The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová

differently. As we have seen in (2), there is no problem for a VP conjunct to be asymmetrically
c-commanded by a new material, as long as the given conjunct precedes the new
conjunct.
One might think that the difference between a VP and a DP coordination lies in that
there is no pronominal/anaphoric element that could replace a VP trapped in a coordination.
Before we try to develop a system that could capture the difference between nouns and
verbs, let’s first check whether the existence or non-existence of an anaphoric element is the
relevant difference. If the difference is really between having and not-having an anaphoric
counterpart, we expect that the difference should hold even within the same lexical category
in case the differing lexical items have or do not have an anaphoric counterpart. Such
a category is adverbs. As we can see in the examples in (11), non-pronominalized adverbials
show the same restriction on ordering as DPs and VPs. Interestingly, the restriction
on ordering disappears once we replace the adverbial ‘in Boston’ with pronominal adverb
‘here’, as in (12). 1 Thus, we see the same pattern as with DPs. There is, however, an interesting
contrast. While in the case of a DP coordination, pronominalization is obligatory,
in the case of coordinated adverbs it seems to be optional. Thus adverbials seem to pattern
partially with DPs and partially with VPs. One could argue that the difference might
lie in the uncertainty of judgments related to temporal and spacial indexicals. Even if I
utter the sentence in (11-a) in Boston, it is not clear that being in Boston is the common
ground between the participants of the communication. It might be understood as being
in Cambridge, being at MIT, being in my office etc. In section 4.3 I will argue, though,
that it is possible to account for the difference on independent grammatical grounds. The
difference between having or not having a pronominal counterpart will be only indirect for
the proposal developed here.
(9) My social life in Boston is bearable because. . . ←− context
(10) v Bostonu žije taky moje kamarádka Petra.
in Boston lives also my friend Petra
‘. . . my friend Petra lives in Boston as well.’
(11) a. moje kamarádka Petra žije napůl v Bostonu a napůl v New
my friend Petr lives half in Boston and half in New
‘. . . my friend Petra lives half in Boston and half in New York.’
b. #moje kamarádka Petra žije napůl v New Yorku a napůl v
my friend Petr lives half in New York and half in
‘. . . my friend Petra lives half in New York and half in Boston.’
(12) a. moje kamarádka Petra žije napůl tady a napůl v New
my friend Petr lives half here and half in New
‘. . . my friend Petra lives half here and half in New York.’
b. moje kamarádka Petra žije napůl v New Yorku a napůl
my friend Petr lives half in New York and half
‘. . . my friend Petra lives half half in New York and half here.’
Yorku.
York
Yorku.
York
Bostonu.
Boston
tady.
here
1 In contrast to English, Czech ‘tady’ is an anaphoric element, unlike ‘here’. Non-anaphoric counterpart
of ‘here’ is ‘zde’.
89