SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF INDECLINABLE PARTICIPLES IN

LATVIAN

Andra Kalnača, Ilze Lokmane University of Latvia

Department of Latvian and General Linguistics

47th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica

Europaea, 11–14 September 2014, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

Our paper focuses on the use of the Latvian indeclinable participles in -ot(ies) and -am(ies)/-ām(ies) in syntactic constructions to establish:

1) the types of constructions the participles engage in,

2) whether these participles can be used for subjecthood tests.

Outline of description:

1) a brief insight into the research methods;

2) overview of the syntactic constructions with the Latvian indeclinable participles;

3) analysis of the Latvian data samples;

4) main conclusions about the semantics and distribution of indeclinable participles.

Non-finite forms of verbs (participles and the infinitive) have no overt subject and are therefore used for subjecthood tests in syntax and semantics (e. g., Keenan 1976; Kroeger 2004, 103–119).

On subjecthood in general and different subjecthood tests see Svenonius (2001), Sigurðsson (2004).

In the domain of the Baltic languages this approach has been applied by Seržant (2013, 292–293), who has described the role of the indeclinable participle in -nt and the partly declinable participle with the suffix -dam- in subject testing in Lithuanian.

In Lithuanian, the agent of the indeclinable participle in -nt is normally different from the subject of the sentence unlike the agent of the participle with the suffix -dam- (Ambrazas 1996, 380–382).

Latvian has two indeclinable participles:

1) participle in -ot(ies), which is similar in origin to the Lithuanian participle in -nt, but it has different semantic and syntactic functions – there are constructions where the agent of the participle is the subject of the sentence;

2) participle in -am(ies)/-ām(ies), which has no counterparts in Lithuanian

However, Latvian indeclinable participles are used in various syntactic constructions exhibiting distinctive types of links between the agent and the subject of the sentence. The semantic and syntactic properties of these participles are thus worthy of some attention.

The participle in -ot(ies) originates from the active declinable present participle and is formed on the basis of the present stem of the verb by means of the affix -ot (non-reflexive verbs) and -oties (reflexive verbs) (Latviešu valodas gramatika 2013, 585).

Non-reflexive verbs domā-t : domāj-u : domāj-ot ‘to think : I am thinking : while thinking’ lasī-t : las-u : las-ot ‘to read : I am reading : while reading’ Reflexive verbs smie-ties : smej-os : smej-oties ‘to laugh : I am laughing : while laughing’ sveicinā-ties : sveicin-os : sveicin-oties ‘to greet : I am greeting : while greeting’

The participle in -am(ies)/-ām(ies) originates from the passive declinable present participle and is formed on the basis of the present stem of the verb by means of the affix -am/-ām (non-reflexive verbs, -amies/-āmies (reflexive verbs); the length of the vowel before m depends on the verb conjugation (Latviešu valodas gramatika 2013, 587).

Non-reflexive verbs domā-t : domāj-u : domāj-am ‘to think : I am thinking : while thinking’ lasī-t : las-u : las-ām ‘to read : I am reading : while reading’ Reflexive verbs smie-ties : smej-os : smej-amies ‘to laugh : I am laughing : while laughing’ sveicinā-ties : sveicin-os : sveicin-āmies ‘to greet : I am greeting : while greeting’

Although the participle -ot(ies) has arisen from the declinable active voice participle, but -am(ies)/-ām(ies) from the declinable passive voice participle, their syntactic properties do not differentiate between the active and passive voice, as we will see further, both the participles can be used as synonyms (Endzelīns 1981, 520 and 522).

Traditional grammars of Latvian mainly concentrate on the tense and voice meanings of this participle, while its syntactic properties largely remain unstudied (e. g., Ahero et al. 1959, 661–664; Paegle 2003, 150–151; Latviešu valodas gramatika 2013, 564–598).

