The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
As we can see in the examples in (24) and (25), the predictions are borne out. (24) VP modification: a. Kdo zavřel znovu dveře? ←− Adv > Obj who closed again door ‘Who closed the door again?’ b. Znovu dveře zavřela || Maruška. ←− Adv > Obj again door closed Mary ‘Mary closed the door again.’ [the door was closed before but it wasn’t Mary who closed it] (25) vP modification: a. Kdo znovu zavřel dveře? ←− Adv > Obj who again closed door ‘Who closed the door again?’ b. Dveře znovu zavřela || Maruška. ←− Obj > Adv door again closed Mary ‘Again, Mary closed the door.’ [Mary closed the door before] We can repeat the same exercise with other adverbs, for example with adverbs modifying telic predicates. An example is given in (26). In English, the adverb almost is ambiguous between modifying the event of closing the door with the exclusion of the subject and between modifying the event in which the subject tries to close the door. (26) Mary almost closed the door. In Czech, the difference between the two interpretations is overtly marked on the surface by the position of the adverb with respect to the finite verb, exactly as in the previous examples with again. The relevant Czech examples are given in (27). (27) a. Maruška zavřela [ V P skoro dveře]. Mary closed almost door b. Maruška [ vP skoro zavřela dveře]. Mary almost closed door The semantic difference is preserved in subject-wh question-answer pairs as well. As we can see in (28) and (29), the VP attachment results in an answer with a postverbal adverb, while the vP attachment results in an answer with a clause-initial adverb. Thus, we can account for the data in the same way as we accounted for the examples with again. While in (28) both the adverb and the object move as one constituent, in (29), they move separately. (28) a. Kdo zavřel skoro dveře? who closed almost door ‘Who almost closed the door (but haven’t finished the closing)?’ b. Skoro dveře zavřela || Maruška. almost door closed Mary ‘Mary almost closed the door (but she hasn’t finished the closing event be- 76
cause she was interrupted by her mother.).’ c. almost door closed || Marie t V t almost t door (29) a. Kdo skoro zavřel dveře? who almost closed door ‘Who almost closed the door (but then decided not to)?’ b. Dveře skoro zavřela || Maruška. door almost closed Mary ‘Mary almost closed the door (but then she decided not to).’ c. door almost closed || Marie t almost t V t door Let’s now go step by step through the derivation of the examples in (24-b) and (25-b). The purpose of the exercise is to see how exactly the system derives the reversed order of the adverb and the object that we witness in cases with separate G-movements, in contrast to the preserved word order in case the given elements move as one constituent. Consider the example in (24-b). First, the VP is merged and the adverb is adjoined to it. There is no need for G-movement because the structure so far contains only given elements. In the next step, V moves to v (to check its features) and the subject is merged, (30-a). At this point, the verb, the adverb and the object all need to move above the new subject. Only the verb, however, is able to do that because of the head movement constraint on G-movement, (30-b). After that, the adverb and the object are free to G-move as one constituent, as in (30-c). The reason why this step is possible is that both given elements are dominated by a constituent which is able to move. In this case it is VP. (30) Derivation of (24-b) a. vP Marie vP closed VP again VP t V door 77
- 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 and 72: If more than one given element may
- Page 73 and 74: c. TP VP book give to-Peter t book
- Page 75: (20) a. Marie otevřela zase dveře
- 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 ‘
- Page 123 and 124: To sum up, we now have in place a f
- Page 125 and 126: Generic indefinites behave slightly
As we can see in the examples in (24) and (25), the predictions are borne out.<br />
(24) VP modification:<br />
a. Kdo zavřel znovu dveře? ←− Adv > Obj<br />
who closed again door<br />
‘Who closed the door again?’<br />
b. Znovu dveře zavřela || Maruška. ←− Adv > Obj<br />
again door closed Mary<br />
‘Mary closed the door again.’ [the door was closed before but it wasn’t Mary<br />
who closed it]<br />
(25) vP modification:<br />
a. Kdo znovu zavřel dveře? ←− Adv > Obj<br />
who again closed door<br />
‘Who closed the door again?’<br />
b. Dveře znovu zavřela || Maruška. ←− Obj > Adv<br />
door again closed Mary<br />
‘Again, Mary closed the door.’ [Mary closed the door before]<br />
We can repeat the same exercise with other adverbs, for example with adverbs modifying<br />
telic predicates. An example is given in (26). In English, the adverb almost is ambiguous<br />
between modifying the event <strong>of</strong> closing the door with the exclusion <strong>of</strong> the subject and<br />
between modifying the event in which the subject tries to close the door.<br />
(26) Mary almost closed the door.<br />
In Czech, the difference between the two interpretations is overtly marked on the surface by<br />
the position <strong>of</strong> the adverb with respect to the finite verb, exactly as in the previous examples<br />
with again. <strong>The</strong> relevant Czech examples are given in (27).<br />
(27) a. Maruška zavřela [ V P skoro dveře].<br />
Mary closed almost door<br />
b. Maruška [ vP skoro zavřela dveře].<br />
Mary almost closed door<br />
<strong>The</strong> semantic difference is preserved in subject-wh question-answer pairs as well. As we<br />
can see in (28) and (29), the VP attachment results in an answer with a postverbal adverb,<br />
while the vP attachment results in an answer with a clause-initial adverb. Thus, we can<br />
account for the data in the same way as we accounted for the examples with again. While in<br />
(28) both the adverb and the object move as one constituent, in (29), they move separately.<br />
(28) a. Kdo zavřel skoro dveře?<br />
who closed almost door<br />
‘Who almost closed the door (but haven’t finished the closing)?’<br />
b. Skoro dveře zavřela || Maruška.<br />
almost door closed Mary<br />
‘Mary almost closed the door (but she hasn’t finished the closing event be-<br />
76
Change language