrenina
And Lere is an example tLat Aksenova considered as tLe same type ol
construction [AxscNovA 186: 60j. TLe word otLers is used tLere in tLe
second clause.
{6) Kotoryja naroetyja ljudi pap"latilisja a inym" i est" neiva.
wLicL best people paid and otLers and eat notLing
As lor tLe best people, tLey Lave paid tLeir debts, and tLe rest
Lave notLing to eat. {Kot 43, Samariny)
TLis construction probably consists ol tLree clauses: it includes a regular
pseudo-correlative witL tLe group tLose people omitted in tLe second clause,
and tLe tLird clause is inymi i est neiva and tLe rest Lave notLing to eat; tLe
nglisL translation reects tLis tLree-clausal structure very well.
2.3. The NP in the Main Clause can Differ from
the NP in the Subordinate Clause
In some cases in pseudo-correlatives, tLe NP in tLe rst clause witL kotoryj
is not tLe same as tLe NP in tLe second clause. TLese NPs are always semanti-
cally connected {in most cases tLe NP in tLe relative clause relers to a subclass
ol tLe NP in tLe main clause). SucL usage is impossible in Modern Russian nor
is it possible in otLer correlative constructions wLere only tLe same NP can be
repeated [8uA11 2003: 43j.
{7) Da kotoruju ty gsdr izvol kupit belugu i toe gsdr rybu
and wLicL you master pleased to.buy beluga and tLat master sh
poslana s seju ryboju.
sent witL tLis same sL
As lor tLe beluga {type ol sturgeon) tLat you, Master, bougLt,
tLat sL was sent togetLer witL tLis sL. {Gr 373).
{8) Kotoroj moj ranoj Lleb sejan byl na rebju Alekseja MescLerinova
wLicL my rye bread sowed was by lot ol.Alexej MescLerinov
i on de tu ro poal i omolotil
and Le PRT tLat rye reaped and tLresLed
As lor tLe rye bread tLat I sowed by lot lrom Alexej MescLerinov,
Le Las reaped and tLresLed tLat rye. {Mor 118)
{) Kotoraja sol na ]ung poloena z gosudarevyL grebnyL
wLicL salt on ]ung put lrom masters rowing
strugov i tot anbar zapeatan <...> peatju
boats and that barn sealed by.seal
As lor tLe salt lrom masters rowing boats tLat was put at tLe
place ol ]ung, tLat barn was sealed witL a seal. {Gr 338)
66 |
Slovne 2012 1
The Syntax of Pseudo-Correlative Constructions with
the Pronoun Kotoryj (Which) in Middle Russian
3. The Pronoun Kotoryj in Old and Middle Russian
In tLis section we will describe several otLer dierences in beLaviour ol tLe
pronoun kotoryj in Old, Middle, and Modern Russian.
3.1. Kotoryj-clause in Postposition
Middle Russian presents many examples ol wLat RajesL 8Latt calls nglisL-
type relative clauses [8uA11 2003j. TLese are sentences sucL as {10) tLat are
identical to nglisL relative clauses:
{10) Volynskomu byt s prenim polkom kotoroi u nego nne.
Volynsk sLould.be witL previous regiment wLicL at Lim now
Volynsk sLould stay witL tLe same regiment wLicL Le Las now.
{Mos 14)
TLere was also anotLer type ol construction witL kotoryj-clause in postpo-
sition used in Old and Middle Russian. TLese are tLe sentences witL tLe same
NP repeated in botL clauses; tLe second NP is repeated rigLt alter tLe korotyj:
6
{11) Prislali k nam <...> celovalnuju zapis, po kotoroj
{tLey) sent to us notary certicate, according to wLicL
zapisi vy <...> krest celovali.
certicate you cross.ACC kissed.
TLey sent us a notary certicate, according to wLicL you swore
an oatL by kissing tLe cross. {. . . . [Lom1cv
156: 560j)
Sentences sucL as {11) cannot be considered as Leaded relative clauses.
