Word-Order Based Grammar 9783110803396, 9783110162523

Citation preview

Word-Order Based Grammar

1749

I

1999

S

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 121

Editor

Werner Winter

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Word-Order Based Grammar

by

Eva Koktova

W " G

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

1999

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. KG, Berlin.

® Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Koktova, Eva. Word-order based grammar / by Eva Koktova. p. cm. — (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 121) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 3-11-016252-0 (alk. paper) 1. Grammar. Comparative and general - Word order. 2. Grammar. Comparative and general - Syntax. I. Title. II. Series. P295.K567 1999 415-dc21 99-38790 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Koktova, Eva: Word order based grammar / by Eva Koktova. - Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1999 (Trends in linguistics : Studies and monographs ; 121) ISBN 3-11-016252-0

© Copyright 1999 by Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printing: Rotaprint-Druck Werner Hildebrand, Berlin. Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

To my Father and to my Mother

Preface and acknowledgements

I was working on the problem of word order for several years, in Germany (1990-1993), and in the Czech Republic (1993-1997). The decisive moments on my way to the present conception of Word Order Based Grammar were the publication of my monograph Sentence adverbials with John Benjamins, Amsterdam, in 1986, and the publication of my articles "On the scoping properties of negation, focusing particles and sentence adverbials", "On new constraints on anaphora and control", "On a new theory of wh-extraction and related phenomena", and "Towards a new theory of syntax" in the journal Theoretical Linguistics in the years 1987, 1992, 1996 and 1997, respectively. I would like to express my cordial thanks to my linguistic colleagues, especially in Germany, as well as to my relatives in the Czech Republic, for their encouragement and help; to my Mouton de Gruyter referee, Professor Werner Winter, for his careful reading of my manuscript and for his insightful suggestions, and to all members of the Mouton de Gruyter editing staff for their efforts in preparing my manuscript for print. I owe many thanks to Professor Bohumil Palek for his help in editing the manuscript. The errors in this book are my own. Eva Koktovä Prague, August 20, 1997

Contents

Preface and acknowledgements Chapter 1: Introduction

vii 1

Chapter 2: Word-order 2.1

Introduction

5

2.2

Critique of extant approaches

21

2.2.1

The Chomskyan paradigm

22

2.2.1.1

Abraham 1992

22

2.2.1.2

Haeberli

23

2.2.1.3

Haegeman 1993

24

2.2.1.4

Kayne 1995 and Haider 1995

27

2.2.1.5

Rochemont 1986

31

2.2.1.6

Other approaches

33

2.2.1.7

Topicalization as a kind of movement

33

2.2.2

The functional approaches

35

2.2.2.1

Avgustinova - Oliva 1996

35

2.2.2.2

Bolinger 1985

37

2.2.2.3

Danes 1968

37

2.2.2.4

Dik 1994

38

2.2.2.5

Firbas 1971, 1992

38

2.2.2.6

Foley 1994

38

2.2.2.7

Kuppevelt 1993, 1994

39

2.2.2.8

Mathesius 1939

39

2.2.2.9

Payne (ed.) 1992

39

2.2.2.10 Sgalletal. 1986

40

2.2.2.11 Siewierska 1994

41

2.2.2.12 Sornicola 1994

42

χ

Contents 2.2.2.13 Starosta 1994

43

2.2.2.14 Svoboda 1981, 1984

44

2.2.2.15 Erteschik - Shir 1996

44

2.2.3

Information packaging and word-order in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar

45

2.2.3.1

Engdahletal

45

2.2.3.2

Uszkoreit 1987, 1995

47

2.3

The proposal: deep and surface word-order

48

2.3.1

Deep vs. surface word-order

48

2.3.2

Fixed vs. free word-order

51

2.3.3

The basic cases of the five types of word-order

52

2.3.3.1

Type I: fixed deep word-order

52

2.3.3.2

Type II: free deep word-order

53

2.3.3.3 2.3.3.4

Type III: fixed surface word-order Type IVa: free surface word-order corresponding to deep word-order

54 55

Type IVb: free surface word-order not corresponding to deep word-order

55

2.4

The five types of word-order

56

2.4.1

Fixed deep word-order (type I)

56

2.4.1.1

Five communicative-information parts

56

2.4.1.2

Multiple occurrence of syntactic relations

58

2.4.1.3

Contrastive Topic

59

2.4.1.4

The Head-Modifier order

63

2.4.1.5

The neutral ordering of types of syntactic relations

65

2.4.2

Free deep word-order

70

2.4.2.1

The free distributions of (occurrences of) syntactic relations over the communicative-information parts of the sentence 71

2.4.2.2

The relaxations of the neutral ordering in the communicativeinformation parts of the sentence

76

2.4.3

Fixed surface word-order

82

2.4.4

Free surface word-order corresponding to deep word-order

86

2.4.4.1

Topicalization

87

2.3.3.5

Contents

2.4.4.2

xi

Long-distance topicalization, raising, clitic climbing and extraposition

89

2.4.4.3

Verbal particles in lexically complex verbs

90

2.4.5

Surface word-order not corresponding to deep word-order

91

2.5

The surface segmentation of the sentence

96

2.6

Word-order typology

108

2.7

Conclusion

114

Chapter 3: Scoping expressions 3.1

Introduction

117

3.2

Critique of extant approaches

119

3.2.1

Introduction

119

3.2.2

Jacobs 1982, 1983

120

3.2.3

Other approaches

124

3.2.3.1

Ariel 1994

124

3.2.3.2

Bartsch 1972

125

3.2.3.3

Haegeman 1993

125

3.2.3.4

Hajiöovä - Partee - Sgall 1996

126

3.2.3.5

Horn 1989

128

3.2.3.6

König 1981, 1986, 1988

128

3.2.3.7

Laenzlinger 1993

129

3.2.3.8

Lieb 1983a and 1983b

130

3.2.3.9

Partee 1995

131

3.2.3.10 Quirk et al. 1972 3.3

132

The proposal: scoping expressions as adverbials of Attitude in the communicative-information structure of the sentence

132

3.3.1

The syntactic proposal

132

3.3.1.1 3.3.1.2

The adverbial modification of Attitude The multiple occurrence of scoping expressions with the hierarchical scope interpretation

132 133

Scoping expressions in the communicative-information structure of the sentence

135

Four basic cases

135

3.3.2 3.3.2.1

xii Contents

3.3.2.2

Other communicative-information parts

137

3.3.2.3

Extensions of Cases I-IV by the multiple occurrence with the hierarchical scope interpretation

137

3.3.2.4

Co-occurrence of Cases I, II, and IV within a single sentence . .138

3.3.2.5

Special cases of scoping properties of scoping expressions.... 140

3.3.2.6

Scoping expressions in coordination

142

3.3.2.7

The intracluster-scoping interpretation

143

3.3.2.8

Lexical negation

143

3.4

Surface positions of scoping expressions

144

3.5

The repertoire of scoping expressions

146

3.6

Semantic issues

149

3.6.1

The relative scopes of scoping expressions

149

3.6.2

Negation

149

3.6.2.1

Referential definiteness of negative expressions

150

3.6.2.2

The appurtenance of the elements of sentences with negative expressions to Topic and Focus

151

3.6.2.3

Surface expressions of negation

154

3.6.3

Allegation

155

3.6.4.1

Narrow scope by focalizers

156

3.6.4.2

Presupposition accommodation

156

3.6.5

The relative scope of quantifiers

159

3.6.5.1 General issues

159

3.6.5.2 Pafel's generalization

160

3.6.5.3 My generalization

163

3.6.6

Additional issues

166

3.7

Conclusion

168

Chapter 4: Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

4.1

Introduction

169

4.2

Critique of extant approaches

170

4.2.1

The Chomskyan paradigm for English

170

4.2.1.1 Lasnik - Uriagereka 1988

170

Content xiii

4.2.1.2

Davison 1988

172

4.2.1.3

Rizzi 1990

173

4.2.1.4

Cinque 1990

175

4.2.1.5

Frampton 1990

179

4.2.1.6

Lasnik - Saito 1992

179

4.2.1.7

Manzini 1992 and 1994

184

4.2.1.8

Goodluck - Rochemont (eds.) 1992

187

4.2.1.9

John Rooryck 1992

189

4.2.2

The Chomskyan paradigm for German

190

4.2.2.1

The Stuttgart report 1993: Extraction in German

190

4.2.2.1.1 Franz-Joseph Avis 1993

190

4.2.2.1.2 Jürgen Pafel 1993

193

4.2.2.1.3 Uli Lutz 1993

195

4.2.2.2

195

Stuttgart report 1991: Aspects of wh-questions

4.2.2.2.1 Marga Reis 1991

195

4.2.2.2.2 Jörg Meibauer 1991

198

4.3

Universal extractability of wh-elements

199

4.3.1

General issues

199

4.3.2

Group I: genuine constraints

201

4.3.3

Group II: syntactically specifiable constraints

204

4.3.4

Group III: semantically and pragmatically specifiable constraints

207

4.3.5

Group IV: nonconstraints

209

4.4

The extracted and moved elements in the communicativeinformation structure of the sentence 217 The appurtenance of the extracted and moved elements to the Topic or Focus of the sentence 218

4.4.1 4.4.2

Several types of wh-elements within the complex sentence.. . 220

4.4.3

Three parts of the Focus

223

4.4.4

Echo questions

227

4.5

The cross-categorization of nominals: empty categories and pronouns

230

The new quadripartition

230

4.5.1

xiv

Contents

4.5.2

Critique of extant aproaches

232

4.5.3

Alternative conditions on parasitic gaps

237

4.5.4

The variation between empty and overt expressions within the supercategories of syntactically fullfledged and syntactically

4.6

non-fullfledged expressions

240

Conclusion

245

Chapter 5: Anaphoric reference 5.1

Introduction

247

5.2

Critique of extant approaches

249

5.2.1

Langacker 1966

250

5.2.2

Reinhart 1981, 1983

252

5.2.3

Westergaard 1986

261

5.2.4

Bresnan 1982

264

5.2.5

Y. Huang 1994

268

5.2.6

The Government-and-Binding paradigm

272

5.2.7

Arguments against the c-command principle

275

5.3

Anaphora in the complex sentence

277

5.3.1

The extended paradigm

278

5.4

Anaphora in the simple sentence

284

5.4.1

The basic paradigm of acceptability

284

5.4.2

The validity of the basic paradigm of acceptability for other pairs of syntactic relations

288

The extension of my proposal with respect to quantified NPs and embedding

289

5.4.4

Competition of Case III and Case IV

290

5.4.5

The extension of the four basic cases with respect to the communicative-information structure of the sentence

291

5.4.6

Reverse surface word-order

293

5.5

Ellipsis, redundancy, gapping, and sluicing

294

5.5.1

Extant approaches

294

5.5.2

My alternative proposal

301

5.6

Anaphoric reference to NPs in general

305

5.4.3

Contents

xv

5.6.1

The variation of the zero anaphoric expressions and the pronoun in pro-drop languages and comparison to English 305

5.6..2

General principles of anaphoric reference

5.6.2.1

The principle of balance between economy and explicitness

310

of anaphoric expressions

313

5.6.2.2

The principle of four general cases of referring

315

5.6.2.3

Hierarchy of anaphoric expressions

316

5.7

Conclusion

319

Chapter 6: Formalization 6.1

Introduction

321

6.2

Critique of the dependency approach

322

6.3

Outline of formalization

328

6.3.1

Deep representations

328

6.3.2

The features of Word-Order Based Grammar

330

6.3.3

Modification of Petkeviö's pushdown generator

340

6.3.4

A sample of surface word-order rules for Czech

345

6.4

Conclusion

351

Chapter 7. Conclusion

353

References

357

Index of authors

379

Subject index

385

1. Introduction

In this book, I propose, in outline, a new theory of grammar, which I call Word-Order Based Grammar. In my theory, word order is the primary grammatical principle. It is accompanied by the principle of lexical valency, and the principle of the recursive expansion of the sentence. I offer alternative accounts of the major problems of linguistic theory in terms of word-order: for the scoping properties of the operators of natural language, cf. Koktova 1986,1987,1990, and Chapter 3 below; for anaphoric reference, cf. Koktova 1992a, 1992b, 1996b, and Chapter 5 below; for whextraction, movement and parasitic gaps, cf. Koktova 1993,1996,1997a, and Chapter 4 below, and for word-order in general, cf. Koktova 1995b, 1997b, 1997c, 1997e and submitted a, and Chapter 2 below. I propose that there are five basic types of word-order: fixed deep wordorder, free deep word-order, fixed surface word-order, free surface wordorder corresponding to deep word-order, and free surface word-order not corresponding to deep word-order. Deep word-order is only a useful abstraction; I concentrate on the phenomena of surface word-order. My major contribution to the word-order theory is postulating several surface word-order universale (based on the notions of the segmentation and pulsation of the sentence), outlining a new word-order typology, and offering an account of many particular phenomena of surface word-order which have remained up to now unaccounted for. The phenomena of fixed and free word-order occur both in the deep and surface word-order. The features of fixed word-order are not absolute: they are relaxed, to a different extent, across languages. There is a continuous transition between configurational and nonconfigurational languages. Generally, I assume that the temporal linearity of the sentence is the major carrier of sentential meanings, from the scoping properties of scoping expressions to anaphoric relations. However, at the same time, the temporal linearity of verbal communication is a disadvantage, because of its unidimensionality: the (verbally) conveyed information irrecoverably flows away in time. That is why natural language has developed a number of sophisticated means, both in deep and surface word-order, to cope with the temporal linearity of verbal communication, and to make possible a fluent and effective communication with respect to the limited human processing capacities.

2

Introduction

Generally, I claim that word-order is a fascinating, highly organized, pulsating and segmented structure, by means of which natural language grasps and modifies the temporal linearity of verbal communication, where the (new) information of the sentence is presented in a piecemeal fashion. In this, the deep and the surface word-order work in harmony, cf. the multipartitioning of the communicative-information structure of the sentence (the deep segmentation of the sentence); the surface alternation of more and less communicatively important parts and elements of the sentence (the pulsation of the sentence), and the surface segmentation of the sentence by very different segmentators into communicatively relevant segments. The significance of deep word-order can be illustrated by the fact that the distinctions of deep word-order encroach upon rules which have been assumed to be purely syntactical, such as the rules of control. There is a deep word-order condition on control, viz., that the controllee (controlled empty Subject) must occur in the Noncontrastive Topic of the controlled construction. If it occurs in its Contrastive Topic or or in its Focus, it must be expressed by an overt pronominal form, cf. the difference between (1) (controllee = Noncontrastive Topic (NT)), (2) (controllee = Contrastive Topic (CT)), and (3) (controllee = Focus (F)). (1) (2) (3)

John told Bill, PRO',π to leave the tent John told Bill, that he " but not Ron should leave the tent John told Bill, that only HE,F should leave the tent

Further, I assume the principle that the system of natural language is autonomous vis-a-vis the other intellectual abilities of humans (for a discussion, cf. Newmeyer 1994 and Wilks 1994), within a conception of linguistic functionalism. This functionally based conception of autonomy yields the assumption of methodological autonomy of linguistics. This conception should not be confused with the Chomskyan conception of autonomy as the autonomy of syntax with respect to semantics and pragmatics. The assumption of the (functional) autonomy of natural language makes it possible to get rid of the cognitive bias (cognitive commitment) in judging the grammaticality/acceptability of sentences: even cognitively extremely odd and logically paradoxical sentences have their grammatical structure and their deep linguistic representation, and therefore, they should not be deemed ungrammatical. The majority of putatively unacceptable or ungrammatical sentences in the Chomskyan paradigm can be improved by appropriate context.

Introduction

3

Thus, in the study of language, there should be distinguished the distinctions which are directly structured by the system of natural language vs. those which are due to the extralinguistic factors, such as cognitive content, the human processing capacities, etc. Along the lines of this book, I offer a substantial criticism of the Chomskyan constituency-based approach and of the Praguean dependency-based approach. I contend that neither of them is capable of properly capturing the distinctions of word-order: in other words, dependency cannot be a proper challenge to constituency. The Chomskyan teaching (cf. esp. Chomsky 1981,1986, and 1995, and the works of his followers quoted in this book) has been considered as too abstract (especially with respect to the proliferation of projections and empty categories); as unnecessarily complicated (especially with respect to the complicated character of the constraints, and to the development of the Chomskyan paradigm, which is full of substantial redefinitions of basic notions); as cognitively committed (in the judgments of acceptability of sentences as well with respect to certain distinctions, such as argumental and nonargumental syntactic relations and inner and factive islands), and as too "modular" with respect to the proposed autonomy of syntax and the innateness hypothesis (for overviews of the Chomskyan teaching and its critique, cf. Adger 1994, Atkinson 1994, Cann 1994, Carr 1994, Carston 1994, Cullen 1994, Freidin 1994, Y. Huang 1994, Koktova 1992a, Newmeyer 1994, Wilks 1994). The dependency paradigm, in spite of its greater economy and elegance, and certain merits in the description of the deep word-order (the Topic-Focus articulation of the sentence) and of other aspects of the structure of the sentence (cf. Anderson 1994, Fraser 1994, Hays 1986, Hudson 1989 and 1994, Sgall et al. 1986, Sgall 1994), has not proved to be quite adequate. I criticize especially the theoretical inconsistencies in, and empirical inadequacy of, the Praguean Functional Generative Description, stemming from the overestimation of the dependency graph with its rigid mathematical properties as a means of representation of the deep structure of the sentence. Furthermore, I have considered in my works (cf. Koktova 1991a, 1991b, submitted c., 1997b) a number of other theories which have substantially contributed to the development of the linguistic theory, such as Schnelle's (1984, 1986,1995) net-theoretical linguistics, Lieb's (1986,1992) Integrational Linguistics and New Structuralism, and Lakoffs (1987) and Langacker's (1994) cognitive linguistics based on prototype modeling. In theoretical linguistics, concretism (such as represented by the connectionistic paradigm) and abstractionism are compatible: on the one hand, it is

4

Introduction

necessary to examine the neural processes underlying the production of verbal messages, but on the other hand, linguistic abstractions should retain their firm position in linguistic theory as a useful methodological device (for a methodological combination of naturalism and realism in philosophy, cf. Armstrong 1988). On the whole, I propose (referring especially to Engdahl - Vallduvi 1995, Herweg - Kiss 1995, Schnelle 1995, and Wilks 1994) that the most adequate way of representing linguistic signs are complex feature structures (such as in the Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar) rather than graphical representations.

2. Word-order 2.1 Introduction The word-order of the sentence has been subject to linguistic inquiry for about a century: witness the pioneering works by von der Gabelentz 1868, Marty 1987, and Weil 1844 [1978]. Since then, progress has been made in the examination of deep word-order, or the Topic-Focus (theme-rheme) articulation, as well as of surface wordorder, of the sentence, cf. Abraham 1992, Avgustinova - Oliva 1996, Belletti 1993, Bolinger 1985, Cardinaletti 1992, Chafe 1976, Dane§ 1968, Engdahl Vallduvi 1995, Eroms 1992, Erteschik-Shir 1996, Firbas 1971 and 1992, Foley 1994, Fretheim 1994, Greenberg 1963, Gussenhoven 1985, Haeberli 1993, Haegeman 1993, Haider 1995, Hajicovä 1983 and 1993 (ed.), Hale 1992, Haueis 1992, Hawkins 1983, 1993 and 1993 (ed.), Hoffmann 1992, Kayne 1995, Keijsper 1985, Könitz 1982, Krifka 1991, Kuno 1983, Kuppeveit 1994, Laenzlinger 1993, 1998, Lötscher 1987, Li - Thompson 1976, Mathesius 1939, Mithun 1992, Müller 1998, Oliva 1988 and 1991, Payne (ed.) 1992, Pechmann et al. 1994, Quakenbush 1992, Rochemont 1986, Rochemont - Culicover 1990, Sag 1987, Scheller 1996, Sgall et al. 1986, Siewierska 1994, Sornicola 1994, Starosta 1994, Svoboda 1981, Stlcha 1987, Uhlirovä 1987, Uszkoreit 1987 and 1995, Vallduvi - Engdahl 1995, Yokoyama 1993, Zubizaretta 1998, Zwicky 1977, etc. However, it seems that in spite of the considerable efforts, word-order is still full of puzzlements: only the tip of the iceberg has been described. The goal of this chapter is to give an outline of an approach where it would be possible to account for the position of literally every "awkward particle" (I have borrowed this expression from Wilks 1977). The major drawbacks of the previous and extant approaches consist in the overestimation of either the surface word-order (such as in the Chomskyan paradigm) or the deep word-order (such as in the Praguean approach), in the interpretive approach (where deep word-order distinctions are assigned to surface word-order), and in the attempts to describe word-order only in syntactical (phrase-structure) terms (the last two positions are also typical of the Chomskyan paradigm). Another common mistake is the assumption that there are postulated levels of linguistic description where the elements of the sentence are unordered (cf. Mel'öuk 1988, Uszkoreit 1987): in fact, even in an abstract listing (neutral or-

6

Word-order

dering), let alone in the representations of actual sentences, the elements of the sentence should be viewed as ordered. Abstract listing (neutral ordering) of syntactic relations can be specified directly according to the ordering of the types of syntactic relations in the Focus, or contextually non-bound, part of the sentence. I argue that it is not adequate to describe word-order only in terms of the dichotomy between Topic and Focus, of the putatively continuously rising scale of degrees of communicative dynamism, and of language-specific or parametric surface word-order rules such as the grammatically fixed word-order in configurational languages, and free word-order, or scrambling, in nonconfigurational languages. In this sense, my approach can be contrasted with two major theories (cf. (a) and (b) below), as well as with the number of other extant approaches: (a) The Chomskyan constituency-based theory (cf. esp. Chomsky 1981, 1986 and 1995, and his followers such as Cinque 1990; Haegeman 1995; Kayne 1994; Lasnik and Saito 1992; Manzini 1992; Reinhart 1981 and 1983; Rizzi 1992; Speas 1990; Webelhuth (ed.) 1995b). (b) The Praguean dependencybased description (cf. esp. Sgall et al. 1986, and Sgall 1994). (a) The Chomskyan theory. The Chomsky ans are not concerned with the information structure of the sentence very much. On the other hand, they treat the problems of surface word-order in terms of different constellations of functional heads such as CP, TP, AGRs and AFGo in the constituency tree, and of the movement of the verb and the noun to functional heads before or after Spell-out (cf. esp. Marantz 1995 and Ouhalla 1991). Related to the issue of the ease of processing a sentence is the latest simplification of the generative mechanism within the Chomskyan Minimalist Program, with the major principles of "least effort", or "economy" (Shortest Move, Procrastination, and Greed) vs. the "last resort" principle. This is connected also with the envisioned "end of syntax" (cf. Marantz 1995). Thus, the minimalist program is oriented towards the reduction of principles, as well as of the levels of representation, to two concrete interface levels connected with the "visible" aspects of language, i.e., with the possibility of phonetic and semantic representation: the Phonological Level and the Logical Form, respectively. Another manifestation of their economy principle is the proposal to remove from sentence representations some of the abstract ingredients, such as excessive constituents, unbound variables, NPs carrying no theta roles, and phonetically unrealized elements.

Word-order

1

Within the Chomskyan paradigm, especially the following particular problems have been elaborated upon: movement (including extraction) of wh- and non-wh-elements (cf. Cinque 1990; Lasnik and Saito 1992; Manzini 1994); the scope of negation and of scalar particles (cf. Jacobs 1982 and 1983), and the scope of quantifiers and wh-words (cf. Pafel 1991). The constituency approach is used also in semantically oriented approaches (cf. Berman 1995; Krifka 1995; Partee 1994 and 1995). (b) The Praguean dependency-based approach. The Praguean dependencybased approach has been dwelling, for decades, on a dichotomic partitioning of the information structure of the sentence (Topic and Focus). The issues of the possible multipartitioning of the infomation structure (such as contrastiveness or the multipartitioning of the Focus), as well as the issues of surface word-order (such as the segmentation of the sentence and surface shifts), have been ignored or denied their prominent status in the explication of major linguistic phenomena, from those related to the processing of sentences to particular issues such as anaphora, scoping properties of operators and quantifiers, etc. In the Praguean approach, the underlying (tectogrammatical) representations are overrated; the structure of the sentence is assumed to be explicitly describable in terms of two relations on the dependency tree, viz., the relation of dependency holding between most different heads and modifiers, and the relation of deep word-order, which is defined as a left-to-right ordering of the nodes of the dependency tree as putatively corresponding to the rising degrees of communicative dynamism, with a boundary between Topic and Focus. The assumption of the continuously rising degrees of communicative dynamism in the surface structure of the sentence, which can be contrasted with my conception of the segmentation and pulsation of the sentence, constitutes one of the major fallacies of the Praguean theory. The contribution of the Praguean dependency-based description to particular problems can be seen especially in the description of the syntactic and semantic aspects of the bipartitioning of the sentence into Topic and Focus (cf. Sgall et al. 1986: 175-265), of negation (cf. Hajiöovä 1983 and 1984), and of control (cf. Panevovä 1995). On the other hand, the Praguean theory, overrated the deep structure of the sentence, has failed to give a systematic account of the relation between the proposed deep word-order and the surface wordorder (cf. Sgall et al. 1986, pp. 272-295). Out of the other important theories, especially Bresnan's 1982 treatment of control, Huang's 1994, Grosz's 1995 and Zribi-Hetz's 1989 treatment of anaphora, and the treatment of word-order in Payne (ed.) 1992, should be

8

Word-order

mentioned as functionally and pragmatically based proposals opposed to the Chomskyan paradigm. As regards my work, I have offered accounts of the above-mentioned particular problems in terms of word-order. Thus, I have proposed an account of scoping expressions including negation (cf. Koktova: 1986, 1987 and 1990); of anaphora (cf. Koktova: 1992a, 1992b, 1996c, 1997d); of wh- and non-whextraction and movement, including an alternative quadripartitioning of the Chomskyan nominals (cf. Koktova: 1993, 1996b, 1997a), and a treatment of deep and surface word-order including the segmentation of the sentence (cf. Koktova: 1995a, 1995b, 1996b, 1997b, 1997c, in press b). In contrast to the above-mentioned theories, I make the following claims: Word-order is a fascinating, highly organized, pulsating, segmented structure, by means of which natural language grasps and modifies the temporal linearity of verbal communication: I shall speak about the modification of the temporal linearity of verbal communication by natural language. The onedimensional character of verbal communication means that the information conveyed by natural language inexorably flows away, and is getting lost, in the abyss of time. With regard to the fact that temporal linearity is the major carrier of sentential meanings (including the scoping properties of scoping expressions, anaphora, etc.), it is not surprising that natural language has developed a number of most important, sophisticated but up to now almost unnoticed, means to cope with the disadvantages of the temporal linearity of verbal communication. Thus, I claim that the (new) information of the sentence tends to be presented in a piecemeal fashion, which is manifested in the hypothesized multipartitioning of the communicative-information structure of the sentence (deep segmentation), in the alternation of communicatively more and less important pieces of information in the sentence (pulsation), and in the segmentation of the sentence into communicatively relevant pieces of information (surface segmentation). By virtue of this, the temporal structure of the sentence gets loosened, and the sentence thus becomes better accessible to the speaker with his limited processing capacities (such as the limited short-time memory or the susceptibility to changing attention states (relaxing and resuming attention)). There are both obligatory and optional types of segmentation of the sentence. The presentation of the new information of the sentence in a piecemeal fashion is a highly specific property of natural language communication, which is due to the pragmatic character of human communication. In this, the

Word-order

9

messages of natural language differ from the objectively structured messages in artificial languages, such as logical calculi. In this connection, one often speaks about the dynamic character of the sentences of natural language (due to their Topic-Focus articulation) vs. the static character of logical formulas. This is, however, not enough: there is not only the dynamic character of natural language involved, but much more: natural language struggles to modify the temporal perspective, the objectively flowing time in which messages are conveyed. That is why not even logical formulas capturing the Topic-Focus articulation (cf. Materna et al. 1980, Vlk 1988) are not close, let alone functionally or pragmatically equivalent, to sentences of natural language. There is still another communicative-pragmatic function, viz., the contacting function by which the speaker's subjective (semantico-)pragmatic attitudes, in the widest sense of the word, are conveyed. This function is typically expressed by sentence adverbials and by certain segmentators with scoping properties (particles), which exhibit certain outstanding properties in the deep and surface word-order. Thus, the contacting function is closely connected with the deep and surface segmentation of the sentence. Another ingredient of the modification of the temporal linearity of the sentence, making the processing of the sentence easier, are the anticipatory and reactivatory reduplications of certain communicatively prominent elements, most notably of negation (by multiple surface negation corresponding to one underlying logical negation, cf. also the notion of negative concord), of extracted elements (by resumptive pronouns), and of cognitively and communicatively important elements (by means of their parenthetical fronting and resumption by a pronoun, or by means of sentential "tails"), and by a mere repetition of certain communicatively important elements of the sentence. Finally, I would like to mention in this place also two types of relaxation of word-order: (a) The functional relaxations of the principles of fixed surface word-order, which have been up to now erroneously treated as "violations" of surface word-order rules. (b) The relaxations of deep fixed word-order with respect to the basic (neutral) ordering of syntactic relations, in accordance with the principle of the universal expressibility (effability) of natural language: any occurrence of a syntactic relation can be essentially accorded any degree of communicative importance within a sentence, with interesting cross-linguistic variations. The modification of the temporal linearity of verbal communication by natural language along with the manifestations of the contacting function

10

Word-order

make a fluent and effective communication possible. Thus, verbal, and especially spoken, communication, can never come close to artificial languages, i.e. it cannot be subject to any (forced) modification in the sense of objectivation. Spontaneous spoken commmunication consists, for about 40% of its volume, of manifestations of the two major pragmatic functions: the modification of the temporal linearity and the contacting function. The rest, about 60% of its volume, are manifestations of the objective, cognitive function, translatable by the distinctions of logical calculi. (I have made this estimate on the basis of my own observation and statistics about spoken Czech, of my excerpts from written texts, and of the data in Svartvik's 1979 corpus of spoken English.) As regards the modification of temporal linearity of verbal communication by the piecemeal character of conveying new information, deep and surface word-order work in harmony, as evidenced by the three manifestations of the modification of the temporal linearity of verbal communication: (i) The multipartitioning of the communicative-information structure of the sentence (deep segmentation). I propose that there are five communicativeinformation parts of the sentence: Noncontrastive Topic, Contrastive Topic, the indirectly interrogative wh-elements of the Focus, the directly interrogative wh-elements of the Focus, and the non-wh-part of the Focus, with a tendency to a possibly open-ended partitioning. Out of these parts, the Contrastive Topic, the non-wh-part of the Focus, and the Noncontrastive Topic have the tendency to be further partitioned: Contrastive Topic, into distinct, prosodically detached parts; (long) Foci, into the (primary) Focus and secondary Foci; and Noncontrastive Topic, into a sequence of clitics, which play the role of segmentators, and the nonclitic (autosemantic) part of Noncontrastive Topic. (ii) The pulsation of the sentence, i.e. the alternation of more and less communicatively important elements of the sentence (as a matter of surface word-order). This alternation is due to two causes: (a) Frequent surface shifts of communicatively important parts and elements of the sentence (mainly) leftwards, to communicatively prominent positions, such as the sentence-initial position and the preverbal position. It should be noted that the sentence-initial position is functionally enormously loaded, and there is a competition of elements which may stand in this position (such as Contrastive Topic, wh-elements, scoping expressions, and certain adverbial modifications in Czech). In this sense, the "sentence-initial position" itself can be multipartitioned, cf. the attempts to partition the COMP

Word-order

11

position in Chomsky an literature (Haeberli 1993, Haegeman 1993, Laenzlinger 1993). (b) The surface segmentation of the sentence, cf. (iii) below. Thus, the pulsation and the segmentation of the sentence are overlapping phenomena. (iii) The surface segmentation of the sentence (as a matter of surface wordorder). The communicatively important parts of the sentence (segments) (such as Contrastive Topic or Focus) and communicatively important elements (such as the verb or certain scoping expressions) are detached from one another or from the rest of the sentence by most different segmentators. There are grammatical segmentators, such as auxiliary verbs and other purely surface words; lexical segmentators, such as focalizers, clitics, and the finite verb, and prosodical segmentators, such as the parenthetical detachment of a communicatively important part or element of the sentence, especially if it stands in the sentence-initial position. Segmentators often occur in sequences which may be longer than segments. Pulsation interacts (overlaps) with the segmentation of the sentence, in that the communicatively less important elements of the sentence usually play, at the same time, the role of segmentators. This is illustrated by the behavior of clitic personal pronouns in nonconfigurational languages such as Czech or German: personal clitic pronouns, as elements of Noncontrastive (known) Topic, are placed after the sentence-initial segment, which is usually Contrastive (new) Topic. Thus, personal clitic pronouns are communicatively the least important elements of the sentence and outstanding segmentators at the same time, i.e. they simultanesouly constitute the basic pulsation pattern and perform one of the two most important types of segmentation (viz., backward segmentation, cf. 2.6 below). It can be generalized about surface word-order that the pulsation and segmentation of the sentence makes possible fluent and effective verbal communication, and that surface word-order determines, for a great part, the scoping properties of quantifiers, as well as the choice of anaphoric expressions. Deep word-order (information structure of the sentence) contributes to fluent and effective communication, determines the scopes of operators and partly the scopes of quantifiers, and the choice of anaphoric expressions. The above-mentioned phenomena testify to the synergetic (self-organizing, self-regulating) character of natural language (cf. Köhler 1994). Each language has a repertoire of means of expressing the major communicative function of natural language, viz., the modification of the temporal linearity of verbal communication. In this sense, there are no superior and inferior languages - there are only different means of expressing this function, notably

12

Word-order

different sets of surface word-order rules in particular languages, with interesting cross-linguistic compensations and linguistic variations. In this sense, I propose (cf. also Koktova: 1996b) a new word-order typology, according to the degrees (and means of expression) of surface segmentation, pulsation and relaxation of sentences across languages. I propose also an outline of a typology of word-order errors, claiming that most word-order errors are functional relaxations rather than genuine errors. The distinctions of deep word-order are presumably predominantly universal (such as availability of several parts of the information structure). There are also language-specific distinctions of deep word-order, such as the different types of basic (neutral) ordering of types of syntactic relations. The novelty of my approach is the proposal of an alternative multipartitioning of the infomation structure of the sentence, and, most importantly, of universal surface word-order principles, i.e., the surface segmentation and the pulsation of the sentence. Surface word-order rules in particular languages are language-specific. The aim of my ongoing and future work is to specify a full set of surface word-order rules for particular languages, such as Czech, German, and Russian, i.e., to complete a truly explicit (exhaustive) description of surface word-order rules, a goal which can be achieved only with regard to the above-mentioned surface universals. I consider also prosodic distinctions: intonation is a very important means of expressing deep word-order, and pauses for highlighting certain important communicative parts and elements of the sentence (cf. also Petrie 1994) contribute to an easier processing of the sentence. In this book, I work essentially with two types of stress (cf. also Bolinger 1985, Hajicovä 1983, Loetscher 1987): the main stress (major peak of intonation) on the last element in the Focus of the sentence, and the secondary stress (minor peak of intonation) on Contrastive Topic. I acknowledge also the idea of stressing all relevant parts of Focus in emphasized speech (cf. Rochemont 1986). The major ideas of my proposal can be exemplified by the English example (4) (cf. also Chapter 3) and by the Czech example (5) (cf. also the section 2.5 of this Chapter). (The a-variants of these examples are surface sentences, and the b-variants, their deep representations.) The example (4) illustrates leftward shifts as one of the major manifestations of the pulsating word-order: in this surface sentence, scoping expressions, as communicatively important expressions belonging to the Focus, alternate with communicatively less important expressions belonging to the Topic.

Word-order

(4) a. b.

13

Surprisingly, John probably knows only Mary, to speak frankly [John knows to-speak-frankly*, surprisingly*2 s, probably*3 s 2,

In (4), there are four scoping expressions: surprisingly, probably, only and to speak frankly. Out of them, only the third one (only) is located in situ, i.e., in a surface position which corresponds to its deep position: it is placed immediately before the expression which it has in its scope, viz., Mary. Thus, the expression only serves as an anchor for the scoping interpretation of the two remaining expressions. On the other hand, the first two expressions, viz., surprisingly and probably, have been shifted leftwards, across the elements of the Topic, to commmunicatively more prominent positions: surprisingly has been shifted to the sentence-initial position across the expressions knows and John, and probably has been shifted to the preverbal position across the expression knows. At the same time, the sentence gets segmented in this way into three segments: John, knows, and Mary. Moreover, the expression surprisingly detaches the whole sentence from the previous sentence, marking the beginning of a new sentence, and probably detaches the Subject (John) from the rest of the sentence. The expression probably has in its scope the sequence only Mary, and the expression surprisingly has in its scope the sequence probably only Mary, so that in the deep word-order, the sequence of the relevant elements is surprisingly probably only Mary (with surprisingly having the widest scope, probably having the narrower scope, and only having the narrowest scope, as is indicated in (4b) - the (simplified) deep representation of (4a)). The fourth scoping expression, to speak frankly, is adjoined to the sentence as an afterthought. However, it can be viewed as having the widest scope of all the four scoping expressions, so that it occurs before surprisingly in the deep representation (alternatively, it could be conceived of as having in its scope the whole sentence). I call such scoping constellations "the hierarchical scope interpretation of the multiple occurrence of scoping expressions". (I distinguish two types of scoping expressions (operators) of natural language: the focalizing operators, such as in the example (4), and quantifiers such as many, few, or every. The notion of the "width" of scope is different in these two types.) The cluster of the four scoping expressions along with the expression in their scope (Mary) belongs to the Focus of the sentence, the scoping expres-

14

Word-order

sions standing, in the primary case, at the beginning of the Focus in the deep representation. The leftward shifts of two of them (surprisingly, probably) testify to the communicative relevance of scoping expressions, which belong to those expressions which are often and preferably shifted leftwards (along with Contrastive Topic, directly interrogative wh-pronouns, etc.). In the deep representation of (4a), viz., (4b), notational conventions are used which will be employed throughout this work. The scoping expressions occurring in the sentence will be indicated by numerical subscripts (η equal or greater than 1), and the expressions which stand in their scope will be indicated by subscripts consisting of the letter s for "scope" accompanied by the numbers of the scoping expressions in whose scope the expression stands with respect to the hierarchical interpretation. The order of the numbers will be the reverse of that of the scoping expressions in the deep representations: the first number will indicate the last scoping expression in the sequence with the hierarchical interpretation, i.e., the scoping expression in whose scope the scoping expression immediately stands. Thus, for example, the annotated expression MarysA} u indicates that the expression Mary stands, first of all (immediately) in the scope of the scoping expression only4, then, in the scope of the expression probably3, etc. Out of the three scoping expressions, for example, the annotated expression probably3 s 2 , indicates that the scoping expression probably is the third scoping expression in the deep representation, and that it stands in the immediate scope of the scoping expression surprisingly2, and further in the scope of the scoping expression to speak franklyMoreover, the superscript Γ indicates the elements of the Topic, and the superscript F indicates the elements of the Focus. The Czech example (5a) illustrates the segmentation of the sentence. In Czech, one of the prominent types of segmentation is that by clitic expressions, forming often long sequences consisting of merely surface words, such as auxiliary, morpheme-like verbs not belonging to the Topic-Focus articulation of the sentence, and of clitic pronouns belonging to Noncontrastive Topic. The other type of segmentation is that by the focalizers (rhematizers), which detach the Focus from the Topic. (5) a. Zitra by se Tomorrow conditional marker empty reflexive pronoun Mirek asi jen nudil Mirek-Nom-sg-masc perhaps only be-bored-past-participle 'Tomorrow, Mirek would just only be bored'

Word-order

b.

[Mirek*™ zitrarT asi λ jen

2 s.,

15

(by se) nudilFs l,]

Thus, in (5a), Contrastive Topic (zitra 'tomorrow') is detached from the rest of the sentence (in particular, from Noncontrastive Topic Mirek (proper name)) by the sequence of clitic segmentators: by (conditional marker) and se (semantically empty reflexive pronoun). Second, the nonscoping part of the Focus (nudil 'was bored') is detached from the Topic (in particular, from the Noncontrastive Topic Mirek) by a sequence of two focalizing scoping expressions, asi 'perhaps' and jen 'only', which have the hierarchical scope interpretation: jen has in its scope nudil, and asi has in its scope jen nudil). It should be added that the spatiotemporal adverbial modification zitra 'tomorrow' is a typical Contrastive Topic, because it is implicitly contrasted, as an indexical expression, with dnes 'today'. The (simplified) deep representation of (5 a) is given in (5b). After this illustration, let us return to more general issues. Generally, I propose that one should work with deep word-order (information structure of the sentence) as a useful abstraction, and with surface word-order. Cutting across these two distinctions is the fixed word-order vs. free word-order. This yields four basic types of word-order, out of which the fourth one is further divided into two important subtypes. Thus, there should be distinguished five types of word-order: (I) Fixed deep word-order. (II) Free deep word-order. (III) Fixed surface word-order. (IVa) Free surface word-order corresponding to deep word-order. (IVb) Free surface word-order not corresponding to deep word-order. In this place, a remark should be made about the two last-mentioned types of surface free word-order. Free surface word-order which corresponds to deep word-order ((IVa)) manifests the tendency of natural languages to communicative regularity. This can be illustrated by the relaxations of the surface fixed word-order across languages, such as by topicalizations and focalization in English, and by the relaxations of the "frame construction" in German. On the other hand, free surface word-order which does not correspond to deep word-order ((IVb)) manifests the tendency of natural language to communicative irregularity. This can be illustrated by frequent surface leftward shifts of communicatively important elements, such as wh-pronouns, scoping expressions, and other elements of the Focus, across languages.

16

Word-order

In our theoretical considerations, it is necessary to discuss the justification of the assumption of the notion of deep word-order, which is the cornerstone of the Topic-Focus theories. I consider deep word-order a useful abstraction, (a) It is argued that in deep word-order (Topic-Focus articulation, functional sentence perspective, Topic-Comment partitioning, Background-Focus dichotomy, given-new distinction), the Topic precedes the Focus (cf. Firbas 1971 and 1992, Foley 1994, Kuppevelt 1994, Sgall et al. 1986, Siewierska 1994, Sornicola 1994, Svoboda 1981) due to the assumption that in prototypical communicative situations, the speaker starts from the elements which are most activated (salient) in the hearer's memory, i.e. best known to the speaker, and continues to add new information. This may indeed be considered as the basic (prototypical) case, but there are two counterarguments: (aa) on the surface, there is a competing basic wordorder pattern, with the most communicatively important information placed in the sentence-initial and sentence-final positions (in fact, this is the basic pattern of the pulsation of the sentence), and (bb) it is assumed that in certain Indian languages such as Papago (cf. Hale 1992), the new information (Focus) precedes the old information (Topic). The latter case may be an example of different psycholinguistic conceptualizations of the communicative-information patterning. (b) There are posited "degrees of communicative dynamism" (cf. esp. Firbas 1971 and 1992, Sgall et al. 1986 and Svoboda 1981) as a highly theoretical abstraction. Firbas 1971, at the same time, admits that the new information of the sentence is interspersed with elements of old information, so as to relieve the hearer from a steady flow of new information (this can be considered an informal but quite correct statement, corresponding to my conception of the pulsation of the sentence). (c) It is claimed that the (occurrences of) syntactic relations within the Focus obey a "systemic" (neutral, unmarked) ordering Sgall et al. 1986: 198199). At the same time, it is admitted that the systemic ordering, in many instances, has only a hypothetical character, in that the basic ordering of certain types of syntactic relations cannot be posited, or that it can be relaxed/violated (cf. Pfeiffer et al. 1992). However, there are (cognitively prototypical) pairs (and also triplets) of syntactic relations whose neutral ordering is unequivocal, as based on the anthropocentric perspective of patterns of action. Thus, in the majority of languages, Subject precedes Object. In Czech (and in other European languages), Indirect Object precedes Direct Object. With verbs of communicating and thinking (which take three Objects), the ordering is [(to) whom - what - about

Word-order

17

what]. Within adverbial(-like) modifications, there are two prominent orderings, viz., Direction: [wherefrom - where to], and Origin - Effect (such as in to change something from something into something else). Thus, it can be proposed that certain verb types have case frames with obligatory or optional syntactic relations which form relatively independent subsystems within the repertoire (scale of neutral ordering) of syntactic relations. This is corroborated also by the possibilities of anaphoric referring by pronouns within the simple sentence (cf. Chapter 5 below): permissible is pronominal referring by forward anaphora with the ordering of the syntactic relations of the antecedent and the postcedent such that it corresponds to the neutral ordering in the above-mentioned prototypical cases, and the reverse case: backward anaphora and reverse ordering of the syntactic relations of the antecedent and the postcedent, cf. my Types I and IV of anaphoric reference, respectively, in Chapter 5 below. This proposal, in turn, can provide the answer to the problem of case shifting (cf. Fillmore 1968, Panevovä 1980: 44-46, 1994, Sgall et al. 1986: 125, Tesniere 1959): the shifts which concern only single argumental syntactic relations, not η-tuples of the subsystems of them, are well justified and intuitively correct (thus, in to dig a hole, a hole is the Direct Object, not Effect). However, if an η-tuple of syntactic relations of a subsystem is involved, such as in the subsystem Origin-Effect, the shift of Effect into Direct Object would be counterintuitive: thus, it would not be not adequate to consider the syntactic relation into a self-confident man in (6) as Direct Object. Rather, this syntactic relation should be considered intuitively correctly as Effect, by virtue of its appurtenance to the Origin-Effect subsystem. This is corroborated also by the fact that this subsystem may interact with the Subject-Object subsystem, as illustrated in (7), where him belongs to the Subject-Object subsystem, and from a shy boy into a self-confident go-getter is the Origin-Effect subsystem. (6) (7)

John has grown from a shy child into a self-confident man They changed him from a shy boy into a self-confident go-getter

A similar treatment is adumbrated in Lieb (1992 and p. c.), who proposes to define syntactic relations within a case-frame in terms of η-tuples of syntactic relations, rather than as primitive notions. I assume nevertheless that syntactic relations are primitive notions, but at the same time, my assumption comes close to that of Lieb: I think that the syntactic relations which constitute the

18

Word-order

prototypical patterns of action embodied in the case frame subsystems (in cases of univocal neutral ordering of η-tuples of syntactic relations) can be defined numerically, i.e., relative to a (deep, neutral) ordering within a sequence of syntactic relations forming a subsystem. The idea of working with valency subsystems has been recently corroborated also by Hoskovec 1995, who examines valency frames in languages such as Lithuanian and modern Greek, where two Actor-like syntactic relations should be considered. As regards communicative dynamism in the Topic, no conclusive answer has been provided. Firbas 1971 claims that the degrees of communicative dynamism correspond to the extent to which the new semantic unit pushes the communication forward. Petkevic (p.c.) has proposed that the degrees of communicative dynamism in Noncontrastive Topic could be viewed as neutralized, and Avgustinova - Oliva (1996) propose that the elements of pronominal clitic clusters (which correspond to my Noncontrastive Topic) do not exhibit communicative dynamism at all. This corresponds to the empirically tested fact that the positions of the elements of Noncontrastive Topic (if these elements are not pronominal) are most easily interchangeable. On the surface, prototypically, the communicatively more important part of the Topic (Contrastive Topic) precedes the less communicatively less important part (Noncontrastive Topic), which is in turn followed by the communicatively most important part of the sentence: the Focus. Thus, the line of the degrees of communicative dynamism of the sentence has prototypically a contour with the minor peak at the beginning of the sentence, with the bottom in the middle of the sentence, and with the major peak at the end of the sentence, which constitutes the basic pattern of pulsation. This also corresponds to the psycholinguistic and generally psychological regularity (cf. Meiran 1994) that the most important elements are those at the beginning and at the end of the message: the elements in these positions are most easily remembered, etc. (cf. the notions of primacy and recency effect, or proactive and retroactive inhibition). Thus, the pattern [Contrastive Topic (second most important part) - Noncontrastive Topic (least important part) - Focus (the most important part)] is the basic case of the "pulsating" character of the line of communicative importance of the sentence. Within this pattern, there can occur even finer pulsations due to leftward shifts of communicatively important parts and elements of the sentence. An alternative proposal has been made by Engdahl (Engdahl - Vallduvi 1995 and p. c.): she distinguishes only different communicative parts of the

Word-order

19

sentence (such as "ground-link" (roughly corresponding to my Contrastive Topic), "ground-tail" (roughly corresponding to my Noncontrastive Topic), and "focus" (corresponding to my Focus)), but she does not posit any ordering of them: she concentrates rather on observables (such as the surface structure and intonation of the sentence) than on abstractions. However, it seems reasonable to relate the postulated communicative parts of the sentence (which can be distinguished by a number of operational criteria, and which are kept distinct also intonationally) to each other as regards their activation and their function in the communicative process. Thus, it is obvious that Contrastive Topic is much closer to Focus than Noncontrastive Topic. Likewise, it is a matter of fact that interrogative whelements belong to the Focus, but that they are communicatively less dynamic than the non-wh-elements of the Focus: namely, the peak of intonation in questions is prototypically placed on a non-wh-element, which is the anchor of the question (the most important element of the question), with respect to which the question is asked. Thus, it is possible to postulate the degrees of communicative importance, of newness, of communicative-information parts: first comes the Noncontrastive Topic as the most activated, best known, best accessible, and the communicatively least important part; then comes the Contrastive Topic as the less activated, less known, less accessible, and communicatively more important part, and then comes the Focus, as least activated, least known, and the communicatively most important (newest) part. Within Focus, the directly interrogative wh-elements should be viewed as communicatively less important than the non-wh-part of the Focus: only in echo-questions, these wh-elements are the communicatively most important part of the Focus (cf. Chapter 4 below). Second, the indirectly interrogative (relative, clause-connective) wh-elements in embedded clauses should be viewed as communicatively less important than the directly interrogative wh-elements. Thus, the non-wh-part of the Focus is the communicatively most important part of the Focus. With respect to the above considerations, I will employ the notion of communicative importance referring (a) to the deep, "neutral" ordering of the communicative-information parts of the sentence, (b) to the deep, "neutral" ordering of those syntactic relations whose ordering is prototypically univocal, and (c) to the deep ordering of syntactic relations and multiple occurrences of (free) syntactic relations in actual sentences. Thus, my approach to deep word-order avoids the extreme solutions mentioned above. I am aware of the fact that postulating deep and neutral word-

20

Word-order

order may be a risky and speculative venture, and therefore I do not propose to become sanguine about the validity of these abstractions. An alternative solution would be to work only with the notion of surface word-order: the primary (basic) surface word-order would be the basis on which the secondary cases of word-order could be accounted for. However, working-fashion, I abide by the notion of deep word-order (as defined in this book) as a useful abstraction. There is indubitably a sound core to the considerations about deep wordorder: there are the Topic and the Focus of the sentence as linguistically autonomous and underlying distinctions. They may be easily distinguished by means of the criterion of the scope of negation and of focalizers (which have in their scope, in the prototypical case, the Focus) and by the widely used question test. The speaker can choose any constellation of syntactic relations as constituting Topic and Focus (anything can be conceived of as "given" or "new"). The Topic-Focus articulation determines the semantic interpretation of the sentence, cf. the above-mentioned scopes of scoping expressions, the exhaustive listing interpretation of the Focus, etc. So much abou the controversial issue of deep word-order. In my approach, I concentrate more on the surface word-order, which is an autonomous subsystem of word-order, essentially contributing to the fluency and effectiveness of verbal communication, and determining, for a great part, sentential meanings, such as the interpretation of the scopes of quantifiers and of anaphoric expressions within the sentence, etc. The next issue of this exposition is the configurational vs. nonconfigurational character of natural languages. As rightly suggested by Bresnan in connection with her discussion about the encoding of grammatical functions (1982: 356) (cf. her notion "predominantly nonconfigurational languages"), the distinction between these two types of languages is not clearcut but rather gradual. I claim that in every language, there is an amount of surface fixed wordorder (cf. type III) above, and surface free word-order (cf. types IVa and IVb above). This means that every language exhibits certain grammmatically based "conventions" of word-order (type III), and that at the same time, there are counteracting tendencies which may override these conventions, viz., the tendency to free word-order corresponding to deep word-order (yielding relaxations of the fixed word-order conventions) (type IVa), and the tendency to word-order not corresponding to deep word-order (type IVb). Thus, surface word-order not corresponding to deep word-order (such as in cases where an element of the Focus precedes an element of the Topic) may be due to two word-order types, viz., Ill (conventions of surface word-order) and

Word-order

21

IVb (surface word-order not corresponding to deep word-order), but the effects of these two order types are different, and they should be kept apart. As regards the relation of the deep word-order, the surface word-order, and the scoping properties of scoping expressions (operators) of natural language, I claim that they are three interconnected subsystems. As has been mentioned above, deep and surface word-order work together to determine the interpretation of scopes of operators. In the case of the focalizing operators (such as sentence adverbials and focalizers), their scope is determined predominantly by the deep word order, whereas in the case of quantifiers (such as many, few, every, etc.), their scope is determined by a genuine interplay of the deep and surface word-order and of other factors (for a most insightful approach, cf. Pafel 1991).

2.2 Critique of extant approaches In this section, I present a critical survey of extant approaches to word-order: the Chomskyan theory, the functional approaches, and HPSG. First of all, however, the major points of my critique of extant aproaches to deep and surface word-order should be summarized and highlighted: (a) The approaches to deep word-order are mostly interpretive. I argue that deep word-order should be basically treated generatively: the speaker chooses a certain communicative-information constellation (a certain distribution of the syntactic elements into the communicative-information parts, such as Contrastive Topic, Noncontrastive Topic, and Focus), and expresses this constellation by various means of expression on the surface. These means are cross-linguistically variable. (b) In many approaches, communicative-information parts of the sentence are defined in terms of constituency. In this way, however, it is not possible to account for all possible distributions of syntactic relations into the major communicative-information parts of the sentence: a better account is offered by the dependency framework, or generally by frameworks in which the underlying structure of the sentence is viewed as flat. (c) In many approaches, only the surface word-order is given attention, while intonation and communicative information structure are neglected (this is typical especially of the orthodox branch of the Chomskyan paradigm). (d) In many approaches (cf. Mel'Suk 1988, Uszkoreit 1987), a level of description is assumed at which the types of syntactic relations are unordered. I assume, however, that even in the "abstract" listing of syntactic relations, they

22

Word-order

should be arranged according to the neutral ordering (although it may not be so transparent and simple as the Praguean scholars think, especially with respect to its grammatically and cognitively based subsystems). (e) If one works with the deep word-order as reflecting the communicative-information structure of the sentence, it is not sufficient to work with a mere dichotomy (Topic-Focus) only. Likewise, it is not quite adequate to assume a rigid, left-to-right ordering of the occurrences of syntactic relations according to their putatively rising degrees of communicative dynamism for the whole sentence. Rather, there are various types of communicative information in the sentence, each of which is a whole sui generis. This is one of the best manifestations of the piecemeal and segmented character of the (new) information of the sentence. This is related to the psychologically realistic conception of the piecemeal presentation of the new information of the sentence: it has evolved due to the limited respect to the processing capabilities of the hearer, and it is structured by the system of natural language in various ways (from the availability of most different communicative-information parts of the sentence through the occurrence of subsystems in the neutral ordering of syntactic relations to the surface segmentation of the sentence).

2.2.1 The Chomsky an paradigm In the Chomskyan paradigm, mainly two issues about word-order are discussed: (a) the relation of the hierarchical structure of the constituency-based phrase marker and the linear order of constituents, and (b) wh- and non-wh movement and extraction (as regards the latter issue, cf. Chapter 4 for more detail).

2.2.1.1 Abraham 1992 Abraham gives an account of Topic ("theme") and Focus ("rheme") in German in terms of their positions and the constituency hierarchy, in generative as well as interpretive terms. He distingishes the grammmatical (default) accent and the semantically contrastive (Focus-)accent. According to him, German is a language where both configurationality (Subject-Object asymmetries, the availability of VP) and the the Topic-Focus organization obtain. In this, I would like to oppose him: the Topic-Focus articulation is universal, whereas the constituency structure is an abstract construct, which could

Word-order

23

be dispensed with in linguistic theory. The different kinds of Subject - Nonsubject (and other) asymmetries could be accounted for in a different way, such as by considering the Subject as a special category, and by postulating a neutral ordering of types of syntactic relations, where pairs could be checked for asymmetries. Further, Abraham rightly proposes that a "scrambled order" should be viewed as base-generated, ie., not due to movement.

2.2.1.2 Haeberli 1993 Haeberli proposes a treatment of scrambling in German. He shows the six possible permutations of the Subject, Direct Object, and Indirect Object, cf. (8) (Haeberli's le/26) for the [DO - 1 0 - S] ordering. 8)

dass diese

Möbel

meinem

Onkel die

that this-Acc furniture-pl my-Dat-sg-masc uncle the-Nom-sg-fem Firma Müller zugestellt

hat

firm of Müller deliver-past-participle have-3-sg-pres-Aux 'that this furniture was delivered to my uncle by the Müller company' Haeberli proposes that the scrambled elements Α-move into Case checking positions, which do not have to be fixed: a NP can check its case in any Specifier position of the unspecified Case Projections. The subject does not need to move to the highest subject position in the overt syntax. However, Haeberli's proposal yields a proliferation of Case Projections, which means a further complication of the constituency structure. I propose that cases of scrambling should be accounted for in terms of the appurtenance of certain elements of the permuted orders to the Topic: if we check the sentence from the right to the left, the first occurrence of a syntactic relation which violates the neutral ordering, along with the elements to its left, belongs to the Topic (whereas the elements to its right belong to the Focus). I think that within the Topic (due to the distinction between Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic, and due to the possible relaxations within Noncontrastive Topic) the ordering of syntactic relations may be permuted (this has been incorrectly referred to as lack of conformity of syntactic relations within he topic to the "systemic" ordering, cf. Sgall et al. 1986: 186).

24

Word-order

Thus, in Haeberli's six patterns, the boundaries between Topic and Focus (indicated by a slash, my indications) can be drawn according to the above generalization, on the assumption that the neutral order of syntactic relations in [S - 1 0 - DO]. (a)

/S - IO - DO

(d)

DO / S - IO

(b)

S - DO / IO

(e)

DO - IO / S

(c)

IO / S - DO

(f)

IO - DO / S

2.2.1.3 Haegeman 1993 Haegeman, analyzes the positions of clitics in West Flemish: 1'it', ze 'her', 'them', and der 'some', 'there'. She assumes their mixed, A and A', status by virtue of their being intrinsically Α-positions (Spec-AGRP positions), but acquiring the A' status (Spec-CP position) by virtue of sharing features with extended heads (for example, I or IP is an extended head of VP). A and A' positions are not complementary: both are determined by feature content (the features considered are WH (for directly interrogative whelements), NEG (for negation) and FOC (for Focus)). This testifies to the necessity of integration of the communicative-information distinctions into the constituency paradigm. A'-positions stand only in one relation to the head, whereas there can be multiple A'-specifiers. The following issues are of interest for the present approach: (a) Haegeman observes that a clitic cannot occur (possibly with a lexically fullfledged expression) after adverbs such as verzekerst 'probably' (for a discussion, cf. Chapter 3 below). (b) Haegeman leaves unaccounted for the unacceptability of sentences such as (9) (Haegeman's 29a/13), as contrasted with the acceptability of (10) (Haegeman's 29f/13), which differ only in that the Indirect Object is expressed by a NP in (9), and by a PP in (10). The common (intended) underlying representation for (9) and (10) is given in (9-10). (9)

*da Valere t verzekerst Marie gegeven eet that Valere it probably Marie give-past-participle have-3-sg-Aux 'that Valere has probably given it to Mary'

Word-order

25

(10) da Vale re t verzekerst an Marie gegeven eet thatValereit probably to Marie give-past-participle have-3-sg-pres 'that Valere has probably given it to Mary' (9-10) If*1 Vale re" probably*χ [has-given to Maryf^l

The contrast in acceptability between (9) and (10) can be easily accounted for if one considers that in (9), the Indirect Object Marie belongs to the Focus, occurring after the Direct Object expressed by the clitic t, i.e., the order of t and Marie is the reverse of the neutral ordering, which is [Indirect Object - Direct Object]. In this marked position, which is possible only if the Direct Object belongs to the Topic, the Indirect Object must be marked morphologically, by the preposition an 'to', which is the case in the acceptable (10). (c) Haegeman offers a long paradigm of acceptability of scrambling of Direct and Indirect Object in a sentence with two scoping expressions, an adverbial such as verzekerst 'probably' and negation (cf. her 11/6). In this paradigm, only the first three cases (out of nine cases) are acceptable (SU = Subject, 10 = Indirect Object, DO = Direct Object, Adv = scoping expression, nie = negation particle, and V = Verb). I have provided my own marking of the assumed appurtenance of the elements of these orderings to Topic and Focus. 1.

[SUT - IOT - DOT - AdvF - nie - VF]

2.

[SUT - IOT - AdvF - DOT - nie - VF]

3.

[SUT - AdvF - IOT - DOT - nie - VF].

In my account, 2. and 3. represent the leftward shift of the scoping expression (Adv): in 2., it has been shifted before DO, and in 3., before the sequence [IO - DO]. The reason for the unacceptability of the six remaining wordorders is the violation of the basic (neutral) ordering of types syntactic relations [SU - 1 0 - DO], cf.: 4.

*[SU - DO - 1 0 - Adv - nie - V]

5.

*[DO - SU - 1 0 - Adv - nie - V]

6.

*[IO - SU - DO - Adv - nie - V]

7.

*[SU- A d v - D O - 1 0 - m e - V]

8.

*[SU - DO - Adv - 1 0 - nie - V]

9.

*[SU - DO - Adv - 1 0 - nie - V]

26

Word-order

Thus, in 4., DO improperly precedes 10, in 5., DO improperly precedes SU and 10, in 6., 10 improperly precedes SU, in 7., DO improperly precedes 10, in 8. DO improperly precedes 10, and in 9., DO improperly precedes SU and 10 (in which it resembles 5.)· I claim that the unacceptability of 4.-9. is due only to the violations of the neutral ordering of SU, 10, and DO, because the (non-rightmost) scoping expressions of a cluster (such as verzekerst and nie) can be shifted leftwards across the elements of the Topic. (d) Haegeman treats a very complicated phenomenon, viz., the leftward shift of clitic and nonclitic elements from embedded infinitival constructions leftwards, into the matrix sentence. The situation is made more difficult also by the reduplication of the Subject of the matrix sentence. This subject is expressed twice, by a clitic and a nonclitic form of the pronoun I {k and ekik, respectively). The surface word-order of such sentences thus exhibits an alternation of occurrences of elements from the matrix sentence and the embedded infinitival construction, cf. (11) (Haegeman's 25a/ll). (11)

dan-k t ekik Marie djoengers gisteren that I-clitic it-clitic I-nonclitic Marie boy-Acc-sg-def yesterday zien geven een see-past-participle give-Inf have-3-pl-pres-Aux 'that I have seen yesterday the boys give it to Mary'

The alternation of the elements from the matrix and the embedded part of the sentence, and their Topics and Foci, is schematically captured in (1Γ). (1Γ)

1. k matrix Topic (clitic, Noncontrastive) 2. t embedded....Topic (clitic, Noncontrastive) 3. ekik matrix Topic (nonclitic, (weakly) Contrastive) 4. Marie embedded....Topic (Noncontrastive) 5. djoengers...embedded....Topic (Contrastive) 6. gisteren....matrix Topic (Contrastive) 7. zien matrix Focus 8. geven embedded....Focus 9. een matrix (belongs to geven (Focus))

What is the reason for this alternation, and the principles thereof? I can give an answer in terms of my assumptions about word-order. The elements be-

Word-order

27

longing to the Noncontrastive Topic of the embedded construction (t, Marie) are moved leftwards, to positions which are more typical of the Topic, viz., before the elements of the Contrastive Topic and Focus of the matrix sentence {gisteren and zien, respectively), and before the Contrastive Topic of the embedded sentence (djoengers). Thus, the sentence becomes easier to process, because the "known" ("given"), elements are located more to the left. Out of the three Contrastive Topics, ekik and gisteren of the matrix sentence surround the Contrastive Topic of the embedded sentence (djoengers). The order of ekik (Subject) and gisteren (temporal adverbial) is presumably due to neutral ordering in West Flemish. The position of the Contrastive Topic of the embedded sentence (djoengers) before the Contrastive Topic of the matrix sentence (gisteren) is presumably due to the greater communicative relevance (argumental character, functional load) of the expression djoengers as Direct Object of the matrix verb and the Subject of the embedded verb. Remarkable is also the anticipation of the (implicitly Contrastive) Subject by the Subject clitic pronoun: I asssume that this anticipation reduces the (implicitly) contrastive character of the nonclitic Subject pronoun. Thus, generally, we can observe two tendencies of surface word-order in West Flemish: (a) The adjacency (clusterings) of the elements of Noncontrastive Topic, Contrastive Topic and Focus of the whole sentence. This corroborates my hypothesis that in a deep word-order the ordering of the communicative parts is [Noncontrastive Topic - Contrastive Topic - Focus]. (b) The alternation of the elements of the matrix sentence and the embedded construction. This alternation is a consequence of (a) above, and it contributes to the syntactically "pulsating" character of the sentence, which corresponds to the changing attention states of the hearer.

2.2.1.4 Kayne 1995 and Haider 1995 Kayne refutes the standard assumption according to which the relation between hierarchical structure and linear order is flexible (the standard approach is illustrated by the assumptions that a head (H) and its complement (C) can be associated in some languages with the order [H-C], whereas in others with the order [C-H], that nouns occur after prepositions but before postpostions, and that adjunctions can be either to the left or to the right). On the other hand, Kayne argues that the human language faculty is "rigidly inflexible" in this respect (cf. Kayne 1994: xiii), in that heads must precede

28

Word-order

their complements, and adjunctions must be to the left. He considers the order [Specifier - Head - Complement] as universal (1995: 35). Kayne's proposal, embodied in the Linear Correspondence Axiom (1995: 3), is well illustrated by the order [complement - verbal head] in Japanese: according to Kayne, this fact must be reinterpreted so that complements should be viewed as occurring in specifier-adjoined positions, i.e., as hierarchically higher than their verbal head. Thus, the Direct Object (as a complement) is assumed to asymmetrically c-command the verbal head. Similarly, the object of a postposition asymmetrically c-commmands that postposition, etc. Kayne's theory can be reinterpreted in terms of my approach as follows: the standard assumptions about the flexibility of the linear order of the elements of the hierarchical structure is based (like the Greenbergian word-order types) on the surface word-order properties of particular (types of) languages. This flexibility (and these Greenbergian types) have nothing to do with the deep word-order, i.e., with the communicative thrust of the (syntactically fullfledged, autosemantic) elements of the sentence: the Direct Object is usually a more communicatively important element of the sentence than the verb. Correspondingly, the Direct Object carries the intonation peak, whether the surface order is [Verb - Object] as in English, or [Object-Verb] as in Japanese or (partly) in Russian: cf. also Keijsper's (1985:121-125) observation that in the SOV order occurring in spoken Russian, the peak of intonation is placed on the Object. Kayne transposes these surface word-order based assumptions into an assumption based on the neutral deep ordering of the elements: thus, it can be indeed assumed, also in my approach, that the universal deep neutral word-order is [Head - Modifier], such as [Verb - Object] or [Noun - Nominal Adjunct], and that here belongs also the anthropocentrically based order [Subject - Object] (yielding the most prototypical, viz., the SVO, pattern), the order of Directional modifications [where from - where to] etc. The latter two are proto- typical manifestations of the anthropocentric patterning of the ordering of the cognitively relevant elements of the sentence. Thus, it is not necessary to account for such regularities by such sophisticated devices as proposed in Kayne, viz., the antisymmetrical character of the human language faculty. The cases where the most communicatively important Object precedes the verb on the surface may have two (diachronically related) grounds: (a) Generally, for some reason or other, the speaker wants to mark the greater communicative importance of the (stressed) Object by placing it before the (unstressed) verb.

Word-order

29

(b) It can be assumed that diachronically, such placings have evolved into a distinct (Greenbergian) surface word-order type, the SOV order. This type is manifested to various extent in typologically different languages as Japanese (Kayne 1994), Hungarian and Turkish (Vallduvi - Engdahl 1995), Russian (Keijsper 1985) and German (cf. the "frame construction" in German). It should be noted here that Kayne takes recourse to a monoconstituent conception of what traditionally would be considered as sequences of more constituents or nonconstituents: thus (1994: 20), he proposes that instead of multiple clitic adjunction (such as in French, where two clitics may precede the verb), the sequence involving more than one clitic should be considered as a constituent. Similarly (1994:68), he considers even the sequence (a book on Sunday) as a headed constituent. Furthermore, he proposes to reinterpret the (rightward) Heavy NP Shift as a leftward movement of the verb. This roughly coincides with my proposal that certain cases of rightward shifts can be reinterpreted as leftward shifts with respect to the communicative elements shifted. I distinguish several cases of shifting, with respect to the fact that communicatively important elements can be moved either leftwards or rightwards, towards the beginning or towards the end of the sentence as two communicatively prominent positions. In case of Heavy NP Shift, the reinterpretation could be based, in terms of my approach, on the lesser communicative importance of the verb, and hence its leftward shift, with respect to the (focal) heavy NP: heavy NPs tend to be placed in the more "natural" sentence-final position as a typical position for focal elements in languages with free surface wordorder (so that the surface word-order corresponds to the deep word-order). However, in the case of Heavy NP Shift, the heavy NP is a more relevant element with respect to the verb, so that I prefer to speak, in this case, about surface rightward shift (of the heavy NP). Kayne concludes his book by the claim that "linear order turns to be more fundamental to syntax than is normally thought. As a result of the LCA [= Linear Correspondence Axiom, E.K.], the property of antisymmetry that a linear ordering has is inherited by the hierarchical structure. I have argued that ... X-bar theory... should not be considered to be a primitive part of the syntactic theory" (1994: 131). One can wholeheartedly agree with this conclusion. However, it is necessary to rethink the relevance of linear order (a) in terms of the (deep) communicative-information structure of the sentence (whether in its "neutral", unmarked shape, or a in a shape influenced by a communicative anchoring (contextual boundedness of certain elements of the sentence)), and

30

Word-order

(b) in terms of its relation to the different surface word-orders across languages, whether they are optional or obligatory. Kayne's theory is elaborated upon by Haider 1995. Haider rightly claims that the relations of dominance and c-command do not univocally determine the linear order of the elements of the sentence (1995: 16). He assumes that the variation of word-order should be accounted for in terms of adjunctions on the basic, rightward binary-branching structure, with the sentence-final position of the head (the verb) in German (which is followed only by a PP as its sister), assuming only adjunction to the left, not to the right. He addresses a number of interesting problems: (a) According to Haider, extraposition in German (cf. Haider's example 20a/5) should be viewed as base-generated (cf. Haider 1995:12). However, I claim that it is due to the "frame construction" yielding the fixed word-order [Object NP -Infinitive or participle - relative clause to the Object NP]. I assume that the separation of the noun and its relative clause is due to the diachronic surface shift of the Object NP across the verbal element to the left as a communicatively important element, whereby the relative clause as the communicatively most important element (Focus proper) remains in situ as the sentence-final element. In this respect, the situation in German is analogous to that in English, where extraposition of relative clauses is likewise due to the surface fixed word-order (here, to the order [argumental - nonargumental syntactic relations]). (b) Haider (1995:17) gives examples of idiosyncratic basic orderings in the case-frames of specific verbs, which differ from the usual patterns, such as in case of aussetzen 'expose' or unterordnen 'subordinate', which corroborates my assumption of case frame subsystems with respect to neutral ordering. (c) The acceptability of Haider's examples 37a, b/13 with extraposition, which he uses as empirical support of his refutation of reconstruction, can be alternatively accounted for in terms of renaming of a pronoun by a coreferential NP (cf. Chapter 5 for more detail); in case of extraposition (the separation of an Addressee pronoun and a coreferential NP in the "extraposed" relative clause in 37a makes the renaming possible). (d) Haider (1995: 9) argues that in English, every head position in the chain of heads is a possible position of verbal particles (such as with the verb to send o f f ) . Alternatively, however, these positions can be accounted for in terms of the Topic-Focus articulation (roughly, I assume that the position of the particle marks the Topic-Focus boundary). (e) Haider (1995: 12) treats focusing particles in terms of the c-command constraint, giving interesting examples of the focusing particle bloss 'only'

Word-order

31

having in its scope the whole embedded clause: if the embedded clause follows its matrix clause, which is the prototypical case, the focusing particle is usually shifted leftwards (cf. Er sogar/nur/bloss meinte, dass. ...Er meinte sogar/nur/?bloss, dass...). On the other hand, if the embedded clause precedes its matrix clause, the focusing particle may be placed in the embeddedclause-initial position (cf. Sogar/nur/bloss dass sie ihm helfen wollte, dachte Karl) (my extensions of Haider's examples). This phenomenon can be alternatively accounted for in terms of the prototypicality of the position of the embedded clause: I argue that in the case of the prototypical, postmatrix position of the embedded clause, it is not only possible, but it may be even obligatory in certain cases (such as with the English focalizer only, or in the case treated by Haider) for the particle to be shifted to the left, to a communicatively more prominent position. However, in the case of the nonprototypical, prematrix position of the embedded clause, an additional shift would mean an overburdening of the sentence structure, let alone the bare fact that in this case, the focalizer stands at the beginning of the whole complex sentence, which is a communicatively very prominent position.

2.2.1.5 Rochemont 1986 Rochemont's theoretical framework is Chomsky's 1981 version of generative grammar, consisting of D-structure, S-structure, Phonological Form (PF), and Logical Form (LF). Accordingly, Rochemont's account of Focus consists of three interpretively based rules: Prominence assignment, Focus assignment, and Focus raising (1986: 32-36 and 84-87). The most important rule, viz., that of Focus assignment, is formulated in 1 and 17a-c on pp. 84-85 (cf. (12a-d) below). (12) a. If alpha is prominent, then alpha is (+focus). (12) b. If alpha is (+focus), and alpha is X", then Xn is X° is (+focus). (12) c. If alpha is (+focus) and alpha is an argument of X° contained in X", then X" is (+focus). (12) d. If X°is (+focus) and alpha is an adjunct of X°, then alpha is (+focus). Rochemont accounts for the inheritance of Focus from the rightmost NP, but also from a non-rightmost NP. The former case is exemplified by (13) (Rochemont's 24/86), where married and Mary may inherit Focus from

32

Word-order

PETE. The latter case is exemplified in (14) (Rochemont's 3/80), where cooked may inherit Focus from LASAGNA. (13)

Mary married PETE

(14)

She cooked LASAGNA for Bill

However, there are cases of the syntactic structuring of the Focus which are not mentioned by the author, but which can be accounted for in my approach. In what follows I will discuss these cases, abiding, for the sake of clarity, by Rochemont's terminology ("inheritance"). (a) "Inheritance" of Focus by an argument or by a nonargumental (adverbial) modification (or a sequence of arguments or adverbial modifications) from an immediately following (accented) argument. Contrary to Rochemont, I argue that in (15) (Rochemont's 3 lb/88) Ralph, even if unaccented, can inherit Focus the BEDROOM. The inheritance of Focus by a sequence of free adverbial modifications from the sentence-final free adverbial modification is exemplified in (16) (my example): in this sentence, the whole sequence was running from Manhattan through a tunnel may "inherit" Focus from to Brooklyn. (b) "Inheritance" of Focus by the verb from the Subject in Topicless sentences (where both the Subject and the verb belong to the Focus, although only the Subject is accented), cf. (17), where has been assassinated "inherits" Focus from KENNEDY. (c) "Inheritance" of Focus by the Subject from the Object in sentences where the verb belongs to the Topic, cf. (18). (d) Inheritance of Focus by a head noun from its restrictive adjunct, such as in collection of new BOOKS, where the communicatively most important element is new, and BOOKS, carrying an assimilative accent as a phrase-final word, inherits the Focus feature from the expression new. (15)

Laurie followed Ralph into the BEDROOM

(16)

Terry was running from Manhattan through a tunnel to BROOKLYN

(17)

KENNEDY has been assassinated

(18)

John hit Mary, and then SHE hit HIM

Word-order

33

Rochemont's notion of c-construable (elements) roughly corresponds to my notion of Topic. C-construability is based on the widely acknowledged concepts of givenness: by context and situation, and by virtue of indexical (permanently activated) expressions. Rochemont distinguishes two types of Focus: Presentational and Contrastive, using quite heterogeneous criteria: he uses the character of the Focus itself for the former, and the character of the Nonfocus for the latter. Consequently, his definition yields three types of Focus: Presentational, Contrastive, and one which is both Presentational and Contrastive.

2.2.1.6 Other approaches There are still several approaches to be mentioned within the Chomskyan paradigm. (a) Ludger Hoffman 1992 gives a functional definition of Topic and Focus in terms of aboutness (1992: Fl, F2/31), analyzing mainly thematic progression and means of anaphoric reference. (b) Andreas Lötscher 1992 compares three languages (German, English, Russian) as regards their Subject-prominent or Topic-prominent character. He comes to the conclusion that there need not be mutually exclusive coding systems for these two kinds of prominence, and that they can cooccur in languages such as German and Russian. Lötscher distinguishes the weak (unaccentuated) theme (corresponding to my Noncontrastive Topic) and the strong (accentuated) theme, which corresponds to my Contrastive Topic. He brings to attention that there may occur two distinct parts of Contrastive Topic within the sentence, cf. (19), wherefish and Jack are two parts of Contrastive Topic. (19)

Fish, Jack doesn 't like

2.2.1.7 Topicalization as a kind of movement With respect to topicalizations (leftward movement of non-wh-elements), as generally assumed in the Chomskyan theory (cf. Chomsky 1981, Rochemont 1986), a paradigm of four examples (cf. (20a)-(23a)) should be commented upon with respect to my approach.

34

Word-order

(20)a. Maty loves JOHN (21)a.

(Only) JOHN, Mary loves.

