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