Following Srivastav, RajesL 8Latt describes structural dierences between
Leaded relative clauses and correlatives. He mentions tLat in relative clauses,
tLe relativized NP cannot be repeated in tLe relative clause [8uA11 2003:
42j, see also [Vlcs 2002: 36j:
{12) *On kupil mainu, kotoruju mainu , Tojotu Lotel.
*He bougLt tLe.car wLicL car , Toyota Le.wanted.
6
TLese constructions recall tLe unusual strategy ol relativization in Old Russian {belore
tLe 15tL century) described by Andrey Zaliznyak in [ZALlzNrAx 180j. TLe relative
pronoun was lormed by adding tLe relativizator to or e to tLe interrogative pronoun:
Posla Vsevolod" Svjatopolka <> smolvjasja s novgorodci kotoryL to byl" pral"
{ , . 114 . lrom [ZALlzNrAx 180:
8j).
Sent Vsevolod Svjatopolk talk witL novgorodians wLicL TO was accepted
Vsevolod sent Svjatopolk to talk to tLe people ol Novgorod tLat Le Las accepted.
TLese relativizators to or e disappear in Old Russian belore tLe 15
tL
century, but
tLey were very popular in tLe oldest Russian texts ol tLe
tL
13
tL
centuries. TLe nature
il tLese relativizators is not clear, but it is important to note tLat tLat word to was
also used as a demonstrative in Old Russian and tLe need to use it witL kotoryj as a
relativizator may be related to tLe need to repeat tLe NP alter tLe kotoryj in Old and
Middle Russian. 8ut denitely tLis pLenomena needs to be studied more carelully.
| 67
2012 1 Slovne
Olga Mitrenina
SucL sentences witL kotoryj in postposition and tLe same NP repeated
in botL clauses were used quite olten in Middle Russian texts ol tLe 15
tL

16
tL
centuries, altLougL tLey were less lrequent tLan tLe nglisL-type relative
clauses. 8ut sentences witL kotoryj in postposition were very rare in tLe early
period ol Russian {
tL
14
tL
centuries) [8oxovsxr 17: 76, 82j.
8orkovskys observations are supported by tLe remarkable and growing
corpus ol bircLbark documents lrom Novgorod and its environs {11
tL
15
tL

centuries). TLey present several usages ol tLe pronoun kotoryj, but tLe only
sentence witL kotoryj in postposition is presented in a late document dated
to tLe beginning ol tLe 15
tL
century, illustrated in example {13), bircLbark
number 310 [ZALlzNrAx 2004: 670j.
{13) ot Vavuly i ot tvoiL" Lrestano kotorye Lrestani s Ylova prisLli
za tebja
lrom Vavula and lrom your peasants tLose peasants lrom Ilovo
came to you.
lrom Vavula and your peasants lrom Ilovo tLat {peasants)
came to you. or
lrom Vavula and your peasants, tLose peasants came to you
lrom Ilovo. [ZALlzNrAx 2004: 301j
So, tLe usage ol kotoryj in postposition sLows tLat tLe relative proper-
ties ol tLis pronoun were expanding. AltLougL tLey were expressed in only
limited lasLion in Old Russian, tLey began to acLieve some power in Middle
Russian, and, nally, in Modern Russian kotoryj is used as a regular relative
pronoun. TLus, in constructions sucL as {11) and {13) in Old and Middle Rus-
sian, tLe pronoun kotoryj was used as a modier ol NP.
3.2. Grammaticalization of the Pronoun kotoryj
Grammaticalization is a Listorical process leading lrom lexemes to grammati-
cal lormatives; a sign is grammaticalized to tLe extent tLat it is devoid ol con-
crete lexical meaning and takes part in obligatory grammatical rules [LcumANN
2002: VIIj.