(22)a. John, Mary LOVES (23)a. Mary LOVES John

In the Chomskyan approach, (21a) and (22a) involve the leftward movement of the NP John, whereas (20a) and (23 a) do not involve any movement. The Chomskyans, however, usually do not consider the intonation of the sentence (among the exceptions are Cinque 1990 and Avis 1993, cf. Chapter 4 below), so that the most relevant thing, viz., the appurtenance of this NP to the Topic or Focus, eludes them. In my approach, (20a) and (22a) go together in that they do not involve any shift with respect to the deep word-order. Out of these two cases, my interpretation of (22a) is different from that of the Chomskyans. I claim that in (22a), the surface position of the NP John roughly coincides with its deep position in the Topic (along with the NP Mary), so that both of these NPs, which belong to the Topic, are placed side by side, before the Focus, and there occurs no marked intonation in this sentence. This surface word-order corresponds to the word-order in nonconfigurational languages. Thus, one can speak in this case about "movement" only with respect to the fixed surface word-order in English. On the other hand, in my approach, (21a) and (23a) go together in that they involve shifts with respect to the deep word-order: in these sentences, the deep and surface word-order differ. This is manifested by the marked intonation, where the peak of intonation (indicating the Focus) is not placed sentencefinally: in (21a), it is placed sentence-initially, and in (23a), it is placed sentence-medially. The corresponding (simplified) deep word-order representations are given below in (20b)-(23b). In these representations, the elements are provided with superscipts indicated their appurtenance to Topic or Focus (T/F indicates ambiguity)). The only case of ambiguity occurs in (20a), with an unmarked surface word-order, where the verb may be interpreted as belonging to the Topic or to the Focus. This ambiguity can be disambiguated only by previous context or by contrastive continuation. (21a) is not ambiguous due to the sentence-initial position of the Focus (JOHN): a non-sentence-final occurrence of the Focus can be followed only by elements of the Noncontrastive Topic. (22a) is not

Word-order

35

ambiguous due to the "topicalization" of the NP John, which is understood as belonging to the Topic along with the NP Mary. (23a) is not ambiguous due to the marked peak of intonation, similarly as in (21a): what follows a stressed element can be only an element of Noncontrastive Topic. (20)b. Hove "Mary John \ (21)b. \love Mary John \ (22)b. [Mary7John

lovesF\

(23)b. [Mary John lovesF\

2.2.2 The functional approaches In the functional approaches, the Topic-Focus (theme-rheme, given-new) structuring of the sentence is distinguished, with respect to the communicative function of the sentence. Among these approaches, those by the adherents of the Prague School are well known, from Mathesius 1939 to Firbas 1992. Also Chomsky's 1968 notion of "range of permissible Focus" was inspired through the work of Halliday - by the insights of the Praguean scholars.

2.2.2.1 Avgustinova - Oliva 1996 Avgustinova - Oliva present an excellent conception of the communicative structure of the sentence within their theory of clitics. They argue that clitic clusters in the Czech sentence and in general "define the preceding lexical material as a single substantial communicative unit", and that Wackernagel's principle that clitics stand after the first word in the sentence should be changed into the principle that clitics occur "after the first substantial communicative segment" (1996: 25). This segment may consist of several occurrences of syntactic relations, as their Czech, German, Dutch and Swedish examples convincingly show (cf. 1996: 29-40). The sentence-initial segment after which the clitics are located consists usually of compound circonstants of path and period, such as from the Gulf of Mexico over the plains of Texas deserts to the first hills of the Rocky Mountains... orfrom the first mo-

36

Word-order

merits of the start from Bajkonur all over the stay in orbit till the very landing.... They distinguish clitics and semiclitics, pointing out the relative prosodic autonomy of clitics (1996:16-19). Remarkable is their conception of semiclitics, which may occur both as clitics and non-clitics (genitive, dative, and accusative pronominal forms, affirmative indicative present tense of forms of the auxiliary verb byt 'to be' standing with pasive participles, and short adverbials and other adverbial words such as uz 'already'; pry 'they say'; 'it is said'). The behavior of expressions belonging to this last group can be accounted for in terms of my "jumping" operators, as originally Topic-Focus segmentators assuming the role of segmentators detaching Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic, cf. 2.5 below. I claim that the only element which is ambiguous between clitic (Noncontrastive-Topic) and nonclitic (Contrastive-Topic) validity is the Czech pronoun to ('it'), in contradistinction to its English and German counterparts (it, es), which are always clitic (Noncontrastive-Topic); the Czech pronoun, unlike its English and German counterparts, can stand in Contrastive Topic, in Focus, in the scope of operators, etc. As regards the communicative structure of the sentence, (1996: 20-24), the authors propose that two types of segments of the sentence should be distinguished: (a) The auxiliary communicative segment, which consists of one or more adjacent elements which are informationally unessential, and therefore, not specified for communicative importance. Here belongs the segment involving clitics, roughly corresponding to my Noncontrastive Topic. (b) The substantial communicative segment, which consists of informationally essential and homogeneous (adjacent) elements. These elements are defined for communicative dynamism, but their degrees of communicative dynamism are equal, in that their (communicative, possibly semantically determined) import is assumed to be identical. Here belong the following groups of elements (occurring predominantly in the sentence-initial segment, which roughly corresponds to my Contrastive Topic): (aa) Compound constituents cognitively determining path and period, such as exemplified above. Here, I would only like to remark that there are cases where two adverbials determine a path or period, but the corresponding occurrences of syntactic relations occur in different communicative parts of the sentence, such as Topic and Focus, so that they differ in their communicative dynamism as well as in their communicative importance as defined by the authors, i.e., with respect to the possible other members of the communicative

Word-order

37

part (such as Topic or Focus) and also with respect to each other (cf. Koktova: 1976 and 1987, and examples such as From Manhattan, Terry was running to BROOKLYN). (bb) Sequences of several occurrences of cognitively related syntactic relations (such as several local and temporal modifications, a combination of local and temporal modifications, or combinations of other syntactic relations, such as in Prague on the 28th October street, every week on Sunday at nine o'clock), and possibly also other combinations of syntactic relations. (cc) The (directly interrogative) wh-pronouns in multiple wh-questions and the occurrences of syntactic relations in the corresponding answers, such as in Where did you see whom.... Here, I would only like to remark that in the answers, the autosemantic occurrences of syntactic relations, occurring in the Focus, should be rather viewed as carrying degrees of communicative dynamism and being ordered according to the neutral ordering in the prototypical case. To be praised is also the author's proposal of separating the syntactic and semantic levels of description (whose merging has been proposed in the Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar and in the Functional Generative Description).

2.2.2.2 Bolinger 1985 Bolinger emphasizes the gradient conception of Focus, showing the advantages of his treatment of accent and Focus in terms of interest, power, and contrast rather than in terms of importance. He distinguishes the climactic and the anticlimactic accent, which roughly corresponds to my distinction between Contrastive Topic and Focus. I appreciate Bolinger's view that "morphology and syntax are incrustations that accent must break free o f ' (1985: 121).

2.2.2.3 Danes 1968 Daneüi offers a theory of thematic sequences as a means of cohesion of (subsequent) sentences/utterances occurring in a text. He examines what can be the Topic of a sentence with respect to the preceding sentence, its Topic-Focus articulation and its content. Thus, typically, the Topic of a sentence may be the Focus or the Topic of the preceding sentence, a "hypertheme" of the whole

38

Word-order

text, the whole preceding sentence, or a semantic unit derived from the semantic units of the preceding sentence.

2.2.2.4 Dik 1994 Dik offers his conception of Functional Grammar, with functions of several levels, and with the notion of predication as the pivot if his theory. He distinguishes four pragmatic functions, Theme, Topic, Focus, and Tail, which would roughly correspond to my notions of parenthetical (dislocated) Contrastive Topic, Topic, Focus, and secondary Focus, respectively.

2.2.2.5 Firbas 1971,1992 Firbas elaborates on his theory of Functional Sentence Perspective, especially with respect to English, Czech, and German. He distinguishes the theme, the transition (the verb with its lexical semantics vs. morphological exponents), and the rheme. He introduces the notion of (degrees of) communicative dynamism as the extent to which the elements of the sentence contribute to the development of the utterance. He acknowledges that the theme may be further partitioned into parts which correspond to my Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic. He distinguishes three layers of the Topic-Focus articulation, the basic layer where the elements of the sentence are ordered according to a neutral ordering, the contextual layer where the ordering of the elements of the sentence is influenced by contextual factors (contextual boundness), and the layer of emphasis. He distinguishes also between objective and subjective ordering of the elements of the sentence (the subjective ordering is such that the Focus precedes the Topic on the surface). Further, Firbas works with the notion of unmarked ordering of syntactic relations according to their communicative importance, which corresponds to my neutral ordering.

2.2.2.6 Foley 1994 Foley takes an opposite perspective with respect to Siewierska, in that he (rightly) considers the information structure as primary and universal, and means of encoding the information structure, as secondary and crosslinguistically variable. He refers to the oppositions Topic-Focus, Presupposed-Focus, Topic-Comment and Given-New as possible alternatives for the basic informative partitioning of the sentence. He recognizes also additional

Word-order

39

categories of informational status: referential vs. nonreferential, definite vs. indefinite, generic vs. specific, and the animacy hierarchy. He examines the means of encoding the information status of the elements of the sentence: word-order (rightly remarking that the surface word-order in Russian is not entirely free, nor that in English entirely fixed), the topic marker in Japanese, and the verbal agreement affixes (cross-referencing to the topic by a verbal prefix) in Bantu and Papuan languages.

2.2.2.7 Kuppeveit 1993,1994 Kuppevelt 1993 proposes a hierarchical organization of topics, from the Topic of the discourse to sentence topics. The progression of topics in a sentence is viewed as based on a series of questions. However, in his conception, the notion of topic corresponds rather to the notion of Focus as used in this work: Focus as new information, which may be placed in certain cases (such as answers to questions) in the sentence-initial position. Kuppevelt 1994 brings an overview of conceptions of Topic, distinguishing definitions based on word-order (according to which the Topic is the sentence- initial element), on the syntactic specification (according to which the Topic is identified with the Subject) and on informational status (in terms of aboutness). His own approach is based on the word-order definition, where "the topic constituent can also have new status" (1994: 4632). However, in terms of the present theory, Kuppevelt's topics which have the new-information status corrrespond to Foci.

2.2.2.8 Mathesius 1939 Mathesius treats the Topic-Focus articulation of the sentence in English in comparison with Czech, claiming that English is not as sensitive to the Topic-Focus articulation as Czech because of its grammatically fixed surface word-order - a claim which I am going to partly refute below.

2.2.2.9 Payne (ed.) 1992 In the volume edited by Payne, a number of American Indian languages are discussed which exhibit different word-order properties than those of European languages.

40

Word-order

Thus, Mithun points out that in Cayuga, there is a permutation of the elements belonging to the new information (in my terminology, Focus) according to their relative "newsworthiness". This would be a case of absolute relaxability of new elements, as an evidence of the expressive flexibility of languages; it would come close to the parenthetical relaxations of adverbial modifications in the Focus of the sentence in English. Hale points out that in Papago, the basic word-order of the communicativeinformation parts of the sentence may be the reverse of what is known from European languages, viz., [Focus -Topic] (new information first). Payne, examining O'odham (Papago), calls attention to the fact that pragmatically marked, nonidentifiable, and important information is placed in the preverbal position. This corroborates my idea of Contrastive Topic. Quakenbush shows that there are two competing basic word-orders, viz., VSO and SVO in Agutayen. The former occurs in narrative texts, with a Subject hypertheme, whereas the latter is formal in expository texts. This is another piece of evidence for my idea that the hypertheme, as Noncontrastive Topic, is placed sentence-medially (rather than sentence-initially), and that new Subjects (as (implicitly) Contrastive Topics) are placed sentenceinitially.

2.2.2.10 Sgall et al. 1986 Sgall et al., within their proposal of the dependency-based, stratificational Functional Generative Description, conceive Topic and Focus as autonomous distinctions directly structured by the system of natural language (1986: 175-265). They point out the semantic relevance of the Topic-Focus distinction for the scope of negation (cf. Hajiiovä 1983), for the exhaustive listing of the sentence, etc. They employ a scale of degrees of communicative dynamism for all autosemantic elements of the sentence, and a systemic ordering of about thirty types of syntactic relations. However, their approach is empirically and theoretically not quite adequate, due (a) to their inadequate empirical background: rigid binary conception of communicative distinctions such as Topic and Focus, complemented only by the no less rigid left-to-right ordering of the elements of the sentence according to their degrees of communicative dynamism, and (b) to their confinining of the communicative, deep word-order distinctions to the formal properties of the dependency graph (cf. Koktova: 1997a, 1997b, in press b and submitted a, and here esp. Chapter 6, and also Chapter 4).

Word-order

41

2.2.2.11 Siewierska 1994 Siewierska concentrates on the problem of which factors determine surface word-order, departing from the Greenbergian typology of languages according to the basic order of the Subject (S), the verb (V), and the Direct Object (O). The assigment of one of the six types (according to the permutations of the three elements) to particular languages is determined by the statistically prevailing ordering which is found in the surface structure of the languages under examination. In my conception, the Greenbergian universals are types of (grammatically) fixed surface word-order, which are relaxed (rather than "violated") in various ways in particular languages. I claim that there are two common denominators of these relaxations: (a) the tendency to place the elements of the sentence into positions which correspond to deep word-order (such as the ordering [Topic-Focus]) (my type IVa of word-order), and (b) the counteracting tendency to place the elements of the sentence in positions which do not correspond to deep word-order (such as shifts of communicatively important parts of the sentence leftwards, in communicatively prominent positions) (my type IVb of word-order). Moreover, the Greenbergian types themselves may be viewed as various "conceptions" of natural language of which surface word-order is the most natural (unmarked). The "competition" is between the SVO and the SOV types as the most frequent word-order types. For more detail, cf. 2.4 below. Siewierska also calls to attention Vennemann's natural-serialization principle generalizing the competition of the VO/OV orders into that of the HeadModifier and Modifier-Head orders, and the partial failure of this principle: it has turned out that 57% of languages are inconsistent with respect to the positioning of their heads (such as V, N, Adj) and their modifiers. She suggests additional principles which may underlie the order of the elements in the sentence: (a) Iconicity, accounting for the "personal hierarchy" ordering (which may be responsible for the [IO-DO] basic ordering), for the adverbial [where from - where to] ordering, for the relevance ordering in coordination (cf. in and out, at sixes and sevens), etc. (b) Semantic bonding, accounting for the greater tightness of the semantic link between verb and Object than that between verb and Subject, and between verb and adverbials designating instrument, manner, and speed as compared with freer, locative and temporal adverbials.

42

Word-order

(c) Length and complexity, accounting for the second positions of clitics, which is referred to as Wackernagel's Law (to which counterexamples have been found, cf. Avgustinova - Oliva 1996 and 2.4 below), for the earlier placement of pronominals with respect to nominals, for the phenomena of Heavy NP Shift, and for the prehead position of shorter modifiers as compared to posthead positions of longer modifiers. Siewierska's elaborate account brings to attention psychologically based factors determining surface word-order permutations, including the anthropocentric character of the basic surface orderings. However, she does not pay proper attention to the informative status of the elements of the sentence, unduly mentioning on a par "pragmatic highlighting" and "language-specific condiderations" as factors influencing the "basic location of functional categories" (= syntactical categories) (1994: 4998). "Pragmatic highlighting" corresponds to my Type I of word-order (the distribution of the elements of the sentence into its communicative-information parts), and "language-specific considerations" correspond to my Types III, IVa, and IVb of word-order (parametric or language-specific phenomena of surface word-order).

2.2.2.12 Sornicola 1994 In an insightful article, Sornicola proposes to treat Topic and Focus as primitive (pragmatic) functions, which have structural correlates (of a syntactic and prosodic kind). Sornicola offers a psycholinguistically based characteristics of Topic and Focus: Topic can be characterized as the center of attention, and Focus, as the center of prominence, as two notions which are "differentiated in degree, being of the same nature: prominence, in fact, could be considered as a high degree of attention centering. In this light, syntactic processes such as left dislocation, topicalization, clefting and the like are nothing else than effects of pragmatic and cognitive properties of the human mind and human communication" (1994: 4639-4640). This is a very good justification for an introduction of Topic and Focus as primitive notions of the communicativeinformation structure of the sentence. Sornicola makes two interesting claims: (a) He claims that "there is in fact no a priori reason why the contextually bound (given/less dynamic/presupposed) part of the sentence should come first" (1994: 4634).

Word-order

43

(b) He claims that focus should be viewed as correlated to the dependency structure, in that in unmarked sentences, modifiers (the governed elements) are more focal than heads (the governing elements) ("natural languages seem to show a correlation between highly focal constituents and the property of being governed" (1994: 4635)). The former claim corresponds to my psycholinguistically corroborated observation that the most important information of the sentence is usually placed sentence-initially (Contrastive Topic) and sentence-finally (Focus), i.e., that the best-known (most contextually bound) information need not stand sentence-initially; rather, it has the tendency to be placed in the middle of the sentence, which yields the basic pattern of the communicative pulsation of the sentence. Further, I argue that the latter claim rightly rests on Sornicola's psycholinguistic approach: indeed, modifiers are prototypically communicatively more dynamic, more "new", than their heads. Empirically, Somicola treats in some detail two issues, both of which correspond to my Type IVa of word-order (shifts by means of which elements are placed in positions which correspond to the deep word-order) except for clefting: (a) Topic-related structures, such as hanging topic, left dislocation, topicalization, raising, and passivization (which I claim to be means of expressing Contrastive Topic). (As an exception, Sornicola treats under this heading also clefting, which is rather a means to promote the Focus (by shifting it to a marked, sentence-initial position) than to demote the Topic. Anyway, clefting belongs to my Type IVb of word-order: it is a shift by means of which a communicative part of the sentence gets into a position which does not correspond to the deep word-order.) (b) "Syntactic processes which keep the Focus in unmarked position", such as wh-clefts, right dislocation and extraposition.

2.2.2.13 Starosta 1994 A similar quadripartitioning is found in Starosta's 1993 and 1994 Lexicase theory: Theme (the first preverbal constituent), Topic, Spotlight, and Focus (the last postverbal constituent, or end focus). Theme and Spotlight are structural positions, whereas Topic and Focus are units of information structure. So, these four parts of the sentence have a mixed characteristics.

44

Word-order

I propose that it is possible to account for them jointly: theme would correspond to a dislocated (parenthetical) (part of) Contrastive Topic, and Spotlight (Dik's "Tail"), to a secondary Focus. Out of Theme and Spotlight/Tail, only the latter does not belong to the proper syntactic structure of the sentence.

2.2.2.14 Svoboda 1981,1984 Svoboda distinguishes several deep communicative parts of the sentence and several surface positions in which the communicative parts are typically placed. His theory is based on the notion of diatheme as the most communicatively dynamic element of the theme (Topic). It corresponds to Mathesius' notion of "the centre of the (point of departure of the) sentence", and to my notion of Contrastive Topic. The theme (Topic) of the sentence consists of the diatheme (corresponding to my Contrastive Topic) and theme proper (corresponding to my Noncontrastive Topic). Diatheme is constituted by "the least established scenic elements"..., by "new or changed quality bearers, or a new or changed indication of place, time or way of existence or appearance", which stands most frequently in the relation of "mild contrast" to the preceding quality bearer (1981: 42-43). In Svoboda 1984, the author elaborates on surface positions in the sentence where typically the communicative parts of the sentence are located. Thus, he distinguishes the preclausal, the pre-initial, the initial, the post-initial, the medial, the interclausal, and the medial positions. The diatheme usually occupies the initial or the medial position.

2.2.2.15 Erteschik-Shir 1996 Erteschik-Shir presents an interesting conception of the dynamics of the focus structure, as a viable alternative to the Chomskyan purely syntactically-based principles. Focus structure is a level of grammar, occurring after the level of syntax, and feeding both Phonological Interpretation and semantics. Focus structure is a structural description annotated with the marking of Topic and Focus constituents. Another key notion is I-dependency, or dependency which is restricted by the Subject Constraint (restriction by the occurrence of Subject as sentence Topic). Topic is defined in terms of "aboutness".

Word-order

45

In this way, Erteschik-Shir is able to give an elegant account to problems such as subject-object asymmetries, quantifier scope, wh-extraction, anaphora, etc. Her focus-structure theoretical approach is dynamic in that it assumes a theory of discourse. Her theory can be viewed as a fruitful combination of the Chomskyan interpretive and constituency-based approach with the theory of discourse.

2.2.3 Information packaging and word-order in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar 2.2.3.1 Engdahl et al. Engdahl (cf. Engdahl p. c., Engdahl - Vallduvi 1995, Vallduvi - Engdahl 1995) integrates into the multidimensional, monostratal description of the Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) the distinctions of the communicative-information structure of the sentence. Engdahl works with three distinctions (ground-link, ground-tail and focus), which she integrates into her theory as values of the INFORMATION- STRUCTURE feature as a subtype of CONTEXT information. The flexibility of this framework makes it possible to integrate into it more information-structure distinctions than only two, as in the Praguean Functional Generative Description. Engdahl's ground-link (henceforth, link) roughly corresponds to my Contrastive Topic, her ground-tail (henceforth, tail), to my Noncontrastive Topic, and her focus (henceforth, focus), to my Focus. Engdahl distinguishes the following types of (language-independent) instruction types (cf. Engdahl - Vallduvi 1995: 5) (out of these instruction types, the "all-focus" type corresponds to topicless sentences, which can serve as answers to the question What is the news?). 1. link-focus 2. link-focus-tail 3. all-focus 4. focus-tail I argue that this paradigm can be completed with several additional cases. The most important of them are: 5. link-tail-focus 6. tail-focus

46

Word-order

Further, I argue that there are additional minor cases involving the partitioning of link, tail, and focus in Czech, contributing to the "pulsating" and segmented character of the Czech sentence, cf. 7., 8. and 9. 7. link, - tail,...tailn - linkj - focus 8. link, - tail, - linlq - tail2 - focus 9. link, - tail, - link^ - focus, - tail2 - focus2 Out of these cases, 5. is a major instruction type found in Czech as a nonconfigurational language (and the mother tongue of the author of this book). It essentially corresponds to my basic communicative-information pattern [Contrastive Topic - Noncontrastive Topic - Focus], which I even consider to be the universally basic deployment of the three fundamental communicativeinformation parts of the sentence (English is one of the exceptions, because Noncontrastive Topic is usually placed sentence-finally if there is Contrastive Topic in the sentence, cf. Engdahl's type 2. above). Engdahl's type 1. and my type 6. are also very frequently found in Czech: in fact, they are complementary subcases of 5: there can occur only link (Contrastive Topic) or only tail (noncontrastive Topic) as Topic parts in a sentence (cf. types 1. and 6., respectively). Types 7., 8., and 9. are due to the segmentation of the Czech sentence, where tail, is a clitic pronoun (or a sequence thereof) which has a segmenting function, but at the same time is a part of Noncontrastive Topic. The partitioning of Focus into focus, and focus2 is due to the shift of the verb belonging to the Focus (possibly along with adverbial expressions) to the position between the whole Contrastive Topic and the nonclitic part of Noncontrastive Topic (tail2). For more detail, see 2.5 below. Vallduvi - Engdahl 1995 treat in some detail the comparison of langages exhibiting various ways of information packaging: English, German, Catalan, Hungarian, and Turkish. They point out the "syntactic" (word-order based) encoding of information packaging in Catalan: according to them, in Catalan, link is always placed to the left, and tail, to the right, of the Focus. Counterexamples can be found in Benedicto 1995 and p. c., who distinguishes five positions of the Subject, including the preverbal position which I assume to be the Topic position, the sentence-final position which is a Focus position, and the penultimate position, where I assume that the Subject belongs to the Focus according to its being a member of a sequence of syntactic relations which obey the neutral ordering given for Catalan in Vallduvi - Engdahl (1995: 15). Also, Vallduvi - Engdahl (1995:22-27) treat in some detail the "Focus slot" in Hungarian and Turkish in the penultimate/preverbal position in the sentence, which I claim to be a manifestation of the SOV word-order (with the

Word-order

47

peak of intonation prototypically on the Object). Here belong also the frame construction in German and the manifestations of the SOV order in Russian as described in Keijsper 1985.

2.2.3.2 Uszkoreit 1987,1995 Uszkoreit treats word-order in the framework of the performance model of natural language. He treats complex verb fronting; he proposes binary rightbranching structures for the account of the verb-final position in German, and he posits several general rules of the surface ordering of the elements of the middle field of the German sentence, in terms (a) of the [Nonfocus - Focus] distinction, (b) of the basic ordering of thematic relations (such as [Subject Goal - Theme]), prototypically corresponding to the [Nominative - Dative Accusative] Case ordering, (c) of the [Pronoun - Nonpronoun] distinction, (d) of the definiteness of the expressions in question, and (e) of their length (heaviness). Uszkoreit and Oliva p. c. give interesting examples of the basic ordering within the valency frames of certain verbs which is the opposite of the prototypical one, i.e., such that the Theme (Accusative) precedes the Goal (Dative) (as with the verbs vorstellen 'to introduce', unterziehen 'to subject', or vorziehen 'to prefer'). Uszkoreit (p. c.) offers an account of the impossibility of the German pronoun es 'it' and of other pronouns (er 'he', sie 'she') referring to inanimate objects to occur in emphasized positions, such as in the scope of a focalizer, in terms of their inanimacy. Uszkoreit's account can be fruitfully reinterpreted and amended in terms of my approach. For example, his account of heaviness has contributed to my conception of the relaxation of deep fixed word-order; his and Oliva's empirical research in specific case frames of verbs with a "reverse" ordering of syntactic relations with respect to the prototypical one underpins my theory of case frames as subsystems sui generis·, and Uszkoreit's account of "inanimate" pronouns can be combined with my account of contrastiveness (I propose that the properties of es 'it' should be accounted for rather in terms of its inherent noncontrastivity than its inanimacy; however, this property may be diachronically due to its inanimacy). Pechmann - Uszkoreit - Engelkamp - Zerbst 1994 treat word-order employing psycholinguistic evidence - an inquiry about ratings of acceptability of sentences with a difference in word-order of three definite sentence members

48

Word-order

(Subject, Indirect Object, Direct Object), cf. esp. the paradigm of six sentences in (1994: 2/8). However, it can be remarked that the authors have not taken into account that the acceptability of these orders heavily depends on whether there is the Topic-Focus boundary within the cluster of these syntactic relations: the focusing of one or more of the rightmost members of the cluster can make implausible sentences acceptable (thus, even the sentence, with the ordering [Direct Object - Indirect Object - Subject], such as Gestern schickte den Brief DEM VORSITZENDEN MEIN FREUND, becomes fully acceptable if the last two elements are conceived of as belonging to the Focus). Uszkoreit's approach is subject to critical scrutiny in Oliva 1989 and 1991, who treats in some detail the VP, claiming that the ordering constraints among non-sister constituents in a binary-branching tree can be accounted for in terms of lists rather than sets. It can be added that some of Oliva's putatively unacceptable examples can be improved (at least in my idiolect) if their final elements, whose positions are believed to cause the unacceptability, are set into a sharp contrastive context.

2.3 The proposal: deep and surface word-order I propose to account for the phenomena of deep and surface word-order in terms of four types of word-order (I, II, III, IV). Type IV has two subtypes, IVa and IVb. (a) Type I: fixed deep word-order. (b) Type II: free deep word-order. (c) Type III: fixed surface word-order. (c) Type IVa: free surface word-order corresponding to deep word-order. (d) Type IVb: free surface word-order not corresponding to deep wordorder. There are two distinctions involved: (i) Deep vs. surface word-order. (ii) Free vs. fixed word-order.

2.3.1 Deep vs. surface word-order (A) Deep word order, as a useful abstraction, is the ordering of the parts and elements of the sentence as communicative-information units. In the formalization of my Word-Order Based Grammar, deep word-order is captured by

Word-order

49

means of two features corresponding to the notions of (communicative) "parts" and "elements" of the sentence. (a) The COMMUNICATIVE-INFORMATION feature, which has five basic values, as the (communicative) parts of the sentence: Noncontrastive Topic, Contrastive Topic, indirectly interrogative wh-elements of the Focus, directly interrogative wh-elements of the Focus, and the non-wh-part of the Focus. Additionally, the sixth value, secondary Focus (corresponding to loose (parenthetical) constructions) can be integrated into my system, (b) The COMMUNICATIVE-IMPORTANCE feature, which has as its values the integers in is greater than 1), indicating the degrees of communicative importance in three respects: (aa) The degrees of communicative importance of the (communicative) elements of the sentence (occurrences of syntactic relations) within the communicative parts and within sentences. Communicative elements involve overtly expressed occurrences of syntactic relations as well as those expressed by zero anaphoric expressions on the surface, such as PRO, pro and parasitic gaps. Furthermore, every occurrence of a single syntactic relation (within a sentence) counts as a communicative element. (bb) The degrees of communicative importance of types of syntactic relations in the neutral ordering of syntactic relations including the grammatically embodied subsystems, such as case frames of verbs, and merely cognitively based subsytems, such as cognitive clusterings of syntactic relations (cf. [where from - where to]). (cc) The degrees of communicative importance of the (communicative) parts of the sentence (such as Contrastive Topic, Noncontrastive Topic, Focus, etc., cf. the list in (a) above) with respect to each other (there is only one possible, "neutral", ordering, which essentially does not change in actual sentences, except in echo-questions). According to the rising scale of communicative importance, Noncontrastive Topic precedes (is communicatively less important than) Contrastive Topic, but in actual surface sentences, the opposite ordering is predominantly observed. Deep word-order is the result of theoretical abstraction, i.e. of generalization based on empirical observation and on deduction. By means of such abstraction, it is possible to capture the core of the functioning of the system of natural language. The availability of postulated deep word-order distinctions are testable by operational criteria, based on the well-known negation test and question test as regards the distinction between Topic and Focus, on the properties of Contrastive Topic as discussed below in this chapter, and on the properties of wh-elements as discussed in Chapter 4. The postulated reper-

50

Word-order

toire of deep word-order units and rules may be changed with respect to the progress in empirical investigation. I would like to emphasize that one of the most interesting points about the postulated deep word-order as a useful abstraction are two possibly competing basic word-order patterns, viz., the one where the best known information comes first, and the newer information later (this would correspond to the deep pattern [Noncontrastive Topic - Contrastive Topic - Focus]), and the one where the most important (new) information is placed in the sentence-initial and sentence-final positions (this would correspond to the deep pattern [Contrastive Topic -Noncontrastive Topic - Focus], which is observable on the surface as a predominant surface pattern. Working-fashion, I opt for the former approach, considering the latter, observable pattern as one of the derivatives derivative of the former. I assume that the principles of deep word-order as discussed above are universal. (B) Surface word-order is the ordering of the parts and elements of the sentence (as communicative-information units) on the surface. On the surface, the communicative parts may be disintegrated into subparts, each of which may consist of one or more occurrences of syntactic relations. Additionally, there is one more type of expressions occurring on the surface, which has no parallel in the deep word-order, viz., surface words which function as carriers of grammatical information. Some of them have a communicatively relevant function, viz., that of segmenting the sentence into segments corresponding to communicative parts, subparts, combinations of parts or subparts, or to communicative elements. Surface word-order is what is directly observable on the surface, so generalizations about surface word-order (e.g. in terms of classification of surfaceword-order phenomena) may be more reliable than deep word-order abstractions. The phenomena of surface word-order observed so far corroborate my deep-word-order hypotheses. It should be noted here that I use the notions of configurational vs. nonconfigurational languages as abbreviations for "languages with predominantly grammatically fixed surface word-order" and "languages with predominantly free word-order", respectively. I assume that the particular rules of surface word-order are parametric or language-specific, but that the more general principles, viz., the two counteracting tendencies (corresponding to my types IVa and IYb of word-order) are universal.

Word-order

51

In the light of what has been said above, it would be preferable from a formal viewpoint to consider only my surface word-order types (III, IVa and IVb) as basic word-order types, and to relegate the deep word-order types (I and II) to the position of auxialiary devices.

2.3.2 Fixed vs. free word-order (A) Fixed word-order is the order of communicative parts, subparts and elements of the sentence (including surface words) which is a priori stipulated by theoretical abstraction or by grammatically-based word-order rules. The fixed character of word-order is not absolute; there are presumably always (marginal) relaxations of fixed word-order. The so-called violations of fixed word-order should be rather called (functional) relaxations. (B) Free word-order is the order of communicative parts, subparts and elements of the sentence (including surface words) which is not a priori stipulated, neither by theoretical abstraction nor by grammatically based wordorder rules. There are two counteracting but balanced tendencies in the surface wordorder of natural languages testifying to its synergetic (self-regulating, selforganizing) character: the tendency toward surface word-order which (roughly) corresponds to deep word-order, and the reverse tendency toward surface word-order which does not correspond to deep word-order. These two tendencies reflect two opposite tendencies in the process of conveying information by the sentences of natural languages, viz., the tendency toward communicative regularity (the speaker-based principle, reducing the entropy of communicative-information units) and the tendency toward functional, communicative irregularity (the hearer-oriented principle, enhancing the entropy of communicative-information units). More exactly, the former principle is based on the speaker's own tendency toward regularity, whereas the latter principle is based on the effort of the speaker to make the sentence irregular in order to attract the attention of the hearer. The tendency toward regularity may be connected with the tendency toward processing ease, in that this tendency accounts for the placement of the most accessible ("given") elements at the beginning of the sentence, and the placement of the less accessible ("new") elements at the end of the sentence. The tendency toward irregularity is due to the processing capacities and changing attention states of the hearer: the speaker tries to occasionally disrupt the hearer's expectations about the "regular" development of the mes-

52

Word-order

sage, and thus to attract his attention. Another attention-capturing means in the word-order architecture of the sentence is its segmentation into communicatively relevant parts, subparts and elements, by most different (grammatical, lexical, and prosodical) segmentators. This contributes to the processing ease including the highlighting of the communicatively relevant communicative units.

2.3.3 The basic cases of the Ave types of word-order In the following I survey the basic cases of the five types of word-order as listed in I, II, III, IVa, and IVb above. In some of these cases, I employ only the dichotomy Topic-Focus for the sake of simplicity of the exposition (assuming that the notion of Topic covers Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic, and that of Focus, the (obligatory) non-wh-part and the possible two wh-parts of the Focus).

2.3.3.1 Type I: fixed deep word-order There are two good examples of fixed deep word-order (as a theoretical abstraction): the hypotheticaly assumed deep ordering of the communicative parts of the sentence according to the rising degrees of communicative importance, cf. (24), and the neutral (unmarked) ordering of types of syntactic relations including their subsystems. (I abstract away, for the moment, from the possible inner partitioning of Focus.) (24) [Noncontrastive Topic (NT) - Contrastive Topic (CT) - Focus (F)] This order of the first two units of this proposed ordering, viz., of NT and CT, is reversal of what is found on the surface in most cases and in most (if not all) languages: [CT - NT]. Thus, I propose an (almost) obligatory leftward shift of Contrastive Topic as a communicatively important part of the sentence (second in importance only to the Focus) to the sentence-initial position (alternatively, it would be possible to postulate the order [CT - NT] as basic). I assume that my generalization about the deep order of the communicative parts is sound in view of psycholinguistic notions such as activation (accessibility) of the elements of utterance in the short-time memory of the interlocutors. The activation (givenness) of the elements of the sentence can be assumed to be proportionately inverse to the degrees of communicative importance (newness): the more communicatively important an element is, the less it is

Word-order

53

activated, and the other way round. Thus, NT is more activated (given), and hence less communicatively important (new), than CT. CT and NT can be characterized in terms of about ten properties, all of which based on the higher activation (accessibility) of NT with respect to CT. The generalization about CT and NT in turn holds also for the next pair of the proposed deep ordering, [Contrastive Topic - Focus]: Contrastive Topic is more activated (accessible) (and thus less communicatively important) than Focus, which justifies the proposed ordering. However, I am aware of the possibility of alternative proposals, such as positing the surface [CT - NT] ordering as deep, or proposing the communicative units as primitive notions only, without aspiring to assumptions about their deep ordering. Anyway, it can be safely assumed that in deep ordering, the Topic precedes the Focus, due to the assumption of the better accessibility of the Topic (with possible exceptions, cf. the proposal, by Hale, of the basic [new-given], i.e. [Focus-Topic], ordering for Papago in Payne 1992).

2.3.3.2 Type II: free deep word-order The best example for this word-order type is the free distribution of types of syntactic relations over the communicative-information parts of the sentence, most notably over the Topic and the Focus. Intuitively, this is supported by the assumption that anything (any sequence of occurrence of syntactic relations) can be "spoken about", or mentioned in the previous discourse, so that it becomes "contextually bound". In constituency-based approaches, however, only the most prototypical syntactic structurings of Topic and Focus are usually considered, which are, so-to-say, only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, there is not only a theoretical, but also a practical combinatorial explosion of how the Topic and the Focus (or, more exactly, all communicativeinformation parts of the sentence) of the sentence may be syntactically structured: for example, in case of a sentence consisting of four elements, there are fifteen possibilities of the syntactic structuring of Topic and Focus; in the case of five elements, there are thirty-one possibilities, and so on. Not all of these possibilities are expressible without difficulties in configurational languages (languages with fixed word-order), but due to the universal effability (expressibility) of natural language, there is always one way or another of how to express these distributions.

54

Word-order

An example of an untypical structuring of Topic and Focus may be the German utterance (25b) (as an answer to (25a)). In (25b), the Topic consists of the adverbial modification of Direction (where to) and of the verb, and the Focus, of the Subject, and of the adverbial modifications of Direction (where from and which way) (whereby the modification of Direction which way has not been asked for, but it belongs to the Focus). The elements of these sentences are provided with superscripts indicating their appurtenance to the Topic or Focus of the sentence. To be noted is the adjacency of the elements of the Topic, and of those of the Focus, in German as a nonconfigurational language, as contrasted with the surface "split" Topic and "split" Focus in the English version of (25b). (25) a. [Wer und wohin]F [lieff [von der Telefonzelle]F Who and where ran from the telephon box 'Who and where ran from the telephone box?' b.

[Von der Telefonzelle]r [lief]T [Peterf [in das StadtzentrumY From the telephone box ran Peter to the city centre 'From the telephone box, Peter ran to the city center.'

2.3.3.3 Type III: fixed surface word-order The best example is the grammatically fixed surface word-order in English, of the Greenbergian type [S - V - Ο (- Adv)]. Generally, all of the Greenbergian types belong to fixed surface word-order: it can be assumed that the deep communicative-information partitioning of sentences is available irrespective of these fixed orderings, and that this partitioning is expressed by various means on the surface, ranging from intonation through special grammatical constructions such as clefts to Topic and Focus markers. The phenomena of the grammatically fixed surface word-order (as a Procrustean bed for the elements of the sentence) are often relaxed by my Type IVa (and also by my Type IVb) of word-order.

Word-order

55

2.3.3.4 Type IVa: free surface word-order corresponding to deep word-order The best example of the tendency toward surface free word-order corresponding to deep word-order are topicalizations (leftward shifts) of elements belonging to Topic, and focalizations (rightward shifts) of elements belonging to Focus in configurational languages. By these "movements", the elements of the sentence which are placed in positions due to the grammaticaly fixed word-order get into positions which (roughly) correspond to their deep positions: the elements of the Topic strive to be placed to the left, and the elements of the Focus, to the right. An analogue in German are the violations of the "frame construction". In the frame construction in German (which is a manifestation of fixed surface word-order in German as a predominantly nonconfigurational language), the infinitive and the participle are placed in the sentence-final position, usually after the Object, which carries the peak of intonation and is the most communicatively important element of the Focus (= Focus proper) of the sentence. However, if the Focus proper preceding the verbal form is "heavy" (long, important etc.) enough, it "jumps" across the verb to the right, which corresponds to its deep position as the most communicatively important element of the sentence.

2.3.3.5 Type IVb: free surface word-order not corresponding to deep word-order The best examples of surface free word-order not corresponding to deep word-order are leftward shifts of scoping expressions to scope-ambiguous positions in English (and also in other languages), and emphatic fronting of (short) Foci, usually to the sentence-initial position (and sometimes, such as in Czech, to the sentence-medial position). The former type of shift was exemplified above in section 2.1; to recall it, let me give another typical example, viz., the shift of the focalizer only to the preverbal position, cf. (26a) and its simplified deep representation in (26b), where the adverb only has in its scope only the postverbal part of the sentence, the expression subarctic regions. However, on the surface, only is placed before the verb, which may cause a scoping ambiguity (only can have in its scope only the postverbal part of the sentence, the expression the subarctic re-

56

Word-order

gions, or the whole VP, i.e. the expression considers only the subarctic regions). In (26b), I have captured the first, i.e. the preferred and intended reading of (26a). (The NT/CT superscripts indicate the potential ambiguity of the elements in question between NT and CT, which is irrelevant here.) (26) a. In his 1983 book, Professor XY only considers the subarctic regions b. [Professor XY]™" [considers]™0* [in his 1983 book]07 [only]Fx [the subarctic regions]Fs l

2.4 The five types of word-order In this section, I shall treat in more detail the five types of word-order (I, II, III, IVa, IVb).

2.4.1 Fixed deep word-order (type I) There are three issues of fixed deep word-order: (i) the deep order of the communicative parts of the sentence; (ii) the ordering of the head and its modifier; (iii) the neutral ordering of syntactic relations including subsystems.

2.4.1.1 Five communicative-information parts I propose that there should be distinguished five basic communicativeinformation parts of the sentence, instead of the traditional dichotomies such as [Topic-Focus] (theme-rheme) (Sgall et al. (1986: 216-220), Abraham 1992), or trichotomies such as [theme-transition-rheme] (Firbas 1992), or [link-tail-focus] (Engdahl - Vallduvi 1995). These five communicativeinformation parts are as follows, according to their rising degrees of communicative importance. 1. Noncontrastive Topic. 2. Contrastive Topic. 3. The indirectly interrogative part of the Focus. 4. The directly interrogative part of the Focus. 5. The non-wh-part of the Focus.

Word-order

57

Additionally, a sixth part can be distinguished, viz., the secondary Focus. Secondary Foci are loose (parenthetical) parts of the sentence, such as sequences of syntactic relations standing in the scope of focalizers such as especially, or detached nominal appositions. There may be more than one secondary Focus in a sentence. Moreover, a further partitioning of Contrastive Topic into distinct communicative parts can be considered in view of the fact that in English each part of Contrastive Topic is parenthetically detached from the rest of the sentence. These five communicative-information parts will be henceforth indicated as follows, especially in superscripts in examples: Noncontrastive Topic = AT; Contrastive Topic = CT\ the indirectly interrogative part of the Focus: WH-INDIR-F-, the directly interrogative part of the Focus: WH-DIR-F, and the non-wh-part of the Focus, NON-WH-F (which is the only obligatory part of the sentence). I also use two default indications: Τ, indicating the Topic as a whole, or related to any part of the Topic, and F, related to the whole Focus or to any part of the Focus. The following considerations should justify the assumption of the rising degrees of the communicative importance of these communicative parts of the sentence. (a) It can be assumed on psycholinguistic grounds that the Topic (as a whole) precedes the Focus, because of the better accessibility of the Topic as a more activated (given, known etc.) information. Within Topic, the Noncontrastive Topic should precede the Contrastive Topic on the same grounds, due to the better accessibility of the Noncontrastive Topic. Within the Focus, communicatively the most important is the non-wh-part of Focus, with respect to which the question is asked. Out of the two interrogative parts, the indirectly interrogative part is less communicatively important than the directly interrogative part. (For more detail on the structuring of the Focus with interrogative wh-elements, cf. Chapter 4). This five-fold partitioning of the Focus can be exemplified by two examples. (27a) and its (simplified) underlying (deep) word-order representation in (27b) illustrates the cooccurrence of Contrastive Topic, Noncontrastive Topic, and the non-wh-part of Focus. (28a) and its (simplified) underlying representation in (28b) illustrates the cooccurrence of the indirectly interrogative part, the directly interrogative part, and the non-wh-part, of the Focus of the embedded sentence. (27)a.

TomorrowCT, John"7 will g0NON WHF to the swimming poolNON WH F

58

Word-order r ι

j

NT

b [John tomorrow

CT

WHmF

...

NONWHF

will-go m

.

.

MON-WHF-,

to-the-swimming-pool F

J

WHD,RF

(28)a. in (Tell me) when John h i t " whom • .1 I NONWHF the garden / T · 17 \ τ I ΛΤ , WH-IND-F | WH-DIR-F , .JiON-WH-F b . (I ell me) John when whom hit • ,, , NONWHF in-the-garden

Out of these communicative-information parts, only the non-wh-part of the Focus is obligatory. There may be topicless (all-new) sentences.

2.4.1.2 Multiple occurrence of syntactic relations Each communicative-information part may consist of any combination of occurrences of syntactic relations, on two types of occurrence: single and multiple occurrence. Free adverbial modifications, such as those of Place, Time, Cause, etc., may occur multiply within a sentence (multiple occurrence), which can be further subcategorized in two types: (a) Clusters of multiple occurrence of a single syntactic relation within the single communicative parts of the sentence. In this case, the order of these occurrences is restricted cognitively/semantically, but these restrictions may be so strong that at least some of them should be entered as restrictions on cooccurrence in the grammatical rules. With the adverbial modification of place, the expression with a wider meaning should come first if the expressions are adjacent, cf. in London at the Piccadilly Circus, in the kitchen on the table, (to scratch oneself) in the kitchen under one's arm. If the wider expression follows the nerrower one, such as in Your food is on the table in the kitchen (this example is due to my referee), the wider expression in the kitchen is felt rather as an adnominal adjunct (which table). With the adverbial modification of Time, there is a fixed order [the day - its part], such as the Czech vcera vecer 'yesterday in the evening', etc. In I'll see you later today (due to my referee), later is the Focus (new information), and today, the Topic (old information, indexical element). Within a single communicative-information part of the sentence, the sequences of the occurrences of a single type of syntactic relation cannot be interrupted by occurrences of other syntactic relations, cf. *in London yesterday at the Piccadilly Circus..., *in London John at the Piccadilly Circus..., * yesterday because of Mary at five o'clock. I have found an interesting case in Czech, viz., a sequence of two adverbial modifications of place, of which the first one was an indirectly interrogative wh-element (kam 'where'), and the

Word-order

59

second one was a non-wh prepositional phrase; these two occurrences were detached by the formal (meaningless) reflexive pronoun se (belonging to the lexeme of certain Czech verbs), cf. sli do pivovaru, kam se do kvasirny vesla celd rota, (literally: "they went to the brewery - where - reflexive pronoun - in the fermenting department - could be accommodated - the whole troop" 'they went to the brewery, where (= in the brewery) there could be accommodated the whole troop in the fermenting department') (a sentence excerpted from a novel by the Czech writer Jaroslav HaSek). (b) Occurrences of a syntactic relation occurring in different communicative-information parts. In this case, there is no semantic/cognitive ordering imposed on these occurrences, cf. (29a) and (29b), where the expressions in question, viz., in the kitchen and under his arm belong to different communicative parts of these sentences (Topic, Focus). (29)a. In the kitchen, John scratched himself under his ami b.

Under his armT, John scratched himself in the kitchen

2.4.1.3 Contrastive Topic A special issue to be discussed in this section is Contrastive Topic. First of all, I would like to mention the authors who explicitly or implicitly acknowledge the distinction between Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic, albeit sometimes in differrent terms. Thus, Abraham 1992 speaks about contrastive and grammatical accent, which corresponds to my distinction bewteen Contrastive Topic and Focus. Bolinger 1985 makes the distinction between anticlimactic and climactic stress, which corresponds to the distinction between Contrastive Topic and Focus. Cardinaletti 1992 distinguishes two Spec-CP positions, the A'-position (roughly corresponding to my Contrastive Topic) and the Α-position (roughly corresponding to my Noncontrastive Topic). Dik's 1994 and Starosta's 1994 distinctions of Theme and Topic roughly correspond to my Contrastive-Noncontrastive Topic distinction. DuSkova (1994: 528) claims that "the point of departure of the sentence", is usually an adverbial expression which is more communicatively dynamic than Topic proper, such as a pronominal Subject. Her notion of "point of departure of the sentence" corresponds to my notion of Contrastive Topic.

60

Word-order

Engdahl's 1995 distinction of Ground-link and Ground-tail corresponds to my distinction Contrastive-Noncontrastive Topic. Firbas 1992 and p.c. acknowledges the existence of a contrastive part of the Topic, which can be more communicatively dynamic than Noncontrastive Topic. Haegeman's 1993 examples testify to the existence of Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic in West Flemish: the clitics are Noncontrastive Topics, and moreover, they are able to segment the Topic into its Contrastive and Noncontrastive part. Könitz 1982 speaks about "rheme in theme", which corresponds to Contrastive Topic. Lasnik - Uriagereka's 1988 dislocated Topics correspond to Contrastive Topic. Lötscher distinguishes the "strong theme" (= Contrastive Topic) and "weak theme" (= Noncontrastive Topic). Svoboda's 1981, 1984 diatheme corresponds to my Contrastive Topic, and his Theme proper, to Noncontrastive Topic. Sticha (1987 and p. c.) acknowledges the availability of Contrastive Topic within his approach to contrastiveness (e.g., he observes that a sentencemedial Focus in Czech and German is more contrastive than a sentence-final one). Uhlirovä 1987 employs the notion of contrast in Topic, and speaks about the segmentation of the clause-initial contrastive element by the following conjunction such as ze 'that' from the rest of the sentence. Yokoyama's 1993 notion of imposition corresponds to my notion of Contrastive Topic. Zimovä 1994 acknowledges the availability of Contrastive Topic in her work on anaphoric expressions in Czech. These linguistic approaches are supported also by psycholinguistic investigations with respect to proactive and rectroactive inhibition (cf. Meiran 1994), as mentioned above in 2.1. The notion of Topic covers three types of the Topic, which can be characterized as follows: (a) Contrastive Topic (CT) as a strict grammatical distinction; (b) Noncontrastive Topic (NT) as a strict grammatical distinction; (c) New Topic, which is not a strict grammatical distinction; it is not expressed pronominally but by semantically fullfledged expressions, and it is often implicitly contrastive. The properties of Contrastive Topic in my proposal can be listed as follows:

Word-order

61

1. CT is more communicatively important than NT. This is due to its lower activation/salience (accessibility) than NT, and hence, its greater "newness". 2. CT cannot stand sentence-finally, after the Focus, even if there is Noncontrastive Topic intervening between Focus and Contrastive Topic. Thus, the following orders are inadmissible: (a) * [Focus - Contrastive Topic], (b) * [Focus - Noncontrastive Topic - Contrastive Topic]. 3. CT, if expressed pronominally, must be expressed in Czech by the "long" ("strong", nonclitic) pronominal forms, which can occur only in CT and in Focus (cf. section 2.4.3 and Chapter 5 below for more detail). On the other hand, the "short" (clitic) forms can occur only in NT. Similarly, the German es 'it' and the English it are "short" forms occurring only in Noncontrastive Topic, as contrasted with the "long" forms: the German das 'that' and the English that, respectively. 4. If CT is expressed by semantically autosemantic expressions, it cannot be pronominalized by "short" ("weak") pronominal forms nor can it be deleted. 5. CT carries the secondary intonation peak of the sentence. If CT stands in the untypical position, i.e., after NT, it must be distinctly contrastively stressed. 6. CT is close to Focus, in that CT can be salva veritate, and with the preserved communicative thrust of the sentence, changed into elements of the Focus. This is illustrated by the German sentence (30) (with Contrastive Topic) and by (31) (with these elements transposed into Focus). CT

(30)

(31)

f^T

F

CT*

F

Karl fuhr nach Berlin, und Boris nach Hamburg Charles go-3-sg-pret to Berlin and Boris to Hamburg 'Charles went to Berlin, and Boris, to Hamburg' Es fuhr"7 KarlF nach Berlin, und BorisF nach Hamburg It-expl go-3-sg-pret Charles to Berlin and Boris to Hamburg There went Charles to Berlin, and Boris, to Hamburg'

7. CT is usually expressed by indexically based (implicitly contrastive) or by communicatively new spatiotemporal adverbial modifications: (a) indexically based, contrastively new expressions: yesterday, tomorrow, last year, next year, there, in other countries (which stand in an implicit contrast to indexical elements such as today, this year, here, in our country),

62

Word-order

(b) non-indexically based, really communicatively new expressions, such as in 1961 vs. in 1998. 8. CT tends to consist of independent parts, which might be considered as distinct communicative-information parts of the sentence. These parts are detached parenthetically from the rest of the sentence, cf. (32). (32)

Later"', half a world away07'2, millions more7 heard the unchallengeable beep of the strange satellite on American radio and televisionf

9. CT may involve three kinds of lesser accessibility than typical Noncontrastive Topic, i.e., as three pragmatic functions: (a) Explicit contrast. For example, explict contrast is a condition for the occurrrence of negation and other focalizers in the scope-unambiguous postverbal position (Cf. also Chapter 3.) (b) Implicit contrast, which is the most usual pragmatic function of Contrastive Topic. (c) Newness, in which case there need not be any explicit contrast present. It is appropriate to add a remark about cases of Exraposition, where the sentence-final adnominal adjunct is viewed as "extraposed" with respect to its sentence-initial or sentence-medial noun. I make the following claim: In English, the sentence-initial noun belongs to the Focus. On the other hand, in Czech, the sentence-initial noun, unlike its adjunct, is interpreted as Contrastive Topic. This is illustrated by the English example (33) (with the noun in Focus) vs. the Czech example (34) (with the noun in Contrastive Topic). (33)

A man entered the room whom everybody recognizecf

(34)

Prdceto byla tezka work it-expl be-3-sg-fem-pret hard-fem 'Work, it was a hard one'

Thus, it should be emphasized (cf. also below) that extraposition in English should be rather viewed as the shift of the noun from its deep position within a NP at the end of the sentence leftwards, to the Subject position, according to the grammatically fixed surface word-order in English (whereby the noun along with its adjunct retain their Focus characteristics).

Word-order

63

On the other hand, in Czech, a noun along with its adjunct belonging to the Focus occur sentence-finally on the surface. The occurrence of the noun in sentence-initial position yields a different interpretation of its communicat tive- information status (not Focus but rather Contrastive Topic). The impossibility for the German pronoun es 'it' to occur as a sentenceinitial Object (cf. (35)) and the impossibility of its focalizing should be attributed to its inherently Noncontrastive character: I claim that unlike the other pronominal forms, es is a "short" form analogous to the Czech short forms. An analogy holds for the English pair it (inherently Noncontrastive) - that (possibly Contrastive or focal)). (Cf. also Chapter 5 below.). In stead of es in (35), the grammatical "long" form das should be used. (35) *EsCT habe ich [nicht gesehenf It-Acc-sg-neuterhave-l-sg-pres-Aux I not see-past-participle Ί have not seen it'

2.4.1.4 The Head-Modifier order I assume that there are four types of Head-Modifier relation. (a) The relation between the verb and its complements; I propose, however (cf. Chapter 6 below) that the deep structure of the sentence should be viewed as flat, with the verb and the occurrences of syntactic relations within the sentence as occurring at the same hierarchical level, so that the verb should not be viewed as (prototypical) head.); (b) the relation of the noun and its modifiers (adnominal adjuncts); (c) the relation of the adjective and its adverbial modifiers; (d) the relation of the adverb and its adverbial modification. It can be reasonably assumed that in the prototypical case (without the influence of context, i.e., in the neutral ordering), the modifier is more communicatively important than the head, i.e. that the modifier stands to the right of the head in the deep representation. The only problematic issue is the verb: I believe that due to my proposal of a flat structure for the deep representation of the sentence, the verb belongs to the neutral ordering of syntactic relations. Theoretically, as a (putative) "head" (or an expression with head-like qualities), it should stand in the first position in the Focus of the sentence as well as in the neutral ordering. However, as I propose in Chapter 3, there is one type of syntactic relation, viz., the

64

Word-order

adverbial modification of Attitude (covering scoping expressions) which stands before the verb both in the Focus of the sentence and in the neutral ordering. This contributes to the justification of my proposal, i.e. to the nonhead conception of the verb. In case of topicalization of the modifier expression (= its occurrence in the Topic), the head may be more communicatively important, i.e., stand to the right of the modifier in the deep representation, cf. (36). (36)

I wanted your PEN, not your PENCIL

In case of the relation [Noun - adnominal adjunct], there are surface wordorder conventions of the modifier placement. For example, in English, German, and in Slavonic languages, the adjectival adjunct stands usually before its nominal head. Although the adjunct is prototypically more communicatively important than its nominal head, it is the head which receives by default the peak of intonation, by means of a process which may be called "assimilation", or "attraction" of the intonation peak by the sentence-final element. Thus, in fact, head-modifier sequences with the stressed nominal head to the right of the adjectival adjunct, without the contrastive continuation (such as green APPLE or red PENCIL) are ambiguous, with the preferred (unmarked, default) interpretation the reverse of what is indicated by the intonation peak: in such sequences, the adjectival adjunct is more communicatively important than the head. It should be noted here that a language exhibiting special behavior in the ordering head-modifier is Russian. It has mixed properties, placing the head or the modifier in positions corresponding to their deep word-order, according to their communicative importance. Thus, in NPs, the modifier (adjunct), if communicatively unimportant, such as if expressed by possessive pronouns, is postponed, cf. rodina moja 'homeland - my', zizn' moja 'life - my' (although in the majority of cases, it is preposed, cf. Znaes-li ty moju rodinu ? 'do you know my homeland'). On the other hand, in sentences, the verb (as "head") is postponed if communicatively less important than the Object, cf. the well-known example with Russian Gapping testifying to the (partly) SOV character of Russian: in the second, non-gapped, conjunct of such sentences, the stressed Object (as the most communicatively important part of the Focus) precedes the unstressed verb (Ja VODU, i Ivan VODKUpil ("I (Subject) WATER (Object), and Ivan (Subject) VODKA (Object) was drinking").

Word-order

65

2.4.1.5 The neutral ordering of types of syntactic relations I assume that there is a scale of neutral ordering for types and hypertypes of syntactic relations, with cognitively-based and grammatically-embodied subsystems (the subsystems may be embodied as valency frames of verbs, or as cognitively based hypertypes of syntactic relations, such as the relation of Direction ([wherefrom - where to]). I assume that there are two principles operative in the neutral ordering: (a) The anthropocentric principle of conceptualization of events, due to which, for example, in the majority of languages the Subject precedes the Objects) in the neutral ordering. Thus, there are altogether 95.8% of [Subject Object] languages as compared to 4.2% of [Object - Subject] languages (according to Siewierska (1994: 4994)). (b) The processing principle. There are two types of neutral orderings: (aa) The English-like neutral ordering, where the Objects immediately follow the verb, and where adverbial modifications are placed after the Objects: [Subject - Verb - Objects - Adverbials], such as in I cut a piece of bread with a knife. In this case, the elements of the basic pattern of action [Subject - Verb Object] are adjacent, i.e., the gestalt of the event is easier to process (cf. Siewierska's 1994 notion of semantic bonding). (bb) The Slavic and Germanic-like neutral ordering, where the Objects are placed only after (the majority of) adverbial modifications, i.e. in the sentence-final position: [Subject - Verb - Adverbials - Objects], such as in Ukrojil jsem nozem kousek chleba Ί cut - with a knife - a puiece of bread'. This type of neutral ordering has another advantage, viz., that the communicatively most importanr elements (which are usually Objects) are placed in the sentence-final position. The counterexamples given by Professor Werner Winter, viz., Ich lese die Zeitung am Frühstücktisch Ί read the newspaper at the breakfast table' and Ich kaufe die Zeitung im Kiosk Ί buy the newspaper at the newsstand' do not belong to neutral ordering (occurring in the Focus) because the Direct Object (die Zeitung) belongs here to the Topic. I assume that in the prototypical case, the elements in the communicative parts of the sentence (i.e. Noncontrastive Topic, Contrastive Topic, the indirectly interrogative part of the Focus, the directly interrogative part of the Focus, and the non-wh-part of the Focus) obey the neutral ordering, though to a different extent. If the order of the elements in a sentence is different from the neutral ordering, either topicalization is involved (the element violating the neutral ordering and the elements which precede it belong to another

66

Word-order

communicative-information part), or there is a permissible relaxation involved within a single communicative-information part involved. The question now is which of the two above-mentioned types of neutral ordering, (aa) or (bb), is more "natural" or more "perfect". There are two opposite pieces of evidence: (a) As a matter of fact, I claim that the English-like neutral ordering is the basis for the interpretation of anaphoric relations, in that the English-like order [Objects - Adverbials] is basic also for Czech as a Slavic language with a different neutral ordering (cf. Chapter 5 below). (b) On the other hand, the Objects are most frequently the most communicatively important elements, which often yields a clash between the neutral ordering and the need of the speaker to express in particular sentences that both an adverbial modification and an object belong to the Focus, but that the Object is more communicatively important (i.e., that it is the Focus proper). This leads to parenthetical insertions of adverbial modifications before Objects in English. Also van Valin's continuum of functional (thematic) relations (1994:1329, Fig. 1) resembles the Slavic and Germanic-like neutral ordering, starting with Agent, continuing with adverbial modifications, and ending up with the Patient. The continuum is as follows: [Agent - Force - Instrument - Experiencer Source - Path - Goal - Recipient - Theme - Patient]. However, van Valin's proposal is based on the prototypical character of Agency and Patiency rather than on the communicative structure of the sentence. There are many versions of listings of types of syntactic relations, such as the one in Mel'öuk 1988, in Sgall et al. 1986 or in Sag 1987. However, I have a number of objections to, and improvements of, these orderings. My major amendmends consist (a) in the introduction of several crucial new types of syntactic relations: the adverbial modification of Attitude for the generation of scoping expressions (cf. Koktova: 1986 and 1987, and Chapter 3 below), the Nonrestrictive adjunct, the Predicative Complement, the adverbial modification of Circumstance, and, last but not least, the verb itself, (b) in the reordering of some of them, such as directional and causal modifications, (c) in my conception of neutral ordering as involving grammatically and cognitively based subsystems, and (d) in my modification of Case Shifting as proposed in Panevovä (1980: 44-46). I would like to note in advance that I do not work with the notion of syntactic dependency: instead, I conceive the verb and the occurrences of syntactic relations in the sentence as cooccurring ("cohabiting") in a flat structure (where these occurrences and the verb differ only in their values of the

Word-order

67

COMMUNICATIVE-INFORMATION and the COMMUNICATIVE-IMPORTANCE feature of my formal description). As regards the relation of the noun and adnominal adjunct (and of the adjective and its adverbial adjunct, etc.), I employ the notion of subordination (cf. Chapter 6 below.) First of all, let me give my version of the neutral ordering of syntactic relations which can cooccur with the verb involving the verb for English, cf. (37a). The first position is occupied by the adverbial modification of Attitude, by means of which scoping expressions should be generated, and the second position is occupied by the verb. Obligatory syntactic relations are indicated by the subscript Oblig. The syntactic relations which may be dependent on the noun only are listed in (37b). It should be emphasized that this neutral ordering is complete only if supplemented by a full list of case-frame-based and free cognitively based subsystems, such as the case frame of verbs of saying and thinking consisting of three Objects, etc. (37) a. The neutral ordering of syntactic relations which can cooccur with the verb, including the verb, for English: 1. Attitude (John likes only Mary) 2. The verboblig {John likes Mary) 3. Actoroblig (John likes Mary) 4. Circumstance (John was working in candlelight) 5. Time - since when (John has been abroad since March) 6. Time - when {John came yesterday) 7. Time - how long (John was abroad for three months) 8. Time - till when (John will be abroad till December) 9. Time - for how long (John went abroad for three months) 10. Predicative Complement^ (John is clever) 11. Manner (John was walking quickly) 12. Extent (Mary was crying intensely) 13. Addresseeoblig (Indirect Object) (John gave Mary an apple) 14. Patientoblig (Direct Object) (John gave Mary an apple) 15. Origin (John turned from a boy into a smart young man) 16. Effect (John turned from a boy into a smart young man) 17. Instrument (John was eating with a spoon) 18. Benefactive (John sent Mary a toy for her son) 19. Accompaniment (John was reading a novel with Mary) 20. Restriction (All pupils came except for John) 21. Substitution (John had to visit Mary instead of her brother)

68

Word-order

22. Norm (They constructed the model of a car according to the car's prototype) 23. Criterion (The teacher evaluated the pupil's abilities according to his ability to read) 24. Difference (John is by two inches taller than Bill 25. Direction - from where (John was running from Manhattan to Brooklyn) 26. Direction - which way (John was running from Manhattan through a tunnel to Brooklyn) 27. Direction - where to (John was running from Manhattan to Brooklyn) 28. Locative (John fastened it with a hammer and nails in the kitchen) 29. Regard (With regard to his difficult position, John flew away) 30. Condition (John will go to London if the weather is good) 31. Cause (John hit Bill because of Mary) 32. Concession (John will go to London in spite of his sickness) 33. Purpose (John wants to get another job in order to earn more money) 34. Result (John gave Mary money so that she is secure now) 35. Comparison (John is by two inches taller than Bill) (37) b. The neutral ordering of syntactic relations which can be subordinated only to the noun 36. Restrictive adjunct (I do not want green apples\ 37. Partitive (Bring me a bottle of milk) 38. Appurtenance (John's right leg is wounded) 39. Identity (the city of London) 40. Nonrestrictive adjunct (John, who is my friend, will never betray me) I propose that there are the following subsystems within the neutral ordering which are independent of each other and which can only exceptionally interact, but which should not be collapsed. All of them are cognitively-based and grammatically-embodied subsystems. Some of them are embodied in case frames of verbs (such as [Indirect Object - Direct Object]), and some of them are free (such as to move [from where - where to], to last [since when till when]). (a) Case-frame subsystems.

Word-order

69

1. Verbs with two Objects (verbs of simple activities, such as to give somebody something have the case frame [Indirect Object - Direct Object] with exceptions, such as to take something away from somebody [Direct Object Indirect Object]. The person receiving and the person from which something is taken can be referred to as Addressee, in distinction to the thing which is given or taken [Direct Object]. 2. Verbs with three Objects (verbs of communicating and thinking, such as to tell [somebody something about somebody/something], to write [{somebody) poems on somebody], the Czech odpovidat [komu co na co] 'to answer [somebody something (as a reaction) to something]') have the case frame [Indirect Object - First Direct Object - Second Direct Object]. Here, a more subtle classification of Czech should be made, and the 'Second Direct Object' could be renamed according to its semantic shades. Anyway, both Direct Object have in common that they differ from Indirect Object (Addressee). 3. Verbs of changing (such as to change [someone (from a human being) into a monster]) have the case frame [Direct Object - (Origin -) Effect]. 4. Verbs of "resultative" activities (such as to bake [cakes from flour, eggs and cocoa]) have the case frame [Direct Object - Origin]. 5. Verbs of considering and appointing (such as to consider/elect [someone as the chairman]), to elect/make somebody president), have the case frame [Direct Object - Result]. 6. Verbs occurring with specific types of syntactic relations, such as verbs of measuring including the verb to cost, verbs of behaving (how), taking place (when and/or where), verbs with the Predicative Complement (to be, to become) have specific case frames consisting of a single syntactic relation constituting a subsystem. (b) Free subsystems. 1. The subsystem of Directional modifications ([from where - which way where to]). 2. The subsystem of Temporal modifications ([since when - till when]). To the cases of interaction of these subsystems belong the following cases: (a) The case frame of the type (to change [somebody from somebody into somebody/something]), with the interaction of Direct Object and the cognitive subsystem [Origin - Effect]. (b) The rare type to put the carpet [from the door to the window] (= so that it should reach from the door to the window): the interaction of Direct Object and the free subsystem [from where - where to]. It should be noted here that an important part of my account of fixed deep word-order is the account of (focalizing) scoping expressions (adverbial

70

Word-order

modification of Attitude) (cf. Chapter 3 below). It should be noted that I propose to distinguish four types of occurrence of scoping expressions in the Topic-Focus articulation of the sentence, which also explains their behavior on the surface, and provides the possibilities of their interpretation: (a) Both the scoping expression and the material in its scope occur in the Focus, the scoping expression standing Focus-initially, and having in its scope the rest of the Focus (a frequent extension of this primary case is the multiple occurrence of scoping expressions with a hierarchical interpretation). (b) The scoping expression is the only element of the Focus, being accordingly stressed, and having in its scope the Topic or its contrastive part. (c) The scoping expression is in the Topic, and has in its scope the whole Focus (this is possible only in echo sentences). (d) The scoping expresssion along with the material in its scope is topicalized, i.e. both occur in the Topic. This type of occurrence is often accompanied by another, primary occurrence of a scoping expression of type (a) in the Focus of the same sentence, the scopes of these two scoping expressions being independent. The scopes of quantifiers as another type of scoping expressions can be accounted for in terms of a joint working of deep and surface word-order, of the semantics of the quantifiers and of the whole sentence, and of the pragmatic background ("world knowledge") (cf. also Chapter 3 below).

2.4.2 Free deep word-order Here belong three phenomena: (i) The free distribution of (occurrences of) syntactic relations over the communicative-information parts of the sentence (Noncontrastive Topic, Contrastive Topic, the indirectly interrogative part of the Focus, the directly interrogative part of the Focus, and the non-wh-part of the Focus). (ii) The relaxations of the neutral ordering of syntactic relations within the communicative-information parts of the sentence: (a) in the non-wh-part of the Focus; (b) in Contrastive Topic; (c) in Noncontrastive Topic; (d) in the directly and indirectly interrogative wh-parts of the Focus.

Word-order

71

2.4.2.1 The free distributions of (occurrences of) syntactic relations over the communicative-information parts of the sentence As was mentioned above in 2.1, the basic distribution is that between Topic and Focus as wholes. This can be well illustrated by examples where both Topic and Focus have a uniform character: e.g., where all elements of the Topic are either implicitly (or explicitly) contrastive, and where the Focus consists of the non-wh-part only. Thus, if there are four elements of which a sentence may consist, there are fifteen possible distributions listed in (38), which are exemplified in (39). The fifteen distributions are embodied in the patterns of deep word-order in (38), where the boundary between Topic and Focus is indicated by a slash (/): the elements to its left are in the Topic, and those to its right, in the Focus. These patterns are exemplified (39) by surface sentences (with surface wordorder), where the appurtenance of the elements in indicated by superscripts (T= Topic, and F = Focus). Not all of the deep distributions are easily expressible on the surface in configurational languages (but they are easily expressed in nonconfigurational languages). In configurational languages, special ways of expression of deep word-order must be used, such as marked intonation contour with the main intonation peak (Focus proper) in the sentence-medial position (yielding a split Topic and a split Focus), the construction with presentational there, etc. Sometimes (cf. case (vii)), more than one shape of the question as well as of the answer is possible. Let us assume that a sentence may consist of the following elements: (a) the Subject, such as Terry, (b) the verb, such as will run, (c) the adverbial modification of Direction where from, such as from Manhattan, and (d) the adverbial modification of Direction where to, such as to Brooklyn. These elements occur in the paradigms (38) and (39). It should be recalled here that I assume that the verb is placed, in the deep representations, in case there are no scoping expressions in the Focus, in the Focus-initial position. The sample sentences are provided with questions (in brackets) which indicate the context where the sentences might be used (as answers to these questions). Some of these sentences are ambiguous (cf. the same surface sentence in (ii), (vi) and (xii) expressing three different distributions of elements into Topic and Focus). In case of such ambiguous surface sentences, only the con-

72

Word-order

text can disambiguate them: the elements mentioned in the question belong to the Topic of the answer. For reasons of expository clarity, I have formulated the answers (i.e. the sample sentences) as full answers, without deletions of the elements which have been mentioned in the questions. In the answers, the elements of the Topic may correspond to elements of the Topic or Focus of the question. This is the case in the answers in (viii), with two questions: in a., the element to Brooklyn belongs to the Topic, and in b., this element belongs to the Focus. In the default case, the peak of intonation is placed sentence-finally: in this case, by mechanisms known as "inheritance" or "projection" of Focus, also certain elements preceding the Focus may belong to Focus, which is indicated by superscripts. I have indicated by capitals the peaks of intonation only in case there is a marked, sentence-medial intonationally highlighted element indicating that this element belongs to the Focus. If there are other elements of the Focus placed sentence-finally in the same sentence, I have indicated them also by capitals, as in cases (vii) and (viii). For the sake of expository clarity, I have also provided the sentences under examination (the answers) with contrastive continuations. (Let us assume that sentences such as those in (39) could be uttered in a universe of discourse due to a special situation where a competition is involved in which the participants should run or drive through New York in order get as quickly as possible to an appointed destination.) Not all of the sentences are equally acceptable: there is a scale of acceptability from perfectly acceptable sentences to sentences which sound artificial in English, but which would be acceptable in Czech as a language with freee word-order. The artificial sentences are marked with question mark. (38) (i) [/ Verb - Subject - where from - where to] (ii) [Subject / Verb - where from - where to] (iii) [where from / verb - Subject - where to] (iv) [where to / Verb - Subject - where from] (v) [Verb / Subject - where from - where to] (vi) [Subject - Verb / where from - where to] (vii) [Verb - from where / Subject - where to] (viii) [Verb - from where / Subject - where to] (ix) [from where - where to / Verb - Subject] (x) [Subject - where from / Verb - where to] (xi) [Subject - where to / Verb - where from] (xii) [Subject - Verb - where from / where to]

Word-order

73

(xiii) [Subject - Verb - where to / where from] (xiv) [from where - where to - Verb / Subject] (xv) [Subject - from where - where to / Verb] (39)(i)a. (What is the news about our competition?) b. ? There will run Terry from Manhattan to Brooklyn (there will not drive John from Queens to the Bronx) (ii)a. (What will Terry do!) b. TerryT will run from Manhattan from Queens to the Bronx)

to Brooklyn (not drive

(iii)a. (What about Manhattan (as regards our competition)?) b. IFrom Manhattan, there will run TerryFto Brooklyn (there will not drive John to the Bronx) (iv)a. (What about Brooklyn (as regards our competition)?) b. ITo Brooklyn, there will run Terryfrom Manhattan^ (there will not drive John from the Queens) (v) a. (Who will run where from and where to (in our competition))? b. IThere will run TerryFfrom Manhattan^ to Brooklyn John from Queens to the Bronx)

(not

(vi) a. (Where from and where to will Terry run?) b. Terry7 will run from Manhattan to Brooklyn (notfrom Queens to the Bronx) (vii)a. (From Manhattan, who will run where ?) b. (Who and where will run from

Manhattan?)

a'. From ManhattanT, TERRY will run to BROOKLYN, (not John to the Bronx) b'. ?From Manhattan, there will run TerryF to Brooklyn (not John to the Bronx) b." IThere will run from Manhattan Terry to Brooklyn (not John to the Bronx) (viii)a. (To Brooklyn, who will run from where?) b. (Who and from where will run to Brooklyn?)

74

Word-order

a'. To Brooklyn, TERRYF will run from MANHATTAN" (not John from the Queens) b.' ΊΤο BrooklynT, there will run Terry from Manhattan from Queens)

(not John

b . " ? There will run to Brooklyn Terry from Manhattan from Queens)

(not John

(ix)a. (From Manhattan to Brooklyn, who will get how?) b. From Manhattan to Brooklyn, TerryF will run (but John will drive) (x) a. (How and where to will Terry get from b. From Manhattan, the Bronx)

Manhattan?)

Terry will run to Brooklyn (not drive to

(xi) a. (How and where from will Terry get to Brooklyn?) b. To Brooklyn, TerryT will run from Manhattan the Queens) (xii)a. (Where will Terry run from b.

(not drive from

Manhattan?)

TerryT will run7from Manhattan to BrooklynF (not to the Bronx)

b' From Manhattan, Terry3 will run to Brooklyn (not to the Bronx) (xiii)a. (From where will Terry run to Brooklyn ?) b.

TerryT will run to Brooklyn from Manhattan (notfrom Queens)

b.' To Brooklyn, Terry will run from Manhattan (xiv)a. (Who will run from Manhattan to Brooklyn?) b. TERRYF (not John) will run from Manhattan

to Brooklyn

b.' ?From Manhattan to Brooklyn, there will run TerryF (not John) (xv) a. (How will Terry get from Manhattan to Brooklyn?) b. TerryT will RUNF (not drive) from Manhattan^ to Brooklyn b.' From Manhattan to Brooklyn, Terry will run (not drive) Now, let us have a closer look at one of the nontrivial examples, viz., (viii). In this pattern, the Topic consists of the adverbial modification of Direction where to (to Brooklyn) and of the verb (will run). The Focus consists of the Subject (Terry) and of the adverbial modification of Direction where from (from Manhattan). This is an untypical patterning of Topic and Focus.

Word-order

75

The context is provided by a question in which the two elements of the Topic of the answer occur, viz., to Brooklyn and Terry, whereas the two remaining elements, viz., the adverbial modification of Direction from where and the Subject, are asked for. Not surprisingly, in this untypical case, the question may have two surface shapes: in one of them, a., the two wh-elements "surround" the verb, which reflects the grammatically fixed surface word-order in English: the wh-element for the Subject occurs before the verb, and the element for the adverbial modification, after the verb. In the second shape of the question, viz., b., another strategy is chosen: a surface coordination of the two wh-elements, so that they occur jointly in the sentence-initial position, which is cross-linguistically typical of wh-elements. Correspondingly, there is more than one possible answer: the first one (a'.) corresponds to the former shape of the question, viz., with the elements of the Focus "surrounding" the verb according to the grammatically-fixed wordorder in English, and the latter two (b'. and b".) correspond to the latter question. In these two latter answers, the elements of the Topic as well as the elements of the Focus are adjacent. There is an important theoretical point to be made about the ordering of the elements of the Topic in these two questions, in which the answers b'. and b " . differ. In the answer b'., the ordering of the elements to Brooklyn and will run is the reverse of that in question b. This may be ascribed to the occasionally used principle of mirror ordering of the elements of the trigger sentence and the reaction (such as an answer and a question). The last mentioned element in the trigger sentences (here: the question b.) is the first element of the reaction (here: the answer b'.). However, the sentence-initial position is typical rather of Contrastive Topics. In the answer b"., the ordering of the elements corresponds to that in the question b. This ordering, where the elements of the Topic in the reaction correspond to the order of the elements in the trigger sentence, is used especially if there are scoping relations involved, in order to preserve their scoping interpretation. Multiple wh-question are always a bit artificial, in that they require special contexts. They differ in acceptability according to which type of syntactic relations are asked for; the most typical ones are Subject and Direct object, cf. Who asked you what? (due to Professor Werner Winter). He proposes that what preferably has a strong stress and refers to something already mentioned to be reconfirmed, so that what refers to Topic, and who, to Focus. This is indeed one possibility, but I think that the preferred possibility is that not only

76

Word-order

what, but both who and what refer to contrastive information in that their question would be typically asked in a situation where the set of asking people as well as that of the questions are given, and where only the combinations are unknown: e.g., there may be played an asking play between three persons A, B, and C, and the items which are permitted to be asked for are D, E, and F. In this situation, it is quite normal to ask Who asked you what?, and to respond e.g., by A asked, me D, Β asked me E, and C asked me F. There may occur also more complicated amd more artificially-sounding, but grammatical cooccurrences of wh-elements, cf. the triple contrast in the Czech Kdo koho kde uhodil? 'Who whom where hit'. This question can be answered, e.g., by the Czech equivalent of John hit Mary behind a tree, but Bob hit Sue in the publicity (three wh-elements answered).

