The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
d. TP Petr G v-V TP Subject vP t Petr vP v-V vP VP t Petr t V ̌G VP t Petr Thus, we can strengthen our previous claim in that there is no direct relation between being given or new and undergoing G-movement. Syntactic G-movement is free movement. It is only up to the semantic module to decide whether such movement is licensed or not. We are now in a position to understand why certain derivations cannot be improved by moving a phrase containing both given and new elements. Consider again example (14) from chapter 3, repeated below as (55). (55) a. What will happen to the book? b. Marie bude tu knihu dávat Petrovi. Marie.Nom will the book.Acc give.Inf Petr.Dat ‘Marie will give the book to Peter.’ The question is why the whole VP cannot move as in (56). In such a derivation, no new element would asymmetrically c-command ‘book’. Thus, the partition between given and new would be perfect. (56) a. What will happen to the book? b. #[Tu knihu || dávat Petrovi] bude Marie. the book.Acc give.Inf Petr.Dat will Marie.Nom ‘Marie will give the book to Peter.’ 104
c. TP VP book give to-Peter t book will TP vP Marie t V P But we already know that the perfect partition is irrelevant here. The reason is that the only place where the G-operator may be inserted is between ‘book’ and ‘give’, as in (57). Any other position would lead to Presupposition failure. The position is, however, already available after the object G-moves within VP. Moving the whole DP does not bring in any interpretation that would not already be available after the first instance of G-movement. Therefore, G-movement of the whole VP is not licensed. (57) TP VP book G give to-Peter t book will TP vP Marie t V P The same reasoning accounts also for the assumption that a constituent containing several given elements may G-move only if it contains only given elements. If there were any new element, a G-operator would have to be inserted within the moving constituent, i.e., in the position in which it would have been inserted if the whole constituent did not undergo G- movement at all. Let’s summarize where we stand. We have an operator that can motivate given elements to be located in the left edge of its propositional domain and we know informally how the distribution of the operator can be regulated by the Maximize presupposition maxim. The open question is what happens if there is more than one propositional domain per finite clause. The prediction is clear. In principle, any propositional domain might have its own G-operator in the same way as it can have an independent linear partition between given and new. Consider the example in (58). (58) Marie bude knihy prodávat Marie will books sell ‘Marie will sell the books.’ . 105
- Page 53 and 54: vP Marie vP yesterday vP gave VP qu
- Page 55 and 56: list reading. No such requirement e
- Page 57 and 58: poskytovat jídlo. provide food.Acc
- Page 59 and 60: a. X X X Z X X α b. X α X X X Z X
- Page 61 and 62: existing Agree relation in case it
- Page 63 and 64: 2.4 Summary In this chapter, I have
- Page 65 and 66: 3.1 Deriving the verb partition In
- Page 67 and 68: We will see in the next section how
- Page 69 and 70: e. vP subject vP DO vP v VP v V DO
- Page 71 and 72: If more than one given element may
- Page 73 and 74: c. TP VP book give to-Peter t book
- Page 75 and 76: (20) a. Marie otevřela zase dveře
- Page 77 and 78: cause she was interrupted by her mo
- Page 79 and 80: . TP T-v-V vP Marie vP again vP t v
- Page 81 and 82: move again, (38-b). When the given
- Page 83 and 84: Since the subject is new, the deriv
- Page 85 and 86: stituent containing several given e
- Page 87 and 88: 4.1 Where we stand In the previous
- Page 89 and 90: differently. As we have seen in (2)
- Page 91 and 92: on the semantic component, more pre
- Page 93 and 94: 4.2 Marking givenness by an operato
- Page 95 and 96: a. What happens with all the money
- Page 97 and 98: ‘Martin was loved again.’ The c
- Page 99 and 100: Furthermore, I assume that if there
- Page 101 and 102: lexical head. In a way, we want the
- Page 103: (54) a. VP Petr VP V t Petr b. vP P
- Page 107 and 108: In the same way that there can be t
- Page 109 and 110: (70) st terminating point object e,
- Page 111 and 112: c. G-operator and local G-movement:
- Page 113 and 114: Mary managed chair G to-burn d. G-o
- Page 115 and 116: well. Recall that there are two rel
- Page 117 and 118: There is simply no way the G-operat
- Page 119 and 120: (97) a. And what will he read and t
- Page 121 and 122: In this case, the given part is ‘
- Page 123 and 124: To sum up, we now have in place a f
- Page 125 and 126: Generic indefinites behave slightly
- Page 127 and 128: . #Porsche má kamarád mojí ženy
- Page 129 and 130: The position of the sentential stre
- Page 131 and 132: is whether English givenness is rea
- Page 133 and 134: Appendix A G-movement is A-movement
- Page 135 and 136: . Svoji kočku má ráda Marie. her
- Page 137 and 138: with movement of a pronoun over a c
- Page 139 and 140: Petr’s friends.Acc saw Marie.Nom
- Page 141 and 142: A.5 Summary To conclude, we have se
- Page 143 and 144: Biskup, Petr. In preparation. The p
- Page 145 and 146: Dotlačil, Jakub. 2004. The syntax
- Page 147 and 148: Junghanns, Uwe. 1999. Generative Be
- Page 149 and 150: Neeleman, Ad, and Tanya Reinhart. 1
- Page 151 and 152: Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1995. Sentenc
- Page 153: Zikánová, Šárka. 2006. Slovosle
d. TP<br />
Petr<br />
G<br />
v-V<br />
TP<br />
Subject<br />
vP<br />
t Petr<br />
vP<br />
v-V<br />
vP<br />
VP<br />
t Petr<br />
t V<br />
̌G<br />
VP<br />
t Petr<br />
Thus, we can strengthen our previous claim in that there is no direct relation between being<br />
given or new and undergoing G-movement. Syntactic G-movement is free movement. It is<br />
only up to the semantic module to decide whether such movement is licensed or not.<br />
We are now in a position to understand why certain derivations cannot be improved by<br />
moving a phrase containing both given and new elements. Consider again example (14)<br />
from chapter 3, repeated below as (55).<br />
(55) a. What will happen to the book?<br />
b. Marie bude tu knihu dávat Petrovi.<br />
Marie.Nom will the book.Acc give.Inf Petr.Dat<br />
‘Marie will give the book to Peter.’<br />
<strong>The</strong> question is why the whole VP cannot move as in (56). In such a derivation, no new<br />
element would asymmetrically c-command ‘book’. Thus, the partition between given and<br />
new would be perfect.<br />
(56) a. What will happen to the book?<br />
b. #[Tu knihu || dávat Petrovi] bude Marie.<br />
the book.Acc give.Inf Petr.Dat will Marie.Nom<br />
‘Marie will give the book to Peter.’<br />
104
Change language