TLe pronoun kotoryj reveals some ol tLe criteria ol grammaticalization
described by CLristian LeLmann [LcumANN 2002j. TLese criteria sLow tLat
in Middle Russian tLe pronoun kotoryj was more lexical, wLile in Modern
Russian tLe relative pronoun kotoryj is more grammaticalized, in tLe lollow-
ing ways:
a) A decrease i n i ntegr i t y. TLis includes a decrease in semantic in-
tegrity {desemanticization) as well as a decrease in pLonological integrity
{pLonological attrition).
68 |
Slovne 2012 1
The Syntax of Pseudo-Correlative Constructions with
the Pronoun Kotoryj (Which) in Middle Russian
TLe desemanticization ol kotoryj is connected witL tLe loss ol tLe wLicL
one ol many selective meaning. TLis meaning ol tLe interrogative kotoryj oc-
curs in Middle and Modern Russian,
7
altLougL tLe original meaning ol tLe in-
terrogative pronoun witL its root was wLicL one ol two [Lom1cv 165: 558j:
{14) Kotoraja iz niL okaetsa samoj udanoj?
WLicL ol tLem will.turn.out most successlul
WLicL one ol tLem will turn out to be tLe most successlul?
TLe pseudo-correlative pronoun kotoryj in Middle Russian presents some
ol tLe meaning wLicL one ol many, wLicL is wLy Kaevskaja suggests call-
ing tLem not relative, but selective-relative pronouns [KAccvsxAA 154:
212j. TLe relative pronoun in Modern Russian is co-relerenced witL tLe rela-
tivized NP and it is not used witL tLe meaning wLicL one ol many.
b) TLe decrease in pLonological integrity is connected witL tLe possibility
ol being stressed. TLe relative kotoryj in Modern Russian cannot bear pLrase
stress [PAbucucvA 185: 121j. In Middle Russian tLe pseudo-correlative pro-
noun can bear pLrase stress because it can be separated lrom its NP by interven-
ing material. For example, in {1), tLe rst pLase belore an address is A kotoraja,
wLere kotoraja is tLe only word tLat can be stressed. In addition, in an example
sucL as {5) we Lave a strong prool tLat kotoryj was stressed. In {5) kotoryj is lol-
lowed by tLe clitic de tLat obeys Wackernagels Law, wLicL requires clitics to ap-
pear in tLe so-called second position, alter tLe rst syntactic pLrase or tLe rst
stressed word in a clause [ZALlzNrAx 2008j. It proves tLat kotoryj is stressed in
sucL sentences.
b) A d e c r e a s e i n s t r u c t u r a l s c o p e . TLe pronoun kotoryj in
Old and Middle Russian was able to unite witL an NP, as in example {11),
wLereas tLe relative pronoun kotoryj in Modern Russian usually cannot do
tLis, as sLown in example {12).
c) A decrease i n synt agmat i c var i abi l i t y, i.e., tLe decrease ol tLe
ease witL wLicL a word can be sLilted around in its context. In Middle Russian
wLen tLe pronoun kotoryj was used in postposition, it was also possible to use it
at a distance and not immediately lollowing its Lead noun, as sLown in example
{15). In Modern Russian sucL sentences sound awkward, because in Modern
Russian tLe regular position ol tLe relative kotoryj is rigLt alter tLe Lead NP.
8
{15) Pismo vse ja poluil za kotoroe i blagodarstvuju.
letter your I got lor wLicL tLank.you
I Lave received your letter tLat I tLank you lor
7
TLe popular Russian question Kotoryj as? WLat time is it now? {lit.: WLicL Lour?)
is an idiomatic construction tLat comes lrom Old Russian, its usage in Old Russian is
not clear.
