{"title":"Questions with definite markers in (Old) Romance, with focus on Old Spanish","authors":"Olga Kellert","doi":"10.5565/REV/ISOGLOSS.56","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We will depart from the observation that Romance languages can be subdivided into two groups with respect to free relatives under question-embedding predicates (Kellert 2017). One group has grammaticalized the definite element (e.g. Pt. [1] o , Fl. i’ ‘the’) and que/che into one question pronoun (e.g. Pt. o que ‘what’ and Fl. icche ‘what’); the other group has not (e.g. Spanish and French). We will show that in one group free relatives that are embedded under question predicates resemble more complex nouns (as in Spanish and French), whereas in the other group they are clausal and have the structure of ordinary questions as in Portuguese and Florentine. We will look at the evolution of lo que sentences in Old Spanish and demonstrate that they were used as relative clauses under non-question predicates such as ser ‘be’ and factive predicates such as ‘know’ with much higher frequency than under genuine question predicates such as preguntar ‘to ask’. We will suggest that the interrogative interpretation of lo que - relative clauses has its source in the ambiguity of factive predicates. Factive predicates can select both DPs interpreted as definite descriptions and CPs interpreted as interrogatives. Lo que -relatives can thus be interpreted as definite descriptions and as interrogatives under factive predicates. As we will argue, this ambiguous interpretation was the precondition for the use of lo que -sentences to be used in non-ambiguous question contexts. However, the reanalysis of lo que -sentences as questions has not been fully accomplished in Modern Spanish in contrast to Modern Portuguese, as these sentences still show syntactic and semantic differences from ordinary questions. [1] Fl. stands for Florentine, Sp. for Spanish, Pt. for Portuguese, and Fr. for French. Mo. for Modern and O. for Old and Mi. for Middle languages.","PeriodicalId":344793,"journal":{"name":"Isogloss. A journal on variation of Romance and Iberian languages","volume":"6 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Isogloss. A journal on variation of Romance and Iberian languages","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5565/REV/ISOGLOSS.56","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
We will depart from the observation that Romance languages can be subdivided into two groups with respect to free relatives under question-embedding predicates (Kellert 2017). One group has grammaticalized the definite element (e.g. Pt. [1] o , Fl. i’ ‘the’) and que/che into one question pronoun (e.g. Pt. o que ‘what’ and Fl. icche ‘what’); the other group has not (e.g. Spanish and French). We will show that in one group free relatives that are embedded under question predicates resemble more complex nouns (as in Spanish and French), whereas in the other group they are clausal and have the structure of ordinary questions as in Portuguese and Florentine. We will look at the evolution of lo que sentences in Old Spanish and demonstrate that they were used as relative clauses under non-question predicates such as ser ‘be’ and factive predicates such as ‘know’ with much higher frequency than under genuine question predicates such as preguntar ‘to ask’. We will suggest that the interrogative interpretation of lo que - relative clauses has its source in the ambiguity of factive predicates. Factive predicates can select both DPs interpreted as definite descriptions and CPs interpreted as interrogatives. Lo que -relatives can thus be interpreted as definite descriptions and as interrogatives under factive predicates. As we will argue, this ambiguous interpretation was the precondition for the use of lo que -sentences to be used in non-ambiguous question contexts. However, the reanalysis of lo que -sentences as questions has not been fully accomplished in Modern Spanish in contrast to Modern Portuguese, as these sentences still show syntactic and semantic differences from ordinary questions. [1] Fl. stands for Florentine, Sp. for Spanish, Pt. for Portuguese, and Fr. for French. Mo. for Modern and O. for Old and Mi. for Middle languages.
我们将放弃罗曼语系在问题嵌入谓词下的自由亲属可以被细分为两组的观察(Kellert 2017)。一组将定语(例如Pt. [1] o, Fl. i ' the ')和que/che语法化为一个疑问句代词(例如Pt. o . que ' what '和Fl. icche ' what ');另一组没有(如西班牙语和法语)。我们将展示,在一组中,嵌入在疑问谓语下的自由亲属类似于更复杂的名词(如西班牙语和法语),而在另一组中,它们是小句,具有葡萄牙语和佛罗伦萨语中普通问题的结构。我们将看看古西班牙语中lo que句子的演变,并证明它们在非疑问谓语(如ser ' be ')和主动谓语(如' know ')下用作关系从句的频率要比在真正的疑问谓语(如preguntar ' to ask ')下使用的频率高得多。我们认为,关系从句的疑问句解释的根源在于主动谓语的歧义。谓语既可以选择作为明确描述的谓语,也可以选择作为疑问句的谓语。因此,无亲缘关系可以被解释为确定的描述,也可以被解释为宾语谓语下的疑问句。正如我们将要讨论的那样,这种模棱两可的解释是在非模棱两可的问题语境中使用同类句子的先决条件。然而,与现代葡萄牙语相比,现代西班牙语对lo que -sentence作为疑问句的再分析并没有完全完成,因为这些句子仍然表现出与普通疑问句在句法和语义上的差异。[1] Fl.代表佛罗伦萨语,Sp.代表西班牙语,Pt.代表葡萄牙语,Fr.代表法语。Mo.代表现代语言,O.代表古语言,Mi.代表中古语言。