The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
Chapter 1 To Be Given Consider the Czech sentences in (1). 1,2 (1) a. SVO: Chlapec našel lízátko. boy.Nom found lollipop.Acc b. OVS: Lízátko našel chlapec. lollipop.Acc found boy.Nom c. SOV: Chlapec lízátko NAŠEL. boy.Nom lollipop.Acc found d. OSV: LÍZÁtko chlapec našel. lollipop.Acc boy.Nom found The sentences in (1) describe a similar situation. In each of them the speaker asserts that there was a time interval in the past such that an event of finding took place in that interval. Furthermore, we learn that the event of finding had two participants (a finder and a findee) and we also learn who these participants were (some boy and a lollipop). The sentences in (1) nevertherless differ in their meaning and in the set of contexts in which they are felicitous. To see this, let’s first concentrate on the first two orders, i.e., the SVO and the OVS orders. Corresponding English translations of the Czech sentences are given in (2). 3 1 Capital letters here and throughout the text stand for a contrastively stressed syllable. 2 The four combinations given in (1) are the only combinations that can be used as declarative clauses. The remaining permutations, given in (i) and (ii), are grammatical but only as questions. The following chapters will deal with declarative clauses only. (i) (ii) VSO: Našel chlapec lízátko? found boy.Nom lollipop.Acc ‘Did the boy found the lollipop?’ VOS: Našel lízátko chlapec? found lollipop.Acc boy.Nom ‘Was it the lollipop what the boy found?’ 3 The hash sign # stands for an utterance that is not felicitous in the given context. In this particular case, it stands for an infelicitous translation. 6
(2) a. SVO: Chlapec našel lízátko. boy.Nom found lollipop.Acc (i) ‘A boy found a lollipop.’ (ii) ‘The boy found a lollipop.’ (iii) ‘The boy found the lollipop.’ (iv) #‘A boy found the lollipop.’ b. OVS: Lízátko našel chlapec. lollipop.Acc found boy.Nom ‘A boy found the lollipop.’ As we can see in (2-a), the SVO order in Czech is compatible with several different interpretations. The very same Czech string can correspond (i) to a situation where neither a boy, nor a lollipop are given, in the sense that there is no referent determined by the previous context, i.e., the existence of the referent has not been asserted yet; (ii) to a situation where only a boy has been previously determined by the context; or (iii) to a situation where both the boy and the lollipop have a unique referent but they have not been introduced by the previous context. Crucially, however, the SVO order is not felicitous in a situation in which only the lollipop has been introduced by the previous context, (iv). To achieve the missing interpretation, i.e., the interpretation in which only the object has been determined by the previous context, the word order must be OVS, as in (2-b), translated as ‘A boy found the lollipop.’. What is the nature of the reordering? Notice that in order to capture the intuition about meaning differences corresponding to different word orders, I used indefinite and definite articles. Since Czech does not have any overt morphological marking of definiteness – with the exception of demonstrative and deictic pronouns – we could understand the different word orders as a strategy to achieve the same interpretation that English can achieve by using overt determiners. This would be, however, a simplification. The object in the OVS order does not need to correspond to a definite description. It is enough that it has been introduced in the previous discourse, as in (3). 4 (3) a. We left some cookies and lollipops in the garden for the kids. Who found a lollipop? b. Lízátko našla Maruška a Janička. lollipop.Acc found Maruška and Janička ‘Little Mary and little Jane found a lollipop.’ 4 The reordering observed in (2-a) and (2-b) might remind the reader of the Mapping Hypothesis of Diesing 1992 or of a more general discussion of specificity as in Enç 1991; van Geenhoven 1998; Farkas 2002, among many others. One might think that for a DP to become specific (whatever it means) such a DP must move to (or it must be base-generated in) a certain syntactic position. As we will see shortly, not only referential, but also predicational or propositional elements can be introduced in a discourse in the same way as the object in (2-b). I do not know at this point whether there is any connection between specificity and the data discussed here. In general, I will ignore possible relations between quantification and information structure here. 7
- Page 1 and 2: The Syntax of Givenness by Ivona Ku
- Page 3 and 4: Acknowledgments Two things were dif
- Page 5: A.4 A note on base generation . . .