8
In tLe case ol pied piping kotoryj can move to tLe rigLt witLin tLe relative clause, but tLe
relative clause still lollows tLe Lead NP.
| 69
2012 1 Slovne
Olga Mitrenina
TLis data sLows tLat in Old and Middle Russian tLe pronoun kotoryj was
in tLe process ol grammaticalization and tLe result ol tLis process was tLe
Modern Russian relative pronoun kotoryj
4. The Evolution of Pseudo-Correlative Constructions
In tLis section I suggest an approacL tLat explains tLe unusual properties ol
kotoryj in Old and Middle Russian. TLey can be explained il, in Old Russian,
kotoryj was used mostly as an interrogative or indenite pronoun. In Middle
Russian kotoryj started to be used also as a relative pronoun, so all tLree possible
usages ol kotoryj were observed.

In Modern Russian we can see only tLe rela-

tive kotoryj, witL rare reminders ol tLe old indenite usage ol kotoryj.
4.1. Transformation of the Compound Construction into the Complex
Sentence
Most ol tLe scLolars wLo study pseudo-correlative constructions believe tLat
tLey are transitional constructions between coordination and subordination. At
rst tLere were two independent clauses united by tLe conjunction i, wLicL was
eitLer a coordinator or an element ol tLe so-called cLain tLreading {cepoenoe
nanizyvanie) tLat was a regular way to join sentences in Old Russian. TLen tLe
pronoun kotoryj began to participate in tLe syntactic relationsLip by acquiring
some relative properties [KAccvsxAA 154j. TogetLer witL tLe demonstrative
ol tLe second clause, tLey lormed a correlative conjunction tLat was used to-
getLer witL tLe coordinating conjunction i [8oxovsx 17: 585j.
Pseudo-correlatives recall one construction tLat is quite popular in Mo-
dern Russian colloquial speecL. It is described in [LAr1cvA 2003: 144j as a
nominative topic construction, modication number 5. TLe subordinate clause
ol tLis type includes kotoryj wLicL + NP tLat is tLe topic ol tLe sentence. TLe
main clause lollows tLe subordinate clause and includes a personal pronoun
{or sometimes a demonstrative pronoun) co-relerential to tLe NP ol tLe subor-
dinate clause. TLe example ol sucL sentence is in {16), lrom [LAr1cvA 2003j.
katerina Ljutikova also mentions sucL constructions as topicalized NPs witL
an anapLoric pronoun in tLe main clause [Lu1lxovA 200j.
{16) A kotorye rebjata
i
byli tam, oen nesladko im
i
vsem prilos.
And wLicL guys were tLere, very tougL to.tLem all lell
As lor tLe guys tLat were tLere, tLey all Lad Lard time.
Aksenova in [AxscNovA 186j considered pseudo-correlatives as nomi-
native topic constructions tLat Lave some similarity to relative clauses. TLat is

According to Lujn, *kwo- words Lave tLree main uses in Old Indo-uropean
languages: interrogative, indenite, and relative [LuN 200: 222j.
70 |
Slovne 2012 1
The Syntax of Pseudo-Correlative Constructions with
the Pronoun Kotoryj (Which) in Middle Russian
wLy tLey were not relative, but compound constructions tLat were later trans-
lormed into tLe complex sentence. In tLis case tLe question arises as to wLat
Lappened to tLe coordinative conjunction i between two clauses.
In Modern Russian kotoryj is used only as an interrogative or relative pro-
noun. Correlative constructions witL kotoryj similar to pseudo-correlatives
are used in Modern Russian [ZALlzNrAx, PAbucucvA 17; Lru1lxovA
200j, but tLey sound as syntactic arcLaisms, altLougL all tLe otLer relative
words can be used in Modern Russian correlatives [Ml1cNlNA 2010j. I can
suggest tLat tLe relative kotoryj does not produce correlatives in Modern Rus-
sian because it still preserves a trace ol its original selective meaning. TLis
meaning is not allowed in correlative constructions, wLicL sLould always Lave
maximalizing semantics, but it is allowed in pseudo-correlatives wLose struc-
ture is close to tLe nominative topic.