2.4.2.2 The relaxations of the neutral ordering in the communicative-information parts of the sentence The neutral ordering of types of syntactic relations was given in (37) above, as a manifestation of fixed deep word-order. The neutral ordering can be relaxed, which is a manifestation of free deep word-order. The best example of the relaxation of neutral ordering is the (parenthetical) relaxation of the elements of the (non-wh-part of the) Focus in English. In English, one of the basic traits of neutral ordering is the order [Objects Adverbials], where the Adverbials are more communicatively important than the Objects. However, the speaker sometimes needs to express that both an Object and an Adverbial belong to the Focus, and that the Object is more communicatively important (which is cognitively even the prototypical case). In this case, the neutral ordering is relaxed: the Adverbial is parenthetically preposed to the Object, which yields sentences and constructions such as those in (40) and (41). (40)

Yesterday, John sent, from Post Office 01, a huge parcel wrapped in blue paper

(41)

The establishment, in 1780, of basic schools....

(40) can be an answer of a private detective to his client, in which both pieces of information - both that about the location of the sending event and about what has been sent - are brand-new, but the information about the parcel

Word-order

77

is more important. So the speaker must resort to a relaxation of the English neutral ordering [Objects - Adverbials], i.e., to proposing the adverbial modification of Direction from where to the Object. The type of word-order in nominalizations such as in (41) is quite common: the underlying Object (here: of basic schools) is more communicatively important than the adverbial modification, so that the speaker resorts to the relaxation of the neutral ordering by means of parenthetization of the adverbial modification. Accordingly, there is the tendency not to parenthetize the adverbial, i.e., to integrate it fully into the structure of the sentence. In both (40) and (41), thus, the deep word-order is [Adverbial - Object], which is a relaxation of the deep fixed neutral ordering [Object - Adverbial] occurring prototypically in English. On the other hand, there is no possibility of such a relaxation in Czech, i.e. in Czech it is not possible to express the case when both an Object and an Adverbial belong to the Focus, and the adverbial is more communicatively important. In the neutral ordering in Czech, there is the order [Adverbials Objects], but there is no analogue to the English relaxations: there is no deep order in the Focus in Czech available of the shape [Object - Adverbial]. The relaxation of neutral ordering for German in the Focus of the sentence are discussed in Pfeiffer et al. 1994. The authors examine the word-orders of pairs of syntactic relations by means of a test. They assume a basic ordering for each pair. If there are referees who vote also for the reverse order as basic, the order can be considered as relaxable (my terminology). According to the possibilities of relaxation, the pairs of syntactic relations can be roughly subcategorized in three groups (my subcategorization): (a) Non-relaxable: only one order is possible, being considered as basic by 100% of the referees. (b) Marginally relaxable: the reverse order is marginally possible, being considered as basic by the minority of the referees. (c) (Almost) freely relaxable: the reverse order is (almost) equally possible, being considered as basic by about the half of the referees. To group (a) belong two orders: [Direction from where - Direction where to] and [Indirect Object - Direct Object]. To group (b) belong orders involving the adverbial modification of Location, Direction, and Instrument [Location - Instrument], [Location - Patient], [Instrument - Patient], [Result - Direction]. "Result" is the syntactic relation to the function of with verbs such as to appoint someone to the function of. Interestingly enough, to this group belongs also the pair [Direction from where -

78

Word-order

where to\, if the adverbial from where has a meaning which has a cognitive connotation of pure Location (such as in to gather from the vicinity). To group (c) belong two orders, [Location - Result], and [Location - Instrument]. Czech agrees with German in that it has neutral ordering of the [Adverbial Object] type, but generally the Czech ordering seems to be not so easily relaxable. In Czech, there are two factors influencing the relaxation: (a) If the expressions whose order is to be relaxed are provided with marked means of the delimiting feature specific (indefinite), the relaxation is essentially (marginally) possible. However, if they are without such an indication (their delimiting feature being expressed only by default, i.e. zero, means), the relaxation is impossible. (b) If the two expressions whose order is to be relaxed additionally occur sentence-internally, i.e., if there is at least one other (indefinite) expression following them, the relaxation is (marginally) possible. However, if their sequence is sentence-final, the possibility of relaxation is even better. Accordingly, I assume that the good possibilities of relaxation in German according to Pfeiffer et al.'s article may be due to two factors: (a) To the fact that German has an obligatory explicit marker of indefiniteness (cf. the articles ein, eine, ein, literally 'one'). In Pfeiffer et al.'s examples, only indefinite expressions are used, because their occurrence is typical of Focus. (b) To the fact that the expressions whose order is to be relaxed are not in sentence-final position, being followed by verbal participles. Generally, I assume that the best cases of relaxability occur with free adverbial modifications such as Time, Place, Cause, and Instrument. On the other hand, I assume that the elements within the grammatically or cognitively based subsystems are not relaxable. (This is corroborated by the nonrelaxability of the order [Indirect Object - Direct Object] and adverbials of Direction [where from - where to] in German.) If the syntactic relations belong to Focus, their order is [Indirect Object - Direct Object], such as in Ich werde einem Freund ein Buch schenken Ί will give a friend a book', but if the Direct Object belongs to the Topic (such as in ein Buch = eins von meinen Büchern 'one book = one of my books', or das Buch 'the book', etc., their order may be reverse, cf. Ich werde ein Buch / das Buch einem FREUND schenken Ί will presente one book / the books to a FRIEND'. Also, if the syntactic relations are expressed pronominally, their order is reverse, due to the specific character of the pronoun 'it', cf. Ich SCHENKE es ihm Ί will PRESENT it to him'. I am obliged for these counterexamples to Professor Werner Winter.

Word-order

79

The possibilities of relaxation in different communicative-information parts of the sentence may differ. To begin with the most frequent case of (putative) relaxability ("interchangeability"), viz., that within the Topic (cf. Sgall et al. (1986: 180)), I claim that the free interchangeability of the elements in the Topic is due prima facie to the appurtenance of the elements of the Topic to Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic (if two elements of the Topic are involved). Thus, there is a difference between the sentence-initial sequence [Adverbial - Subject] and the sequence [Subject - Adverbial]. The former element is presumably (implicitly) Contrastive Topic, and the latter element, Noncontrastive Topic. Now, let me comment on the relaxability of the elements of the particular communicative-information parts of the sentence (I assume that prototypically, the elements of every communicative-information part obey neutral ordering). (i) The non-wh-part of the Focus. In the non-wh-part of the Focus, the possibilities of relaxation are good because each element of the Focus is informationally significant. (ii) Contrastive Topic. A similar situation is assumed to obtain in Contrastive Topic. (iii) Noncontrastive Topic. The elements of Noncontrastive Topic are not communicatively significant, and that is why there are two extremes: the order of clitics in Noncontrastive Topic is obligatory in Czech, obeying the neutral ordering (it should be noted here that the basic ordering in German may be the reverse of that in Czech, cf. jim to ('them it') vs. es ihnen ('it them'), cf. also 2.5 below). On the other hand, the order of semantically fullfledged lexical elements in Noncontrastive Topic seems to be actually (almost) freely interchangeable (relaxable), without any repercussions for the communicative thrust of the sentence. This holds especially for the sequence-internal elements of Noncontrastive Topic (the sequence-initial and sentence-initial position seems to have a special status, being able to make elements implicitly contrastive). Alternatively, it has been proposed that the degrees of communicative dynamism in Noncontrastive Topic should be viewed as neutralized (Petkeviö, p. c.), and that the elements of the (pronominal) clitic cluster (corresponding to my Noncontrastive Topic) should be viewed as not exhibiting communicative dynamism at all (Avgustinova - Oliva 1996). (iv) The directly and indirectly interrogative part of the Focus. The whelements in these parts of the sentence are not communicatively significant because they are not semantically fullfledged, and that is why I assume that

80

Word-order

they obey the neutral ordering, on "formal" grounds (here, it is not necessary to speak about relaxations because the wh-elements do not really "push the communication forward" in the way autosemantic elements do). However, on the surface, the most communicatively important wh-element of the cluster may be shifted to the cluster-initial position, cf. the Czech clusters kdo koho 'who whom' and koho kdo 'whom who' (both equally acceptable), and the neutral ordering can be relaxed even inside the cluster, cf. kde kdo koho 'where who whom' and kde koho kdo 'where whom who'. The peak of intonation within the cluster is preserved, i.e. it is placed on the more communicatively important element, such as on koho in the cluster koho kdo 'whom who'. Avgustinova - Oliva 1996 argue that the elements of the wh-cluster should be viewed as having equal degrees of communicative dynamism (roughly corresponding to my notion of communicatiuve importance) due to their cognitive/semantic insignificance (cf. also 2.2.2.1 above). Their proposal accords with my proposal in that wh-elements are not viewed as elements directly relevant for the cognitive and communicative progress of the sentence. It would be possible to give a formal account to this empirical proposal (by positing the same degree of communicative dynamism/importance of these elements within a cluster), but at the same time, also the prototypical neutral ordering of the types of syntactic relations of wh-elements within a cluster (such as in [who whom], [from where (and) where to], [who and by means of what] should be accounted for. This holds also for the fixed, non-relaxable neutral ordering of clitic pronouns in Noncontrastive Topic. I assume that wh-elements prototypically belong to the Focus, and that they are ordered according to the neutral ordering in the deep word-order, cf. [who whom]. However, they may be permuted on the surface in Czech, the first position in the cluster being occupied by the communicatively more important pronoun, cf. koho kdo uhodil 'whom who hit' - here, it is more important who was hit than who did the hitting. Alternatively, one can work with a basic surface ordering ([Subject - Object] - who whom) and with differences therefrom, such as the Czech koho kdo 'whom who'. It should be noted here that even in coordination (such as in the coordination of wh-elements), the neutral ordering is preserved (cf.from where and where to). Hence, Sgall et al.'s (1986: 140) claim that the degrees of communicative dynamism in coordination and apposition are equal should be rejected as empirically inadequate. In fact, the elements of a non-wh-coordination are autosemantic elements informatively pushing the communication forward (and their order matters truth-conditionally). Furthermore, loose (ad-

Word-order

81

nominal) apposition should be be viewed rather as a kind of nonrestrictive / descriptive (adnominal) adjunction). Thus, both in coordination and apposition, degrees of communicative dynamism/importance should be distinguished. For the (pragmatic, factual) importance of the ordering of the elements in coordination in general, cf. Luelsdorff 1994, and Mey 1993 (cf. the well-known examples about getting married and (then) having a baby vs. having a baby and (then) getting married), or Luelsdorff s example saying that "to observe and assert is not the same as to assert and observe" (194: 272)). For coordination of modal elements, cf. Gutknecht and Roelle 1997, and Luelsdorff 1997. As has been mentioned above in 2.2.2.1, Avgustinova - Oliva 1996 assume that the degrees of communicative importance are neutralized (equalized) also in clusters of syntactic relations specifying period or path, such as in since... till or from... to. This proposal can be considered when these syntactic relations occur within a single communicative part of the sentence. Another general reason for relaxation is the scoping interpretation of quantified expressions. In order to get the intended interpretation, it is necessary to place the quantified expression in a certain ordering. (The less communicatively dynamic expression prototypically gets the wide scope, cf. also Chapter 3 below.) This holds especially for argumental relations, such as Objects. In this case, then, I assume that relaxation of the order [Indirect Object - Direct Object] is permissible. Still another, related reason for relaxation is the binding of pronouns by quantified NPs: in this case, the phrase with the bound (usually possessive) pronoun has the tendency to stand after its quantified antecedent NP, although the neutral ordering of the syntactic relations in question may thus be violated. Very good examples for this phenomenon are found in Haider 1995 (although Haider does not use the notion of neutral ordering and its relaxations). The examples in question are Haider's 1995: 2d/15 Jeden Mann liebt wirklich nur seine Mutter 'Every man (Object) really loves only his mother (Subject)' (where the Direct Object antecedent, the quantified expression jeden 'everyone-Acc', precedes the Subject NP with the possessive pronoun, seine Mutter 'his mother-Nom', and 10a/17 Jeden Gast hat der Gastwirt seinem Nachbarn vorgestellt - 'Every guest (Object) the innkeeper (Subject) presented to his neighbor' where the Direct Object antecedent, the quantified expression Jeden Gast 'Every guest - Acc', precedes the Indirect Object NP with the possessive pronoun seinem Nachbarn 'his neighbor - Dat' (in appraising these relaxations, i.e. deviations from neutral ordering, I assume the neutral ordering in German [Subject -Indirect Object - Direct Object]).

82

Word-order

I assume that this would hold, mutatis mutandis, also in cases without quantification, such as in The slaver gave one slave him himself {With, the intricate factual interpretation that the slaver gave the life of one of his slaves to him himself as a present, thus setting him free), with the ordering [Direct Object - Indirect Object], where the neutral ordering [Direct Object - Indirect Object] is relaxed, or in Bill returned to John from him himself ('with the interpretation that Bill made a circle, starting from a place where John was standing, and returning to him), with the ordering [where to - where from], where the neutral ordering [where from - where to] is relaxed. Thus, it is possible to summarize the reasons for the relaxations of the neutral ordering: (a) The greater communicative importance of a syntactic relation Β than that of A in the Focus of an actual sentence, which yields a reverse ordering [B, A] with respect to the neutral ordering [A, B]. This is expressed by a parenthetical loosening of the structure of the Focus in English. Here belong also the phenomena accounted for in terms of "heaviness", if the "heavy" expression is intended as communicatively more important than the other expressions of the Focus. (b) The neutralization (equalization) of communicative dynamism/importance and questionably that of neutral ordering in case the elements in question do not cognitively/semantically contribute to the development of the communication, such as in the case of the pronominal elements of Noncontrastive Topic or of clusters of wh-elements, and questionably in clusters of syntactic relations which cognitively specify a period or a path. (c) The interpretation of the intended scope of quantifiers. (d) The binding of pronouns by their antecedents.

2.4.3 Fixed surface word-order There are the following types of fixed surface word-order: (i) According to the Greenbergian universals. Here, the major distinction is that between [Verb-Object] and [Object-Verb] languages, and a minor distinction, between [Subject-Object] and [Object-Subject] languages. As I have mentioned above, the former distinction is due to processing complexity (the Object, as prototypically the more communicative important element than the verb, comes after or before the verb), whereas the latter distinction is due to different anthropologically-based conceptualizations of the basic action pattern.

Word-order

83

Here, I would like to make a generalization about the preverbal position of the Object, which occurs in typologically distinct languages, such as Turkish, Hungarian (Vallduvi - Engdahl 1995), Japanese (Kayne 1994), German, Russian (Keijsper 1985) and Toura (Bearth 1992). In Turkish and Hungarian, the notion of "Focus slot" is employed for the preverbal (penultimate) surface position. In German, however, no one mentions the "Focus" slot in case of the "frame construction" (with sentence-final participles and infinitives), although the principle is the same: the Object, as the more communicatively important element, has (diachronically) shifted leftwards, relegating the verb (the infinitive and the participle in main clauses, and the finite verb in embedded clauses) to the sentence-final position. Thus, the issue of synchronic surface-fixed word-order - the [OV] order can be diachronically explained in terms of a leftward shift of Ο from the [VO] ordering, which is a psycholinguistically more natural ordering (cf. Siewierska's 1994 notion of "semantic bonding"). The [VO]-[OV] change is one of the most important general principles of free surface word-order not corresponding to deep word-order (type IVb, see below), (ii) According to the Head-Modifier order. In different languages, different, and often mixed, orders are found (Siewierska 1994). However, Kayne 1994 claims that the order Head-Modifier should be viewed as universal, and that its violations should be accounted for in terms of asymmetric c-command. I propose, however, that the relation of head and modifier should be accounted for in terms of their communicative importance: the neutral ordering is indeed [head-modifier] (with the exclusion of the verb as head), and there are two fundamentally different violations of this ordering: (a) The deep violation, if the modifier is less communicatively important than the head. In this case, the modifier belongs to the Topic of the sentence, whereas the head belongs to the Focus. (b) Mere surface violations, due to the different conventions of surface word-order across languages, cf. the different position of the adjectival adjunct in English and German as opposed to French. (iii) According to the neutral ordering of syntactic relations or of their hypertypes as manifested in the communicative-information parts of the sentence, most notably in the Focus. Here belongs the distinction between the English-like neutral ordering with its [Object - Adverbial] order, and the Slavic and Germanic-like neutral ordering, with its [Adverbial - Object] order. There may be also minor differences in specific languages. (iv) According to (absolute or statistical) universale of surface word-order (for the notion of universale, cf. Croft 1994).

84

Word-order

I propose that there are several universale of fixed surface word-order, due to the psycholinguistic universale of human processing capacities: thus, for example, the sentence-initial position is highly functionally loaded, and it is occupied by elements which are second in communicative importance only to the Focus. Thus, (almost) universally, the directly interrogative wh-elements and Contrastive Topic are placed in the sentence-initial position. Also, the extraction of wh-elements across verbs of saying and thinking seems to be (almost) universal (if not extracted, the whole sentence has the status of an echo question). Related to the sentence-initial position of wh-elements is the occurrence of scoping expressions (which have these wh-elements in their scope) after these wh-elements, cf. who else, who mainly, who the hell, etc. (v) Another universal may be the occurrence of clitic pronouns as elements of Noncontrastive Topic: they can occur as enclitics or proclitics, prosodically dependent on their supportive word, or "carrier", and occurring either before or after their carrier. They may be even collapsed with their carrier into one surface word. Such surface word may then correspond to two different (subparts) of communicative-information parts, such as Contrastive Topic (the carrier) plus Noncontrastive Topic (the clitic), or (part of) the Focus (the carrier) plus Noncontrastive Topic (the clitic). This can be exemplified by the Italian example (42), consisting of a single word, which consists of the Focus part (fa) and of the Noncontrastive (clitic) part (lo) (cf. Belletti 1993). (42)

Fallo Do^imp-it^-Acc 'Do it'

Here, also the different fixed orderings of clitics in German and Czech should be mentioned, cf., e.g., the German sequence [es 'it-Acc' ihnen 'them-Dat'] vs. the Czech [jim 'them-Dat' to 'it-Acc']. I claim that the obligatory second (post-Subject) position of the German es (within the clitic cluster er es ihnen) is due to its inherently Noncontrastive character (cf. also 2.2.3.3 above). On the other hand, certain Czech pronouns, such as to ('it') or jim ('them') are ambiguous as regards their contrastiveness: they can be either nonclitic (contrastive), or clitic (noncontrastive) (cf. also Avgustinova - 01iva's 1996 notion of semiclitics), so that the obligatory ordering within the

Word-order

85

clitic cluster coincides with that in the neutral ordering ([Dative Indirect Object - Accussative Direct Object]). Last but not least, it should be brought to attention that there is an exclusive case where "long" forms of pronouns (which can be used generally only in Contrastive Topic and in Focus) are used in Noncontrastive Topic: if the pronoun occurs in a coordination. This holds for the Czech pronouns jeho 'him-Acc' and jemu 'him-Dat'. (vi) Another similar universal may be the occurrence of double surface negation in certain languages, such as in French, West Flemish, in Slavic languages, and partly in Italian (cf. Haegeman 1992, Ramat 1994). What is universal in double surface negation is (in my account) that one part of the surface negation is bound to the finite verb of the sentence, and the other one, to an element of the Focus (except for Italian, with the cooccurrence of several nominal or adverbial negative expressions within a sentence and with a positive verb). (vii) Additionally, several parametric and language-specific fixed surface word-order constraints can be mentioned here: (a) The (almost) obligatory position of sentence adverbials (as scoping expressions) in English in the scope-ambiguous sentence-initial position. (b) The obligatory position of negation and of the focalizer only in English in the scope-ambiguous preverbal position in sentences without explicit contrast, cf. the difference between (43 a) and (43b) (the latter with the postverbal position of negation and with explicit contrast). (43)a.

Terry doesn Ί love Mary

b. Terry loves not Mary but rather Sue (c) The positions of certain scoping expressions and pronominal words in elliptic answers in Czech: thus, the scoping expressions rovnez and take 'also' must be placed before the pronominal expression tak 'so', unlike other scoping expressions (such as hlavne 'mainly' ovpredevsim 'above all'), which can occur either before or after the pronoun to 'it'. (d) Embedded adverbial clauses cannot stand in the position between nominal members of short nominal sentences, such as between the Subject and the Object. This regularity can be attributed to prosodic reasons (heaviness). It can be noted that by a strong contrasting of the Subject and of the Object, such complex sentences can be slightly improved.

86

Word-order

I would like to emphasize that the regularities described in this section concern the surface word-order. They are operative irrespective of the deep word-order of the sentence, i.e., irrespective of the deployment of the elements of the sentence in the communicative-information parts and of their degrees of communicative importance. Further, as I have already mentioned before, the constraints of fixed surface word-order are usually (marginally) relaxable because they are "unnatural" in essence, conflicting with one of the natural tendencies of the elements of the sentence, viz., the tendency toward being placed in positions which would roughly correspond to deep word-order, such as [less - more] communicatively important.

2.4.4 Free surface word-order corresponding to deep word-order To following phenomena belong to this category: (i) The free surface word-order in nonconfigurational languages, such as Slavic languages and German. (ii) Surface shifts in configurational languages by means of which the elements get into positions (roughly) corresponding to deep word-order (such as [Topic-Focus]). In English, here belong most notably topicalizations (including stylistic inversion, extraction, climbing, and raising) of elements which belong to the Topic, and focalizations (including clefting) of elements which belong to the Focus. In German, here belong specifically the relaxations of the frame construction (in addition to topicalization, extraction, climbing, and raising). However, in German, it is not quite exact to speak about "topicalization" as a kind of movement, because German is a nonconfigurational language, so that the putatively "topicalized" elements (belonging to the Topic) can be viewed as occurring in situ. (iii) The positions of verbal particles (as purely surface words) such as up or over with verbs such as to give up, or to think over, usually, the elements belonging to the Topic (typically, pronouns) occur before them, and the elements belonging to the Focus occur after them, so that these particles can be viewed as marking the Topic-Focus boundary (cf. I gave it up vs. I gave up THE BOSTON MARATHON RACE).

Word-order

87

2.4.4.1 Topicalization (i) Lasnik - Saito (1992:75-105) offer a comprehensive account of topicalizations as an amendment of the account of Lasnik - Uriagereka (1988:153-158). First of all, they distinguish between Topicalization (with the topicalized element leaving a trace) and Left Dislocation (with the dislocated element leaving a resumptive pronoun). They point out an exceptional case where topicalization, but not Left Dislocation, is possible, cf. (44) (Lasnik - Saito's 41/77). They propose an alternative account of topicalization: the topicalized phrase is either base-generated in the Topic position, or it is IP adjoined, cf. (45) (Lasnik - Saito's 45/78), where John is in the Topic position, and Mary, in the IP adjoined position. In embedded sentences, the topicalized phrase can be only IP adjoined. I would like to point out that awkward sentences with topicalization can be pragmatically improved if the Focus is made more "heavy", i.e., if it is longer, if it involves more informative material, etc., cf. (46) (Lasnik - Saito's 76/86) and my improvement in (47). (44)

*the man to whom liberty, we could never grant it

(45)

John, Mary, he likes t

(46) (47)

ΊΊΟη the table, this book John put On the table, this book John had flung with all force, so that it got damaged

(ii) Rochemont - Culicover 1992 offer interesting examples of different degrees of acceptability of topicalization, due to fine pragmatic and psycholinguistic factors, cf. (48) vs. (49), (Rochemont - Culicover's 1 la/134 and 4b/95, respectively), both involving a multiple topicalization. The former is acceptable due to the loose, parenthetical character of the topicalized expressions (in my terms, due to the relaxation of the processing complexity), but the latter one is essentially not improvable. On the other hand, also Stylistic Inversion as described in Rochemont - Culicover should be viewed as a case of topicalization, i.e., fronting of one or more adverbial expressions which belong to the Topic. Rochemont - Culicover give acceptable and unacceptable examples of Stylistic Inversion, such as the acceptable (50) and (51) with a multiple fronting, vs. the unacceptable (52) (Rochemont - Culicover's 7b/95).

88

Word-order

(48)

(l)For John, a book, I would never buy

(49)

*Her dog into a park walked Mary

(50)

Into the room walked John

(51)

Quickly into the room went Bill

(52)

*Into Bill ran John

I would like to propose a generalization: there are four ways of marking an element as belonging to the (Contrastive) Topic in English. (a) Fronting without prosodical detaching (parenthetization). This is possible only with short spatiotemporal adverbials, cf. (53) (an example excerpted from literature), and with Stylistic Inversion (cf. the examples (50) and (51) above). (b) Fronting with prosodical detaching (parenthetization). This makes possible the fronting of Objects and multiple frontings, such as in (54a) and (54b), respectively ((54b) is an excerpted example). (c) Fronting with a prosodical detaching and with a resumptive pronoun: Left Dislocation, cf. (55) (Lasnik - Saito's 28/75). Chomsky proposes (as quoted in Lasnik - Saito 1992: 76) that the possibilities of Left Dislocation are essentially wider than those of topicalization: Left Dislocation is possible where the corresponding topicalization (with a trace) would violate Subjacency or the stronger Empty Category Principle (antecedent or lexical government of the trace). (d) Fronting by means of transposing the syntactic relation of the Contrastive Topic into the adverbial modification of Regard, e.g., by means of the complex conjunctive expressions (thematizers) such as as regards, as to, as for etc., cf. (56). (53)

Now Lincoln and his cabinet faced the most dangerous diplomatic crisis that would ever be their responsibility

(54)a.

John, Mary loves

b.

Late in June, in the hot, humid lowlands and swamps outside the Capital, at last resounded the wild symphony of war

(55)

John, I like him

(56)

As regards John, I like him

Word-order

89

2.4.4.2 Long-distance topicalization, raising, clitic climbing and extraposition Long-distance topicalization (=topicalization with extraction) is treated in Lasnik - Saito 1992: 80-83). They propose that in such topicalizations, the extraposed phrase should be viewed as IP adjoined (cf. (57) (Lasnik - Saito's 51/81). An example for raising in Czech may be (58). A similar phenomenon (extraction/raising out of infinitival constructions) obtains in German, cf. (59) (Haeberli's (1993: 37a/40) and Engdahl - Vallduvi (1995: 28). The most complicated cases of extraction/raising are found in West Flemish, cf. my critique of Haegeman 1993 in section 2.2 above. Clitic climbing is treated in Kayne 1989, cf. (60) (Kayne's lb/239). Clitic climbing is an Noncontrastive-Topic analogue to Contrastive-Topic raising. (57)

John said that this book, he thought you would like t

(58)

Mirka planujeme poslat Mirek-Acc-sg-masc plan-l-pl-pres send-inf na mesic do Prahy for month-Acc-sg-masc to Prague-Gen-sg-fem 'Mirek, we plan to send, for a month, to Prague'

(59)

weil diesen Wagen, der Hans because this-Acc-sg-masc car the-Nom-sg-masc John t zu reparieren versucht hat to repair-inf try-past-participle have-3-sg-pres-Aux 'as John tried to repair this car'

(60)

Gianni li vuole vedere John them-Acc want-3-sg-pres see-inf 'John wanted to see them'

Extraposition is treated in Rochemont 1992. In English, one speaks about the extraposition of an adjunct or a relative clause to the sentence-final position in the sentence, whereby it gets detached from its head-noun. I claim that in this case the "extraposed" adjunct or clause occur in situ as regards the deep word-order, whereas the position of head noun (usually the subject), which

90

Word-order

occurs in the sentence-initial position on the surface but which belongs to the Focus, does not correspond to its position in deep word-order. In the deep word-order, the noun along with its adjunct occurs in sentence-final position. So, in fact, one should rather speak about the shift of the noun from its deep penultimate position (before its adjunct) to the sentence-initial, Subject position, according to the grammatically fixed surface word-order in English. On the other hand, in Czech, extraposed (occurring in sentence-initial position) are nouns which belong to the Contrastive Topic, so that their contrastiveness is marked by their position. The detached, sentence-final adjunct belongs to the Focus, constituting the most communicatively important element of the sentence. (For the contrast between the English and the Czech extraposition, cf. the examples (33) and (34) above.) I think that the phenomena of topicalization, extraction, raising and climbing (of non-wh expressions) manifest three tendencies: (a) Topicalization manifests the tendency of the elements to occur in positions which would roughly correspond to their deep position with respect to the grammatically-fixed surface positions. (b) Raising expresses a similar tendency as topicalization, viz., the tendency of the elements of the Topic (of an embedded construction) to occur more to the left, and even hierarchically higher (at the beginning of the superordinate sentence or of the whole complex sentence). (c) Extraction expresses two tendencies: in English, it expresses the tendency of Subject NPs to occur sentence-initially according to the fixed SVO order in English, and in Czech, it expresses the tendency of contrastive NPs to occur sentence-initially. (d) Clitic climbing expresses the tendency of the Noncontrastive elements to form a continuous Topic of the whole complex sentence (and thereby, also its continuous Focus).

2.4.4.3 Verbal particles in lexically complex verbs I assume that particles such as up, over, or off with lexically complex verbs such as to give up, to think over, or to send o f f ( c f . Sag 1987, Haider 1995) prototypically mark the boundary between the Topic and Focus of the sentence, in that the syntactic relations preceding them belong to the Topic, and those following them to the Focus. If the particle occurs sentence-finally, only the verb belongs to the Focus.

Word-order

91

An insightful, pragmatically based account of the status of the syntactic relations occurring in sentences with these particles is given in Chen 1986, who concludes that the order [Verb - Particle - Direct Object] is primary, whereas the order [Verb - Direct Object - Particle] is secondary. This corresponds to my interpretation of the Direct Object in the former case as belonging to the Focus, and in the latter case, to the Topic.

2.4.5. Surface word-order not corresponding to deep word-order Here belong primarily leftward (and also rightward) shifts of communicatively important parts, subparts, and elements of the sentence into communicatively prominent positions which do not correspond to the deep positions of these elements. As regards leftward shifts, the communicatively prominent positions are the sentence-initial position, the preverbal position, and the position between Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic. The sentence-initial position may be functionally overloaded in that it may be the "landing site" of more than one shifted element, such as wh-elements and non-wh-elements (cf. (61)). These shifts yield surface-discontinuous (split) Topics and Foci. Second, this type of word-order covers also all cases where the new information comes first, preceding the given information. There are several reasons for this ordering: (a) This ordering may be "subjective" (emotional) (cf. Mathesius 1939, Firbas 1971, 1992), in that in exclamative utterances, (short) Foci are often shifted to the sentence-initial position, before Topics. (b) The fronting of new information occurs as a rule in immediate answers to questions (where Noncontrastive Topic, i.e., the information repeated from the question, is deleted or demoted to the sentence-final position), cf. Givon's principle that one should attend to the most urgent task (i.e., conveying new information) first. (c) This ordering may be inherent in the basic word-order conceptualizations in certain languages, cf. the following conceptions. (aa) The notion of "newsworthiness" in Mithun 1992, who observes that in Cayuga, the newer information within Focus is placed before the less new information (in my terms, communicatively more important new elements precede communicatively less important new elements within Focus). (bb) Hale's 1992 observation according to which Papago should be considered as a [Focus-Topic] language, as one of the exceptions to the prototypi-

92

Word-order

cally observed [Topic-Focus] ordering. However, I assume (not knowing Papago) that the [Focus-Topic] ordering holds only for the cases where there is only Noncontrastive Topic in the sentence, so that the pattern should be modified into [Focus-Noncontrastive Topic]. It is one of the basic, empirically corroborated assumptions of my theory that Contrastive Topic can never follow Focus: (a) The Contrastive Topic of a sentence (such as Peter in (i) can be changed into the first part of the focus, cf., PETER in (ii): (i)

Peter flog nach LONDON (und Pdvel nach PARIS) 'Peter flew to London (and Paul to Paris)'

(ii)

Es flog PETER nach LONDON (und PA VEL nach PARIS) There flew Peter to London (und Paul to Paris)'

(b) The position of Contrastive Topic after Focus is unacceptable, i.e., the main, focal stress of the sentence cannot be followed by the secondary Contrastive Topic stress, cf., (iii): (iii)

*Es flog nach LONDON Peter (und nach PARIS Pdvel) There flew to London Peter (and to Paris Paul)

In the examples (i)-(iii) upper-case letters indicate the Focus, and the diacritic ' indicateste secondary stress, i.e., the Contrastive Topic. Certain shifts are optional, whereas others are (almost) obligatory (but relaxable); the latter can be accounted for by the historical development of word-order. Working-fashion, I assume the historical priority of the SVO pattern, which changed into the SOV patern in certain languages, with the peak of intonation prototypically on the Object (Turkish, Hungarian, partly German and Russian). Certain constellations of elements in surface word-order may be viewed alternatively as due to the shift of communicatively important elements to the left, and to the shift of less communicatively elements to the right. This is the case of the "frame construction" in German, where the communicatively important nonverbal elements (Object, adverbials) have been shifted before certain verbal forms (infinitive, participle, and the finite verb in embedded clauses). This shift could be alternatively accounted for as a shift of communicatively less important elements (the verbal forms) rightward.

Word-order

93

Moreover, there is a (paradigmatic) "competition" of units which may be shifted into the sentence-initial position. For example, in Czech, one can posit the following order of preference: wh-elements, Contrastive Topic, scoping expressions, the verb, and certain Focus-initial adverbial modifications, such as adverbials of frequency or direction. As regards rightward shifts, which are not so frequent, the "landing site", i.e., communicatively prominent position into which they are shifted, is the sentence-final position. There can be combined shifts of elements into different positions within a single sentence, such as the shifts of scoping expressions out of a Focus-initial cluster of scoping expressions with hierarchical scope interpretation into the sentence-initial, the preverbal, and the sentence-final positions, their scoping properties being preserved (cf. the example (4) in the section 2.1 above). Leftward shifts contribute to the "pulsating" character of the sentence, in that they yield an alternation of the degrees of communicative importance of the units of the sentence, and thus satisfy the changing attention states of the hearer (attention-inhibition). The units which are most frequently shifted can be of various types: (a) Communicative-information parts of the sentence, such as Contrastive Topic, Focus, or the directly interrogative wh-pronouns in the Focus; (b) communicative-information subparts of the sentence, such as the parts of Contrastive Topic; (c) certain elements of the sentence which are communicatively significant, occupying the Focus-initial position, such as the verb, scoping expressions, and certain other types of Focus-initial adverbial modifications, such as adverbs of frequency. Leftward shifts are obligatory or optional. To the obligatory and almost obligatory shifts belong the shift into the sentence-initial position, of directly interrogative wh-elements in the majority of languages, the almost obligatory shift of Contrastive Topic to the sentence-initial position, and the leftward shift of sentence adverbials in English. Furthermore, here belongs the shift of the finite verb to the position between Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic in German, which is known under the label of "verb-second" position. To the optional shifts belongs the emphatic shift of short Foci into the sentence-initial position (cf. (61)); the shift of scoping expressions to the position between Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic in Czech (cf. (62)); the shift of the finite verb (possibly along with short adverbials of Manner or Instrument or with scoping expressions) to the position between Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic in Czech (as an optional but preferred analogue to

94

Word-order

the German obligatory "verb-second" position) (cf. (63)); the shift of adverbials of frequency, of Manner, of Time, of Place, and of Direction into the sentence-initial position in Czech (cf. (64), with an adverb of frequency); the shift of temporal scoping expressions such as jiz 'already' jeste 'still' to the Focus-medial position in Czech (cf. (65)), and the shift of an operator to the sentence-final position on condition that there are no other elements in the sentence other than the scoping expression and the verb (cf. (66a) and its simplified deep representation in (66b)) (in German, this shift is obligatory if there are clitics following the verb, cf. Er LIEBTE sie sogar 'He even loved her'), etc. Let us observe the [Focus-Topic] order in (61); the surface-split Topics and Foci in (62), (63) and (64), and the alternation of communicatively more and less important elements within Focus in (65) and (66). (61)

Jenom KARLA Marta miluje Only CHARLES Martha loves

(62)

ChlapciCT pravdepodobne, boys-Nom-pl-masc-def probably ρ red nästenkouT kricelfsl in front of billboard-Instr-sg-fem-def scream-3-pl-pret 'the boys were probably SCREAMING in front of the billboard'

(63)

ZitrcF pravdepodobne , pfedvede*sl tomorrow probably perform-3-sg-fut Karet", co umfsl Charles-Nom-sg-masc what can-do-3-sg-pres 'Tomorrow, Charles will probably perform what he can do'

(64)

Nekolikräf se na postelfT obrntif several times reflexive pronoun on bed-Loc-sg-fem-def toss-3-sg-pret 'He tossed himself SEVERAL TIMES in the bed'

(65)

Znaisl jiz, kolobeh ro/ci/, know-S-sg-pret already course-Acc-sg-masc year-Gen-sg-masc 'He already knew the course of the year'

(66)a. NEPLAKALAf temef, not-cry-3-sg-pret almost 'She almost did not cry' b.

\prom temef

l

neF2 s_, plakalaFs 2 l]

Word-order

95

A short commentary on the scoping properties of the scoping expressions occurring in (62), (63), (65), and (66) is necessary. In (62), the scoping expression pravdepodobne 'probably' has in its scope the verb kriceli 'were screaming' (not the intervening Noncontrastive Topic pred ndstenkou 'in front of the billboard'). In (63), the scoping expression pravdepodobne 'probably' has in its scope the verb predvede 'will perform' and the last part of the Focus, co umi 'what he can do' (not the intervening Noncontrastive Topic Karel 'Charles'). In (65), the scoping expression jiz 'already' has in its scope the part of the Focus which preceds it., i.e. the verb znal 'knew' and the part of the Focus which follows it, i.e. kolobeh roku 'the course of the year' (not the pro (zeroform) Subject as Noncontrastive Topic). In (66), there is a multiple occurrence of scoping expressions (temer 'almost', ne- 'not') with the hierarchical scope interpretation: ne has in its scope plakala 'cried', and temer 'almost' has in its scope neplakala 'didn't cry'. Also rightward shifts are obligatory and optional. To obligatory rightward shifts belongs the shift of scoping expressions after the wh-element which they have in their scope (after possible Topic elements, which stand outside of its scope). This can be illustrated by English who (did you) mainly see there, who else..., who the hell... (with did you in the first example as Topic), and by Czech Kohos tam hlavne videl ("Whom there mainly you-saw" 'Whom did you mainly see there'), with tam 'there' as Topic. To optional rightward shifts belongs the shift of the focalizer only after the NP which or whose part (the adnominal adjunct) it has in its scope (such as in for your eyes only), the shift of sentence adverbials as "afterthoughts" to the parenthetical sentence-final position in English, the shift of scoping expressions such as sogar 'even' to the sentence-final position in German, etc. I am obliged to Professor Werner Winter for a comment pointing out that the sentence-final position of certain operators such as sogar in German is obligatory if this operator has in its scope the verb, cf. *Er sogar GLAUBT es vs. Er GLAUBT es sogar, and that is is connected with the verb-second position in German, cf. Er hat es sogar GEGLAUBT. Last but not least, it should be noted that here should be made a methodological difference between my notion of shift and the Chomskyan notion of movement. (a) The Chomskyan movement is a displacement of an element from a position in the fixed surface word-order into other positions, (aa) either corresponding to deep word-order (such as in case of topicalizations and foca-

96

Word-order

lizations), or (bb) not corresponding to deep word-order (such as in case of wh-movement and extraction). However, in the cases of non-wh-topicalization and extraction, the Chomskyans mostly do not make the crucial difference between whether the moved or extracted element belongs to the Topic of the sentence (case (aa)), or whether it is focally stressed and hence belongs to the Focus of the sentence (case (bb)). (b) My notion of shift means a displacement of a communicative unit (part, subpart, element) from its position in deep word-order into a position which does not correspond to word-order. (c) There is an overlap between the notions of movement and shift, such as in the case of wh- and non-wh extraction.

2.5 The surface segmentation of the sentence Closely connected with leftward shifts is the surface segmentation of the sentence (as a linguistic universal) into communicatively important parts, subparts and elements as segments. I claim that surface segmentation, as an observable phenomenon, is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the piecemeal character of conveying new information by natural language, as a manifestation of the adaptation of verbal communication to human processing capacities. Professor Werner Winter has proposed an alternative label for surface segmentation, viz., "delimitation within the sentence" (for the of notion of delimitation by clitics, cf. also Uhlirovä 1987), but the notion of segmentation has become well-established in linguistic literature. In the works on clitics, there are findings and formulations pointing to the necessity of introducing the notion of segmentation (cf. Zwicky 1977, Avgustinova 1992). The notion of segmentation is used directly in Lambrecht 1994: 208 (cf. his formulations such as "the 'segmentation' view of information", "the sentence... segmentat e into 'old' and 'new' portions"), and in Avgustinova - Oliva 1996 (cf. their notion of "the first substantial segment of the sentence"). I have given considerable empirical support for, and theoretical justification of, this notion, from a cross-linguistic perspective, cf. Koktova: 1995c, 1996b, 1997b, 1997c, and in press b. I would like to define the major notions of surface segmentation as follows: (i) Segments. Segments are communicatively important communicativeinformation parts (Contrastive Topic, Noncontrastive Topic, directly inter-

Word-order

97

rogative wh-elements, indirectly interrogative wh-elements, and the non-whpart of Focus); their subparts, such as parts of Contrastive Topic or of Focus, and certain syntactically prominent elements of the sentence (the verb, the Subject, and certain semantically rich operators), which are detached (segmented, set off) from each other or from the rest of the sentence by segmentators. (ii) Segmentators. Segmentators are most different, grammatical, lexical and prosodical means of segmenting. They include the following items: grammatical words, such as auxiliaries; clitic forms of reflexive pronouns; clitics forms of personal pronouns; the main finite verb; focalizers, mainly scalar and communicative particles; sentence-medial conjunctions and sentence connectors with the focalizing function; the elements of double negation, especially ne...pas in French; verbal particles such as up in give up; information-structure particles, such as ga and wa in Japanese, or z, ze, and i in Russian (and the analogue of the Russian ze, viz., the less frequently used suffix -ze, in Czech), the particle we in the language Gun occurring after the sentence-initial Focus (Haegemenan 1995), vocatives; "pad" words such as kind-of in English, repeated beginnings of communicatively prominent elements, such as indirectly interrogative wh-words, and pauses. Some segmentators belong prototypically to the Focus of the sentence, such as focalizers and the elements which belong to the lexical verb occurring in the Focus (auxiliaries and reflexive pronouns constituting the lexical meaning of the verb, such as se in the Czech bat se ('to be afraid')); some belong to Noncontrastive Topic, such as clitic personal pronouns (thus contributing to the pulsation of the sentence, or alternation of pieces of communicatively more and less important information), and some of them do not belong to the information structure of the sentence (such as vocatives and pauses). The second point to be highlighted is the occurrence of segmentators in clusters. Clitic expressions usually form long clusters in Czech, with a fixed ordering of elements: [auxiliary - reflexive - clitic personal pronouns - clitic deictic pronoun to ('it')], cf. by se mu to ('conditional auxiliary - reflexive -him (Dative) - it'). Similarly, also focalizers have a strong tendency to be clustered, cf. the Czech spis proste jen 'rather simply only', or the English probably only, or the German wohl vielleicht gerade eben mal, vielleicht gerade mal (sequences of modal particles according to Gutknecht-Roelle 1997: 203); cf. also the treatment of particles in Hartmann 1994 ("Abtönungspartikel" or "Modalpartikel", such as bloss '}ust\ ja 'well', halt 'actually' etc.). If the sequence of

98

Word-order

operators is too long, some of them have the tendency to be shifted leftwards. The sequences of segmentators in a sentence may be longer than segments. (iii) Types of segmentation. There are two layers of segmentations: (A) the basic one, and (B) the secondary one. (A) The basic layer of segmentation. This layer is fairly general (presumably (almost) universal). Here belong two types of segmentation: (I) the backward-looking segmentation, and (II) the forward looking segmentation. (I) The backward-looking segmentation. This type of segmentation is the detachment of the first sentential segment from the remeinder of the sentence. This type of segmentation is exemplified in (67), where by se mu to 'conditional particle -reflexive pronoun - him Dative - it'is a clitic cluster, detaching the sentence-initial Topic (Karet) from the sentence-final Focus (snazil vmtit). (67)

Karel by se mu to snazil vmtit Charles would reflexive him it try to give back 'Charles would try go give it back to him'

With respect to the fact that the beginning of the sentence is functionally very loaded, the backward-looking segmentation may be repeated. Most typically, this first segment is the Contrastive Topic of the sentence, which can consist of more than one occurrence of syntactic relations. The Contrastive Topic of the sentence can be further partitioned, so the sentence-initial segment may consist only of the first part of Contrastive Topic. Further typical sentence-initial segments are the directly interrogative whpronouns, the whole (short, emotionally preposed) Focus, and certain parts of the Focus, such as operators, certain adverbial modifications in Czech, and certain adjectival predicates in German (this last case yields split Foci on the surface). Very interesting are German examples of the typen Leicht / nötig wird sie es nicht haben ('It will not be it easy/necessary for her'), where leicht / nötig could be alternatively considered as Contrastive Topic or as a (preposed) part of Focus (which is another evidence for the closeness of Contrastive Topic and Focus). This sentence could be paraphrased by Sie wird es nicht leicht/nötig haben, where leicht/nötig clearly belong to the Focus. For another case of a preposed part of the Focus, which is detached by Noncontrastive Topic from the rest of the Focus, cf. the Czech example (64) above. Clitics prosodically belong to the sentence-initial segment.

Word-order

99

Typical segmentators of this type of segmentation are clitic clusters, including the above-mentioned clitics forms in Czech, the French negation particle ne, sentence-medially occurring conjunctions and connectors (such as the Czech ale ('but'), the German aber ('but') or the English however), the Russian particle ze / z, and the finite verb, both auxiliary and main (cf. the wellknown "verb-second position" in German). Secondarily, also leftwardjumping focalizers and sequences of segmentators involving jumping focalizers may function in this way, cf. the Czech jumping focalizer uz 'already', and sequences of segmentators involving this focalizer, such as juz take ('already also') or uzale ('already but'), detaching Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic. It should be noted that the segmentation by clitics obtains also in West Flemish, as evidenced by Haegeman 1993. In her paradigm 29b-d/12 (according to my interpretation), in (b) the clitic t 'it' segments the whole Contrastive Topic consisting of two elements from the Focus (cf. da Piet Valere t...), in (c), the clitic segments the Contrastive Topic consisting of one element from Noncontrastive Topic (cf. da Piet t Valere...), and in (d), the clitic stands before the Topic (after the conjunction da 'that', suggesting that the lexical elements of the Topic are Noncontrastive), (cf. da t Piet Valere...). The detaching of the sentence-initial segment (Contrastive Topic) consisting of two occurrences of syntactic relations, viz., [from where - where to], by the finite verb in German, is exemplified in (68) (for a number of examples of this kind from many European languages, cf. Avgustinova - Oliva 1996). Thus, both according to Koktova: 1995c, 1996b and 1997b, and to Avgustinova - Oliva 1996, Wackernagel's rule about the "second" position of clitics, and the well-known rule about the verb-second position in German, should be modified into a rule about the position (of these elements) after the first relevant sentential segment (which may consist of more than one occurrences of syntactic relations). (68) Von Nürnbergnach Cham" ists erm in einer from Nuremberg to Cham be-3-sg-pres-Aux he in a-Dat-sg-fem KutscheF gefahren aber von Cham nach Furth coach drive-past-participle but from Cham to Furth ist er geritten be-3-sg-pres he ride-past-participle 'From Nuremberg to Cham he drove in a coach, but from Cham to Furth, he rode on horseback '

100

Word-order

(II) Forward-looking segmentation. This type of segmentation is the segmentation of the last communicatively important segment from the preceding rest of the sentence. This segment is the Focus of the sentence, or the communicatively most important subpart thereof. The typical segmentators are focalizers, and sentence-medially occurring conjunctions and sentence-connectors. These segmentators include scalar particles, communicative particles, negation, the Russian focalizing particle i, the second negation particle in French, pas, the English verbal particles such as up in give up, etc. This can be illustrated by (69), where presumably only, a cluster of focalizing operators with hierarchical scope interpretation, serve as segmentators. (69)

John has bought presumably only lemons

(B) The secondary layer: the multiple segmentations of the sentence. Often, there can be encountered multiple segmentations of the sentence. Two of them are yielded by the mere combination of the backward and the forwardlooking segmentation (cf. (a) below), and the others are language-specific multiple segmentations (cf. (b) below). (a) Combinations of backward and forward looking segmentation. (aa) The backward and forward segmentations partition the sentence in three parts: Contrastive Topic (or wh-elements, or the second part of Contrastive Topic, etc.), Noncontrastive Topic, and Focus. The schema of this segmentation is in (70a), which is ilustrated by (70b). In (70b), morgen ist Contrastive Topic, wird is a segmenting finite verb, Karl is Noncontrastive Topic, sicher is a segmenting focalizer, and wach (sein) is the Focus. Technically, of course, wird belongs to the Focus along with the main verb. (70)a.

[The first segment (CT, wh, etc.) - backward looking segmentator(s) the second segment (NT, etc.) - forward looking segmentator(s) - the last segment (For part thereof)]

(70)b.

Morgen wird Karl sicher wach (sein) Tomorrow will Charles certainly awake/alert (be) 'Tomorrow, Charles will be certainly awake/alert'

Other interesting examples can be found in Russian, with the segmenting particles coocurring within a single sentence, ze and i, cf. Pocemu ze vy i placete (Why - particle are you -particle - crying 'Why are you crying');

Word-order

101

Komu ze kak ne emu i byt' u nas gospodinom (Who - particle - if not he - particle - be - with - us - master 'Who if not he should be the master in our house'). I have found also an example where the particle ze for backward segmentation detached a fronted (embedded) Focus (an adnominal adjunct). (bb) The backward and forward segmentators stand side by side, thus maximally detaching the first and the second segment (usually, Topic and Focus). This is typical especially of Czech, cf. (71). On the other hand, German and English prefer a multiple segmentation, as is obvious from (72) below, and from the English translation of the Czech sentence in (71), with two leftward shifts of the operators, simply and probably. (71) ilustrates the case when a sequence of segmentators may be longer than the segments: by se to (conditional particle -reflexive - 'it') is a sequence of backward segmentators, and proste asi ('simply perhaps') is a sequence of focalizers as forward segmentators, whereas Karel ('Charles') and nepodarilo ('not-succeed') are the detached segments. (71)

Karlovi by se to proste asi Charles (Dative) - would - reflexive - it - simply - probably nepodarilo not-succeed 'Probably, Charles would simply not succeed'

(b) Multiple segmentations. (aa) There is a typical triple segmentation of the sentence (by three segmentations, into four parts) in German. The first segmentation is performed by the finite verb; the second segmentation, by the clitic personal pronoun, and the third, by a focalizer, cf. (72). This segmentation has no analogue in Czech, because in Czech, the auxiliary and the clitic pronoun must stand side by side in a clitic cluster, which reduces the number of segmentations by one. In (72), morgen as Contrastive Topic is detached from the Noncontrastive Topic die Detektive by the finite verb werden, and the Focus erkennen is detached from the rest of the sentence by the operator sicher. (72) Morgen werden die Detektive ihn sicher erkennen Tomorrow - will - the detectives - him - certainly recognize 'Tomorrow, the detectives will surely recognize him'

102

Word-order

Here belongs also the example for which I am obliged to Professor Werner Winter, viz., Morgen wird Karl ihm bei Maria vermutlich das Geld geben (Tomorrow - will - Charles - him - in Mary's place - probably - the money give 'Tomorrow, in Mary's place, Charles will probably give him the money'). There are clearly visible the two segmentations of the Topic into three parts, by the auxiliary and by the clitic pronoun, viz., morgen, Karl, and bei Maria, where I assume that Karl is the semantically fullfledged (nonpronominal) part of Noncontrastive Topic, and morgen and bei Maria, two parts of Contrastive Topic. The fourth segment is the Focus, vermutlich das Geld geben (consisting of an operator/segmentator, vermutlich, and the rest of the Focus). (bb) The multiple segmentation in Czech. In Czech, the sentence can be segmented at most into six segments: two parts of Contrastive Topic, two parts of Noncontrastive Topic, and two parts of Focus. In this segmentation, the first, clitic-pronominal part of Noncontrastive Topic, is a segmentator at the same time, detaching the first and the second part of Contrastive Topic, cf. (73), where (73a) is the surface sentence, (73b), its deep representation, and (73c), the scheme of the ordering of the segments. (73) a. Zitra T~' muT1 u Marie^'2 pravdepodobne' Tomorrow him with Mary probably rs

jNT-2

.

,

da ~l give-3-sg-fut

F-2

Karel ty penize Charles-Nom-sg-masc that money-Acc-pl Tomorrow, in Mary's place, Charles will probably give him that money' b. [KarelNTmuTzitraCT u Marie07pravdepodobne t da sl ty penizeFsl] c. [ C T - 1 - N T - 1 - C T - 2 - F - 1 - N T - 2 - F - 2 ] . The first segment of this sentence is the first part of the Contrastive Topic (CT-1: zitra 'tomorrow'). This segment is detached from the second part of the Contrastive Topic (CT-2: u Marie 'in Mary's place') by the clitic pronoun mu 'him', which itself constitutes the first part of Noncontrastive Topic (NT-1). By the second segmentation, the whole Contrastive Topic is detached from the lexical (nonclitic) part of Noncontrastive Topic (NT-2: Charles 'Karel') by the verb along with the scoping expression, i.e. by the sequence pravdepodobne dd 'probably will give'. This sequence constitutes the first part of the Focus (F-l). This sequence is communicatively so important that one can al-

Word-order

103

ternatively speak, instead of its segmenting character, of its function as a segment which has been shifted leftwards, having jumped across the second part of the Noncontrastive Topic. The second part of the Noncontrastive Topic is followed by the second part of the Focus (Focus proper, F-2: ty penize 'that money'). The simplified deep representation of this sentence is given in (73b). In this representation, the ordering of the elements corresponds to the deep ordering of communicative-information parts: first comes the whole Noncontrastive Topic (Karel mu 'Charles him'), then, the whole Contrastive Topic (zitra u Marie 'tomorrow in Mary's place'), and then, the whole Focus (pravdepodobne dd ty penize 'probably will-give that money'). Within the Focus, the expression pravdepodobne 'probably' has in its scope the sequence will-give that money 'da ty penize'). The scheme of the pulsating character of this sentence in (73c) renders the alternation of the communicative subparts of the sentence on the surface (alternation of the parts of the Contrastive Topic, of the Noncontrastive Topic, and of the Focus). An even finer rendition of this pulsating character of this sentence is given in (73d), where the surface word-order of this sentence and the degrees of communicative importance of its elements are compared. To be observed in this table is the right (second) column: this is the indication of the deep positions of the surface elements, which represents the alternation of the degrees of communicative importance of the elements of this sentence. Let us note that the sentence has three "ups", represented by the following clusterings: the sentence-initial one (3), the sentence-medial one (4-5-6) and the sentencefinal one (7), and two "downs", represented by the sentence-medial numbers (2) and (1) (the position of number (1) is noteworthy) indicating the element with the lowest communicative importance, in the penultimate position of the sentence, immediately followed by the communicatively most important element of the sentence (7)). (73) d. Expression zitra ('tomorrow') mu ('him') u Marie ('with Mary') pravdepodobne ('probably') dd ('will-give')

Surface position 1 2 3 , 4 5

Deep position 3 2 4 5 6

104

Word-order

Karel ('Charles') ty penize ('that money')

.6 7.

.1 7

Here, Professor Werner Winter suggested a modification of this Czech example by substituting the clitic pronoun mu ('him') by a PP Jonesovi ('to Jones'). It was quite interesting to find out how the Czech sentence would be structured in this case. I consider an ordering most natural where the Contrastive and the Noncontrastive Topic are not partitioned (i.e., form nonsegmented wholes), being detached from each other by the first part of the Focus, viz., by the verb along with the operator, cf. [Zitra u Marie]CT [da pravdepodobne]F I [Karel Jonesovi]NT [typenize]F'2 (Tomorrow in Mary's place - probably will-give-Charles to Jones - that money 'Tomorrow in Mary's place, Charles will give Jones that money'). This structuring is due to the loss of the clitic pronoun as segmentator, so that the sentence would be partitioned not in six, but only in four parts. There is still one noteworthy Czech example with the most intricate segmentation / pulsation I found in texts, cf. (74) (about the open-air sale of fish). (74)

Zitra bude Emil opet poddvat Stirovi ryby Tomorrow - will - Emil - again - be passing - to Stira - fish na val az do sameho poledne onto the board - until the very noon 'Tomorrow, Emil will be passing again fish to Stira onto the board until the very noon'

In this sentence, Contrastive Topic {zitra) is detached from Noncontrastive Topic by the auxiliary (bude). The Noncontrastive Topic itself consists of four occurrences of syntactic relations, viz., Emil (Subject), Stirovi (Addresee), ryby (Direct Object), na vdl (adverbial modification - where to); out of these four elements, Emil as the Subject is partitioned from the rest of them by the operator opet ('again'). The Focus consists likewise of four surface elements, bude, poddvat, opet and az do sameho poledne, which form three units on the surface, bude, opet poddvat, and az do sameho poledne. The two operators {opet, az) have the hierarchical scope interpretation, standing side by side in the deep representation. On the surface, opet was shifted leftwards. Now let me mention several additional interesting phenomena of the segmentation in Czech. First, the future auxiliary in Czech budu, budes... does not prosodically behave like a clitic, but like a main verb, in that it does not be-

Word-order

105

long to a cluster of clitics, unlike the other auxiliaries (such as the past-time auxiliary jsem, -s... and the conditional auxiliary bych, by...). Second, the Czech pronoun to 'it' is ambiguous as regards its Contrastive or Noncontrastive validity: it is either unstressed (Noncontrastive, clitic) or stressed (Contrastive), unlike its English and German counterparts it and es, which are always Noncontrastive, having their Contrastive counterparts, that and das, respectively. If the Czech pronoun to has the Noncontrastive (clitic) validity, it stands at the end of a clitic cluster. Third, there is a special emotionally colored, emphasized pronoun on in Czech, which has the form of a personal pronoun, occurs only in the nominative, and stands sentence-initially as a segment, being detached from the proper nominal Subject of the sentence by a clitic (or a cluster thereof), cf. On, to tak Karel, nemyslel (He, - it - that way - Charles, - did not mean 'Charles did not mean it that way'). In a sense, one can speak here of a repetition of the subject, with the anticipatory, emotive pronoun preceding the proper nominal Subject. Fourth, in Czech, there is the sentence-connecting particle to (homophonous with the deictic pronoun), which has roughly the meaning under these circumstances, or that time, and whose closest English equivalent is then or thus, and the closest German equivalent da. This Czech particle plays also the role of the sentence-initial segment, which is detached from the rest of the sentence by a clitic or a cluster thereof. By coincidence, one of the most typical clictics is the (homophonous) Noncontrastive pronoun to 'it', which yiedls the sequence to to on the surface, cf. (Poprvese soutezkonala ν r. 1966.) To to Karel zkazil. ((For the first time, the competition took place in 1966). Sentence-connecting particle -it - Charles - spoiled 'That time, Charles spoiled it'). Fifth, it should be noted that in Czech, multiple occurrences of free adverbial modifications, such as vcera vecer 'yesterday in the evening' cannot be separated by clitics. Sixth, clitics stand in the second position inside the Topic only if its members are argumental (Subject, Objects), cf. Karel se Jane... ('Charles (Subject) - clitic reflexive pronoun - Jane (Indirect Object))', Karel ho Jane 'Charles Jane it' ('Charles (Subject) - clitic personal pronoun - Jane (Indirect Object)'). On the other hand, if the Topic is constituted by members of other case subsystems, such as modifications of Direction (except for the modification of "through which place", i.e., where from - where to) or the OriginEffect subsystem, the clitics stand after the whole sequence of modifications, i.e., after the whole Topic. This falsifies Wackernagel's rule, in conformity

106

Word-order

with Avgustinova - Oliva's 1996 findings, cf. (my examples) ZManhattanu do Brooklynu ho neposlali autem ( From Manhattan to Brooklyn - him - they did not send by car 'From Manhattan to Brooklyn, they did not send him by car'), and similar German examples (cf. (68)). I would like to add here that segmentation can be conceived of even more widely; it is possible to introduce the notion of inter-sentential segmentation, by means of which whole sentences are detached from each other. There are sentence-initial and sentence-final segmentators, which may cooccur, "wrapping up" the sentence so that it is detached from the surrounding text, cf. (75). (75)

Well, y'know, we must hurry up, don't you think?

Typical sentence-initial segmentators are well or y'know in English, tja in German, and no in Czech. Typical sentence-final segmentators are sentence tags across languages, cf. the English tags, the German oder? or gelt?., or the Czech vid'. The most frequent but up to now unnoticed sentence-medial and sentence-final Czech particle is jako ('as-if'), used in slightly negative contexts (negative news or expectations, embarassment): in declarative sentences, it occurs usually sentence-medially, and in questions, it occurs usually sentence-finally. There may, however, be other lexicalized inter-sentential (sentence-wrapping) segmentators. I have found dozen of lexicalized sentence-initial and sentence-final contacting, hearer-friendly or hearer-deterring, idioms, originating from short predicates or clauses, in the texts by the well-known Czech author Karel Capek. Among inter-sentential segmentators could be included also the German particles ja and halt if they occur sentence-finally. I am obliged for examples such as Sie schläft ja and Das sagt man halt to Professor Werner Winter. Last but nor least, I would like to cross-linguistically summarize the types of reduplicated elements in a sentence, as a means of the segmentation of the sentence, and of the re-activation of certain elements in the memory of the hearer. It is possible to distinguish between the re-activatory and anticipatory reduplication: in the case of the re-activatory reduplication, the major element (the lexically richer element (noun), long form of a pronoun, etc.) precedes the minor element, and in the case of the anticipatory reduplication, the major element follows the minor element. In certain cases, it is not easy to distinguish which element is major and which minor, and there are cases where the elements have the same shape. A

Word-order

107

special case is the multiple surface negation in Czech: verbal negation is not repeated, but there may be several nonverbal negative elements within a sentence. In sentences such as the Czech Nebil nikdo nikoho (There has not, beaten nobody2 (Subject) nobody3 (Object) 'Nobody has beaten anybody'), there would be different criteria for which a negative element should be viewed as the major one. Let us assume, working-fashion, that the first nonverbal negation is the major element. A. The re-activatory reduplication. (a) Re-activation of the referent of wh-pronouns by resumptive pronouns, such as in This is the girl that John said that Bob thinks that Mary knows that Fred loves her (examples of this kind are found in Erteschik-Shir 1992, to illustrate the principle that the longer the distance between the antecedent and the resumptive pronoun, the more acceptable the resumptive pronoun). Here belongs also the Czech obligatory resumption of the uninflected, genderless relative pronoun co ('that') due to the necessity of supplying the information about case and gender, such as in To je ten nozik, co jsi s nim krajel chleb 'This is the knife that you were cutting bread with it'. (b) The resumption of the first interrogative pronoun before the second one in West Flemish, by means of the clitic t, cf. Haegeman's 1995: 63/145 Wien eet-er t woa gewerkt (Who has there where worked 'Who has worked where?'). (c) The resumption of a new (explicitly or implicitly) Contrastive Topic by a short (Noncontrastive) pronoun in French and English, cf. Moi, je ne comprends pas rien (I don't understand anything') and John, he will never forgive me. (d) The occurrence of the adverbial-pronominal element ci ('there') after sentence-initial, Contrastive-Topic local adverbial modifications in Italian, such as in Al mare, ci gia siamo stati ('At the seaside, (there) we have already been'). (e) The adverbal (minor) negation (ne) after the major negation, such as in the Czech Nikdo tarn nebyl (Nobody there not-was 'Nobody was there'). B. The anticipatory reduplication. (a) The anticipatory expletive there and it in English and its analogues in other languages. (b) The short forms of personal pronouns anticipating a sentential "tail" consisting of a full NP, cf. He is our best basketball player, (is) John. (British: He is our best player, is John.) (c) The anticipation of a long pronoun by a short pronoun in French, cf. Je le vois lui (I him see him) (see Zwicky 1977).

108

Word-order

(d) The coocurrence, in West Flemish, of short and long forms of personal pronouns, such as k... ekik (Ί...Γ) (cf. Haegeman 1993). (e) The minor negation preceding the major negation by virtue of different word-order in a sentence with respect to (d) above, cf. Gianni non telefona a nessuno (Gianni did not telephone anybody 'Gianni did not telephone anybody'), as contrasted with *Nessuno non telefona a Gianni ('Nobody did not telephone to Gianni') (cf. Haegeman 1995: 196). (0 The above-mentioned occurrence of a sentence-initial, emotionally colored personal pronoun on (he) in Czech, followed by clitics and by the coreferential, semantically fullfledged Subject. (g) The occurrence of the anticipatory Focus particle la in the sentenceinitial position in Arabic, cf. Haegeman (1995: 83c/108). C. Iteration of the same forms. (a) The repetition of an extracted wh-pronoun in children's speech, cf. Who do you think who came (cf. Hyams 1989). (b) The repetition of the beginnings of important segments, such as in I don't know who who... has stolen the diamond (for examples of this kind, cf. Svartvik - Quirk 1979).

2.6 Word-order typology In this section, I would like to make a brief proposal of an alternative wordorder typology. First of all, I claim that all languages, whether configurational or nonconfigurational, have roughly equivalent abilities to fluently and effectively convey a message, due to the universal expressibility (effability) of natural language. Assuming that the distinctions of deep word-order (such as the repertoire of communicative-information parts, the free distribution of the elements of the sentence, etc.) are universal, it is the surface word-order which matters. I claim that natural languages are synergetic systems with compensations in this respect: if there is a lack of one or another means in the surface wordorder for expressing a certain distinction of deep word-order, there are usually other means which compensate for it. From this viewpoint, configurational languages such as English cannot be said to be insensitive to the distinctions of deep word-order (communicativeinformation distinctions), as Mathesius 1939 has it. As a compensation for its "grammatically fixed surface word-order", English has a number of ways of compensation by various means of expression (which do not obtain for exam-

Word-order

109

pie in Czech): intonation, the parenthetical relaxation of the neutral ordering, the (possibly recursive) parenthetical detachment of (parts of) Contrastive Topic, the wider range of the positions of scoping expressions due to their leftward and rightward shifts, and so on. In a sense, it can be even claimed that English is more sensitive to the deep word-order distinctions than Czech, mainly because of the possibility of the parenthetical relaxation of the neutral ordering. However, there are minor differences between languages. I claim that the communicatively most sensitive language out of five languages under comparison (English, Czech, German, Russian, French) is Russian, due to its combined ways of expressing the distinctions of deep word-order: (a) Free surface word-order: the Russian surface word-order is freer than that of Czech, overriding also the head-modifier distinction. (b) Prosody: there occurs the prosodical detachment of Contrastive Topic and of sentence-initial scoping expressions with communicative function. (c) Segmentation: two special lexical segmentation markers: i, ze, are available. (d) Morphology: participial and infinitival constructions occur quite frequently. (e) Clasical typology: Russian, as a synthetic language, involves analytical features, such as the morphologically non-incorporated preverbal negation, the occurrence of postverbal negation without explicit contrastive context, and word formation by compounding (cf. also below). Thus, it is possible to propose the distinctions for a new type of word-order typology. According to this, languages are not only subcategorized as (predominantly) configurational or nonconfigurational, as (predominantly) SVO or SOV, as (predominantly) Head-first or Head-final; in addition a number of other, and communicatively even more important, distinctions can be posited: (a) Very much pulsating or not very much pulsating. (b) Very much segmented or not very much segmented. (c) Predominantly leftward shifting, equally rightward and leftward shifting, or predominantly rightward shifting (to positions not corresponding to deep word-order). (d) Much relaxing or not much relaxing surface fixed word-order. (e) Much relaxing or not much relaxing deep fixed word-order By the same token, it is possible to search for properties of possible natural languages: for example, it should be examined whether there are languages

110

Word-order

which would be predominantly rightward shifting (to positions not corresponding to deep word-order, as a means of pulsation). On the other hand, it is reasonable to assume that there are no languages which would not be pulsating at all (it can be assumed that the basic pulsation pattern [Contrastive Topic - Noncontrastive Topic - Focus] is absolutely universal). Likewise, it is possible to assume that there are no languages which would not be segmented at all. Further, it could be investigated whether there are there languages which do not relax the restrictions of surface fixed word-order (I assume that there are no such languages, only the degrees of this relaxation may differ). To conclude these typological considerations, I would like to make a short comparison of the major languages under study (English, Czech, German, Russian, French) as to their sensitivity to the modification of temporal linearity (deep segmentation - surface segmentation - pulsation), and to point out certain outstanding means thereof. Consider the repertoire of the means in expressing the modification of temporal linearity, I conclude that the first rank is occupied by Russian (which exhibits combined properties of an analytical and a synthetical language), especially due to its free word-order and to the availability of the (untranslatable) segmentators: the backward segmentator ze/z, and the forward segmentator (focalizer) i. I would like to summarize here the relevant "analytic" properties of Russian, contributing to its unusual sensitivity to word-order: the availability of the above-mentioned analytic segmentators ze and i\ the frequent occurrence of parenthetically detached scoping expressions (operators, sentence adverbials) such as verojatno, vprocem ('really'), or konecno ('of course') in the sentence-initial, sentence-medial, and sentence-final positions, reminding one of the occurrence of sentence adverbials in English; the use of communicative particles adjoined to semantic words, such as skazi-ka (just tell me); the postverbal (postfocal) postion of Noncontrastive (clitic) pronouns, such as in Ja vcera PON J AL ee ('Yesterday, I UNDERSTOOD her'), again reminding of their position in English; the free position of the negative particle ne, without full analogy in the languages under comparison: ne can be shifted to the communicatively important position before the elements of the Topic, such as in esli ne vy brosku vzjali... ('if you didn't take the jewel') (this reminds one of the position of the negation particle ne in French), or it can occur postverbally, even in sentences without a contrastive continuation (an idiosyncratic phenomenon), cf. ona skazala ne srazu (she said not immediately 'she didn't say (it) immediately'); the occurrence of the operator tol'ko ('only') after the ma-

Word-order

111

terial in its scope, even inside a NP, cf. odin tol'ko raz (one only time 'only once'); the shift of the forms of the verb byt' (to be) as a segmentator to the sentence-medial position in sentences of appearance on the scene, whereby a semantically fullfledged adjective gets to the communicatively important sentence-initial position, cf. prijatno bylo sidef (pleasant was to sit 'it was pleasant to sit'), as compared with Czech bylo prijemne sedet (was-pleasant to sit). The second rank is occupied by German, mainly due to its free word-order, to its systematic triple segmentation (by the verb, by clitic pronouns, and by focalizers) (as contrasted to the corresponding double segmentation in Czech), and to the availability of about seventeen "modal particles" as segmentators (cf. esp. Hartmann 1994 and Gutknecht - Roelle 1996). The fourth rank is occupied by French, due to its frequent usage of the sentence-initial and sentence-final positions for communicatively important elements, and for its tendency to parenthetical highlighting of communicatively important elements. This can be illustrated by the occurrence, in the sentence-initial position, of parenthetically detached Contrastive Topics (such as in Ces cartespostales, j'ai les envoyes a Prague ('These postal cards, I have sent them to Prague'); of Contrastive Topics in questions (Louis, quel age a-t-il? 'How old is Louis?')); of long signals for questions, cf. Est-ce que..., Qu'est-ce que... ('is it that...' (a signal for yes-no questions), 'what' (Object) (in wh-questions)), etc., and by the usage of cleft sentences (C'est monfrere qui vient ('it is my brother who is coming'), as well as by the occurrence, in the sentence-final position, of interrogative pronouns, cf. ζα sera combien 'How much is it?'. The fourth rank is occupied by English, which exhibits powerful compensation mechanisms with respect to its (putative) "fixed word-order": there are massive parenthetical and nonparenthetical relaxations of this fixed wordorder. These means, in combination with the use of intonation and of communicative particles, make English in certain respects even more flexible in communicative needs, and more sensitive with respect to the modification of the temporal linearity, than Czech as a language with free word-order. The fifth rank is occupied by Czech as a language with free word-order, which does not exhibit any particular means for the modification of the temporal linearity, save the availability of many communicative particles and functionally equivalent lexicalized idioms in colloquial Czech. Now I would like to classify word-order errors. They can be classified into quasi-errors (functional errors), motivated errors, and genuine errors.

112

Word-order

(i) Quasi-errors (functional errors). These errors are based on functional deviations from the norms of the standard language. These deviations are mainly in the spoken languages and serve to a better processing of the sentence, i.e., they have a psycholinguistic character. They involve deletion, repetition, and rightward and leftward shifts. Thus, in spoken Czech, the last element (the Focus) of a sentence may be deleted in the following sentence, and be understood as its old (Noncontrastive) topic. Such deletions are tolerated in quick spoken Czech, although in Standard Czech, such deletion could be considered as ungrammatical (e.g., the deletion of a subcategorised object). Second, in complex sentences with extracted wh-elements, the wh-elements may be repeated in the embedded clause in children's speech (cf. Hyams 1989 and Ch.4). Third, substandard, emotionally-based shifts of the elements of the Focus, to the sentence-initial position are presumably tolerated across languages (cf. Ch.2 and Ch.6). Fourth, in colloquial Czech, the shift of Nocontrastive Topis to the sentence-final position is frequent, whereas in written and official spoken Czech this would be unacceptable. (ii) Motivated errors. These are errors with second-language speakers which are motivated by the character of their first language. Thus, it may be against the grain of a native speaker of Czech (as a nonconfigurational language) to observe the fixed surface word-order rules in English, such as the usual postposition of short temporal and local modifications belonging to the Topic (now, here), which normally stand sentence-medially or sentenceinitially in Czech, and vice versa. Such errors, however, do not usually impair the comprehensibility of the sentence, especially if they are based on a "violation" of fixed surface word-order in favor of free word-order. One good example is the observation (cf. Hyams 1989) that at early stages of children's language (in the case of English), the [Topic-Focus] ordering is obeyed, in contradistinction to adult English, which obeys the "fixed surface wordorder", cf. examples such as Outside COLD in children's speech, vs. It is COLD outside in adult English. (iii) Genuine word-order errors. These errors are (almost exclusively) errors in the segmentation and pulsation of the sentence. They may really make the sentence incomprehensible or ridiculous (they make the effective processing of the sentence difficult or impossible), and they are not corrigible with respect to the communicative-information structure of the sentence (i.e., they cannot be compensated by correct intonation or by any other mechanism). A native speaker (I think even a pathological speaker) presumably hardly makes such errors. However, it may be extremely difficult for a foreigner to learn segmentation and pulsation rules of a language. This can be illustrated

Word-order

113

by the rules for the positions of the Czech clitics, especially the clitic reflexive pronoun: these rules are so complicated that they have presumably never been explicitly formulated (which is a task of my ongoing work), and they are the cornerstone of good knowledge of Czech for a foreigner. In the area of word-order, communicative-information errors are almost excluded due to the correcting function of sentence stress: what is important is presumably stressed even in pathological parlance. Statistically and empirically, my theory is corroborated as follows: (a) By way excerption of examples from texts (mainly novels and journalistic texts), especially with respect to Czech and German as non-configurational languages. The theoretical assumptions in this book are corroborated by about 1000 excerpted examples. For an empirically oriented work on Czech wordorder, cf. Koktova: 1995b, for German word-order, cf. Koktova: submitted a, There are some interesting results of this excerption: (aa) The statistically prevailing position of the English adverbial modification is not the sentence-final position as usually assumed (cf. the assumed [Subject - Verb - Object - Time - Place - Manner] order), but rather, the adverbial modification occupies mostly the sentence-initial position, due to the very frequent occurrence of the Contrastive Topic spatiotemporal modification (the Firbasian "setting", cf. Firbas 1971, 1992) at the beginning of the sentence. (bb) The Focus in Czech is often split, in that the first part of the Focus, if it consists of certain adverbial modifications (such as manner, etc.), stands sentence-inttially, and the rest of the Focus, sentence-finally. This runs counter the assumption (cf. Sgall et. al. 1986) that the Focus is surface-continuous. (b) By my capturing of samples of spoken Czech (such as conversations on a train), especially with respect to the occurrence of colloquial particles. According to this investigation, abouit 40% of the volume of spoken Czech consists of particles which have a comunicative (pragmatic) and segmenting function. They are placed in nontrivial positions, such as the sentence-final position. (c) By making a statistical survey of the occurrence of particles in the dialogues captured in the corpus of spoken English in Svartvik 1979 this statistics has corroborated my assumption that almost half of the volume of spoken texts (accross languages) consists of pragmatic and segmenting elements. (d) By personal communication with the members of the former team for quantitative linguistics in the Czech Language Institute of the Academy of Sciences, (Prague, Czech Republic). This team, lead by Marie Tesitelovä, and its followers, such as Ludmila Uhlirovä, engaged, among other things, in the

114

Word-order

study of word-order. One of the notable findings of this study was that the putatively "basic" SVO pattern is statistically by far overriden by other patterns, in line with the free word-order character of Czech. Thus, the first word of the Czech sentence is not the Noun in the Nominative Case, but rather an Adverb or a Noun in an Indirect Case, etc.

2.7 Conclusion In this Chapter, I have argued for a new conception of word-order and for new word-order typology. Generally, I have proposed that word-order is a highly organized, pulsating, and segmented structure. I have dealt mainly with surface word-order; I have proposed several surface word-order universals. The phenomena of deep and surface word-order are manifestations of the modification of the temporal linearity of verbal communication by natural language, whose aim is to make possible fluent and effective communication taking into consideration the limited human processing capacities. There are three major, presumably universal, means of this function: the multipartitioning of the communicative information of the sentence (deep segmentation), the alternation of the more and less communicatively important elements of the sentence (pulsation), and the surface segmentation of the sentence. In the phenomena of word-order (cf., e.g., the two counteracting but balanced tendencies of surface word-order, embodied in my types IVa and IVb of word-order), natural language exhibits its synergetic (self-organizing) character. There are two distinctions: deep vs. surface word-order, and free vs. fixed word-order. Deep word-order should be viewed as a useful abstraction: what can be described is surface word-order. The rules of fixed word-order can be (almost) always relaxed (rather than "violated") to a different degree, i.e., natural language has the tendency to word-order freedom. In particular, I have proposed five types of word-order. I. Fixed deep word-order, involving the (relatively) fixed ordering of deep communicative-information parts of the sentence, and the neutral (basic) ordering of types of syntactic relations. II. Free deep word-order, involving the free distribution of all occurrences of syntactic relations into communicative-information parts of the sentence, and the relaxations of the deep fixed word-order, notably of the neutral ordering of syntactic relations.

