Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Grammatical marking of givenness

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abusch D. (2010) Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27(1): 37–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariel M (1990) Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Arregui-Urbina, K. 2002. Focus on Basque movements. PhD thesis, MIT.

  • Bader, C. 2001. Givenness, focus, and prosody. PhD thesis, MIT.

  • Beck S., Sauerland U. (2000) Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics 8: 349–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G., and R. Sussman. 2005. Seemingly indefinite definites. In Linguistic evidence, ed. S. Kepser and M. Reis, 71–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Chierchia G. (1998) Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics 6(4): 339–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia G (2010) Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174: 99–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N. (1995) The minimalist program. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, ed. R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Urigereka, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Dobrovský J (1819) Lehrgebäude der böhmischen Sprache. Gottlieb Haase, Prague

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne P. (2005) Situations and individuals. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Firbas J. (1964) On defining the theme in functional sentence perspective. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1: 267–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox D. (1995) Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics 3: 283–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox D. (2000) Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Franks S. (1995) Slavic morphosyntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Hajičová E., Partee B.H., Sgall P. (1998) Topic-focus articulation, tripartite structures, and semantic content. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. 1972. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. PhD thesis, UCLA.

  • Kayne R (1994) The antisymmetry of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kučerová, I. 2007. The syntax of givenness. PhD thesis, MIT.

  • 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.

  • Mathesius, V. 1931. K dynamické linii české věty [To the dynamic line of a Czech sentence]. Časopis pro moderní filologii 17: 71ff.

  • Neeleman A., van de Koot H. (2008) Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11(2): 137–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogihara T (1996) Tense, attitudes, and scope. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Pesetsky D (1982) Complementizer-trace phenomena and the NIC. The Linguistic Review 1: 279–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poesio, M. 1994. Weak definites. In Proceedings of SALT 4, ed. M. Harvey and L. Santelmann, 282–299. Ithaca: CLC Publications.

  • Reinhart, T. 1995. Focus—The PF interface. University of Utrecht, Ms.

  • Reinhart T. (2006) Interface strategies. Optimal and costly computations. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi L. (1990) Relativized minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, ed. Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Rizzi, L. (ed.). 2004. The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J.R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD thesis, MIT.

  • Sauerland, U. 2003. A new semantics for number. In Proceedings of SALT 13, ed. R. Young and Y. Zhou. Ithaca: CLC Publications.

  • 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.

  • Schlenker, P. 2006. ‘Maximize Presupposition’ and Gricean reasoning. Manuscript, UCLA and Institut Jean-Nicod.

  • Schwarzschild R. (1999) GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sgall P. (1967) Functional sentence perspective in a generative description. Prague Studies in Mathematical Linguistics 2: 203–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Sgall, P., E. Hajičová, and E. Buráňová. 1980. Aktuální členění věty v češtině [Topic/focus articulation of Czech sentences]. Prague: Academia.

  • Sgall P., Hajičová E., Panevová J. (1986) The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. D. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R. (1973) Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 447–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. 1974. Pragmatic presupposition. In Semantics and philosophy, ed. M. Munitz and P. Unger, 197–213. New York: New York University Press.

  • Stalnaker R.C. (2002) Common ground. Linguistics & Philosophy 25(5–6): 701–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veselovská, L. 1995. Phrasal movement and X-morphology: Word order parallels in Czech and English nominal and verbal projections. PhD thesis, Palacký University, Olomouc.

  • Wagner, M. 2005. Prosody and recursion. PhD thesis, MIT.

  • Wagner M. (2006a) Association by movement: Evidence from NPI-licensing. Natural Language Semantics 14(4): 297–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M. 2006b. Givenness and locality. In Proceedings of SALT 16. Ithaca: CLC Publications.

  • Zubizarreta M.L. (1998) Prosody, focus, and word order. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics and Languages, Togo Salmon Hall 608, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4M2, Canada

    Ivona Kučerová

Authors
  1. Ivona Kučerová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivona Kučerová.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kučerová, I. Grammatical marking of givenness. Nat Lang Semantics 20, 1–30 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-011-9073-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-011-9073-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation