The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
such an interpretation would lead to Presupposition failure. What about the other option? If we do not presuppose Marie, nothing goes wrong either in syntax or in semantics. I argue that in order to exclude option (ii) we need to refer to a pragmatic principle called Maximize Presupposition, given in (19). I argue that if Marie in (16) is not presupposed then (16) violates the Maximize Presupposition maxim. (19) Maximize Presupposition (after Heim (1991)) In context C use the most informative presupposition satisfied in C. We can thus conclude that (16) is not well formed because Marie cannot be interpreted as presupposed in this particular syntactic configuration. The only way to interpret Marie as presupposed is to change the structure, i.e, to move Marie above the new elements. To formalize the idea about marking givenness introduced in this chapter, we will first need to derive the descriptive generalization about Czech given in (18). Then I will introduce a formal evaluation component that decides what structure satisfies the Maximize presupposition maxim in the relevant context. I will argue for a global comparison system which will evaluate syntactic structure at the level of a phase. More concretely, in the next subsection I will derive (18) by introducing a semantic operator which recursively marks syntactic elements as presupposed. Then I will show how this operator interacts with Maximize Presupposition. I will also show how the modified system can account for the Czech cases discussed in chapters 1–3. In section 4.3 I will show how the modified system can account for the coordination facts that have been a problem for the original system. Section 4.5 formalizes the notion of givenness in Czech and in section 4.6 I will address the question of the relation of G-movement in Czech and deaccentation in English. Finally, in section 4.7 I will show why a syntax-phonology interface system is not a viable alternative. It has already been suggested that Maximize Presupposition may license movement (see Wagner (2005, To appear a) and Wagner (To appear b)). I want to extend the idea to licensing other grammatical structures as well. Roughly, Maximize Presupposition may be used for global comparison of different derivations. It is up to the reference set to incorporate whatever the relevant means of expressing givenness in a particular language are. The intuition to capture is that there may be more than one grammatical tool to consider within the comparison set. Thus, while some languages use, for example, morphological marking (for definite articles) or prosodic tools (deaccenting) as means which can give rise to a presupposition (can pick up a unique referent from the discourse), other languages may have other tools. I argue that Czech uses movement (cf. Hlavsa (1975) for a similar idea) and a linear partition between given and new as such a tool. 3 3 Notice I do not claim that givenness in Czech corresponds to definiteness. Even though there may be a partial overlap, these are two different notions. 92
4.2 Marking givenness by an operator Recall that the example in (16) is not well formed no matter whether Marie is presupposed or not. If Marie is not presupposed the pragmatic principle Maximize Presupposition is violated. In contrast, if Marie is presupposed, (16) is out because of the peculiarity of Czech characterized in (18). The question is whether we can derive (18), repeated below as (20). (20) A peculiarity of Czech: Within a domain [ Dom Y . . . X], if X is presupposed, so is Y. Roughly, we need something that adds a presupposition to an element without affecting the assertion. I will implement this idea by using a semantic operator that I will call G- operator. In principle we could have a semantic operator that could apply anywhere in the structure and which would mark its sister as given (see Sauerland (2005) for such a proposal for English). Consider the structures in (21) and (22) which demonstrate such a proposal. (21) =⇒ given given (22) given new new . . . G given G new new . . . This structure does not seem to be right because such an operator would not capture (18) and as a result no movement would be needed. Recall that even though sometimes elements can be interpreted as given in situ, they usually relocate to the left edge of their domain. Furthermore, as the following subsection intends to show the relevant domains for movement and for spreading presuppositions correspond to a proposition (type < s,t >). We thus need an operator that can take more than one element (a recursive operator) and that is sensitive to semantic types in that it terminates on type . (23) given given G new new . . . 93
- 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 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: on the semantic component, more pre
- 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
- Page 127 and 128: . #Porsche má kamarád mojí ženy
- Page 129 and 130: The position of the sentential stre
- Page 131 and 132: is whether English givenness is rea
- Page 133 and 134: Appendix A G-movement is A-movement
- Page 135 and 136: . Svoji kočku má ráda Marie. her
- Page 137 and 138: with movement of a pronoun over a c
- Page 139 and 140: Petr’s friends.Acc saw Marie.Nom
- Page 141 and 142: A.5 Summary To conclude, we have se
4.2 Marking givenness by an operator<br />
Recall that the example in (16) is not well formed no matter whether Marie is presupposed<br />
or not. If Marie is not presupposed the pragmatic principle Maximize Presupposition is<br />
violated. In contrast, if Marie is presupposed, (16) is out because <strong>of</strong> the peculiarity <strong>of</strong><br />
Czech characterized in (18). <strong>The</strong> question is whether we can derive (18), repeated below<br />
as (20).<br />
(20) A peculiarity <strong>of</strong> Czech:<br />
Within a domain [ Dom Y . . . X], if X is presupposed, so is Y.<br />
Roughly, we need something that adds a presupposition to an element without affecting<br />
the assertion. I will implement this idea by using a semantic operator that I will call G-<br />
operator.<br />
In principle we could have a semantic operator that could apply anywhere in the structure<br />
and which would mark its sister as given (see Sauerland (2005) for such a proposal for<br />
English). Consider the structures in (21) and (22) which demonstrate such a proposal.<br />
(21) =⇒<br />
<br />
given<br />
given<br />
(22)<br />
given<br />
new new . . .<br />
G<br />
<br />
given G new new . . .<br />
This structure does not seem to be right because such an operator would not capture<br />
(18) and as a result no movement would be needed. Recall that even though sometimes<br />
elements can be interpreted as given in situ, they usually relocate to the left edge <strong>of</strong> their<br />
domain.<br />
Furthermore, as the following subsection intends to show the relevant domains for<br />
movement and for spreading presuppositions correspond to a proposition (type < s,t >).<br />
We thus need an operator that can take more than one element (a recursive operator) and<br />
that is sensitive to semantic types in that it terminates on type .<br />
(23) <br />
given<br />
given<br />
G<br />
new<br />
new . . .<br />
93
Change language