Word-order

115

III. Fixed surface word-order, involving parametric or language-specific constraints on word-order including the Greenbergian universals. IVa. Free surface word-order corresponding to deep word-order, involving free word-order in nonconfigurational languages, and relaxations of surface fixed word-order in configurational languages (topicalizations, focalizations). IVb. Free surface word-order not corresponding to deep word-order, involving the overlapping phenomena of pulsation and surface segmentation of the sentence. One of the major phenomena in this domain are leftward shifts of communicatively important elements to communicatively prominent positions, yielding the functional irregularity of the sentence. This word-order type is the major type. I have also proposed a tentative typology of word-order errors and a new word-order typology, based on the notions of pulsation, surface segmentation and relaxation, along with the notion of cross-linguistic compensations of the means to modify the temporal linearity of verbal communication.

3. Scoping expressions 3.1 Introduction In this chapter, I would like to offer an alternative account of scoping expressions (operators) of natural language. I distinguish two types of scoping expressions: (a) Focalizing scoping expressions. These scoping expressions (such as only, even, probably) have in their scope primarily the (rest of the) Focus of the sentence (in deep word-order, they stand in Focus-initial position). (b) Quantifiers. In case there are two quantifiers in the sentence (such as every, a, many, few), quantifying typically over entities, their relative (wide or narrow) scope is distinguished. These two types of operators and their scopes are independent, i.e., there is a crucial difference between expressions such as only X and every X. In this chapter, I will examine mainly the operators of the former type: focalizing scoping expressions. Henceforth, I will refer to them as "scoping expressions", in distinction to the operators of the latter type, which will be referred to as "quantifiers". My account of scoping expressions is based on my previous work, cf. Koktova: 1986, 1987, 1988a, 1989, 1990. The major points of my proposal are as follows: (i) The prototypical cases of scoping properties of scoping expressions can be accounted for in terms of the communicative-information structure of the sentence, mainly in terms of the partitioning of the sentence into Topic and Focus. Four basic cases can be distinguished according to the appurtenance of the scoping expression and the material in its scope to the Topic or to the Focus of the sentence. (ii) I introduce a new type of adverbial modification, viz., the modification of Attitude, by means of which scoping expressions should be generated. This adverbial modification occupies the first position in the neutral ordering of syntactic relations. In the Focus of the sentence, scoping expressions make an exception, standing before the verb. (It can be assumed that in the Focus of the sentence, the verb occupies the first position before the other syntactic entities including the Subject, as is evidenced by the sentence-initial position of the verb in all-new (topicless) sentences in languages with free surface wordorder.) The adverbial modification of Attitude is free, i.e., it can occur more than once in a sentence, and it can occur with every verb.

118

Scoping

expressions

(iii) The scoping properties of scoping expressions are essentially a matter of cognitive content, which is not directly structured by the system of natural language. This is evidenced by cases where the scope of scoping expressions cannot be (directly) accounted for in terms of the communicative-information structure of the sentence: thus, for example, temporal focalizers such as already can have in their scope only a part of the Focus, specifiable in terms of the semantics of these focalizers. However, there is an extremely close connection between the properties of scoping expressions and the communicative-information structure of the sentence. (iv) I argue that a wide variety of expressions of natural language exhibits scoping properties. Thus, I have gathered over 300 scoping expressions for each language under examination: English, Czech, German, and Russian. These expressions can be semantically subcategorized into a number of (hierarchically organized) groups. The most prominent types of scoping expressions are sentence adverbials ("attitudinal disjuncts") with the factive presupposition (such as surprisingly)·, scoping expressions of probability (such as probably)·, focalizers (in German, "Gradpartikel") (such as only), negation (not); focalizing communicative particles (in German: "Modalpartikel" or "Abtönungspartikel") (such as just)·, connective expressions (such as however)·, metacommunicative expressions related to the speaker (such as frankly), to the organization of the discourse (such as first of all), or to the expressions used in the sentence (such as in other words), and possibly any expressions detaching Topic and Focus (these expressions may range from interjections to the "zero assert operator", manifested by "hesitation pauses" occurring at communicative breaks). (v) On the surface, scoping expressions typically occur in scope-ambiguous positions which do not correspond to the positions of these expressions in deep word-order. These scope-ambiguous positions are due to leftward or rightward shifts of scoping expressions. For example, it is typical of negation and of the focalizer only in English that they stand preverbally (although they usually have in their scope only the post verbal part of the sentence). Further, it is typical of sentence adverbials that they stand sentence-initially (although they are pragmatically and semantically related only to the Focus). On the ther hand, scope-unambiguous (mainly: postverbal) positions of scoping expressions are marked and exceptional. Scoping expressions can occur in these positions usually only in sentences with an explicit contrastive context.

Scoping expressions

119

(vi) There are several interesting points about the semantics of scoping expressions, such as the definite character of negative expressions with respect to my notion of implicit restrictor, the presuppositional reading of definite NPs standing in the scope of negation in case of the occurrence of focalizers after negation, the problem of what is a globally accommodated presupposition with respect to the communicative-information structuring of the sentence, etc. (viii) I claim that the interpretation of the relative scope of quantifiers is due to different factors, such as deep and surface word-order and semantically and pragmatically based factors. (ix) I claim that the occurrence of scoping expressions in the sentence, their interaction with the communicative-information of the sentence and the general types of their surface occurrence belong to the most important linguistic universale.

3.2 Critique of extant approaches 3.2.1 Introduction In this section, I offer a critique of extant aproaches. First of all, I treat the approach of Jacobs 1983 and 1982 in a separate section (cf. 3.2.1), and then, other approaches (cf. 3.2.3). A common problem in the current literature about scoping expressions are terminological inconsistencies. The authors use several notions in quite different senses. Thus, the term Focus has been used in three senses: (a) in psycholinguistically-oriented writings (cf. Garrod - Sanford 1994, Grosz - Sidner 1985), as standing for the given (recoverable, known, activated, salient) information of the sentence - the "focus of attention" of the interlocutors; (b) in the linguistic tradition (from Halliday through Chomsky to the Prague School), as standing for the new (irrecoverable) information of the sentence, and (c) in linguistic approaches dealing with (focalizing) scoping expressions, for that part of the sentence which directly stands under the semantic influence of the focalizer (scalar particle), cf. Jacobs 1982 and 1983. The term scope has been used in the following senses: (a) for the relative scope of quantifiers such as many, few etc. (cf. the notion of wide and narrow scope), and (b) for the scope of focalizing scoping expressions such as only. In the present work, the term Focus will be used for the new information of the sentence (with respect to the Topic-Focus opposition), and the term scope

120

Scoping expressions

will be used for that part of the sentence which directly stands under the semantic and pragmatic impact of focalizing scoping expressions, i.e., to which alternative values can be sought. Thus, my notion of scope corresponds to Jacobs 1983 notion "Fokus", to Lieb's 1983b notion of scope, and to Hajicovä et al.'s 1985 notion of "focus of focalizers". Thus, for example, the scope of probably is the part of the sentence expressing what is conceived of as probable; the scope of only, as that part of the sentence expressing what is conceived of as exclusive; the scope of suprisingly, as that part of the sentence expressing what is conceived of as surprising, etc. Among extant approaches, I criticize mainly the constituency-based approach represented by Jacobs 1982 and 1983. The points of my critique are syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic: the inappropriateness of the syntactic (constituency) analysis, the neglect of the communicative structure of the sentence along with its intonational contour, and inadequacies in the semantic analysis, such as the mistaken interpretation of the scopes of scoping expressions with the hierarchical scoping interpretation. I concentrate on the critique of the approaches to focalizing scoping expressions (for a discussion about relative scopes of quantifiers, cf. section 3.6 below).

3.2.2 Jacobs 1982,1983 I offer a joint critique of Jacobs' work on scalar particles (1983) and of his work on negation (1982). Jacobs tries to account for the syntactic and semantic properties of scalar particles in terms of three notions, viz., syntactic range (defined in (1983: 8)); semantic range (scope) (defined in (1983: 9)), and "Fokus" (defined in (1983: 10)). Jacobs' notion of "Fokus" is equivalent to my notion of scope. For the sake of clarity, I will abide in this section by Jacobs' term "Fokus" when I describe his approach. (a) Syntactic range (1983: 8) is an n-ary verb phrase (η = 0,1,2, 3). Thus, in (76), the adverb nur 'only' can be inserted before Luise 'Louise', before ihrem Arzt 'to her doctor', before ein Auto 'a car' or before vermachte 'bequeathed', which respectively corresponds to a 0-ary, 1-ary, 2-ary and 3-ary verb phrase as the syntactic range of nur. "Fokus" is then computed by means of syntactic derivations from the syntactic range. However, in terms of the syntactic range, it is not possible to account for most different, and also untypical, structurings of the sentence.

Scoping expressions

(76)

121

(dass) Luise ihrem Arzt ein (that) Louise-Nom-sg her-Dat-sg-masc doctor a-Acc-sg-neuter Auto vermachte car bequeath-past-participle 'that Louise bequeathed her doctor a car'

I claim that the scope of scoping expressions may be syntactically structured in most different (and calculable) ways, per analogiam with the most different possibilities of the structuring of the Focus as shown in Chapter 2. (b) "Fokus" (1983: 10) is related to the syntactic range and a part thereof is intonationally highlighted. I argue that it is not possible to account for all cases of the syntactic structuring of "Fokus" in terms of the constituencybased syntactic range, even if the intonational marking (highlighting) of "Fokus" and its semantic relation to scalar particles is considered. Thus, there are only a handful of cases of the possible syntactic structuring of "Fokus" scattered in Jacobs' 1983 book, such as: the Subject standing in the "Fokus" of a scalar particle standing before or after it (such as in Jacobs' 3.16 and 3.144, respectively); multiple "Fokus" consisting of the Subject and of two Objects (such as in Jacobs' 3.136); "Fokus" consisting of a nominal head and its adjectival modifier, or only of the adjectival modifier (such as in Jacobs' 10a'-10b'); "Fokus" consisting of Direct or Indirect Object (such as in Jacobs' 3.18 and 3.17, respectively); "Fokus" consisting of the verb or of the verb phrase (such as in Jacobs' 3.19 and 3.131a); "Fokus" consisting of the whole (rest of the) sentence (such as in Jacobs' 3.135), and "Fokus" corresponding to a continuous part of the verb phrase (such as Direct Object and the past participle in Jacobs' 2.32). All of these syntactic structurings are related to constituency ; Jacobs is unable to account for those structurings of "Fokus" which are not related to constituency and which are typical of German as a nonconfigurational language: (aa) The verb plus the Subject, as in (77) (my example, which is conceived of in Jacobs' way, i.e., with a contrastive continuation in his fashion). (bb) Discontinuous parts of the verb phrase, such as Indirect Object and an adverbial (the Direct Object standing outside the "Fokus"). (cc) The combination of the Subject and a discontinuous part of the verb phrase. (dd) The combination of (aa), (bb) and (be) with a free, "sentential", adverbial modification, etc.

122

Scoping

expressions

(76) Den Jungen suchte nicht sein the-Acc-sg-masc boy look-for-3-sg-pretnot his-Nom-sg-masc Lehrer, nein, den besuchte nur teacher no the-Acc-sg-masc visit-3-sg-pret only sein Freund his-Nom-sg-masc friend 'The boy was not looked for by his teacher, no, the boy was only visited by his friend' (iii) Semantic range (1983: 9) is defined as equivalent to the traditional notion of scope, as that part of the sentence according to which the alternative values to "Fokus" are determined. Semantic range is divided into "Fokus" and background ("Hintergrund"). However, Jacobs mistakenly collapses the scope of focalizing scoping expressions and quantifiers: according to him, the scope of focalizers is the whole rest of the sentence minus the occurrences of quantifiers. This yields a paradox in Jacobs' determination of the scope, and hence, of the alternative values to "Fokus", in a pair of sentences: (78) and (79) (Jacobs' (4.100) and (4.101), respectively). (78)

Peter beneidet nur Luise Peter envy-3-sg-pres only Louise 'Peter envies only Louise'

(79)

Einige Linguisten beneiden nur Luise Several-Nom-pl linguist-pl envy-3-pl-pres only Louise 'Several linguists envy only Louise'

According to Jacobs, the semantic range of nur 'only' in (78) is Peter beneidet Luise 'Peter envies Louise', and the background is Peter beneidet 'Peter envies', so that the alternative values to Louise would be (in the universe of discourse, or in the activated part of the stock of shared knowledge) the persons who are envied by Peter. On the other hand, in (79), the scope of nur 'only' is beneiden Luise 'envy Louise', and the background is merely beneiden 'envy', so that the alternative values to Louise would be the persons who are envied in general. These different conceptions of alternative values (the persons who are envied by Peter vs. the persons who are envied in general) yield a paradox, because (78) and (79) are syntactically homomorphic and semantically quite analogous.

Scoping expressions

123

Thus, I propose that the alternative values in (78) and (79) should be analogous. In (79), intuitively, the alternative values to Louise are the persons who are envied by several linguists, analogously to (78), where the alternative values to Louise are the persons who are envied by Peter. (iv) Intonation. Jacobs essentially does not take into account intonation, claiming that "grammar assigns expressions semantic representations independently of their intonation (in case intonation is not simply a way of expression of a certain syntactic structure)" (1982: 174-175). However, there are cases where the intonational difference signalizes a difference in the Topic-Focus articulation of the sentence, and thus, a difference in the syntactic range, "Fokus" as well as semantic range, such as in the pair of sentences (80) and (81) (Jacobs' 3.156) and (3.156a), respectively. (80)

Peter kam auch Peter-Nom-sg come-3-sg-pret also 'Peter came ALSO'

(81)

Auch Peter kam Also Peter-Nom come-23-sg-pret 'Also PETER came'

Jacobs mistakenly claims that these sentences are synonymous. Far from that. In (80), duch 'also' is the only element of the Focus (new information) of the sentence, having in its "Fokus" (scope) the whole Topic of the sentence (Peter kam 'Peter came') or its contrastive part {Peter) (this is my Case II of the occurrence of scoping expressions, cf. 3.3 below). On the other hand, in the deep representation of (81) (where the whole Focus has been shifted to the sentence-initial position on the surface), auch 'also' is the Focus-initial element having in its scope the whole rest of the Focus (Peter) (this is my Case I of occurrence of scoping expressions). The possible contexts of use for these two sentences are quite different. This holds also for Jacobs' pairs of examples 3.155 and 3.155a, and 3.164a and 3.164. (v) Theme-rheme. Jacobs works with the notions of theme and rheme of the sentence, which roughly correspond to my notions of Topic and Focus, respectively. He notes that "Fokus" of a scalar particle can occur also in the theme (1983: 20) (which corresponds to my Case IV of occurrence of scoping expressions). However, sentences which would exemplify this, such as the

124

Scoping

expressions

occurrence of topicalized negation, occur in another book, cf. Jacobs (1982: 1.8), with the expression nichts 'nothing' in the Topic (theme), and (1982: 1.9), which I claim to be also a case in point, with topicalized negation. (vi) Contrastive vs. noncontrastive negation. Jacobs mistakenly believes that only his "contrastive" negation can be treated as a focusing particle. His criterion for contrastive negation is the possibility of continuation with the conjunction sondern 'but'. However, I can show that also the putative cases of noncontrastive negation can have contrastive continuations introduced by the conjunction sondern, cf. (82) (Jacobs' 1982: 1.17) with my continuation. Thus, I claim that negation is a focalizing scoping expression in any context of its use. (82)

Luise rief Peter nicht AN, sondern Luise-Nom call-3-sg-pret Peter not verbal particle but schrieb ihm einen Brief write-3-sg-pret him-Dat a-Acc-sg-masc letter 'Louise did not phone Peter, but wrote him a letter'

(v) Further, Jacobs mistakenly interprets the scoping properties of scoping expressions occurring in a sequence, such as sogar nur Luise 'even only Louise'. He thinks that in such sequences, each of the scoping expressions has in its scope the sequence-final, nonscoping expression. Thus, in the present example, according to him, sogar as well as nur would have in their scopes only Luise. However, I claim that in such cases of multiple occurrence of scoping expressions, a hierarchical scoping interpretation is involved, i.e., that nur has in its scope Luise, and sogar has in its scope nur Luise. This holds also for sequences such as nicht nur 'not only' nur nicht 'only not' (the former is mistakenly treated by Bartsch 1972 as a single scoping expression).

3.2.3 Other approaches 3.2.3.1 Ariel 1994 Ariel treats "pragmatic operators", subcategorizing them into transparent operators with a primary semantic function (such as but, so), intermediate operators, whose discourse function can be related to their semantic import (such as now, y 'know, I mean, after all, and opaque operators, whose discourse func-

Scoping expressions

125

tion is rather emotive or purely communicative (such as oh, well). She rightly claims that pragmatic operators "form a part of the grammar", and that they should be assigned some syntactically motivated category at the sentence level.

3.2.3.2 Bartsch 1972 Bartsch treats sentence adverbials with respect to other types of adverbial modifications (sentence adverbials, relational adverbials such as those of Instrument, Cause, Purpose, Condition and Time, modal adverbials such as those of Manner, and quantifying and gradating adverbials, such as negation and adverbials of frequency). I propose that out of them, the following kinds of expressions can be considered as scoping expressions: sentence adverbials, which are subcategorized by Bartsch into six groups: adverbs of attitude towards the truth value of the proposition, adverbs of subjectively evaluating attitudes, adverbs of objectively evaluating attitudes, adverbs of evaluation with respect to a norm, adverbs of intersubjective evaluation, and world-creating adverbial expressions. Second, adverbial expressions with metacommunicative function, involving predication-weakening adverbials, parenthetical adverbials and predication-limiting adverbials (such as wirtschaftlich 'economically'), which I propose to exclude from the class of scoping expressions: they should be considered rather as the adverbial modification of Regard. Third, quantifying and gradating adverbials. In this type, Bartsch (mistakenly) includes putatively compound expressions such as nicht nur 'not only': in fact, such sequences of adverbials are multiple occurrences of scoping expressions with the hierarchical scope interpretation (cf. the possible reversal of their scoping properties: nicht nur 'not only'... nur nicht 'only not').

3.2.3.3 Haegeman 1993 Haegeman gives interesting examples for the occurrence of scoping expressions within her conception of clitics in West Flemish (cf. also section 2.2 above). She observes that a clitic cannot occur (possibly with a lexically fullfledged expression) after adverbs such as verzekerst 'probably', cf. (83) (Haegeman's 31a/13). However, this can be improved (according to Haegeman) if there is another scoping expression, such as the adverbial expressions

126

Scoping

expressions

a 'already', nog 'still', nie meer 'no more', we 'well' or a floating quantifier following the clitic, cf. (84) Haegeman's (33a/13). (83) *da Valere verzekerst t Marie gegeven eet that Valere probably it Marie give-past-participle have-3-sg-pres-Aux 'that Valere has given it probably to Mary' (84)

da Valere verzekerst Marie t a/nog/we gegeven that Valere probably Marie it already/still/well give-past-participle eet have-3-sg-pret-Aux 'That Valere has probably already/still/well given it to Mary'

This phenomenon can be alternatively accounted for in terms of my leftward shift of scoping expressions: the expression verzekerst 'probably' can be viewed as being shifted leftwards, across the clitic t 'it', so that the clitic occurs in-between two scoping expressions. The unacceptability of the occurrence of clitics after single scoping expressions is due to the primary occurrence of the elements of Focus after scoping expressions.

3.2.3.4 Hajicovä - Partee - Sgall 1996 Hajicovä - Partee - Sgall offer a joint treatment of the scope of focalizers, trying to combine, on the one hand, the dependency and the constituency viewpoints, and on the other hand, the Topic-Focus articulation and the postMontagovian-semantics viewpoints, especially with respect to Partee's conception of tripartite structures (cf. also 3.2.3.9 below). (It should be only noted that the authors use the notion "focus of focalizers" in the same sense as I use the notion "scope of focalizing scoping expressions" in this book, and that Partee's notion "restrictor" roughly corresponds to the Praguean notion of Topic, and her notion "nuclear scope", to the Praguean notion of Focus.) The merits of the authors' work consist in a minute analysis of many intricate examples, and in the questioning of a number of tenets which have been considered as canonical in the Praguean dependency and Topic-Focus articulation approach. In this work, the issue of universality vs. parochiality of the Topic-Focus articulation, cf. "the claim that TFA is universal must have a weaker form than assuming that this domain is structured in a uniform way by different lan-

Scoping expressions

127

guages" is tackled (1996: 39). In this connection, it is rightly suggested that English is more sensitive to the Topic-Focus articulation than has been assumed by Mathesius 1939 (1995: 40), a view which is consonant with my present conception of word-order. Further, doubt is cast on the Praguean assumption of the unequivocal position of the verb in the Topic-Focus articulation, (the Focus-initial or the Topic-final position), cf. (1995: 57), in accordance with my proposal (Koktova: 1987). Third, the possibility of acknowledging the availability of Contrastive Topic (as opposed to a part of the Focus) is discussed (1995: 69). On the other hand, there are some assumptions which seem not quite adequate. First, the authors' commitment to the definition of scope in terms of the dependency and constituency structure of the sentence (cf. 1996: 42, 65) leads them to a mistaken view that the focalizer occurring in the matrix sentence may have in its "focus" (scope) an element occurring in an embedded sentence. This is illustrated by their surface sentence (48)(d)/50 He only said that MARY liked the dancer. This sentence is assumed to have two interpretations; on the first one, the operator is assumed to have in its scope everything that follows it, and on the second interpretation (48(d")/50)), the focalizer only occurring in the main sentence is assumed to have in its scope MARY occurring in the embedded sentence ("we assume that MARY remains the only part of ff [focus of focalizer, E.K.] in (d")". I argue, however, that a scoping expression occurring in a superordinate clause cannot have in its scope an element of an subordinated clause but only the whole subordinated clause. Thus, the focalizer only occurring before the verb in the superordinate (matrix) clause in 48(d)/50 can have only two interpretations, viz., one where it has in its scope the following verb and the embedded clause, and one where it has in its scope only the embedded clause (in which case only should be viewed as shifted leftwards, across the verb, on the surface). Second, it should be noted that the issue of the attachment of focalizers (cf. Hajicovä - Partee - Sgall 1996: 64) is superfluous. It is not adequate to assume that the focalizer is always dependent on the verb, as Partee rightly notes. However, it is not adequate to assume that the focalizer should be viewed as VP- or NP-attached in controversial cases (this is only an ad-hoc solution). I assume that in the deep representation of the sentence, the scopes ("attachment") of scoping expressions are prototypically determined by the deep word-order, or the communicative-information structure, of the sentence. For further remarks, cf. also 3.2.3.9 below.

128

Scoping

expressions

3.2.3.5 Horn 1989 Horn's work is a detailed study on the lexical and logical semantics of negation, especially with respect to the Square of Oppositions and to scalar predicates. He distinguishes two types of negation as two "modes of use", as two kinds of "pragmatic ambiguity". On the one hand, there is the descriptive, truth-functional negation, corresponding to Aristotle's term negation (negation with narrow scope). Marginally, also negation with wide scope (over the whole sentence) is considered to belong here. On the other hand, there is the metalinguistic negation, which is a "device for objecting to a previous utterance on any grounds whatsoever" (1989: 363), such as negation with vacuous singular terms (corresponding to the notion of presupposition failure), or the canceling of the lower bounding principle. In this connection, he mentions also metalinguistic operators, such as or, better.

3.2.3.6 König 1981,1986,1988 König provides an alternative account of focusing particles (which are referred to by him, in the respective papers, as "Gradpartikel" (gradating particles), "scalar particles", and "function words"). König claims that German has a richer repertoire of focusing particles than English, and that their list should be considered as open-ended. He distinguishes inclusive and exclusive focusing particles, according to whether the alternative values are possible or impossible, respectively (cf. the difference between expressions such as auch 'also' and nur 'only'). Further, König argues that scalar particles do not only pick alternative values, but that they may also introduce an ordering for the focus value and its alternatives. In this connection, he points out unusual cases of ordering, especially the reversal of scales: for example, nur 'only' normally excludes higher alternative values, but there may be contexts where it excludes lower values, such as in only very talented pupils or only a good certificate. I would like to point out that König does not consider the case where both higher and lower values are excluded (such as in the context where only a man of a certain age is needed), nor the case where simultaneously more values of a single item are involved, such as in only the mudguards (were damaged), where probably, two values, the size and the price of mudguards, are involved (mudguards can be compared with other parts of the car as regards their size

Scoping expressions

129

(there are bigger parts of the car), and as regards their price (there are more expensive parts of the car)). König gives examples of syntactically and pragmatically very complicated occurrences of focusing particles, including loose (parenthetical) occurrences thereof. He considers also intonation. A survey of the research in the domain of focusing particles, especially in German, is given in Hartmann 1994.

3.2.3.7 Laenzlinger 1993 Laenzlinger proposes an account of the structural distribution of adverbial phrases including scoping expressions such as probably. The licensing principle for adverbs is the Adv-Criterion, cf. 40/61 "A [+F] adverbial phrase must be in Spec-head configuration with a [+F] X°", as an instance of the Generalized Licensing Criterion (cf. 31/59). Every adverb must be licensed in a Specifier-head relation to a head bearing compatible semantic features. The Adv-criterion predicts the distributional range of adverbials as well as their interpretation. Thus, the position of a free adverbial must always be a Spec-A'-position. A verb-phrasal adverbial must be in relation with a head associated with the semantic feature "activity". A subject-oriented adverb, a temporal adverb and a locative adverb must be related to the specifications of the "event" feature of the head, etc. The phrasal domains assigned to the most important classes of adverbs are: Complementizer Phrase for modal adverbials such as probably, Inflectional Phrase for aspectual adverbials such as frequently or slowly, and Verb Phrase for Manner adverbials. Laenzlinger offers a subcategorization of adverbials (1993: 49-50 and 61), where the major distinction is made between sentential vs. verb-phrasal adverbials. Adverbials with scoping properties are interspersed within these two groups. Thus, sentential adverbials involve "pragmatic" adverbials such as fortunately, however, or frankly, and "modal" adverbials such as probably. Verb-phrasal adverbials involve "assertive" adverbials such as truly and "degree" adverbials such as almost. However, not even this sophisticated apparatus makes it possible for Laenzlinger to account for all possible scoping properties of scoping expressions with respect to their surface positions. He mistakenly believes that a scoping expression occurring in a sentence-medial position occurs within its own scope, which is the whole sentence. He does not take into account the di-

130

Scoping expressions

versity of the possible syntactic structuring of the scope of scoping expressions, although he considers various surface positions of modal adverbials. This is illustrated in (85), which is a reduced version of Laenzlinger's paradigm 6a-f/50.1 reproduce this paradigm in (85) in the way which Laenzlinger himself uses in his French example la/49, with my own indications of the positions of the adverb probablement 'probably'. In this paradigm, Laenzlinger does not consider the scope ambiguity of the positions 1, 2, 3 and 5, and the unambiguous character of the position 4. (85)

(Probablement,)! Jean (,probablement,)2 a probably John probably have-3-sg-pres-Aux (probablement)}lu (probablement)4 le livre probably read-past-participle probably the-masc book de Chomsky (,probablement)5 of Chomsky probably '(Probably,) John (,probably,) has (probably) read (probably) the book by Chomsky (,probably)'

3.2.3.8 Lieb 1983a and 1983b Lieb's Integrational Grammar is based on the notion of function in the mathematical sense of the word (a function picks up an argument and yields a value). Lieb works with the notion of the function of negation and of accent. In this sense, he speaks about the scope of negation and the scope of accent. The arguments of all syntactic functions are quadruples ( f , s, e, S), where / i s the sentence under examination, s is its syntactic structure involving intonation, e is the lexical cast of the sentence, and S is an idiolect system. The values of syntactic functions are different. Thus, the value of the syntactic function of negation is the triples (/, / , / ) , w h e r e / is the negator, / is the domain o f / (the whole sentence minus the negator, which corresponds to Jacobs' notion of scope), a n d / is the scope o f / , which corresponds to my notion of scope). Lieb's account of negation involves four types of negation: negators occurring in the object language (not, nobody)·, the syntactic function of negation; the semantic function of negation, and negative expressions such as not and non- occurring in dialogue schemes, which are an auxiliary device of accounting for the non-propositional part of the meaning of the sentence. Lieb distin-

Scoping expressions

131

guishes two kinds of scope ambiguity, where the scope of negation is narrower than the scope of accent.

3.2.3.9 Partee 1995 Partee, working with the trichotomy [operator (corresponding to scoping expressions) - restrictor (corresponding to the Topic) - nuclear scope (corresponding to the (rest of the) Focus, which is in the scope of the scoping expression)], acknowledge that the operator should be placed in the position between the restrictor and the nuclear scope. This corresponds to the linguistic position of the operator, viz., in the Focus-initial position, i.e. on the boundary between Topic and Focus, according to my proposal (cf. Koktova: 1986, 1987). Partee, however, offers a presumably erroneous analysis of the example (86) (mini-dialogue consisting of two sentences) (capitals indicate the main sentence stress): (86)

Eva only distributed the copies to UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS...No, PETR only distributed the copies to undergraduate students

It is generally assumed that in the first sentence, the operator only is scopeambiguous: it can have in its scope only the postverbal part of the sentence, i.e. the PP to UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS, or the NPs (the copies to UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS, or whole VP (distributed the copies to UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS). In the second sentence, where the focalizer only stands after the sentence-initial stressed Subject PETR (1995: 35B/36), Partee claims that only associates with the sentence-final expression graduate students as a "deaccented focus element". I argue, however, that the second sentence can be obviously interpreted exclusively with only having univocally the Subject PETR in its (surface-backward) scope because of the contrastive interpretation, and of the appurtenance to the Focus, of the expression PETR: there is no other candidate for the "focus of the focalizer [only]" in this sentence. In this sense, the second sentence can never be a proper response (reaction) to the first sentence. A proper response would be giving the (contrastive) alternatives to what stands in the scope of the operator only in the first sentence, such as No, she distributed them to GRADUATE students or

132

Scoping

expressions

No, she distributed some BOOKS to GRADUATE students, etc. Following this proposal, Hajicovä - Partee - Sgall 1996 fortunately admit that "from one perspective, the idea of a deaccented focus element is quite nonsensical..." (1996: 36). Further, it should be brought to attention that Engdahl - Vallduvi 1995 argue, contrary to Partee, that quantificational nuclei (scopes of adverbs of frequency) can be also elements of the Ground (Topic). This is illustrated by (87) (Engdahl - Vallduvi's 72/33). In this example, often has in its scope Scandinavians, cf. Engdahl - Vallduvi 1995: 33: "given the situations / times in which someone wins the Nobel prize, it is often Scandinavians that win it". (87)

Scandinavians often [f win the Nobel prize]

3.2.3.10 Quirk et al. 1972 Quirk et al. provide an exhaustive listing of expressions which I consider as scoping expressions. Here belong almost all of Quirk et al.'s attitudinal and style disjuncts (about 160 of them, such as surprisingly, annoyingly, frankly) ·, certain adjuncts (such as focusing adjuncts), and the majority of conjuncts, such as enumerative, reinforcing, equative, transitional, appositive, resultative, inferential, reformulatory, replacive, antithetic, and concessive conjuncts. The major criterion for distinguishing disjuncts from adjuncts (the majority of adverbial modifications) is that disjuncts cannot constitute the Focus of the sentence, and that they do not occur in questions and imperative sentences. As regards the semantics of scoping expressions and quantifiers, there are several interesting approaches (cf. Beaver 1995, Berman 1995, Krifka 1995, Pafel 1992), which will be treated below.

3.3 The proposal: scoping expressions as adverbials of Attitude in the communicative-information structure of the sentence 3.3.1 The syntactic proposal 3.3.1.1 The adverbial modification of Attitude I propose that scoping expressions should be generated by means of a new adverbial modification - the modification of Attitude. I have chosen this label

Scoping expressions

133

because most scoping expressions express attitudes. The modification of Attitude should be viewed as occupying the first position in the neutral ordering of syntactic relations (cf. (37a) in Chapter 2 above), due to the capacity of scoping expressions to have in their scope any type of syntactic relation, including the verb and other scoping expressions. Thus, in the neutral ordering as well as in the Focus of actual sentences, scoping expressions occur before the verb. This is an exception, because I assume that the other types of syntactic relations occur (sentence members) after the verb. The evidence for this claim is the position of these modifications in topicless ("all-new") sentences in languages with free surface word-order such as Slavic languages. In these languages, the order in (prototypical) topicless sentences, such as with verbs of "appearance on the scene" is VSO. However, if there occurs a scoping expression in such a sentence, it occurs sentence-initially, having in its scope the whole rest of the sentence. This is exemplified by the Czech example (88a) (surface sentence) and (88b) (its (simplified) deep representation). (88)a.

Prekvapive prisel Karel Surprisingly come-3-sg-pret Charles-Nom-sg-masc 'Surprisingly, there came Charles' (88)b. [prekvapive ,priselFs l KarelFsl] In (88), the scoping expression prekvapive 'surprisingly' has in its scope the rest of the sentence, consisting of two expressions (sentence members, syntactic relations): prisel 'came' and Karel 'Charles'. All of the expressions in this sentence belong to the Focus.

3.3.1.2 The multiple occurrence of scoping expressions with the hierarchical scope interpretation As a fundamental novelty, I claim that scoping expressions may occur on the multiple occurrence with the hierarchical-scope interpretation, due to the free character of the modification of Attitude. This multiple occurrence is characterized by the appurtenance of all the scoping expressions of the sequence into a single communicative-information part of the sentence, such as the Focus. Furthermore, the sequence of scoping

134

Scoping expressions

expressions must be uninterrupted as regards the degrees of communicative importance of its elements. This means that in a (deep) sequence of scoping expressions, the rightmost scoping expression has the narrowest scope (extending over the non-scoping expression(s)), and the leftmost scoping expression has the widest scope (extending over the whole rest of the sequence of the scoping expressions plus the non-scoping expressions(s)). Formally: let us indicate the scoping expressions in a sequence as [Attitude,... Attitude J, and the non-scoping expression(s), as Non-Attitude. Then, the scope of the scoping expression Attitude! is [Attitude2... Attituden plus Non-Attitude]. The scope of the scoping expression Attituden is [NonAttitude]. Generally, the scope of a scoping expression Attituden in the sequence [Attitude,... Attitudep] is [Attituden+1... Attitudep plus Non-Attitude]. The multiple occurrence of scoping expressions with the hierarchical-scope interpretation may combine with any of the four basic types of the occurrence of scoping expressions in the communicative-information structure of the sentence, thus forming their extensions. Prototypically, the multiple occurrence with the hierarchical scope interpretation combines with the primary occurrence of scoping expressions in the communicative-information structure of the sentence (Case I in 3.3.2 below), viz., where both the scoping expressions and the non-scoping expression(s) belong to the Focus. This is illustrated in (4) in Chapter 2 above, but that is a rather complicated example involving surface shifts of the scoping expressions of the sequence. A more illustrative example is (89a-b), where the surface and the deep positions of the expressions in question coincide. (89a) is the surface shape of the sentence, and (89b), its deep representation. (It should be only noted that in the examples which will follow, the "deep" indications of the scope of the scoping expressions and of the appurtenance of the elements to the Topic or to the Focus will be indicated, where possible, directly in the surface representations for the sake of simplicity.) (89)a. b.

John knows probably only Mary [John knowsT probablyF, onlyF2 MaryFs 21]

In (89a-b), probably only is a Focus-initial sequence of scoping expressions, and Mary is the non-scoping expression of the Focus. Only has in its scope Mary, and probably has in its scope only Mary on the hierarchical scope interpretation. The expressions John and knows belong to the Topic.

Scoping expressions

135

As was shown above in Chapter 2, and as will be discussed below in 3.4, scoping expressions may be shifted leftwards on the surface, to communicatively more prominent positions. For example, in (89a), the expression probably could be shifted to the sentence-initial or to the preverbal position.

3.3.2 Scoping expressions in the communicative-information structure of the sentence 3.3.2.1 Four basic cases I propose that there are four basic types of the occurrence of scoping expressions in the communicative-information structure (Topic-Focus articulation) of the sentence, based on the appurtenance of the scoping expression and the linguistic material in its scope, to the Topic or to the Focus of the sentence. I will refer to these types of occurrence as Cases I-IV. Additionally, there are other types of the occurrence of scoping expressions in the communicative-information structure of the sentence, such as in the directly interrogative part of the Focus. First, let me present Cases I-IV. (i) Case I. In this case, the scoping expression and the material in its scope belong to the Focus. The scoping expression occurs in the Focus-initial position, and it has in its scope the rest of the Focus (cf. (90a-b) below). This is the basic, prototypical case of the occurrence of scoping expressions. Its natural extension is the multiple occurrence of scoping expressions as exemplified in (89) above. (ii) Case II. In this case, the scoping expression is the only element of the Focus, having in its scope the whole Topic or its contrastive part (Contrastive Topic). In this case, the scoping expression carries the major peak of intonation. This case has three subcases as regards the surface position of the scoping expression: (a) the scoping expression stands sentence-finally, such as ALSO, and it has a surface-backward scope (cf. (90a-b) below), (b) the scoping expression stands in situ, such as NOT and its "positive" counterpart in the form of the auxiliary DO (this morpheme may be viewed as a "visible" form of the ASSERT operator), (c) the scoping expression occurs alone in an elliptic reaction to a trigger sentence (cf. expressions such as (yes,) naturally /probably / certainly / undoubtedly as elliptic answers): their scope is a part of the trigger sentence.

136

Scoping expressions

(iii) Case III. In this case, the scoping expression occurs in the Topic, and the material in its scope occurs in the Focus (cf. (92a-b) below). However, this case is quite marginal; it is possible only in sentences whose part involving the scoping expressions has an echo character, i.e., where the scoping expression is repeated or deleted. (iv) Case IV. In this case, the scoping expression along with the material in its scope occurs in the Topic (cf. (93a-b) below. Good examples are sentences whose Topics are due to (echo) topicalizations, cf. also the notion of "topicalized negation". (90)a. b. (91 )a. b. (92)a. b. (93)a. b.

John loves only Mary [John lovesT only , MaryFsJ] John will come ALSO [John7s! will-comem alsoFJ (John can sing only Santa Lucia,) and Mary, Yellow Submarine [Mary07 can-singm only"\ Yellow SubmarineFsl] John did not come because of his illness [John not7) cameTs l because-of his illnessF]

In (90a-b), only belonging to Focus has in its scope Mary belonging to Focus. In (91a-b), ALSO belonging to Focus has in its scope John belonging to Contrastive Topic. In (92a-b), only belonging to Topic has in its scope Yellow Submarine belonging to Focus. In (93a-b), not belonging to Topic has in its scope came belonging likewise to Topic: the "given" information in this sentence is that John did not come, and the new information (because of Mary) is the reason of his not-coming. Cases I-IV are schematically surveyed in the table in (94) below. (94) Case Case Case Case

I II III IV

scoping expression Focus Focus Topic Topic

material in its scope Focus Topic Focus Topic

Scoping expressions

137

3.3.2.2 Other communicative-information parts Moreover, scoping expressions can occur in the directly and indirectly interrogative parts of the Focus (cf. (95) and (96), respectively). In these cases, the scoping expression usually stands after the wh-pronoun which it has in its scope, such as in who mainly, who else, who the hell etc. I speak about surface-backward scope in this case, cf. (95) and (96). If there is an element of Noncontrastive Topic, it intervenes between the wh-element and the operator (cf. you in (95)). This is even more obvious in Czech, cf. kdo tarn hlavne sei ('who there mainly went', where tam 'there' is the element of Noncontrastive Topic). (95) ,Γ,/Ζ

χ

(96)

WhatWHDIRs j did you mainly*/ have in mincf τ J

. 1

τ

. Ι •

J

£

1 WH-INDIR-EMB

I do not know what kind of people participateF in such contestsF

•

sl

/

WH-INDIR-EMB

mainly

l

In (95), the scoping expression mainly has in its scope the directly interrogative element what. In (96), the scoping exprression mainly, on the intended reading, has in its scope the indirectly interrogative expression what kind of people. Within the Topic, scoping expressions may have in their scope Contrastive Topic. Thus, it is typical of focalizers with temporal meaning, such as already, still, and only, that they have in their scope a temporal adverbial modification constituting Contrastive Topic, whereas the Subject belonging to Noncontrastive Topic stands outside the scope of the scoping expression, cf. (97). CT

(97)

Already , in February examination

CT

sl,

NT

John

was studying hard for the

3.3.2.3 Extensions of Cases I-IV by the multiple occurrence with the hierarchical scope interpretation In each of the Cases I-IV, the extensions by the multiple occurrence of scoping expressions with the hierarchical scope interpretation are involved. The extension of Case I was illustrated in (89). The extension of Case II is il-

13 8

Scoping

expressions

lustrated in (98) (with the possibility of shifting the operator probably to the sentence-initial position, and with direct word-order equivalents in German and Czech, cf. pravdepodobne TAKE, vielleicht AUCH); the extension of Case III is irrelevant, and the extension of Case IV is illustrated in (99). (98) (99)

JohnCTs 2 l will come"7 probablyF, ALSOF2 John probably7 did not7 come7 because of Mary

In (98), ALSO has in its scope John, which is analogous to the basic case in (91), and probably has a scope consisting of two parts: the first part is ALSO, belonging to Focus, and the second part is John, belonging to Topic. Thus, probably has a combined forward-backward and Focus-Topic scope. The whole scope of probably is ALSOF John. The example (99) must have an echo-Topic because adverbs of probability do not readily occur in the Topic. (It should be noted that (99) can have still another interpretation, viz., where the expression probably, occurring within the Topic on the surface, belongs to the Focus in the deep representation, having in its scope because of Mary, cf. I think I know why John did not come probably because of Mary).

3.3.2.4 Co-occurrence of Cases I, II and IV within a single sentence Cases I, II, and IV can be combined within a single sentence. Thus, there are the following combinations: (a) [Case I and Case IV], as the most typical combination, ilustrated by (100), (101), (102) (taken from Krifka 1995), and (103a) (my example). (b) [Case I and Case II], illustrated by (103b) (my example). It should be only remarked that the examples (103a) and (103b) belong together, for the sake of clarity of exposition, because they form a scoping contrast. The basic occurrence of a scoping expression along with its scope in the Focus, and the topicalized occurrence of another scoping expression along with its scope in the Topic, within a single sentence ([Case I and Case IV]), is quite frequent. In this case, the scopes of the scoping expressions do not overlap. In (100), there are two negations, and in (101), two only's. In (102), there are two different scoping expressions, even and only.

Scoping expressions

(100) (101) (102)

139

John7 did not7\ come7sl notF2 because ofMaryFs2 (but because of Joan) Only7] apples7s l have been picked]T onlyF2 by John s 2 Even j Mary s l only72 steams7 vegetables7s2

In (100), did not come (in the deep representation, negated verb) belongs to the Topic (topicalized negation), whereas not because of Mary belongs to the Focus (basic occurrence of negation, having in its scope the adverbial modification of Cause: because of Mary)). In (101), only apples belongs to the Topic, and only John, to the Focus. In Krifka's example (102), I have indicated the preferred reading. This example is ambiguous without context: even Mary may belong to the Focus, and only steams vegetables, to the Topic (the preferred reading), or the other way round. I consider the above-mentioned interpretation as preferred reading because only topicalizes more readily than even. Anyway, even has in its scope Mary, and only in the preverbal position is scope-ambiguous: it may have in its scope steams vegetables or only vegetables. In (103a) ([Case I and Case IV]) and (103b) ([Case IV and Case II]), there are again two different scoping expressions, wenigsten 'at least' and nicht 'not'. (103)a. Wenigstens1"j JETZTFs l nicht72 At least now not '(Do not do it), at least not NOW' (103b) [Wenigstens7, jetzt7Js.2 NICHT*2 At least now not 'At least now, (do) NOT (do it)' or: 'At least at this moment, NO' In (103a), where Case I and Case IV are combined, nicht belongs to the Topic (Case IV), which yields its sentence-final position on the surface, due to the shift of the whole Focus to the left, whereas wenigstens belongs to the Focus (Case I). On the contrary, in (103b), NICHT constitutes the Focus of the sentence (Case II), whereas wenigstens belongs to the Focus (Case I). In other words, in (103a), wenigstens JETZT 'at least now' is the Focus, which has been shifted to the sentence-initial position, and the scope of the sentence-final negation belonging to the Topic is not expressed: it is inferred from the context (e.g. es tun 'do it'). The meaning of (103a) is rendered more explicitly in the English translation, where the inferred scope of nicht 'not' is

140

Scoping expressions

indicated ("do it"). In (103b), negation, which is a scoping expression as the only member of the Focus, combines with a another, topicalized scoping expression (wenigstens), having in its scope jetzt, also beloging to the Topic. The example (103b) is a bit complicated, but fully accountable for in my theory: the sentence-final nicht 'not' belonging to the Focus has a backward scope extending over the whole Topic which itself consists of a scoping expression (wenigstens 'at least') and its scope (jetzt 'now'). To this case ([Case IV and Case II]), there would belong also the combination of negation and addition, cf. Czech and German sentences with topicalized negation and with the scoping expression take /auch also constituting the Focus (cf. the Czech TAKE ne and the German AUCH nicht ('ALSO not'). In English, the same logical / cognitive content is expressed in a different way, viz., by means of the expresssion neither (involving the meaning of negation and of also and negation occurring in the Topic (Case IV), cf. neither does HE. A different conceptualization of negation in combination with addition (not plus also) is verbal negation (not) and either: he doesn 't EITHER, where negation belongs to the Topic, and either belongs to Focus ([Case IV and Case II]).

3.3.2.5 Special cases of scoping properties of scoping expressions (i) Intrafocal scope. As has been mentioned above, temporal scoping expressions can have an intrafocal scope consisting of a (nonscoping) temporal or other expression (compatible with the semantics of the temporal focalizer) within the Focus, cf. (104). It is even posssible that two temporal scoping expressions cooccur in the Focus, having different (nonoverlapping) scopes within the Focus, cf. (105), where the scope of already is tomorrow, and the scope of still is with his first wife. (104) (105)

Charles will leave alreadyF, tomorrowFs for London Charles will leave already^ tomorrow*"sl stilf2 with his first wifeFs2 for London

(ii) Multiple occurrence of a nontemporal scoping expression in the Focus. There is still another case of multiple occurrence of scoping expressions in the Focus, which is rather exceptional. I was inspired to these considerations by Grosu 1985, who gives the example (106a), which could be an answer to (106b) or to (106c). The question is whether the two syntactic relations in

Scoping expressions

141

(106a), the Direct Object (pork) and the adverbial modification of Time (on Sundays), standing in the scope of an operator, are or are not coordinated in the deep representation. This question can be formulated more generally. I depart from the assumption that the elements of multiple wh-questions (in the general case, without operators) are not coordinated in the deep representation, i.e. that they function as usual, non-coordinated syntactic relations "cohabiting" with the verb in the sentence (though they may be coordinated on the surface in certain cases, cf. (a) below). Hence, I assume that also the non-wh-elements corresponding to them in the deep representations of the answers are not coordinated. However, there are two possibilities for an occurrence of the wh- and nonwh elements on the surface: (a) In the case of the combinations of certain wh-expressions, the whpronouns must be (or should preferably be) coordinated on the surface (such as who and when, cf. (106c), or who and why). In other cases, they can remain non-coordinated, surrounding the verb (such as who...whom, or whom... where, cf. (107a) and (107b)). (b) Non-wh-expressions are never coordinated, except for the case when each of them stands in the scope of an operator, such as in (106a). In this case, they non-wh-expressions along with their operators can be coordinated, cf. (106d). Presumably, also (105) above, with two different operators in the Focus, could be reformulated by means of the coordination of the scoping units already tomorrow and still with his wife. Moreover, there is a third solution. In the multiple occurrence of scoping expressions with nonoverlapping scopes in the Focus such as (106a), the additional (non-first) occurrences of scoping expressions along with their scopes in the Focus could be viewed as secondary Foci, as my sixth communicativeinformation value. Thus, (106a) could be roughly paraphrased as (106e). (106)a. b. c. d. e. (107)a. b.

Terry eats onlyFt porkFs l onlyF2 on Sunday sFs2 What do you know about Terry' eating habits? What and when does Terry eat? Terry eats only pork and only on Sundays Terry eats only pork, (eating it) only on Sundays Who hit whom Where did John hit whom

142

Scoping expressions

(iii) The scope of scoping expressions extending over the whole sentence. I assume that marginally, it is possible that the scope of a scoping expression extends over the whole sentence consisting of Topic and Focus. I propose that in this case, the scoping expression should be generated in a hypersentence, i.e. it should not be viewed as belonging to the Topic or to the Focus of the sentence which it has in its scope. This is a proposal which is in accordance with the intuitive interpretation of such occurrences of scoping expressions. There are two outstanding cases, cf. (108) and the Czech (109). (108) (109)

Only j, [Terry has forgotten to wash onlyf2 the dishesFs2\sl Jisteze, [KarelT prijdeF]sl Surely-that Charles-Nom will-come 'Surely, Charles will come'

In (108), the interpretation where the two only's would stand side by side in the deep representation is counterintuitive. Rather, the first only has in its scope the whole (rest of the) sentence, which can then serve as an answer to the question What happened only?. The second only represents the basic type of occurrence (Case I). In (109), the morphological form of the scoping expression, involving the morpheme _-ze '-that', suggests that this scoping expression has originated as an attitudinal matrix sentence having in its scope the whole "embedded" sentence.

3.3.2.6 Scoping expressions in coordination (i) Scoping expressions can be coordinated, but there are semantic (lexical) restrictions on their cooccurrence in coordination: for example, sentence adverbials with and without the factive presupposition cannot be coordinated, cf. * surprisingly and probably. (ii) The second member of a coordination of any nonscoping expressions can stand in the scope of a scoping expression or of a sequence of scoping expressions with the hierarchical scope interpretation. If the scoping expressions^) do not have a factive presupposition, such as probably in John and probably Bill, and probably not in John but probably not Bill, this may lead to the problem of the logical interpretation of such expressions. These expres-

Scoping expressions

143

sions cannot be interpreted by means of the usual summative operator for the formation of groups as logical objects. In the text, such scoping expressions contribute to the non-group (distributed) reading of predicates such as to travel, in sentences such as John and probably (also) Mary will travel to Amsterdam (this is my modification, by insertion of the operators, of Kamp's example, cf. Kamp 1995 and p. c.). Thus, I tentatively propose that there should be introduced a new type of logical operator (such as an operator for the construal of abstract groups), by means of which the joint reference of the elements of such a coordination corresponding to an abstract group could be accounted for. This is illustrated by (110), where they refers to the abstract group formed by John and Bill. For a discussion about plural anaphoric expressions referring to coordinated antecedents, such as they in (110), cf. also Herweg 1988 and p.c. (110)

Mary was visited by John, but probably not by Bill2 Theyl+2 wanted to play a trick on her

3.3.2.7 The intracluster-scoping interpretation Rarely, a sequence of scoping expressions belonging to a single communicative- information part of the sentence may have the intracluster-scoping interpretation, such as in the sequence not surprisingly. In this case, the first scoping expression (not) has in its scope the second scoping expression (surprisingly), and the sequence as a whole functions as a single scoping expression, having in its scope usually the rest of the Focus of the sentence. This case, however, is not productive, and the instances thereof can be listed: in English, there are several sentence adverbials which can stand in the scope of negation on the intracluster-scoping interpretation (cf. not surprisingly, not illogically, etc.).

3.3.2.8 Lexical negation Negation expressed by morphologically specific affixes, such as in the expressions illogically, undoubtedly, etc., does not belong to my account of negation as a scoping expression interacting with communicative-information structure of the sentence, but rather to lexicology. However, cognitively, this kind of negation interacts with the regular negation, yielding the effect of se-

144

Scoping expressions

mantic double negation, which usually entails contrariety rather than contradictoriness. For example, cf. not illogically roughly means "there was some logic in it", and nicht unbedenklich is not equivalent to bedenklich (for this example, I am thankful to Professor Werner Winter).

3.4 Surface positions of scoping expressions There are essentially two kinds of positions of scoping expressions: (i) Scope-ambiguous positions of scoping expressions, not corresponding to their deep positions. (ii) Scope-unambiguous positions of scoping expressions, corresponding to their deep positions. Usually, scoping expressions occur in scope-ambiguous positions which are due to leftward shifts. The most typical scope-ambiguous positions are the sentence-initial position (cf. (111a)), and the preverbal position (cf. (111b)). Less usually, scoping expressions occur in scope-unambiguous (postverbal) positions (cf. (112). In these positions, scoping expressions can occur usually only if there is an explicit contrastive context. The difference between these two kinds of positions seems to be (almost) universal: it holds at least for the four languages under examination (English, Czech, German, Russian). (111)a. Probably, Terry will run from Manhattan to Brooklyn b. Terry only considers books which have appeared recently (112) TerryT will consider7 particularly7, ηοίl John 'sFs] but rather Bill'sF proposal7 (111a) is three or (theoretically) even four times ambiguous: the adverb probably can have in its scope to Brooklyn, from Manhattan to Brooklyn, will run from Manhattan to Brooklyn, or even Terry will run from Manhattan to Brooklyn (on condition that the sentence can be considered as topicless). Similarly, (112b) is two times ambiguous: only can have in its scope books which have appeared recently, or considers books which have appeared recently. On the other hand, if a scoping expression is shifted out of a multiple occurrence with the hierarchical scoping interpretation, and if the scoping expression with the narrowest scope is left in situ (serving as an anchor for the

Scoping expressions

145

scoping interpretation), as in (4) in Chapter 2 above, the sentence is not scope-ambiguous. (112) is scope-unambiguous, in that not can have in its scope only the adnominal adjunct John's (proposal). The more frequent occurrence of scoping expressions in scope-ambiguous, but communicatively prominent positions testifies to the predominance of the communicative function of natural language over the uneqivocal conveying of a message. Third, there are specific rightward shifts, such as the obligatory shift of scoping expressions after wh-elements which they have in their scope (cf. (95) and (96) (this holds in case of normal, non-echo sentences)); the occasional shift of only after the NP which or whose part it has in its scope (cf .for your eyes only), and the sentence-final position of scoping expressions in German and Czech (cf. the German (113) and the occasional sentence-final position of the Czech reinforcing negative expression ani 'not even' on Case I of the scoping interpretation of negation). In examples such as (113), the sentence-final operator has in its scope the verb, occurring after a clitic pronoun, which (as Noncontrastive Topic) stands outside its scope. (113)

Hans" SCHLUG , sie sogar, John hit-3-sg-pret her-Acc even 'John even hit her'

However, these shifts can be alternatively, and more correctly, viewed as leftward shifts of the nonscoping expressions to the position before the scoping expression because of the greater communicative importance of the nonscoping expression. (In a sense, then, these shifts are analogous to the emphatic Focus-preposing.) Another type of surface shift, in Czech, is the shift of scoping expressions leftwards, to the position between the sentence-initial segment (which may be Contrastive Topic or a part of Focus) and Noncontrastive Topic. An example for the position of a scoping expression between Contrastive Topic and Noncontrastive Topic was (62) in Chapter 2. An example for the position of a scoping expression between a part of the Focus and Noncontrastive Topic is (114 below).

146

Scoping expressions

(114)

Nekolikräfsl se pravdepodobne\ Several-times reflexive pronoun probably na po stell*7 obrätifsl in bed-Loc-sg-fem toss-3sg-pret 'Probably, he tossed himself several times on the bed'

In (113), the adverb sogar 'even' occurs sentence-finally, which gives rise to the "pulsating" structure of the sentence, with an alternation of elements belonging to Topic and Focus. In this sentence, sogar has in its scope only the expression SCHLUG 'hit'. There is an analogy in Czech to the German sogar-postposing, viz., the sentence-final occurrence of scoping expressions such as illustrated in Chapter 2 above. Moreover, as has been mentioned in Chapter 2, temporal focalizers can be shifted in Czech to the Focus-medial position, after the sentence-initial verb or after an adverb of frequency, for the same reason: the greater communicative importance of the expression which is shifted leftwards (the verb or the adverb of frequency). In (114), the scope of the scoping expression "surrounds" the scoping expression on the surface: the scope of pravdepodobne 'probably' is nekolikmt se obratil 'several times tossed himself. The point is that the expression which has been preposed to the scoping expression (nekolikrdt) as well as the sentence-final element ((se) obratil) must belong to the Focus of the sentence, and hence to the scope of the scoping expression (the expression na posteli 'on (his) bed' is ambiguous: it may belong to the Topic or to the Focus, but in the preferred interpretation it belongs to the Topic).

3.5 The repertoire of scoping expressions With a fine-grained subcategorization, I can distinguish about twenty semantico-pragmatic types of scoping expressions. In presenting these types, I would like to comment on the idiosyncrasies of some of them. (i) Metacommunicative scoping expressions. They can be related to the attitude of the speaker towards the truth-value of the proposition (honestly, frankly, in all earnest)·, to the form of the sentence / utterance (cf. Quirk at al.'s 1972 style disjuncts) (briefly, shortly), or to the speaker's formulation (or, rather; or, better; in other words). They have a (pragmatically) contacting function.

Scoping expressions

147

(ii) Sentence adverbials (Quirk et al.'s 1972 attitudinal disjuncts) with a factive presupposition, such as surprisingly, fortunately, interestingly. There are about 160 such expressions in English (unlike in Czech); in German, there is also a productive class of these adverbials, cf. glücklicherweise ('fortunately'), interessanterweise ('interestingly (enough)'), überraschenderweise ('surprisingly'). They have a (pragmatically) contacting function. (iii) Sentence adverbials without the factive presupposition, such as allegedly, apparently, hopefully. (iv) Expressions of certainty (including "okaying") (with the factive presupposition), such as sure(ly), certainly, naturally (I have listed about twenty such expressions in Czech, many of them colloquial). They have the pragmatically contacting function. (v) Expressions of probability (without the factive presupposition), such as probably, maybe, perhaps. (vi) Negation: not and other negative expressions involving the negator in their deep representation, such as nobody, never, nowhere, neither. Here belong also surface expressions of double or multiple negation, such as ne... pas in French, the verbal prefix ne- combined with negative expressions such as nikdo 'nobody' in Czech, etc. (vii) Focalizers without temporal meaning, such as only, even, also, mainly, almost, at least, at most. (viii) Focalizers with temporal meaning, such as already, still, only, yet. (ix) Expressions of frequency: always, usually, three times. (x) Focalizing communicative particles, such as the English just, or the seventeen German "modal" particles listed in Hartmann 1994, such as eigentlich 'actually', halt 'nevertheless', j a 'however' (not to be confused with the sentence-initial particle tja/ja 'well'), etc. They have the (pragmatically) contacting function. Czech also excels in a rich repertoire of such particles, especially of those with a colloquial character. The most frequent of them is proste 'simply', and the most remarkable is jako 'as-if', occurring in pragmatically negative (unpleasant, unclear) contexts as a marker of the Topic-Focus boundary, or in the nonparenthetical sentence-final position. These particles have a (pragmatically) contacting function. (xi) The Russian (untranslatable) segmentation markers i, ze and z: ze and ζ detach the sentence-initial segment (such as Contrastive Topic or a whelement) from the rest of the sentence, and i detaches the Focus from the rest of the sentence. Thus, ze and ζ can be viewed as backward-looking segmentators, having in their scope the sentence-initial segment, and i should be

148

Scoping

expressions

viewed as a forward-looking segmentator, having in its scope the (rest of the) Focus. (xii) Sentence connectors: however, nevertheless, thus, on the contrary. They often occur at the Topic-Focus boundary in the sentence which they detach from the previous sentence. (xiii) Conjunctions if not placed sentence-initially, such as the Czech ze 'that\_ale 'but', kdyz 'when', aby 'that (with the conjunctive verbal form)'. These expressions occur often between Topic and Focus, and some of them are also able to occur between Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic. The conjunction ze 'that' can thus be viewed as a backward-looking segmentator and as a scoping expression having in its scope the sentence-initial segment, and the conjunction ale 'but' can be viewed as a forward-looking segmentator and as a scoping expression having in its scope the Focus. Beside the conjunction ze 'that', there is the homophonous particle ze in Czech, which is analogous to the Russian particle ze and which occurs mainly after wh-expressions as an affix or as a particle (it is noticed as commonly as its Russian counterpart). (xiv) Appositive particles, such as for example, i.e., in particular. (xv) The Czech imperative marker at 'let'. It often occurs at the TopicFocus boundary. (xvi) Compound conjunctions, such as either - or, neither - nor, rather than, whether - whether. They have in their scope the Focus of the sentences (clauses) in which they occur. (xvii) Sentence-initial and sentence-medial communicative particles, such as well, y 'know, I think and their equivalents due to morphological transposition of verbal forms to particles: look, listen etc. (cf. also Ariel's 1994 "pragmatic operators"). They have a (pragmatically) contacting function. (xviii) Interjections, such as oh, the hell, for goodness' sake. They have the (pragmatically) contacting function. An evidence for acknowledging the scoping status of these expressions is an example with the coordination of an interjection and a sentence adverbial which I found in an actual text, cf. (115) (cf. also Ameka 1994). (xix) Pauses occurring at major communicative breaks in the sentence, corresponding to Krifka's, Jacobs', etc., notions of "invisible", "silent", "free", etc., operators; cf. also Petrie's 1994 "hesitation pauses" and Oliva's (p. c.) acknowledgment of "invisible" scoping expressions. (xx) Repetitions of certain "key expressions" occurring at major communicative breaks of the sentence, such as relative pronouns, prepositions, the se-

Scoping expressions

149

quence it's, etc., which are often accompanied by "hesitation pauses", cf. (116).

(xxi) Vocatives, especially if occurring at major communicative breaks of the sentence. They have a pragmatically (contacting) function. (115) (116)

Oh, and surprisingly, XYfails to quote JP in his references I don't know what what... is wrong with her

3.6 Semantic issues 3.6.1 The relative scopes of scoping expressions The acceptability of scoping relations in sequences of scoping expressions with the hierarchical-scope interpretation can be accounted for in terms of a scale of the width of the scope of scoping expressions according to their semantics. Thus, it is widely acknowledged that scoping expressions with a factive presupposition have in their scope scoping expressions without a factive presupposition (such as in surprisingly probably {Mary)), and that sentence adverbials have in their scope focalizers (such as in probably only (Mary)). I propose that the ordering in (117) captures the major cases of the permitted and/or preferred relative scope of scoping expressions: (117) [sentence connectors - style disjuncts - factive disjuncts - non-factive disjuncts - adverbials of probability - appositive expressions adverbials of frequency/temporal focalizers - compound conjunctions - the focalizers also and even - negation - the focalizer only] Some reversals of these relations are cognitively inadmissible (such as the ordering [nonfactive disjunct - factive disjunct], cf. surprisingly allegedly)·, some of them are only untypical, such as [focalizer - negation], cf. only not today, and some of them are unacceptable, such as the ordering [focalizer - adverbial of probability], cf. *only probably....

3.6.2 Negation Negation should be viewed as a regular deep scoping expression, which prototypically occurs only once within a communicative part of the sentence.

150

Scoping expressions

Due to its special semantic properties, negation is expressed on the surface in specific ways. The following issues are of interest.

3.6.2.1 Referential definiteness of negative expressions I propose that negative expressions such as nobody, nothing, never, etc., should be viewed as referentially definite expressions, occurring usually with an implicit restrictor, irrespective of their occurrence in the communicativeinformation structure of the sentence. I will refer to the reading with an explicit or implicit restrictor as restricted, and to that without the implicit restrictior, as generic. (A similar assumption about definiteness is made in Zwarts 1994, but Zwarts considers only negative expressions with an explicit restrictor, such as neither Ν, none of the N, none of her N.) This can be illustrated by example (118a), where nobody occurs in the Topic. (118)a. Nobody slept that night. b. All were too excited to sleep. c. For all people of the set of the people restricted by the implicit restrictor R it does not hold that they slept a certain night. d. [Anybody7 that night1notF, sleptFs l] e. Everybody (all people) did not sleep that night In (118a), the expression nobody obviously refers to a definite set of people which are activated (salient) in the η memory of the interlocutors. This set forms a subset of all people in the world (which is the restricted / nongeneric reading). This saliency is due to an implicit restrictor: the people which the speaker is thinking of may be the people sharing a tent or a room, or living in the same village, at a certain night (when, for example, some disaster happened). This set of people is referred to by the general quantifier all in (118b), which involves the same implicit restrictor. Alternatively, this set of people could also be referred to by the pronoun they. These ways of anaphoric reference to negative expressions testify to their definite character. The (logical) meaning of sentences such as (118a) can be captured by means of a definite (restrictedly quantified) expression and of a negative predicate. Thus, (118a) could be paraphrased by (118c). The deep representation of (118a) is given (in English) in (118d). The deep "positive" counterpart of negative expressions referring to the restricted or

Scoping expressions

151

generic set will be indicated, in deep representations, by stipulation, by expressions with any- (which can be paraphrased as "restricted or generic all / every- with a following negated verb"). (118a) could be alternatively expressed by (118e), which, however, is ambiguous in the well-known way, viz., between the reading where all relevant people are spoken about, and where only a subset of these people is involved (cf. the "everybody/all" vs. the "not-everybody/all" interpretations). Likewise, expressions with the universal quantifier all are usually restricted by an implicit restrictor. Without the implicit restrictor, negative and universally quantified expressions have a generic meaning. The generic delimiting feature can be viewed as a subtype of the definite delimiting feature. Thus, the set referred to by the expression nobody in the generic sense can be referred to by the analogous, generic expressions all or they. As regards the restricted or generic interpretation of the negative expression, it is a matter of pragmatic background and knowledge. Examples with negative expressions are always theoretically indistinct between the restricted and generic interpretation. This indistinctness is removed only by the context. If the negative expression belongs to the Topic, it is more liable to be interpreted as restricted, whereas if it belongs to the Focus, it is more liable to be interpreted as unrestricted (generic). And analogously: if an expression is intended as restricted, it is usually generated as belonging to the Topic, whereas if it is intended as generic, it is usually generated as belonging to the Focus.

3.6.2.2 The appurtenance of the elements of sentences with negative expressions to Topic and Focus Negative expressions such as nobody or nothing may be found in several basic types of occurrence in the communicative-information structure of the sentence, depending on which parts of the sentence belong to the Topic and which parts, to the Focus. (I would like to note that I assume that a negative expression consists, in the deep representation, of the negator (not) and of the "positive" expression, indicated, by stipulation, by means of the any- morpheme, and interpreted as corresponding to a generic set or to its restricted subset, according to the extralinguistic (pragmatic) context. The deep positive expression will be henceforth referred to as "the deep a/ry-expression".) Below in (i)-(v) I give an overview of these types, which are illustrated by examples. Each example consists of (a) a Czech surface sentence, (b) the cor-

15 2

Scoping

expressions

responding English surface sentence, (c) the deep representation, (d) the paraphrase, and (e) the question to which the sentence may be an answer. It should be noted that the surface sentences in Czech and English may differ as to their ambiguities. In the deep representations, the preferred (restricted or generic) reading of the deep any-expression is given in brackets. The paradigms (119)-(124) involve, unlike the paradigm in (118) above, a negative expression functioning as the Direct Object. (i) Only the deep α/ry-expression (functioning typically as the Subject) belongs to the Topic. In this case, the speaker speaks about a restricted subset for which something does not hold. This is illustrated in the example (118) above and in the example (119) below. (ii) The deep any-txpression (such as an Object) and another element (such as Subject) belong to the Topic. On the other hand, the verb and the negator belong to the Focus. This is illustrated in example (120). (iii) Only one syntactic relation in the sentence (typically, the Subject) belongs to the Topic, the other elements (the negative expression and the verb) belong to the Focus. This is illustrated in example (121). (iv) Only the negator and the deep any-expression belong to the Focus. The verb and possibly the other syntactic relations belong to the Topic. This is illustrated in the example (122). (v) Only the negator belongs to the Focus. The deep any-expression, the verb and possibly the other syntactic relations belong to the Topic. This is ilustrated in the example (123). Capitals indicate the Focus of the sentences. (119)a.

Niceho se neboji nothing-Gen reflexive pronoun not-be-afraid-of-3-sg-pres 'She is not afraid of anything' b. She is not AFRAID of anything c. [anything 7 she ηοί, is-afraid-of sJ (anything = generic) d. Speaking about all possible problems, she is not AFRAID of them/anything e. Who is afraid of all possible problems? (120)a. Niceho se neboji nothing-gen reflexive-pronoun not-be-afraid-of-3-sg-pres 'She is not afraid of anything' b. She is not AFRAID of anything c. [she7 anything7 notF\ is-afraid-of J J (anything = restricted)

Scoping expressions

d. e. (121)a.

b. c. d. e. (122)a.

b. c. d. e. (123)a.

b. c. d. e.

153

Speaking about her and about all possible problems, she is not afraid of anything What about Jane and her problems? Niceho se neboji nothing-Gen reflexive pronoun not-afraid-of-anything-3sg-pres 'She is not afraid of anything' She is not afraid of anything [notFt be-afraicfst of anything'J J (anything = generic) Speaking about her, she is not afraid of anything What about Jane {Jane's properties)? Neboji se niceho not-be-afraid-of-3-sg-pres reflexive pronoun nothing-Gen 'She is not afraid of anything' She is not afraid of anything [she be-afraid-of notFlanythingFs (anything = generic) Speaking about what Jane is afraid of, she is not afraid of anything What is Jane afraid of? Niceho se neboji nothing-Gen reflexive pronoun not-be-afraid-of-3-sg-pres 'She is not afraid of anything' She is NOT afraid of anything [she7 anything7sl is-afraid-of notF(anything = restricted) Speaking about whether Jane is or is not afraid of anything, I claim that she is not Is Jane afraid of anything ?

We have seen that the Czech surface sentence (120a) is ambiguous between four deep representations: (119c), (120c), (121c) and (123c). Thus, only the case where only the negation and the deep α/ry-expression occur in the Focus (122c) is expressed by a different form in Czech. On the other hand, in English, the surface sentence (119b) is ambiguous between two deep representations: (119c) and (120c). The surface sentence (121b) is ambiguous between the deep representations (121c), and (122c). The deep representation (123c) is expressed unambiguously by (123b). Thus, in comparison with unambiguous surface expression of only one case, and unambiguous expression for four cases in Czech, English has two expressions which are in two ways ambiguous, and one expression which is unambiguous.

154

Scoping

expressions

3.6.2.3 Surface expressions of negation A brief note about the diversified surface expressions of negation should be made here (cf. also Ramat 1994). Negation is such an outstanding scoping expression that it is expressed in many languages (from Slavic languages through Italian to French) by multiple surface negation, which corresponds to a single deep negation. I introduce the notion of ad verbal negation as referring to such negative expressions which morphosyntactically belong to the verb. Thus, in Slavic languages, adverbal negation (in the form of a prefix or of an independent morpheme) is combined with negative expressions. In Italian, multiple negation is expressed by negative expressions such as nessuno 'nobody', niente 'nothing' not combined with adverbal negation (cf. Haegeman 1992). In French, multiple negation is typically expressed by double adverbal negation (ne... pas) or by the adverbal negation (ne) plus negative expressions (rien 'anything',personne 'anybody'). In West Flemish (cf. Haegeman 1992), there is also a double adverbal negation expressed by nie (the basic negative expression) or by a negative expression (such as niemand 'nobody') and en (the secondary, reinforcing negative expression). Unlike Haegeman, I propose that en is an adverbal negation pertaining to the finite (lexical or auxiliary) verb, not to a pronoun (such as indicated by Haegemann in her example 6b/12, where en is (presumably mistakenly) connected by a dash with the pronoun ze 'she'). In English, expressions such as (not) a straw can be considered as reinforcing negation. Another example of reinforced negation is the Czech expression ani 'not-even'. In Russian, unlike in English, Czech, and German, postverbal negation can occur even without an explicit contrastive context, which is a further piece of evidence for the exraordinary sensitivity of Russian to the distinctions of deep and surface word-order. The multiple surface negation corresponding to a single deep negation should not be confused with a double surface occurrence of negation corresponding to a double deep occurrence of negation, viz., in the Topic and the Focus of the sentence, such as in (119) above or in (124a). (124)a. Nobody gave nothing to this beggar b. There is NOBODY such that he would give nothing to this beggar

Scoping expressions

155

In (124a), nobody belongs to the Focus, and nothing, to the Topic. (124a) can be paraphrased by (124b). Last but not least, it should be noted in this section that the German sentence-final negation, such as in Er kommt NICHT 'He does not come' belongs to the primary case (Case I) of scoping interpretation: the negative expression (nicht 'not') has in its scope the rest of the Focus (kommt 'comes'), and the peak of intonation on NICHT should be viewed as due to stress assimilation (placing stress on the element in sentence-final position).

3.6.3 Allegation (i) Canceling of the allegational reading. Allegation (cf. Hajicovä 1984, Sgall et al. 1986) is an interpretation of a definite NP or of a complement clause of a factive verb standing in the scope of negation, which entails neither the presupposition nor the meaning of the NP or of the factive complement clause. In other words, placing a definite NP or a factive complement clause in the scope of negation cancels the presuppositional reading of the NP or of the complement clause, cf. (125a, b, c). Each of these sentences may have two continuations, corresponding to the presuppositional and nonpresuppositional (presupposition-canceling) reading. However, I argue that if we insert a scoping expression (such as a sentence adverb or a focalizer) after the negation, the allegational reading gets lost: what remains is only the presuppositional reading. In other words, placing the definite NP of the factive complement clause in the immediate scope of a scoping expression restores the presuppositional reading of the NP and of the clause, cf. (126a, b, c). These sentences can have only one continuation, viz., that corresponding to the presuppositional reading. (125)a. Terry did not cause our defeat b. Prague was not visited by the King of France c. I do not regret that I have lost (126)a. Terry did not cause just our defeat: this time, he caused many other unpleasant things b. Prague was not visited only by the King of France (also other guests came) c. I do not regret just that I have lost (I regret also other things)

156

Scoping

expressions

(ii) The deep word-order in the Topic. Second, I argue that if a sentence with an allegation is topicalized (i.e., if it becomes a part of a longer sentence with additional information), the order of its elements must be preserved in the deep representation in order that the allegational reading should be preserved. Thus, it should be assumed that the Topic and Focus of the sentence have primarily a parallel structure, i.e., that both in the Topic and Focus the verb should be viewed as their initial (least communicatively important) element.

3.6.4.1 Narrow scope by focalizers I would like to point out that focalizers such as at least and only enforce, or make preferable the narrow scope of the quantified expression standing in the scope of this focalizer, cf. (127a, b). (127)a. Every man in this village loves (at least/only) one dark-haired woman. b. (At least/only) one dark-haired woman is loved by every man in this village

3.6.4.2 Presupposition accommodation Berman (1994) and Beaver (1995) treat presupposition accommodation. Global and local presupposition accommodation are distinguished: global accommodation means accommodation of the presupposition of the nuclear scope in the restrictive term, and local accommodation means the accommodation of the presupposition of the nuclear scope in the nuclear scope. Berman (1994: 9-14) opts for the former solution. Within this proposal, he argues that the sentence (128a) (1994: 9) should be analyzed as (128b), where the presupposition is who had a watch (as an open sentence "x had a watch", which must be evaluated prior to, or at least simultaneously with, the presupposing constituent (194: 10). I propose that first of all, the implicit restrictor R should be integrated into the interpretation of the quantified term. In (128a), the implicit restrictor could be, e.g., (every boy) in our class, in our scout group, etc. Second, if the processing of the sentence by the hearer is considered, the accommodation of presupposition seems to be rather local then global: the presupposition has

Scoping expressions

157

rather the form of an entailment made by the hearer on hearing the presupposition-triggering term. On this alternative view, the logical notation of the sentence (128a) should be (128c) rather than (Berman-like) (128d). In (128c), the restriction R corresponds to the expression if χ is from our class. (128)a. Every boy lost it (his watch) b. Every boy who had a watch lost his watch c. For all x: if (if χ is a boy and if χ is from our class, then χ lost his watch), then (x had a watch) d. For all x, is χ is a boy and χ ad a watch, then χ lost his watch Beaver 1995 argues that the sentence (129a) (Beaver's El/2) is about German women who own a car (cf. its representation in (129b), although only linguists, not lay speakers, acknowledge that this sentence has this reading. I propose that (129a) should be represented rather as (129c), i.e., that it is a sentence about German women going to work, not about German women owning a car. This analysis is consonant with Beaver's and with my own assumptions about the communicative-information structure of this sentence, because the expression go to work is in the Topic, whereas the expression in her car is in the Focus. (129)a. Every German woman goes to work in her car b. For all x, if χ is a German woman and χ owns a car, χ goes to work in her car c. For all x, if χ is a German woman and χ goes to work, then χ goes to work in her car On the whole, Beaver is right in pointing out the role of the appurtenance of the elements of the sentence to Topic vs. Focus, cf. his proposal of Topic accommodation rather than presupposition accommodation. What he has in mind, howevever, is Noncontrastive (i.e., the nonaccentuated) Topic rather than Contrastive Topic. Beaver contrasts two examples, (130) (his E8/5) and (131) (his E7/5), which I have supplied with my own annotations as regards the appurtenance of their elements to Contrastive Topic, Noncontrastive Topic and Focus.

15 8

Scoping

expressions

Beaver accounts for the acceptability of the last sentence of (130) in terms of the Topic character of the destressed their cars in the first sentence, whereby car-ownership is accommodated as a topic. On the other hand, he accounts for the unacceptability of the last sentence of (131) in terms of the incompatibility of the presupposition that all Italians have cars triggered by the second clause of the first sentence of (131) with the claim in the second (independent) sentence of (131) that most Italians do not own cars. (130)

(131)

Whatever options are available, it is by PUBlic TRANSporf that most BritishCT go to work"7. In contrast, all iTALiansuse their CARS' to go to work . Whereas BRItish tend to use their carsmat WEEKendsF, all iTALians^ use their cars"7 to goto WORK*. *?However, MOST Italiansdon't own carsF, and so go to work"7 by public transport*.

