The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
derivational nature of the reorderings found in Czech. Furthermore, it is not clear how to model the relation between head movement and the locality restriction on G-movement in a base generation system. I take the previous discussion to have made this point sufficiently. Another point is that Czech has, aside from G-movement, structures that are at least superficially similar to clitic left dislocation structures in Romance and Greek. (22) a. Whom did Mary see drunk? b. Petra (*ho) viděla Petr.Acc him.Acc saw ‘Marie saw Petr i drunk i . Marie Marie.Nom opilého. drunk.Acc (23) Ten Petr, Marie *(ho) viděla opilého. the Petr.Nom Marie him.Acc saw drunk.Acc ‘As to the Petr i , Marie saw him i drunk i .’ As we can see in (22), in the case of G-movement, the given DP Petra is accusative and there is no occurrence of a clitic. In contrast, the same argument appears in (23) in Nominative case (default case). Accusative case is assigned to a clitic. The clitic is obligatory in this structure. 8,9 Another difference between G-movement and clitic left dislocation in Czech can be found in embedded contexts. While structures with G-movement can be freely embedded, as seen in (24), clitic left dislocation is possible only in a matrix environment, (25). (24) Maminka říkala, že Petra (*ho) viděla Marie opilého. mother.Nom said that Petr.Acc him.Acc saw Marie.Nom drunk.Acc ‘My mother said that Marie saw Petr i drunk i . (25) a. *Maminka říkala, že ten Petr, Marie *(ho) viděla opilého. mother.Nom said that the Petr.Nom Marie him.Acc saw drunk.Acc b. *Maminka říkala, ten Petr, že Marie *(ho) viděla opilého. mother.Nom said the Petr.Nom that Marie him.Acc saw drunk.Acc c. *Ten Petr, maminka říkala, že Marie *(ho) viděla opilého. the Petr.Nom mother.Nom said that Marie him.Acc saw drunk.Acc ‘As to the Petr i , my mother said that Marie saw him i drunk i .’ I suggest that the Case differences and the status of a clitic, combined with the restrictions on the embedding of clitic left dislocation structures, support the hypothesis that G-movement is indeed movement. As we have seen, Czech has other syntactic strategies that are more similar to Romance or Greek clitic left dislocation but G-movement is not one of those. 8 More details on this structure and other left dislocation strategies in Czech can be found in Sturgeon 2006. 9 It has been argued that clitic left dislocation does not always require a clitic (if the left-dislocated element is the subject or an adjunct) (Cinque, 1990). I control for this possibility by dislocating only objects. 140
A.5 Summary To conclude, we have seen that G-movement can be characterized as A-movement in the sense that the position to which element α G-moves functions as a new binding position. To support the argument, I have provided examples showing interactions between G-movement and Condition A, Condition C and Weak Cross-Over effect. In the final section, I have briefly addressed the question whether the reordering I have attributed to G-movement might be in fact base generated. 141
- 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 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: Petr’s friends.Acc saw Marie.Nom
- 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
derivational nature <strong>of</strong> the reorderings found in Czech. Furthermore, it is not clear how to<br />
model the relation between head movement and the locality restriction on G-movement in<br />
a base generation system. I take the previous discussion to have made this point sufficiently.<br />
Another point is that Czech has, aside from G-movement, structures that are at least<br />
superficially similar to clitic left dislocation structures in Romance and Greek.<br />
(22) a. Whom did Mary see drunk?<br />
b. Petra (*ho) viděla<br />
Petr.Acc him.Acc saw<br />
‘Marie saw Petr i drunk i .<br />
Marie<br />
Marie.Nom<br />
opilého.<br />
drunk.Acc<br />
(23) Ten Petr, Marie *(ho) viděla opilého.<br />
the Petr.Nom Marie him.Acc saw drunk.Acc<br />
‘As to the Petr i , Marie saw him i drunk i .’<br />
As we can see in (22), in the case <strong>of</strong> G-movement, the given DP Petra is accusative and<br />
there is no occurrence <strong>of</strong> a clitic. In contrast, the same argument appears in (23) in Nominative<br />
case (default case). Accusative case is assigned to a clitic. <strong>The</strong> clitic is obligatory<br />
in this structure. 8,9 Another difference between G-movement and clitic left dislocation in<br />
Czech can be found in embedded contexts. While structures with G-movement can be<br />
freely embedded, as seen in (24), clitic left dislocation is possible only in a matrix environment,<br />
(25).<br />
(24) Maminka říkala, že Petra (*ho) viděla Marie opilého.<br />
mother.Nom said that Petr.Acc him.Acc saw Marie.Nom drunk.Acc<br />
‘My mother said that Marie saw Petr i drunk i .<br />
(25) a. *Maminka říkala, že ten Petr, Marie *(ho) viděla opilého.<br />
mother.Nom said that the Petr.Nom Marie him.Acc saw drunk.Acc<br />
b. *Maminka říkala, ten Petr, že Marie *(ho) viděla opilého.<br />
mother.Nom said the Petr.Nom that Marie him.Acc saw drunk.Acc<br />
c. *Ten Petr, maminka říkala, že Marie *(ho) viděla opilého.<br />
the Petr.Nom mother.Nom said that Marie him.Acc saw drunk.Acc<br />
‘As to the Petr i , my mother said that Marie saw him i drunk i .’<br />
I suggest that the Case differences and the status <strong>of</strong> a clitic, combined with the restrictions<br />
on the embedding <strong>of</strong> clitic left dislocation structures, support the hypothesis that<br />
G-movement is indeed movement. As we have seen, Czech has other syntactic strategies<br />
that are more similar to Romance or Greek clitic left dislocation but G-movement is not<br />
one <strong>of</strong> those.<br />
8 More details on this structure and other left dislocation strategies in Czech can be found in Sturgeon<br />
2006.<br />
9 It has been argued that clitic left dislocation does not always require a clitic (if the left-dislocated element<br />
is the subject or an adjunct) (Cinque, 1990). I control for this possibility by dislocating only objects.<br />
140
Change language