1. Raising constructions

Raising is “a syntactic process by which a noun phrase or another element is moved from a subordinate clause into the structure of the larger clause thet includes it” (Matthews 1997, 307) or, in other words, “any of various phenomena in which a linguistic element appears in a higher clause than is semantically appropriate” (Trask 2005, 259).

1.1 Raising to object or subject-to-object raising

The participles in -ot(ies) and -am(ies)/ām(ies) are used in subject-to-object raising constructions with lexical verbs. The matrix verb in this case is usually a perception verb.

Es vakar dzirdēju jūs dziedam.

I yesterday heard.PST.1SG you.ACC.SG sing.PTCP

‘Yesterday I heard you sing’ (www.google.lv)

Tur redzējām ejot četrus

there see.PST.1PL walk.PTCP four.ACC.PL.M

cilvēkus.

people.ACC.PL.M

‘There I saw four people walking.’ (www.google.lv)

The participle in -am(ies)/-ām(ies) is found also in subject-to-object raising constructions with lexical and copular verbs, where the matrix verb expresses the attitude of the speaker.

Ēdu visu, ko

eat.PRS.1 everything.ACC.M what.ACC.M

uzskatu sev

consider.PRS.1 me.DAT

par labu nākam.

for good.ACC.M come.PTCP

‘I eat everything that is good for me.’ (www.tvnet.lv)

In this kind of constructions the participle with -ot(ies) would also be possible, but it is the particple with -am(ies)/-ām(ies) that is given preference.

1.2 Raising to subject or subject-to-subject raising

In subject-to-subject raising constructions the subject of a subordinate clause is raised to the position of the subject in the main clause. The matrix verb here is the verb of appearance.

Viņš likās ejot tālāk.

He.NOM.M seem.PST.3 go.PTCP further

‘He seemed to be going further.’(www.google.lv)

The original construction would be: Likās, ka viņš iet tālāk. ‘It seemed that he was going further’.

Although viņš ‘he’ is the grammatical subject of likās ‘seemed’, it does not fill any semantic role with respect to it. Instead, the theme of the predicate likās ‘seemed’ is a whole clause Viņš iet tālāk ‘He is going further’.

The participle with -am(ies)/-ām(ies) in this construction with the appearance verb:

Tas šķita esam tikai sapnis.

it seem.PST.3 be.PTCP just dream.NOM

‘It seemed to be just a dream.’ (www.korpuss.lv)

Subject-to-subject raising construction is also formed when the matrix verb is a perception verb forming the predicate with the help of the present participle in passive.

Rokgrupa bija redzama draudzīgi

rockgroup.NOM.F be.COP.PST.3 see.PTCP.PRS friendly

esam kopā uz skatuves.

be.PTCP together on scene.GEN.F

‘The rockgroup could be seen all being friendly together on the scene.’ (www.google.lv)

Both the participles can be used paralelly in the allignment, which suggests that there is no semantic difference between the both participles in raising construction.

Vaboles redzamas rāpojam

beetle.NOM.PL.F see.PTCP.PRS crawl.PTCP

pa augiem

on plant.DAT.PL.M

vai dodoties pāri ietvei.

or go.PTCP across pathway.DAT.F

‘Beetles are seen crawling the plants or crossing the pathways.’ (Uzzini)

An interesting construction can be formed if the matrix verb is represented by the reflexive verb of speaking (teikties ‘telling’, sacīties ‘saying’). In this case the subject of the matrix clause unites the two roles of the agent – the attitude to both the action saying and the action of knowing.

Viņš sacījās zinām vienu

he.NOM.M say.PST.3 know.PTCP one.ACC.F

tādu ēku Rīgā

such.ACC.F house.ACC.F Rīga.LOC.F

[ar celtniecības defektiem].

‘He was suggesting knowing at least one house of this type in Rīga [having building defects].’ (www.nra.lv)

Both participles are also used as predicatives with the verb palikt ‘to stay’, which partly gramaticalised can be seen in the function of a copula.

