optionality of movementfolk.uio.no/elenacal/wolp2017/pdf/elenatitov_wolp2017.pdf · discourse...
Post on 14-Jul-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Optionalityofmovement
ElenaTitov (UCL)
Uneven distribution of focused constituents(1) WhodidIvankiss?
a. Ivan poceloval MARIJUIvan kissed Marija.ACC‘IvankissedMarija.’
b.# MARIJU1 Ivan poceloval t1Marija.ACC Ivan kissed
(2) DidIvankissSveta?a. (Net) Ivan poceloval MARIJU (ane Svetu)
no Ivan kissed Marija.ACC andnotSveta.ACC‘(No)IvankissedMarija (notSveta).’
b. (Net) MARIJU1 Ivan poceloval t1 (ane Svetu)no Marija.ACC Ivan kissed andnotSveta.ACC‘(No)IvankissedMarija (notSveta).’
217October2017
Problem
CF movement cannot be triggered by a strong syntactic feature relatedto [focus] or [contrast] because a strong syntactic feature consistentlytriggers movement, while a given feature cannot be optionally weak ina given language.
Possible solution
The corresponding information-structural (IS) feature is not syntactic(Reinhart 1995, 2006, Neeleman and van de Koot 2008, Titov 2017).
317October2017
Whynotsyntactic?
The postulation of discourse features such as [focus] and [contrast] insyntax requires that one stipulates that they are either stored in themental lexicon or added to constituents in the course of the derivation.
LF PF
Syntax (IS?)
Lexicon (IS?)
417October2017
Whynotsyntactic?
However, being a CF is not a lexical property — a syntactic constituentis categorized as such only when used in a specific context.
LF PF
Syntax (IS?)
Lexicon (IS?)
517October2017
Whynotsyntactic?Moreover, adding such features in the course of the derivation demands aweakeningof the InclusivenessConditionofChomsky (1995),accordingtowhichonlythosefeaturescanfigureinsyntacticcomputationsthatrepresentpropertiesoflexicalitems(seeSzendroi2001;NeelemanandSzendroi2004;denDikken2006andFanselowandLenertová2011).
LFPF
Syntax(IS?)
Lexicon(IS?)
617October2017
Discoursefeatures• Information-structuralfeaturesoperateatthepost-grammaticallevelofdiscourse(Reinhart1995,2006).• Information-structuralfeaturesareencodedviamappingofsyntacticrepresentationsontodiscoursetemplates(Neeleman andvandeKoot2008,Titov 2017).• Mappingisindirect,i.e.whatismappedontodiscourseisaPFrepresentationthatinheritsmarkedness ofthesyntacticrepresentationthatisinputtoPF(Titov 2012,2013a).• Mappingisregulatedbyinterfaceeconomy(Reinhart1995,2006,Neeleman andvandeKoot 2008,Titov 2012,2013a,2013b,2017).
717October2017
Economy• Giventwostructureswiththesamenumerationandtruth-conditionalinterpretation,theonethatcontainsanextramovementoperationissyntacticallycostly.
• Asyntacticallycostly(i.e.marked)representationischosenbytheinterfacesystemovertheunmarkedrepresentationthatdoesnotcontainmovementifandonlyifthemarkedrepresentationachievesaninterpretiveeffectthatthesimplerstructurefailstoexpress.
• Therepresentationcontainingmovementofcontrastivefocusmustbeinterpretively(i.e.information-structurally)differentfromtherepresentationwithoutmovement.
• AstructureinvolvingmovementofCFappearsinformation-structurally(andtruth-conditionally)identicaltotheonewithoutmovement.
817October2017
Aimsofthetalk
• Todefendtheinterface-basedapproachtoinformation-structuralencoding.
• TodemonstratethatCFmovementhasaninterpretivelicense.
• ToofferanaccountoftheoptionalityofCFmovement.
• Toofferaninterpretiveexplanationforthecoexistenceofmovementstructureswithdistinctlengthsofmovementchains.
