Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 1–30 | Cite as

Grammatical marking of givenness

  • Ivona Kučerová
Article

Abstract

Schwarzschild (Nat Lang Semant 7:141–177, 1999)’s account of givenness elaborates a notion of complementarity of givenness and focus in an intricate way: while givenness is semantically interpreted, focus is grammatically marked. It has been noticed, however, that under certain circumstances givenness in English is grammatically marked as well. Movement plays a role in this process. This paper provides further evidence for givenness marking. I present a case study of three Slavic languages (Czech, Russian, and Serbo-Croatian) in which givenness is always grammatically marked. In these languages, given elements must linearly precede new elements. If this relative ordering cannot be achieved by base generation, the ordering can be achieved by movement. I offer an account of the data in terms of givenness and the Maximize Presupposition principle of Heim (1991). In particular, I argue for an operator that marks elements in its scope as given. The operator divides the structure between a given and a new part. The role of Maximize Presupposition is to enforce that every given element is in the scope of the operator. The operator and Maximize Presupposition work in tandem with an economy condition on movement that licenses movement only if it yields an otherwise unavailable semantic interpretation. The proposal thus provides independent evidence for competition in grammar and for the role of Maximize Presupposition in the process.

Keywords

Givenness Maximize Presupposition Word order Slavic languages 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abusch D. (2010) Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27(1): 37–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ariel M (1990) Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Arregui-Urbina, K. 2002. Focus on Basque movements. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  4. Bader, C. 2001. Givenness, focus, and prosody. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  5. Beck S., Sauerland U. (2000) Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics 8: 349–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson, G., and R. Sussman. 2005. Seemingly indefinite definites. In Linguistic evidence, ed. S. Kepser and M. Reis, 71–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Chierchia G. (1998) Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics 6(4): 339–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chierchia G (2010) Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174: 99–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky N. (1995) The minimalist program. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, ed. R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Urigereka, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dobrovský J (1819) Lehrgebäude der böhmischen Sprache. Gottlieb Haase, PragueGoogle Scholar
  12. Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Firbas J. (1964) On defining the theme in functional sentence perspective. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1: 267–280Google Scholar
  14. Fox D. (1995) Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics 3: 283–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox D. (2000) Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Franks S. (1995) Slavic morphosyntax. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Gebauer, J. 1900. Příruční mluvnice jazyka českého pro učitele a studium soukromé [Practical grammar of Czech for teachers and private study]. Prague: Nákladem F. Tempského.Google Scholar
  18. Hajičová E., Partee B.H., Sgall P. (1998) Topic-focus articulation, tripartite structures, and semantic content. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  19. Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  20. Heim, I. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In WCCFL 2, ed. M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, and M. Westcoat, 114–125. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Heim, I. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 487–535. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  23. Horn, L. 1972. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. PhD thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  24. Kayne R (1994) The antisymmetry of syntax. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Kučerová, I. 2007. The syntax of givenness. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  26. Mathesius, V. [1929]1983. Functional linguistics. In Praguiana: Some basic and well-known aspects of the Prague Linguistics School, ed. J. Vachek, 121–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  27. Mathesius, V. 1931. K dynamické linii české věty [To the dynamic line of a Czech sentence]. Časopis pro moderní filologii 17: 71ff.Google Scholar
  28. Neeleman A., van de Koot H. (2008) Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11(2): 137–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ogihara T (1996) Tense, attitudes, and scope. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Partee, B.H., and M. Rooth. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiquity. In Meaning, use and the interpretation of language, ed. R. Bäuerle and A. von Stechow, 361–393. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  31. Percus, O. 2006. Anti-presuppositions. In Theoretical and empirical studies of reference and anaphora: Toward the establishment of generative grammar as an empirical science, ed. A. Ueyamada, 52–73. Tokyo: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.Google Scholar
  32. Perlmutter, D. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the fourth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 4, pp. 157–189. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  33. Pesetsky D (1982) Complementizer-trace phenomena and the NIC. The Linguistic Review 1: 279–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Poesio, M. 1994. Weak definites. In Proceedings of SALT 4, ed. M. Harvey and L. Santelmann, 282–299. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Reinhart, T. 1995. Focus—The PF interface. University of Utrecht, Ms.Google Scholar
  36. Reinhart T. (2006) Interface strategies. Optimal and costly computations. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Rizzi L. (1990) Relativized minimality. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, ed. Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  39. Rizzi, L. (ed.). 2004. The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ross, J.R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  42. Sauerland, U. 2003. A new semantics for number. In Proceedings of SALT 13, ed. R. Young and Y. Zhou. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Sauerland, U. 2005. Don’t interpret focus: Why a presuppositional account of focus fails, and how a presuppositional account of givenness works. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9, 370–384. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  44. Schlenker, P. 2006. ‘Maximize Presupposition’ and Gricean reasoning. Manuscript, UCLA and Institut Jean-Nicod.Google Scholar
  45. Schwarzschild R. (1999) GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sgall P. (1967) Functional sentence perspective in a generative description. Prague Studies in Mathematical Linguistics 2: 203–225Google Scholar
  47. Sgall, P., E. Hajičová, and E. Buráňová. 1980. Aktuální členění věty v češtině [Topic/focus articulation of Czech sentences]. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
  48. Sgall P., Hajičová E., Panevová J. (1986) The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. D. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  49. Stalnaker R. (1973) Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 447–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stalnaker, R. 1974. Pragmatic presupposition. In Semantics and philosophy, ed. M. Munitz and P. Unger, 197–213. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Stalnaker R.C. (2002) Common ground. Linguistics & Philosophy 25(5–6): 701–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Veselovská, L. 1995. Phrasal movement and X-morphology: Word order parallels in Czech and English nominal and verbal projections. PhD thesis, Palacký University, Olomouc.Google Scholar
  53. Wagner, M. 2005. Prosody and recursion. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  54. Wagner M. (2006a) Association by movement: Evidence from NPI-licensing. Natural Language Semantics 14(4): 297–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wagner, M. 2006b. Givenness and locality. In Proceedings of SALT 16. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Zubizarreta M.L. (1998) Prosody, focus, and word order. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Languages, Togo Salmon Hall 608McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations