The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
d. vP subject vP VP vP IO DO t V t DO v-V t V P VP VP t V t V P There is, however, a worry that arises about the proposed derivation: If a remnant phrase may undergo G-movement, why can remnant movement not improve a derivation in which a given element ends up c-commanded by a new element because of the head movement constraint? 5 Consider example (16) from section 1.4, repeated below as (14). In this example, the object ‘that book’ is asymmetrically c-commanded by two given elements. Further G-movement of the object is, however, blocked by the head movement constraint. One could imagine a derivation in which the whole VP would move after the direct object undergoes short G-movement, as in (15). If such movement took place, the given object would not be asymmetrically c-commanded by any new element anymore. Thus, the partition between given and new would be perfect. Notice that the constituent that would undergo G-movement is a complement of the verbal head. Since complements may in general undergo movement, the derivation would be compatible with our assumptions about the Czech syntax and about G-movement. (14) a. What will happen to the book? b. Marie bude tu knihu dávat Petrovi. Marie.Nom will the book.Acc give.Inf Petr.Dat ‘Marie will give the book to Peter.’ (15) a. What will happen to the book? b. #[Tu knihu || dávat Petrovi] bude Marie. the book.Acc give.Inf Petr.Dat will Marie.Nom ‘Marie will give the book to Peter.’ 5 I thank Danny Fox for raising up this question. 72
c. TP VP book give to-Peter t book will TP vP Marie t V P There is currently nothing in our system that would rule out the derivation in (15). In chapter 4, I will argue that such movement would not be licensed by the semantic component. As we will see, G-movement is licensed only if it brings in a semantic interpretation that would not otherwise be available. It will follow from our semantic system that movement of VP would not give rise to any semantic interpretation that could not be obtained from the structure without the VP movement. Before I turn to structures where several given elements cannot G-move as one constituent, I want to present two more cases in which G-movement of one constituent dominating more than one given element is attested. As we have already seen, in Czech, inflected verbal forms undergo obligatory movement to v, while an infinitive stays in situ. This difference is reflected in the word order of ditransitive sentences in case only the subject is new and everything else is given. Consider the examples in (16) and (17). While in the future tense, the main verb stays inside VP, in the past tense, the main verb evacuates VP. The result is that if the VP containing both objects undergoes G-movement in the future tense example, the objects move together with the infinitive. In contrast, in the case of the past tense, it is only the remnant VP that undergoes G-movement. The corresponding structures are given in (18) and (19). (16) Future: (17) Past: a. Kdo bude dávat Fíkovi who.Nom will give.Inf Fík.Dat ‘Who will give Fík presents?’ b. Dávat Fíkovi dárky give.Inf Fík.Dat presents.Acc ‘Ája will give Fík presents.’ dárky? −→ Inf ≻ IO ≻ DO presents.Acc bude will || Ája. Ája −→ Inf ≻ IO ≻ DO a. Kdo dával Fíkovi dárky? −→ IO ≻ DO who.Nom gave Fík.Dat presents.Acc ‘Who used to give Fík presents.’ b. Fíkovi dárky dávala || Ája. −→ IO ≻ DO Fík.Dat presents.Acc gave Ája.Nom ‘Ája used to give Fík presents.’ (18) Derivation of (16): 73
- 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 and 62: existing Agree relation in case it
- Page 63 and 64: 2.4 Summary In this chapter, I have
- 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: If more than one given element may
- 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 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 ‘
d. vP<br />
subject<br />
vP<br />
VP<br />
vP<br />
IO DO t V t DO<br />
v-V<br />
t V P<br />
VP<br />
VP<br />
t V<br />
t V P<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is, however, a worry that arises about the proposed derivation: If a remnant<br />
phrase may undergo G-movement, why can remnant movement not improve a derivation in<br />
which a given element ends up c-commanded by a new element because <strong>of</strong> the head movement<br />
constraint? 5 Consider example (16) from section 1.4, repeated below as (14). In this<br />
example, the object ‘that book’ is asymmetrically c-commanded by two given elements.<br />
Further G-movement <strong>of</strong> the object is, however, blocked by the head movement constraint.<br />
One could imagine a derivation in which the whole VP would move after the direct object<br />
undergoes short G-movement, as in (15). If such movement took place, the given object<br />
would not be asymmetrically c-commanded by any new element anymore. Thus, the partition<br />
between given and new would be perfect. Notice that the constituent that would<br />
undergo G-movement is a complement <strong>of</strong> the verbal head. Since complements may in general<br />
undergo movement, the derivation would be compatible with our assumptions about<br />
the Czech syntax and about G-movement.<br />
(14) a. What will happen to the book?<br />
b. Marie bude tu knihu dávat Petrovi.<br />
Marie.Nom will the book.Acc give.Inf Petr.Dat<br />
‘Marie will give the book to Peter.’<br />
(15) a. What will happen to the book?<br />
b. #[Tu knihu || dávat Petrovi] bude Marie.<br />
the book.Acc give.Inf Petr.Dat will Marie.Nom<br />
‘Marie will give the book to Peter.’<br />
5 I thank Danny Fox for raising up this question.<br />
72
Change language