917October2017
InterpretivelicenceofCFmovement• Asyntacticallycostly(i.e.marked)representationischosenbytheinterfacesystemovertheunmarkedrepresentationthatdoesnotcontainmovementifandonlyifthemarkedrepresentationachievesaninterpretiveeffectthatthesimplerstructurefailstoexpress.• However,inthecaseofCFmovement,theinterfacesystem doesnotchoosethecostlyrepresentationovertheunmarkedone.Bothrepresentationscancapturethesameinformation-structuralinterpretation,i.e.narrowcontrastivefocusontheobject(movedorin-situ),despitethefactthatchoosingthecostlyrepresentationislesseconomical.• Yet,thecoexistenceofthetwostructuresstronglysuggeststhattheyareinterpretivelydistinct.
1017October2017
Interpretive licence ofCFmovement
(3)Whathappened?WhatdidIvando?WhodidIvankiss?[NIF Ivan [NIF poceloval [NIF MARIJU]]]
Ivan kissed Marija.ACC‘IvankissedMarija.’
(4)DidBillhugSue?/DidIvanhugSue?/DidIvankissSue?[CF Ivan [CF poceloval [CF MARIJU]]]
Ivan kissed Marija.ACC‘IvankissedMarija.’
1117October2017
Interpretive licence ofCFmovement
(5)Whathappened?WhatdidIvando?WhodidIvankiss?# MARIJU1 Ivan poceloval t1
Marija.ACC Ivan kissed‘IvankissedMarija.’
(6)#DidBillhugSue?/#DidIvanhugSue?/DidIvankissSue?[CFMARIJU1] Ivan poceloval t1
Marija.ACC Ivan kissed‘IvankissedMarija.’
1217October2017
InterpretivelicenceofCFmovement• TherepresentationcontainingCFmovementdoesnotincludeaninterpretationthatthetherepresentationwithoutmovementexcludes.• However,therepresentationcontainingCFmovementdoesnotincludealloftheinterpretationsthatareavailableforitsin-situvariant:
(7) a. [CF[NIF Ivan [CF[NIF poceloval [CF[NIF MARIJU]]]]]]Ivan kissed Marija.ACC
b. [CF MARIJU] Ivan pocelovalMarija.ACC Ivan kissed
• Interpretivedisambiguationviaanexclusionofsomeoftheinterpretationsthatthein-situvariantincludes.
1317October2017
Thesyntax-discourseinterface(8) GeneralformofSyntacticStructure– ConceptualStructure
correspondencerulesSyntacticstructureX {must/may/preferablydoes}correspondtoconceptualstructureY.
Jackendoff 1997:17
(9) InterpretivelicenceforA’-scrambling(subcaseof(8))InterpretanXPinanA’-scrambledpositionascontrastive.
(10) Information-StructuralWell-FormednessConstrainta. [CP XP[+contrast]1 ...t1]b. [IP(...)XP[–contrast]]
1417October2017
Thesyntax-discourseinterface
• Thereexistviolableconstraints(economyconditions)thatvalueaparticulartypeofcorrespondencebetweenLFandPFrepresentations(Bobaljik andWurmbrand’s 2008).
• Similarconstraintsoperateattheinterfacebetweensyntaxanddiscourse(Titov 2012).
• Theinteractionoftheseconstraintsyieldsa‘signatureeffect’,i.e.the3⁄4signature.Thatis,takingonesyntacticpropertyandoneISproperty,threeofthefourlogicalcombinationsaregrammatical,whichresultsintheoccurrenceofoptionality.
1517October2017
Thesyntax-discourseinterface
• A’-scramblingprovidesabetterreflectionoftheinformationstructureofthesentencebydistinguishingacontrastivefocusfromanon-contrastivefocusviaplacingthefocusinapositionwherethenon-contrastivereadingisimpossible,butthetrade-offisasyntacticallycostlystructure.
• Insentencesthatcontainnon-contrastivefocus,thereisnotrade,somovementisunmotivated,andhencedisallowed.