Vīrietis palika stāvot. man.NOM.M remain.PST.3 stand.PTCP ‘The man remained standing.’ (www.korpuss.lv) Avīze palika guļam newspaper.NOM remain.PST.3 lie.PTCP uz rakstāmgalda. on table.GEN.M ‘The newspaper remained lying on the table.’

(www.diena.lv)

The matrix clause of the participial clause can itself be non-finite: the indeclinable participle is dependent on another (usually declinable) participle.

Cilvēks, ieraudzījis nākam tramvaju,

person.NOM.M see.PTCP.PST come.PTCP tram.ACC.M

sāka skriet.

start.PST.3 run.INF

‘The person, having seen the tram, started running.’ (www.kasjauns.lv)

2. Control constructions

Participle in -ot(ies) is widely used in another type of synactic constructions, where the participle with -am(ies)/-ām(ies) is not used, namely, in the control constructions.

Control may be defined as “a coreference relation between the understood subject of a non-finite clause and some other element that provides its interpretation. This element is called its controller” (Lyngfelt 2009, 33). In other words, the control is “the phenomenon in which a verb phrase with no subject is interpreted as having some subject” (Trask 2005, 54).

The Latvian indeclinable participle un -ot(ies) is connected with the several types of controle constructions:

1) adjunct control,

2) pragmatic control,

3) arbitrary control.

In Latvian, we can most often find the indeclinable participle in -ot(ies) in the adjunct control constructions, where the controller of adverbial adjuncts and free modifiers usually has the function of the matrix subject. There are several types of control constructions.

1. The performer of the participial action is the subject of the matrix clause

(adjunct control) Ejot tumsā viņš svilpoja.

walk.PTCP dark.LOC.F he whistle.PST.3

‘He was whistling walking in the dark’ (www.korpuss.lv)

It must also be stressed that the topic of adjunct control constructions is a widely discussed issue in normative grammar of Latvian, where the above mentioned type of constructions is the only one that is considered as normative by the majority of the authors (see Lokmane 2006).

The same is said about the English language participles in -ing “ .. we could expect the unexpressed subject of the participial clause to be coreferential with that of the superordinate clause. .. Breaking this rule is considered an error, leading to the so-called unattached, dangling, hanging or misrelated participle” (Malá 2004, 72):

Having paid our bill, the waiter brought our hats

2. The performer of the participial action is present in the sentence but not as its subject (pragmatic

control)

The doer can be retrieved from the meaning of the sentence and one’s knowledge of the world:

Ir svarīgi neļaut elitei

be.PRS.3 important prevent.INF elite.DAT.F

glābt savu ādu,

save.INF own.ACC.F skin.ACC.F

novirzot sabiedrības uzmanību uz „grēkāžiem”.

divert.PTCP public.GEN.F attention.ACC.F to scapegoats.DAT.PL.M

‘It is important to prevent the elite from trying to save their skin by diverting the public’s attention to the “scapegoats” (Nedēļa)

In this sentence the agent of the participial action is the object of the matrix clause elite ‘the elite’, which the addressee can deduce from their general knowledge, although the sentence structure can suggest other candidates for the role of the agent, namely those who ‘are preventing the elite to save their skin’.

This particular ambiguity makes the grammatical constructions, where the agent of the participial clause is other than syntactic subject of the matrix clause, undesirable from the point fo view of the normative grammar (for the English grammar see Biber et. al. 2000, 829–830).

Lyngfelt (2009, 39):

“Pragmatic control is way too common and too widely accepted to be simply regarded as ungrammatical. At most, it may be considered a fault of style. The acceptability issues regarding pragmatic control are not typical in English but also concern the Scandinavian languages and, to varying degrees, presumably all languages with similar constructions.”

3. The performer of the participial action is an abstraction, anybody in general (arbitrary

control)

Arbitrary control refers to cases where there is no controller and the agent recieves a generic or arbitrary interpretation. In other words, there is no controlling referent (see Lyngfelt 2009, 34).

