The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
. TP object TP T-v-V vP subject vP t v−V VP t V t object The alert reader has already noticed that the derivation given above follows only if we assume that the object cannot G-move above the subject without the verb moving as well. There is nothing in the head movement restriction on G-movement that would block a derivation in which the object would move above the subject within vP. As we will see in chapter 3, there is also no problem with having more than one element preceding the verb (if all the elements are given). Why then must the verb move? I want to suggest that it is an independent property of specifiers (subjects) that nothing can be merged within XP once the subject is merged in Spec,XP. At this point I do not have any explanation of this fact but it seems to be true for Czech. (Recall that, for example, adverbs are merged between the subject and the finite verb, unlike in English.) Thus, once a subject (Spec,XP) is merged, no further element can be (re-)merged within XP. For an element to be re-merged, a new head must be merged. It follows that if α needs to be G- moved within XP, it must be done before Spec,XP is merged. Once Spec,XP is merged, α can G-move only if X moves to a higher head. 16 In this section, I have offered an explanation for the head movement restriction on G- movement. The basic idea of this condition was that two elements can be re-merged if the new merge relation preserves the feature matching set of the original merge relation. This condition has been introduced in order to account for the fact that G-movement is restricted by overt movement of its sister and that G-movement may take place after any merge. It follows that G-movement is not tied to a particular syntactic position. The only restriction is that a given element may be re-merged only in the same projection as its head. I have also addressed the question of when and where a head moves in order to facilitate G-movement. 16 I crucially assume that head movement cannot extend a phrase. For a proposal suggesting that head movement leads to phase extension see den Dikken (To Appear). 62
2.4 Summary In this chapter, I have addressed the question of what kind of movement G-movement is. In particular, I have looked closely at the following three questions: (i) what is the syntactic target of G-movement? (ii) at what point of the derivation does G-movement take place? and (iii) what kind of syntactic operation is G-movement? In section 2.1, I showed that Czech has no unique syntactic position that is always interpreted as given. In the next section, section 2.2, I provided further evidence in favor of this claim by showing that G-movement may take place after any merge. I explained these properties of G-movement by tying them to the observation that G-movement of α is restricted by the head movement possibilities of the head of α. In section 2.3, I suggested that an element α can move without a feature trigger if the new merge relation contains the feature matching set of the original merge relation and if the new structure affects the semantic interpretation. In the next chapter, I will refine the system in place by looking at more complex derivations that contain several instances of G-movement. In particular, I will look at utterances where more than one element can precede the verbal partition. I will show that these strings can be derived by several instances of movement or they can be derived by phrasal movement of a whole subtree. The combination of these two strategies will allow us to capture various word order combinations found in Czech. 63
- 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
- Page 57 and 58: poskytovat jídlo. provide food.Acc
- Page 59 and 60: a. X X X Z X X α b. X α X X X Z X
- Page 61: existing Agree relation in case it
- 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 and 110: (70) st terminating point object e,
- Page 111 and 112: c. G-operator and local G-movement:
. TP<br />
object<br />
TP<br />
T-v-V<br />
vP<br />
subject<br />
vP<br />
t v−V<br />
VP<br />
t V<br />
t object<br />
<strong>The</strong> alert reader has already noticed that the derivation given above follows only if we assume<br />
that the object cannot G-move above the subject without the verb moving as well.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is nothing in the head movement restriction on G-movement that would block a<br />
derivation in which the object would move above the subject within vP. As we will see in<br />
chapter 3, there is also no problem with having more than one element preceding the verb<br />
(if all the elements are given). Why then must the verb move?<br />
I want to suggest that it is an independent property <strong>of</strong> specifiers (subjects) that nothing<br />
can be merged within XP once the subject is merged in Spec,XP. At this point I do not have<br />
any explanation <strong>of</strong> this fact but it seems to be true for Czech. (Recall that, for example,<br />
adverbs are merged between the subject and the finite verb, unlike in English.) Thus, once<br />
a subject (Spec,XP) is merged, no further element can be (re-)merged within XP. For an<br />
element to be re-merged, a new head must be merged. It follows that if α needs to be G-<br />
moved within XP, it must be done before Spec,XP is merged. Once Spec,XP is merged, α<br />
can G-move only if X moves to a higher head. 16<br />
In this section, I have <strong>of</strong>fered an explanation for the head movement restriction on G-<br />
movement. <strong>The</strong> basic idea <strong>of</strong> this condition was that two elements can be re-merged if the<br />
new merge relation preserves the feature matching set <strong>of</strong> the original merge relation. This<br />
condition has been introduced in order to account for the fact that G-movement is restricted<br />
by overt movement <strong>of</strong> its sister and that G-movement may take place after any merge. It<br />
follows that G-movement is not tied to a particular syntactic position. <strong>The</strong> only restriction<br />
is that a given element may be re-merged only in the same projection as its head. I have also<br />
addressed the question <strong>of</strong> when and where a head moves in order to facilitate G-movement.<br />
16 I crucially assume that head movement cannot extend a phrase. For a proposal suggesting that head<br />
movement leads to phase extension see den Dikken (To Appear).<br />
62
Change language