1617October2017
Abolitionofnon-contrastivereading
• Theinformation-structuralwell-formedness constraintin(10)demandsthatadisplacedfocusiscontrastiveandanin-situfocusisnon-contrastive.• Grammarproducessyntacticrepresentationsthateitherreflectthisinterpretiverestrictionornotandthereforeeithersatisfy(8)ornot.
• *MOVE forcessyntaxtoproducesimplestructures.1
1 FollowingBobaljik andWurmbrand (2008),IassumethatA’-scramblingis“free”(notfeature-drivenorrequiredforconvergence),butcostly(*MOVE).
17
Table 1 IS Syntax (8) *MOVE(1a) [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1][CP ... XP[–contrast]] [CP ... XP[–contrast]](1b) *(A’-scrambling) [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1][CP ... XP[–contrast]] [CPXP[–contrast]1...t1] * *(2a) [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1][CP ... XP[–contrast]] [CP ... XP[+contrast]] *(2b) (A’-scrambling) [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1][CP ... XP[–contrast]] [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1] *
17October2017
Abolitionofthenon-contrastivereading
• Therulein(8)favoursacorrespondencebetweenthesyntacticrepresentationsin(1)and(2)andtheIStemplatein(10)andhenceservesatdistinguishingcontrastivefocusfromnon-contrastivefocusviaA’-movement.• SyntaxproducesrepresentationswithorwithoutA’-scramblingbutrepresentationswithmovementarecostly.• The3⁄4paradigmresultsfromthreeoutoffourcombinationssatisfyingatleastoneofthetwoconstraints.
18
Table 1 IS Syntax (8) *MOVE(1a) [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1][CP ... XP[–contrast]] [CP ... XP[–contrast]](1b) *(A’-scrambling) [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1][CP ... XP[–contrast]] [CPXP[–contrast]1...t1] * *(2a) [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1][CP ... XP[–contrast]] [CP ... XP[+contrast]] *(2b) (A’-scrambling) [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1][CP ... XP[–contrast]] [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1] *
17October2017
Abolitionofthenon-contrastivereading
• ThestructurewithnoA’-scramblingin(1a)satisfiesbothconstraintsasitcontainsnomovementandthefocusisnon-contrastive.
• Thestructurein(1b)violatesbothconstraints,asitdoesnotonlycontainmovement,itcontainsmovementofanon-contrastivefocus.Asaresult,thestructurein(1b)failstobelicensedby(9).
• Thestructurein(2a)satisfies*MOVE,asitdoesnotinvolvemovement,butviolates(8)becauseitdoesnotsyntacticallyrepresenttheIS ofthesentence.Thatis,thereisnocorrespondencebetweenthesyntacticrepresentationin(2a)andtheIStemplatein(10).
• Thestructurein(2b)violates*MOVE butsatisfiestheISconditionin(8)asitcorrespondsto(10).
19
Table 1 IS Syntax (8) *MOVE(1a) [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1][CP ... XP[–contrast]] [CP ... XP[–contrast]](1b) *(A’-scrambling) [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1][CP ... XP[–contrast]] [CPXP[–contrast]1...t1] * *(2a) [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1][CP ... XP[–contrast]] [CP ... XP[+contrast]] *(2b) (A’-scrambling) [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1][CP ... XP[–contrast]] [CPXP[+contrast]1...t1] *
17October2017
Interpretivelicence• Sofarwehaveaccountedforthecoexistenceofthetwostructuresin(11)bydemonstratingthatthe(b)structureismoreinterpretivelyrestricted(see(12)).
(11) a.SV [CFO]b. [CFO1] SVt1
(12) a.[CF[NIFS [CF[NIFV [CF[NIFO]]]b. [CFO1] SVt1
• A’-movementservesatdisambiguatingtheinformation-structuralinterpretationofthesentencebyabolishingnotonlythenon-contrastivereadingbutalsotheIP/VP-widecontrast(see(12b)).