Braucot uz Rīgu,

drive.PTCP to Riga.ACC.F

ceļmalā top liela ēka.

roadside.LOC.F build.PST.3 big.NOM.F building. NOM.F

‘When driving to Rīga there’s a large building being built on the roadside’ (www.korpuss.lv)

Conclusions

1) None of the Latvian indeclinable participles can be used in testing subjecthood, particularly the participle in -ot(ies) as they are used in different syntactical constructions.

2) Both the indeclinable participles function in raising constructions with different lexical group matrix verbs without any semantic differences, as they can be used parallelly. Nevertheless in some cases, when the participle acts as a copula, the participle with -am(ies)/-ām(ies) is preferred.

3) The participle with -ot(ies) is often used in adjunct control constructions. The agent of the participle is mostly interpreted semantically, with the syntactic structure playing a lesser role.

4) The position in the sentence could be important in detection of the agent (for example, the closest argument is perceived as the agent of the matrix clause), this however, was not discussed in here and could be researched separately.

5) Nowadays the use of the participle in -ot(ies) in pragmatic control construction is increasing, therefore the sentences are often ambiguous. The above mentioned observation could be explained by the developmental tendencies of the Latvian language itself (e.g., the constructions with -ot(ies) are shorter and more compact than the clause constructions and many language users consider them stylistically more appropriate for the formal language), as well as the influence of other languages, (i.e. English) in slovenly translations in mass media as well as different business texts.

References 1. Ahero et al. 1959. Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika. I. Fonētika un morfoloģija. Rīga: LPSR ZA

izdevniecība. 2. Ambrazas, Vytautas. (ed.). 1996. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir eniklopediju leidykla. 3. Biber, Douglas et al. 2000. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman. 4. Endzelīns, Jānis. 1981. Latviešu valodas skaņas un formas. In: Darbu izlase IV1. Rīga: Zinātne, 303–525. 5. Keenan, Edward. L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘Subject’. In: Subjects and Topic. C. N. Li (ed.). New York

NY: Academic Press, 303–333. 6. Kroeger, Paul R. 2004. Analyzing Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 7. Latviešu valodas gramatika. Grigorjevs, J. & D. Nītiņa (eds.). Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts, 2013. 8. Lokmane, Ilze. 2006. Divdabju semantika un sintaktiskās funkcijas plašsaziņas līdzekļos. In: Letonikas pirmais

kongress. Valodniecības raksti. Rīga: LZA, 223–229. 9. Lokmane, Ilze. 2007. Datīva funkciju paplašināšanās mūsdienu latviešu valodā. In: Valoda–2007. Valoda dažādu

kultūru kontekstā XVII. Daugavpils, 272–278. 10. Lyngfelt, Benjamin. 2009. Control phenomena. In: Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics. Brisard, F. & J.-O. Östman, J.

Verschuren (eds.). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 33–49. 11. Malá, Markéta. 2004. The subject in participial adverbial clauses. In: Linguistica Pragensia. 14, Vol. 2, 2004, 72–89. 12. Matthews, Peter Hugoe. 1997. Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. 13. Paegle, Dzintra. 2003. Latviešu literārās valodas morfoloģija. Rīga: Zinātne. 14. Seržant, Ilja A. 2013. Rise of canonical subjecthood. In: The Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects. Seržant,

Ilja A. & Leonid, Kulikov (eds.). Studies in Language Companion Series. Volume 140. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 28 –310.

15. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004. Icelandic non-nominative subjects. Facts and implications. Non-nominative Subjects. Bhaskararao, Peri & K.V. Subbarao (eds.). Volume 2. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 137–159.

16. Svenonius, Peter. 2001. Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP. Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP. Svenonius, Peter (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

17. Trask, Robert Lawrence. 2005. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. London / New York: Routledge.