The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová

Notice that there is no optionality in the word order of given elements in a sentence
with a particular meaning. Thus, we need to have a restrictive syntactic system that would
account for the word order. I argue that given elements undergo a special kind of movement
that I will call G-movement. The rules governing G-movement are given in (11). Further
restrictions on G-movement are stated in (12).
(11) G-Movement [version 1]
G-movement must take place
a. iff α G is asymmetrically c-commanded by a non-G element,
b. unless the movement is independently blocked.
(12) Restrictions on G-movement:
G-movement is restricted as follows:
a. α G moves to the closest position X, such that no non-G element asymmetrically
c-commands α G .
b. If α is XP, then α moves to an XP position.
c. If α is a head, then α moves to an X 0 position.
(13) Closeness: (after Rizzi (1990))
X is the closest to Y only if there is no Z such that Z c-commands Y and does not
c-command X.
Following Reinhart 1997, 2006; Fox 1995, 2000, I argue that G-movement is a syntactic
operation that takes place only if it affects one or both of the interfaces. In particular, I
argue that G-movement must have semantic import. In other words, the grammar I argue
for is restricted by economy in that it allows only syntactic operations that lead to a
distinct semantic interpretation. Notice that if there is no non-G element asymmetrically
c-commanding α G the closest position that satisfies the requirement on G-movement is the
position of α G itself. Thus, if there is no structurally higher new element, α G does not
move.
The definition of G-movement implies that an element does not enter the computation
marked as given but it is only the result of the computation that the element is interpreted as
such. As we will see in 1.5, this property is crucially connected to the fact that G-movement
is a last resort operation.
Furthermore, (11) crucially relies on the notion of asymmetrical c-command (Kayne,
1994) 11 and it does not distinguish heads from phrases, in the sense that both heads and
11 The relevant definitions are given below:
(i) X asymmetrically c-commands Y iff X c-commands Y and Y does not c-command X. (Kayne, 1994,
p. 4, (2))
(ii)
X c-commands Y iff X and Y are categories and X excludes Y and every category that dominates X
dominates Y. (Kayne, 1994, p. 16, (3))
(iii) In the sense of Chomsky 1986, p. 9: X excludes Y if no segment of X dominates Y. (Kayne, 1994, p.
133, ftn.1)
14