In my terms, it is possible to account for the acceptability of the second sentence of (130), and for the unacceptability of the second sentence of (131) as follows. In the acceptable (130), using cars is the Noncontrastive Topic of the first sentence and hence, the (accommodated) Topic of the whole example, and that is why car ownership can become the Focus of the second sentence of (131). On the other hand, in (131), universal car-ownership by Italians is presupposed (as inferred from the Focus of the second sentence), so that the denial of universal car-ownership in the third sentence is inadmissible. To be mentioned here is also the inadequate assumption of the associationwith-Focus theorists (such as Rooth 1995) that in sentences like (132), (133) and (134), the contrasted phrases belong to the Foci of their sentences (these are the pairs of phrases she - SUE, John - Bill, and John - BILL, respectively). In fact, in (132) (with ellipsis), she is the Contrastive Topic of its sentence, but SUE is the Focus of its sentence. Analogously, in (134), John is Contrastive Topic, and Bill is Focus. In both of the second conjuncts, the verb phrase (whether ellided, as in (132), or reduced, as in (133) and (134), is Noncontrastive Topic. On the other hand, in (133), both John and Bill are Contrastive Topics, and the Focus of the second conjunct is constituted by the scoping expression TOO (my Case II of occurrence of scoping expressions). The verb, whether ellided or reduced, is Noncontrastive Topic. For more detail, cf. Chapter 5.

Scoping expressions

(132) (133) (134)

159

She' beats"" F meNT more often than SUE? (doesf7 John 7 hit™" Mary , and ΒΐΐΓ (did17) TOOF John 7 hit™F MaryF, and so didT BILLF

3.6.5 The relative scope of quantifiers 3.6.5.1 General issues In this section, I would like to address the problem of the relative scope of quantifiers (quantifier - quantifier interaction, also if one or both of the quantified NPs are substituted by quantifed wh-phrases). The basic example is the minimally contrasting pair (135) vs. (136): in (135), every man has preferably wide scope over a woman, whereas in (136), a woman has preferably wide scope over every man. (135) (136)

Every man loves a woman A woman is loved by every man

In literature (Seuren at the end of the 60's and Jackendoff at the beginning of the 70's, cf. also Jackendoff 1987), it has been claimed that (preferably), the first NP in the surface word-order has wide scope, and the second NP, narrow scope. Alternatively (cf. Sgall et al. 1986: 220-252), it has been claimed that the relative scopes of quantifiers are determined by the deep word-order rather than the surface word-order. On this view, a changed (marked) intonation of these sentences (indicating the change of deep word-order) should yield (preferably) reverse readings, cf. (137) and (138), where the sentence-initial stressed expressions should have the narrow scope. (137) (138)

EVERYMAN (IN THIS VILLAGE) loves a woman (with blond hair) A WOMAN (WITH BLOND HAIR) is loved by every man (in this village)

In (137), EVERYMAN should have narrow scope with respect to a woman, and in (138), Λ WOMAN should have narrow scope with respect to every man. (It should be only noted here that such examples sound more natural if the quantified expressions in question are semantically richer, i.e., if they are

160

Scoping

expressions

equipped with implicit restrictors in the sense which I have discussed above. So, we can imagine the NP every man in this village instead of the NP every man, and the NP a woman with blond hair instead of the NP a woman.) However, I assume that the relative scope of quantifiers is determined by rather by surface word-order (cf. also Chapter 6). Surface word-order is an important factor in determining the relative scopes of quantified NPs: it shifts the interpretation of sentences with quantified NPs towards the wide-scope interpretation of the surface-first quantified NP. Thus, sentences like (137) and (138) with marked intonation contour, where the surface word-order does not correspond to deep word-order, should be preferably interpreted as exhibiting wide scope of the sentence-initial expressions. Generally, I think that the interpretation of relative scopes is influenced by many factors ranging from deep and surface word-order to world knowledge. My intuitions are corroborated in Pafel 1991.

3.6.5.2 Pafel's generalization A most insightful account of the [quantifier - quantifier], and [wh-pronoun quantifier], interaction, is given in Pafel 1991. He argues that the scoping interpretation is determined by a number of factors, and that there are several factors which shift the scoping interpretation from ambiguity to the wide reading of the first quantifier. His basic opposition is that illustrated in (139a) vs. (139b) (I give only the English equivalents to his German examples). (139a), where the ordering of the quantified NPs is unmarked ([SubjectObject]) has preferably the nondistributive reading (i.e., the first quantified NP, the Subject, has the wide-scope reading). On the other hand, (139b), where the order of the syntactic relations of the quantified expresions is marked ([Object-Subject]), is ambiguous between the wide and the narrow scope of the first and second quantified NPs. (139)a. Which pupil received every grade (non-distributive) b. Which grade has every pupil received (ambiguous) Pafel gives six reasons which shift the ambiguous interpretation towards the nondistributive interpretation, i.e., one where the first quantified NP has wide scope. Also, he mentions one factor which shifts the ambiguous reading

Scoping expressions

161

towards distributivity. In the following survey, I comment on his approach, slightly modifying his argumentation. (i) The neutral ordering of the syntactic relations. Pafel assumes that the neutral ordering for German is [Subject - Indirect Object - Direct Object], so that the pairs of neutral ordering are [Subject - Direct Object], [Indirect Object - Direct Object] and possibly [Subject - Indirect Object]. The minimal pair is (139a) vs. (139b) (Pafel's 12a, b/38). I wholeheartedly agree with Pafel's generalization, according to which the neutral ordering of syntactic relations yields the (preferred) wide-scope reading of the first NP, and the reverse ordering of syntactic relations the ambiguous reading. This can be checked also for the [Indirect Object - Direct Object] pair, as well for other pairs of syntactic relations in my table describing the neutral ordering in Chapter 2 above. A similar principle based on the difference between neutral and reverse ordering is operative also in the determination of possible cases of anaphora in the sentence (ch. Chapter 5 below), which corroborates the relevance of the notion of neutral ordering of syntactic relations. (ii) The reinforcing of the first position of the quantified NP by the construction with the expletive es 'there', cf. the minimal pair (140a-b) (Pafel's 76a, b/51). I assume that the reinforcing in this case is due to the "definite" character of the expletive es. (140)a. There loves a man every woman (non-distributive) b. A man loves every woman (preferably non-distributive) (iii) Marked intonation, with the peak on both quantifiers, or on the second one (the universal one), also shifts the reading towards nondistributivity, i.e., to the wide scope of the first NP, cf. (141a) vs. (142a) and (143a) (Pafel's 9a/38 vs. 7a and 8a on p. 37). These sentences have the same surface wordorder, but they differ in intonation, which signalizes that they differ in their communicative-information structure. Their deep representations are given in (141b), (142b) and (143b). (141)a. Welche Aufgabe hat jeder gelöst Which task has everybody solved b. [jeder welche Aufgabe gelöst-hat]

162

Scoping

expressions

(142)a. WELCHE Aufgabe hat JEDER gelöst WHICH task has EVERYBODY solved b. [gelöst-hat welche Aufgabe jeder] (143)a.

Welche Aufgabe hat JEDER gelöst Which task has EVERYBODY solved [welche Aufgabe jeder gelöst-hat]

It can be assumed that (141) is the prototypical case: the peak of intonation is on the sentence-final expression, which is the non-wh-Focus of the sentence (the communicatively most important element), the wh-expression is the penultimate element of the Focus, and the quantified expression (jeder) is the sentence-initial element, as indicated in the deep word-order in 141b. Thus, the quantified expression jeder hat wide scope over the wh-expression welche Aufgabe. In (142), both the quantified expression and the wh-element presumably belong to the Focus, due to their intonational highlighting, and that is why this sentence is ambiguous. The preferred reading is the one where the whelement has wide scope. In (143), the peak of intonation is on the quantified expression. This is marked intonation, indicating that the wh-element has the wide scope (there is assumed that there is only a single task which everybody has solved). Thus, (142) and (143), analyzed in my terms, corroborate Pafel's analysis. The remaining three factors shifting the ambiguous interpretation of sentences like (139b) can be listed here as follows: (iv) The semantics of the verb. Pafel subcategorizes verbs into four groups. He claims that verbs with usual meanings, such as to see, yield the nondistributive interpretation, whereas verbs with more unusual (semantically richer) meanings (psych-verbs, such as to impress) yield the ambiguous interpretation. However, I assume that this is rather a matter of pragmatics than semantics, and that there is scalarity involved. (v) The more referential character of the wh-phrase. Pafel points out that selectively specific NPs, i.e., NPs with an explicit restrictor (such as one of the products} are more referential than such NPs without the restrictor, which yields their wide scope and hence, the (preferred) nondistributive reading (cf. Pafel's examples 89a, b/53). In 125/64, he gives even a scale of specificity, from the most specific phrases with an explicit restrictor (one of the...), through phrases with the in-

Scoping expressions

163

definite article to phrases with the emphasized indefiniteness by means of the pronouns in some X, somebody. (vi) The semantics of the quantifier. Pafel gives a scale of quantifiers according to their distributivity (cf. 118/63). The scale has three groups. The first group involves the quantifiers every and some, which are "inherently distributive". The second group involves the quantifiers the, most, many, all, which are "dominantly (strongly) distributive", and the third group involves the quantifiers more, several, two, which are "weakly distributive". However, if I compare sentences with every and two, which should yield a contrast in distributivity, I see that there is no dramatic contrast, and perhaps no contrast whatsoever involved. This is illustrated by (144) and (145), where two stands in the scope of a focalizer (my examples). In my intuition, both of these sentences are perfectly ambiguous between the wide and narow scope of one task. The focalizer only contributes to the wide-scope reading of one task. (144) (145)

One task has been solved by every pupil One task has been solved (only) by two pupils

Finally, there is one factor which shifts the ambiguous interpretation towards the distributive one. Pafel claims that "fragments" in the middle field of the sentence (such as so 'so') occurring e. g. between the temporal and local adverbial modification shift the ambiguous interpretation toward the distributive interpretation.

3.6.5.3 My generalization Some of Pafel's examples led me to a deepening of my account of multiple wh-questions (cf. also Chapter 4 below). In what follows, I will examine the cases in point: multiple wh-questions with wh-elements in a single sentence, and the answers to them. There are three problems which should be addressed here: (i) Which possible intonation contours can such questions have, with respect to my conception of echo questions (cf. Chapter 4 below)? It can be only briefly mentioned here that in echo questions, the echo-focalized wh-element is the only element of the Focus of the question, the other elements being topicalized.

164

Scoping

expressions

On the other hand, in normal, non-echo questions, the wh-element is the penultimate element of the Focus as regards its degree of commmunicative importance, whereas the most communicatively important element of the Focus is a non-wh-element, which prototypically carries the peak of intonation. The difference between an echo and non-echo question is illustrated by (146) vs. (147), respectively. (146) (147)

John hit WHOM in the garden ? (echo) Whom did John hit in the GARDEN? (non-echo)

(ii) Which elements are structured as Contrastive Topic, and which as Focus, in the answers to such questions, and why? (iii) What is the scoping interpretation of the elements in the questions and in the answers? (i) Echo questions. I claim that multiple wh-questions can be (a) normal (non-echo), or (b) echo. If they are echo, they may be partly echo (if only some of the wh-elements are echo-focalized), or wholly echo (if all of the wh-elements are echo-focalized). This corresponds to various intonational contours: in non-echo questions, the wh-elements bear usually a minor stress (the major stress being caried by the sentence-final non-wh-element, cf. Why (minor stress) did you kiss her IN THE GARDEN (major stress)?, but they may also carry the major stress, cf. HOW and WHY was the car damaged (this example I owe to Professor Werner Winter). On the other hand, in echoquestions, the echo-focalized wh-elements are always strongly stressed. If there are more than one echo-focalized wh-elements, all of them are strongly stressed. In echo-questions, the wh-elements stand in the surface positions of the elements which are asked for, whereby there are no formal indicators of the interrogative mode of the verb (cf. You kissed WHOM?). It should be noted that here are no answers but only reactions to echo-whquestions: in this case, the question can be only repeated, and the echofocalized wh-element is substituted by the asked-for non-wh-element (cf. 148a) as an echo-question, as a reaction to (148b), where three has been misunderstood. (148)a. How many boys have sold HOW MANY APPLES to how many girls b. How many boys sold THREE APPLES to how many girls

Scoping expressions

165

(ii) The distribution of the elements in the answer into Topic and Focus. There are two cases: (a) If the ordering of the wh-elements in the question corresponds to the neutral ordering, all of the corresponding elements in the answer may belong to the Focus. The first element may be structured as Contrastive Topic. This is illustrated in (149 a-b), where the superscript T/F indicates that an element may belong to the Topic or to the Focus. These superscripts occur with all elements except for the last one, which must belong to the Focus. (149)a. How many boys have given how many girls how many apples b. Many boys gave few girlsF three applesF (b) If the ordering of the wh-elements in the question does not correspond to the neutral ordering, the sequence of elements the rightmost element of which violates the neutral ordering in the question must stand in the Topic of the answer, since it is usual rather in the Topic (especially in Noncontrastive Topic) than in the Focus that the neutral ordering of syntactic relations is relaxed. This is illustrated in (150a-b). (150)a. How many boys gave how many apples to how many girls b. Many boysT have given three applesT to few girlsF (iii) The scoping interpretation of the elements of the answer. Non-echo questions. In the answers to non-echo questions, the deep as well as the surface word-order of the quantified elements should be kept, in order to preserve the scoping interpretation. In the (wh-part of the) question as well as in the (Contrastive) Topic part of the answer, the elements need not obey the neutral ordering, if there is intended a different interpretation of quantifiers than that which would correspond to the neutral ordering. In the light of this, I can give now a survey of the possible answers to two types of questions according to Pafel's bipartition. (a) If the question involves the ordering of syntactic relations in accordance with the neutral ordering, such as in (151a), two answers are possible: one where this order is preserved, as in (151b), or the other where this order is not preserved, as in (151c). The latter answer is not acceptable because it enforces the non-preferred, non-distributive reading (wenige Aufgaben having wide scope).

166

Scoping expressions

(151 )a. Wieviele Schüler haben wieviele Aufgaben gelöst ? How many pupils have how many tasks solved b. Viele Schüler haben wenige Aufgaben gelöst Many pupils have few tasks solved c. Wenige Aufgaben (Object) haben gelöst viele Schüler (Subject) Few tasks have many pupils solved (b) If the question involves the deep and surface ordering of syntactic relations which is the reverse of the neutral ordering, such as in (152a) (with the preferred non-distributive reading, i.e. with wieviele Aufgaben having wide scope), only one answer is possible ((152b)), where this order is preserved, so that also the ambiguity is preserved. On the other hand, (152c), where the surface word-order of the elements is reversed with respect to that in the answer, is not permitted, because it would enforce the distributive reading. (152)a. Wieviele Auf gaben (Object) haben wieviele Schüler (Subject) gelöst? How many tasks have how many pupils solved b. Wenige Aufgaben (Object) haben viele Schüler (Subject) gelöst Few tasks have many pupils solved c. Viele Schüler (Subject) haben wenige Aufgaben (Object) gelöst Many pupils have few tasks solved A note should be made here about the ordering of wh-elements in clusters of wh-elements in Czech (cf. also Chapter 2). In Czech, the order of whelements on the surface may be the reverse to the deep word-order in that the most communicatively important element of the cluster may appear sentence-initially on the surface, if it does not interfere with a scoping interpretation (i.e., if no quantified wh-elements are involved). Thus, in Czech, one can often find sequences such as koho kdo 'whom who' not corresponding to deep word-order, instead of sequences which correspond to deep word-order, kdo koho 'who whom'.

3.6.6 Additional issues Here, work on the interpretation of quantifiers in constructions with ellipsis and reduction should be mentioned (cf. Chapter 5 for more detail). For exam-

Scoping expressions

167

pie, Tomioka (1995, p.c.) argues that sentences like (153a) (unlike sentences like (153b) (Tomioka's 1995: 5/14)) are unambiguous, because (putatively) the quantifier someone cannot be contrasted. The point is whether the construction with ellipsis or reduction (as the second conjunct) should be interpreted in the same way as the first conjunct (i.e., whether it preserves its ambiguity, etc., or whether its interpretation differs). I opt for the former solution, which is corroborated also by the suggestions by Professor Werner Winter as regards quantified phrases he suggested to substitute someone else for some, etc.). Thus, I assume that in (153a, b), someone else and some boys, respectively, have preferably the wide scope with respect to every teacher, by virtue of the analogy with the proper name Patty, with slight differences between someone else and some boys. (153)a. Patty admires every teacher, and someone else does too b. Patty admires every teacher and some boys do, too Finally, I would like to call attention to two special cases of scoping interpretation. (a) The scoping interpretation does not concern only quantifiers and the distributional readings. It may involve also the interpretation of physical containment, such as in (154a, b), where the relations of containment are understood as different: in (154a), the red boxes are understood to be contained in the yellow boxes, and in (154b), the other way round. (b) The scoping interpretation may be overridden by world knowledge, such as in (155a) and (155b), whose scoping interpretation is identical in spite of the different deep and surface ordering of the relevant elements: hotels are always contained in towns, not the other way round. (154)a. b. (155)a. b.

In the yellow boxes, the toys were hidden in the red boxes In the red boxes, the toys were hidden in the yellow boxes In few towns, I stayed in many hotels In many hotels, I stayed in few towns

168

Scoping expressions

3.7 Conclusion In this chapter, I have argued for a new conception of focalizing scoping expressions, involving sentence adverbials (such as surprisingly), adverbials of probability (such as probably), focalizers (such as only), negation, communicative particles, etc. Syntactically, I propose that they should be generated by a single, new type of adverbial modification: the modification of Attitude. As regards the communicative-information structure of the sentence, I propose that there are four basic cases of their occurrence in the communicative-information structure, or Topic-Focus articulation, of the sentence, yielded by their possible appurtenance, and the appurtenance of the material in their scope, to the Topic or Focus of the sentence. Cutting across these four cases is the multiple occurrence of scoping expressions with the hierarchical-scope interpretation, which has not been considered in extant literature. I propose that in (deep-continuous but often surface-discontinuous) sequences of multiple occurrence of scoping expressions (such as surprisingly probably only, or not only), the particular scoping expressions have in their scope the respective rests of the Focus involving the remaining scoping expressions of the sequence. Additionally, there are specific cases of occurrence of scoping expressions, supporting my assumption that the scoping expressions form a cognitive subsystem within the system of natural language, which is closely connected with the commmunicative-information structure of the sentence. On the surface, focalizing scoping expressions occur either in scopeambiguous or scope-unambiguous positions. Scope-ambiguous positions are mainly due to leftward shifts of scoping expressions to communicatively prominent positions, such as the sentence-initial position. Another kind of scoping expressions are quantifiers, such as every, many, few, etc. Their "relative scopes" yielding various distributional readings is a different issue than the scopes of focalizing scoping expressions: thus, expressions such as only X and every X should not be confused. The relative scopes of quantifiers are interpreted according to an interplay of surface and deep word-order, and world knowledge.

4. Wh-extraction and cross-categorization of nominals 4.1 Introduction In this chapter, I will treat three issues: (i) universal extractability of wh-elements, cf. 4.3.; (ii) the position of moved and extracted wh- and non-wh-elements in the communicative-information structure of the sentence, cf. 4.4.; (iii) cross-categorization of nominals: empty categories and pronouns, cf. 4.5. As regards (i), I claim that there is an almost universal extractability of whelements, due to the principle of universal expressibility (effability) of natural language. The overwhelming majority of the Chomsky an cases of ungrammatically, inacceptability, or questionability can be substantially improved pragmatically (by an appropriate context, by shortening, lengthening, by change of lexical cast, etc.). I subcategorize over twenty Chomskyan constraints into four groups according to the decreasing inacceptability and increasing possibilities of improvement of the sentences with these constraints. As regards (ii), I make three claims: (a) The moved and extracted wh- and non-wh-elements belong to the communicative structure of the sentence. Thus, wh-elements prototypically belong to the Focus, and non-wh-elements may belong to the Topic, or to the Focus, of the sentence (clause) within which they have been moved or out of which they have been extracted. I assume that extracted elements belong syntactically as well as communicatively to the sentence (clause) out of which they have been extracted: their position at the beginning of the matrix sentence (of the whole complex sentence) is due to a surface shift only. The assumption that the extracted elements belong to the matrix clause would lead to a counterintuitive claim, viz., that the matrix clause could have, e. g., two Objects, i.e. the Object occurring in the matrix clause and the extracted Object. (b) There may occur two types of wh-elements in a complex sentence: the directly interrogative elements in the matrix sentence and in the embedded sentence(s), and the indirectly interrogative elements in the embedded sentence^).

170

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

4.2 Critique of extant approaches 4.2.1 The Chomsky an paradigm for English First of all, I would like to present my critique of extant approaches: Cinque 1990, Davison 1988, Frampton 1990, Lasnik - Saito 1992, Lasnik - Uriagereka 1988, Manzini 1992 and 1994, of the approaches found in Goodluck Rochemont 1992, and of the approaches found in the Stuttgart workshop reports 1993 and 1991. Below, the approaches are arranged temporally, starting from Lasnik - Uriagereka 1988, and ending up with Manzini 1994.

4.2.1.1 Lasnik - Uriagereka 1988 Lasnik - Uriagereka offer an account of the "surprising acceptability" of sentences like (156) and (157). (156) should be unacceptable because the trace of why is not governed, and (157) should be unacceptable because the intermediate trace of who is not properly governed. (156) (157)

Why do you think that John left Who do you think that Mary said 11 won the race

Lasnik - Uriagrereka offer two solutions. (a) The first solution. In this solution, the authors propose to distinguish arguments and nonarguments. Arguments are governed or ungoverned (marked by [± gamma]), which yields accceptability and unacceptability, respectively. On the other hand, nonarguments are assumed to have nothing to do with government: "it is important to note that the proposal is not that nonarguments are marked [± gamma] by default or something like that, literally, nothing happens to them" (1988: 112). (b) The second solution. In this solution, the authors first consider the possibility of deleting that at the level of LF, and of "upward" (=leftward, E.K.) and downward (= rightward, Ε. K.) movement of the wh-element. This yields the derivation of the sentence (157) in four steps, with the resulting intermediate traces, which are governed. Then, the authors consider another variant of the solution, viz., one which is based on the assumption that there is no initial trace at S-structure (i.e., that the sentence-initial trace does not leave any trace), and on the application of the "downward" movement of the wh-

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

171

element: this yields a LF structure which "looks like a D-structure representation" (1988: 115). It is even possible to speak about three types of wh-elements: the directly interrogative wh-elements in the matrix sentence, the indirectly interrogative wh-elements in the embedded sentence, and the directly interrogative whelements in the embedded sentence. (In this order, they occur in the complex sentence consisting of the matrix and the embedded sentence if all of these types of wh-elements are present.) (c) With respect to (b) above, the Focus of an embedded sentence may involve multiple occurrences (clusters) of three types of elements, which are arranged, with regard to their degrees of communicative importance, as follows: (aa) The indirectly interrogative wh-elements. (bb) The directly interrogative wh-elements. (cc) The non-wh-elements of the Focus. The occurrences of syntactic relations within the clusters of wh- and nonwh-elements obey the neutral ordering. This means that a Focus consisting of wh- and non-wh-elements cannot be considered as a whole in which all syntactic relations indiscriminately obey the neutral ordering. As regards (iii), I claim that empty categories and pronouns should be crosscategorized according to whether they correspond or not to syntactically (and communicatively) fullfledged occurrences of syntactic relations. This yields an alternative quadripartition of Chomsky an nominals: (a) Empty categories corresponding to syntactically fullfledged occurrences of syntactic relations. (b) Empty categories not corresponding to syntactically fullfledged occurrences of syntactic relations. (c) Pronouns corresponding to syntactically fullfledged occurrences of syntactic relations. (d) Pronouns not corresponding to syntactially fullfledged occurrences of syntactic relations. Moreover, the authors point out parametric differences: for example, they point out that sentences like (158a) were considered ungrammatical by J. C.-T. Huang 1982, who changed his opinion after finding out that they are grammatical in Japanese (and the present author may add, also in Czech). Also, Lasnik - Uriagereka note that the Spanish equivalent of the putatively ungrammatical (158b) is fully acceptable.

172

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

(158)a. Mary wonders who, why2 John hit t, t2 b. Who, does Mary wonder why2 John hit tl t2 It should be also noted that the authors assume a critical standpoint towards the definition of government, cf. "government (= lexical government, E.K.) sort of goes along with Case. Proper government (= antecedent government, Ε. K.) is more mysterious, we do not know what it goes along with..." (1988: 98). With (lexical) government, coindexing is considered to be a "notational trick", because coreference or variable binding is involved in it. The authors conclude that" the real problem is that there seem to be distinct ways in which a trace can be licensed... We are missing something, but at present we know of no viable alternative" (1988: 98).

4.2.1.2 Davison 1988 Davison treats wh-pronouns in Hindi. In Hindi, wh-pronouns occur normally in situ, and in case of extraction, there occurs an overt (= resumptive, E.K.) pronoun linked to the wh-element, corresponding to the trace in English. Davison proposes that wh-movement should be considered at LF structure. She mistakenly assumes that the sentences with wh-elements are paraphrasable by means of the expression concerning wh..., cf. (159). (159)

Concerning whom did you say that he will come tomorrow

It can be argued that such paraphrases have a different syntactic structure than wh-questions: in the paraphrases, the phrase concerning wh... really syntactically belongs to the matrix sentence, coming close to a proper Object (Third Object) of the matrix verb, such as in about whom did you say (to whom what). Consequently, this syntactic relation may have different positions in the communicative-information structure of the sentence: it may belong to its Topic or Focus, where- as the extracted wh-element can belong (prototypically, if no echoing is involved) only to the Focus of the sentence (within which it has been moved or out of which it has been extracted). Furthermore, Davison mistakenly assumes that wh-elements, as "internal topics", belong to the matrix sentence, whereas topicalized non-wh-elements,

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

of nominals

173

as "external topics", belong to the clause within which they are topicalized (1988: 194-195).

4.2.1.3 Rizzi 1990 Rizzi offers an alternative conception of government and binding, in terms of his theory of Relativized Minimality as a symmetric restriction on elements blocking government. He proposes that there is a parallelism between government and binding: both are ways of linking an antecedent to its trace. Referential elements are linked by binding, and nonreferential ones, by government. Government can be blocked only by an element of the same kind. The definition of Relativized Minimality is given in 71/27: "X alpha-governs Y only if there is no Ζ such that (i) Ζ is a base-generated position, (ii) Ζ is alpha-GT (government, E.K.) compatible with Y, (iii) Ζ c-commands Y and does not ccommand X". Referential elements are those which have a theta-role (such as agent, experiencer, goal, etc.), and nonreferential elements are of two types: (a) Elements having a nonreferential theta-role, such as lexically selected adverbials of Manner with verbs such as to behave, and adverbials of measure with verbs such as to weigh. (b) Elements having no theta role, such as adverbials which are not lexically selected (Time, Place, Cause etc.). A typical example where binding is possible (because the extracted element has a theta-role (such as Goal)) is (160) (Rizzi's 32b/88). A typical example where a chain of antecedent goverment is possible (because the antecedent is not referential, and there is no blocking element) is (161) (Rizzi's 5/29). A typical example where neither binding nor government is possible is (162a) (Rizzi's 32c/88). Here, binding is impossible because the extracted element how is nonreferential, and government is not possible because there is an intervening element which problem blocking the government of the trace of how. Both how and which problem are of the same kind: A-specifiers. Still another type of inacceptability is that due to the extracted Subject (cf. 163) (Rizzi's 32a/88), which is unacceptable because the trace is not properly governed according to the definition of ECP in Rizzi 1990 (30/87). (\60)(3)(Which problem); do you wonder how to solve t, (161) How, do you think that Bill solved the problem t,

174

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

(162)a. (*)HOW2 do you wonder which problem, to solve t, t2 b. Excuse me, I did not understand your last word. HOW do you wonder which problem to solve ? -1 wonder which problem to solve QUICKLY. (163) *(Which student), do you wonder how t, solved the problem Rizzi's theory can be substantially criticized. First of all, I claim that examples such as (162) are essentially acceptable because they are improvable by means of an appropriate (contrastive) context, such as by a context of misunderstanding, cf. (162b) (my improvement). Second, I claim that the inacceptability of sentences like (163) is due to the inadmissible surface sequence [full COMP - empty Subject] in English (cf. also 4.2 below). Third, Rizzi himself admits that referentiality may be a scalar distinction, cf. his claim that PPs without a wh-element, such as for this reason have an "intuitively more referential character" than phrases with a wh-element, such as for what reason, which makes the referetial index "almost fully legitimate" (1990: 105). I would like to generally argue that the binary distinction between referentiality and nonreferentiality is a cognitively based, extralinguistic distinction, which should not be admitted into linguistic theory. This distinction accounts for the fact that prototypically, argumental (referential) types of syntactic relations (such as Object and Subject) are better extractable than adverbial modifications, but it cannot account for the less prototypical, but quite possible cases of extraction. I assume that sentences with extracted adverbial modifications sound unacceptable or questionable rather because of the ambiguity of the sentence: the extracted adverbial modification may be interpreted as belonging to the embedded sentence or to the matrix sentence, most typically in case of adverbial modifications of Cause, Time and Place. Third, there are several additional points I want to criticize. Rizzi mistakenly tries to account in terms of his Relativized Minimality for very different phenomena, ranging from the above-mentioned cognitively-based to purely morphologically-based cases of inacceptability, such as the that-trace effect or the inadmissibility of the postverbal position of the negative adverb not in English. His account of the scope of negation is incomplete: in his French example 47a/26 (with a SVO order), he does not take into consideration the possible peak of intonation on the verb, in which case only the verb (along with negation) belongs to the Focus and constitutes the scope of negation. Similarly, in

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

175

his German example 39a/44, he does not consider the possibility of its improvement by a contrastive or focal accentuation of the extracted phrase. Further, Rizzi mistakenly assumes that there is a "general ban" on Subject traces, i.e., on the rightward movement of the Subject (1990: 60). However, in nonconfigurational languages, Subjects belonging to the Focus occur freely in sentence-final position. Last but not least, Rizzi proposes to account for cases where a reflexive pronoun precedes its NP antecedent in terms of "reconstruction without chain of government" (cf. 1990: Footnote 16/ 129). However, this case can be treated as quite regular if the possible contrastive function of the reflexive is considered (cf. my Type IV of anaphora in the simple sentence in Chapter 5).

4.2.1.4 Cinque 1990 Cinque discards Chomsky's notion of minimality barrier and barrier by inheritance, as well as the assumption that goverment and binding differ in the number of barriers. His approach is based on the notion of (c-)selection by the Verb: I (Inflectional) as head c-selects VP as complement, and C (Complementizer) s-selects IP as complement. Thus, VP and IP become transparent for government, independently of adjunction. This makes it possible to do away with the idea of wh-movement based on VP or IP adjunction. Cinque's alternative definitions of government and binding (including that of bounding and subjacency) have in common that a maximal projection not selected by the Verb is considered as a barrier. Generally, Cinque rightly considers movement as an "epiphenomenon" consisting of quite separate properties (1990: 109 and 95-96). Moreover, he further restricts Rizzi's conception of referentiality by introducing the principle of Discourse Linking (1990:18), according to which only a phrase which has been mentioned in previous discourse should be considered as intrinsically referential (cf. his difference between phrases such as a chi 'whom' (non-Discourse-linked) and a quale di tuoifigli 'which of your children' (Discourse-linked)). Empirically, Cinque makes the following points. (a) Clitic Left Dislocation. Cinque treats Clitic Left Dislocation, not in terms of movement, but in terms of binding chains displaying connectivity: both the left-dislocated element and the resumptive clitic element are considered to be base-generated, which yields unbounded dependency (cf. (164) (Cinque's la/57)). The left-dislocated phrase must be referential.

176

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

of nominals

Cinque specifies several exceptions to Clitic Left Dislocation, which he treats in terms of successive cyclic movement, involving an empty operator and a variable, which are connected by a chain of antecedent government. These exceptions are, however, extremely heterogeneous. Here belong the following cases: (aa) Sentences with negation, which is assumed to improve ("deblock") the otherwise putatively ungrammatical sentences (cf. (165a) vs. (165b) (Cinque's 59d/69 vs. 60d/79)). I would like to argue here that also the putatively unacceptable positive sentences analogous to (165a) are easily pragmaticallly improvable, by means of contrastive context (cf. (165c), my example). For an acceptable example with a preposed but focally stressed temporal modification, cf. (165d) (Cinque's 100/91). Similarly, putatively unacceptable negative questions can be made acceptable by an appropriate context, cf. the also discussions about "inner islands" and my modified Italian example (165e). (bb) Sentences with nonreferential bare quantifiers, such as qualcosa 'some-thing'. (cc) Sentences where the left dislocation is due to resumptive preposing, which is assumed to be a "construction-specific" instance of wh-movement. Cinque rightly argues that the preposed adverbial is "construed with" (i.e., belongs to, E.K.) the embedded sentence, cf. (166) (Cinque's 85a/87). According to my assumptions, the "preposed adverbial" has been extracted out of its sentence because of the general tendency of Contrastive Topic to be raised out of sentences or infinitival constructions to the position at the beginning of the matrix sentence (for similar examples, cf. also Engdahl - Vallduvi (1995: 28) and Haeberli (1993: 37/40). (164)

(165)a. b. c.

d.

Al mare, ci siamo gia stati To sea there-clitic be-l-pl-Aux already be-pl-past-participle 'At the sea, we have already been' *In modo scortese, Carlo di solito si comporta 'In a rude manner, Charles usually behaves' In modo scortese, Carlo di solito non si comporta 'In a rude manner Charles usually does not behave' In modo scortese, Carlo di solito si COMPORTA, ma non telefona 'In a rude manner, Charles usually BEHAVES, but does not telephone' Ν EL 1821, e morto Napoleone! 'In 1821, there died Napoleon!'

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

177

e. *In che modo non si comporta? - In modo scortese. 'In which manner does he not behave? - In a rude manner' (166)a. Domani, mi ha promesso che verra Tomorrow, he promised that he would come b. DOMANI, mi ha promesso che verra TOMORROW, he promised that he would come (b) Topic-Focus articulation. Cinque considers distinctions which correspond to the distinction between Topic and Focus. He points out the ambiguity of sentences with fronted non-wh-elements, which may belong to the Topic (if not focally stressed), or to the Focus (if focally stressed, which he indicates by capitals). Cinque's crucial examples are (167a) vs. (168b) (his 13a/64 and 154/66, respectively), and the above example (166a) vs. (166b) (his 108a/94), where DOMANI belongs to the Focus. However, Cinque also makes mistaken assumptions in this domain. (aa) He accounts for this Topic-Focus distinction in Government - Binding terms: an "IP initial" element corresponds to an element of the Topic, and an "IP final" or "VP-adjoined" element corresponds to an element of the Focus. However, these positionally-based distinctions are by far not sufficient to characterize the possible syntactic structurings and surface shifts of Topic and Focus. Out of functional distinctions, Cinque uses only the notion "Focus" corresponding to the notion of Focus as the new information of the sentence. (bb) He accounts for sentences with a fronted Topic phrase in terms of Clitic Left Dislocation, and for those with a fronted Focus phrase, in terms of successive cyclic movement, which is an unnecessarily complicated explanation. (cc) Cinque's account of negation is not quite adequate: First, he mistakenly assumes that negation may function as a "deblocking" element, cf. (165b) above, and also as a "blocking" element (= an element blocking acceptability), cf. (165e). I have integrated in (165e) my improvement by contrastive context supplied by the answer. Cinque's conception of negation as having impact on acceptability is a case of cognitive commitment. Second, Cinque accounts for the scope of negation in terms of "scope amalgamation", which - in turn - is accounted for in terms of c-command. He distinguishes two cases: (cc-i) A quantifier is in the scope of negation, such as in (168a), where the amalgamation of negation and many yields the meaning oifew.

178

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

(cc-ii) A quantifier is not in the scope of negation (= is not amalgamated with negation), such as in (168b) and (168c) ( I give only the English equivalents). (167)a. FOR THIS REASON, he said that he would leave b. For this reason, he said he would leave (168)a. Franco has not seen many films by Forman b. Many films by Forman have not been seen by Franco c. Franco did not hit MANY TARGETS d. Franco has not seen many films by Forman with Maria This account can be criticized: First, the cases illustrated by (168b) and (168c) should not be collapsed: in (168b), if the peak of intonation is unmarked, i.e., sentence-final, the quantified NP many films belongs to the Topic, and the negation along with its scope (have not been visited by Franco), to the Focus. (168c) is ambiguous, with the preferred reading equivalent to that in (168a): MANY TARGETS belongs to the Focus and stands in the scope of negation. Second, Cinque's account is not exhaustive: for example, he fails to consider the multiple ambiguity of sentences with negation such as (168d) (Cinque's example 83/86). In (168d), if the peak of intonation is unmarked, i.e. sentence-final, the scope of negation can be with Maria or many films by Forman with Maria. If the peak of intonation is placed on by Forman, the scope of negation is only the phrase many films by Forman, or only the embedded adjunct by Forman. (c) Parasitic gaps. Cinque treats parasitic gaps correctly, not in terms of movement, but as base-generated resumptive pronominal variables, bound by a base-generated empty operator. It can be only objected that the pronominal variable should not be called "resumptive": in fact, it is a proper, syntactically fullfledged anaphoric expression (cf. 4.5 below). Cinque distinguishes three cases of constructions which I consider to be parasitic gaps: parasitic gaps, gaps of apparent (NP-)extraction out of an island, and gaps of complement object deletion, cf. (169a), (169b) and (169c), respectively (Cinque's examples la, lb and lc/98, respectively). He points out a special case of unimprovable unacceptability of a parasitic gap, cf. (170) (Cinque's 64/118), due to the measure-phrase character of the antecedent. (169)a. The article, that we filed without reading e, b. The article, that we went to England without reading e,

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

c. (170)

ofnominals

179

The article, was too long for us to read e, *How many weeks, did you spend in London before spending el in Paris

On the whole, Cinque's account, where he restricts movement and takes into account the intonational properties of the sentence, means a substantial step forward in the structurally-committed Chomskyan paradigm.

4.2.1.5 Frampton 1990 Frampton proposes a modification of Chomsky's theory of barriers with respect to wh-movement in that he allows for the adjunction of the intermediate trace to IP, and imposes canonical head government condition as a licensing condition on adjunction (1990: 53). In these terms, Frampton offers a chain-theoretical account of parasitic gaps in terms of a parallel between wh-chains and parasitic chains: parasitic gaps are treated as dependent on the wh-operator just like traces of whmovement (1990: 50, 76). The "locus of connection between the wh- and the parasitic chain in the sentence is the intermediate trace adjoined to NP" (1990: 50). He points out also the dissimilarities between the two kinds of chain: the parasitic chain, unlike the wh-chain, originates only at S-structure (1990: 55), and it is secondary with respect to the wh-chain, cf. "the formation of the parasitic chain... depends upon the existence of the primary chain" (1990: 57). Moreover, he claims that no special licensing conditions on parasitic gaps must be stipulated. It can be objected against Frampton's proposal that parasitic gaps and the traces of wh-movement/extraction are quite different phenomena, in that parasitic gaps, unlike traces, are syntactically fullfledged anaphorically referring zero elements (cf. 4.5 below).

4.2.1.6 Lasnik - Saito 1992 Lasnik - Saito further develop the ideas put forth in Lasnik - Uriagereka 1988, and add new issues. They claim that additionally to J.-C.T. Huang's complement· noncomplement asymmetry (where complements, unlike noncomplements, are lexically governed), also the Subject-adjunct asymmetry should be considered: Subjects are [± gamma] marked (and thus, subject to ECP) at Sstructure, whereas adjuncts are [± gamma] marked only at LF.

180

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

Another stipulation is the deletability of the complementizer that and of the intermediate trace at LF. Thus, Lasnik - Saito distinguish the case where only Subjacency is violated (extraction of the Subject) and the case where also ECP is violated (extraction of an adjunct), claiming that the former violation yields questionable acceptability, whereas the latter, inacceptability. The questionability of the former case (with an extracted Subject) is attributed to the assumption that the initial trace is assigned [+ gamma] at S-structure, and that the intermediate trace, which is not [± gamma] marked at S-structure at all, is deleted at LF. Due to the assumption of the deletability of the intermediate trace, they transform the rule "Move alpha" into "Affect alpha". It can be shown that their putatively unacceptable examples are improvable by an appropriate context, and that the conjunction whether should not be treated on a par with wh-pronouns as regards its putative "island" capacities: I claim that the conjunction whether has no island capacities. Another theoretical point which the authors make is the claim that only X' categories can be proper governors. Two untypical X' governors are introduced: COMP and (raised) INFL. COMP, involving the intermediate trace, and coindexed with it by the Spec-head convention, is considered to be the antecedent governor for the initial trace instead of the intermediate trace. Second, if INFL is raised, it is suppposed to antecedent-govern the Subject. This can be viewed as an unnecessary abstraction and complication in the Chomsky an theory, cf. (d) below. Further, there are several particular points which can be commented upon. (a) Lasnik - Saito discuss the properties of COMP (which can have a (+wh) or (-wh) head, distinguishing three types of verbs: those taking only that-complements (believe verbs), those taking only wh-introduced embedded sentences (wonder verbs), and verbs which may combine with both types of embedded sentences {know verbs). It should be noted in this place that in Czech embedded sentences with matrix verbs such as rici 'to say', the sequence (that - wh-pronoun) is possible (cf. (171a) (Veselovskä's (1933:38b/28)), with the sequence ze kdy 'that when'. However, in this example, the wh-pronoun is a directly interrogative element of the embedded sentence (cf. 4.4 below for more detail), not an indirectly interrogative element which Lasnik - Saito have in mind. In the English equivalent to (171a), the pronoun in the embedded sentence would stand sentence-finally. The wh-elements in the matrix sentence and in the embedded sentence could be answered simultaneously, cf. the English answer to the English equivalent of (171a) in (171b).

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

of nominals

181

(171)a. Kdos rikal, ze kdy who-are-2-sg-pres-Aux say-past-participle that when pozval Marusku invite-past-participle Mary-Acc-sg-fem 'Who did you say that he invited Mary when' b. I said that John invited her yesterday, and Bill, the day before yesterday (b) Lasnik - Saito bring a number of examples involving three kinds of whpronouns, which can be called, in my terminology (cf. 4.4 below): the directly interrogative wh-pronoun in the matrix sentence, the indirectly interrogative pronoun in the embedded sentence, and the directly interrogative pronoun in the embedded sentence. All of these three kinds of wh-pronouns occur in the examples (172), (173) and (174a) (Lasnik and Saito's 122/121, 66/118 and 108/168, respectively). With respect to (173), they claim that "(66) is dramatically improved on the reading where who3 takes matrix scope, that is, where (66) is a matrix double question on who, and who". This claim is correct only as regards the acceptability of the example in question ((174) = 66/118). However, I argue that who7 and who3 do not have the same, "matrix", scope, in that they occur in different (viz., matrix and embedded) sentences. Further, Lasnik - Saito claim that (174a) is unacceptable. However, it can be improved by an appropriate contrastive context, such as that constituted by the possible answer in (174b) (my example). (172) (173) (174)a. (174)b.

who knows where we bought which books whoj wonders what2 who3 bought (*)who saw the man that bought the book why John saw the man that bought the book because of surplus of money, and Bill saw the man that bought the book out of genuine interest

(c) Another point of interest is Lasnik - Saito's discussion about topicalization. The authors show that contrary to Chomsky's proposal, left dislocation (topicalization with a resumptive pronoun) is not possible in embedded constructions (cf. their example 41/77). Their major claim is that topicalization can involve IP-adjunction. They distinguish two types of "topic"-elements: the base-generated topic elements dominated by the node TP (topic), and the topicalized element is adjoined to IP (or to SPEC-CP). In (175) (their (45/78), John is the base-generated ele-

182

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

ment, and Mary, the topicalized element. In embedded sentences such as that in (176) (their 120/96), the adjunction to IP is assumed, too. (175) (176)

John,, Mary2, he, likes t2 the man to whom liberty,, we could never grant it,

The authors also consider the combination of wh-extraction and topicalization, cf. (177) (their 120/96). One of the crucial examples is (178) (their 124/97), which is considered to be ruled out by the ECP. The major problem is the assumption that the intermediate trace (occurring before John) is not governed, due to the extra maximal projection created by the topicalization of Mary. The greater complexity of the unacceptable (178) is to be compared with the simpler structure of the almost acceptable (179) (their 120/96). This suggests that the putative acceptability of (178) is due only to processing complexity. (177) (178) (179)

llhow, do you think that this problem2, John solved t21, (*)how, do you think that Mary, Bill told that John solved the problem t, llhow, do you think that the problem2, John solved t21,

Similarly, I claim that the difference in the acceptability between two structurally isomorphic sentences such as (180) and (181a) (Lasnik and Saito's 71/85 and 74/86, respectively), is due to pragmatic reasons: the longer the Focus, and the shorter the Topic, the more acceptable is the sentence. I would also like to emphasize that questionable sentences like Lasnik - Saito's (181) can be improved by adjusting their surface word-order to the SVO shape, and by accenting the element of the Focus, cf. (182) (my adjustment). (180) the man to whom liberty,, we could never grant t, (181) lithe man to whom that book,, I gave t, (182) the man to whom IGA VE (not SENT) that book (d) Lasnik - Saito also treat parasitic gaps. It can be generally assumed that the authors overrate the grammatical principles, and underestimate the psychological and pragmatic principles licensing parasitic gaps. They bring to attention contrasts in acceptability between sentences (183) and (184) (their

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

183

37a/l 13 and 37b/113, respectively) and between (185a) and (185b) (their 41/114 and 46/115, respectively). They account for the inaccceptability of (184) in terms of ECP, but for that of (185b), in terms of the inadmissibility of the "short distance" subject parasitic operator within their alternative account of COMP as antecedent governor. However, I propose an alternative solution which generalizes over these two cases, viz., the general inadmissibility of the surface sequence [full COMP - empty Subject] in English, whatever the full COMP may be (conjunction or an indirectly interrogative wh-element), and irrespective of whether the empty Subject is a trace or a parasitic gap. Thus, for example, the difference between the unacceptable (185a) and the almost acceptable (185b) consists in the presence of the sequence Mary said in (185b) (Lasnik and Saito's 46:115), whereby the prohibited adjacency of the full COMP and the empty Subject in (185a) is cancelled. For the inadmissibility of the sequence with an indirectly interrogative wh-element as full COMP, cf. (186) (my example). (In this paradigm of examples, e indicates the parasitic gap.) (183) (184) (185)a. b. (186)

??who, did you leave London after you visited t, *who, did you leave London after ti visited you *who, did you telephone t, after e, arrived Iwhoj did you telephone after Mary said e, arrived *who, do you think when e, comes

(e) The last point to be made is my critique of the authors' view that the (Pesetskyan) sentence (187) (their 137/174) with an interjection after an "aggressively non-Discourse-linked wh-phrase" is unacceptable. (187)

(*)what, the do you wonder who wrote tl

I claim that the interjection (the hell) should be considered as a focalizing operator with surface-backward scope extending over the pronoun who, similarly as in who else, who mainly, etc. I assume (cf. Koktova: 1986,1987, and Chapter 3) that in the deep (underlying, logical, etc.) representation, a focalizing operator prototypically stands before the expression which it has in its scope, i.e., the deep order of the two elements in question would be [the hell who].

184

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

4.2.1.7 Manzini 1992 and 1994 (a) Manzini 1992. Manzini tries to make Chomsky's theory more simple and elegant, by removing the disjunctions between Subjacency and the ECP, and between the two clauses of ECP. Manzini's major innovation is the conception of address-based dependency, as the relation between the extracted arguments and their traces (A'-dependency). In many respects, however, Manzini' s argument boils down to the common, and cognitively committed, GB distiction between argumental vs. nonargumental syntactic relations, which has been criticized above. Manzini distinguishes bounded (strictly local) dependencies (anaphora, A'-movement, head movement, and A'-movement of adjuncts) vs. unbounded dependencies (A'-movement of arguments). Her major claim is that about the "address" index, which is positional, and carried by argumental syntactic relations, in contradistinction to the categorial index. The "addressed" positions are Case-marked by a head (rather than Theta-marked), i.e., they are "K(ase)-governed" (cf. 59/91). Manzini argues that "A'-dependencies involving arguments are distinguished from all other dependencies" (1992:37). On the other hand, in the A'-movement of adjuncts, both the trace and the antecedent are assumed to be in nonaddressed positions. In the binding relation (i.e., between an antecedent and reciprocal or reflexive pronouns), the members of this relation are supposed to have different addresses. The notion of address is refined in (1992: 75), where address is conceived of as a pair of indices. Furthermore, Manzini proposes a unification of antecedent and lexical government, and of head and antecedent government (cf. the definition in 39/62, and a refined shape thereof in 61/72). The definition of Locality is found in 71/76. Then, the author offers her predictions about acceptability of extraction out of 22 types of islands (p. 39). However, out of these cases, only five are considered as acceptable. This is, in my opinion, the major drawback of the book, along with the strictly binary ("OK" vs. "asterisked-away") opposition in Manzini's judgements of acceptability. However, there are also plausible points in Manzini's argumentation, undermining the strict Chomskyan approach. First, she advocates a joint treatment of that-trace and wh-trace effects (1992: 82). Second, she proposes that her theory can dispense with the notion of ccommand (1992: 82).

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

of nominals

185

Third, she claims that the verb should be viewed as addressing a PP Object "exactly as it addressess a NP Object" (1992: 83) (this claim is compatible with, and congenial to, functional approaches, such as Bresnan 1982 and Oliva 1988). Fourth, Manzini correctly maintains that Rizzi's 1990 sentences with extraction of measure phrases out of wh-islands should be considered as acceptable (1992: 105). Fifth, she argues that wh-elements in English occurring on different sides of the verb (such as in who saw what) should be viewed as occurring side-byside at LF, and that this is corroborated by their surface occurrence in Slavic languages. She considers Hungarian mistakenly as a Slavic language, but her argument is essentially correct: the directly interrogative wh-elements for the Subject and for the Object are of the same type in the communicativeinformation structure of the sentence, they form a single communicative part, so that they should be expected to occur side-by-side, as is indeed the case in nonconfigurational languages. Only in configurational languages such as English, an "exotic language" with its grammatically-fixed surface wordorder (cf. Mel'cuk (1988: 4)), wh-elements for the Subject and for the Direct Object occur on different sides of the verb. (b) Manzini 1994. Manzini further develops her theory of Locality and tackles the issue of parasitic gaps. She defines Locality in terms of minimal domains, and relaxes her definition by the introduction of forking dependencies. However, some of her cases of inacceptability should be viewed as due only to processing complexity, and Manzini herself points out the moot points of her proposal. Manzini's argument is as follows. First, she defines minimal domains of heads as consisting of elements which are immediately contained in (but do not immediately contain) a projection of X (1994: 482). Then, she defines adjacency in terms of this new definition of minimal heads: two heads are adjacent if there is no member of a third minimal domain that contains Y and not X, and vice versa (1994: 483). Thus, movement from the head X to the head Y is possible only if the minimal domains are adjacent (the condition of Locality). Another condition on movement is the c-command condition, which is called "ordering". With this assumption, Manzini shows the impossibility of extraction out of Subject and adjunct islands due to either lack of adjacency or lack of "ordering".

186

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

Then, she relaxes her definition of Locality in terms of forking dependencies, allowing for the acceptability of dependencies with "unordered" elements. Manzini claims that parasitic gaps within a single island are acceptable, such as in (188) (her 18/489). On the other hand, within two islands, they are unacceptable, such as in (189) (her 21/489), with a Subject and an adjunct island, and in (190) (her 23/489), with two adjunct islands. However, the example (189) does not sound to me utterly unacceptable, but rather only (questionably) acceptable, if pronounced with the right intonation contour, with the primary intonation center on famous, and the secondary intonation center on friends of Their putative unacceptabilty should be viewed as due only to processing complexity. Similarly, I see no substantial difference in acceptability (except for that due to processing complexity) between the putatively unacceptable (191) and the acceptable (188) (Manzini's 17/489 and 18/489). The latter example illustrates forking dependency (composition of dependencies: first, the "unordered" dependency, and then a dependency based on a position in I(nflectional) as part of the main gap branch). (188)a. patient that operating e immmediately would help (189) (*)a patient that I chose because friends ofe become famous (190) (*)a book that people buy t without understanding linguistics after reading e (191) (*)a patient that operating t immediately could help me Then, Manzini tries to cope with two problematic cases. The first of them is the well-formed extraction of "at least some PPs" out of wh-islands, and the licensing of parasitic gaps by these PPs. Manzini shows Italian examples where the extraction of a PP is not possible, but a parasitic gap is possible (cf. her paradigm 45-48/499). Here, she claims that her judgments are "not meant to be absolute, but relative" (1994: 499), and relaxes her condition on coaddressing into the condition of identification of empty categories, concluding that "the PG dependencies as a whole must be address-based"(1994: 499). The second defiant case is the possibility of parasitic gaps occurring in the relative clause of a complex NP, cf. (192) (Manzini's 50/500). Manzini argues that there are not two islands (NP and S') involved, but only a single island (the NP island), because "relative clauses can effectively be construed as objects on N" (1994:503). The well-formed sentence is contrasted with ill-

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

187

formed sentences like (193) (Manzini's 54/ 501)), with a parasitic gap in a relative clause which is sister of a branching N'. On the other hand, she correctly argues that parasitic gaps cannot occur in nonrestrictive relative clauses, cf. (194) (her 52/501). (192) a person that people that talk to usually end up fascinated with t (193) (*)a man that lovers of conversation that talk to e end up fascinated with t (194)

*a person that many people, who talked to e, end up fascinated with t

4.2.1.8 Goodluck - Rochemont (eds.) 1992 (i) Janet Fodor. Fodor treats extractability within her theory of Learnable Phrase-Structure Grammar (and its amended version, the tidemark model of learning). This theory does not have any productive metarules: it has only nonproductive redundancy rules, with a nonproductive lexicon, thus coming close to the model of language acquisition by children. Fodor deals only with extraction from verb complements. According to her, all constraints are universal and innate, and in the course of acquisition, they are rather overridden by additional rules in case they do not hold, than being weakened. The most interesting problem is that of lexical variability with respect to islands, whereby the lexical influence on islands is partly systematic, and partly arbitrary. She assumes that a child learns a possible structure, which is "associated with a universal scale that ranks (potential) lexical items as more and more likely to exhibit it" (1992: 161-162). This system of learning is called symmetrically conservative. She rightly assumes a scale of bridginess, but she is not right in claiming that "non-bridges represent gaps in the expressive capacity of the language" (1992:161). In my view, extraction is possible also across nonbridges, and all verbs of communicating and thinking (such as to whisper, to signal, to quip) should be considered as bridges. (ii) Helen Goodluck - Michael Rochemont. Goodluck - Rochemont address the problem of islands in grammatical theory in general. They compare the treatment of these phenomena in major theories (such as GB, LFG, GPSG), but they abide by many inadequate assumptions of the Chomsky an theory, such as the binary distinction between bridge and nonbridge verbs, or the extraction of wh-elements from the embedded clause to the matrix clause at LF.

188

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

Their approach to island acquisition corroborates my hypothesis about the (almost) universal extractability, and it can be viewed an evidence against Goodluck - Rochemont's own claim about "the almost complete lack of extraction in certain languages": they point out the wider possibilities of extraction in the language of children, cf. (195) (their 23/21), with a reduplication of the extracted wh-element, and (196) (their 24b/22), with a stranded preposition. (195) (196)

Who do you think who is in the box What the dogs sweat through their t?

(iii) Paul Hirschbtihler - Daniel Valois. Hirschbiihler - Valois treat argument extraction out of indirect questions in French. They present many antiChomsky an arguments: First, they claim that there are no differences in extractability between NPs and PPs. Second, they contend that Subjacency is no reliable means of how to account for certain cases of inacceptability. Third, they emphasize the variation in acceptability judgements. Fourth, they acknowledge the scalar character of bridginess. (iv) Robert Kluender. Kluender offers a psycholinguistic (pragmatic) account of extractability: he claims that the extracted elements should be as referentially specific as possible, whereas the elements across which something is extracted should be as referentially void ("inobtrusive") as possible. This is illustrated by his scales of referential specificity. The downgrading scale of referential specificity for extracted elements is found in the paradigm 13a-d/235-236: [a paper - which paper - how many papers - what]. This paradigm can be supplemented by the definite NP the paper as the first degree of the scale, and the phrase what kind of paper as the possibly penultimate degree of the scale). An analogous (but upgrading) scale for the extracted elements is found in the paradigm 14a-d/236, with the degrees [how many men - which man - the man]. On the other hand, scales for the non-extracted elements, i.e., elements across which something is extracted, are found in paradigms 16a-e/238 (with the degrees [someone - a linguist - the linguist - his advisor - John], and in the paradigm 18a-e/239 (with the degrees [everyone - a woman - the woman - her friend - Mary]). Thus, generally, referential specificity has the following degrees, in a downgrading scale: [proper name - pronominal (or pronouninvolving) expression - definite description - indefinite description - wh-NP

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

189

(such as which, what kind of- noun - wh-pronoun]. The other relevant contributions in this volume will be mentioned in 4.5.

4.2.1.9 John Rooryck 1992 Rooryck argues against the inner island and the factive island constraint. He claims that extraction or movement is not possible in the case of the adverbial modifications which are "narrowly linked to the thematic structure of the verb" (1992: 357), and that "against the predictions of Relativized Minimality, the matrix negation does not seem to function as a potential governor for the embedded Spec" (1992: 345). He gives examples of thematically restricted and less restricted types of extracted adverbial modifications: "the Path adverbial is... less restricted than the more abstract Manner-Path"... "the locative adverbial... is restricted by a verb such as spot, which presupposes a specific location, but not by a verb such as find"... "frequency adverbials do not exhibit inner island effects because they are not as restricted semantically as other adverbs" (1992: 357)... "extraction out of negation and factive islands involves the interaction between the CP and the properties of the intermediate C°s" (1992: 346). Rooryck's claim is essentially correct. I would only like to argue that even his unacceptable and questionable cases are cognitively and pragmatically improvable: if one gets rid of the cognitive commitment connected with negative concepts, and if one provides the examples with appropriate contexts, all of them become acceptable. Thus, I do not consider the inner island constraint and the factive constraint as genuine constraints (I call them "nonconstraints"). Rooryck gives convincing counterexamples to the putative ungrammaticall y of extraction out of inner islands, cf. (197) (his 3a/343 respectively). (198) and (199) (his 3la/356 and 33a/357, respectively) are related examples for movement across negation (for similar examples, cf. also Beck 1993). However, even within his correct argument against inner islands, Rooryck unduly considers the example (200) (his 3 lb/356) and similar examples, such as his 29a/356 and 32/357 as unacceptable. (200) can be improved by a contrastive situation where the line in which the argument was not developed is contrasted with the line in which the argument might have been developed. (197) (198)

(l)Who don't you know would like this book (Ί) Which article didn 't you believe that I selected

190

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

(199) (200)

ofnominals

Along which road did(η 't) you drive home every day Along which lines (did)(*n't) you develop the argument

Further, Rooryck gives examples of questionable acceptability of extraction out of factive islands, cf. (201) and (202) (his lc/343 and 39/361) and other similar examples, such as 38/361 and 41/361.1 argue that all of them should be considered as acceptable. I claim that the putative (relatively strong) questionability of (202) (and of Rooryck's 38 and 41/361) is due to the syntactic ambiguity of the extracted element, which may be interpreted as belonging to the embedded or to the matrix sentence (in the course of the processing of the sentence by the hearer, the first alternative is the wrong one, viz., that the wh-element belongs to the matrix sentence, so that "backtracking" must be performed by the hearer). (201) (202)

(Ί) Which article didyou regret/understand/forget that I had selected (??)/« which hotel did we regret that they would hold the meeting

4.2.2 The Chomskyan paradigm for German 4.2.2.1 The Stuttgart report 1993: Extraction in German 4.2.2.1.1 Franz-Joseph Avis 1993 Avis, like the majority of German GB theorists, is rather conservative with respect to Chomskyan teaching, but his examples point to the necessity of transcending the narrow Chomskyan framework. Let me start this overview of Avis' approach by a citation from the end of his article: "the violations of whislands are only restrictedly possible in German..."... "the situation on whislands continues to be confusing, but it seems that the conditions on leaving them imposed by the government are more distinct now" [translated from German by E.K.] (1993: 96). Even with his mistaken adherence to the inner-island constraint, Avis admits that the constraints on extraction are not as strict in German as in English (in fact, his considerations about German are valid, for a great part, also for English). In addition, his generalizations about the extraction out of inner islands would hold for extraction without inner islands, i.e. for extraction in general. Let me mention here some of the subtleties which Avis observes: First, generic phrases are better extractable than nongeneric ones, cf. (203a) vs. (203b)

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

191

(Avis' 1 (i) vs. 1 (ii)/ 64). Among generic NP, plural ones are more prototypical, and hence better extractable, than singular ones (cf. the difference between der Wal 'the whale' and Wale 'whales' in his 61-i vs. 61-ii/85, respectively. Furthermore, Avis claims that pronominal adverbial expressions such as deswegen 'therefore' or dann 'then' are not extractable, not even in contrastive context (cf. l-iv/64 and 65-ii/86, respectively). (203)a. IRadios weiss ich nicht, Radio-Acc-nom-neuter know-1-sg-pres I not wer repariert who repair-3-sg-pres 'Radios, I do not know who repairs' b. (*)Die meisten Radios weiss ich nicht (the most)-Acc-pl radio-pl know-1-sg-pres I not wer repariert hat who repair-past-participle have-3-sg-Aux 'The most radios, I do not know who has repaired' On the other hand, Avis considers another pronominal adverb, damit 'with it' or jetzt 'now' as (slightly questionably) extractable, cf. 69/87 and 68/87, respectively. Nonpronominal adverbials are well extractable: Avis gives examples with the extraction of the phrases an einem Tag 'one day', dienstags 'on Tuesdays', ohne Haken 'without a hook', mit einem Spaten 'with a spade' cf. l-iii/64, 64-iii/86, and 71-ii,i/88, respectively. In (204) and (205), I give only the English equivalents to 65-ii/86 and 71-ii/88. (204)

O.K. Peter is going to the cinema. Are you going to visit him later? (*)Then I don t know whether I should visit him. (205) IWithout a hook, I don't know whether one can angle well I agree with Avis in his relative judgements about extractability, but I do not see any dramatic differences between the classes of generic vs. nongeneric, and pronominal vs. nonpronominal adverbials. I claim that the different degrees in extractability are due to cognitive, psycholinguistic, and pragmatic reasons. First, generic phrases are better topicalizable in general, also by means of "thematizers" such as as regards, because they can better serve as a "hypertheme" of a longer speech.

192

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

Second, I claim that pronominal adverbials are badly extractable because they can be interpreted as ambiguous between belonging to the matrix and to the embedded sentence. Nonpronominal (lexical) adverbials are not so ambiguous, because their semantic content may help in the disambiguation. Further, Avis claims that extraction of nongeneric phrases is improvable by intonation, cf. (206) (his 75/89) with an extracted definite phrase, and his paradigm 77i-iv/89, where he shows the improved extractability of a definite phrase, of an indefinite phrase, of a phrase with the quantifier die meisten 'most', and with a proper name. However, he does not connect his considerations about intonation with an acccount of the Topic-Focus articulation of the sentence. In his examples, there are two identical intonation peaks (indicated in the same way - by capitals), viz., on the extracted element and on negation (NICHT). I would claim that the first intonation peak is secondary (Contrastive Topic), and the other is primary (Focus). Moreover, Avis incorrectly deems as unacceptable the sentence where the predicate across which a whelement is extracted is a predicate of thinking: ist mir egal Ί don't care'. (206)

IDas RADIO weiss ich NICHT the-Acc-sg-neuter radio know-l-sg-pres I not ob Peter reparieren kann whether Peter repair-inf can-3-sg-pres-modal Ί do not know whether Peter can repair the radio'

The next issue of major importance (which Avis treats only marginally) is the extraction of a wh-element out of a sequence of three interrogative whelements, cf. (207a) (his 87/92), with a possible answer in (207b) (my example, only in English). I do not agree with Avis' generalization in 96/94 saying that the non-extracted wh-elements, unlike the extracted one, are bound by a wh-operator. I claim that all of these wh-elements, whether extracted or non-extracted, are equivalent in their status: they are directly interrogative elements belonging to the embedded sentence within which they can be moved or out of which they can be extracted. In Czech, and presumably also in English, the extraction of one wh-element out of two ones sounds acceptable, especially if both elements have a contrastive interpretation, i.e., if there are given sets of items, out of which the proper items are picked up and used in the answer. This can be illustrated by the Czech (207) and the English (208):

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

of nominals

193

(207)a. Koho myslis, ze kdo uderil Whom do you think that who hit 'whom do you think who hit' (208)a. Where do you think who was crying? b. Where do you think which girls were crying? (207) can be used if e.g. a school class of boys is considered. (208) can be used if there is a group of girls prone to crying, and a set of places where it is probable that they would cry. Note that (208b) is better that (208a), because (208b) contains a more definite (contrastive) NP (which girls) suggesting a given set of girls.

4.2.2.1.2 Jürgen Pafel 1993 Pafel treats the extraction of wh- and non-wh-elements out of NPs. He distinguishes two types of elements: those where short extraction is unrestrictedly possible, and those where extraction is constrained. To the former group belong the w-alles 'wh-all' splitting constructions, floating quantifiers such as alle 'all' or beide 'both', and partitive PPs. To the latter group belongs the was-fur 'what-kind-of splitting and non-partitive PPs. Among these PPs, complements to NPs are not extractable, but adjunct PPs are subject to a thematic constraint formulated in 4-48/221: 'The extraction of an argument with a thematic role R is only possible if in the same sentence there is no argument with a higher thematic role with respect to the hierarchy [Theme - Agent/Experiencer - Patient - Bearer of a property or of a state]". (This hierarchy reminds one of the suggestion made in Rooryck 1992, and of my suggestion made independently of the extant proposals of thematic hierarchies, cf. below in 4.3.4.) The possibilities of extraction, with nuances of acceptability, can be illustrated by (209) and (210) (Pafel's 4-42c/220 and 4-47/b/221, respectively). (209) ?* Von Bismarck hat er dem Vater of Bismarck have-3-sg-Aux he the-Dat-sg-masc father geholfen help-past-participle 'He has helped the father of Bismarck'

194

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

(210)

ofnominals

Über Bismarck sind viele neue Bücher About Bismarck be-3-sp-Aux many-Acc-pl new book-pl erschienen appear-past-participle 'There appeared many new books about Bismarck'

Another topic tackled by Pafel ist the impact of negation. He presents a number of paradigms of examples, such as 7-1 with the pronominal adverbial drauf 'on that' preceding and following negation, without a satisfactory account. I claim that drauf in (211) (Pafel's 7-lc/239) cannot stand before negation because it is not a clitic which could be prosodically appended to the sequence da kann ich 'so I can': rather, drauf functions as Contrastive Topic, because it can stand sentence-initially. As noted by Professor Werner Winter, (211) can be a blend between the standard German, where darauf 'on-that' stands sentence-initially, and North German where auf 'on' stands after negation. I claim that da 'there' may be a sentence-connecting particle, corresponding to the Czech particle to with a variable meaning 'thus','in this case', 'under these circumstance', as evidenced by exception, cf. Ich bin stark erhältet. - Du mußt da zum Arzt - Ί have an intense cold. I that case, you should go to see a doctor'. As regards the sentence 7-6c/240,1 claim that the separated (floating) quantifier camianot stand before negation because it belongs - along ith the negation - to the Focus. The acceptability of the sentence (212) (Pafel's 7-7b/240) should be attributed to the fact that the negated verb (nicht anfassen dürfen 'not to be allowed to touch') belongs to the Topic (being destressed), whereas the Focus is constituted by the focalized (and stressed) expression nur wenige 'only few'. (211)

(212)

l*Da kann ich drauf nicht verzichten so can-l-sg-pres-modal I on-that not give-up-inf 'So, I cannot give it up' Schlangen haben wir nur wenige anfassen snake-Acc-pl have-3-l-Aux we only few-Acc-pl touch-inf dürfen / können may-inf-modal can-3-pl-past-participle 'Snakes, we were allowed to / able to touch only a few'

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

195

4.2.2.1.3 Uli Lutz 1993 Lutz treats extraction out of adverbial clauses and infinitival constructions in German. He claims that generally such extraction is impossible, except for Object wh-extraction out of Purpose infinitival constructions, and non-whextraction out of finite adverbial clauses in Bavarian (cf. (213) (Lutz's 81/172)). I claim that this construction is mistakenly called "Fokuskonstruktion": in fact, the extracted expression belongs to the Contrastive Topic. Lutz brings to attention the theoretical problems of the account of extraction out of adjuncts: the assumption of opacity of adverbial clauses must be supplemented by additional relaxations in terms of Subjacency. He considers it difficult to account simultaneously for the impossibility of extraction out of "proper" adverbial adjuncts, and the Object-adjunct asymmetry with the extraction out of "improper" adjuncts. (213)

Das Bier, wenn ich t trinke, bin the-Acc-sg-neuter beer when I (it) drink-1 -sg-pres be-1 -sg-pres ich gleich besoffen I immediately drunk 'This beer, when I drink it, I get immediately drunk'

4.2.2.2 Stuttgart report 1991: Aspects of wh-questions 4.2.2.2.1 Marga Reis 1991 Reis treats echo wh-questions. She offers a rich grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic characteristics thereof, but she fails to give an account in terms of the Topic-Focus articulation of the sentence. Thus, Reis makes the following claims: (a) Echo wh-questions are no proper interrogative sentences (p. 76); they do not exhibit any structurally justified [+wh]-feature (1991: 79). (b) Echo-questions do not have a quotational character (1991: 86). (c) Although the wh-element is positionally free (it need not occur sentence-initially (cf. (215) (Reis lb/76)), it takes wide scope (the wh-element is related to the whole sentence) (1991: 80). (d) Echo questions do not directly imply the content of the proposition, but rather, they imply that someone asserts the proposition (1991: 100).

196

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

(e) Indirectly interrogative (relative, sentence-connective) wh-elements cannot have an echo-character (1991: 80). (f) On the other hand, echo wh-elements can occur in echo questions formed from original yes-no questions and from originally imperative sentences (cf. (216) (Reis' 15g/83); I give only its English equivalent). I would like to add a short comment here: this occurrence is not surprising, since echo wh-questions are reactions to misunderstandings, which occur if an element in a declarative etc. sentence has not been understood. Thus, echo wh-elements can occur in echo questions formed from declarative and imperative sentences, and also from original wh-questions (cf. (214), for which I am thankful to Professor Werner Wintter)) (214)

Say, what was the price of chicken today? - The price of WHAT?

(g) Echo questions can only restrictedly contain communicative particles such as halt 'actually', doch 'nevertheless',^ 'just' (1993: 83). On the other hand, I claim, echo wh-elements can stand in the surfacebackward scope of scoping expressions such as mainly etc., cf. WHO mainly, WHO else, etc. (where the scoping expression has a forward scope in the deep representation, cf. Chapter 3). (i) It is possible to ask by means of a nominal echo wh-element (such as was 'what' for misunderstood verbal expression (1991: 85-87). The thrust of Reis' argumentation consists in the following claim: the semantics of the wh-lexeme consists of two parts, the operator part and the nonoperator part. In echo wh-questions, it is always the operator part which is focused. This focusing is carried out by the accent on the first (wh-) syllable of the wh-word (cf. WARum 'why', and it cannnot have a contrastive interpretation (cf. (217) (Reis' 42a/92)). On the other hand, in proper interrogative whelements, if multisyllabic, the acccent is placed on the non-wh-part of the interrogative word, cf. warUM 'why'. On the other hand, Professor Werner Winter points out that the first syllable can be focused also in other cases, such as in rhetorical questions (WOmit habe ich das verdient?); in first-person questions (WArum ich das getan habe? (here, I assume a special intonation of the whole sentence; it is asked and answered by the speaker himself)), and in sentences with the particle nur 'only', cf. WArum ist das Buch nur so teuer? He proposes to distinguish primary information question, with the intonation peak on the non-wh-part of the interrogative expression (such as in Wie TEUER war das Buch? 'How

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

of nominals

197

EXPENSIVE was the book', and repeat questions with the intonation peak on the wh-part of the interrogative expression (such as in WIE teuer (sagst du) war das Buch 'HOW expensive (did you say) was the book'. In the latter case, the information is known from the context, and a moment of pseudo-surprise is involved. The former case corresponds to non-echo questions, and the latter to echo questions with repertoire of cases broader than those which have been up till now included. (215)

(216) (216)

Karl hat über Hamann Charles-Nom-sg-masc have-3-sg-Aux about Haman bei WEM gearbeitet with who-Dat-sg work-past-participle 'With WHOM has Charles worked about Hamann?' Down with WHOM? WARum hast du mich verlassen why have-2-sg-Aux you-Nom-sg me-Acc leave-past-participle 'Why did you leave me'

My argument about echo wh-questions is as follows: in echo-questions only the wh-element belongs to the Focus, the rest of the sentence belonging to Noncontrastive Topic. On the other hand, in proper interrogative questions, there must always occur a non-wh-element belonging to the Focus with respect to which the question is asked. This element is the most communicatively important element of the Focus, relegating the wh-element to the penultimate position in the scale of degrees of communicative importance of the sentence. As Professor Werner Winter puts it, "in case of the stressed whpart of an interrogative element the crucial thing is that information is saught for a second time while normally wh-qustions are meant to get information that has not been textually provided". Unlike Reis (1991: 91), I claim that there can be multiple echo whquestions implying a contrast between the non-operator parts of the whexpression. Also, I claim that examination and quiz questions can be formulated in both ways, viz., as as proper interrogative questions with a specific pragmatic background (viz., the interrogator knows the answer), or as echo questions. This is borne out by the fact that these questions can have the same Topic-Focus articulation as proper interrogative questions, viz., with a peak of intonation on a non-wh-element. (Cf. 4.4 for more detail.)

198

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

In these terms, Reis' major problem, viz., whether echo wh-questions constitute grammatically and pragmatically a unitary phenomenon, or whether there is only a formal and functional kinship between echo and quiz questions (Reis 1991: 106), can be solved. I claim that echo wh-questions are definable, first of all, generatively, i. e., in terms of the communicative-information structure of the sentence (mainly, in terms of the Topic-Focus distinction). Only then can one define them formally (as regards their intonational properties) and interpretively (pragmatically), e. g., as regards their presuppositions. I would like to emphasize that I assume that echo wh-questions (such as WHO came?) presuppose neither a proposition nor an assertion thereof: in case the answer to the echo wh-element is a negative element (such as nobody), the corresponding proposition or its assertion (such as somebody came) is not presupposed.

4.2.2.2.2 Jörg Meibauer 1991 Meibauer deals with implicatures of wh-questions, especially of the rhetoric ones. He compares two approaches: that of Jacobs (who assumes that the implication with wh-questions is conversational, introducing the attitudinal operator FRAGE 'question'), and that of Rosengren (who assumes that the implication with wh-questions is conventional). It can be assumed that the former solution is the (more) correct one, since the implicatures of wh-questions are dependent on the world knowledge of the interlocutors. Meibauer gives a a paradigm of wh-questions involving particles occurring after the wh-words (such as schon 'actually', auch 'also', denn 'then', eigentlich 'actually', nur 'only', wohl 'perhaps', bloss 'only', doch 'nevertheless'), observing that these particles are used when a negative answer (such as nobody) is expected. However, Professor Werner Winter points out that they can be used also in positive contexts, cf. Warum nur hast du das getan? 'why only have you done it', or Wieso eigentlich hast du da getan ? 'why actually have you done it'. Again, I would like to add that these particles are operators with a surface-backward scope extending over the wh-element.

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

199

4.3 Universal extractability of wh-elements 4.3.1 General issues I claim that there is an (almost) universal extractability of elements out of embedded sentences. This claim is based on the assumption of the universal expressibility (effability) of natural language: any element (syntactic relation) can be asked for. In this section, I would like to show that the overwhelming majority of constraints on wh-extraction (I have found over twenty of them in the literature) are due to extralinguistic (pragmatic, psycholinguistic) reasons, such as lack of appropriate context, pragmatic or cognitive oddity of any kind, and degrees of processing complexity. Accordingly, the majority of the putatively ungrammatical, unacceptable, or questionable examples can be pragmatically improved, viz., by shortening, lengthening, changing the lexical cast of the sentence etc. In connection with this basic claim, I argue that the extracted elements should not be viewed as belonging to the matrix sentence with its SPEC-CP "landing site", but rather, to the embedded sentence out of which they have been extracted. The appurtenance of the extracted element to the sentence out of which it has been extracted is twofold: (a) The syntactic appurtenance. The extracted element belongs to the syntactic (valency, etc.) structure of the embedded sentence out of which it has been extracted. The Chomsky an claim that the extracted element belongs to the matrix sentence would have counterintuitive consequences, viz., that the matrix sentence would have, e. g., two Direct Objects: its own Direct Object and the extracted Direct Object. On the other hand, the extracted Direct Object would be missing in the syntactic structure of the embedded sentence. (b) Appurtenance to communicative-information parts, such as Topic or Focus. The extracted element belongs to the communicative-information structure of the embedded sentence out of which it has been extracted. Thus, an extracted wh-element belongs to the wh-part of the Focus of the embedded sentence, and an extracted non-wh-element usually belongs to the Contrastive Topic (but it may also belong to the Focus) of the embedded sentence. The extractability of the element is dependent on its appurtenance to one of the three major communicative-information parts of the (embedded) sentence: Noncontrastive Topic (prototypically nonextractable), Contrastive Topic (best extractable) and Focus (extractable only if special (emotional) emphasis is involved). Given the syntactic and communicative-information-

200 Wh-extraction and cross-categorization ofnominals

structure appurtenance of the extracted element to the embedded sentence out of which it has been extracted, it is necessary to integrate into the formal framework of WOBG the sentence-initial position of the extracted element. This position cannot be directly accounted for in terms of deep word-order (which is based on the communicative-information structure) nor in terms of surface word-order (which is morphologically based). Hence, I propose that it is necessary to introduce an enriched specification of surface word-order involving syntactic notions, such as sentence boundaries (cf. also Chapter 2 above). I propose that the whole array of the Chomskyan constraints can be arranged into four groups with increasing degrees of acceptability. The first group involves cases of genuine (unimprovable) inacceptability. The second group involves syntactically specifiable, but pragmatically improvable, cases of unacceptability or considerably strong questionability. The third group involves semantically and pragmatically specifiable (and pragmatically improvable) cases of (usually) mediocre questionability. The fourth group involves what may be called nonconstraints - cognitively and pragmatically specifiable (and fully pragmatically improvable) cases of mild questionability (some of which are improperly considered as unacceptable). Abstracting from the degrees of acceptability, the Chomskyan constraints can be subcategorized as follows: (a) Morphologicallly-based constraints (such as thai-trace effect, extraction out of coordination). (b) Syntactically-based constraints (all of which are presumably due to processing complexity) (such as extraction out of complex NPs or extraction out of several embedded sentences). (c) Semantically-based constraints (such as extraction across untypical bridge verbs or across nonbridge verbs). (d) Cognitive constraints (such as extraction out of inner islands or extraction of nonarguments out of wh-islands). (e) Pragmatic constraints (such as extraction out of Determiner islands). I have taken into account also other languages than English, where the possibilities of extraction may differ: most notably, Czech as my mother tongue, and German. I assume that the possibilities of extraction valid for Czech hold also for the other Slavic languages, such as Russian. In general, it seems that the possibilities of extraction are better in Slavic languages than in English. There are certain constraints which are assumed to be language-specific, such as the that-trace effect valid for English, which does not hold in Czech. The

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

of nominals

201

other polarity is constituted by constraints which are presumably universal (or "statistically" universal, with possibly a few exceptions), such as the prohibition of extraction out of coordination. The particular constraints on wh-extraction will be described in what follows. In the survey below consisting of four groups, the particular types of extraction are numbered consecutively (i) through (xxii).