2017October2017
CFmovementtoanintermediateposition(13) IsIvanwashingthefloor?
a. Ivan moet POSUDU (a ne pol)Ivan washes dishes.ACC and not floor.ACC‘Ivaniswashingthedishes(notthefloor).’
b. POSUDU1 Ivan moet t1 (a ne pol)dishes.ACC Ivan washes and not floor.ACC‘Ivaniswashingthedishes(notthefloor).’
c. Ivan POSUDU1 moet t1 (a ne pol)Ivan dishes.ACC washes and not floor.ACC‘Ivaniswashingthedishes(notthefloor).’
2117October2017
Interpretive license
Predictions
• ArepresentationwithCFmovementtoanintermediatepositionmustbeinterpretivelymorerestrictedthanastructurewithoutmovement.
• ArepresentationwithCFmovementtotheleftperipherymustbeinterpretivelymorerestrictedthanastructurewithmovementtoanintermediateposition.
2217October2017
Interpretive licenseRepresentationwithnomovement– [CF[NIFS [CF[NIFV [CF[NIFO]]]
(14) Whatishappening?WhatisIvandoing?WhatisIvanwashing?[NIF Ivan [NIF moet [NIF POSUDU]]]
Ivan washes dishes.ACC‘Ivaniswashingthedishes.’
(15) IsBilldoinghomework?/IsIvandoinghomework?/IsIvanwashingthefloor?
[CF Ivan [CF moet [CF POSUDU]]]Ivan washes dishes.ACC‘Ivaniswashingthedishes.’
2317October2017
Interpretive licenseMovementtoanintermediateposition– S [CF[CF O] V]
(16) Whatishappening?WhatisIvandoing?WhatisIvanwashing?#Ivan POSUDU1 moet t1
Ivan dishes.ACC washes‘Ivaniswashingthedishes.’
(17) #IsBilldoinghomework?/IsIvandoinghomework?/IsIvanwashingthefloor?
Ivan [CF [CFPOSUDU] moet ]Ivan dishes.ACC washes‘Ivaniswashingthedishes.’
2417October2017
Interpretive licenseMovementtotheleftperiphery– [CF O] S V
(18) Whatishappening?WhatisIvandoing?WhatisIvanwashing?# POSUDU1 Ivan moet t1dishes.ACC Ivan washes‘Ivaniswashingthedishes.’
(19) #IsBilldoinghomework?/#IsIvandoinghomework?/IsIvanwashingthefloor?
[CFPOSUDU1] Ivan moet t1dishes.ACC Ivan washes‘Ivaniswashingthedishes.’
2517October2017
Interpretive disambiguation(20)a. [CF[NIFS [CF[NIFV [CF[NIFO]]]
b. S [CF[CF O1] V]t1– abolitionofnon-contrastivereadingandIP-widecontrastc. [CF O1] S Vt1 – abolitionofVP-widecontrast
(21) Information-StructuralWell-FormednessConstrainta. [IP… XP[+contrast]1 ...t1]b. [IP(...)XP[–contrast]]
(22) Information-StructuralWell-FormednessConstrainta. [CP[CFXP1]...t1[VP… t1]b. [IP...[CFXP [VP… t1]]
2617October2017
Abolitionofnon-contrastivereading(21) WhatisIvanwashing? (22) IsIvanwashingthefloor?a. Ivan moet POSUDU. a. Ivan moet POSUDU.
Ivan washes dishes Ivan washesdishesb. # Ivan POSUDU1 moet t1. b. Ivan POSUDU1 moet t1.
Ivan dishes washes Ivan dishes washes
27
Table 2 IS Syntax (8) *MOVE(21a) [IP … XP[+contrast]1...t1][IP ... XP[–contrast]] [IP ... XP[–contrast]](21b) *(A’-scrambling) [IP … XP[+contrast]1...t1][IP ... XP[–contrast]] [IP …XP[–contrast]1...t1] * *(22a) [IP … XP[+contrast]1...t1][IP ... XP[–contrast]] [IP ... XP[+contrast]] *(22b) (A’-scrambling) [IP … XP[+contrast]1...t1][IP ... XP[–contrast]] [IP …XP[+contrast]1...t1] *
17October2017
AbolitionofVP-widecontrast(23) IsIvandoinghomework? (24) IsIvanwashingthefloor?a. Ivan POSUDU1 moet t1. a. Ivan POSUDU1 moet t1.
Ivan dishes washes Ivan dishes washesb.#POSUDU1 Ivan moet t1. b. POSUDU1 Ivan moet t1.
dishes Ivan washes dishes Ivan washes
28
Table 3 IS Syntax (8) *MOVE(23a) [CP[CF XP1]...t1 [VP… t1] [IP ... [CF XP[VP… t1]] [IP ... XP[VP… t1](23b) *(A’-scrambling to LP) [CP[CF XP1]...t1 [VP… t1] [IP ... [CF XP[VP… t1]] [CPXP1...t1…t1] * *(24a) [CP[CF XP1]...t1 [VP… t1] [IP ... [CF XP[VP… t1]] [IP ... XP[VP… t1] *(24b) (A’-scrambling to LP) [CP[CF XP1]...t1 [VP… t1] [IP ... [CF XP[VP… t1]] [CPXP1...t1…t1] *
17October2017
SummaryInthistalkIhavedefendedtheinterface-basedapproachtoinformation-structuralencodingbyshowingthatCFmovementdoeshaveaninterpretivelicence.Thislicenseisprovidednotbyachievinganinterpretiveeffectthatthestructurewithoutmovementfailstoexpressbutbyexcludingatleastoneinterpretationthatthestructurewithoutmovementincludes.Hence,CFmovementservesatdisambiguatingtheinformation-structuralinterpretationofasentencebutthetrade-offisasyntacticallycostlystructure.TheoptionalityofCFmovementisaresultofthecompetitionoftwoconstraints– onedemandinginformation-structuralwell-formednessandtheothersyntacticsimplicity.Threeoutoffourpossiblecombinationssatisfyatleastoneoftheserequirements,resultinginoptionality.
2917October2017
ReferencesBobaljik,Jonathan&SusiWurmbrand.2008.Wordorderandscope:Transparentinterfacesandthe¾
signature.Ms.,Universityof Connecticut,Storrs.Chomsky,Noam.1995.Theminimalistprogram.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Dikken,Marcelden.2006.Relatorsandlinkers:Thesyntaxofpredication,predicateinversion,andcopulas.
Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Fanselow,GisbertandDenisaLenertová.2011.Leftperipheralfocus:mismatchesbetweensyntaxand
informationstructure.NaturalLanguageandLinguisticTheory,29:169–209.Jackendoff,RayS.1997.Thearchitectureofthelanguagefaculty.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Neeleman,Ad&KrisztaSzendrői.2004.Supermansentences.LinguisticInquiry35,149-159.Neeleman,Ad&HansvandeKoot.2008.Dutchscramblingandthenatureofdiscoursetemplates.Journalof
ComparativeGermanic Linguistics11,137-189.Reinhart,Tanya.1995.Interfacestrategies.OTSWorkingPapersinLinguisticsTL-95-002.Reinhart,Tanya.2006.Interfacestrategies:Optimalandcostlycomputations.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Szendrői,Kriszta.2001.Focusandthesyntax-phonologyinterface.Ph.D.dissertation,UCL.Titov,Elena.2012.InformationStructureofArgumentOrderAlternations.Ph.D.dissertation,UCL.Titov,Elena.2013a.Scramblingandinterfaces.InterdisciplinaryStudiesonInformationStructure.Vol.17.
InformationStructure:EmpiricalPerspectivesonTheory.UniversitatsverlagPotsdam,33–55.Titov,Elena.2013b.Docontrastivetopicsexist?JournalofLinguistics49(2),413–454.Titov,Elena.2017.ThecanonicalorderofRussianobjects.LinguisticInquiry48(3),427-457.
3017October2017
top related