The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
There is, however, one problem with the system in place. It is not clear how we can guarantee that the operator within a DP coordination does not mark the predicate the coordination combines with as presupposed. Everything depends on the semantic type we assume for a DP coordination. If we assume that a DP coordination is a generalized quantifier, then the G-operator would necessarily over-generate. On the other hand, if we assume that such a coordination is of type e, the operator cannot apply to the first conjunct because it is not defined for atomic semantic types. I suggest that the problem is avoided if we treat a DP coordination as a boolean coordination, i.e., a sum of individuals. I leave, however, the actual implementation for future research. In contrast to a DP coordination, a verbal coordination may be propositional. If this is the case, then there is no problem with adjoining the G-operator below the first conjunct. But can we safely assume that all relevant VP coordinations correspond to a proposition? Let’s consider again the example (1), repeated below as (94). (93) Many of my friends have recently decided to change their lifestyle. . . a. Tak jedna moje kamarádka bude víc číst. ←− context so one my friend will more read ‘For example, a friend of mine will read more.’ (94) A její přítel bude číst a překládat. and her friend will read and translate ‘And her boyfriend will read and translate.’ This case is straightforward because we know independently that the future tense auxiliary bude ‘will’ selects for a proposition. 17 The question is whether the same is true for other types of verbal coordinations. The most suspicious case is a coordination which is not selected by a tense auxiliary. (95) Many of my friends changed their lifestyle several years ago. . . a. Tak jedna moje kamarádka víc četla. ←− context so one my friend more read ‘For example, a friend of mine read more.’ (96) A její přítel četl a překládal. and her friend read and translated ‘And her boyfriend read and translated.’ Even though the examples in (94) and (96) look parallel, they are not. There is a difference in their interpretation. The coordination of the future infinitives does not impose any requirement on the implicit object of reading and translating. In contrast, the past tense coordination requires the implicit objects to be identical. We can see the contrast on a possible continuation of the discourse in (94), given in (97), and the continuation of the discourse in (96), given in (98). While it is felicitous to say that he will read something different than he will translate, it is odd to say that he read something different than he translated. 17 I put aside the option that the coordination is a coordination of something bigger than VP, i.e., a structure which originally contained the auxiliary. 118
(97) a. And what will he read and translate? b. Bude číst detektivky a překládat romány. will-he read detective mysteries and translate novels ‘He will read detective mysteries and translate novels.’ (98) a. And what did he read and translate? b. #Četl detektivky a překládal romány. read detective mysteries and translated novels ‘He read detective mysteries and translated novels.’ I do not know at this point how to account for the difference between past and future. Intuitively, the past form of ‘read’ is not given in the same sense as the future form of ‘read’. There is something about the shared object that seems to make a difference for givenness. My hope is that these cases contain coordination reduction and the contrast between implicit objects in past and in future is related to a structural difference. I leave the question of differences among VP coordinations as a puzzle for future research. For now, let’s assume that verbal coordinations are of different types and that it is possible to reduce all relevant verbal coordinations to propositional domains. We can conclude that the G-operator can always be adjoined below the first verbal conjunct without leading to Presupposition failure. Notice that we have shifted our reasoning that the difference between nominal and verbal coordination is related to existence or non-existence of a pronominal counterpart. The existence of a pronominal counterpart is relevant only in an indirect way. The reason why a verbal coordination asymmetrically c-commanded by new material is felicitous is not that there is no better tool to mark givenness. The reason is that such a coordination is a propositional domain. Thus, the G-operator can be safely inserted. The situation with coordinated DPs is rather different. There is no way to insert the G-operator without Presupposition failure. Thus, invoking givenness lexically is the only grammatically suitable option the language has. What about adverbs? Recall that adverbs are sensitive to ordering within a coordination but they do not need to be pronominalized even if there is a pronominal counterpart available. I argue that adverbs can always be adjoined at a propositional level. Thus, an adverbial coordination is always located on the left edge of a propositional domain. Therefore, inserting a G-operator below the first conjunct is always felicitous. There is one problem remaining: we have defined the reference set as a set containing derivations based on the same numeration and the same assertion. Presumably, DPs and their pronominal counterparts are not part of the same numeration. Even though there might be a more principal solution of the problem, for now I will stipulate that pronouns may be part of the reference set as well. 18 18 One option would be to treat pronouns as DP ellipsis, as has been suggested in Postal (1966) and further developed in Elbourne (2005). 119
- 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 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: There is simply no way the G-operat
- 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
<strong>The</strong>re is, however, one problem with the system in place. It is not clear how we can<br />
guarantee that the operator within a DP coordination does not mark the predicate the coordination<br />
combines with as presupposed. Everything depends on the semantic type we<br />
assume for a DP coordination. If we assume that a DP coordination is a generalized quantifier,<br />
then the G-operator would necessarily over-generate. On the other hand, if we assume<br />
that such a coordination is <strong>of</strong> type e, the operator cannot apply to the first conjunct because<br />
it is not defined for atomic semantic types. I suggest that the problem is avoided if we treat<br />
a DP coordination as a boolean coordination, i.e., a sum <strong>of</strong> individuals. I leave, however,<br />
the actual implementation for future research.<br />
In contrast to a DP coordination, a verbal coordination may be propositional. If this is<br />
the case, then there is no problem with adjoining the G-operator below the first conjunct.<br />
But can we safely assume that all relevant VP coordinations correspond to a proposition?<br />
Let’s consider again the example (1), repeated below as (94).<br />
(93) Many <strong>of</strong> my friends have recently decided to change their lifestyle. . .<br />
a. Tak jedna moje kamarádka bude víc číst. ←− context<br />
so one my friend will more read<br />
‘For example, a friend <strong>of</strong> mine will read more.’<br />
(94) A její přítel bude číst a překládat.<br />
and her friend will read and translate<br />
‘And her boyfriend will read and translate.’<br />
This case is straightforward because we know independently that the future tense auxiliary<br />
bude ‘will’ selects for a proposition. 17 <strong>The</strong> question is whether the same is true for other<br />
types <strong>of</strong> verbal coordinations. <strong>The</strong> most suspicious case is a coordination which is not<br />
selected by a tense auxiliary.<br />
(95) Many <strong>of</strong> my friends changed their lifestyle several years ago. . .<br />
a. Tak jedna moje kamarádka víc četla. ←− context<br />
so one my friend more read<br />
‘For example, a friend <strong>of</strong> mine read more.’<br />
(96) A její přítel četl a překládal.<br />
and her friend read and translated<br />
‘And her boyfriend read and translated.’<br />
Even though the examples in (94) and (96) look parallel, they are not. <strong>The</strong>re is a difference<br />
in their interpretation. <strong>The</strong> coordination <strong>of</strong> the future infinitives does not impose any<br />
requirement on the implicit object <strong>of</strong> reading and translating. In contrast, the past tense coordination<br />
requires the implicit objects to be identical. We can see the contrast on a possible<br />
continuation <strong>of</strong> the discourse in (94), given in (97), and the continuation <strong>of</strong> the discourse in<br />
(96), given in (98). While it is felicitous to say that he will read something different than<br />
he will translate, it is odd to say that he read something different than he translated.<br />
17 I put aside the option that the coordination is a coordination <strong>of</strong> something bigger than VP, i.e., a structure<br />
which originally contained the auxiliary.<br />
118
Change language