4.3.2 Group I: genuine constraints (i) The constraint on the extraction out of coordination. No elements may be extracted out of coordination, cf. (218a). This constraint is unimprovably unacceptable, presumably universal, and universally acknowledged in linguistic literature. In this case, one can speak about ungrammaticality. This case is improvable by the insertion of the resumptive personal pronoun, cf. (218b). (Let me only note here that that the personal pronoun has, in the default case, the masculine gender although its referent may be feminine.) (218)a. *Who, do you think that John loves Mary and t, b. Who, do you think that John loves Mary and himt (ii) The inadmissibility of the surface sequence [full COMP - empty Subject] in English (my proposal). I propose this constraint for English; it yields cases of unimprovable unacceptability. The empty Subject can be a trace or a parasitic gap. (a) The well-known instance of this generalization is the that-trace effect in English (cf. e.g. Freidin 1994: 1378), according to which the Subject (unlike the Object) cannot be extracted across the conjunctions that, cf. (219a). This case of inacceptability is improvable by the omission of the conjunction (cf. (219b)), rather than the insertion of a resumptive pronoun (cf. (219c)). However, there is an interesting counter-example to the that-trace effect, due to Professor Werner Winter, cf. (219d). This may be due to the different subcategorization character of the verb to know (which can combine with whpronouns, cf. I know who came) with respect to to think (*/ think who came). (219)a. *Whos do you think that tt came b. Who, do you think tt came

202

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization ofnominals

c. d.

HWhOj do you think that he, came HWho do you know that he lives here?

(b) The second instance of this generalization is the inaceptability of the extraction of the Subject across the conjunction whether, cf. (220a) (this unacceptability has been erroneously attributed to the wh-island character of the conjunction whether, because of its phonological shape). This case is improvable by the insertion of the resumptive personal pronoun, cf. (220b). (220)a. *WhOj do you wonder whether 1, can help us b. Who, do you wonder whether he, can help us (c) The third instance of this generalization is the unacceptability of the case where the full COMP is a conjunction introducing adverbial sentences, such as because or after (in which case the empty Subject is a parasitic gap), cf. (221a) (my example) with an improvement by the pronoun he in (221b). (221a) can be improved also by the insertion of an expression introducing indirect speech, such as Mary said, cf. (221c) (corresponding to Lasnik - Uriagereka's 1988: 34/76). In fact, Lasnik - Uriagereka make a related point, contrasting the (almost) acceptable sentence with the sequence Mary said and the unacceptable sentence with the sequence he said (cf. (221c, d) (their 34a, b/76 example) (cf. also Lasnik - Saito's 1992 example 46/115 mentioned above.). In fact, (221c) can be also taken as an improvement of my (221a), so that there are two ways of improving the sequence [full COMP - empty Subject] in (221a) by making the Subject "full": either by inserting the resumptive pronoun he, or by inserting the sequence Mary said. The inacceptability of (22Id) can be assigned to still another constraint, which I posit for parasitic gaps, viz., the symmetry of (referential) anaphoric means, i.e., the inadmissibility of the sequence [pronoun - zero exression] or vice versa, as in (221d), cf. 4.5 below for more detail. (221)a. * ?Who, did you hire because PG, would work hard b. Who, did you hire because he, would work hard c. IWho, did you hire because Mary said PG, would work hard d. *Who, did you hire because he said PG, would work hard

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization of nominals

203

(d) The fourth instance of this generalization is the unacceptability of the case where the full COMP is an indirectly interrogative (relative, sentenceconnective) wh-element. This is illustrated in (222a) (where the indirectly interrogative element is when, and the empty Subject is a trace). (222a) can be improved by a resumptive pronoun, cf. the almost acceptable (222b) (both of the examples in (222) are my examples). In judging the improving of the acceptability of (222a) by the insertion of a resumptive pronoun, I assume the universal expressibility of natural language: everything must be expressible in some way or other (for example, by periphrases or by insertion of resumptive pronouns, even if they may sound questionable). For the purpose of expressing the contents conveyed by (222), the variant with resumptive pronoun sounds better than the variant without it. I would like to emphasize that the paradigm in (222) is directly analogous to the paradigm with ί/ιαί-trace (extraction of Subject), where the inadmissible sequence [that -empty Subject] is fully improvable by the resumptive pronoun he. (222)a. *Who, do you know when tt came b. IWhoj do you know when he, came (iii) The impossibility of (simultaneous) extraction of wh-elements out of more than one embedded sentence in the relation of subordination (my constraint, up to now unnoticed). This is exemplified in (223a). The variant of (223a) with the wh-elements in situ, such as in an echo-question, is given in (223b). (223b) roughly corresponds to the deep representation of (222a) (only, in the deep representation, the wh-elements would be communicatively less important than the non-wh-elements of the Foci of the embedded sentences, cf. 4.4 below). The structure in (223b) is far easier to process, and hence, more intelligible than (223a) (anyway, it could be readily answered, cf. (223c)). Thus, this constraint is a typical case of a syntactically specifiable but essentially processing-complexity based constraint. (223)a. *(to) whom, what2 do you think John sent a letter t, after he had eaten t2 b. (l)you think John sent a letter (to) whom after he had eaten what c. I think John sent a letter to Mary after he had eaten the prawn cocktail

204

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

4.3.3 Group II: syntactically specifiable constraints This group involves syntactically specifiable but pragmatically improvable, cases of inacceptability or relatively strong questionability. All of them are cases of syntactically-conditioned processing complexity. The improvements consist in the loosening of the structure of the sentence, especially by making extracted element more referential (e.g., by lenthening, by substituting a whpronoun by a wh-NP, etc.) This is in accord with Kluender's 1992 assumption that the more "referentially specific" the extracted elements, the more acceptable the extraction (cf. 4.2 above). (iv) The extraction of a directly interrogative wh-element out of the embedded sentence across another wh-element in the matrix sentence in English, cf. (224a). (In this sentence, the extracted element (= the directly interrogative element of the embedded sentence) is whom, and the element across which it has been extracted is who. This case is almost unacceptable in English, and improvable by means of embedding the extracted wh-element, i.e. by the substitution of the wh-element by an expression which contains the wh-element, and by a parenthetization (loosening) of the whole extracted expression, cf. (224b) (my example). The answer to (224b) is in (224c). (224)a. *nwhoml who knows where John hit tj b. lithe legend of(which city),, who knows where John narrated t, c. Mary knows where John narrated the legend of Jerusalem, and Peggy knows where John narrated the legend of Jericho The Czech counterpart to (224a), viz., (225) is perfectly acceptable. Moreover, the movement or extraction of the wh-element in Czech is obligatory, i.e., the directly interrogative wh-element in the embedded sentence cannot occur the sentence-final position as in English. There are four possibilities of movement/extraction of this wh-element in Czech, one of which must be chosen: (a) movement to the position immediately after the indirectly interrogative element of the embedded sentence; (b) movement to the position immediately before the indirectly interrogative element of the embedded sentence; (c) extraction to the position immediately after the directly interrogative element of the matrix sentence;

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

of nominals

205

(d) extraction to the position immediately before the directly interrogative element of the matrix sentence. These four possibilities are schematically represented in (226a, b, c, d), respectively. The example (225) represents the (d) possibility. When I speak about "movement" in Czech, I have in mind what I call "leftward shift" (cf. 2.4 above): the directly interrogative wh-element in the embedded sentence is shifted from its deep position immediately before the non-wh part of the Focus to the left, i.e., it "jumps" across an element of the Topic of the embedded sentence. I assume that this deep position holds for Czech as well as for English. Let me note that in a possible answer, the directly interrogative wh-elements (whom and who in (224a), and of which city and who in (224c)) are answered at the same time, whereas the indirectly interrogative element remains unanswered, cf. the answer to (224b) in (224c). In Czech, the answers to questions with the surface word-order such as in (226a, b, c, d) are a means of disambiguation of the types of the wh-elements standing side by side. (225)

(226)a.

b.

c.

d.

Koho kdo vi, kde Honza uhodil whom who know-3-sg-pret where John hit-3-sg-pret (literally) 'Whom who knows where John hit' 'Who knows where John hit whom' [the matrix sentence - the indirectly interrogative element of the embedded sentence - the directly interrogative (moved) element of the embedded sentence the rest of the embedded sentence] [the matrix sentence - the directly interrogative (moved) element of the embedded sentence - the indirectly interrogative element of the embedded sentence - the rest of the embedded sentence] [the directly interrogative element of the matrix sentence - the directly interrogative (extracted) element of the embedded sentence - the rest of the matrix sentence - the embedded sentence (without the directly interrogative element)] [the directly interrogative (extracted) element of the embedded sentence - the directly interrogative element of the matrix sentence - the rest of the matrix sentence - the embedded sentence (without the extracted element)]

206

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

(v) Extraction out of Sentential Subject, cf. (227). This extraction is (almost) unacceptable, but slightly improvable by substituting the less referential pronoun who by the more referential which-NP, cf. (228) (my improvement). (227) (228)

*/lwho, does that John likes t, bother Rex *Hl[which girl out of Rex' girlfriends], does that John like t, bother Rex

(vi) Extraction out of Nominal Subject, cf. (229). This extraction is (almost) unacceptable, but slightly better-sounding than that out of Sentential Subject. Accordingly, also its analogous improvement by a which-NP (cf. (230) (my example)) sounds better than that of the extraction out of Sentential Subject. (229) (230)

* Π whot does a picture oft, disturb Ron V.[which beautiful girl], does a picture oft, disturb Ron

(vii) Extraction out of Specified Subject, cf. (231a). This extraction is (almost) unacceptable according to GB theorists, but only questionable in my view (better sounding than the extraction out of Sentential and Nominal Subject). Its analogous improvement, by a which-NP, is given in (231b) (my example). (231)a. llwhat, do you think a picture oft, would please Bill b. l[which beautiful girl], do you think a picture oft, would please Bill (viii) Extraction of a nominal adjunct across another nominal adjunct, cf. (232a) (Manzini's 1992:40/7), which is considered as unacceptable by her (in the Italian version). I think, however, that this inacceptability is basically due to its processing complexity. This sentence is improvable by replacing the infinitival construction by a finite embedded sentence, cf. (232b) (my example). Thus, this constraint is a case of syntactically based unacceptability, which is psycholinguistically based on processing complexity. (232)a. ??[J3y which painter], do you wonder of which philosopher to buy a portrait t,

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

207

b. l{By which painter], do you wonder of which philosopher we should buy a portrait t, (ix) Extraction out of a complex NP, cf. (233a) (Saddy's 1992: 17/415). This extraction is improvable by substituting the less referential wh-pronoun by a more referential wh-NP, and by lengthening the NP out of which the whelement has been extracted by adding an adnominal adjunct, cf. (233b) (Saddy's own improvement, 1992: 18/415). (233)a. */lWhatj did you hear the claim that Bill wrote tt b. l[What florid tale], did you hear the ridiculous claim that Bill wrote t,

4.3.4 Group III: semantically and pragmatically specifiable constraints This group involves semantically and pragmatically specifiable and pragmatically improvable cases of wh-extraction. There are two cases involved: the first is the extraction of the so-called nonargumental types of syntactic relations (with a semantic specification of the putative inacceptability in terms of the argumental character of the extracted element), and the second one is the extraction out of Determiner islands (with a pragmatic specification of the putative unacceptability in terms of the definiteness of the island). (x) Extraction of nonargumental (nonreferential) syntactic relations out of wh-islands, cf. (234a) (= Rizzi's 1992: 18/8 (= 32c/88)). This is the prohibited type of extraction treated in Rizzi 1990, cf. also 4.2.1.3 above. In this case, according to Rizzi, neither binding is possible (because the element is not referential), nor is government possible (because there is the blocking element of the same type as the extracted element). However, as was mentioned above in 4.2.1.3, Rizzi himself brings counterevidence by producing acceptable Italian sentences with adverbial whelements extracted out of wh-islands, and I claim that all cases of such extractions are essentially acceptable due to the universal expressibility (effability) of natural language: anything can be asked for. The extraction of adverbial modifications (such as Manner, Time, Place and Causal modifications) yields potential cases of ambiguity: the extracted element may be understood as belonging to the matrix or to the embedded sentence, whereby the primary (but

208

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

wrong) interpretation is its appurtenance to the matrix sentence (cf. (235a)). These cases are not easy to process, and the hearer must backtrack. However, extractions of adverbial modifications can be made acceptable by means of an appropriate context, such as a special context of misunderstanding in (234b), or a usual context by means of which the type of the syntactic relation of the extracted phrase is made obvious. This is illustrated in (235b) ((234) and (235) are my examples). (234)a. (*)When, do you wonder which problem to solve t, b. Excuse me, I did not understand your first word. WHEN do you wonder which problem to solve ? -1 wonder which problem to solve NEXT. (235)a. Why, do you think he left t, ? b. I think he must have left for some urgent reasons. Why do YOU think that he left? Good examples for the ambiguity in question are found in Rizzi 1990: 37d/91 and 39e/91 (cf. (236) and (237), respectively - 1 give only the English equivalents to Rizzi's Italian examples). Here belongs also Manzini's putatively unacceptable example (1992: 56/115), where an adjunct (why) is extracted across the verb regret. The unacceptability of this example is contrasted with the acceptability of 57/115, where an Object (what) is extracted. Cinque 1990 gives examples with the NP per questa ragione 'for this reason' and with the wh-phrase per quale ragione 'for which reason' extracted across the verb to say. In his view, the extraction of the wh-phrase is acceptable (cf. his example 13b/64), but the extraction of the NP is acceptable only if this NP is stressed (cf. the acceptable 13a/64 vs. the unacceptable 14/65). However, Rizzi 1990 makes the opposite claim, viz., that the extraction of the wh-phrase per quale ragione 'for which reason' in Italian is unacceptable (cf. his 60a/104), whereas the extraction of the unstressed NP per questa ragione 'for this reason' is acceptable (cf. his 59a/104). (236) (237)

(*)(In what way), don't you remember what we said t, (*)(For what reason), don't you remember what we said t,

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization ofnominals

209

Generally, it can be proposed that the extractability of argumental and nonargumental syntactic relations can be determined according to an Accessibility Hierarchy, with no clearcut boundary, but rather a continuous transition, between argumental and nonargumental syntactic relations. For cognitive reasons, best extractable are argumental relations such as Object and Subject, but this is not directly structured by the system of natural language. (xi) Extraction out of Determiner islands. Extraction out of Determiner islands has been wrongly considered as unacceptable, cf. (238a) (Manzini's 1992: 36/6). In this case, the island has a definite (Discourse-linked) character, due to the definite article, so that it is necessary to supply an appropriate context in order to improve the sentence, cf. (238b) (my example). (238)a. (*)Who, did you see the many portraits oft, b.

I saw the many portraits of Rembrandt's wife by Rembrandt. And who did you see the many portraits of? There were many famous persons who had beeen painted several times, whose many portraits can be seen at the exhibition.

4.3.5 Group IV: nonconstraints This group involves putative constraints on extraction, which should be considered as nonconstraints. They should be viewed as extralinguistically (cognitively) based cases of mild questionability, which are easily pragmatically improvable. There have been many cases of mistaken judgments of acceptability, and of variance among linguists in this domain, (xii) Extraction out of inner islands. The best example of a mistaken conception of unacceptability is extraction out of inner islands, i.e., extraction (or movement) across negation. This constraint is still acknowledged by the German linguists (cf. the proceedings of the Stuttgart workshop on wh-extraction discussed above), although in the English-based literature (Rizzi 1990, Rooryck 1992) substantial arguments against this contraint can be found. If one gets rid of the cognitive commitment with respect to negative concepts (by considering negative cases simply as exceptions to positive ones), all examples of extraction / movement across negation become acceptable: one can imagine cases where something has not been done (or has not happened) as a complementary set to those cases where something has been done (or happened), with respect to some superset of all possible affairs.

210

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

Let me start my considerations by presenting a case where the negative variant, with extraction across negation, sounds even better (i.e., is cognitively more prototypical, due to our world knowledge) than the positive variant (cf. (239a) vs. (239b), respectively). (239)a. What don't you know how it is done b. What do you know how it is done Second, let me quote the English equivalents to some of Rizzi's 1990 Italian examples (which I consider universally acceptable or slightly questionable, cf. (240), (241) and (242) (Rizzi s 17c/80, 37a/ 37c/91)). Here belongs also Rizzi's French example 8a/77, whose English equivalent is given in (243). Further, let me refer back to Rooryck's considerations in support of the refutation of the inner-island constraint. It should be added that Manzini (1992: 108-118) acknowledges inner and factive islands only for adjuncts, not for Subjects and Objects. (240) (241) (242) (243)

('l)(What book), do you not know whom to give tl (?)(/« what shop), don't you remember what we bought t, (??)(Ai what time,) don't you remember what we said t, ('l)(With whom), don't you know how to behave t,

(xiii) Extraction out of factive islands. What has been said about extraction out of inner islands holds also for extraction out of factive islands: in my intuition, extraction out of factive islands is acceptable, cf. (244). Of course also extraction out of factive island combined with an inner island is acceptable, cf. (245) (my example). (244) (245)

Which article did you regret/understand/forget that I had selected Which article didn 't you regret/understand/forget that I had selected

(xiv) Extraction across untypical bridge verbs and nonbridge verbs. I argue that semantically/cognitively, there is a smooth transition between typical and untypical bridge verbs of communication and thinking (from typical bridge verbs such as to say to untypical bridge verbs such as to signal, to whisper, to dream, to pretend, etc.), and that the extraction across these verbs is essen-

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

211

tially possible. Moreover, elements can be extracted, with an amount of processing complexity, even across blatantly nonbridge verbs, such as verbs taking obligatory nominal Direct Objects. Generally, I propose that the verbs across which wh-extraction is possible can be semantically classified into several groups, according to the difference between the set of referents coreferential with the interrogative word in questions without extraction (SET-1) and in questions with extraction (SET-2), where the wh-element is in the scope of the verb across which it has been extracted. These groups can be characterized as follows. (a) Verbs of propositional attitude, such as to believe, cf. (246). In this case, if the belief, etc., is correct, SET-1 and SET-2 are identical. (246)

Whoj do you believe John hit t,

(b) Quotation verbs, such as to say, cf. (247). In this case, if the quotation is correct, SET-1 and SET-2 are identical. (247)

Whoj did Bob say John hit t,

(c) World-creating verbs such as to dream or to pretend. In this case, SET-1 and SET-2 are intended to be presented as disjunct. Accidentally, these two sets may be identical, but in this case, an explicit cancelling of the nonidentity implicature is necessary, cf. (248a, b, c). (248)a. Whom, does John pretend that he loves t,? b. Sue. c. Oh no, you are mistaken, he really loves her, only his ostentatious gestures towards her are not sincere. (d) Factive verbs, such as to know. In this case, SET-2 is a subset of SET-1, because the verb functions as a restrictive element. To this semantic type, there belong also objectively or subjectively evaluative predicates such as to be illegal, cf. the almost acceptable (slightly questionable) (249). (249)

IWho, is it illegal that John hit t1 ?

212

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

(e) Nonbridge verbs taking Direct Objects, such as to leave (England), cf. (250a) and (250b) for a finite embedded sentence and an infinitival construction out of which the wh-element has been extracted, respectively. Cf. also Lasnik - Saito's 1992 acknowledgment of this type of extraction as essentially acceptable, cf. (251) (their example 37a/113). Such sentences are difficult to process due to to the occurrence of the Direct Object in the main clause, combined with the presence of the extracted wh-Object. (250)a. IWhom, did you leave England after you kissed t, b. Whomj did you leave England without kissing t, (251) llWho, did you leave for London after you visited t: (xv) Extraction out of Tense islands. I claim that also this constraint is void. This extraction should be considered as fully acceptable, on a par with extraction out of sentences with the present tense and out of nonfinite constructions, cf. (252a) and (252b) (Manzini's 1992: 66/117 and 67/117, respectively). Manzini correctly assumes that Chomsky's 1986 judgment of inacceptability of (252b) is mistaken, and that both (252a) and (252b) should be considered as equally acceptable. She points out the ad-hoc character of Chomsky's solution of this problem, because it rests on the assumption that a tensed IP is exceptionally an inherent barrier. (252)a. Whatj do you wonder how to repair b. (*)Whatj do you wonder how John repaired t, (xvi) Extraction of non-Discourse-linked wh-elements. I argue that Discourse-linked wh-elements can be extracted even if there obtains an "aggressively non-Discourse-linked" element in the sentence, such as the hell in the putatively unacceptable Pesetskyan examples given in Lasnik - Saito 1992, viz., (253) and (254) (Lasnik and Saito's 128b/173 and 137/174, respectively). As regards (253), Lasnik - Saito argue that the aggressively non-Discourse linked expression the hell is incompatible with the Discouse-linked character of which. The putatively unacceptable (253) is contrasted with a parallel acceptable example (their 128a/173) with the non-Discourse linked element what.

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

(253) (254)

ofnominals

213

(*)which the hell book did you read that in what the hell do you wonder who wrote

I believe that expressions such as the hell are scoping expressions in the sense of Koktova 1986 and 1987a (cf. Chapter 3 above), which have in their scope primarily the Focus of the sentence or (one of) its wh-part(s). In case a scoping expression has in its scope a wh-expression or an expression involving a wh-element, the scoping expression stands after this wh-involving expression, having a surface-backward scope over it. Thus, in (253), the hell has in its scope which, and in (254), the hell has in its scope what. (xvii) Extraction of measure phrases out of a wh-island. I claim that extraction of measure phrases is essentially possible, on a par with extraction without wh-islands, cf. (255a) (Manzini's 1992: 6/99). This question is perfectly intelligible, and it can be answered by (255b) (my example). (255)a. (*)[How many kilos], do you think who weighs t, b. I think that John weighs 80 kilos, and Bill, 85 kilos It was suggested to me by Professor Werner Winter that such questions may be viewed as fusion of two questions, such as Who do you think weighs 80 kilo and How much do you think John weighs (whereby he admits the possibility of multiple wh-questions such as Who weighs how much). However, my point is exactly that multiple questions with directly interrogative wh-elements in different clauses are possible (with respect to this point, I analyze in more detail the numerous examples of this kind in Lasnik and Saito 1992, of the type Who do you think who bought what, with the directly interrogative elements who and what, cf. below in this chapter). (xviii) Extraction of adverbs which occur obligatorily with certain verbs. I sugest that also in this case, extraction is possible, contrary to Manzini 1992, cf. (256a) (her 2/99), and a possible answer in (256b). (256)a. (*)How carefully, do you wonder who worded that letter t, b. I wonder whether John worded that letter extremely carefully, and whether Bill worded it insufficiently carefully (xix) Extraction out of whether-islands. I propose that the conjunction whether should be treated on a par with the conjunction that, i.e., that elements can be extracted across whether just like they are extractable across

214

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

that. The analogy of the conjunction whether with pronominal wh-elements is mistaken. Thus, I consider (257) and (258) (Rizzi's 1990:18a/81 and 18b/81, respectively) as acceptable. There is no other way of expressing the contents in question (asking whom we can help, or how we can help Bill, with the extraction of the wh-element across a verb of thinking). (257) (258)

(l c i)Whom 1 do you wonder whether we can help t, (*)How, do you wonder whether we can help Bill tl

(xx) Movement/extraction of adjectival predicates out of small clauses. I argue that movement of adjectival predicates out of small clauses should not be deemed totally inacceptable. The Czech and English equivalents to the putatively unacceptable Italian example given in Rizzi (1990: 53b/48) are not inacceptable: the Czech equivalent is prefectly acceptable, and the English equivalent is at least intelligible. In (259a), I give the English equivalent to Rizzi's Italian example, and in (259b), a possible answer. (259)a. How raw, did he eat the meat tl b. He ate the meat medium rare (xxi) Extraction of nongeneric phrases out of wh-islands. I argue that nongeneric phrases are essentially extractable out of wh-islands, contrary to Avis 1993, cf. (203a) and (203b) repeated here as (260) (with a generic phrase) and (261) (with a nongeneric phrase) (Avis' 1' 1993: (i)/64 vs. 1' (ii)/64, respectively). I claim that the difference between sentences like (260) and (261) is only cognitive, and that nongeneric phrases are well extractable, especially if the sentences are provided with an appropriate context. (260) (261)

(l)Radios, weiss ich nicht; wer repariert t, 'Radios I don't know who repairs' (*)(Die meisten Radios),1 weiss ich nicht, wer repariert hat t, 'The most radios I don't know who has repaired'

According to Professor Werner Winter, such sentences are acceptable in colloquial speech, only if a resumptive pronoun die (they) is inserted, cf. his

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

of nominals

215

example Radios weiss ich nicht, wer die repariert ('Radios I don't know who repairs them'). (xxii) Extraction out of adverbial constructions (adjunct islands). Manzini 1992 and Lutz 1993 bring some interesting examples, which show that extraction out of adverbial constructions is essentially unacceptable (cf. also the judgments of my anonymous referee), with some slight exceptions. This is illustrated by non-extractable cases (cf. (262) and (263) (Manzini's 1992:18/3 and Lutz's 1993: lb/134) and by (264) and (265) (my examples) (which are unacceptable according to Professor Werner Winter and by other examples which are considered by the authors as (almost) acceptable, cf. (266) and (267) (Lutz's examples 75a/169 and 78/170, respectively, both of them cases of extraction out of a Purpose infinitival construction), and (213) repeated here for convenience as (268) (Lutz's 81/172, a special case of extractability in the Bavarian dialect). It should be remarked here that in the Bavarian extraction, the extracted phrase is not Focus, as Lutz assumes, but rather Contrastive Topic. Another remark should be made about the position of traces in the German examples: in Lutz's (263) and (268), the trace is correctly located in the position corresponding to the position of the antecedent in the Topic, i.e., before the verb, not after the verb as in English, cf. also 4.4 below. In Czech, extractions such as in (263) and (264) are not possible (there must be a resumptive pronoun inserted in order to make the extraction acceptable). According to Professor Werner Winter, there is no reading of (263) in which there would be a trace for was 'what', i.e., was cannot be due to extraction. Moreover, he considers, unlike Lutz, (267) inacceptable (was cannot be due to extraction), and (266) is, according to him, not questionable, but acceptable. (262) (263)

(264) (265)

*What, was Mary bothered because Peter explained t, *Was, geht Hans in die Kneipe, what go-3-sg-pres John-Nom-sg into the-Acc-sg-fem pub nachdem er Fritz t, geholt hat after he Fritz t, bring-past-participle have-3-sg-pres-Aux 'What does John go into the pub after (he) brought (it) to Fritz' *WhOj are you angry at because your daughter visited tt by night *WhOj did you hit because/after your daughter visited t, by night

216

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

(266)

(267)

(268)

ofnominals

ΊΊDiesen Zug, hat sich Fritz This-Acc-sg-masc train have-3-sg-pres-Aux reflexive Fritz beeilt, t, noch zu erreichen hurry-past-participle t, still catch-inf 'This train, Fritz hurried to catch' 11 Was ist, um t, fiir Paul schnell zu holen, what be-3-sg-pret in order to t, for Paul quickly bring-Inf Fritz nach Berlin gefahren ? Fritz to Berlin go-past-participle 4 What has Fritz gone to Berlin, in order to get (it) quickly for Paul' Das Bier,, wenn ich t, noch trinke, the-Acc-sg-neuter beer when I (it) more drink-1-sg-pres bin ich gleich besoffen be-1-sg-pres I immediately drunk This beer, when I drink (it), I get immediately drunk'

In this section, I have shown that out of more than twenty constraints on wh(and non-wh) extraction which I found in literature, many should not be considered to be absolute constraints: the sentences can be improved, at least partly, by an appropriate constrastive context, by a modification of their lexical cast, etc. Some of the constraints seem void to me and to many other authors. This corroborates my idea that the constraints on extractions are essentially, in most cases, due to processing complexity (though many of them can be formulated in syntactic terms). Rather than binary judgements (constraint-nonconstraint), there could be posited a scale of acceptability and improvability. There are only three strict constraints, out of which two ((ii) and (iii)) are due to my own proposal. I would like to highlight the most striking cases of improvability of putative constraints: within Group (ii), it is the improvability of the extraction of a wh-element across a wh-element in the main sentence by making the extracted element more "heavy" (cf. lithe legend of which city, who knows where John narrated) (this holds also for the extraction out of Nominal and Specified Subject). Within Group (iv), it is the full acceptability of extraction across negation ("inner islands") and across factive verbs (these cases are not considered as genuine constraints e.g. by Rooryck 1992), and extraction across nontypical bridge verbs (in the latter case, the Chomskyans clearly confuse grammatical constraints with mere cognitive/pragmatic implausibility in special contexts).

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

217

4.4 The extracted and moved elements in the communicativeinformation structure of the sentence (a) Moved / extracted non-wh-elements may belong to the Topic or to the Focus of the sentence. Disambiguation is possible only by intonation (the elements belonging to the Focus carry focal stress). On the other hand, whelements belong to the Focus, but they are not the most communicatively important elements of the Focus: its most communicatively important part is the non-wh-part. (Only in echo wh-questions, the wh-elements are the most communicatively important elements of the sentence, and the only elements of the Focus.) (b) Within a complex sentence, two distinct types of wh-elements may occur: the directly interrogative wh-elements (in the matrix sentence and in the embedded sentences), and the indirectly interrogative wh-elements (only in embedded sentences). In this sense, it is even possible to speak about three types of wh-elements, according to the ordering in which they occur in a complex sentence consisting of a matrix and an embedded sentence: the directly interrogative elements in the matrix sentence, the indirectly interrogative elements in the embedded sentence, and the directly interrogative elements in the embedded sentence. The directly and indirectly interrogative wh-elements, as well as the nonwh-elements, may occur in clusters involving various types of syntactic relations. These clusters function in the sentence as relatively independent units with their own structure: I assume that the syntactic relations of the elements within the clusters obey the neutral ordering. (c) The Focus of a sentence (clause) must involve (in the case of non-echo sentences) a non-wh-part. This non-wh-part is the communicatively most important part of the sentence: it is communicatively more important than the wh-elements, and accordingly, it carries the peak of intonation. Thus, the Focus of an embedded sentence may involve three types of elements: the indirectly interrogative wh-elements, the directly interrogative wh-elements and the non-wh-elements. (d) Moreover, normal (non-echo) occurrence of wh-elements should be distinguished from echo-occurrence in echo questions. The echo-focalized whelements are the communicatively most dynamic elements of the sentence; the rest of the sentence is topicalized. In fact, echo-sentences give rise to two additional types of echo elements which may occur in the sentence: the echofocalized wh-elements, and possibly the echo-topicalized wh-elements. Both

218

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

the directly interrogative and the indirectly interrogative elements may be echo-focalized. The deletion of the non-wh-part of the sentence in sentences with echo-focalized indirectly interrogative wh-elements is called Sluicing (cf. 5.5 below). My proposal of the partitioning of the Focus of the sentence into possibly three distinct and relatively independent parts (the indirectly interrogative wh-part, the directly interrogative wh-part, and the non-wh-part) corroborates my hypothesis about the piecemeal character of conveying new information.

4.4.1 The appurtenance of the extracted and moved elements to the Topic or Focus of the sentence In the bulk of the Chomskyan literature, the appurtenance of extracted and moved wh-elements to Topic and Focus has not been considered. There are only two exceptions: (a) Cinque 1990 discusses the focal (stressed) vs. nonfocal character of extracted non-wh-phrases, cf. his examples with extraction 13a/64 vs. 14/65, and with movement 20/67 vs. 18a/66; I give only their respective English versions, cf. (269a) vs. (269b), and (270a) vs. (270b). However, Cinque wrongly connects the difference in focality, in case of extraction, with acceptability: according to him, the extracted unstressed phrase in (269b) is unacceptable. He uses the term "Focus" but not the term Topic, accounting for the focal character of the PP in (269a) in Government-Binding terms (the PP is in a VP-adjoined position). (b) Avis 1993 considers different intonation contours with topicalized (fronted) phrases, claiming that intonational emphasis yields acceptability of the otherwise (putatively) unacceptable sentences, cf. (271). However, he does not connect his account with the Topic-Focus articulation. (269)a. FOR THIS REASON, he said he will leave b. (*)for this reason, he said he will leave (270)a. FOR THIS REASON, they have arrested Mario b. for this reason, they have arrested Mario

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

(271)

ofnominals

219

Was RADIO/weiss ich NICHT/ the-Acc-sg-neuter radio know 1-sg presl not ob Peter reparieren kann whether Peter repair-Inf can-3-sg-pres 'The radio, I don't know whether Peter can repair'

With respect to (271), Professor Werner Winter has made an analogous claim as with (263) above: (263) is acceptable only with the occurrence of a resumptive pronoun coreferential with the extracted pronoun, cf. Das Radio weiss ich nicht, ob Peter das reparieren kann. I make the following claims: (i) Extracted and moved non-wh-elements can belong to the Topic or to the Focus of the sentences out of which they have been extracted or within which they have been moved. The appurtenance of the elements in question to the communicative structure of the sentence out of which they have been extracted is an important piece of evidence for the claim that extracted elements belong to the sentence out of which they have been extracted. This is illustrated by (272a) and (272b) for the appurtenance of the extracted phrase to the Topic and to the Focus of the sentence (clause) out of which it has been extracted, respectively, with superscripts indicating their appurtenance (Τ = Topic, F = Focus). Simplified deep representations for (272a) and (272b) are given in (272a-a) and (272a-b), respectively. An analogy holds for the cases of movement. (272)a. John, I think Mary LOVES tt b. (Only) JOHN, I think Mary loves t, (272)a-a. [/ think Mary John lovesF] b-a. [/ think MaryT loves7 (onlyf John ] (ii) Extracted and moved wh-elements belong to the Focus of the sentence out of which they have been extracted or within which they have been moved (here belong all examples for wh-extraction above). This is also a piece of evidence that extracted elements should be viewed as belonging to the sentence out of which they have been extracted. (iii) The combination of the extraction of a wh-element (belonging to the Focus), and of a non-wh-element belonging to the Topic or Focus is possible, cf. (273a) and (273b), respectively, with superscripts indicating the appurte-

220

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

nance of the elements to the Topic or to the Focus directly in the surface shape of the sentences. (273)a. b.

Who , for this reason do you think ^ f j N 0 N WH F WhoWHD'R F, FOR THIS REASOrfON WH F, do you think lefiN0N WH F

4.4.2 Several types of wh-elements within the complex sentence I claim that there may occur two basic types of wh-elements within a complex sentence, the directly interrogative wh-elements and the indirectly interrogative wh-elements. Moreover, it is possible to distinguish the directly interrogative elements occurring in the matrix sentence and those occurring in the embedded sentences of various depth of embedding. The directly interrogative elements of a complex sentence (occurring in different clauses) go together in that they are answered (substituted by non-wh-elements) simultaneously, whereas the indirectly interrogative elements remain unanswered (they are preserved); they may be answered additionally. Thus, it is possible to speak even of three types of wh-elements in the complex sentence, according to the order in which they occur in a complex sentence consisting of a matrix sentence and an embedded sentence: the directly interrogative elements of the matrix sentence (MATRIX-DIRECT), the indirectly interrogative elements of the embedded sentences (EMBEDDEDINDIRECT), and the directly interrogative elements of the embedded sentence (EMBEDDED-DIRECT). This is illustrated in (274a) (question), (274b) (answer), and (274c) (additional answer). In this example, who in (274a) is the directly interrogative element of the matrix sentence, where is the indirectly interrogative element of the embedded sentence, and whom is the directly interrogative element of the embedded sentence. Who is answered by Bill in the first conjunct, and by Ron in the second conjunct of the answer (274b). Where remains unanswered in (274b): it is answered additionally, in the second stage of the answer, in (274c). Whom is answered by Mary in the first conjunct, and by Sue in the second conjunct of (274b). In the examples for the occurrence of wh-elements, I use the following superscripts to indicate the type of wh- and non-whelements: WH-DIR-F = directly interrogative elements belonging to the Focus, WH-INDIR-F = indirectly interrogative elements belonging to the Focus, NON-WH-F = the non-wh-elements of the Focus. As a default indication, if

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

221

only the appurtenance of an element to Topic or Focus is in question, I will use only the superscripts Τ and F. In the answers to sentences with multiple occurrences of wh-elements, the non-wh-lements answering the wh-elements are indicated by numerical subscripts, as follows: the subscript 1 indicates the elements answering the directly interrogative wh-element in the matrix sentence (its ramifications, la, lb etc. indicating the possible multiple occurrence of this type of whelement). The subscript 3 indicates the elements answering directly interrogative wh-elements in the embedded sentence (again with possible ramifications indicating a possible multiple occurrence of this type of wh-elements). The subscript 2 indicates the elements answering the indirectly interrogative wh-elements in the second stage of the answer. That is, in a single answer of the first stage, the indices (7 + 3) and 2 with NPs answering wh-elements can never cooccur. Additional indication is used for the occurrence of the answering non-whelements in different conjuncts of a complex sentence, with the answering elements being contrasted. (274)a. WhoMATRWH D'R F knows where EMBWH'INDIR'F John hit whomEMBHD[RF (274)b. Bill, knows where2 John hit Mary 3, and Ron,' knows where2' John hit Sue3' (274)c. ...namely, in the garden2 and in thepark2\ respectively Examples of this kind are found in Lasnik - Saito 1992, cf. (275a), (275b), (276) and (277a) (Lasnik and Saito's 122/171, 5a/2, 66/118 and 108/168, respectively). ,~nc\

I

WH-DIRF ,

,

WH-1NDIR-F

.

, .

1

11.

f

WH-DIR-F

(275)a. whoMATR knows whereEMB we bought which booksEMB DR WHjr b. whoMATR ~ thinks that John bought whatEMB'REMB (276) whoUATRw"DmF wonders whatEMBWHD,RF who boughtEUBWH Dm F (277) *whoMATRDIR F saw the man that bought the book whyEMBD!R F (275a) corrresponds to my example (274a) above. As regards (276), Lasnik - Saito mistakenly claim that "(66) is dramatically improved on the reading where whoi takes matrix scope, that is, where (66) is a matrix double question on whoj and who " (1992:119). However, I assume that who, and who3 should be distinguished by virtue of their appurtenance to different sentences

222

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

(clauses), that is, they should not be viewed as having the same, matrix scope. As regards (277a), it is syntactically unacceptable, due to the occurrence of the directly, interrogative pronoun for Cause; it can be compared with the acceptable (275a) and (275b), with interrogative pronouns for Direct Object. Theoretically, any of the types of pronouns (MATRIX-DIRECT, EMBEDDED-IN-DIRECT, and EMBEDDED-DIRECT), as communicative parts of the sentence, may consist of more than one member. However, as Professor Werner Winter correctly puts it, "[the sentences] become more and more unnatural with the increase of wh-words". I would like to give one example, cf. (278), with an answer and a question, where all of these three communicative parts consist of multiple occurrences of syntactic relations. However, complicated this example may be, it illustrates some interesting phenomena: the multiple occurrence of the adverbial modification of place, distributed into different wh-clusters, and the structuring of the answer, where the first answering part is structured as Contrastive Topic, and the other parts, as Focus. In the question as well as in the answer, the MATRIX-DIRECT (interrogative/answering) elements have the role of the Subject and of the modification of Cause (who, why)·, the EMBEDDED INDIRECT (interrogative/answering) elements have the role of the modification of Place and Time (where, when), and the EMBEDDED- DIRECT (interrogative / answering) elements have the role of Direct Object, the modification of Manner and of place (whom, by means of what, where). The occurrence of non-wh-elements in different conjuncts is indicated by apostrophing (' indicating the occurrence of the answering non-wh-elements in the second conjunct). (278)a. [Whola and whylb]UATRWH'DIRF knew [where2a and when2b]EMBWH,m"i'F John hit [whomSa by means of what}b and whereJc]EMBWHDIRF b. BillIa knew due his curiositylb where2a and when2b John hit Mary}e with a stick!b behind the tallest tree3c and Ronla' knew due to his acquaintancesla' where2a' and when2b' John hit Sue3a' with a pole3b 'behind the bushesJc' c. ...namely, in the garden2a and in thepark2a', respectively I assume that within these clusters, the ordering of the syntactic functions obeys the neutral (unmarked) ordering in the underlying representation, although there may be differences on the surface:

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

of nominals

223

(a) Certain (hyper)types of syntactic relations must be coordinated, such as the Subject (or Object) combined with adverbial modifications (cf. who and why (in English and Czech), whom and when (such a coordination is obligatory in English, but not obligatory in Czech)). (b) In Czech, the most communicatively important element of the cluster may be shifted to the cluster-initial position; generally, wh-pronouns in a cluster are (almost) freely interchangeable (cf. kdo koho' who whom' vs. koho kdo 'whom who'; and kde kdo koho 'where who whom' vs. kde koho kdo 'where whom who'). Second, I assume that free adverbial modifications which may occur multiply in a sentence may also occur in each of the clusters with a single complex sentence, cf. when2b and when3b in (278a). Third, I assume that in the answer, the elements answering the directly interrogative wh-elements may be distributed into the Contrastive Topic and the Focus of the matrix sentence. In (278b), Bill is Contrastive Topic, and due to his curiosity is Focus. Alternatively, both of these expressions could be located in the Focus.

4.4.3 Three parts of the Focus With respect to the distinction of several types of wh-elements in 4.4.2 above, I propose that the Focus of the sentence may consist of several parts. Every sentence, matrix as well as embedded, must involve the non-wh-part. Additionally, the matrix sentence may involve the directly interrogative whelements, and the embedded sentence may involve directly and indirectly interrogative wh-elements. Thus, there are four possibilities of the structuring of the Focus of the sentence involving one or more (types of) wh-elements. Henceforth, I shall refer to the three types of wh-elements and to the non-whelements as "parts" (of the Focus): (a) the Focus of the matrix sentence consisting of the directly interrogative part and of the non-wh-part; (b) the Focus of the embedded sentence consisting of the indirectly interrogative part and non-wh-part; (c) the Focus of the embedded sentence consisting of the directly interrogative part and non-wh-part; (d) the Focus of the embedded sentence consisting of indirectly interrogative part, the directly interrogative part, and the non-wh-part.

224

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization ofnominals

As was mentioned above, the communicatively most important part is the non-wh-part, which normally carries the peak of intonation. I propose that in the scale of communicative importance, the three parts of the Focus are ordered as follows, with increasing degrees of communicative importance, and with the non-wh-part as the communicatively most dynamic unit of the scale: (I) the indirectly interrogative part of the Focus; (II) the directly interrogative part of the Focus; (III) the non-wh-part of the Focus. The occurrence of these three parts was exemplified above in (275) for single occurrence of syntactic relations in the parts of the Focus, and in (278a) for multiple occurrences of syntactic relations in the Focus. I would like to justify now my claim that the non-wh part of the Focus is communicatively more important than the directly interrogative part. Normally, the peak of intonation in wh-questions is placed on the non-whelement, cf. (279) for English, with the adverbial modification of place as the non-wh-element, and (280) for Czech, with the verb as the non-wh-element. In the English equivalents of (280), the two wh-elements surround the verb on the surface, and the peak of intonation may be placed either on the verb or on the sentence-final wh-element (cf. 281) and (282), respectively). However, I assume that the intonation contour in the latter case, (282), is due only to a surface assimilation: the peak of intonation is placed on the sentence-final element per analogiam with the unmarked intonation contour. (A similar phenomenon can be observed in newscasting on German and Austrian radio and TV, where the peak of intonation is placed (illogically) on the sentence-final element (the verb) in sentences where the Subject is the most communicatively important element (the only new element of the sentence), cf. (283), where Hans Meier constitutes the new information of the sentence.) My assumption about the intonation contour of sentences like (281)-(283) has been corroborated for Spanish by Romero (p.c.). (279) (280)

(281) (282)

Whom did John hit IN THE GARDEN Kdo koho UHODIL who whom hit 3-sg-pret 'Who hit whom' Who HIT whom Who hit WHOM

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

(283)

of nominals

225

Hans Meier BERICHTET Hans Meier report-3-sg-pres 'Hans Meier reports'

As we have seen in (278b), the syntactic relations obey the neutral ordering only within clusters (cf., for example, the cluster of directly interrogative elements in the embedded sentence, with the ordering is [who (Direct Object), by means of what (Instrument) and where (Location)], corresponding to the neutral ordering of syntactic relations given in (37a) in Chapter 2. It is of crucial importance that the elements of different clusters are not related by the neutral ordering, i.e. they are independent. Each of these clusters may be syntactically structured in any way, i.e., it may consist of any combination of types of syntactic relations independently of the other clusters. Thus, for example, the directly interrogative part may consist of the Subject, and the non-wh-part, of an Object, as in (284), and the other way round (cf. (285). (284) (285)

Who hit JOHN Whom did JOHN hit

Analogously, the directly interrogative part may consist of the Subject, and the directly interrogative part, of an Object, and the other way round ((cf. (286) and (287), respectively). (286) (287)

I know who hit MARY I know whom MARY hit

The examples in (283)-(287) are only a simplification, for the sake of expository clarity, of what has already been illustrated in (278b), where the particular occurrences of syntactic relations of the clusters do not obey the neutral ordering with respect to the other clusters: cf. the modification of Cause in the first cluster preceding the modification of Time and Place in the second cluster with respect to their inverse ordering in the neutral ordering, etc. My examples show that the Focus as well as the Topic may be discontinuous. There are several cases of such discontinuity. The first of them, the occurrence of wh- and non-wh-elements in different clauses of the complex sentence, is exemplified in (275) through (287) above and in (288) below, in-

226

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization ofnominals

volving two hierarchically embedded clauses, i.e., altogether three directly interrogative wh-elements (who, whom,, whom2) . (288)a. WhoWH'D,R'F knows whereWH 'ND'R F John hit whomWHD'RF because I I · I 2WH-DIR-F he kissedI whom b. JohnT>F knows where Fred hit BILlI because he kissed MARY Another case of this discontinuity, the occurrence of non-wh-elements in different clauses of a complex sentence whose verb belongs to the Topic of these clauses and of the superordinate sentence, is analyzed in Chapter 6. Thus, the elements constituting the discontinuous Focus of a sentence may be as folllows: (a) (directly or indirectly) wh-elements occurring in different sentences (clauses) of the complex sentence (cf. (289a) for directly interrogative whelements); (b) the corresponding elements in the answer, if they occur in the Focus (not in Contrastive Topic) (cf. (289b)); (c) wh-elements occurring embedded in nominal, adjectival, or adverbial phrases in a simple sentence (cf. (290a)); (d) the corresponding elements in the answer, (cf. (290b). The difference between (289) and (290) is as follows: (aa) In (289), a multiple wh-question is involved. The major point is the occurrence of the wh-elements as elements of Focus in different clauses of the sentence constiole sentence, constituting the discontinuous Focus. (bb) In (290), tuting the discontinuous Focus of the whole sentence. Within the non-wh-elements answering these wh-elements, the first non-wh-element (,John) may belong to the Contrastive Topic of its clause and of the whole sentence, whereas the other non-wh-elements belong to the Focus of their clauses and of the wha simple wh-question is involved, and the part of the sentence answering the wh-element involves two elements (FROM SOHO, WITH FEATHERS), which constitute the discontinuous Focus of the whole answer sentence. (289)a. IFrom where (and) where to]WH DIR F was John running [with respect to where his sweethearts live] b. John was running from the place where MARY lives to the place where SUE? lives

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

(290)a. b.

ofnominals

227

which girlsWH'D'RF does John like because they wear what kind of hatsWH'DIRF John likes girls FROM SOHOF because they wear hats WITH FEATHERS?

My claim about the occurrence of directly interrogative wh-elements in different clauses of a complex sentence (and of expressions answering them in the corresponding answers) is a counterargument against Sgall et al.'s (1986: 216-220) theoretical and mathematical definition of Focus and Topic as continuous parts of the sentence (consisting possibly only of sister nodes, or of a head node and the nodes dependent on it and occurring to the right, or of nodes recursively dependent on a single node). My claim about the tripartitioning of the Focus due to the availability of two types of wh-elements and of non-wh-elements is a counterargument to Sgall et. al.'s (1986: 197-200) assumption that the systemic ordering is obeyed by the syntactic relations in the Focus as a whole. For more detail as regards my objections to the Praguean Functional Generative Description, cf. Koktova 1997, in press b. and Chapter 6. More generally, my assumption about the subcategorization of the Focus into three parts corroborates my hypothesis about the piecemeal and segmented character of the structuring of the (new) infomation of the sentence.

4.4.4 Echo questions I argue that an echo-question may involve three types of elements: (a) Echo-focalized wh-elements belonging to the Focus of the sentence. (b) Echo-topicalized non-wh-elements, belonging to the Topic of the sentence. (c) Echo-topicalized wh-elements belonging likewise to the Topic of the sentence. The overt presence of echo-focalized wh-elements, which are the core of echo-questions, is obligatory. This is illustrated by (291): (291b) and (291c) are the echo-reactions to (291a) (with the answer in (29Id)). As has been mentioned above in 4.4.3, echo-questions (with directly interrogative wh-elements) are based on the principle that everything is topicalized in them except for the echo-focalized wh-elements (they are based on the principle of "repeat questions" as mentioned above). Echo questions differ from normal wh-questions in that in echo-questions, the echo-focalized wh-element is the most communicatively important ele-

228

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

ment of the sentence, and the only element of the Focus. The echo-focalized elements may have a special intonation, as indicated in (291c). A special kind of echo-focalization is that of indirectly interrogative whelements, cf. (291d). The deletion of the non-wh-part of the sentence is called sluicing (cf. (29le), Romero 1995, and 5.5 below). (291 )a. b. c. d. e.

Whom did John hit in the GARDEN? Whom did John hit WHERE WheRE? In the GARDEN. Somebody is knocking at the door, but I don't know WHO

I assume that echo-focalized wh-elements on a multiple occurrence within a sentence form a cluster whose members obey the neutral ordering. Thus, echo-focalized wh-elements are the fourth type of wh-elements which may occur in a sentence. The echo-topicalized wh-elements, which I also assume to obey the neutral ordering, are the fifth type of wh-elements which may occur in a sentence. Let us recall from 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 that the basic three types of wh-elements, the directly interrogative elements of the matrix sentence, the indirectly interrogative wh-elements of the embedded sentence, and the directly interrogative elements of the embedded sentence, occur in the Focus, but they are not the communicatively most important elements of the Focus: those are the echo-focalized wh-elements because of their being the only members of the Focus, and the echo-topicalized wh-elements (whose occurrence is absolutely marginal) belong to the Topic. My conception of echo-questions is slightly different fom that of Reis 1991. She has the following assumptions about echo questions (cf. also 4.2.2.2.1 above): (a) Echo questions are not normal wh-questions (1991: 79). (b) The wh-element has always wide scope, i.e., it is related to the whole sentence (1991: 82). (c) Echo questions do not constitute any sentence type or sentence mode (1991: 14/82). (d) The wh-elements in echo questions are base-generated (1991: 23/87). (e) The semantics of wh-elements consists of two parts: the operator part and the non-operator part. In echo questions, the operator part is focused. Ac-

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

229

cordingly, echo questions cannot have a contrastive interpretation (1991: 90-91). (f) There is no existential implicature carried by echo-questions. Their implicature is rather an assertion, which is yielded by the assumption that the echo wh-element has a wide scope over the whole sentence including the operator of the sentence mode (1991: 100). (g) Empirically, echo questions have the following properties: (aa) The wh-element is in situ. However, no additional wh-elements ca occur in situ (cf. Reis' 45/d/93 *WARum hat er WOmit... 'why has he with what...' but 40/91 provides evidence to the contrary (in this sentence, two echo wh-elements wer 'who' and wen 'whom' are in situ). (bb) In German echo-questions, only the first syllable of the wh-element is stressed, cf., the special intonation contour WARum ('why') (occurring in echo-questions, rhetorical and first-person questions) in comparison with the more usual waRUM. (cc) Indirectly interrogative elements cannot be echoed, cf. Reis' 7 and 8/80. (dd) Echo wh-elements can only exceptionally stand after particles such as halt 'actually' or ja 'after all' (cf. Reis' paradigm 16-19/83). (ee) Nominal echo wh-elements (such as was 'what' can be answered also by verbal elements, such as in 24B/85 and in 27a/87. Reis' approach can be commented upon as follows: (a) Reis does not consider the Topic-Focus articulation of wh-questions. The semantics of echo wh-elements should not be accounted for in terms of (wide) scope, but rather of their position in the communicative-information structure of the sentence. (b) Echo wh-elements can have a contrastive interpretation. (c) Echo wh-elements can generally stand after scoping expressions and particles, which are echo-topicalized. I propose that echo wh-questions have the following properties: (a) They are based on the principle of "repeat questions" whereby the infrmation has already been privided in the context (cf. also the formulation of Professor Werner Winter above). This is illustrated by (292), (293), and (294). Essentially, a wh-question cannot occur as a reaction to a normal (nonecho) question, cf. (295). (292) (293)

John loves Mary. John loves WHOM? Tell your mother! Tell WHOM?

230

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization ofnominals

(294) (295)

Would you like a cherry? You said you would like WHAT? Whom does John love ? - *John loves WHOM?

(b) If there are scoping expressions in the trigger sentence,they are repeated in the echo-question standing in situ (cf. (296), in contrast to their position in normal (non-echo) questions, where they stand after the wh-element (cf. Chapter 3 and 4.2 above). (c) There may occur more than one wh-elements in a sentence. If there are more than one normal (non-echo) wh-elements in a sentence, one or more of them can be echo-focalized, cf. (292) and (297), respectively. Two echofocalized wh-elements can be contrasted as regards their semantics, cf. (297). (296) (297) (298)a. b. c.

John loves only/mainly Mary. John loves only/mainly WHOM? John loves Mary. WHO loves WHOM? John hit Mary quite rudely with a stick. John hit Mary with WHAT? John hit Mary with a stick.

(d) Echo questions do not have any presuppositions: an echo-focalized element may be answered by a negative expression (cf. WHO did it NOBODY). My analysis of echo wh-questions shows that they have pragmatically a metacommunicative character. At the same time, however, they can be analyzed by the regular means of the communicative-information structure of the sentence.

4.5 The cross-categorization of nominals: empty categories and pronouns 4.5.1 The new quadripartition I propose that empty categories and pronouns should be subcategorized according to whether they correspond or do not correspond to syntactically and communicatively fullfledged occurrences of syntactic relations. "Syntactically fullfledged" means that an element corresponds to a node in the deep representation tree, i.e., that it corresponds to an autosemantic element.

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

of nominals

231

"Communicatively fullfledged" means that an element belong to the communicative-information structure (roughly, to the Topic or Focus) of the sentence. In fact, the communicatively fullfledged character of an element is yielded by its syntactically fullfledged character: once an element corresponds to a node in the deep representation tree, it belongs to the communicative-information structure of the sentence. Thus, in the following considerations it is sufficient to refer to syntactically fullfledged vs. syntactically non-fullfledged elements. My alternative subcategorization of empty categories and pronouns cuts across the surface (empty or overt) character of these nominals. I distinguish two major hypercategories, syntactically fullfledged (henceforth, SF) and syntactically non-fullfledged (henceforth, SN) expressions. Each of these hypercategories has two subtypes, the empty and the overt form. This yields altogether four alternative types of nominals, which is a substantial modification of Chomsky's 1986 quadripartitioning of nominals into four types: (i) (+anaphor, -pronominal): lexical anaphors, traces. (ii) (-anaphor, +pronominal): pronoun, pro. (iii) (+anaphor, +pronominal): PRO. (iv) (-anaphor, -pronominal): names and variables. My quadripartitioning consists of the following types of expressions: (I) Syntactically fullfledged expressions (SFs): (la) Empty syntactically fullfledged expressions: PROs, pros and parasitic gaps. (Ib) Overt syntactically fullfledged expressions: normal, nonresumptive personal pronouns, reflexives, reciprocals, emphasized forms such as he himself, and possessive pronouns (and of course names). (II) Syntactically nonfullfledged expressions (SNs): (Ha) Empty syntactically non-fullfledged expressions: traces of movement and extraction. (IIb) Overt syntactically non-fullfledged expressions: resumptive pronouns. It should be emphasized at the outset of this section that syntactically fullfledged expressions (unlike syntactically non-fullfledged expressions) serve as proper (referentially) anaphoric expressions, occurring in different (underlying) sentences (clauses) of the complex sentence (i.e., in different finite surface sentences, or in infinitival or gerundial constructions embedded in the matrix sentence). They may have a different syntactic function than their antecedent.

232

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization of nominals

As regards syntactically non-fullfledged expressions, I propose that traces should be viewed as abstract, empirically unmotivated constructs, which are due to the surface properties of English as a configurational language, and that in linguistic theory, they should be dispensed with. Accordingly, I posit an operational criterion for distinguishing syntactically fullfledged and syntactically non-fullfledged expressions: in echo questions, syntactically non-fullfledged expressions are collapsed with their antecedent, whereas syntactically fullfledged elements remain independent units, which can be spelled out by (nonresumptive) personal pronouns, cf. (299) for SNs vs. (300) for SFs, respectively (PG = parasitic gap). In this section, I shall concentrate on the opposition between traces as SNs and parasitic gaps as SFs. (299)a. b. (300)a. b.

Who, do you think John hit t,(SN) You think John hit WHOM Who, did you hit after you kissed PG, (SF) You hit WHOM, after you kissed (him,)

4.5.2 Critique of extant approaches I have provided a critique of Lasnik - Saito's 1992 and of Manzini's 1994 approach to parasitic gaps above in 4.2.1. Here, I will treat in some detail Authier 1989, Erteschik-Shir 1992 and Lasnik - Uriagereka 1988. (i) Authier 1989. Authier distinguishes two types of operators: the operator Op, which is assumed to be adjoined to S, and to occur in infinitival constructions, and the operator TOp, which moves to SPEC-CP, and which is assumed to occur in "pragmatic contexts". In the examples under analysis, the operator Op occurs. I can carry out a cross-categorization of Authier's examples with respect to whether the empty categories occurring in them are SF or SN. Henceforth, I will indicate "SN" and "SF" instead of the traditional indications for empty categories (thus, I will indicate SN for traces, and SF for parasitic gaps, PROs, and pros). I will analogously append the indications SN and SF to pronouns under analysis (SF to normal, nonresumptive pronouns, and SN to resumptive pronouns). Thus, let me have a look at Authier's most interesting examples: (301)(305) corresponding to his 3a/119, (ii) in Footnote 5 on p. 112, (iv) in Footnote 6 on p. 112, 10a/122, and 12a/123, respectively.

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

233

Thus, in (301), there are one trace of the relative pronoun who indicated as SN and two parasitic gaps indicated as SFs. (301)

Here is the politician, that everyone2 who2 John introduced SN2 to SF, ended up respecting SF,

In (302), there is one trace of the moved wh-pronoun who, and two SFs, both for PROs. According to Professor Werner Winter, this sentence with the empty category is unacceptable; there should be spelled out the overt pronoun {him). (302)

Whoj did the judge2 send SN, to jail without SF2 believing SF, to be guilty

In (303), there is again one SN for the trace of a moved wh-pronoun, and two SFs for PROs. (303)

Which animal, did you decide to buy SN, without SF2 knowing whether your wife} will be able SFs to live with SF,

In (304), there is one nontrivial SN for the trace of a wh-element placed in an infinitival construction of Purpose, and two SFs, the first one for PRO, and the second one for a parasitic gap. (304)

Which car, did she2 buy those whitewalls3 SF2 to put SF} on SN,

In (305), there are three SFs, one for PRO, and two for parasitic gaps. Here, I assume that the analysis is based on the deletion of the sequence are such that occurring after the expression countries. (305)

Our military advisors, should know which countries2 these missiles} are dangerous SF, to send SF} to SF2

234

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

(ii) Erteschik-Shir 1992. Erteschik-Shir treats "resumptives" in Hebrew, out of which, however, not all cases are genuine resumptive pronouns under my analysis. Cases of genuine resumptives (overt SNs) are the following cases of hers: (a) Distance resumptives, such as in (306) (Erteschik-Shir's 2/89), and in her analogous examples 3 and 4 on p. 89, differing only in the distance of the antecedent and the resumptive. (306)

This is the girl that, John likes SN/?? her,

(b) Resumptives of adverbial PPs and adverbial resumptives in English, which are optional, cf. (307) and (308), respectively (Erteschik-Shir's 1 la/94 and 1 lb/94, respectively). (307) (308)

He bought a house, which we ΊI move into it-SN, in June They were just towed across the midway onto the bridge path,, where, they were just sitting there-SN, peacefully

(c) Restrictive-focus resumptives without stress and without explicit focusing, such as in (309) (Erteschik-Shir's 14b/95, with an indication of a possible variation with an empty category (trace) in a different context (cf. her 14a/ 95)). (Erteschik-Shir's Hebrew examples are not provided with glosses.) (309)

Hine hasimla se-kaniti ota 'Here is the dress, that, I-chose it-SN,4

(d) Resumptives for Objects and PPs. The latter are obligatory in Hebrew, cf. (310) (Erteschik-Shir's 21d/100). (310)

Dibarti im hais senikalt BO beyerusalaim Ί spoke with the man, that, you bumped into him-SN, in Jerusalem'

Cases of mistaken resumptiveness (overt SFs) are the following cases of hers:

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

of nominals

235

(a) The case when a resumptive pronoun occurs in a coordination, being contrastively stressed, and functioning as Contrastive Topic (cf. ErteschikShir's 2la/99). In this case, the missing conjunctive expression must be interpreted as such that. (b) The case when a resumptive pronoun occurs in a coordination, being focally stressed, and functioning as the Focus, cf. Erteschik-Shir's 21 a/99, but with a different intonation contour, in (312), with the peak of intonation on he and no other, which is the Focus of the sentence. (311) Dibartim hais seHU velo oxer kibel et hapras hadagol Ί spoke with the man, that, HE-SF, AND NO OTHER got the big prize' (c) "ECP resumptives", cf. (312) (Erteschik-Shir's 26a/103). In this case, the pronoun is clearly a nonresumptive one because it occurs in an adverbial clause of Condition. (312)

7EYZE XESBON kol maskia lo zoxer im HU noten ribit tova ? 'which account, doesn't every investor, remember if it-SF, gives good interest'

It should be also noted that Erteschik-Shir considers the variation between resumptives and traces, claiming that (according to an inquiry among native speakers of Hebrew) there is a preference for the trace at the end of a sentence. (iii) Lasnik - Uriagereka 1988. Lasnik - Uriagereka treat parasitic gaps in (1988:72-80), and resumptives, in (1988: 80-83). They claim that "a parasitic gap is licensed by an S-structure wh-trace that does not c-command it" (1988: 75), and they make a generalization about resumptive pronouns (without examples) in 50/82: "(a) Coindex via movement, (b) Freely assign indices to Apositions at S-structure. (c) Freely assign indices at LF". I can give my account for their examples, cf. (313), (314), (315), (316), (221a), and (221b) (repeated here for convenience as (317) and (318)), (319a) and (319b), corresponding to Lasnik - Uriagereka's 23/74, 30/75, 32/75, 19/73, 34/76, 35/76, 71b/91 and (ii-a) in Footnote 12/162, respectively. (313) (T)Which report; did you file after you read SF, (314) *Who j resigned before we could fire SF,

236

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

(315) (316) (317) (318) (319)a. (319)b.

of nominals

(*)Without SF2 reading SF,, which report, did you2file (*)Who, filed which report2 SF, without SF, reading SF2 HWho, did you hire because Mary said SF, would work hard * Who, did you hire because he, said SF, would work hard (7/*)Which man, do you wonder whether he-SN, will win the race The man, that I wonder whether he-SN, won the race

(313) is a classical example of a parasitic gap which is essentially acceptable (according to its authors as native speakers) because it is syntactically symmetrical to the antecedent (both the antecedent and the parasitic gap are Direct Objects). The inacceptability of (314) may be due to the blatant syntactic asymmetry (the antecedent is the Subject, and the parasitic gap is the Direct Object). On the other hand, the inacceptability of (315) is presumably milder, being due to the information structure of the sentence (word-order): the gerundial construction occupies a nonprototypical position before ther matrix sentence. Likewise, (316) does not sound unacceptable to me: the noun reading could be viewed, according to Professor Werner Winter, as occurring without any empty category, i.e. as a proper noun (not gerund). The unacceptable (318) (contrasted with the (almost) acceptable (317)) is a good illustration of the asymmetry of anaphoric expressions (overt and empty expression), cf. also below 4.5.3.1 claim that sentences like (318) are u n a c ceptable because of the prohibited sequence (variation) of overt and empty anaphoric expressions ([pronoun (he,) - empty form (SF,)]). The last two examples, (319a) and (319b), illustrate the use of resumptive pronouns. One of my major points is that I claim (unlike Lasnik - Uriagereka) that (319a) (with an extracted interrogative pronoun as antecedent for the resumptive pronoun) is acceptable, due to my assumption of the expressibility (effability) of natural language: all types of syntactic relations are extractable, and it must be possible to compensate for their extraction in one way or another. On condition that a variant of (319a) without the pronoun (with a trace) is unacceptable (cf. which man do you wonder whether will win the race), (319a) as the variant with the resumptive pronoun should be acceptable. With respect to a relative pronoun as antecedent (cf. (319b)), Lasnik - Uriagereka acknowledge the acceptability of the resumptive pronoun, claiming that "interestingly, in English, resumptive pronouns are best in situations where traces would be impossible. So if we construct an example that would violate a strong island constraint, then it is usually not too bad to have a resumptive pronoun: instead, perhaps reflecting some sort of functional strat-

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

237

egy" (1988:162). This comes pretty close to my generalization about resumptive pronouns (cf. also 4.5.4 below), and it would even justify the use and acceptability of the resumptive pronoun in (319a), which they consider (almost) unacceptable. It is a pity that this important generalization is made in a footnote only, far away from the major considerations about resumptive pronouns. Its should be also remarked in this place that as regards Nonsubject resumptive pronouns, such as in 39a/77 and in (i) in Footnote 12 on p. 162, Lasnik - Uriagereka are more tolerant: they consider the former example only as questionable, and the latter example, as a construction which may be prototypical in other languages (this holds for Czech). (iv) Parasitic gaps and resumptive pronouns are also shortly treated in Rizzi 1990. The relevant examples are (320), (322) and (323). In my analysis, (320) is unacceptable because of the prohibited sequence [full COMP - empty Subject] (where full COMP = that). (321) is acceptable due to the same reason as Lasnik - Uriagereka's 1988: 34 and 36a/76, viz, due to the sequence (here: you thought) cancelling the prohibited sequence [full COMP - empty Subject]. (322) is a regular instance of Object parasitic gap. Alternatively, according to Professor Werner Winter, the verb can be viewed as detransitivized. (320)

*The professor, you consulted SN, because you thought that SF, understood the problem (321) HThe professor, that you consulted SN, because you thought SF, understood the problem (322) IThe problem, that you presented SN, because you thought he understood SF,

4.5.3 Alternative conditions on parasitic gaps In this section, I would like to offer my account of parasitic gaps in terms of pragmatic and psycholinguistic constraints such as processing complexity. In this, parasitic gaps as proper (referential) anaphoric expressions share the prototypical pragmatic conditions on the accessibility of the antecedent in the short-time memory of the hearer, and their acceptability is gradient rather than binary. My alternative conditions on parasitic gaps can be spelled out as follows. (Parasitic gap = a postcedent (anaphoric expression) with respect to an antecedent.)

238

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization of nominals

(i) The antecedent and the parasitic gap should be as symmetrical as possible. (a) The parasitic gap should have the same syntactic function as the antecedent, cf. the symmetrical, acceptable (323) (where both the antecedent and the parasitic gap are Direct Objects) vs. the asymmetrical, less acceptable (324) (where the antecedent is Direct Object, and the parasitic gap, Indirect Object). According to Professor Werner Winter, the verb kiss permits a detransitivized reading, without a gap, cf. Professor Werner Winter's example Which girl did they say I hit after we kissed. (323) Which girl, did you hit SN, after you kissed SF, (324) HWhom, did you kiss SN, without giving SF, roses (b) Both the antecedent and the parasitic gap should be expressed by a NP or by a PP, and if they are expressed by PPs, the prepositions should be the same, or they should not drastically differ in their shape, cf. the acceptable (325) vs. the less acceptable (326). (325) (326)

Who did you smile at SN, after aiming at SF, with your gun * Π Whom, did you miss SN, without crying because of SF,

(ii) The parasitic gap should be sentence-final, cf. the acceptable (323) repeated below vs. the less accceptable (327), (328) and (329), and also (324) above. In my referee's opinion, (328) is acceptable if you kissed is plural (i.e. if this clause had the reciprocal interpretation {to kiss each other)), and (329) is acceptable only on the plural reading (a view with which I wholeheartedly agree). This condition is similar to Kuno's 1973 "internal constituent effect" quoted in Lasnik - Uriagereka (1992: 101). According to this condition, the movement out of a constituent that is not the rightmost branch is worse than that out of the rightmost-branch constituent. Lasnik - Uriagereka even try to account in this way for the Subject/Object asymmetries (Subject is not the rightmost constituent). (323) (327)

Which girl, did you hit SN, after you kissed SF, IWhom, did you kiss SN, after you hit SF, in the garden

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization ofnominals

(328) (329)

239

IWhom, did you hit SN, after you kissed SF, because you were jealous lWhom,did you hit SN, after you kissed SF, in the garden under the pines because you were jealous

(iii) If there is a sequence of coindexed nominals in a sentence (and this holds both for SFs and SNs), all of them should be expressed either by the empty form or by the overt form. The alternations of the empty form and the overt form sound unacceptable, cf. (330a) and (330b) with respect to the acceptable (331) and (almost) acceptable (332). Professor Werner Winter points out that (330b) is acceptable on the intransitive reading of left. (330)a. (*)whom, did you hit after you left him, because you hated SF, b. *whom, did you hit after you left SF, because you hated him-SF, (331) whom, didyou hitafteryou left him-SF, because you hatedhim-SF, (332) Iwhom, did you hit after you left SF, because you hated SF, Further, this can illustrated by less prototypical examples: the acceptable (333) (considered as unacceptable by Professor Werner Winter) vs. the unacceptable (334) and (335) (Frampton's 1990 examples in 1990: Footnote 21/ 58 and my variation thereof), and also (319) (repeated here for convenience). Frampton's putative inacceptability of (336) should be attributed to processing complexity. I claim that this sentence should not be considered totally unacceptable (in my view, it is only questionable, as indicated). It should be only noted that the double interpretation of the empty category in (333) (SF/SN) is due to the two possible interpretations of the relative pronoun that: if it is interpreted as such that, a SF is involved. (333) a guy, that every joke we told to SF/SN, delighted SF/SN, (334) *a guy, that every joke that we told to him-SF, delighted SF, (335) *a guy, that every joke we told to SF, delighted him, (319) *who, did you hire because he, said SF, would work hard (336) ??a book, which anyone2 to whom2 we'll give SF, SN2 will like SF, (iv) Parasitic gaps following their antecedents (as the prototypical case) sound better than parasitic gaps preceding their antecedent, cf. (337) vs. (338) (= 316) (repeated here)). According to Professor Werner Winter, reading

240

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

could be considered as a proper noun, so that it is not necessary to postulate a gap here. (337) Which report, did you file SN, without reading SF, (338) IWithout reading SFp which report, did you file SNI

4.5.4 The variation between empty and overt expression within the supercategories of syntactically fullfledged and syntactically non-fullfledged expressions In this section, I would like to describe the variation between empty and overt expressions within the supercategories of syntactially fullfledged and syntactically non-fullfledged expressions. Within SNs, there is the variation between traces and resumptive pronouns as alluded to above in 4.5.2. Within SFs, there is the variation between parasitic gaps and normal (nonresumptive) pronouns. Within SNs (with the variation [trace - resumptive pronoun]), the trace is unmarked, because there must be special conditions operative for the use of the resumptive pronoun. Within SNs, the trace is used in the majority cases of extraction, where the resumptive pronoun would be unacceptable. On the other hand, within SFs (with the variation [parasitic gap - pronoun]), the pronoun is unmarked, because there must be special conditions operative for the use of the parasitic gap. In the majority of cases, the pronoun is used as an anaphoric expression in embedded adverbial constructions (where typically, also parasitic gaps may occur). My major claim is that it can never happen that both types of expressions the empty one and the overt one - would be unacceptable, due to the principle of the universal expressibility (effability) of natural language: everything can be expressed in one way or another. Thus, in the variation between empty and overt expressions within SNs and SFs, one of these expressions may be obligatory or preferable, or both may be (almost) equally acceptable, but they are never simultaneously unacceptable. This can be illustrated by the paradigm of the variation between traces and resumptive pronouns. Thus, (339) (Erteschik-Shir's 1992:7/90) illustrates the obligatory character of the resumptive pronoun.

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

(339)

ofnominals

241

This is the girl, that Bob said that his mother thinks that John is aware of the fact that Peter likes *SN/her,

Erteschik-Shir's (1992: 1/89) illustrates the obligatory character of the trace (cf. 340). (340)

This is the girl, that John likes

SN/*her-SN,

Erteschik-Shir's (1992: 2/89) illustrates the case where the trace is slightly preferable to the pronoun (cf.341). (341)

This is the girl, that Peter said that John likes SN/? ?her-SNl

Erteschik-Shir's (1992:/89) illustrates the (almost) equally acceptable character of the trace and the resumptive pronoun (cf. 342). (342)

This is the girlt that Peter said that John thinks that yesterday his mother has given some cakes to ?SF/herl

According to my assumption of the universal expressibility of natural language, there is no fourth possibility, viz., the inacceptability of both types of expressions: every contents (sentence meaning) must be expressible in one way or another, i.e. by the gap or by the pronoun (although in some cases, neither of these possibilities sounds perfectly acceptable, but this is rather a matter of the length of the sentence, the distance between the antecedent and the trace or the pronoun, or the general oddity of the sentence). Thus, Lasnik Uriagereka's 1988 view that certain sentences with the pronoun are unacceptable (such as (320) in 4.2.5 above) (whereby the gap would sound even worse) should be refuted. This can be illustrated also by (343) and (344) below (Erteschik-Shir's 1992 examples 5/89 and 7/89, respectively)). I think that in both of these examples, the resumptive pronoun is more acceptable than the gap, so I would indicate "*" with the gap and "?" with the pronoun, but not "*" in both cases as Erteschik-Shir does. Alternatively, the given sentential meaning could be expressed by means of the connecting expression such that and by the usage of the resumptive pronoun, cf. this is the girl such that John is aware of the fact that Peter likes her.

242

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

(343) (344)

ofnominals

This is the girl, that John is aware of the fact that Peter likes *SN/(*)her-SNl This is the girl, who the man who raped *SN/( *)her-SN, had escaped from prison.

After this exposition, let me call attention to some important issues about the variation. (a) The first issue is the interpretation of the relative pronoun that. If it is interpreted as a relative pronoun, the empty category is the trace (SN). On this interpretation, the pronoun that is interchangeable with the relative pronoun who/which (whereby the trace is a mere "resumptive" element occurring in the same clause as the relative pronoun). However, it is reinterpreted as such that, the empty category is the parasitic gap (SF), i.e. a syntactically fullfledged anaphoric element occurring in a different clause than its antecedent (girl). This can be tested: the pronoun corresponding to the parasitic gap can be focalized (stressed), whereas a resumptive pronoun can never be stressed. This is illustrated in (345) (with a SN) vs. (346) and (347) (both with SFs). Professor Werner Winter would interpret such that as so nice that. (345) (346) (347)

a girl, that/who I like SN/?/*her-SNl a girlt (such) that I like her-SF, a girl, (such) that I like only HER-SF,

This case should not be confused with the (rare) case where the extracted pronoun stands in the scope of an operator. The emmpty category is a trace, cf. (348a). In this case, a theoretical resumptive pronoun would be stressed, cf. (348b), which is inacceptable according to Professor Werner Winter. This case conforms to the operational criterion in 4.5.1 above (cf. the examples (299)-(300)). (348)a. Only WHOM, do you think John loves SN, b. *Who, do you think John loves only HIM-SN, (b) A similar case of a change of SN into SF (in addition to the such that case mentioned above) occurs if instead of wh-extraction, a syntactically fullfledged syntactic relation of the type about/of-what occurs in the sentence-

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization ofnominals

243

initial position, before a verb of communicating or thinking, cf. (349a) and (349b). In this case, the about/of-what complement is a special type of Object (about-Object) occurring in the case frame of verbs of communicating and thinking, which play the role of a Third Object (cf. to tell somebody something about somebody, to think of somebody that.... etc.). (349)a. Who, do you think SN, left b. About/of whom, do you think that he-SF, left (c) Another issue is the position of empty categories in the "enriched" surface structure supplemented with indications of coindexed empty categories of any type. The point is that empty SFs belong (prototypically) to the Topic of the sentence in which they occur (this holds also of empty SNs which share the Topic feature of their antecedents in case of non-wh topicalizations), so that they should be inserted in the Topic part of the sentence (usually, before the verb). However, in this section, I inserted these expressions in the postverbal position as is usual in the English-based examples with its "grammatically-fixed" surface SVO order. There has been only one exception: in Lutz's 1992 German examples, empty categories are indicated (correctly) in the Topic part of the sentence, before the verb, where the corresponding pronouns would occur (cf. the example (213)). Generally, in languages with free word-order (such as German, Russian, Czech), empty SNs and SFs should be indicated (in the prototypical case) in the Topic part of the sentence, before the verb. This is illustrated by the Russian sentence (350) with an Object SF (parasitic gap) (empty Objects are marginally possible in Russian, especially in short sentences, with syntactically symmetrical (Object) antecedents). In this sentence, the Object SF is indicated in position which is equivalent to the position of the corresponding overt pronoun (ee 'her-Acc'), i.e., in the Topic part of the sentence, before the verb, so that the Object SF is adjacent to the other SF element of the Topic, the Subject. (We could derive the corresponding variant with overt SFs - pronouns by simply substituting on 'he' for SF, and ee 'er' for SF2.)

