{"title":"Wh+To Non-Restrictive Clauses in Polish and Related Phenomena. Part One. Wh vs. Wh-to Relative Clauses: An Overview","authors":"J. Linde-Usiekniewicz","doi":"10.4467/23005920spl.19.015.11080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1 Abstract This paper presents a comparison between to -bearing relative clauses, adverbials and interrogatives on the one hand, vs. their to -less variants on the other, and discusses the functions associated with the presence of to. It is argued that at least three different instances of to should be distinguished. One converts relative clauses into appositive ones, which are necessarily semantically connected to the matrix clause and it makes the semantic connec-tion override even apparent lack of appropriate syntactic connection. It attaches to relativizers, including gdzie ‘where’ and kiedy ‘when’ relative clauses. It is argued that the same segment is present in adverbials, triggering a factitive presupposition, as is the case of appositive relatives generally. The second to links the content of a kind relative, an adverbial or a wh -interrogative to previous contexts, possibly triggering a pragmatic presupposition. The third converts standard wh -interrogatives into either rhetorical or thetic questions. It is argued that while in the third instance we are dealing with a separate word and in the second with a clitic, the first to , hitherto unidentified or possibly falsely identified in relevant literature, appears to have both some characteristics of a clitic and of an","PeriodicalId":37336,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Polish Linguistics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Polish Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920spl.19.015.11080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
1 Abstract This paper presents a comparison between to -bearing relative clauses, adverbials and interrogatives on the one hand, vs. their to -less variants on the other, and discusses the functions associated with the presence of to. It is argued that at least three different instances of to should be distinguished. One converts relative clauses into appositive ones, which are necessarily semantically connected to the matrix clause and it makes the semantic connec-tion override even apparent lack of appropriate syntactic connection. It attaches to relativizers, including gdzie ‘where’ and kiedy ‘when’ relative clauses. It is argued that the same segment is present in adverbials, triggering a factitive presupposition, as is the case of appositive relatives generally. The second to links the content of a kind relative, an adverbial or a wh -interrogative to previous contexts, possibly triggering a pragmatic presupposition. The third converts standard wh -interrogatives into either rhetorical or thetic questions. It is argued that while in the third instance we are dealing with a separate word and in the second with a clitic, the first to , hitherto unidentified or possibly falsely identified in relevant literature, appears to have both some characteristics of a clitic and of an
摘要本文比较了带to的关系分句、状语和疑问句与不带to的关系分句的区别,并讨论了带to的关系分句的功能。有人认为,至少应该区分三种不同的to的实例。一是将关系子句转化为同位子句,而同位子句与矩阵子句之间必然存在语义联系,甚至使语义联系凌驾于明显缺乏适当句法联系的关系之上。它附属于相对从句,包括gdzie ' where '和kiedy ' when '关系从句。有人认为,同样的片段出现在状语中,引发一个主动的预设,就像一般的同位语亲属的情况一样。第二个to将一类关系词、状语或疑问句的内容与前面的上下文联系起来,可能引发语用预设。第三种是将标准疑问句转化为修辞问句或修辞问句。有人认为,在第三种情况下,我们处理的是一个单独的词,而在第二种情况下,我们处理的是一个修饰语,而第一个to,迄今为止在相关文献中尚未确定或可能被错误地确定,似乎同时具有修饰语和an的某些特征