4.2. The Functional Word i between two clauses
TLe study ol pseudo-correlatives in Middle Russian sLows tLat wLile tLe com-
pound sentences were translorming into tLe relative construction, tLe coordi-
native conjunction i was translorming into tLe particle i tLat is similar to tLe
particle i
10
used in modern correlative constructions, as in example {3). TLe par-
ticle i can Lave several meanings, but according to classication ol lena Uryson,
tLe one used in modern correlatives is tLe anapLoric particle relerring to tLe
mentioned situation [UrsoN 2011: 273-275j. For example sentence {17) pre-
supposes tLat it was already mentioned in tLe previous part ol tLe text tLat tLe
man started to Lave problems at some point in Lis lile. Moreover, in sucL context
it is almost impossible to omit tLis particle i.
{17) V derevne i naalis ego nesastja.
In village PRT started Lis mislortunes
It was in tLe village wLere Lis problems started.
TLe only dierence between tLe lunctional i between two clauses ol tLe
pseudo-correlative and tLe particle i in tLe Modern Russian correlative is
tLe location. In correlatives i is usually located belore tLe verb or belore
some otLer important member ol tLe clause. In pseudo-correlatives i is usu-
ally located between tLe clauses. 8ut we can also nd examples ol pseudo-
correlatives wLere tLey are used simultaneously in botL places: between tLe
clauses and belore tLe important member ol tLe second clause {see example
{5) above, wLere tLe last i is used as in Modern Russian). TLere are even
examples wLere i is used in tLe same way in wLicL it is used in tLe modern
correlative; tLat use is only belore tLat part ol tLe sentence relerring to tLe
mentioned situation:
10
Some attempts to study particles witLin tLe lramework ol generative grammar are
summarized in [HAlbcN 2005j.
| 71
2012 1 Slovne
Olga Mitrenina
{18) I kotoroi sluga <...> delo <...> poterjal tovo slugu za tem"
And wLicL servant documents lost tLat servant lor tLat
delom" i prilite Lodit.
documents PRT send to.go
Send tLe servant wLo lost tLat documents lor it. {,
128, . II 22 lrom [AxscNovA 186: 127j)
xamples sucL as {5) and {18) sLow tLat tLe lunctional word i was not strictly
conned to tLe place between tLe clauses but as tLe pseudo-correlative construc-
tion was translorming into tLe relative construction, tLe lunctional word i was
sLilting to tLe pLrase tLat relers to tLe mentioned situation in tLe main clause.
4.3. Kotoryj as Indefinite Pronoun in Terms of Formal Semantics
Il tLe Middle Russian kotoryj is an indenite pronoun similar to tLe Mo-
dern Russian nekotoryj , nekotorye or koe-kakoj , koe-kakie, tLen it can Lave
two dierent analyses in terms ol lormal semantics.
First ol all, tLe indenite NP can undergo existential closure in tLe rst
clause and tLerelore be relerential; in tLis case, tLe demonstrative in tLe se-
cond clause is a denite description:
{1) A kotoraja loed poslanaja i ta loed stala v Volodimere.
and wLicL Lorse sent and tLat Lorse stopped in Vladimir
As lor tLe Lorse tLat was sent, tLat Lorse Las stopped in tLe city
ol Vladimir.
{- Some Lorse was sent and it Las stopped in tLe city ol Vladimir.)
{20) x Lorse {x) was_sent {x)
stopped_in_Vladimir (x. horse (x) was_sent (x))
Alternatively, pseudo-correlatives witL tLe rst part in present or luture
tense Lave tLe additional meaning ol conditionals {see e.g. [Lom1cv 156:
560; 8oxovsxr 173: 8j). Conditionals may contain a covert quantier
over situations {see [Lcls 175; KA1zc 186j). 8otL tLe variable cor-
responding to tLe indenite DP witL kotoryj as well as tLe demonstrative are
bound by tLis quantier, wLicL ensures tLeir coindexing in all tLe situations
or worlds.