244

350)

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization of nominals

Ej chotelos', ctobyon,ee2 her-Dat want-3-sh-neuter that he her-Acc obnjal, kak SFt SF2 kogda-to embrace-past-participle-perf like SF, SF2 the other day obnimal ν taksi embrace-past-participle-imperf in taxi 'She wanted that he, should embrace her2 like heT-SF, embracedT herT-SF2 the other day in a taxi'

Now let us have a more systematic look at the variation of empty and overt SNs and SFs. (i) SNs. The variation between the trace and the resumptive pronoun has been illustrated in (251)-(252). Since the resumptive pronoun is the marked member of this opposition, let me generalize about the conditions which can make the resumptive pronoun obligatory or preferable. (a) First, the resumptive pronoun is (almost) obligatory in case it supplies the missing values of the categories of gender and number if they are not carried by the antecedent. Thus, the resumptive pronoun is (almost) obligatory in Czech, if the antecedent is the uninflected relative pronoun co 'which' (I have found a marginal relaxation of this principle due to pragmatic reasons). (b) Second, the resumptive pronoun is obligatory if it must be "phonetically" realized (visible), such as in case of extraction out of coordination. (c) Third, the resumptive pronoun is obligatory in case the trace occurs in the prohibited sequence [full COMP - empty Subject] in English, such as if the empty Subject stands after the conjunctions after, because, and whether, and after indirectly interrogative wh-elements. On the other hand, the improvement by resumptive pronoun does not work in case of extraction of more than one wh-elements out of embedded sentences which are in the relation of subordination, cf. (223a) above and its resumptive-pronoun variant in (223a-a) below, and in case of extraction of adverbial wh-elements, cf. (234a) above and its resumptive-pronoun variant in (234a-a) below), etc. (223)a-a. * Who, what2 do you think John sent a letter to him-SN, after he had eaten it-SN2 (234)a-a. *How, do you wonder which problem to solve in that way-SNl

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

of nominals

245

(ii) SFs. The conditions for the variation of pronouns and parasitic gaps have been formulated above in 4.5.3, in terms of degrees of acceptability due to degrees of processing complexity, which is connected with the symmetrical character of the antecedent and the parasitic gap, the sentence-initial position of the parasitic gap, etc. In the light of this, many putatively unacceptable examples with parasitic gaps should be viewed as esssentially acceptable (slightly questionable), such as (323), (329), or (330) above. Really unacceptable cases are due to the following reasons: (a) The prohibition of the sequence [full COMP - empty Subject] in English, which holds also for parasitic gaps (occurring after COMP filled with adverbial conjunctions such as after or because (my proposal)), cf. (351) below. (b) The inadmissibility of parasitic gaps in nonrestrictive constructions, cf. (194) above (due to Manzini 1992), and in case of blatant asymmetries such as that between the Subject as antecedent and Object as parasitic gap, cf. (315) above (taken from Lasnik - Uriagereka 1988). (351)

* Who, hit you after SF, kissed you

4.6 Conclusion In this Chapter, I have made the following claims: (i) Universal extractability of wh-elements. There is an almost universal extractability of wh-elements, due to the universal expressibility (effability) of natural language: anything (any syntactic relation) can be asked for. The majority of the putatively unacceptable examples with extraction can be pragmatically improved, especially by means of an appropriate context. On the other hand, I have proposed additional constraints on wh-extraction, which should be integrated into the Chomsky an theory. (ii) Extracted elements and the communicative-infomation structure of the sentence. The extracted and moved wh- and non-wh elements continue to belong to the communicative-information structure (i.e., to the Topic or Focus) of the sentence out of which they have been extracted or within which they have been moved. (Wh-elements always belong to Focus, and non-wh-elements may belong to Topic or to Focus, which is disambiguated by intonation.) Three types of wh-elements may occur within the complex sentence: the directly interrogative wh-elements in the matrix sentence, the directly inter-

246

Wh-extraction and cross-categorization

ofnominals

rogative wh-elements in the embedded sentence, and the indirectly interrogative wh-elements in the embdedded sentence. Moreover, there is a fourth and a fifth type of wh-elements, if we take into account echo-questions: the echo-focalized wh-elements, which are the only elements of the echo-question, and the echo-topicalized wh-elements. My findings show that the Focus of the sentence may be discontinuous, because wh-elements and the non-wh-expressions answering them, while belonging to the Focus, may occur anywhere in the sentence, such as in different clauses or in different NPs. Second, I believe to have shown that the neutral ordering is obeyed only by the elements by the particular parts of the Focus, not in the Focus as a whole. (iii) Cross-categorization of empty categories and pronouns. I propose that empty categories and pronouns should be cross-categorized according to whether they correspond or do not correspond to syntactially and communicatively fullfledged occurrences of syntactic relations. By syntactical fullfledgedness, I mean the correspondence of the expression to a node of the deep representation tree, its syntactical independence on the antecedent, and by communicative fullfledgedness, I mean its appurtenance to the communicative-information parts of the sentence, such as Topic and Focus. Only syntactically fullfledged expressions may function as genuine anaphoric (referential) expressions. This yields an alternative quadripartition of empty categories and pronouns (syntactically and communicatively fullfledged vs. nonfullfledged empty categories and pronouns). I propose that traces as syntactically non-fullfledged empty categories, and as highly abstract and empirically unmotivated categories, whose introduction has been due to the properties of surface word-order in English, should be dispensed with.

5. Anaphoric reference 5.1 Introduction In this chapter, I would like to present my account of anaphoric reference (anaphora): (i) anaphora in the complex sentence, cf. 5.3. (ii) anaphora in the simple sentence, cf. 5.4. (iii) anaphora in general, cf. 5.5. In 5.2,1 offer critical comments on extant approaches. This chapter is based on my previous work on anaphora, cf. Koktova: 1992a, 1992b, 1995a, 1995b, and in press b. and submitted b. In (i) and (ii) as specified above, I will concentrate on the use of (personal, reflexive, reciprocal and possessive) pronouns as anaphoric expressions with respect to the possibilities of their coreferential (or, marginally, sloppy) reading within the complex and simple sentence. On the other hand, in (iii), I will treat a wider repertoire of anaphoric expressions, from the zero form through pronouns to lexical expressions, within my conception of the principles underlying anaphoric reference in general, as a subsystem of natural language as a synergetic (self-organizing, self-regulating) and functional system. Thus, in (iii), I will concentrate on anaphoric expressions occurring in independent sentences in a coordination of sentences and in the text. Under the notion of anaphoric reference, I understand the anaphoric relation between two syntactically and communicatively fullfledged occurrences of syntactic relations, the antecedent and the postcedent. Both the antecedent and the postcedent correspond to independent nodes in the deep representation of the sentence in WOBG (cf. Chapter 6). Out of them, the postcedent (expressed by very different anaphoric expressions from the zero form through pronouns to lexical expressions) is dependent, as regards its interpretation, on the antecedent. On the other hand, I exclude from my considerations traces of movement and extraction and resumptive pronouns as syntacticaly and communicatively non-fullfledged expressions: they do not correspond to nodes in the deep representation of the sentence. For a justification of this claim, cf. section 4.5 above: essentially, genuine anaphoric expressions (unlike traces and resumptive pronouns), as syntactically and communicatively fullfledged expressions, have syntactic functions which may be different from those of their

248

Anaphoric reference

antecedents, and they belong to the communicative-information structure (Topic-Focus articulation) of the sentence. With respect to the points (i), (ii) and (iii) above, I make the following claims: (i) The (pronominal) anaphora in the complex sentence is almost unrestricted, contrary to the Chomsky an theory. Apparently unacceptable or awkward cases (with stressed pronouns and/or NPs) can be pragmatically improved by means of an appropriate contrastive context and by an explicit focusing of the stressed element in question. The essential acceptability of anaphora is complex sentences in based on the occurrence of the antecedent and the postcedent in different sentences (clauses) of the complex sentence: the antecedent and the postcedent are syntactically and communicatively autonomous elements. An interesting point is the general principle of anaphoric "renaming" as manifested in the complex sentence. Langacker's basic subcategorization of anaphora in the complex sentence into four types can be substantially extended if one takes into account the appurtenance of the antecedent and the postcedent to the Topic and Focus of the sentences in which they occur. The examples in this section are English-oriented, but I assume that the principles which I posit here are valid cross-linguistically. This section involves also my comments on control, because it can be viewed as a subtype of anaphora in the complex sentence (the infinitival construction and the corresponding embedded clause can be viewed as equivalent, except for the possibility of the occurrence of a noncoreferential Subject in the embedded clause). (ii) The (pronominal) anaphora in the simple sentence is accountable for in terms of strict grammatical distinctions, viz., of the position of the antecedent and the postcedent in the communicative-information structure of the sentence (as regards their degrees of communicative dynamism and appurtenance to Topic and Focus), and of the type of syntactic relation (syntactic function) of the antecedent and the postcedent with respect to the neutral (unmarked, systemic) ordering of syntactic relations. A substantial extension of Reinhart's paradigm of four cases of anaphora in the simple sentence according to the principle of c-command can be made if the position of the antecedent and the postcedent in the communicationinformation structure (Topic-Focus articulation) as well as surface shifts of the elements of the sentence (connected with marked intonation) are considered. The examples in this section are also English-oriented, but I assume that the principles which I posit here are also valid cross-linguistically.

Anaphoric reference

249

(iii) As regards anaphoric reference in general, I propose three basic principles: (a) The balance between the principle of economy and explicitness (clarity) of linguistic expression. This balance testifies to the synergetic character of natural language, and it is manifested especially in long chains of anaphoric expressions referring to the same antecedent. (b) The principle of four basic patterns of anaphoric reference with respect to the prototypicality (anthropocentric character) of the action involved: (bl) Referential identity across sentence boundary (prototypical). (b2) Referential identity within a sentence (nonprototypical). (b3) Referential disjointness across sentence boundary (nonprototypical). (b4) Referential disjointness within a sentence (prototypical). This principle accounts especially for the occurrence and properties of the zero form vs. the reflexive pronoun as polarities within the basic layer of (minimal) anaphoric expressions. (c) The principle of the hierarchy of layers (including oppositions) of types of anaphoric expressions: (cl) The basic layer of minimal anaphoric expressions, further subcategorized into two sublayers: (cl.l) Nonemphasized anaphoric expressions (such as those occurring in Noncontrastive Topic). (cl.2) Emphasized anaphoric expressions (such as those occurring in the Focus). (c2) The layer of (minimally) explicit anaphoric expessions. (c3) The layer of anaphoric expressions bringing relatively or absolutely new information. Additionally, there is the dimension of logophoricity, cutting across the layers (cl), (c2) and (c3) above. A technical note: really unacceptable examples will be indicated by an asterisk without brackets, and improvable examples will be indicated by an asterisk in brackets.

5.2. Critique of extant approaches In this section, I would like to present a critique of major extant approaches to anaphora including control: Langacker 1966, Reinhart 1981 and 1983, Westergaard 1986, Bresnan 1982, Y. Huang 1994, and others. This section involves also my arguments against the c-command condition, and an overview

250

Anaphoric reference

of the development of, and inconsistencies in, the Chomskyan Government Binding theory.

5.2.1 Langacker 1966 The first systematic account of anaphora in the complex sentence (consisting of one main sentence and one embedded sentence) is given in Langacker 1966. He claims that a postcedent (pronoun) may not bear "relevant primacy relations" to its antecedent (NP), i.e. it may not both precede and command the NP. He assumes that a node A commands another node Β if neither A nor Β dominate each other, and the S-node that most immediately dominates A also doinates B. According to this claim, he distinguishes four basic types of anaphora in the complex sentence according to their acceptability, cf. the paradigm in (352) below. According to Langacker, only type II is unacceptable, the rest is acceptable. (352) I. [Main sentence (NP) - embedded sentence (pronoun)] II. *[Main sentence (pronoun) - embedded sentence (NP)] III. [Embedded sentence (NP) - main sentence (pronoun)] IV. [Embedded sentence (pronoun) - main sentence (NP)] This paradigm is illustrated as follows, cf. the examples (352a-d), respectively. (352)a. b. c. d.

Leslie, likes the man who kissed her, *Shej likes the man who kissed Leslie, The man who kissed Leslie, likes her, The man who kissed her, likes Leslie,

In this paradigm, types I and III involve forward anaphora, whereas types II and IV, backward anaphora. In types I and II, the order of the sentences is "normal" (unmarked), in that the main sentence precedes the embedded sentence, whereas in types III and IV, the order of the sentences is "reverse" (marked), in that the embedded sentence precedes the main sentence.

Anaphoric reference

251

In type I, the pronoun is preceded and commanded by the NP, and hence type I is acceptable. In type 2, the pronoun both precedes and commands the NP, and hence type II is unacceptable. In type III, the pronoun does not precede the NP but it commands it, and hence type III is acceptable. In type IV, the pronoun does not command the NP but it precedes it, and hence type IV is also acceptable. Thus, in the paradigm in (352), only type II is unacceptable. However, acceptable counterexamples to type II have emerged (cf. (353) (Bosch's 1983: 215b/165)), which will be henceforth referred to as cases of "renaming" (I have borrowed this term from Bily 1981). The phenomenon of "renaming" (of a pronoun or of a NP by a coreferential NP) is, however, broader, and it occurs (first of all) in independent sentences in the coordination of sentences and in the text (cf. (354) (Westergaard's 1986 example)). I will deal with renaming in more detail below in 5.3. (353) (354)

Julia hit him, before Max, left in his Rolls-Royce for a dinner engagement at the Ritz She, has the whole world in front of her2, and yet Leslie, simply sits at home

On the other hand, putative counterexamples emerged against the assumed acceptability of types I, III and IV, cf. (355a) (due to Horvath - Rochemont), (356) (due to Westergaard) and (357a), (due to Horvath - Rochemont), respectively. In these examples, the pronoun and/or the NP is stressed, and therefore these sentences are considered as unacceptable. However, it can be shown that the majority of these examples can be pragmatically improved by an appropriate contrastive context (cf. (355b), (357b) and 5.3 below). (355)a. (*)John, thought that Paul Drake was investigating HIM, b. John thought, that Paul Drake was investigating only HIM, (and no one else) (356) (*)That PETER, was unpopular didn 't disturb him, (357)a.(*)77ie woman he, LOVED betrayed JOHN, b. The woman he, loved betrayed only JOHN, (and no one else)

252

Anaphoric reference

5.2.2 Reinhart 1981,1983 (a) Reinhart 1981. Reinhart defines the principle of c-command as follows (1981: 22/620): "A c-commands Β iff the branching node a, most immediately dominating A either dominates Β or is immediately dominated by a 2 which dominates β and a 2 is of the same category type as a / ' . According to this rule, a sentence is acceptable (on the intended intrasentential anaphoric reading) if an element Β which is c-commanded by (i.e., occurs in the domain of) another element Λ is a pronoun, i.e., no NP. First, Reinhart applies this principle to anaphora in the simple sentence. She presents a paradigm of four types of anaphora in the simple sentence, analogous to that of Langacker's for the complex sentence, cf. the paradigm (358) below, examplified by (358a-d), respectively. However, unlike Langacker, Reinhardt considers two types (types II and III) as unacceptable: (358) I. forward anaphora, where the NP c-commands the pronoun: acceptable; II. backward anaphora, where the pronoun c-commands the NP: unacceptable; III. forward anaphora, where the pronoun c-commands the NP: unacceptable; IV. backward anaphora, where the NP c-commands the pronoun: acceptable. (358)a. Dan, saw a snake near him, b. *He, saw a snake near Dan, c.(*)Near Dan,, he, saw a snake d. Near him,, Dan, saw a snake However, I argue that type III is more complicated than Reinhart thinks; it is not always the case that sentences of this type are unacceptable (there are authors whose observations corroborate my claim). Consider, for example, the questionably acceptable Case-Ill answers in dialogues such as Who bought a car for Dan ? - ?For Dan, only HE HIMSELF bought a car, and further acceptable and questionably acceptable examples for Case ΠΙ in 5.4.1 below.

Anaphoric reference

253

(b) Reinhart 1983. In her book, Reinhart proposes a generalization of the ccommand condition with respect to pronominal anaphora in simple and complex sentences. The book has many theoretical and empirical merits (cf. especially the subtle insights into very different types of anaphora, the attempt to treat anaphora in terms of grammatical relations, and to relate the c-command condition to the theme-rheme structure of the sentence). However, the major generalizations, resting on the c-command condition, can be criticized, especially the collapsing of anaphora in the simple and in the complex sentence, and the mistaken acceptability predictions within the domains of simple and complex sentences. These drawbacks are based on the (English-biased) phrase-structure conception of the c-command constraint, which is able to make diference only between Subjects, NP Objects and PP adverbial modifications, but which is insensitive to the repertoire of several tens of types of syntactic relations which exist in natural languages and which may be expressed in different ways (by NPs or PPs), irrespective of the argumental or nonargumental character of the syntactic relations. Moreover, the c-command condition is ineffective also with respect to semantically- and pragmatically-based constraints on anaphoric relations, ranging from the Topic-Focus articulation through the semantics of quantifiers to the reference points (points of view) and "world knowledge" (beliefs and expectations) of the interlocutors. I believe that only a minority of the constraints on anaphoric reference can be accounted for in terms of the c-command condition (which can be reformulated within more general syntactic regularities), and that the conditons on anaphoric reference should be sought rather in the domain of pragmatics than in the domain of syntax. Reinhart distinguishes three cases: (i) bound anaphora, (ii) pragmatic coreference, and (iii) obligatory non-coreference. (i) Bound anaphora. In this case, the antecedent NP c-commands the NP, which yields acceptability. (A technical note: "obligatory" anaphora means that an extrasentential antecedent is not possible, whereas "optional" anaphora means that an extrasentential antecedent is possible.) Bound anaphora involves the following cases: (a) Obligatory anaphora in simple sentences with reflexive pronouns, such as in (359). (359)

Felix, adores himself]

254

Anaphoric reference

(b) Optional forward anaphora in complex sentences, cf. (360) and (361) for Langacker's type I and III, respectively. (360) (361)

Felix, thinks that he, is a genius Those who know Felix, despise him,

(c) Optional anaphora with quantified antecedents, both in simple and complex sentences (with restrictions, cf. below in (iii)): (cl) Forward anaphora, cf. (362). (362)

IEach of the candidates]; was interviewed by so many people that he, could not remember them all

(c2) Backward anaphora in complex sentences (Langacker's type IV) with a Subject pronoun, cf. (363). (363)

The fact that he, is being sued should worry every businessman,

(c3) Backward anaphora in simple sentences with an embedded pronoun, cf. (364). (364)

In his, own way, however, [each man], is petitioning for the same kind of administration

(ii) Pragmatic coreference. In this case, the antecedent NP does not ccommand the pronoun, but no violation of the c-command condition occurs because no nonpronoun (= NP) occurs in the domain of the pronoun (no NP is c-commanded by the pronoun). Here belong the following cases: (a) Optional coreference in complex sentences with backward anaphora, such as in (365). (365)

Those who know him, despise Felix,)

(b) Optional coreference in simple sentences:

Anaphoric reference

255

(bl) Forward coreference, with a sentence-initial sentential PP (such as in (366)), or with a sentence-initial verb-phrasal PP (such as in (367)). (366) (367)

In Ben, 's office, he, is an absolute dictator For Ben, 's car, I am willing to give him, two grand

(b2) Backward coreference, such as in (368). This example is interpretable as involving surface backward anaphora, which is in fact deep forward anaphora. This means that (368) is synonymous to (369) (my example), where the ordering of the relevant elements (Ben's, him) coincides with deep ordering (deep forward anaphora). In other words, the ordering in (368) can be viewed as derived from the ordering in (369). (368) (369)

Rosa is kissing him, passionately in Ben, 's high school picture In Ben's high school picture, Rosa is passionately kissing him

(c) The case known as "renaming", involving the following subcases: (cl) Langacker's type II, such as in (370). Here, Reinhart mistakenly assumes that if the pronoun is Subject, the sentences are unacceptable. Counterexamples are provided in Bosch 1983 and in Rochemont - Culicover 1990, cf. e.g. (371) (Bosch's 225/169) and (372) (due to Rochemont - Culicover 1990). (370) (371) (372)

We had to fire him, since Mcintosh, 's weird habits reached an intolerable stage He, is unbearable when Stan, gets one of his tantrums She, met so many people at the party that Mary, was upset

(c2) "Renaming" involving two NPs, cf. (373) for the complex sentence, and (374) and (375) for the simple sentence. (373) (374) (375)

The flowers that we bought for Zelda, pleased Zelda, Only Churchill, remembers Churchill, giving the speech about blood, sweat, toil and tears In Ben, 's office, Ben, is an absolute dictator

256

Anaphoric reference

(iii) Obligatory noncoreference. The cases with obligatory noncoreference are (putatively) unacceptable on the intended readings: in the cases below, the (putative) unacceptability is due, in (a), to the obligatory character of the reflexive in simple sentences with the Subject as antecedent; in (b), (c), (d), and (e) due to the violation of the c-command condition; (f) is a case of "renaming", and the cases (g), (h), and (i) involve quantification, (a) Forward anaphora in simple sentences with personal pronouns functioning as the Subject, cf. (376) (in this case, the reflexive must be used). (376) *Zelda, loves her, (b) Backward anaphora in simple sentences with a reflexive, cf. (377a). (377b) is my improvement by contrastive context·. (3n)z.(*)Himself, admires Chomsky, b. Himselfin admires only Chomsky,, not Lasnik2 (b) Backward anaphora in simple sentences, possibly with an embedded NP, cf. (378). (378)

*She, adores Zelda, 's teachers

(c) Backward anaphora in simple sentences with sentential PPs in the sentence-final position, cf. (379). Here, the renaming interpretation is marginally possible. (379)

(*)She, is kissing Ben passionately in Zelda, 's high school picture

e) Forward anaphora in simple sentences with verb-phrasal PPs in the sentence-initial position, cf. (380a). (380)a. *For Ben, 's car, he, is asking two grand (f) Backward coreference in Langacker's type II with a Subject pronoun, cf. (381).

Anaphoric reference

257

(381) *He, was hit on the head before the lecturer, had a chance to say anything The example given by Professor Werner Winter, viz., He was pleased, was John belongs to a different category of phenomena, viz., the re-activation of a referent in the short-time memory of the hearer, as a means of the modification of the temporal linearity of verbal communication, in order to make the processing of the sentence easier. In other words, this case would belong to cases of "renaming" discussed here in 5.3, the pronoun he having its proper antecedent in the previous context, and the noun John being the re-activatory renaming element. (g) Backward anaphora in complex sentences with a quantified Object, such as in Langacker's type IV, cf. (382). (382) *The secretary who worked for him, despised [each of the managers], However, as my anonymous referee correctly sugggests, changing the singular into plural would make sentences like this acceptable: The secretary who worked for them despised all of the managers. (h) Forward anaphora in complex sentences with quantified Object NPs, such as in Langacker's type ΙΠ, cf. (383). (383)

The guy who read [every book], in this library says that they, are absolutely boring

(i) Forward anaphora with quantified embedded NPs, such as in (384). (385) is my counterexample. (384) *Gossip about [every businessman], harmed his, career (385) That the Sioux Indians may attack him, any moment on the way, please will you tell (every boy in this village), Here again, Professor Werner Winter points out that a plural version of (384) would be acceptable, cf. Gossip about the three Johnsons harmed their career. I would like to comment on this paradigm as follows:

258

Anaphoric reference

(a) The example in (377a) becomes acceptable if it is set in an appropriate contrastive context, cf. (377b). (b) The example (379) should not be considered as absolutely unacceptable. The sentence is long and complicated enough for the "renaming" interpretation to be marginally available. (c) Counterexamples to Reinhart's claim about the unacceptability of renaming if the pronoun functions as the Subject have been supplied by Bosch 1983 and by Rochemont - Culicover 1990 (cf. (371) and (372) above, respectively). (d) I argue that cases with quantified antecedent NPs should be treated separately. Thus, for example, the quantified NP in (383) requires a plural pronoun, whereas (384), where the quantified NP is embedded, cannot be improved by a plural pronoun. On the other hand, I have acceptable counterexamples to Reinhart's claim that Langacker's type IV with quantified Object NPs is unaccceptable, cf. the acceptable (385) (my example). In sum, the following objections can be raised against Reinhart's account: (a) Anaphora in the simple and in the complex sentence should be kept apart, due to the fact that in the complex sentence, the antecedent and the postcedent occur in different clauses, so that they are not subject to the strict principles of the sentential syntax of the simple sentence. (b) Reinhart's type III of anaphora in the simple sentence should not be considered as totally unacceptable. Rather, it is the most complicated case out of the four cases of anaphora in a simple sentence, cf. the discussion about the paradigm (358) above and the exposition and examples in 5.4.1. (c) Reinhart's type IV of anaphora with the reflexive should not be considered as unacceptable: it is improvable by contrastive context, cf. (377a) vs. (377b). (d) Langacker's type IV for anaphora in the complex sentence with a quantified Object NP should not be generally considered as unacceptable, cf. my counterexample (385). (e) There are no proper criteria for, and there is no clearcut boundary between, sentential and verb-phrasal PPs (cf. also Bosch 1983: 166-172). Reinhart's case III of anaphora in the simple sentence with sentence-initial verb-phrasal PPs is putatively unacceptable. However, it can be pragmatically improved in two ways: (cl) By lengthening, i.e. semantically enriching the PP (cf. (386a) and (387a)) as improved in (386b) and (387b), respectively;

Anaphoric reference

259

(c2) by changing the lexical cast of the sentence except for the PP in question, cf. (387a) vs. (387c) (from Westergaard 1986: 172 vs. 171 on p. 95), and (388a) vs. (388b) (from Bosch 1983: 228a,b/171). Let us note that the sentence (387a) is thus improved in two ways, illustrated in (387b) and (387c). (386)a. (*)In Jolnnl 's appartment, he, smoked pot b. In John,'s beautiful appartment on 5th Avenue, he, smoked pot (387)a. (*)In Peter, 's home town, he, spent most of his life b. In Peter, 's beautiful little home town up the mountains, he, spent most of his life c. In Peter, 's home town, he, is still considered a good actor (388)a. *In John, 's kitchen, he, studied b. In John, 's kitchen, he, caught a burglar (f) Reinhart herself points out several cases which remain unresolved by her account. The first of them is that also NPs in PPs have a (quasi-) c-commanding capacity, i.e., they may serve as antecedents for reflexives and reciprocals, cf. (389). (389)

We talked with the neighbors, about each other,

(g) It can be claimed that embedding of pronouns generally improves acceptability, cf. the unacceptable (390a) vs. the acceptable (390b), and analogously (391a) vs. (391b), and (392a) vs. (392b). Reinhart solves the antecedent capacity of embedded NPs by an ad hoc stipulation. However, it can be proposed that cases with embedded pronouns should be integrated as regular cases into my paradigm of anaphora in the simple sentence. (390)a. b. (391)a. b.

*He, thinks that John, is a genius His, mother thinks that John, is a genius *Which biography of [which artist], do you think he, wants to read Which biography of [which artist], do you think his, mother wants to read (392)a. *He, thinks that everybody, is a genius b. His, mother thinks that he, is a genius

260

Anaphoric reference

(i) On the other hand, embedding a quantified expression functioning as an antecedent may worsen the acceptability of a sentence, cf. (393a) vs. (393b). (393)a. Everybody thinks that he is a genius b. ΊΊEverybody's mother thinks that he is a genius (h) The next case of interest is one with marked intonation, with a backward surface anaphora, which in fact corresponds to deep forward anaphora (cf. also the example (369) above). Reinhart cannot account for the difference in acceptability between the unacceptable (394a) and the almost acceptable (394b), where the pronoun HIM precedes the NP Ben. I propose that (394b) is more probable to be pronounced with marked intonation, i.e., with the peak of intonation on the pronoun, which results in its acceptability: in this case, deep forward anaphora is involved. The marked intonation means that in the deep representation of (394b), the ordering of the two elements is reversed, i.e., that the pronoun follows the NP, which is a quite regular case of forward anaphora. Thus, (394b), with the peak of intonation on HIM preceding the NP Ben, is synonymous to (394b'), where Ben precedes HIM (this word-order reflects the deep order of the two elements in question). In order to get an analogous interpretation of the example (394a), the pronoun would have to be emphasized by a focusing particle such as just or only, or it would have to be reinforced by the reflexive himself in the emphasizing function (cf. Bickerton 1986, Baker 1995), such as in the acceptable (394a') and (394a"), respectively. (394)a. */ met him, in Ben, 's office a' I met just HIM, in Ben, 's office a'' / met [HIM HIMSELF], in Ben, 's office b. (?)/ thought about him, in Ben, 's office b' In Ben, 's office, I thought about HIM, (i) Reinhart mistakenly claims that (395b), unlike (395a), does not exhibit the sloppy reading. However, in my intuition, (395a) and (395b) are syntactically perfectly parallel, and hence, both can have the sloppy reading, as is indicated by my spelling out the deleted material in both of these sentences (in brackets). The only difference between them is that in (395a), the Direct Ob-

Anaphoric reference

261

ject is expressed by a NP, whereas in (395b), by a PP. However, this morphologically-based distinction makes no difference in anaphoric relations. (For the irrelevance of the NP-PP distinction, cf. also Bresnan 1982 and Oliva 1988.)

(395)a. Zelda bought Siegfried, a present on his, wedding day and Felix2, too (she bought Felix2 a present on hislf2 wedding day) b. Zelda thought about Siegfried, on his, wedding day and about Felixv too (she was thinking on Felix2 on hisl/2 wedding day)

5.2.3 Westergaard 1986 Westergaard attempts to account for the acceptability of sentences with anaphoric relations in terms of a scalar property exhibited by the antecedent and the postcedent, but her account fails in many respects due to her overrating the pragmatic principles and to the speculative character of her considerations. The pragmatically-based scalar property consists of four subproperties: (a) Linear order. Westergaard distinguishes theme and rheme as values of this subproperty. If the element (NP or pronoun) stands in the theme, it receives one negative point, and if it stands in the rheme, it receives one positive point. (b) Information structure. Westergaard distinguishes "given" and "new" as values of this subproperty. If the element is "given", it receives one negative point, and if its is "new", it receives one positive point. (c) Stress (focus). If the element does not carry stress, it receives no points, and if it carries stress, it receives one positive point. (d) Semantic character. If the element is a pronoun, it receives no points, and if it is a NP, it receives one positive point. In order for a sentence with anaphora to be acceptable, the pronoun must have a number of points greater than, or identical with, the number of the points of the NP. (i) First, critical remarks can be made with respect to the author's conception of the subproperties. The author's notions of theme and rheme are taken from Quirk at al. 1972, where they are defined in terms of linear order. This conception should not be confused with that of Firbas, where theme corresponds to the given, and rheme to the new, part of the sentence.

262

Anaphoric reference

Further, the author mistakenly assumes that marked themes (Nonsubjects) carry new information. It can be argued, however, that theme, whether "marked" or "unmarked", if unstressed (Noncontrastive), carries given information. Most importantly, the author does not consider the recursive properties of the theme/rheme, given/new, etc., partitioning of the sentence: she considers these distinctions only with respect to the whole sentence, although every clause within a complex sentence has its own Topic-Focus structure. Thus, in (396a) (=her 170a), the pronoun in the embedded sentence is ascribed the value "given" because the NP Leslie in the matrix sentence is "new", whereas in (396b) (her 170c), it is ascribed the value "new" because the NP is "given". In fact, both in (396a) and (396b), the pronoun is the theme (Topic, given element) of both the embedded sentence and of the whole complex sentence irrespective of the value of the NP in the matrix sentence. Moreover, (396a) is considered as unacceptable. In fact, it can be improved by contrastive context, and/or by means of an explicit focusing of the stressed NP LESLIE by means of a focusing particle. (396)a. (*)The man who kissed her, liked LESLIE, b. The man who kissed her, LIKED Leslie, Similarly, Westergaard mistakenly assigns the values theme/rheme and given/new according to the position of the element within the whole of the complex sentence: if it stands at the end of the whole complex sentence, it receives the value "rheme" and "new", but if it stands at the end of the first sentence (and thus occupies a medial position within the complex sentence), it receives no value whatsoever, cf. the difference between Westergaard's assignments of values to the pronoun him in (397a) (focus) vs. (397b) (no value) (Westergaard's 162a vs. 164a, respectively). Furthermore, she assigns the values "given" and "new" quite arbitrarily: thus, in her sentences (171) and (172) (corresponding to my (387c) and (387a) above), the PP in Peter's home town is ascribed different values: "given" and "new", respectively, although in both sentences this PP is unstressed, "given". A similar inconsistency in assigning the values given/new is observed in her syntactically perfectly isomorphic examples 188 vs. 206, where unstressed pronouns at the beginning of the whole complex sentence are assigned different values.

Anaphoric reference

263

Last but not least, sentence-final new NPs (which must be pronounced with stress) are assigned neither stress nor the value "focus", except for her example 170a, where only stress, but not "focus", is indicated. (397)a. Peter, didn 't care about the fact that they avoided him, b. The fact that they avoided him, didn't bother Peter, (ii) Second, objections can be raised against the author's neglect of the syntactic structure of the sentence and of Langacker's basic account of the acceptability of anaphora in a complex sentence in terms of his four cases of acceptability (cf. 2.1 above). Thus, Westergaard mistakenly claims that sentences like (398) (her 153) are unacceptable because the pronoun is an unmarked theme (= Subject). (398)

*She, didn't like the fact that Leslie, was kissed

In fact, however, they are unacceptable because they prototypically belong to Langacker's unacceptable type II, without the possibility of the "renaming" interpretation. Even if the pronoun were a marked theme (an Object), the sentence would remain unacceptable. Further, Westergaard mistakenly considers Langacker's sentences of type IV with a stressed NP as unacceptable. She admits that there is the possibility of improvement by a contrastive context only with a single example (399) (her 228b), although a generalization is easily possible. (399)

That he, was unpopular didn't disturb Peter,, but it disturbed everybody else in his family

Moreover, she mistakenly considers sentences of Langacker's type III with a stressed NP as unacceptable, cf. (400) (her 203), although they are generally improvable by contrastive context. (Case III with a complement clause such as in (400) is a recalcitrant, not easily improvable case, in contrast to Case III with other kinds of embedded clauses, which is much better improvable.) (400) (*)That PETER, was unpopular didn't disturb him,

264

Anaphoric reference

As regards anaphora in the simple sentence, the author treats in some detail phrases with embedded possessive pronouns. She mistakenly claims that (401a) (her 192d) is unacceptable; in fact, it is improvable by means of contrastive context, cf. (401b) (my example). (401 )a. His, brother is visiting JOHN, b. Hisj brother is visiting only JOHN, and no one else Such an improvement can be generalized also for nonembedded (reflexive) pronouns, cf. (402) (my example, analogous to Reinhart's example in (377a) above). (402)

About himself,, we were speaking only with JOHN, (and with no one else)

Finally, the sentence (403c) (Westergaard's 193d) is not acceptable as a response to her question (403a), but it would be acceptable as a response to (403b) (my example). In (403c), the emphasized, focal element is the possessive pronoun embedded in the Subject NP, which corresponds exactly to the question (403b), with a possessive pronoun embedded in the Subject NP. On the other hand, a proper answer to (303a), with two interrogative whpronouns for the Subject and the Object, would be (303d), with John and HIS BROTHER as new information (Focus), and with the usual intonation contour (sentence-final peak of intonation). (403)a. b. c. d.

Who is visiting who Whose brother is visiting John HIS, brother is visiting John, John is visiting HIS BROTHER

5.2.4 Bresnan 1982 In this section, I would like to comment on Bresnan's account of control. She treats control in terms of grammatical functions, within the framework of her Lexical Functional Grammar. Certain grammatical functions are subcategorized by verbs as controllers of the unexpressed Subject of the nonfinite con-

Anaphoric reference

265

struction, which is itself a grammatical function. Bresnan distinguishes the following types of control: (i) Functional control. In functional control, the relation between the controller and the controlled construction is close, being expressed by a functional equation, where the controlled construction is an open function (XCOMP or XADJ)). There are two types of functional control: (a) The lexically induced functional control, where the functional equation is part of the lexical entry of the verb, the controller is a semantically unrestricted function (SUBJ, OBJ, OBJ2), and the controlled construction is XCOMP (complement construction). This type of control involves control with verbs such as to see, to regard and raising verbs such as to believe (which are, however, dealt with elsewhere in Bresnan's paper), and the verb to promise in the active form, where the controlled construction is obligatory (cf. (404)), but also cases where the controlled construction is optional (cf. (405)). (404) (405)

John seems sick to Mary John will serve you the fish raw

(b) The constructionally-induced functional control, where the functional equation is part of the c-structure annotation, the controller may be a semantically restricted function, and the controlled construction is XADJ (adjunct construction), cf. (406), (407) and (408). (406) (407) (408)

John was passed by Mary in the hall yesterday drunk as usual John will serve you the fish, tasty and fragrant with herbs Sure of winning, Mary entered the competition yesterday

However, I see no difference between (405) (lexically induced control) and (406) constructionally induced control): both are free adverbial complementations of Circumstance expressed by an adjectival phrase. (ii) Anaphoric control. In anaphoric control, the relation between the controller and the controlled construction is rather loose, not part of the lexical entry (but the same can be said about examples (405) and (406)). The controlled element is PRO, which is rightly conceived of as an unexpressed pronominal element (pronoun), with the following properties: it may have a definite or indefinite (generic) reference, it can have an extrasentential antecedent, or even a nonlinguistic (deictic) antecedent, and the antecedent may be split.

266

Anaphoric reference

Also this type of control is rather heterogeneous: here belong typical cases of controlled infinitive with control verbs such as to promise in the passive or with verbs of saying and urging such as to signal (cf. (409)), as well as the control with the for-to construction with verbs such as to hope, but also cases of infinitival and gerundial constructions functioning as Subjects of independent sentences, cf. (410) with a deictic antecedent, and (411) for a gerundial construction with a split antecedent. (409) (410) (411)

Louise signaled to Ted, PRO, to shave himself I think that PRO, killing himself was a terrible mistake Mary, lost track of John2, because PRO,2 having been angry at each other, he had gone one way and she, the other

The merits of Bresnan's approach consist in the treatment of syntactic functions as primitives, in considering the controlled construction itself as a syntactic function, in the conception of PRO as an unexpressed pronoun with all consequences (such as taking a deictic antecedent), and in the broad conception of control encompassing most different syntactic constructions from obligatory control in the narrow sense to loose nonrestrictive constructions. Also, she considers the distinctions of the Topic-Focus articulation, cf. the difference between (412a) (with the antecedent John in the embedded Topic of a NP) and (412b) (with the antecedent John in the embedded Focus of a NP) observed by Bresnan: (412)a. PRO, winning the Nobel prize has prevented John, 's discovery of the vaccine b. 11PRO, winning the Nobel prize had prevented the discovery of the vaccine by John, However, Bresnan's account of control with respect to typical control verbs such as to try, to promise (and I would like to add, verbs of communicating and urging such as to signal), etc. has considerable drawbacks. She erroneously claims that the XCOMP is functionally controlled by OBJ2 if there is one, otherwise by the OBJ if there is one, otherwise by the SUB J. However, there are many counterexamples to this claim, cf. the verb to promise, which can have Subject or Object control (with this verb, Bresnan mistakenly assumes that only Subject control is possible).

Anaphoric reference

267

Also, it is counterintuitive to claim that the verb to promise exhibits functional control if active, and anaphoric control if passive. Bresnan's "apparent counterexamples" to the principle that functional control must have a nonoblique antecedent are treated by her in an ad-hoc way they are considered to be instances of anaphoric control, or of Verb - Preposition Incorporation (this is at odds with her own contention that there is no difference between NPs and PPs, and that what matters are only types of syntactic functions (grammatical relations)). Last but not least, as was suggested by the examples above, the optional/ obligatory character of the controlled construction cuts across the lexically induced functional control and anaphoric control. In the Praguean approach (cf. Panevovä 1978, 1986, 1995, Petkeviö in prep.), typical control verbs are treated with more precision. The functional approach of the authors (as regards the functional conception of syntactic relations) is very consistent, so that also cases of raising and the passive come under the compass of the regular cases of control. On the other hand, the other cases of control, such as infinitival constructions and gerunds in different syntactic functions, possibly with deeplyembedded antecedents, have been taken into consideration in Prague only recently. Moreover, the Praguean approach should be improved with respect to empirical coverage (repertoire of control verbs and their possible finer semantico-pragmatic subcategorization). In the Praguean approach, control is a relation of obligatory or optional referential dependency between a controller and a controllee, whereby the controller and the controlled sentence are specified in terms of valency frames of verbs, i.e., the controlled sentence plays the role of a syntactic relation in the valency frame of the verb along with the controller. Thus, in (413), on the classical Praguean interpretation, John is the Actor and the (preferred) controller, Mary is the Addressee (Indirect Object), and the controlled construction to come is the Patient (Direct Object) in the valency frame of the verb to promise. (413)

John, promised Mary2 PROt to come

According to the Praguean conception, the verb to promise is systematically ambiguous between two possible controllers, the Actor and the Addressee (disambiguation can be carried out only pragmatically). Another example would be that given by Professor Werner Winter, viz., John, sug-

268

Anaphoric reference

gested to Mary2 PROm to go to the movies. This example presumably has a preferable third reading, with a double antecedent (John and Mary) of PRO. With raising verbs such as to believe, the controller is Direct Object, and the controlled construction is simply labeled (by stipulation) as the syntactic relation of Effect. Panevovä specifies several types of verbs according to the possible controllers, such as: (aa) the controller is Actor (such as with to try)·, (bb) the controller is Addressee (such as with to order)·, (cc) the controller can be Actor of Addressee (such as with to promise (in the Praguean account), to suggest), etc. Also, the cases with inclusive reference, such as in (414), and with indistinct general reference, such as in (415), are taken into account. (414) (415)

Hej proposed to her2 PRO, 2 to go to the movies It was proposed PROarb to build a bridge

In the extended version of the Praguean conception of control, the following cases are also considered: (a) infinitival and gerundial constructions and nouns morphologically or semantically related to verbs in all syntactic functions as controlled constructions, and (b) deeply embedded controllers in quite untypical syntactic functions. This is illustrated in (416) (Petkevic in prep.) and (417) (literal English equivalent to Panevovä's 1995 example 27/9). In (416), the controller of PRO of the infinitival construction functioning as adnominal adjunct is the embedded expression Diana, and in (417), the PRO in a similar construction is triply ambiguous. (416) (417)

The possibility PROl to be admired by someone else filled Diana, 's heart with joy With the suggestion PROl2arb to organize a charitable concert, my friend, did not succeed with the committee2

5.2.5 Y. Huang 1994 Huang dispels the Chomskyan myth about syntactic constraints on anaphora, convincingly showing that these constraints are predominantly pragmatic. He departs from an analysis of the zero anaphoric expression (henceforth: zero

Anaphoric reference

269

form) in Chinese, showing that this expression does not fit into Chomsky's 1986 quadripartition of nominals. He points out the massive usage and free, pragmatically-conditioned interpretation of the zero form (which can be used for the Subject as well as for Objects and may occur thus more than once in a sentence). The zero form can have the following antecedents: an antecedent in the same complex sentence (in the closest or in a more remote sentence), an antecedent in an immediately or remotely preceding sentence, an indexical antecedent (i.e., the speaker or the hearer represented by indexical pronouns), a quantified antecedent, an arbitrary antecedent, and a split antecedent. Moreover, world knowledge (such as knowledge about prototypical actions) may override grammatical preferences, such as the choice of the closest antecedent. Also, psycholinguistic regularities such as the preferred choice of the antecedent from the first sentence (matrix sentence) or from the last (most deeply embedded) sentence of a complex sentence are operative here. In an actual sentence, the zero form is usually theoretically ambiguous between the indexical antecedents and an intrasentential and an extrasentential antecedent, but this ambiguity is pragmatically resolved. This is illustrated in (418) (Huang's) (2.38b/36). The point is the indexation of the zero form (whose interpretation is in brackets) as corresponding to the personal pronoun he by the indices 1 and 3. The index 1 means that contrary to grammatical predictions, the zero form is coindexed with the expression surgeon, which is not the closest antecedent, but an inferred antecedent according to our knowledge of the world (prototypically, surgeons operate on patients, and not the other way round). The index 3 means a possible extrasentential antecedent. (418)

Yisheng shuo bingren zhidao 0 mingtian geita kaidao doctor say patient know tomorrow for 3-sg operate The surgeon, says that the patient2 knows that (I/you/he 13/we/they) will operate on him, tomorrow'

Second, Huang analyzes long-distance reflexivization in Chinese as expressed by the reflexive ziji. Just like the zero form, the reflexive occurs very freely, and it may also have an extrasentential (discourse) antecedent. It has the Subject as antecedent, but it needs not conform to the c-command condition. Normally, the antecedent must agree with ziji in person, but this condition can be relaxed in non-prototypical cases.

270

Anaphoric reference

On the other hand, another expression which may be long-distance bound, the sequence [pronoun + ziji], need not have the Subject as its antecedent, and it does not display the blocking effect. Compared to the wide use of the zero form and the reflexive ziji, the use of the pronoun (ta) in Chinese is rather restricted. It is used mainly to express referential disjointness within a sentence, as in English (cf., e. g., Huang's example 5.28b/129). Huang's theoretical framework is the neo-Gricean pragmatic theory. Essentially, Huang claims that the production and interpretation of anaphoric expressions is determined by three (Levinsonian) principles (1994:209-210): (a) The I-principle, or the speaker-based principle of economy or efficiency: "Do not say more than is required". According to this principle, the speaker takes "least effort" in the production of anaphoric expressions in choosing minimal anaphoric expressions: the zero form or the substitution of a lexical antecedent by a pronoun. These minimal anaphoric expressions contribute to processing ease on the part of the hearer. Huang departs from approaches according to which the usage of the zero form is based on the omission of elements of text (this corresponds to the notion of ellipsis or deletion). However, it can be argued (cf. 5.5 below) that the zero form for NPs is a primary anaphoric expression (obligatory in certain cases), i.e., that it is not due to any "omission". (b) The Q-principle, or the hearer-based principle of clarity or effectiveness: "Do not say less than required". According to this principle, the speaker should produce such anaphoric expressions as would enable the hearer to recognize the antecedent (ambiguity-avoidance). On this principle, the speaker uses "the exact repetition and/or elaborate variation of surface elements" (Huang 1994: 209), which contributes to processing depth. In 5.5 below, we shall see that this principle has two distinct subtypes: the principle of explicitness (corresponding to the use of minimal anaphoric expressions such that they are able to disambiguate the antecedent), and the principle of elaboration of anaphoric expressions, according to which the anaphoric expression may bring new information (at the same time possibly losing its disambiguating capacity). The principles of economy and clarity are balanced, which yields a new principle: the principle of appropriateness. (c) The third principle is the M-principle, which accounts for the marked use of anaphoric expressions: if a marked anaphoric expression is used instead of an unmarked one (such as a pronoun instead of the zero form, or a

Anaphoric reference

271

lexical anaphoric expression instead of the pronoun), the preferred reading of the unmarked expression (usually: coreferentiality) is overridden by noncoreferentiality. However, there are five cases of the canceling ("vanishing") of the Mprinciple: world knowledge, the understood intention of the speaker to mean coreference even if a marked expression is used, the lack of consistence of the M-principle with semantic constraints, the availability of a very salient antecedent, and a close conceptual relationship between two sentences involving the antecedent and the postcedent (within a complex sentence). (The scale of closeness is given in 5.44/141 (Foley and van Valin's generalization). According to this scale, the closest relationship is constituted by causal relations.) The above-mentioned three principles ((a), (b), (c)) are complemented by additional principles (some of which may play a role in canceling the Mprinciple): the specific character of the reflexive, which necessarily expresses coreference; the Disjoint Reference Principle; the principle of saliency, according to the hierarchy [topic - subject - object], where a communicative distinction (topic) is combined with syntactic distinctions (subject and object), and background assumptions. The core of Huang's proposal is found in Chapter 5 (1994:115-147), where the above-mentioned principles are exemplified for Chinese. Huang's account is complemented by a proposal for a search procedure for the antecedent of the zero form and the reflexive ziji (cf. 6.1/149-150 and 6.1/178, respectively), and by a proposal for an account of anaphoric production and resolution in conversation, where the variation between the zero form and overt forms is treated in considerable detail. He concentrates especially on the transition from minimal anaphoric expressions to more explicit ones in longer chains of reference to the same antecedent. These transitions are due to discontinuities in discourse, such as misunderstandings, discrepancies in mutual expectations between the interlocutors (yielding the need for "recognition checks"), digressions, introduction of other referents, paragraph breaks, etc. In the final part of his book (1994: 257-262), Huang makes a typological difference betweeen "pragmatic" languages, such as Chinese (cf. the list of their properties in (1994: 60)), and "grammatical" languages, such as English, pointing out that grammar can be viewed as "frozen pragmatics". He points out that the parametrization of Universal Grammar undermines the innateness doctrine, in that the values for parameters must be learnt by children through experience.

272

Anaphoric reference

Huang's excellent work can be commented upon as follows: (a) His account of anaphoric expressions could be extended by an enumeration of emphasized anaphoric expressions, such as those which are used in Chinese in Contrastive Topic and in Focus. (b) The difference between "pragmatic" and "grammatical" languages is not as great as it seems: there are crosslinguistic compensations and balances in the use of the zero anaphoric expression. Thus, Huang's work could be also complemented by an account of the occurrence of parasitic gaps in English as zero anaphoric expressions for Nonsubjects in nonfinite constructions and finite sentences, which (I claim) is a manifestation of the availability of the "pragmatic" (zero-form) principle in English. I argue (cf. 5.5 below for more detail) that this is corroborated by the balance, in English, Czech, and Russian, between the zero form and overt anaphoric expressions. In addition to the availability of parasitic gaps in English, there is a balance between Czech and Russian. Czech, on the one hand, is so strongly a "pragmatic" (zero-form) language that null Subject is (almost) obligatory in embedded sentences, but on the other hand, Czech does not exhibit parasitic gaps as zero forms for Objects. In Russian, both the zero form and the overt pronoun as anaphoric expressions for Subjects and Objects are essentially possible: with the Subject, the zero form is basic and statistically slightly predominant, whereas with the Object, the pronoun is basic.

5.2.6 The Government-and-Binding paradigm In this section, I give an overview of the alternative conceptions of nominals and of government and binding especially within the Chomskyan paradigm, and offer arguments against the c-command condition. (i) Nominals. Chomsky 1981 categorizes PRO as [+anaphoric], [+pronominal] (pronominal anaphor), and pro, as [-anaphoric], [-pronominal]. He claims that there is no intrinsic difference between empty categories (PRO and trace), considering them to be just names for the occurrence in different contexts of what is always the same empty category. Manzini 1983 considers PRO as a pure anaphor, whereas Bresnan 1982 considers it as a pure pronominal. PRO and pro are collapsed in Borer 1989 and and J. C.-T. Huang 1989. PRO is accounted for in terms of binding in Borer 1989, Bouchard 1985, and Manzini 1983, but in terms of generalized control in J. C.-T. Huang 1989.

Anaphoric reference

273

Bouchard 1985 and Brody 1985 show that the distribution of anaphors and pronominals is not complementary; the various functions are selected by contextual definitions. Manzini's 1983 approach is refuted in Mohanan 1985, who generalizes that anaphors (reciprocals) differ from PRO in that they must have a c-commanding antecedent, which must occur in the same clause. Manzini's generalization is considered a marginal relaxation of Mohanan's generalization about reciprocals, based on the specific semantics of certain nouns. Bouchard 1985 takes into consideration scalarity, claiming that the use of reflexives vs. reciprocals depends on the pragmatically-based probability of their coreference with a certain NP: he gives a paradigm of examples with a decreasing possibility of coreference of the pronoun, and increasing possibility of coreference of the reflexive. It can be generalized from his paradigm that the use of the pronoun is preferable if the PP in question functions as a free syntactic relation. (ii) Government. Chomsky 1981 proposes that the verb governs the Objects, but INFL governs the Subject, and that the Preposition governs its complement nominal phrase. One of the significant redefinitions of government within the Chomskyan paradigm is that of Manzini (1983), who replaces the notion of governing category by the notion of domain-governing category. Her definition means a loosening of the notion of government, because it makes it possible to look for the antecedent in a higher sentence of the complex sentence. Chomsky 1986, proposing the theory of Barriers, distinguishes between lexical government, antecedent government, and theta-government. His approach is criticized in Johnson 1988, who claims that lexical government should not be based on barriers, because a preposition can assign Case and hence govern a NP separated from the preposition by a barrier. In contrast to Chomsky, who stipulates that PRO is an ungoverned element, several authors propose that PRO is a governed element. Bouchard 1985 proposes that PRO is governed by its antecedent or by the verbal element of the nonfinite constructions. Bresnan 1982 proposes that the verbs governs both the Objects and the Subject, and government is by definition made equivalent to lexical subcategorization. Further, she proposes that PRO can theoretically occur in governed positions, such as the Subject of a finite sentence. As regards prepositions, she considers them rather as grammatical words or as elements belonging to the lexical content of the verb, not as governors (cf. the rule of "Verb - Preposition Incorporation" and the corresponding concept of reanalyzing prepositions

274

Anaphoric reference

with verbs in Bouchard 1985, as well as Aoun et al.'s 1987 claim that prepositions are not proper governors). This makes possible an account of control in terms of government (lexical subcategorization), in that certain governed (subcategorized) functions are controllers of the Subjects in nonfinite complements. Generally, government has been conceived in two ways: (a) in the restrictive sense, as a relation between a lexical head and its complement with respect to subcategorization cf. Chung and McCloskey 1987, and (b) in the nonrestrictive sense, including "antecedent" government, where the antecedent (a moved or extracted wh-element) and its trace are related only by coindexing, cf. Bouchard 1985 and Chomsky 1986. Related to the notions of government are the notions of accessible SUBJECT and coindexing. Chomsky's 1981 abstract notion of accessible SUBJECT as the most prominent nominal element of the governing category, ccommanding all other nominal elements (such as INFL), is substantially criticized. J. C.-T. Huang 1982 proposes that SUBJECT should involve also nominal heads. Bouchard argues that "any analysis of coreference properties of anaphors and pronouns based on the notion of accessible SUBJECT is flawed" (1985: 122), in that counterintuitively, INFL is coindexed with nominal elements. Johnson 1988 contends that SUBJECT bears no relation to "subject", and that it does not constitute a natural class. Chomsky 1986 drops the notion of SUBJECT in his definition of the binding domain, and replaces it by the notion of Complete Function Complex, resting on the conception of grammatical functions compatible with a head dominated by the binding domain. (iii) Binding. Likewise, there have been significant redefinitions of the notion of binding in the Chomskyan paradigm. Manzini 1983 claims that the distribution of PRO does not depend entirely on binding, but that it must partially depend on Case properties. Higginbotham 1983 proposes a modification of Chomsky's "meaningless" notion of coindexing by assuming its directionality (cf. his notion of linking). Bouchard 1985 presents his own definition of binding in terms of "R(eferentiality) index" and minimal category projection, making it possible to account for binding also in small clauses. (iv) Theta-roles. The introduction of theta-roles into the Chomskyan theory means a rapprochement of the Government-Binding paradigm with the de-

Anaphoric reference

275

pendency approach. The significance of theta-roles has been acknowledged especially with respect to control. Thus, Ruzicka 1983 shows that the theta-roles of the controller and the controllee do not correspond to the notions of Subject and Object control, in that thematic identity and thematic distinction may cut across Subject and Object control. Jackendoff 1987 claims that control should be accounted for in terms of thematic roles rather than in syntactic terms. On the whole, it can be argued that the Chomskyan notion of lexical government corresponds to subcategorization (valency) in functional approaches, and antecedent government can be dispensed with along with traces. Binding should be considered in a broader perspective of anaphoric reference (which is determined, for a great part, by pragmatic rather than syntactic principles), and violations of the binding principles should be peculiarly considered.

5.2.7 Arguments against the c-command principle In this section, I would like to discuss the violations of the c-command principle and to propose that it could be dispensed with. Generally, the c-command principle is too narrow: (a) It accounts only for the asymmetry between Subjects, Objects, and adverbial modifications (i.e., it can account only for the prototypical, simple cases of binding). (b) It mistakenly collapses cases of binding in simple and complex sentences, and it confuses two different cases: (bl) the binding of genuine, coreferential anaphoric expressions occurring in different underlying sentences than their antecedents, and (b2) the binding, by moved or extracted elements, of traces as syntactically and communicatively non-fullfledged expressions and empirically unmotivated and dispensable abstractions. (c) It is based on the surface properties of English such as the difference between NPs and PPs, which cannot be generalized, and which do not play any role in anaphoric reference. The differences between the binding properties of antecedents in different sentences in a complex sentence should be reconsidered with respect to the Topic-Focus articulation of the sentence (cf. 5.3 below), and those between the many types of syntactic relations should be accounted for by means of a more elaborate apparatus proposed in 5.4 below.

276

Anaphoric reference

The following cases of violations of the c-command principle have been registered, including my observations (all of the examples below are acceptable contrary to the predictions made by the c-command theory): (i) The antecedent of PRO, of a reflexive, or of a reciprocal is extrasentential (discoursal), cf. Bresnan 1982 and her examples of infinitives and gerunds functioning as Subjects of independent sentences, with antecedents in the previous sentence, such as (419) (Bresnan's 36/381). (ii) The antecedent of PRO, of a reflexive or a of reciprocal is deictic, cf. (410) in 5.2.4 above. (iii) The antecedent of PRO, of a reflexive or of a reciprocal is indexical, cf. (420). (419) (420)

Mary, was happy and excited; PRO, to have involved herself, in the group was a risky action. It is difficult PROspeaker to take another topic.

(iv) The antecedent of a reciprocal does not occur in the same sentence (clause) within a complex sentence, cf. (421) (Manzini and Mohanan's 1985: 9d/639). (v) The antecedent of PRO is nonlocal, cf. (422). (421) (422)

The boys, thought that each others', pictures were on sale John, thinks that it is impossible to shave himself,

(vi) Unlike Mohanan, I consider (423a) (Mohanan's 1985: 27a/647) as acceptable, especially if the intended antecedent occurring in a different sentence than the reflexive is focused (stressed) and if this focusing is made explicit, cf. (423b). (vii) Backward reflexivization, as accounted for in terms of "connectedness", is a classical violation of the c-command principle, cf. (424) (Bouchard's (1985: 5/118)) with an embedded reflexive, and also (377a) in 5.2.2 above. According to Professor Werner Winter, (424) is a case of extended use of himself, which at present still is register-bound. (423)a. John, said that Mary2 thought that the boys discussed feeding herself/himself,

Anaphoric reference

277

b. Only JOHN, said that Mary thought that the boys discussed feeding himself, (424) A fear of himself, is John, 's greatest problem (viii) There are acceptable cases of control with non-c-commanding (PP) antecedent, cf. (425). (ix) A reciprocal has neither a governing category nor a domain-governing category, i.e., it is not c-commanded by the antecedent, cf. (426) (Manzini and Mohanan's (1985: 9f/649). (425) (426)

It is difficult for Mary, PRO, to help Bill Each other, 's picture would please the boys,

(x) Safir 1985 claims that in (427) (his 59/632) "for some mysterious reason, Bill can be the controller of PRO even though Bill is deeply embedded in the structure" (1985: 632). (1) The case where PRO has neither a governing category nor a domaingoverning category, but it is bound (not free as predicted), cf. (428) (Mohanan's 22/645). (xi) The case where PRO has a c-domain, but (contrary to prediction) it need not be bound (the c-domain is in an embedded sentence), cf. (429) (Mohanan's 20/465). (xii) Reinhart 1983 shows exceptions to the c-command condition (which have been mentioned above in 5.2.2), where the antecedent does not ccommand the pronoun, and the pronoun is still a "bound variable". (427) (428) (429)

PRO, washing his car regularly is just the sort ofthing that shows how meticulous Bill, is While PRO, admiring himself (*oneself), John, kisses Mary every evening John discussed PROonesem pinching oneself/himself

5.3 Anaphora in the complex sentence I argue that (pronominal) anaphora in the complex sentence is almost unrestricted, due to the fact that the NP antecedent and the pronominal postcedent

278

Anaphoric reference

occur in different clauses of the complex sentence. Apparently unacceptable or awkward cases (with stressed pronouns and/or NPs) can be pragmatically improved by means of an appropriate contrastive context and by an explicit focalizing of the stressed element (by means of a focalizing particle such as only or by the emphasizing reflexive pronoun). The point of departure for my alternative analysis is Langacker's 1966 paradigm of four cases of anaphora in the complex sentence given in (352) above. What is left, then, as unimprovably unacceptable or odd cases of anaphoric reference in complex sentences are the following: (a) certain cases of "renaming" (having the form of Langacker's Case II), which I specify in terms of the communicative-information structure (the "renaming" NP must not belong to the Focus of the sentence in which it occurr; and it cannot be a quantified NP); (b) Langacker's Case III with a quantified NP as antecedent; (c) Langacker's Case III with a pronoun playing the role of the Subject and belonging to the Topic of a complement clause.

5.3.1 The extended paradigm Now, I would like to give an extended version of Langacker's paradigm, showing the possibilities of improvement of putatively unacceptable or odd examples. The extension is based on considering the position of the antecedent and the postcedent in the communicative-information structure of the sentences (clauses) in which they occur, viz., the appurtenance of the first and second elements of the anaphoric relation to the Topic or Focus of the sentences (clauses) in which they occur. Thus, the following subcases can be distinguished: (i) Both the antecedent and the postcedent belong to the Topics of the sentences (clauses) in which they occur. This corresponds to subcases 1., 5., 9. and 13. in (430). (ii) The first element belongs to the Topic, and the second element to the Focus, of the sentences (clauses) to which they belong. This corresponds to subcases 2., 6., 10. and 14. in (430). (iii) The first element belongs to the Focus, and the second element to the Topic, of the sentences (clauses) in which they occur. This corresponds to subcases 3., 7., 11. and 15. in (430). (iv) Both elements belong to the Foci of the sentences (clauses) in which they occur. This corresponds to subcases 4., 8., 12. and 16. in (430).

Anaphoric reference

279

This yields the following extended paradigm of 16 cases of anaphoric reference in the complex sentence, cf. (430). (430) Case I

1. 2. 3. 4. Case II 5. 6. 7. 8. Case III 9. 10. 11. 12. Case IV 13. 14. 15. 16.

Antecedent Topic Topic Focus Focus Topic Topic Focus Focus Topic Topic Focus Focus Topic Topic Focus Focus

Postcedent Topic Focus Topic Focus Topic Focus Topic Focus Topic Focus Topic Focus Topic Focus Topic Focus

Moreover, it is possible to extend Langacker's paradigm by considering quantified NPs (instead of bare NPs) belonging to the Topic or to the Focus of the sentences (clauses) in which they occur. It should be recalled from Chapter 3 that sentences with quantified NPs sound better if the quantified NP is equipped with an explicit restrictor. With this extension, the paradigm of cases of anaphoric reference in the complex sentence (consisting of the main sentence and of one embedded sentence) can be exemplified as follows. (I) Case I: [Main sentence (NP) - embedded sentence (pronoun)]. In this case, anaphoric reference is always acceptable. This is exemplified by the subparadigm (431a-d), corresponding to the subcases 1., 2., 3. and 4. in (430). Additionally,an example where the antecedent is quantified is given (cf. (432)). (431 )a. JohnJ thinks that he J is a genius b. John/ thinks that only HE,F is a genius

280

Anaphoric reference

c. Only Johnf thinks that he J is a genius d. Only JOHNf thinks than only HE,F is a genius (432) Everybody / in this class thinks that only HE,f is a genius (II) Case II: [Main sentence (pronoun) - embedded sentence (NP)]. This case is unacceptable according to Langacker, but its reinterpretation as "renaming" of a pronoun or of a NP by a NP has been pointed out by many authors. I have taken over the notion of "renaming" from Bily 1981. "Renaming" means that a pronoun or a NP are referred to by a syntactically redundant, but pragmatically appropriate, NP expression, by means of which the antecedent is reactivated in the memory of the hearer. If the antecedent of the "renaming" is a pronoun, it is assumed that the pronoun has its genuine antecedent in the previous discourse, which is then reactivated by the NP. Thus, renaming can be viewed as having the scheme (A). (A) [antecedent pronoun or NP renaming NP] The basic condition for "renaming" is a sufficient length and complexity of the general context of "renaming", so that the wording should not sound pragmaticaly redundant. Additional conditions can be specified in terms of the communicative-information structure of the sentence (cf. below). Various types of "renaming" in the complex sentence and in a coordination of sentences are given by a number of authors: (a) "renaming" in the complex sentence with an antecedent Object pronoun, cf. the examples (353) and (370) above; (b) "renaming" in the complex sentence with an antecedent Subject pronoun, cf. Reinhart's example (371) and Rochemont - Culicover's example (372) above; (c) "renaming" of a pronominal antecedent in a coordination of sentences, cf. Westergaard's example in (354) above; (d) "renaming" of a NP antecedent by the same NP in the complex sentence, cf. (373) above, (433) (Ross' 1967 example), (434) (Westergaard's 1986 example), and (435) (Haegeman's 1984 example); (e) "renaming" of a NP antecedent in a coordination of sentences, cf. (436) (my example) (cf. also (354) above due to Westergaard 1986). Additionally, there are rare cases of "renaming" in the simple sentence, such as (374) and (375) above. Quantified NPs cannot play the role of "renaming" NPs. (433) (434)

Peterl was hungry after Peter, woke up That Peter/ was unpopular didn 't disturb Peter,

Anaphoric reference

(435) (436)

281

John, should know all about wines, 'cos John, spent a whole term in France John, could make a career, and yet John, only sits at home

I propose that an additional condition should be imposed on renaming, viz., the appurtenance of the renaming NP to the Topic of the sentence. Thus, in the subparadigm of Case II of anaphoric reference in the complex sentence (cf. 437a-d), the subcases (b) and (d) are ruled out as cases of renaming because the renaming NP belongs to the Focus of the sentence in which it occurs. On the other hand, cases (a) and (c), where the renaming NP belongs to the Topic, are acceptable. Noteworthy is the case (c), where the antecedent (only HIM) belongs to the Focus. This paradigm involves examples which are variations of Bosch's example (353). (437)a. Julia hit him,r before Max,T left in his Rolls-Royce for a dinner engagement at the Ritz b. * Julia hit him, before only MAX, left in his Rolls-Royce for a dinner engagement at the Ritz c. Julia hit only HIMF before Max J left in his Rolls-Royce for a dinner engagement at the Ritz d. * Julia hit only HIM,F before only MAX,F left in his Rolls-Royce for a dinner engagement at the Ritz (III) Case III: [Embedded sentence (NP) - main sentence (pronoun)]. This case is acceptable according to Langacker, and it can be shown that also examples with the NP and/or the pronoun belonging to the Focus are acceptable, by setting them in an appropriate contrastive context and by explicitly focalizing the NP and/or the pronoun. This can be illustrated by (438), as a variation of Westergaard's 1986 example 203. In this example, both the antecedent and the postcedent are in the Foci of the clauses in which they occur, so that this example corresponds to case 12. in (430). (438)

That only PETER,F is unpopular doesn 't disturb only HIMF (but everybody else in the family)

282

Anaphoric reference

However, there are counterexamples of another kind, such as the case when the embedded sentence is an Object complement clause, and when the pronoun in the main clause plays the role of the Subject and belongs to the Topic, cf. the unacceptable (439) (with the NP antecedent in the Topic) and (440) (which I find a bit better than (439), due to the occurrence of the NP antecedent in the Focus). (439) *That John,Tis stupid he ,T knows very well (440) *HThat only JOHNf is stupid he J knows very well If the pronoun belongs to the Focus, the sentence sounds better, cf. (441). (441)

HThat only JOHN,F is stupid only HEF (but no one else) knows very well

On the other hand, if the pronoun in the main clause plays the role of a Nonsubject (such as in (442) and (443) (which is isomorphic to (438)), the sentences become practically acceptable. (442) (443)

IThat John/ is stupid ANNOYS him,T That only JOHN F is stupid annoys only HIM F (but no one else in his family)

An example similar to (439) is given in Reinhart 1983, with the pronoun in the &y-phrase expressing the Agent of the passive verb; this example is considered as questionably acceptable by Reinhart. I propose that the following generalization can be made: the closer the syntactic and pragmatic relation of the two elements in the embedded and the main sentence, the more awkward sounds anaphoric reference (whereby closeness would be defined in terms of both elements belonging to the Topics of the clauses in which they occur, and of their functioning as the same type of syntactic relation). Thus, the examples (439)-(443) make up a paradigm of increasing acceptability and decreasing syntactico-pragmatic closeness of the NP and the pronoun. I claim that at the same time, Case III is (in addition to Case II) the only case of anaphoric reference where the NP cannot be quantified, cf. (444). This con-

Anaphoric reference

283

trasts with the acceptability of quantified NPs in Case IV (cf. (385) above and (446) below). (444)

* If [everybody in this village], has money, he, is happy

IV. Case IV: [Embedded sentence (pronoun) - main sentence (NP)]. I claim that anaphoric reference in this case is practically always acceptable, per analogiam with Case I. This is due to the fact that Case IV is an exactly the reverse of Case I. A full subparadigm of Case IV with respect to the subcases (i)-(iv) is given below in (445a-d). These examples correspond to cases 13., 14., 15. and 16. in (430). The possibility of a quantified NP antecedent is illustrated in (446a, b), in addition to the example (385) above. (445)a. If he* were unpopular, John* would be unhappy b. If he* were unpopular, only JOHNf (and no one else in the family) would be unhappy c. If only HE,F were unpopular, John ,T would be unhappy d. If only HE,F were unpopular, only JOHN F (and no one else in the family) would be unhappy (446)a. If he, had a blonde call-girl, [everybody in this small village (but not in Oran)], would be happy b. If he, had an educated and rich wife, everybody, 's mother would be happy Case IV becomes even more acceptable if contrast is involved, as suggested in the contrastive continuations in (445b) and (445d). Let us have a look at two more examples. In (447), the pronoun is explicitly indicated as ambiguous between two referents, John and Bill, whereas in (448), the contrastive reading is impossible for pragmatic reasons (stereotypical world knowledge): only students, not the examining professors, can fail in examinations. (447) (448)

If hem had money, only John, but not Bill2 would be happy That he,,+2failed the examination bothered only John, but not the professor2

284

Anaphoric reference

It can be concluded about anaphoric reference in the complex sentence that due to the occurrence of the antecedent and the postcedent in different clauses, anaphora in complex sentences is almost unrestricted. Even the unacceptable Case II of Langacker's 1966 basic paradigm can be reinterpreted, in most cases, as pragmatically-based "renaming". What is left as unimprovably unacceptable is renaming with the renaming NP in the Focus and certain instances of Langacker's Case III. On the whole, Langacker's paradigm of four basic cases can be substantially extended if the position of the antecedent and the postcedent in the communicative-information structure of the sentence is considered. Thus, the antecedent and the postcedent may belong to the Topics or to the Foci of the clauses in which they occur (this is captured in (430)). This yields the extension of Langacker's paradigm to 16 cases.

5.4 Anaphora in the simple sentence 5.4.1 The basic paradigm of acceptability Anaphoric reference in the simple sentence is more complicated than that in the complex sentence, because the antecedent and the postcedent occur in the same clause. Thus, the antecedent and the postcedent are more closely syntactically and communicatively related, and hence, the anaphoric reference in the simple sentence is more restricted than that in the complex sentence. I propose that anaphora in the simple sentence is accountable for in terms of the communicative importance of the first and second element of the anaphoric relation, and of the ordering of types of syntactic relations of these elements with respect to the major features of the neutral ordering of syntactic relations as given in (37a) in Chapter 2. (By the notion of "major features" of this ordering, I understand prototypical cases of ordering, such as the ordering [Subject - Indirect Object - Direct Object - Adverbials], and the ordering in particular subsystems, such as Directional modification [from where - where to], the ordering of three objects with verbs of speaking, the ordering [Origin - Effect], etc.) The anaphoric expressions in the simple sentence are reflexives, reciprocals, personal pronouns (and the combination of personal pronoun and reflexive, yielding a reinforced personal pronoun, such as he himself, cf. also Bickerton 1986).

Anaphoric reference

285

I do not draw any sharp boundary between the reflexive and the personal pronoun, for a number of reasons. I can only state as a preliminary that the reflexive is prototypically but not exclusively used for reference to the Subject, and that it may have also another, viz., purely emphasizing or reinforcing, function (cf. Baker's 1995 conception of reflexives as "intensified nonnominative pronouns", with their referent being "more important or more central than the other characters included in the contrast set" (1995: 63), Bouchard's (1985) conception of pragmatically-based scalarity of the acceptability of reflexives and personal pronouns referring to the Subject, Bickerton's (1986) conception of the reinforcing reflexive in expressions such as he himself, etc.). First of all, let us observe the basic paradigm (449a-d). (449)a. John, adores himself) b. *He, adores John, c. V.John, (Object) adores only [HE HIMSELF], (Subject) d. Himselfm adores only JOHN, (not BillJ (450) Who adores John? This paradigm illustrates the basic four cases of anaphoric reference in the simple sentence. As we can see, Case I (illustrated by (449a)) is acceptable, Case II (illustrated by (449b)) is unacceptable, Case III (illustrated by (449c)) is questionable (note that this sentence may serve as an answer to the question (450)), and Case IV (illustrated by (449d)) is acceptable, especially if contrast is involved. It should be briefly noted (before I proceed to a more precise specification of these four cases) that Case I is the basic case, with forward anaphora and with the normal ordering of syntactic relations [Subject - Object], whereas Case IV is its exact opposite in both respects - but these two cases have in common that they are acceptable. Case II with backward anaphora is totally unacceptable, and Case III is quite problematic. In this place, a remark should be made about the reverse ordering of the elements in question (antecedent, postcedent) on the surface. Professor Werner Winter has suggested an alternative example to my example (449c), viz., Only he himself adores John, where I assume that the peak of intonation is placed sentence-initially, on the phrase involving a focalizing operator, viz., only he himself This example is a case of reverse (marked ordering of the elements in question on the surface), and this example belongs to Case I. Its deep representation, as well as its more usual surface variant, would be John adores only

286

Anaphoric reference

HIM HIMSELF, with the peak of intonation in the sentence-final position. Such reversals can be made quite systematically; sometimes they influence the acceptability of the sentence, cf. 5.4.6 below. If, in the Professor Werner Winter's example, the peak of intonation were placed on JOHN, the sentence would have a different deep representation, and it would belong to Case IV (where the pronoun is less communicatively important than the NP, i.e. when the pronoun precedes the NP in the deep representation). In the bulk of this section, I will consider typical examples where the deep and surface orderings of the elements in question (antecedent, postcedent) coincide, i.e. where the stressed element follows the unstressed element. Now let me give a more precise characteristics of the paradigm of four cases of anaphoric reference in the simple sentence. I will give this characteristics in terms of (a) the order of the two elements of the anaphoric relations, (b) the order of their syntactic relations with respect to the neutral ordering, and (c) acceptability. (I) Case I. (Ia) Case I is forward anaphora, with the ordering [NP - pronoun], (lb) Case I exhibits the normal ordering of syntactic relations corresponding to the neutral ordering (e.g. [Subject - Object]). (ic) Case I is acceptable. (II) Case II. (IIa) Case II is backward anaphora, with the ordering [pronoun - NP]. (IIb) Case II exhibits the normal ordering of syntactic relations corresponding to the neutral ordering (e. g. [Subject - Object]). (lie) Case II is unacceptable. (III) Caselll. (Ilia) Case III is forward anaphora, with the ordering [NP - pronoun]. (Illb) Case III exhibits the reverse ordering of syntactic relations not corresponding to the neutral ordering (e.g. [Object - Subject]). (IIIc) Case III is prototypically acceptable only in answers to questions of special type, with both acceptable and unacceptable exceptions (cf. below). (IV) Case IV. (IVa) Case IV is backward anaphora, with the ordering [pronoun - NP]. (IVb) Case IV exhibits the reverse ordering of syntactic relations not corresponding to the neutral ordering (e.g. [Object - Subject)]. (IVc) Case IV is acceptable. Out of these cases, Case II and Case III should be commented on in more detail. Case II is always unacceptable: it is prototypically not reinterpretable

Anaphoric reference

287

as a case of "renaming", because of the short (syntactic) distance between the two expressions. However, it should be noted that there are marginal cases of renaming of a NP by the same NP within the simple sentence, such as (374) and (375) above. Case III exhibits three degrees of acceptability: (Ilia) Acceptability in a special context. In the prototypical case, sentences with Case III are used as acceptable (and the only possible) answers to questions involving the NP, so that the pronominal expression is the Focus of the answer. This is exemplified above: (450) is the question (Who adores John?), and (449c) is one surface variant of the answer. It should be noted that there are in fact two surface variants of the answer, viz., John (Object) adores only HE HIMSELF (Subject), and the better-sounding Only HE HIMSELF adores John, with a marked surface word-order, in that the Object in Focus precedes the Subject in Topic. Another example is (451a-b) below, with analogous surface variants of the answer. In (451b), the Topic precedes the Focus, and in (451c), the Focus precedes the Topic. The latter is a marked surface ordering. (451 )a. Who bought a car for Dan ? b. For Dan, , only [HE HIMSELF], bought a car c. Only [HE HIMSELF]/ bought a car for Dan, (lib) Exceptional syntactically based acceptability. Speas 1990 has pointed out that if the NP has the character of an expression introducing direct speech (such as the modification of Regard according to Felix in (452)), Case III is acceptable. (452)

According to Felix,, he, is a genius

(lie) Syntactico-pragmatically-based acceptability and unacceptability. Reinhart 1983, Speas 1990 and Westergaard 1986 have pointed out that sentences with sentence-initial sentential (external) PPs are acceptable, whereas sentences with verb-phrasal (internal) PPs are unacceptable. This is illustrated by the acceptable (453) with the sentential PP for Mary's valor (modification of Cause) vs. the unacceptable (454) with the verb-phrasal PP for Mary's brother (modification of Benefit).

