The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
derivations are syntactically well-formed. Such a condition is not strictly speaking a part of the evaluation component, but it is a necessary precondition for a derivation to be considered for evaluation. The reason why the constraint belongs here, however, is that licensing of G-movement happens only at the interface. (72) SYNTAX: the reference set may contain only grammatically well-formed structures Then we need to guarantee that the relevant presupposition would be maximized. This requirement consists of the interaction of two separate requirements: (i) mark everything given as presupposed (make sure that each given element would give rise to the desired presupposition), and (ii) avoid marking new elements as presupposed (avoid Presupposition failure). I will call this constraint INTERPRETATION. (73) INTERPRETATION: a. a given element must be marked as presupposed (either lexically or by a G- operator) [≈ Maximize Presupposition] b. a new element cannot be marked as presupposed [≈ Presupposition Failure] We are now in a position to evaluate the system in place and see whether it can account for the facts we have considered so far. Let’s start with a simple case of a ditransitive construction in which everything is given except for the indirect object. Since in Czech a direct object follows an indirect object, it is enough if the direct object moves above the indirect object. The desired interpretation is given in (74). The boxes correspond to elements that we want to be interpreted as given; the structure is presented in the basic Czech word order. The relevant reference set is given in (75). I list here and in the following examples only a few candidates that are most relevant for the evaluation. The first candidate is a derivation in which no G-movement takes place and no G-operator is inserted, (75-a). The second candidate is a derivation with a G-operator inserted above the indirect object but with no G-movement, (75-b). The third candidate is a derivation with local G-movement of the indirect object and a G-operator adjoined immediately below the moved object, (75-c). The last candidate differs from the previous candidate in that G-movement is not local, but instead the movement is cyclic and crosses several given elements, (75-d). (74) Desired interpretation: Peter gave to-Mary book . ‘Peter gave the book to Mary.’ (75) Reference set of (74): a. No G-operator and no movement: Peter gave to-Mary book b. G-operator and no movement: Peter gave G to-Mary book theoretic system. I am using the notion of constraints as a technical tool for explicit evaluation of derivations. In the end of the day we will see that for a structure to be felicitous in the relevant context no constraint may be violated. 110
c. G-operator and local G-movement: Peter gave book G to-Mary d. G-operator and non-local G-movement: book gave Peter G to-Mary The evaluation of the reference set is schematized in (76). As we can see, the derivation without movement or any G-operator is syntactically well formed, but it fails with respect to the Maximize presupposition maxim (nothing is marked as presupposed). Similarly, the second candidate fails with respect to the maxim. Even though, this time, two given elements are correctly marked by the operator, there is one given element – the direct object – which remains unmarked. The third candidate, on the other hand, satisfies both the syntactic requirements as well as the pragmatic requirements. All given elements are marked and the syntax is well formed. The last candidate does well with respect to the interpretation but the syntax is not well-formed. The reason is that the derivation contains two instances of G-movement that cannot be licensed. As we can see by comparison with the candidate in (75-c), the desired interpretation is obtained without any additional movement. Since G-movement does not come for free, the candidate in (75-d) loses in comparison with the candidate in (75-c). (76) Evaluation of the reference set of (74): Reference set SYNTAX INTERPRETATION a. ̌ fails b. ̌ fails c. ̌ ̌ d. fails ̌ Let’s now consider a minimally different structure in which it is only the direct object which is given. All other elements are new in the discourse. The relevant reference set is given in (78). The candidates are the same as in the previous case, (74). There is a candidate without G-movement and without any G-operator, (78-a), a candidate without G-movement and with a G-operator, (78-b), a candidate with local G-movement and a G- operator, (78-c), and finally a candidate with cyclic G-movement and a G-operator, (78-d). Again, only a few relevant candidates are considered. (77) Desired interpretation: Peter gave to-Mary book . ‘Peter gave the book to Mary.’ (78) Reference set of (77): a. No G-operator and no movement: Peter gave to-Mary book b. G-operator and no movement: 111
- 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 and 104: (54) a. VP Petr VP V t Petr b. vP P
- Page 105 and 106: c. TP VP book give to-Peter t book
- Page 107 and 108: In the same way that there can be t
- Page 109: (70) st terminating point object e,
- 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
c. G-operator and local G-movement:<br />
Peter gave book G to-Mary<br />
d. G-operator and non-local G-movement:<br />
book gave Peter G to-Mary<br />
<strong>The</strong> evaluation <strong>of</strong> the reference set is schematized in (76). As we can see, the derivation<br />
without movement or any G-operator is syntactically well formed, but it fails with respect<br />
to the Maximize presupposition maxim (nothing is marked as presupposed). Similarly, the<br />
second candidate fails with respect to the maxim. Even though, this time, two given elements<br />
are correctly marked by the operator, there is one given element – the direct object –<br />
which remains unmarked. <strong>The</strong> third candidate, on the other hand, satisfies both the syntactic<br />
requirements as well as the pragmatic requirements. All given elements are marked and<br />
the syntax is well formed. <strong>The</strong> last candidate does well with respect to the interpretation<br />
but the syntax is not well-formed. <strong>The</strong> reason is that the derivation contains two instances<br />
<strong>of</strong> G-movement that cannot be licensed. As we can see by comparison with the candidate<br />
in (75-c), the desired interpretation is obtained without any additional movement. Since<br />
G-movement does not come for free, the candidate in (75-d) loses in comparison with the<br />
candidate in (75-c).<br />
(76) Evaluation <strong>of</strong> the reference set <strong>of</strong> (74):<br />
Reference set SYNTAX INTERPRETATION<br />
a. ̌ fails<br />
b. ̌ fails<br />
c. ̌ ̌<br />
d. fails ̌<br />
Let’s now consider a minimally different structure in which it is only the direct object<br />
which is given. All other elements are new in the discourse. <strong>The</strong> relevant reference set<br />
is given in (78). <strong>The</strong> candidates are the same as in the previous case, (74). <strong>The</strong>re is a<br />
candidate without G-movement and without any G-operator, (78-a), a candidate without<br />
G-movement and with a G-operator, (78-b), a candidate with local G-movement and a G-<br />
operator, (78-c), and finally a candidate with cyclic G-movement and a G-operator, (78-d).<br />
Again, only a few relevant candidates are considered.<br />
(77) Desired interpretation:<br />
Peter gave to-Mary book .<br />
‘Peter gave the book to Mary.’<br />
(78) Reference set <strong>of</strong> (77):<br />
a. No G-operator and no movement:<br />
Peter gave to-Mary book<br />
b. G-operator and no movement:<br />
111
Change language