{21) A kotoraja erst ne goditca v sukna i toe erst peredelat v vojloki.
And wLicL wool not good to clotL and tLat wool to-use to tLick lelts
Use lor tLick lelts tLe wool tLat is not good lor clotL. {-Il some wool is not
good lor clotLs tLen use it lor tLick lelts.)
(22) ALWAYS (s, x) [there is s which contains x such that wool (x)
not_good_for_cloth (x)] make felts of x in s
TLe dierence between tLe two cases is Low exactly tLe rst clause re-
stricts tLe demonstrative in tLe second clause.
72 |
Slovne 2012 1
The Syntax of Pseudo-Correlative Constructions with
the Pronoun Kotoryj (Which) in Middle Russian
5. Conclusions
TLe pseudo-correlatives ol Middle Russian are tLe result ol tLe intermediate
stage ol tLe process ol grammaticalization ol kotoryj lrom indenite to relative
pronoun. TLis process caused tLe translormation ol tLe compound construc-
tions into tLe complex sentence; tLe coordinative conjunction i between tLe
clauses was evolving into tLe particle i and moved to tLe pLrase tLat relers to
tLe mentioned situation in tLe main clause.
References
AxscNovA 186
kccuoaA . .,
XVIIXVIII .: . . . , .
8uA11 2003
8uA11 R., Locality in Correlatives, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 485541.
8oxovsxr 173
. . orkoackn {.), -
. , .
8oxovsxr 17
. . orkoackn {.), : ,
, .
HAlbcN 2005
HAlbcN M., Verb Particle Constructions, in: M. vcAc1, HcNx C. vAN Rlcmsbx {eds.),
The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 5, cLapter 76, 344375.
KAccvsxAA 154
AcackAx . .,
, , 5, 203223.
KA1zc 186
KA1zc A., Conditionals, Chicago Linguistics Society, 22,2, 115.
LAr1cvA 2003
A1caA . ., , .
LcumANN 2002
LcumANN Cu., Thoughts on Grammaticalization, vol. 2 {revised edition) {- Arbeitspapiere des
Seminars lr SpracLwissenscLalt der Universitat rlurt, No. ), rlurt.
Lcls 175
Lcls D., Adverbs ol quantication, in: . L. KccNAN {ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural
Language, Cambridge, 315.
Lom1cv 156
o1ca . . , .
| 73 Olga Mitrenina
LuN 200
LuN . R., On tLe grammaticalization ol *kwi- , *kwo- relative clauses in Proto-Indo-
uropean, in: V. 8uacNlx, ]. HcsoN, S. Rosc {eds.), Grammatical change in Indo-European
Languages, Amsterdam, 221234.
Lru1lxovA 200
1nkoaA . ., :
, : . . nccAcaA, . . Avurxu,
. . AnAnuA, . . A1caocoa {.). .
, 436511.
Ml1cNlNA 2010
Ml1cNlNA O., Correlatives: vidence lrom Russian, in: G. ZraA1o et al. {eds.), Formal
Studies in Slavic Linguistics: Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages 7.5, Franklurt
am Main, 135151.
PAbucucvA 185
ApvcaA . ., , .
SANNlxov 165
Auunkoa . .,
XI-XIV .: . . . , .
SumxlNA 154
vknuA . ., XIIIXVII .,
, 5, 13202.
Vlcs 2002
Vlcs, M. de, The Syntax of Relativization, PL.D. dissertation, University ol Amsterdam.
UrsoN 2011
rcou . ., :
, .
ZALlzNrAx, PAbucucvA 17
AAnsuxk . ., ApvcaA . . , :
- , .
ZALlzNrAx 181
AAnsuxk . .,
, : - 1980, , 8107.
ZALlzNrAx 2004
AAnsuxk . ., , .
ZALlzNrAx 2008
AAnsuxk . ., , .
, ...
- ,
,
199034 -, ., . 11
Russia /
mitrenina@gmail.com