- Page 9 and 10: accent on the auxiliary did in (4-a
- Page 11 and 12: Pitch (Hz) 500 400 300 200 100 0 ch
- Page 13 and 14: (6) Petr řídil včera rychle auto
- Page 15 and 16: phrases are required to undergo G-m
- Page 17 and 18: . A entails (α,U) where (α,U) is
- Page 19 and 20: (23) What can be understood as new?
- Page 21 and 22: (28) Derivation of [Subject]-G verb
- Page 23 and 24: functionalist tradition there has b
- Page 25 and 26: c. ?P v-V vP Subject vP v-V VP V Ob
- Page 27 and 28: (40) What happened to the antique c
- Page 29 and 30: movement is possible. (47) a. Why d
- Page 31 and 32: TP Aux vP money vP gave VP t money
- Page 33 and 34: TP Aux TP T vP t Aux VP money VP gi
- Page 35 and 36: c. #Jeho viděla Marie na nádraž
- Page 37 and 38: (63) a. #Diskuse proběhla bez věd
- Page 39 and 40: (70) a. #Žáky a učitelku to pře
- Page 41 and 42: Chapter 2 G-movement In chapter 1,
- Page 43 and 44: asic word order cases we expect wor
- Page 45 and 46: (9) a. What happened? b. #[Vlak př
- Page 47 and 48: . ?P DO vP subject vP v VP V VP IO
- Page 49 and 50: . vP subject vP v VP V ?P DO VP IO
- Page 51 and 52: . Marie [ vP včera dala [ V P rych
- Page 53 and 54: vP Marie vP yesterday vP gave VP qu
- Page 55 and 56: list reading. No such requirement e
Chapter 1<br />
To Be Given<br />
Consider the Czech sentences in (1). 1,2<br />
(1) a. SVO: Chlapec našel lízátko.<br />
boy.Nom found lollipop.Acc<br />
b. OVS: Lízátko našel chlapec.<br />
lollipop.Acc found boy.Nom<br />
c. SOV: Chlapec lízátko NAŠEL.<br />
boy.Nom lollipop.Acc found<br />
d. OSV: LÍZÁtko chlapec našel.<br />
lollipop.Acc boy.Nom found<br />
<strong>The</strong> sentences in (1) describe a similar situation. In each <strong>of</strong> them the speaker asserts that<br />
there was a time interval in the past such that an event <strong>of</strong> finding took place in that interval.<br />
Furthermore, we learn that the event <strong>of</strong> finding had two participants (a finder and a findee)<br />
and we also learn who these participants were (some boy and a lollipop). <strong>The</strong> sentences in<br />
(1) nevertherless differ in their meaning and in the set <strong>of</strong> contexts in which they are felicitous.<br />
To see this, let’s first concentrate on the first two orders, i.e., the SVO and the OVS<br />
orders. Corresponding English translations <strong>of</strong> the Czech sentences are given in (2). 3<br />
1 Capital letters here and throughout the text stand for a contrastively stressed syllable.<br />
2 <strong>The</strong> four combinations given in (1) are the only combinations that can be used as declarative clauses. <strong>The</strong><br />
remaining permutations, given in (i) and (ii), are grammatical but only as questions. <strong>The</strong> following chapters<br />
will deal with declarative clauses only.<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
VSO: Našel chlapec lízátko?<br />
found boy.Nom lollipop.Acc<br />
‘Did the boy found the lollipop?’<br />
VOS: Našel lízátko chlapec?<br />
found lollipop.Acc boy.Nom<br />
‘Was it the lollipop what the boy found?’<br />
3 <strong>The</strong> hash sign # stands for an utterance that is not felicitous in the given context. In this particular case,<br />
it stands for an infelicitous translation.<br />
6
Change language