The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová The Syntax of Givenness Ivona Kucerová
In this section I will propose such a recursive operator. I will show how the operator motivates the location of given elements on the left edge of their domain and the fact that the domains correspond to propositions. In section 4.2.1, I will give arguments for the domains being propositional. Next, in section 4.2.2, I will define the operator and I will show how it interacts with the Maximize presupposition maxim. 4.2.1 G-movement domains are propositional domains So far, we have seen several types of domains within which G-movement takes place. Either (i) the domain corresponds to a finite clause, which we can take to be a proposition without any further discussion, or (ii) the domain is whatever is selected by a tense auxiliary, or (iii) the domain is a small clause. 4 If we assume that a tensed auxiliary selects for a proposition, following Ogihara (1996), among others, we can conclude that in all the cases discussed so far, the relevant domain of G-movement is a proposition. The relation is schematized in (24). The examples in (25)–(27) illustrate the relation between a tense auxiliary and the domain of G-movement. (24) a. Future: Aux-v < proposition VP > b. Past: Aux-T < proposition vP + VP > c. Present: < proposition (CP) + TP + vP + VP > (25) Future: (26) Past: a. What will happen with all the money that was found in the building? b. Nějaký úředník [ vP bude [ V P peníze || pravidelně posílat opuštěným some clerk.Nom will money.Acc regularly send lonely dětem.]] children.Dat ‘A clerk will regularly send the money to lonely children.’ a. What happened with all the money that was found in the building? b. Nějaký úředník a já [ TP jsme [ vP peníze || pravidelně posílali some clerk.Nom and I were money.Acc regularly sent opuštěným dětem.]] lonely children.Dat ‘A clerk and regularly sent the money to lonely children.’ (27) Present: 4 I put aside DPs and coordinations where we have not detected G-movement. I will get back to the coordination facts in section 4.4. 94
a. What happens with all the money that was found in the building? b. Peníze || posílá pravidelně nějaký úředník opuštěným dětem. money.Acc sends regularly some clerk.Nom lonely children.Dat ‘A clerk and regularly sends the money to lonely children.’ So far the correlation between auxiliary selection and the domain of G-movement being a proposition is only suggestive. Even though such a correlation is possible, the relation is not straightforward. Furthermore, the assumption that tense selects a proposition has been questioned in recent literature on tense (Kusumoto, 2005). In the rest of this subsection I will build an additional argument for treating domains of G-movement as propositions. The argument is based on behavior of propositional modifiers such as ‘again’. Modifiers such as ‘again’ are known to be able to attach at different levels of a syntactic structure and their different syntactic position corresponds to different scope properties. Bale (To appear) has noticed that while the attachment site of modifiers like ‘again’ may vary, the constituent ‘again’ attaches to is always a proposition. Since only a proposition gives rise to a presupposition we can test whether a constituent is a proposition or not by looking at presuppositions the modifier gives rise to. Thus if the hypothesis about the relation between G-movement and propositions is correct, we predict that different tenses in Czech should have different presuppositions. Let’s consider the difference between perfective versus imperfective future tense formation in Czech. While the imperfect future tense is formed by a v-generated auxiliary and an infinitive, the perfective future tense is formed by a synthetic finite verbal form. See the examples in (28). (28) a. Marie nakoupí (*dvě Marie.Nom shops.Fut.Perf two ‘Marie will shop.’ b. Marie bude nakupovat dvě Marie will.3.sg. shop.Inf.Imp two ‘Marie will shop for two hours.’ hodiny). hours hodiny. hours If we assume that the imperfective auxiliary selects for a proposition and that the subject is base generated as the specifier of vP, we predict that the structure may give rise to a presupposition that excludes the subject. In contrast, since in the perfective future tense the domain of G-movement is bigger than VP, no subject-less proposition is predicted to be possible. The predictions are schematized in (29). As we will see shortly, the predictions are borne out. (29) a. Imperfective Future: [ vP Subject Aux [ V P again event]] → again gives rise to a presupposition in exclusion of the subject b. Perfective Future: [ vP Subject verb [ V P again . . . ]] → again cannot give rise to a presupposition in exclusion of the subject 95
- 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 and 92: on the semantic component, more pre
- Page 93: 4.2 Marking givenness by an operato
- 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
- Page 143 and 144: Biskup, Petr. In preparation. The p
a. What happens with all the money that was found in the building?<br />
b. Peníze || posílá pravidelně nějaký úředník opuštěným dětem.<br />
money.Acc sends regularly some clerk.Nom lonely children.Dat<br />
‘A clerk and regularly sends the money to lonely children.’<br />
So far the correlation between auxiliary selection and the domain <strong>of</strong> G-movement being a<br />
proposition is only suggestive. Even though such a correlation is possible, the relation is<br />
not straightforward. Furthermore, the assumption that tense selects a proposition has been<br />
questioned in recent literature on tense (Kusumoto, 2005).<br />
In the rest <strong>of</strong> this subsection I will build an additional argument for treating domains <strong>of</strong><br />
G-movement as propositions. <strong>The</strong> argument is based on behavior <strong>of</strong> propositional modifiers<br />
such as ‘again’. Modifiers such as ‘again’ are known to be able to attach at different<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> a syntactic structure and their different syntactic position corresponds to different<br />
scope properties. Bale (To appear) has noticed that while the attachment site <strong>of</strong> modifiers<br />
like ‘again’ may vary, the constituent ‘again’ attaches to is always a proposition. Since only<br />
a proposition gives rise to a presupposition we can test whether a constituent is a proposition<br />
or not by looking at presuppositions the modifier gives rise to.<br />
Thus if the hypothesis about the relation between G-movement and propositions is correct,<br />
we predict that different tenses in Czech should have different presuppositions. Let’s<br />
consider the difference between perfective versus imperfective future tense formation in<br />
Czech. While the imperfect future tense is formed by a v-generated auxiliary and an infinitive,<br />
the perfective future tense is formed by a synthetic finite verbal form. See the<br />
examples in (28).<br />
(28) a. Marie nakoupí (*dvě<br />
Marie.Nom shops.Fut.Perf two<br />
‘Marie will shop.’<br />
b. Marie bude nakupovat dvě<br />
Marie will.3.sg. shop.Inf.Imp two<br />
‘Marie will shop for two hours.’<br />
hodiny).<br />
hours<br />
hodiny.<br />
hours<br />
If we assume that the imperfective auxiliary selects for a proposition and that the subject<br />
is base generated as the specifier <strong>of</strong> vP, we predict that the structure may give rise to a<br />
presupposition that excludes the subject. In contrast, since in the perfective future tense the<br />
domain <strong>of</strong> G-movement is bigger than VP, no subject-less proposition is predicted to be<br />
possible. <strong>The</strong> predictions are schematized in (29). As we will see shortly, the predictions<br />
are borne out.<br />
(29) a. Imperfective Future:<br />
[ vP Subject Aux [ V P again event]]<br />
→ again gives rise to a presupposition in exclusion <strong>of</strong> the subject<br />
b. Perfective Future:<br />
[ vP Subject verb [ V P again . . . ]]<br />
→ again cannot give rise to a presupposition in exclusion <strong>of</strong> the subject<br />
95
Change language