288

Anaphoric

reference

(453) For Mary, 's valor, she, received a purple heart (454) *For Mary,'s brother, she, received old clothes Other typical pairs of this kind are constituted by sentential vs. verb-phrasal local modifications. However, in this case, the boundary between the respective acceptability and unacceptability is not as clear as in case of different types of syntactic relations such as Cause and Benefit: a verb-phrasal local modification may putatively become a sentential one simply by its length, or only by the change of the lexical cast of the rest of the sentence, by virtue of which also the inacceptability of such sentences is changed into acceptability. The improvement of the sentence by lengthening the PP was illustrated above by (386b) vs. (386a) (Reinhart's 1983 example) and (387b) vs. (387a) (Westergaard's 1986 example), and the improvement by the changing of the lexical cast of the rest of the sentence was illustrated by (387c) vs. (387a) (Westergaard's 1986 example), and by (388b) vs. (388a) (Bosch's 1983 example). I propose that a more systematic difference could be made between local modifications which involve the participants of the action as a whole (such as in the kitchen) and those not involving the participants of the action as a whole (such as under one's arm), cf. (455) vs. (456). (455) In John, 's kitchen, he, scratched himself (456) ?? Under John,'s arm, he, scratched himself

5.4.2 The validity of the basic paradigm of acceptability for other pairs of syntactic relations In this section, I would like to illustrate the four basic cases of acceptablitity of anaphora in the complex sentence by additional pairs of syntactic relations according to their ordering in the actual sentence with respect to the neutral ordering (as given in (37a) in Chapter 2) including the grammatically-encoded subsystems: The a., b., c., and d. examples of (457)^.(458) and (459) correspond to Case I, Case II, Case III, and Case IV of anaphoric reference as given above, respectively. The examples below in (457)-(459) are given with respect to three pairs of syntactic relations in ((a)-(c)). (a) The pair [Object - adverbial modification of Cause].

Anaphoric reference

289

(457)a. Mother spoke much about Dan, because ofhim(self), b. * Mother spoke much about him(self), because of Dan, c. ΊΊ Because of Dan,, mother spoke much only HIM(SELF), d. Because ofhim(self)m, mother spoke much only DAN,(not RonJ (b) The pair consisting of adverbials of Direction [from where - where to]. Professor Werner Winter pointed out to me that instead of back to himself, back to his place could be used as more natural, but the usage of the pronoun he himself better ilustrates the point in question. The Professor Winter's proposal anyway corroborates my basic claim because it would even improve the given sentences. (458)a. b. c. d.

John was running from Dan, back to him(self), *John was running from him(self), back to Dan, HBack to Dan,, John was running from him(self)j Back to him(self)in, John was running only from DAN, (not from Ron2)

(c) The pair (to speak) [about whom with whom]. (459)a. John was speaking about Dan, only with himself b. *John was speaking about himself\ only with Dan, c. About Dan,, John was speaking only with HIMSELF, d. _ About himself,John was speaking only with DAN, (not with Ron2) Analogous paradigms would hold also for other pairs of syntactic relations from the neutral ordering as well as from case-frame based and free cognitively-based subsystems.

5.4.3 The extension of my proposal with respect to quantified NPs and embedding (i) Quantified NPs. Quantified antecedent NPs worsen the acceptability of Case III, cf. (460a), as contrasted with the acceptability of (460b) (Case IV). (460a) is not acceptable even as an answer to (461).

290

Anaphoric reference

(460)a. * Everybody, (in this village) (Object) adores only HE HIMSELF, (Subject) b. Himselfm adores [everybody in this village], (not [everybody in another village] 2) (461) Who adores everybody (in this village) ? (ii) Embedding. The embedding of the pronoun improves the inacceptabiliy of Case II into acceptability, and the awkwardness of Case III also into acceptability. I assume that this is due to the possible functioning of the expression with the embedded pronoun as the rightmost syntactic relation in a scale of acceptability based on the neutral ordering. This embedding thus changes Case II into Case IV. Thus, in (462), not Case II but rather a special subcase of Case IV is involved. A full identification of the case with embedded pronouns with Case IV, however, is not possible due to the unacceptability or awkwardness of the pronoun in the function of the sloppy pronoun in contrastive contexts. Furthermore, the embedding of quantifiers does not eliminate the inacceptability of sentences with quantifier antecedents, cf. (384) above. (462)

Hisl/2+ , mother adores John; (+ ?not BillJ

5.4.4 Competition of Case III and Case IV It is essentially possible to express a certain cognitive content ((co)referential relation) in two alternative ways, viz., by means of Case III and Case IV of anaphoric reference. This holds for anaphora in the simple sentence as well as for anaphora in the complex sentence. A case in point is suggested by (463a) and (463b) (Bresnan's 1982 examples 49a vs. 51)), respectively. Bresnan claims that 49a (with a NP antecedent for a PRO), unlike 50 (with a pronominal antecedent), is unacceptable. However, she gives no suggestion of how to express the content (sense) of 49a in an acceptable way. I propose (assuming that PRO functions as the "pronominal" postcedent) that 49a, which is Case IV of anaphoric reference in the complex sentence with a condensed embedded clause, could be expressed by means of Case III (cf. (463c) (my example)). (463)a. *PROt contradicting himself will demonstrate that Mr Jones t is a liar

Anaphoric reference

291

b. PRO, contradicting himself will demonstrate that he, is a liar c. Mr Jones,' contradicting himself will demonstrate that he, is a liar Also, the unacceptable and awkward examples of Case III in the paradigm (452) through (459) above can be expressed in an acceptable way by corresponding sentences of Case IV, cf., e.g., (439') as the acceptable Case-IV counterpart to the unacceptable Case-Ill (439) (repeated here). (439) *That John, is stupid he, knows very well himself (439') That he, is stupid John, knows very well himself This holds also for Reinhart's examples (464) and (464'). It should be pointed out that Case-IV sentences, where the pronoun precedes the NP, can be used as context-opening sentences, where the pronoun has a cataphoric function: its antecedent is the NP. In processing such sentences, the hearer waits until the antecedent occurs. (464) *HThat Jones, would be a candidate was announced by him, yesterday (464') That he, would be a candidate was announced by Jones, yesterday

5.4.5 The extension of the four basic cases with respect to the communicative-information structure of the sentence The four basic cases of anaphora in the simple sentence can be extended if we consider the position of the two elements in the communicative-information structure of the sentence. Thus, both elements may occur in the Topic (T-T), or one may occur in the Topic and the other one in the Focus (T-F), or both may occur in the Focus (F-F). This yields altogether 12 subcases, a fact which is captured in the survey in (465). The occurrence of the elements in question in different information parts of the sentence (Topic, Focus) should be treated as one type of occurrence because its subtypes are distinguished by the four cases of occurrence as specified above: the occurrence of the antecedent (NP) in the Topic, and of the postcedent (pronoun) in the Focus corresponds to Cases I and III ((deep) "forward anaphora"), and the occurrence of the antecedent (NP) in the Focus, and

292

Anaphoric reference

of the postcedent (pronoun) in the Topic corresponds to Cases II and IV ((deep) "backward anaphora").

Case Case Case Case

I: II: III: IV:

T-T la Ha Ilia IVa

T-F lb lib Illb IVb

F-F Ic lie Hie IVc

Out of this paradigm, I can describe and exemplify the most typical subcases. Thus, the T-T distribution is typical for sentences with sentence-initial PPs and subject pronouns with Case III, such as in (452) and (453). The T-F distribution is typical of Subject NPs and Object pronouns with Case I, such as in (449), and in Case IV, such as in (457d), (458d), and (459d). The F-F distribution is typical of two Nonsubject syntactic relations with Case I, such as in (457a), (458a), and (459a). A further extension of this paradigm can be made if we consider the possible reverse ordering of the two elements of the anaphoric relation in the surface word-order with respect to their ordering in the deep word-order. This is illustrated by the examples (394b, b') and (451b-c) above, and by (466a-b) below. The sentences in pairs such as (466a) and (466b) are synonymous, but they may differ in acceptability. The surface word-order with marked intonation (especiallly if a sentence-initial Nonsubject carries the peak of intonation) may sound awkward if no very strong emphasis is involved, such as in (467). This extension yields altogether 24 (derived) cases of acceptability, which may be influenced by the context in which the sentence ocurs, and on the (subjective) degree of emphasis. It should be only brought to attention that it is assumed that in the Focus, the syntactic relations obey the neutral ordering. Thus, for example, it is prototypically not possible that within the Focus, the Object follows an adverbial modification such as that of Cause, as in (468). (466)a. In Ben, 's car, I saw only HIM, b. I saw only HIM, in Ben, 's car (467) HOnly HIMSELF, shaves John, (468)a. * Mother scolded [because of Dan, (him) himself,]F b. Mother scolded [Dan, because of (him) himself,]F

Anaphoric reference

293

5.4.6 Reverse surface word-order Cutting across the four Cases of deep occurrence of the antecedent and the postcedent is the possible reverse ordering of the antecedent and the postcedent on the surface, which yields two surface variants of a single deep ordering: one where deep and surface ordering coincide, and one where deep and surface ordering do not coincide (the latter case is characterized by marked intonation). The indication of the identity of the deep representation is the identity of intonation (of the intonation peak). This reversal may influence the acceptability of sentences. Thus, let us observe the reverse orderings with the four Cases of occurrence of antecedent and postcedent, if one of them belongs to Topic, and the other, to Focus (these are the most typical types of occurrence). (a) Case I. An example for the reverse ordering in Case I was given above, cf. John adores only HIMSELF (the variant where the deep and the surface ordering coincide) vs. Only HIMSELF adores John (the variant where the deep and the surface ordering do not coincide, i.e. a variant with marked intonation). (b) Case II. The two variants can be illustrated by the examples *He, loves only JOHN, and *Only JOHN, he, loves. (c) Case III. The two variants can be illustrated by the examples For Dan, only HE HIMSELF bought a car and lOnly HE HIMSELF bought a car for Dan, as answers to the question Who bought a car for Dan?. The latter variant, having a marked intonation, is less usual than the former variant, and it could be used only emphatically. (c) Case IV. The two variants can be illustrated by the examples For himself, ONLY DAN bought a car and ONLY DAN bought a car for himself. Besides, both of the elements in question may belong either to the Topic or to the Focus, but in these cases the reversal of surface word ordering practically cannot be considered: (a) In the case of the occurrence of both elements in the Focus, they must obey the strict basic (neutral) ordering, and no surface relaxation (reversal) is possible, cf. In ancient India, at the time of the war in Rajasthan, there bought an elephant A MIGHTY KING FOR HIMSELF (but not a queen for her daughter) vs. the unacceptable *There bought an elephant FOR HIMSELF A MIGHTY KING. (The former sentence may sound a bit odd with respect to its Topic part, but it still illustrates well the point in question about the Focus.)

294

Anaphoric reference

(b) In the case of the occurrence of both elements in the Topic, a surface reversal would suggest a difference in deep ordering, cf. Dan, for himself, bought A CAR (Case I) and For himself, Dan bought a CAR (Case IV). Thus, in this case, no reversal is possible.

5.5 Ellipsis, redundancy, gapping, and sluicing 5.5.1 Extant approaches Ellipsis, reduction, gapping and sluicing are means of anaphoric reference to a part of the sentence which involves the verb, cf. Hudson 1988 and 1989, Hestvik 1992, Lappin 1992, Romero 1995, Rooth 1994, Tomioka 1995. Ellipsis can be exemplified by (469), and reduction, by (470a), (470b) (Tomioka's 1995: 3/1), and (471) (Lappin's 1992: 1 lb/7). Gapping can be exemplified by (472) (Hudson's lb/57), and sluicing, by (472) (Romero's 1995: 2a/l). Generally, these types of anaphoric reference occur in subordinated or coordinated conjuncts. In these sentences, I have indicated the peak of intonation, and thus the Focus, by capitals. (469) (470)a. (470)b. (471) (472) (473)

John hit Mary and ΒίΐΓ TOOF Pat admires every teacher that CHRISf doesm John hit Mary and [so didf7 BILLF Bill didn 't expect himself to win, but John T DIDF Fred invited Mary and BilfJANE? Somebody just left - guess WHOw"''ND'RF

(i) Hudson 1989 treats gapping within the framework of his Word Grammar. He emphasizes that the overt parts of the second ("gapped") conjunct ("remnants", "replacers", "conjunction-roots") are based on semantic contrast (cf. also his notion of "contrast-points"). He shows the affinity of the overt parts of gapped conjuncts to answers to wh-questions, corrections, alternatives introduced by instead of not, rather than etc., to temporal comparison introduced be the prepositional expression before, and to comparisons introduced by like and than. He pleads for a modular analysis of gapping in terms of dependency structure (for ordinary noncompound sentences), coordinate structure (for coordination of single words), and replacement structure (for one-word correction and one-word sentences).

Anaphoric reference

295

However, Hudson cannot properly account for cases of inacceptability such as (474a) (Hudson's 1989 40a/77). His account in terms of the impossibility for a replacer of a bare prepositionless Indirect Object, to be introduced by the preposition to only skims the surface of the problem (in fact, the preposition to signalizes that the replacer is the most communicatively important element of the Focus, the preceding phrase being topicalized). (474)a. *John gave Mary a record and Bilf77 (Subject), to JaneF (Indirect Object) b. John gave7 Mary7 a recordf'2, and Jane0* (Indirect Object), a bookF (Direct Object) c. JohnT/F gavem Mary m a recorcf, and BilfT/F (Subject), a bookF (Direct Object) I propose that cases of inacceptability such as that in (474a) can be accounted for in terms of the communication-information structure of the sentence: I claim that the overt parts of the gapped conjuncts must be syntactically and communicatively symmetrical. In (474a), this principle is violated: the last "contrastive point" of the gapped conjunct (= the communicatively most important element, which is the only element which must belong to the Focus in the gapped conjunct) (here: to Jane (Indirect Object)) does not correspond to the position of the corresponding syntactic relation (here: Mary (Indirect Object)) in the communicative structure of the sentence, in that Mary is not the communicatively most important element of the first conjunct. With respect to the structure of the first conjunct, what can be contrasted is the Subject as Topic (or theoretically Focus), the Indirect Object as Topic or Focus, and the Direct Object as Focus, with degrees of communicative importance [Subject - Indirect Object - Direct Object]. Thus, the first conjunct of (474a) could have continuations such as in (474b) and (474c), but not such as in (474a), because the last "contrast-point" in the first conjunct (a Direct Object) must have a "replacer" in the second conjunct. The intermediate members of the first conjunct, such as Mary, can become Noncontrastive Topic (and hence, be elided) in the second conjunct (cf. (474c)). (In (474c), the preferred readings of the elements are indicated: John preferably belongs to Topic, and gave Mary preferably to Focus.)

296

Anaphoric reference

(ii) Lappin 1992 provides an account of ellipsis in terms of syntacticallybased reconstruction. In this model of ellipsis resolution, a "lexicaly anchored syntactic representation" is associated with the elided VP, because elided VPs are sensitive to a variety of syntactic conditions. The procedures of semantic interpretation apply only to this reconstructed interpretation. There are two kinds of reconstruction: one based on Logical Form, and one on S-structure (Lappin opts for the latter). The reconstructed structure is characterized here in terms of the head and constituents of the antecedent VP, and their counterparts in the elided VP. Generally, however, it can be objected that the constituency-based analyses of ellipsis, such as restructuring (cf. Steedman 1994) and reconstruction (cf. May 1985, Lappin 1992), even when they bring very good insights, are unnecessarily complicated and English (SVO) biased. Lappin offers the following insights: (a) The possibility of the strict reading (in addition to the sloppy one) in the second conjunct may be due to the idiosyncrasies of the lexical semantics of the verb, cf., the verb to expect admitting of both readings, vs. the verb to talk admitting only of the sloppy reading, cf. (475a) vs. (475b) (Lappin's 1 lb/7 and 12a/7, respectively). (b) The contrastive validity of the pronoun in the second conjunct may substantially improve the acceptability of the ellipsis, cf. (476a) vs. (476b) (Lappin's 15a/10 and 16a/10). Only, I would like to claim that the pronoun he in (476a) is Contrastive Topic, whereas in (476b), it is Focus (which is inherently contrastive). In (476c) (Lappin's 10a/7), the pronoun he is not evaluated as to its contrastiveness, but it is assumed to have only one interpretation, viz., that coreferential to Bill. This example is taken over by Hestvik (1992: 130b/44) (the same volume), where both possibilities are considered (the unaccceptable sentence with the unstressed he and the acceptable sentence with the stressed HE). (c) Lappin observes the violations of the binding conditions C and Β in the reconstructed structures, cf. (477) (Lappin's 8b/6) illustrating the violation of condition C. (d) He points out that sentences like (478a) are not ill-formed, as assumed (unlike (478b)). (e) He points out cases of "pseudogapping", or partially elided VPs, such as (479) (Lappin's 28b-c/17). (475)a. Bill, didn 't expect himself, to win, but John2 did b. John, was talking to himself, and Bill2 was too

Anaphoric reference

CT

j

j

297

F

(476)a. *The lawyer defended Bill, and he, did too b. Everyone, talks to John2 about his2 problems. Even HE2F doesΛNT c. The lawyer defended Bill, better than he, could have (477) Mary spoke to John, and he, hopes that Lucy will [VF speak to John,] too (478)a. Mary introduced him, to everyone that John, wanted her to b. *Mary introduced him, to everyone that she wanted John, to (479)a. John sent flowers to Lucy before Max did chocolates b. John sent flowers to Lucy before Max did to Mary All of Lappin's puzzles can be alternatively accounted for in terms of the communicative-information structure of the sentence. Thus, I claim that in (476a), he is Contrastive Topic referring to Bill, did is Noncontrastive Topic, and too (carrying focal stress) is Focus, whereby did too refers to defend Bill. There are two ways to improve the acceptability of (476a): (a) by reversing the Topic-Focus articulation of the second conjunct, i.e. by making the expression which is referred to Noncontrastive Topic, and he, Focus, such as in and so didT HE HIMSELF,F (which would be questionably acceptable on the intended reading (on which both the lawyer and Bill defended Bill, i.e. when Bill defended himself, in addition to his defence by the lawyer), and (b) by making the second conjunct subordinate to the first conjunct, such as in (476c) (in this case, the Topic-Focus articulation of the second conjunct does not matter (so much)). In (476c), the pronoun he, must be interpreted as belonging to the Focus, because it carries the peak of intonation (the rest of the conjunct is Noncontrastive Topic). However, if the second conjunct in (476c) involved an autosemantic element belonging to the Focus, such as before (cf. ...better than he could have BEFORE), the pronoun he could be Noncontrastive Topic and coreferential with the lawyer, or it could be Contrastive Topic and coreferential with Bill. (477) is acceptable because what is reconstructed is rather the personal pronoun he than the NP John. (478a), unlike (478b), can be considered as acceptable, both as involving "renaming" of him by the NP John. It can be assumed that in the reconstructed part, the pronoun, not the NP, are reconstructed. The examples in (479) show that the structure of the second conjunct can be viewed as unrelated to the constituent structure. (iii) Romero 1995 presents an account of Focus in sluicing, as an ellipsis of the whole embedded clause except for the wh-phrase. She keeps to the princi-

298

Anaphoric reference

pie of postulating analogous conditions for VP-ellipsis and sluicing as IPellipsis (calling attention to the sloppy reading with sluicing, cf. (480) (Romero's 4b/l). She correctly proposes that the wh-elements should be viewed as carrying focal intonation, and that wh-phrases and indefinites should be interpreted in situ as open formulas However, I would like to propose that in sentences such as (481a) (Romero's 18/5), two kinds of wh-phrases should be distinguished: the indirectly interrogative (which students) and the directly interrogative (which professors), and that they should be assigned different interpretations, cf. their different counterparts in reactions such as (481b): the indirectly interrogative phrase remains unchanged, wheras the directly interrogative phrase is replaced by NPs (cf. also Chapter 4 above). In (481c), still a different reaction is given, where both of the wh-phrases are substituted by NPs. (480)

Peter does not know where he is going on vacation, and Mary does not know where (she/he is going on vacation) (481 )a. I know with which professors some students danced, but I don't know which students danced with which professors b. But I know which students danced with Professor Jones and Professor Norman c. I know that Joan danced with Professor Jones, and that Jane danced with Professor Norman (iv) Rooth 1992 treats ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. Essentially, he claims that ellipsis does not allow for the sloppy reading in certain cases where reduction does. The minimal pair illustrating this is (482a) vs. (482b) (Rooth's 9b and 9c on p. 7, respectively). He proposes that reduction, unlike ellipsis, should be viewed as based on semantic redundancy. Then, he proposes a modified solution according to which ellipsis is based on a second type of semantic redundancy, but argues against the sophisticated version of equivalence of ellipsis and reduction. The crucial example is the reduction in (483) (Rooth's 3 5b/19), where Rooth assumes (contrary to the predictions of the ellipsis-reduction identity thesis) that sloppy reading is possible. (482)a. John, 's coach thinks that John, has a chance, and Bill2 's coach does too

Anaphoric reference

299

b. Johnj's coach thinks that he, has a chance and Bill2F's coach thinks that he as a chance, too (483) John, 's coach thinks that het has a chance, and Bill2 thinks that het 2 has a chance, too Rooth proposes to treat ellipsis and reduction in terms of "association with Focus". He proposes to introduce the Squiggle operator, which has two arguments (to its left stands the redundant, elided or deleted, material, and to its right, the non-deleted, contrastive material - Focus). I would like to make the following comments on Rooth's conception. (a) The overt contrasted elements in the conjuncts need not be both Foci of their sentences. For example, in the second conjunct of (482b), Bill in Bill's coach is rather Contrastive Topic, because the peak of intonation is placed on too, which is the Focus of the second conjunct. In (484), (Rooths's 1992:1/1), she is Contrastive Topic, and Sue is Focus, of their conjuncts (i.e., both of these NPs are not Foci, as Rooth assumes). In the first conjunct of (484), the Focus is the VP beats me more often or its part, such as more, according to the context. In the second conjunct, the Focus is Sue, the reduced sequence beats me being Noncontrastive Topic. Also destressed NPs such as semantics in Rooth's example 3/3 are Noncontrastive Topics. (484)

She beats me more often than Sue beats me

(b) I propose that the impossibility of the sloppy reading with ellipsis, and its possibility with reduction can be accounted for in more general terms of human processing capacities: ellipsis (and zero forms in general) are more referentially unequivocal than reductions (such as pronouns, etc.), due to the fact that an element which is anaphorically referred to by a zero form of any kind must be better known than that referred to by a reduced form. In other words, reduction, which is more semantically redundant (more overt) than ellipsis, allows accordingly a greater freedom of interpretation. (c) Finally, as regards the strict vs. sloppy reading possibilities, I would like to mention here Hestvik's 1992 account. He argues that subordinated conjuncts (unlike coordinated ones) can have the strict reading, cf. (485a) (with coordination) vs. (485b) (with subordination, and hence, with the possibility of strict reading) (Hestvik's 3a-b/l).

300

Scoping expressions

It can be argued that the possibility of sloppy reading in subordinated conjuncts is due to the greater syntactic closeness of the subordinated conjunct to the first conjunct than of the coordinated conjunct. (485)a. John defended himself well, and Bill did too b. John defended himself better than Bill did (v) Tomioka 1995a, b, and p. c. provides a very insightful conception of sloppy identity in relation to variable binding, and of Focus and contrastiveness. In 1995a, he calls to attention cases with sloppy interpretation where no variable binding obtains, i.e., where the pronoun is outside the scope of its antecedent (the antecedent occurring in a syntactic island), cf. (486), (487) and (488) (Tomioka's 4, 7 and 9 on p. 2, respectively). He points out the parallelism of definite and indefinite antecedents, cf. (489) (Tomioka's 11/3). He proposes to treat indefinite antecedents in terms of a partial function which assigns a situation in its domain a unique individual characterized by the descriptive content of the predicate of its sentence, i.e., not conceived of as a constant. (486) (487) (488) (489)

Residents in New York hate its subway system, and residents in Tokyo do [ e ], too The policeman who arrested John insulted him, and the one who arrested Bill did [ e ], too The policeman who arrested every murderer insulted him Every police officer who arrested a murderer insulted him, and every police officer who arrested a burglar did [ e ] too

Here, I have the following comments: the possibilities of strict and sloppy anaphoric reference are generally indeed much wider than those predicated by a syntactic theory, such as a theory of the syntactic parallelism of the conjuncts, or the theory of c-command (Tomioka (1995a: 9) makes even the strong claim that the sloppy reading shows up when the pronoun is not ccommanded by its antecedent). Second, I have a different feeling of acceptability in case of sentences such as (488), which I consider unacceptable. I argue that in this sentence, Case III of anaphoric reference in the complex sentence is involved (with the embedded sentence involving the antecedent preceding the matrix sentence involving the pronoun), which is forbidden with a quantified antecedent (cf. 5.3

Anaphoric reference

301

above). So, I have a strong feeling that Tomioka's examples 9 and 10 on p. 2 are ruled out, which, however, does not detract from the validity of his semantic generalization. In 1995b and p. c., Tomioka admits that the overt element in second conjuncts with too are (Contrastive) Topics rather than Foci, noting that in Japanese, such NPs bear the Topic marker. Second, he argues that generalized quantifiers such as some cannot be focused. Third, he assumes that (490) is unambiguous, whereas (491) is ambiguous, due to the occurrence of the common noun boy in the second conjunct. (490) (491)

Pat admires every teacher, and someone does too Pat admires every teacher, and some boy does too

It can be remarked that generalized quantifiers such as some presumably cannot be contrasted ("focused") with respect to NPs (as Tomioka has it), but they can presumably be contrasted with respect to other quantifiers, such as every (cf. SOME boy and EVERY boy).

5.5.2 My alternative proposal In the following, I would like to outline my own account of ellipsis, reduction, and gapping (my proposal of the treatment of wh-elements in Chapter 4 is related to sluicing). First of all, I contend that constituency-based explanations should be dropped because of their implicit English (SVO) bias. Second, I claim that ellipsis is referentially more univocal than reduction, wherefrom stems the occasional lack of sloppy reading of the second conjunct with ellipsis, in contrast to its counterpart with reduction. Reduction is more semantically redundant, i.e., less informative, and hence, it allows for a wider range of interpretations. Third, I claim that the conjuncts need not be communicatively parallel: their overt (contrasted) elements need not necessarily be the Foci of their conjuncts. Rather, there is a variety of the communicative-information structuring of the second conjunct: both of the overt (contrasted) parts can be Contrastive Topics, or one of them may be Topic and the other Focus, or both can be Foci. I claim that this is the reason why such a variety of forms of referring

302

Anaphoric

reference

to a part of the sentence involving the verb is available: they express different communicative-information structurings of the second conjunct. Thus, in conjuncts with ellipsis, the contrasted element is Contrastive Topic (cf. Bill in (469)), whereas TOO is Focus. In conjuncts with destressed auxiliaries, the contrasted element is Focus (cf. CHRIS (470a)), whereas the destressed auxiliary (cf. does in (470a)) is Noncontrastive Topic. In conjuncts with destressed auxiliaries and so, the contrasted element (cf. BILL in (470b)) is also Focus, whereas the destressed auxiliary along with so (cf. so did) is Noncontrastive Topic. In conjuncts with stressed auxiliaries, the contrasted conjunct is Contrastive Topic (cf. John in (471)), whereas the stressed auxiliary (cf. DID in (471)) is Focus. The stressed auxiliaries function as scoping expressions constituting the Focus of such sentences, with scoping interpretation of type II (cf. Chapter 3 above). The destressed forms of auxiliaries in the reduced constructions belong to their Noncontrastive Topics, wheras the stressed forms of the auxiliaries, to their Foci. As regards gapping, the elements of the conjuncts must be syntactically and communicatively parallel with respect to their types of syntactic relations and to their degree of communicative importance. This means that there must occur the same (occurrences of) types of syntactic relations in the two conjuncts, with the same deep ordering according to their degrees of communicative importance ("communicative dynamism") (abstracting away, for a moment, from their communicative-information values such as Contrastive Topic or Focus). This is illustrated in (474c). The elements of the two conjuncts may assume the following communicative-information values: in both conjuncts, at least one (the communicatively most important) element must belong to the Focus, according to the general principle that the sentence must involve at least one element of the Focus. The second, gapped conjunct can be characterized as follows: (a) There is usually at least one element of Contrastive Topic (additionally to the one element of Focus). However, all elements of the gapped construction may be alternatively viewed as elements of the Focus. This is exemplified in (492), where both of the NPs involved are indefinite, which suggests their all-new (topicless) reading of both conjuncts. I would like to refer here also to my conception of Contrastive Topic in Chapter 2 above, according to which Contrastive Topics are close to the initial elements of the Focus (and can be alternatively expressed as elements of the Focus).

Anaphoric reference

(492)

303

A man with a black hat hit a woman with a green shirt, and a man with a gray hat, a woman in a blue shirt

(b) The other elements, standing between the first and the last elements of the first conjunct, can be elided (gapped), i.e., they can become elements of Noncontrastive Topic (along with the verb). My conception of gapping is illustrated by (474c) above (repeated here with the indication of the deleted material). In (474c), the elements of the sequence John gave Mary in the first conjunct may belong to Topic or to Focus, whereas the last element of the first conjunct, a record, must belong to the Focus. Of the first three elements, John is preferably (Contrastive) Topic, and gave Mary is preferably Focus. In the second conjunct, Bill is preferably Contrastive Topic, the deleted gave Mary must be Noncontrastive Topic, and a book must be Focus. (474)c. JohnT/F gavem Marym a recordf, and BillCT/F [gave Mary]"7 a bookF As regards ellipsis, reduction, and gapping with quantifiers, I make the claim that the interpretation of the scopes of quantifiers is preferably preserved in the second conjunct, irrespective of its communicative-information structure. However, if there occurs a proper name in one of the conjuncts, it has the capacity to "attract" the wide-scope interpretation of its quantified syntactic analogue in the other conjunct. This can be illustrated by (490) and (491) above, by (493a-b) (Tomioka's examples 1995b: la-b/1) and by (494ab) (my examples). (For an example similar to (493b), cf. also Lappin 1992: 67/35; cf. also the remark of Professor Werner Winter that the sentence would sound better if instead of someone, someone else were used, with an antecedent in the preceding text, such as Michael does not admire any teacher, but someone else admires every teacher....). (493)a. Someone admires every teacher and Pat does too b. Some girl admires every teacher and Pat does too (494)a. Every man in this village admires a dark-haired woman, and Bill does too b. A dark-haired woman is admired by every man in this village, and by Bill too

304

Anaphoric reference

Thus, I assume that in (490) and (491) above, the respective expressions someone and some boy in the second conjuncts have (preferably) wide scope, analogously to the occurrences of the expression Pat in the first conjuncts, with respect to the overt and deleted occurrences of the expression every teacher. There may be a slight difference, as mentioned above, between someone and some boy: some boy marginally allows for the narrow scope with respect to every teacher. Similarly, in (493a-b), someone and some girl have preferably wide scopes, analogously to Pat (although here, the conjuncts with the quantifiers precede the conjuncts with the proper name). However, again a difference can be made between someone and some girl, in that some girl would marginally allow for the narrow scope. Similarly, in (494a-b), the scope ambiguity of the first conjuncts with the occurrences of the quantified expression every man in this village cannot be preserved in the second conjuncts, where the quantified NP every man in this vilage is replaced by the NP Bill, and where accordingly the phrases a darkhaired woman have the wide-scope (non-quantified) reading. The NP Bill in the second conjuncts of these examples makes preferable the wide scope (non-quantified) reading of the phrase a dark-haired woman in the first conjuncts of (494a) and (494b). In (494a), the hearer presumably "backtracks", because in the first conjunct, the preferred interpretation of the phrase a dark-haired woman as the second quantified phrase is narrow-scope, which disagrees with a wide-scope (non-quantified) interpretation of the same deleted phrase in the second conjunct. Thus, the narrow-scope interpretation of the phase a dark-haired woman in the first conjunct is preferably changed into the wide-scope interpretation, per analogiam to wide scope (non-quantified reading) of the deleted phrase a dark-haired woman in the second conjunct. In the first conjunct of (494b), the phrase a dark-haired woman is the first quantified phrase, so that it preferably has the wide reading, which is consonant with the wide scope (non-quantified reading) of the same deleted phrase in the second conjunct. To be mentioned here are also Lappin's 1992 examples, where the use of an overt pronoun changes the scope interpretation in the second conjunct, cf. (495a-b) (Lappin's 64/33 and 66/35, respectively). In the second conjunct of (495a) (with a VP ellipsis), everyone has the narrow-scope reading, whereas in the second conjunct of (495b), him (coindexed with everyone) has the wide scope reading (every person is such that Mary spoke to him/her after Bill spoke to him/her). In my theory, him in (495b) is a regular nonresumptive pro-

Anaphoric reference

305

noun on the Case I of anaphoric reference in the complex sentence (the use of the pronoun instead of a NP is referred to as "vehicle change" in Lappin). (495)a. Mary spoke to everyone after Bill [spoke to everyone] b. Mary spoke to everyone; after Bill spoke to him,

5.6 Anaphoric reference to NPs in general In this section, I would like to propose an alternative account of the anaphoric reference to NPs in general, i.e., in cases where the antecedent and the postcedent occur in different independent sentences, or in a coordination of sentences, or in the basic case (Case I) of anaphora in a complex sentence.

5.6.1 The variation of the zero anaphoric expressions and the pronoun in pro-drop languages and comparison to English A good introduction to the problem of anaphoric reference in general will be an exposition of the variation between the zero anaphoric expression (pro) and the personal pronouns and other (deictic) pronouns in the function of the Subject in pro-drop languages, such as Russian and Czech. For references, cf. Adamec 1989, Berger 1989, Koktova: 1992c, 1995 and in press b., Nichols 1985, Zimovä 1994. After this exposition, a comparison will be made with the basic anaphoric means in English. Generally, I claim that Russian and Czech are more sensitive to anaphoric reference than English, by virtue of the occurrence, in Russian and Czech, of different basic (minimal) anaphoric expressions depending on the Noncontrastive, Contrastive, or Focus character of the antecedent and the postcedent. These expressions essentially correspond to a single anaphoric expression in English, viz., the personal pronoun in the masculine and feminine gender (he, she) (on the other hand, it is Noncontrastive). (i) Russian. In Koktova: 1992c, I examined the competition of the zero anaphoric expression (henceforth, zero form) and the overt personal pronoun (on 'he') (henceforth: pronoun) in Russian. I specified about twenty reasons for the use of the pronoun as a slightly marked anaphoric expression (with respect to the zero form) within the basic layer of anaphoric expressions (cf. 5.6.2.3 below).

306

Anaphoric reference

The zero form has a slight statistical predominance (52.15% in a sample of almost one thousand sentences). The conditions on the use of the pronoun are morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. The morphological conditions usually cannot be relaxed, i.e., the substitution of the pronoun by the zero form is impossible (cf. the condition on the lack of finite verb). However, the most frequent, and morphologically-based, condition on the use of the pronoun, viz., the oblique antecedent, is relaxed very often, in about 12% of the cases with an oblique antecedent. This condition covers about half of all instances of the use of the pronoun. If the pronoun occurs in the Focus, in Contrastive Topic and in coordination, it cannot be replaced by the zero form, i.e., this condition is not relaxable. On the other hand, there is a number of interesting relaxable semantic and pragmatic conditions, such as the occurrence of verbs of saying and thinking in the antecedent sentence, the intention of the speaker to express surprise or contrast between expectation and reality, the availability of temporal discontinuity between the antecedent and the postcedent sentence (corresponding to the use of the past tense in the antecedent sentence, and of the past perfect tense in the postcedent sentence, in English), etc. In these semantico-pragmatically definable cases, there is almost a free variation between the zero form and the pronoun in Russian, cf. (496) with the preferred use of the pronoun because of the verb of saying in the antecedent sentence. (496)

Onj skazal,

cto

on,/pro,pridet

He say-3-sg-pret that he/pro 'He said that he would come'"

come-3-sg-fut

Additionally, there is the deictic pronoun tot 'that one' used in Russian as anaphoric expression functioning as the Subject postcedent. This expression is typically used when referring to an Object antecedent occurring in the Focus, in contrast to a possibly competing Subject antecedent in the Topic. I claim that it is not possible to use this expression as embedded under expressions introducing indirect speech, such as po ee slovam 'according to her words'. This, I claim, is a trait of (slight) logophoricity of this pronoun, which expresses the viewpoint of the speaker rather than that of the characters acting and speaking in the text.

Anaphoric reference

307

Also, there is the zero anaphoric form for Objects in embedded sentences in Russian, which is analogous to the English parasitic gap. The zero form in Russian is used when the sentence is easy to process, and if the antecedent has the same syntactic function as the postcedent, cf. (350) in Chapter 4, repeated here for convenience as (497), with the zero anaphoric form for the Object in the embedded sentence indicated as PG (parasitic gap). (497) Ej chotelos', ctoby ja, ee2 obnjal, her want-3-sg-pres-impers that Ij her2-Acc embrace-participle-perf kak 0j 02 obnimal kogda-to ν taksi like prOj PG2 embrace-participle-imperf the-other-day in taxi 'She wanted that I should embrace her like I embraced her-PG the other day in a taxi' (ii) Czech. On the other hand, in Czech, the opposition within the basic layer of anaphoric expressions functioning as the Subject is that between the zero form (pro) and the minimal lexical anaphoric expression (minimal NP in the form of a repeated common or proper noun without any marker of delimitation and without adnominal adjuncts). The personal pronoun (on 'he') is generally used only in very marked cases, such as in the Focus and Contrastive Topic, in case of morphologically nonrelaxable conditions on the presence of an overt anaphoric expression (such as in coordination), and in case the anaphoric expression is (emotionally) emphasized. The zero form is used almost obligatorily if the antecedent is a Subject occurring in the Topic of its sentence, whereas the minimal NP is used typically if the antecedent is an Object occurring in the Focus of its sentence. This difference is not observed in Russian. In Czech, instead of the minimal NP, the deictic pronoun ten 'that one' is sometimes used (more often than its Russian counterpart tot). It should be mentioned that the zero form may be used also in reference to an Object occurring in the Focus if the zero form is semantically and pragmatically sufficiently univocal (due to the knowledge of the situation and of the world, or due to lexical inferences, such as with the words pickpocketsteal, etc.). In case of nonrelaxable (morphological) conditions on the use of an overt anaphoric expression, the pronoun ten 'that one' and the pronoun on 'he' are used, under specific constraints. On is used in the case of the absence of the fi-

308

Anaphoric reference

nite verb, of the occurrence of a pronoun in coordination, and of the intercalation of a clause (not involving reference to the referent in question) between the antecedent and the postcedent clause (i.e., in case of a pragmatic distance between the antecedent and the postcedent). Ten is used in case of the occurrence of the anaphoric expression after conjunctions such as ale 'but' and a 'and', if there is no VP conjunction but rather conjunction of clauses involved. I propose that in Czech, two morphological paradigms of the personal pronoun should be distinguished, the "strong" ("long") and the "weak" ("short") one corresponding to their functions. The "strong" paradigm consists of the overt form in the Nominative case, and of the "long" forms in oblique cases. The "weak" paradigm consists of the zero form in the Nominative case, and of the "short" forms in the oblique cases. The "strong" (marked) paradigm is used if the anaphoric expression occurs in Focus and Contrastive Topic, if the overt anaphoric form is obligatory for morphological reasons, and in case of emphasis. It should be noted that only certain Czech pronouns (such as Dative and Accusative singular masculine) have these two forms (short and long); the others are ambiguous in this respect, i.e., they can be used in both ways (cf. Avgustinova - Oliva's 1995 notion of semiclitics). Further, there is a difference in Czech between the identifiers (delimitators) tento 'this one', ten 'that', and tentο 'this' used with lexical anaphoric expressions, such as tento/ten muz 'this/that man', in that the identifier ten 'that' has a logophoric meaning, even more strongly than the homophonous bare deictic pronoun ten 'that one': it is not possible to use the anaphoric expression with the identifier tento if the thoughts of the characters acting in the text are expressed: in this case, the identifier ten must be used. (iii) English. In English, the personal pronouns he, she, they are used universally as the basic minimal anaphoric expressions, corresponding to a wide variety of anaphoric expressions (the zero form, the personal and deictic pronouns, the minimal lexical anaphoric expression) in Slavic languages, such as Czech and Russian. This means that in English, these pronouns are used irrespective of the communicative-information characteristics of the antecedent and the postcedent. There are differences only in intonation: these pronouns are unstressed if they function as Noncontrastive Topic, they are ContrastiveTopic stressed if they function as Contrastive Topic, and they are Focusstressed if they function as Focus. The pronoun it, as has been mentioned above, is Noncontrastive. However, this distinction has not been properly observed. This can be illustrated by the following paradigm of examples: for the examples (498a-c), I am obliged to Reinhart 1988 and p. c.; the example (499a) I

Anaphoric reference

309

owe to Y. Huang (1994: 19/122); (499b) is my variation of of (499a), and (500a-b) is fromLappin 1992 and Hestvik 1992, respectively (their respective examples 10a/7 and 130b/44 differ only in the accentuation of the pronoun). ((500a) corresponds to (476c) above.) (498)a. b. c. (499)a. b. (500)a. b.

Max, hit Bill2, and then he,"7 insultecf him^ Max, hit Bill2, and then HE " insulted him Max hit Bill, and then only HE J insultecf him,^7 Chomsky, praised Riemsdijk2, and then HE2CTpraised Williams Chomsky, praised Riemsdijk2, and then only HE,/praised Williams The lawyer, defended Bill2 better than he" could have The lawyer, defended Bill2 better than HE2 could have

Reinhart 1988 claims that the unstressed pronoun he in (498a) can refer only to Max, whereas the stressed pronoun HE in (498b) (preferably) refers to Bill. What she has in mind when speaking about stressing is the ContrastiveTopic stressing. If the pronoun is Focus-stressed, as in (498c) (my example), it is perfectly ambiguous between Max and Bill. (The Contrastive-Topic and the Focus readings are indicated by the superscripts CT and F, respectively; in (498c), the Focus reading is made explicit by the explicit focalizing of the pronoun by the focalizer only.) An analogy to (498a-b) holds for the pair (499a) (with Contrastive-Topic validity of the pronoun) and (499b) (with Focus validity of the pronoun). I infer that in (499a), Huang had in mind the Contrastive-Topic stressing (rather than Focus stressing), due to the assumption of the reference of the stressed pronoun to the Object antecedent occurring in the Focus (rather than its referential ambiguity). Third, in the example (500a), Lappin has presumably assumed Contrastive-Topic stress, although he did not indicate it. Again, I infer that the pronoun has the Contrastive-Topic reading because it is conceived of as univocally referring to Bill, which is an Object occurring in the Focus of the preceding sentence. The stressing of the pronoun is explicitly indicated in Hestvik's variant of this example (500b), but what is intended is again the ContrastiveTopic rather than Focus stressing. I propose the following generalizations of the properties the personal pronoun in English: (a) If the pronoun functioning as the Subject has the Noncontrastive-Topic validity (in which case it is unstressed), it refers preferably to the Subject oc-

310

Anaphoric reference

curring in the Topic of the antecedent sentence. In this capacity, the English pronoun is analogous to the Czech zero form, and to the unstressed personal pronoun varying with the zero form in Russian. (b) If the pronoun functioning as the Subject has the Contrastive-Topic validity (in this case it is Contrastive-Topic stressed), it refers preferably to the Nonsubject occurring in the Focus of the antecedent sentence. In this capacity, the English pronoun is analogous to the minimal lexical anaphoric expression (repeated noun) or the deictic pronoun ten in Czech, and to the personal pronoun on and the deictic pronoun tot in Russian. (c) If the pronoun functioning as the Subject has the Focus validity (in this case it is Focus stressed), it is perfectly ambiguous between various possible antecedents, such as the Subject occurring in the Topic and a Nonsubject occurring in the Focus. In this capacity, the English pronoun is analogous to the Czech (stressed) personal pronoun and to the Russian (stressed) personal pronoun.

5.6.2 General principles of anaphoric reference The problems of anaphoric reference (by pronominal and lexical anaphoric expressions) within a sentence and across the sentential boundary have been treated in formal semantics (cf., e. g., Chierchia 1992, Cooper 1979, 1990, Groenendijk and Stokhof 1991, Pinkal 1991, Kamp 1981, von Heusinger 1994), and in linguistics (cf. Garrod - Sanford 1995, van Hoek 1995, Schwarz 1995, Zribi-Hertz 1989). Let me mention here the approaches of van Hoek, Pinkal, von Heusinger, and Garrod - Sanford. (a) Van Hoek 1995 offers an analysis of the conditions on anaphoric reference, which have been treated within the c-command theory, in terms of the apparatus of cognitive grammar. To the notions employed belong, first of all, the accessibility of a referent with respect to conceptual reference points and their dominions, and the prominence of a conceptual reference point with respect to another nominal due to the first nominal's profiling and figure ground alignment. Other relevant notions are the complementarity of linear order and connectivity, whose impact on the acceptability of anaphora is in inverse proportion. Thus, in particular, van Hoek accounts for the inacceptability of my Case II of anaphoric reference in the simple sentence in terms of the prominence of the Subject (cf. 9a, b/322) (for exceptions which I treat in terms of renaming, she accounts in term of interconnectivity of certain verbs occurring in the

Anaphoric reference

311

main clause (cf. 35b/334)). Further, she accounts for the improvement by embedding the pronoun in terms of the nonprominence of the modifying relation (cf. p. 13b/323); for the unacceptability of the [NP - pronoun] sequence in a text, in terms of linear order (cf. 16b/325); for the difference between processinternal and process-external modifiers (corresponding to verb-phrasal and sentential modifications, respectively), in terms of strong and weak interconnectivity with the Subject, respectively (cf. 18 and 19/326); for the acceptability of backward anaphora, in terms of the tendency of the main clause Subject to be the antecedent (cf. 28a, b/330); for the acceptability of my Case III of anaphoric reference in complex sentences, in terms of the "point of view" (cf. 32a, b/333), and for the occurrence of reflexive pronouns, in terms of the closeness of a conceptually adjacent antecedent. (b) Pinkal 1991. Pinkal offers an insightful alternative approach to anaphora in complex and simple sentences. He shows that the processing of sentences with anaphora should be a syntactico-semantic one, where an amount of semantic processing should precede the syntactic one (c-command check). He proposes a revised binding principle: "An NP alpha can bind a pronoun beta provided that beta is in the c-command domain of the host quantifier of alpha's discourse referent" (1991: 4). He argues that in this principle (which relates the pronoun beta and its antecedent alpha indirectly, via reference to the host quantifier term gamma), the relation between the pronoun and the host quantifier is syntactic, and the relation between the host quantifier and the antecedent is semantic. Binding may occur whenever an NP denotation, quantificational or indefinite, is applied to a predicate Discourse Representation Structure (cf. the principle 13/4). Specifically, Pinkal treats the case where a relative clause with an indefinite NP (as antecedent) modifies the quantified NP functioning as the Subject of the matrix clause, whereby the pronoun is the Object of the matrix clause. Here, the indefinite NP does not c-command the pronoun, yet it can serve as its antecedent. To account for this phenomenon, Pinkal proposes to introduce the notion of the host quantifier NP, which c-commands the pronoun. His examples for weak crossover, where the possessive pronoun is embedded in the sentence-initial Subject NP, with the Object as the antecedent, can be alternatively accounted for in terms of my four types of anaphora in the simple sentence: thus, (501) (Pinkal's 15/4) sounds unacceptable because a Subject NP with an embedded pronoun precedes the Object as antecedent (my Case II). The inacceptability is softened to a certain degree by the embedding of the pronoun. Such sentences could become more acceptable if the sentence-final antecedent were set in sharp semantic contrast to another ex-

312

Anaphoric reference

pression (such as a tenured but not an associate professor). Moreover, a variation of such examples could be carried out with respect to most different types of syntactic relations. Thus, for example, the combination [Addressee Subject] in (502) (my Case IV) yields acceptability: (501) *a student of his, admires a teacher, (502) To a student of his,, a teacher, in our institute offered congratulations on his success (c) Von Heusinger 1994. Von Heusinger develops a modified epsilon-operator calculus, treating the uniqueness of definite reference in terms of salience as a property of context: what is referred to by an indefinite, definite, or anaphoric expression is always the most salient object (out of a set of objects) with respect to a certain context, which suggests a hierarchy of salience. He introduces the modified epsilon operator (1994:36-38), amended by the index /, indicating a specific context. Thus, both indefinite and definite expressions are viewed as contextdependent and referring terms: definite expressions do not change salience, whereas indefinite objects establish a new hierarchy of salience. Von Heusinger integrates into his account the conception the Topic-Focus (themerheme) articulation in three ways: by the "extension of the theme", i.e. by the integration of the descriptive material from the predicate, or rheme, into the Subject expression, and the other way round, as a technical device. (d) Garrod - Sanford 1995. Garrod - Sanford argue that anaphoric expressions can be arranged into a referential hierarchy, from the lexically emptier ("attenuated") expressions (such as pronouns) at the top, to fuller (lexical) expressions (NPs) at the bottom. They suggest that the lower the anaphoric item is located, the more referentially rigid it is. Thus, pronouns are characterized as referentially "fluid", whereas fuller anaphoric expressions are viewed as connected with "broaching new topic and introducing or reintroducing referents" (1995: 46-55). However, an objection can be raised to the authors' postulating a referential hierarchy according to the "fullness" of anaphoric expressions, with respect to my conception of the greater univocality (and easier processing) of the zero form along with reflexives (and essentially also NPs) as opposed to (personal) pronouns, which are the most indistinct (ambiguous) anaphoric expressions. It should be mentioned here that the easier processing of reflexives with re-

Anaphoric reference

313

spect to personal pronouns has been experimentally corroborated, cf. Deutsch 1995. There are also other authors dealing with anaphora -resolution, which is one of the major tasks of automatic language comprehension, cf. e.g., Herweg 1988 and p. c. (on the resolution of plural anaphora) and Hirst 1994. Essentially, there are several factors determining the resolution: the syntax, semantics, and the communicative-information structure of the antecedent sentence, and the pragmatic background (world knowledge). The goal of this section is to specify general principles of anaphoric reference, which might be operative also in anaphora resolution. They are related to the human processing capacities as a factor superordinate to syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, which may cooperate in anaphora generation and resolution (let us recall that the choice of anaphoric expressions in pro-drop languages (the zero vs. the overt form) is dependent on a combination of three factors: Subjecthood, the Topic-Focus distinction, and activation due to world knowledge). Thus, I propose the following general principles of anaphoric reference: (i) The principle of balance between economy and explicitness of anaphoric expressions. (ii) The principle of four general cases of referring. (iii) The principle of the hierarchy of anaphoric expressions.

5.6.2.1 The principle of balance between economy and explicitness of anaphoric expressions There is a constant tension, compensation, and balance between the principle of economy and the principle of explicitness in the production of anaphoric expressions. The speaker strives, on the one hand, to exert minimal effort and to make the discourse maximally fluent, by the use of economic (minimal) anaphoric expressions. On the other hand, he tries to provide the hearer with a means of identification of the referent which would be least ambiguous or vague, i. e., according to which the referent would be most easily identifiable. This leads to a general tension between the use of zero and overt anaphoric expressions, and between pronominal and lexical anaphoric expressions. A scale of referential specificity has been drawn up by several authors, such as Y. Huang and Levinson, of a shape as in (503), where the expressions are or-

314

Anaphoric refe rence

dered from the minimal (most economic) expression to the maximal (most explicit) expression. (503)

[the zero form - the (personal) pronoun - the reflexive - the lexical anaphoric expressions]

However, I claim that this scale is not quite adequate, in that the zero form is more univocal (less ambiguous) than the personal pronoun, and that it thus comes close to the reflexive and to NPs, as opposed to personal pronouns. The zero form is used only if the referent is so well identifiable that no overt reference whatsoever is necessary. This happens if the antecedent is the Subject occurring in the Topic of the antecedent sentence, if the antecedent is the controller in the matrix sentence in which an infinitival construction is embedded, or if the antecedent is disambiguated by the pragmatic background (situation, world knowledge) to such an extent that there can be no competing antecedent. In this, the zero form functioning as the Subject (pro, PRO) has much in common with the reflexive, which is prototypically also univocal, referring to the Subject of its sentence (clause). Thus, the scale in (503) can be modified into that in (504), where the expressions are arranged from the most ambiguous (least referentially specific) to the least ambiguous (most referentially specific) ones. (504)

[the personal pronoun - the zero form - the reflexive - the lexical anaphoric expressions]

Second, I propose that two analogies can be drawn, (a) within the domain of zero anaphoric forms, and (b) within the domain of overt (pronominal) anaphoric forms. Both within (a) and (b), the analogy is drawn between anaphoric forms for nominals, and those for sequences of expressions involving the verb (more exactly than "for the VP"). Henceforth, I shall speak about the analogies between nominal and verbal (anaphoric) forms. These two analogies are as follows: (a) The analogy between the zero nominal form (pro and parasitic gap) and the zero verbal form (Rooth's (VP) ellipsis). The zero form, whether nominal or verbal, is referentially less ambiguous than the corresponding overt form, as in (b) below.

Anaphoric reference

315

This corresponds to my above claim that the zero form for nominals is more univocal than the personal pronoun, and to Rooth's 1992 claim that (VP) ellipsis does not allow a sloppy reading in certain cases where (VP) reduction (as an overt form) does. (b) The analogy between the overt nominal form (personal pronoun) and the overt verbal form ((VP) reduction). The overt form, whether nominal or verbal, is referentially less univocal (more ambiguous) than the corresponding zero form, as in (a) above. This corresponds to my above claim that the personal pronoun is more ambiguous than the zero form, and to Rooth's 1992 claim that VP reduction can have a sloppy reading in certain cases where the corresponding ellipsis can have only the strict reading. Third, I claim that there is a (hitherto unnoticed) balance in the repertoire of anaphoric expressions across languages. Let us observe language types, the Czech type, the Russian type, and the English type. Czech exhibits an almost obligatory use of the zero form for Subject (pros) in embedded sentences, but it has no parasitic gaps as zero forms for Objects. In English, it is the other way round: there are no pros, but there are parasitic gaps used in embedded sentences and infinitival and gerundial constructions. Russian stands exactly between these two "extremes": on the one hand, there occurs the zero form for the Subject (pro) (cf. (496)), and on the other hand, the zero form for the Object (as an unnamed analogue to the parasitic gap in English, cf. (497)). Taken together, the availability of these two types of zero forms in Russian may yield an approximately identical percentage of zero anaphoric forms as in Czech and English (a well-substantiated hypothesis still to be proved in more detail).

5.6.2.2 The principle of four general cases of referring I propose that there are four general cases of anaphoric referring, which have given rise to the use of various anaphoric expressions according to their markedness. (i) The first case. This is the case of coreferentiality (identity of reference) across sentence (clause) boundary. This corresponds to a typical pattern of action and of verbal reference to this action: there is a description of some activity (or state) of a referent (prototypicaly, the Subject) in the first sentence, and then of other activities (or states) of the same referent in the subsequent sentences (clauses). This is the most prototypical case of referring, and that is

316

Anaphoric reference

why the least marked, and minimal, anaphoric expression is used in this case: the zero form (pro, parasitic gap) or the unstressed personal pronoun. (ii) The second case. This is the case of coreferentiality (identity of reference) within a sentence (clause). This corresponds to an untypical pattern of action, since in this case, the action is directed from one referent (typically corresponding to Subject) back to himself. Not surprisingly, a very marked anaphoric expression, the reflexive, is used for the indication of this anaphoric relation. (iii) The third case. This is the case of noncoreferentiality (disjoint reference) within a sentence (clause). This corresponds to a typical pattern of action, since action is usually directed from a referent (such as that corresponding to the the Subject) to another referent (such as that corresponding to the Object). Consequently, this relation is expressed by unmarked means: the personal pronoun. (iv) The fourth case. This is the case of noncoreferentiality (disjoint reference) across sentence (clause) boundary. This is a pattern of reference less typical than that in the first case above, because it is less usual to refer to other referents than to those occurring in the immediately previous sentence. This type of anaphoric relation is accordingly often expressed by lexically-explicit anaphoric expressions.

5.6.2.3 Hierarchy of anaphoric expressions I propose that there is a hierarchy of oppositions of types of anaphoric expressions according to their markedness, which can be described in terms of "layers", and in the dimension of logophoricity. (i) The first layer. This is the layer of basic (minimal) anaphoric expressions, with the opposition between short (non-emphasized) and long (emphasized) forms, cf. (505). (ii) The second layer. This a layer of the basic opposition between minimality and (lexical) explicitnes, cf. (506). (iii) The third layer. This is the layer of an opposition within the types of explicit anaphoric expressions, cf. (507). (iv) The dimension of logophoricity. This dimension cuts across the distinctions in (i)-(iii).

Anaphoric reference

317

(505) [non-emphasized anaphoric expression (such as one occurring in Noncontrastive Topic) vs. emphasized anaphoric expression (such as one occurring in Contrastive Topic or Focus)] (506) [minimal anaphoric expression vs. minimally explicit anaphoric expression] (507) [informationally non-new anaphoric expression vs. informationally new anaphoric expression] (508) [nonlogophoric anaphoric expressions vs. logophoric anaphoric expression] Now let me comment on these layers in more detail. (i) As regards the first layer, natural language marks the distinction between the nonemphasized and emphasized occurrence of the postcedent (the anaphoric expression). This distinction, however, has not been properly taken into account, due to the ambiguity of the anaphoric expression (the personal pronoun in English), in the written form, between its nonemphasized and emphasized readings (which can be distingished, in spoken language, by intonation). However, in other languages employing the zero form, this distinction becomes explicit: the zero form for the Subject antecedent in pro-drop languages, as well as the "short" pronominal forms for oblique antecedents in Czech, can be used only if the anaphoric expression occurs in Noncontrastive Topic. (An exception is the intensional identity of expressions, such as in low 0.t and high buildingsit where the zero form belongs to the Focus of the sentence, cf. the alternative, referentially identical expression low buildings and high ones.) Moreover, by this distinction, I can account for the puzzling behavior of the German pronoun es 'it' and of the English it. This pronoun cannot occur as a sentence-initial Object (cf. (509) (Cardinaletti's 1992: 4b/2); it cannot stand in the scope of a focalizer (cf. */lnur ES 'only it'), and it exhibits other idiosyncratic properties (such as the impossibility, in its capacity of expletive pronoun, to be detached from the rest of the sentence by a parenthetical expression, cf. Cardinaletti's 1992: 11c,d/3). I claim that these properties of these pronouns are due (primarily) to their inherently "weak", i.e., Noncontrastive, character, analogous to that of the "short" form of Czech personal pronouns: I argue that the "strong" counterpart to es is das 'this' (cf. nur DAS 'only this'), and to it, this. An analogous claim holds for the English pronoun it, which is also inherently Noncontras-

318

Anaphoric reference

tive. The corresponding Czech pronoun to is ambiguous between Noncontrastive (clitic) and Contrastive (nonclitic) validity. (509)

*Es hat er gegessen it have-3-sg-pres-Aux he eat-past-participle This, he has eaten'

(ii) As regards the second layer, I claim that cross-linguistically there are minimally explicit anaphoric expressions. These expressions only serve to disambiguate the referent, i.e., they do not bring new information about the referent, and they are not aimed at the variation of anaphoric expresssions, as is the case in the third layer. The anaphoric expressions of this kind have the following form: [the (nonlogophoric) identifier/delimitator (such as the or this in English, or tento 'this' in Czech) plus the repeated or categorial lexical items (noun)]. These anaphoric expressions are used especially in scientific, legal, and administrative style, where no potential ambiguity of anaphoric expressions is permitted, and where it is not sure that an automatic disambiguation based on world knowledge takes place when the hearer or reader processes the sentence. This can be illustrated by the reference to the (referent of) the expression anemometer by the expression this device or this instrument, or to Mr. Smith by this man, where device, instrument, and man are categorial nouns. There may be a slight lexicological problem about the notion of "categorial noun". Categorial nouns are cognitively determined; usually, they are nouns which serve as categorial by use or by a scientific convention. The use of a categorial noun instead of a repeated noun may be viewed, from a higher perspective, as a minimal effort at the variation of anaphoric means. In extreme cases, the categorial noun may bring new information to a lay reader (this can be illustrated by the antecedent - postcedent pair [the Pharsan islands - this archipelago], where it may be new for the reader that the Pharsan islands form an archipelago). (iii) As regards the third layer, it involves lexical anaphoric expressions which bring (relatively or absolutely) new information to the hearer, and/or which serve to vary anaphoric expression in order to avoid repetitions. These anaphoric expressions consist of a non-logophoric or a logophoric identifier and of a non-categorial expression (noun), differing from the antecedent expression.

Anaphoric reference

319

These anaphoric expressions are used in journalistic, artistic, and other kinds of texts. There are three kinds of these expressions, according to the purpose of their use. (a) The stylistic purpose: expressions which only should prevent repetitions of anaphoric expressions, especially in long chains of anaphoric expressions. (b) The processing purpose: expressions which bring relatively new (summarizing) information about the referent conveyed in the current text. Typical examples of such reference are expressions labeling the referent as a participant of an action described in the text, such as ((one 's) rival, the newcomer, the lonely traveller), or expressions summarizing the traits of the character of the referent as described or alluded to in the text (such as this cordial man, the bastard). (c) The communicative purpose: expressions which bring absolutely new information about the referent, as an unusual way of introducing new information. What can be new in the anaphoric expression is either the whole expression (cf. ...John Smith.... This 38-year old father of four sons...), or its part, such as the adnominal adjunct (cf. ...John Smith... This taciturn man...). A special type of anaphora is the indirect, or associative, anaphora, where the anaphoric expression is cognitively associated to its antecedent, such as in a car - the steering wheel, the tires, the windows etc. (cf. Schwarz 1995). (iv) As regards the dimension of logophoricity, there are logophoric expressions in many languages in addition to nonlogophoric ones. To my knowledge, however, this distinction has not yet been discussed to with respect to Czech and Russian. As I have mentioned above, I propose that the pronoun ten in Czech, in both of its functions (deictic pronoun 'that one' and identifier occurring with a noun: 'that'), as well as the analogous Russian pronoun tot 'that one', should be viewed as logophoric (to different degrees). In Czech, the expression ten in the function of the identifier is more logophoric that in the function of the deictic pronoun (the deictic pronoun can be viewed as a means of reference to a Nonsubject occurring in the Focus of the antecedent sentence, alternative to the basic minimal lexical expression - repeated bare noun).

5.7 Conclusion In this chapter, I have argued for a new account of three kinds of anaphora: anaphora in the complex sentence, anaphora in the simple sentence, and

320

Anaphoric

reference

anaphora in general including anaphoric reference to the parts of the sentence including the verb. Anaphora in the complex sentence is almost unrestricted, due to the fact that the antecedent and the postcedent occur in different clauses. The putative cases of unacceptability or awkwardness can be pragmatically improved, by means of an appropriate contrastive context. An interesting case is that of anaphoric renaming of a pronoun by a NP. Anaphora in the simple sentence is more restricted as the antecedent and the postcedent occur in a single clause. It is accountable for in terms of the communicative-information structure of the sentence and of the neutral ordering of syntactic relations. I distinguish four basic cases of anaphoric reference, of which two are acceptable (Case I and Case IV), one is unacceptable (Case II), and one is questionable (Case III). Both with respect to anaphora in the complex and the simple sentence, I have substantially extended the repertoire of the respective, Langackers's and Reinhart's, cases of anaphoric reference, due to a systematic consideration of the position of the antecedent and the postcedent in the communicativeinformation of the sentence, and in the surface word-order. In terms of the communicative-information structure of the sentence, I have also given an alternative account for VP-ellipsis, redundancy, and gapping. With respect to my investigation of anaphora in nonconfigurational languages such as Czech and Russian (in addition to that in English), I have proposed several general principles of anaphoric reference, based on the balance between the economy and explicitnesss of anaphoric expressions, on the communicative-information characteristics of the antecedent and the postcedent, and on general regularities of anaphora resolution in terms of processing ease. On the whole, anaphoric reference should be viewed as determined by a number of factors, out of which syntax plays only one, and not the most important, part. To the most important factors belong rather the human processing capacities, the communicative-information and communicative-importance structure of the sentence, and world knowledge.

6. Formalization 6.1 Introduction In this Chapter, I provide a critique of the dependency-based Functional Generative Description, and an outline of the formalization of Word-Order Based Grammar. My critique of Functional Generative Description (henceforth, FGD) (cf. 6.2) is aimed against the restrictive and even formally incorrect character of the dependency graph as a mathematical object, with respect to the synergetic, creative character of natural language, both as regards the information structure of the sentence (deep word-order) and the segmentation and pulsation of the sentence (surface word-order). I propose a formalism for my grammar within the framework of a monostratal (multidimensional) description (cf. 6.3.1-6.3.3), where all grammatical categories are rendered by means of features and their values. In this framework, it is easily possible to accommodate my multiple partitioning of the communicative-information structure of the sentence, as embodied in the five values of the COMMUNICATIVE-INFORMATION feature (Noncontrastive Topic, Contrastive Topic, Focus, indirectly and directly interrogative wh-parts of the Focus, and the non-wh-part of the Focus). In particular, I give a list of features of Word-Order Based Grammar and their values, and I propose, by modifying the rules of Petkevic's 1987 pushdown store transducer, the generative rules for generating a simplified representation of the sentence involving what might be called "deep" distinctions: those of deep word-order and of types and occurrences of syntactic relations. Even within the monostratal conception of Word-Order Based Grammar, it is possible and theoretically adequate to distinguish "deep" and "surface" distinctions corresponding to the function - form dichotomy. In my present ongoing work, I concentrate on the specification of a full set of rules of surface word-order for Czech (which would constitute a genuine "explicit" description of its word-order), which may be followed by similar projects of mine for German and Russian. I present a sample of such rules in 6.3.4.

322

Formalization

6.2 Critique of dependency approaches In dependency approaches, highly different groups of syntactic relations are improperly lumped together as "depending" on a head, and the class of heads is very heterogeneous: it involves the verb with its valency (subcategorization) frames (in FGD, even free spatiotemporal adverbials are considered as being dependent on the verb of the sentence); nouns with respect to their free modifications by adjectives; abstract heads such as Complementizer, Kase, Determiner, etc. Thus, I claim that head is a nonnatural category, that the subcategorization frames of verbs should be kept apart from free adjectival modifications of nouns, and that functional heads could be dispensed with in linguistic theory (cf. Koktova 1997b and in press b; for a discussion about the notion of head, cf. Zwicky 1985; Hudson 1987; Sgall et al. 1988; Bauer 1994; for the discussion on the notion of dependency, cf. also Fräser 1994; Hays 1986; Hudson 1988, 1989). In this chapter, I present a critique of the approach to dependency as elaborated by the Praguean group within their Functional Generative Description (cf. esp. Sgall et al. 1986: 100-143 ("The approach"); 148-174 ("The framework"), and 175-265 ('Topic, Focus, and the Structure of Text")). I present the following points of criticism of FGD: (i) In FGD, the information structure of the sentence is improperly viewed as binary-branching (Topic-Focus, in a recursive way, cf. esp. Sgall et al. 1986: 181,187-194)), because of the binary branching of the nodes of the dependency tree. The possibility is not considered that there may be more basic parts of the information structure of the sentence than Topic and Focus, such as different parts of Topic and Focus. The analogues of the tripartitioning [Contrastive Topic - Noncontrastive Topic - Focus] are widely recognized in present-day literature on the information structure of the sentence, from Bolinger 1985 through Engdahl - Vallduvi 1995 to Firbas p.c., and this conception is psycholinguistically corroborated by the theory of the primacy and recency effect (justifying especially the availability of the sentence-initial Contrastive Topic), cf. Meiran 1994. Moreover, all elements which are communicatively less dynamic than their head (typically, a verb) are viewed in FGD as branching to its left, being assigned the index Topic, and analogously, all elements which are communicatively more dynamic than the head are viewed as branching to its right, being

Formalization

323

assigned the index Focus (cf. esp. Sgall et al. 1986: 182, 186 and 194). This, however, is disproved by many natural-language sentences. Thus, the FGD dependency graph can be viewed as a Procrustean bed into which empirical properties of the sentences of natural language are forced. First, I have shown in Chapters 2 and 4 that it is necessary to work with more distinctions of the information structure than two, cf. my proposed fivepartitioning of the communicative-information structure. Second, due to the binary branching of the dependency graph in FGD, it is hardly possible to assign underlying representations to the following sentence types: (a) Sentences with elements which are communicatively less dynamic than the verb (i.e., which are branching to its left), and which still clearly belong to the Focus. Here belong (al) operators (scoping expressions), cf. Koktova: 1986,1987 and 1990, and the acknowledgment thereof in Sgall 1994, and (a2) embedded Subject clauses in sentences such as (510): (510)

Who fights wins

In (510), it is not possible to assign any Topic-Focus characteristics to the verb fights: it is not possible to assign it the index Focus, because it is less communicatively dynamic than its head (wins), nor is it possible to assign it the index Topic, because the embedded clause would be focusless, which runs counter to a FGD definition. This holds, mutatis mutandis, also for the wh-element who: it is not possible to assign it the index Focus because it is less communicatively dynamic than its head (fights), nor the index Topic because it would render the whole clause focusless. (b) Sentences with elements which are communicatively more dynamic than the verb (i.e., which are branching to its right), and which still belong to the Topic: here belong nominal heads on which embedded Foci are dependent, such as the nominal head the teacher (belonging to the Topic) with the embedded Focus of CHEMISTRY in (51 la) (as an answer to (51 lb)), cf. also Petkevic 1995 and p.c. (511 )a. I met the teacher of CHEMISTRY b. Which teacher did you meet?

324

Formalization

In FGD, such nominal heads are viewed as branching to the left from the verb, according to the stipulation that the verb is a Topic-final element, whereas the embedded Focus must be placed to the right of the verb, whis yields the undesired nonprojectivity of the dependency tree for (511a). (ii) In FGD, the verb is erroneously considered as the head of a clause (cf. Sgall et al. 1986:179-194). Thus, the verb improperly usurps the Topic-Focus and the syntactic characteristics of embedded clauses. This even yields a circularity in the formal definition of Topic and Focus, in that the appurtenance of a clause to the Topic or Focus of the superordinate clause is determined by the appurtenance of the verb of this clause to its Topic or Focus. This improperly excludes acceptable sentences from FGD theory. This is illustrated by (512), (513) and (514). In the examples (512) and (513), the a. sentences are questions, and the b. sentences are answers to these questions as the relevant examples under consideration. The information structure of the embedded clauses in (512b) and (513b) is the same: the verb living belongs to the Topic, and the Subjects MARY and ANN, to the Focus, of these embedded clauses. I claim, however, that these clauses may belong to the Topic or to the Focus of the superordinate clause (here, of the whole sentence), independently of the appurtenance of the verb to the Topic or Focus of the embedded clause. This is illustrated by (512b) (with the embedded clauses belonging to the Focus of the whole sentence) and (513b) (with the embedded clauses belonging to the Topic of the whole sentence). Moreover, the elements MARY and ANN, occurring in different embedded clauses, represent discontinuous elements of the Focus of a sentence (cf. also Chapter 4), providing thus a counterargument against Sgall et al. 1986: 216220, where Focus is formally defined as continuous, cf. esp. Theorem 3/218. (512)a. Where was John running, with respect to where his girlfriends are living? b. John was runningT [from the place MARYF was livingY [to the place where ANN* was livingY (513)a. IFrom the place where MARYF was livingY [to the place where ANhf

was livingY, was John RUNNINGF or DRIVING INA CARF? b. [From the place where MARYF was livingY [to the place where ANN* was living f , John was RUNNING'(not DRIVING IN A CARF)

Formalization

325

This is corroborated also by more complicated examples where a sequence of embedded clauses functioning as Focus of the whole sentence (obeying accordingly the neutral ordering of syntactic relations) involve verbs which alternately belong to the Topics and Foci of these clauses, such as in (514). (514) John was running from the place where MARY was living through the place where Rio Grande MEANDERS to the place where ANN was living In (514), all of the three embedded clauses belong to the Focus. However, the verb in the first of them (was living) belongs to its Topic; the verb of the second of them (MEANDERS) belongs to its Focus, and the verb in the third of them (was living) belongs again to its Topic. (514) is a sentence which cannot be integrated into FGD: in FGD, it would be ruled out because of the varying appurtenance of the verbs of the embedded clauses to their Topics and Foci (this would yield a sequence of clauses which alternately belong to the Topic and Focus of the sentence, which is prohibited in FGD). (I assume the neutral ordering of the modifications of Direction [where from - through which place - where to]; even if it were assumed otherwise, such as [through which place from where - where to], my argument, mutatis mutandis, would hold.) (iii) In FGD, discontinuous Foci and Topics (constituted by interrogative pronouns in questions and the corresponding elements in the answers) have not been accounted for (cf. Sgall et al.'s 1986: 216-220 formal definition of Focus and Topic as continuous), and my counterexamples here in Chapter 4 and in (512) and (513) above. (iv) In FGD, it has not been considered that directly and indirectly interrogative pronouns form distinct informative parts of the Focus of the sentece (cf. Sgall et al.'s 1986:175-265 general idea of the Topic-Focus bipartition of the sentence, and my counterarguments as regards Focus in Koktova 1993 and 1996b, in Chapter 4 above, and the examples (512), (513) and (514) above). (v) In FGD, it is mistakenly assumed that the "systemic" (neutral, basic) ordering of types of syntactic relations holds only in the Focus as a whole (cf. Sgall et al. 1986: 180, ii/186, and 198-199). It can be shown that the basic ordering holds within every information part of the sentence, such as Contrastive Topic, Noncontrastive Topic, wh-clusters, etc.; cf. such clusters as (to move) from somewhere to somewhere. (vi) In FGD, it is mistakenly assumed that unmarked sentences exhibit continuously rising degrees of communicative dynamism on the surface, from the

326

Formalization

best known (most activated, least communicatively dynamic) elements to the least known (least activated, most communicatively dynamic, newest) elements (cf. Sgall 1986:182-187,207-216); this is connected with his argumentation against sentence-initial Contrastive Topic (Svoboda's 1981 "diatheme") as more communicatively dynamic than Noncontrastive Topic ("theme proper"). Against this claim, I offer an opposite conception, viz., that of the pulsation and segmentation of the sentence (cf. esp. the basic pattern of pulsation, with the communicatively most important information in the sentence-initial position (Contrastive Topic) and the sentence-final position (Focus)). (vii) In FGD, it is improperly assumed that within Topic and Focus, there is a rising scale of degrees of "communicative dynamism" in the deep wordorder (cf. Sgall et al. 1986:182-187). However, it can be argued that in certain cases, such as in pronominal (clitic) clusters in Noncontrastive Topic, the degrees of communicative dynamism may be neutralized. Furthermore, it can be argued against FGD that the linear ordering of the members of coordination and apposition is relevant (on pragmatic and grammatical grounds, respectively), so that these members should be viewed as differing in their degrees of communicative dynamism ("communicative importance" in my theory). (viii) The FGD conception of systemic ordering of syntactic relations (cf. Sgall et al. 1986: 198-199) is too coarse-grained, in that the case-frame and cognitively-based subsystems of neutral ordering (such as the Direction subsystem, the Origin-Effect subsystem, or the Object subsystem) are not indicated as subsystems. (ix) The FGD conception of dependency brings certain counterintuitive claims in the domain of the theory of types of syntactic relations and case shift, by tending towards the Tesnierean extreme of shifting most different types of syntactic relations belonging to subsystems sui generis (such as the Origin-Effect subsystem, or the subsystem consisting of one special type of syntactic relation, Predicative Complement) into Direct Object (cf. Sgall et al. 1986: 125, Panevovä 1980: 43-45)). (x) The putative deep structure of the sentence is overrated also in the FGD account of the relative scopes of quantifiers such as many, few, a...: out of two quantified expressions in a sentence, the one which has a higher degree of communicative dynamism (the one which is intonationally marked, irrespective of its surface position) is supposed to have invariably narrow scope. I claim that relative scopes are determined primarily, or for a great part, by the surface ordering of the quantified expressions, by virtue of two arguments:

Formalization

327

(xa) In simple sentences, the first quantified expression has a strong tendency to be interpreted as having wide scope, irrespective of its intonation, cf. (515a, b) (capital letters indicate the peak of intonation, i.e., the element with a higher degree of communicative importance). (515a) has a strongly preferred reading with the wide scope of the sentence-initial, communicatively least dynamic element, a dark-haired woman. In (515b), the sentence-initial expression Λ DARK-HAIRED WOMAN is intonationally highlighted, but I argue that it can also have (even preferably) wide scope. This reading should not be excluded or backgrounded, as it is done in FGD. (515)a. A dark-haired woman is loved by EVERY MAN IN THIS VILLAGE b. A DARK-HAIRED WOMAN is loved by every man in this village (xb) In complex sentence, the scope interpreation of the expressions in the second conjunct is analogous to that in the first conjunct, although the second conjunct differs from the first one as regards its Topic-Focus articulation, or information structure, by virtue of its second position in the complex sentence (cf. (516)). Here, in both conjuncts, the expression referring to people (ten people) has always the same scope over the expression referring to books: wide scope in the case of the pronoun them, and narrow scope in the case of the expression such books, although in the first conjunct, the expression referring to books is communicatively more dynamic than the expression referring to people, and in the second conjunct, the expression referring to books (being "demoted" to Noncontrastive, or known, Topic) is communicatively less dynamic than the expression referring to people. (516)

Ten people in our department read TWO BOOKS ABOUT THE CONTINENTAL SHIFT, and ten people in your department only PERUSED them/such books

(xi) In FGD, the Topic is mistakenly considered as the mirror image of the Focus, with the verb being the Focus-initial, or Topic-final, element (cf. Sgall et al. 1986:187-194). This is refuted by my theory of scoping expressions (cf. Koktova: 1986,1987,1990), and by the principle of the preservation of scoping properties of operators and quantifiers in cases of topicalization (this means that a sentence should retain its deep ordering of the degrees of communicative dynamism even if it is topicalized, i.e., if it is repeated and a new Focus is added to it).

328

Formalization

(xii) The empirical insufficiency of the FGD description consists in the lack of the rules which would systematically connect the deep representations (deep word-order) and surface structures (surface word-order). In FGD, there is no description of the fascinating properties of surface word-order which I describe, with its segmentation and pulsation, with its surface-discontinuous (split) Topics and Foci, etc. I would like to add that the points of my approach have been acknowledged by Professor Petkevic (Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic) and by Professor Karel Oliva (University of the Saarland, Saarbrücken, Germany), who are foremost experts in the formalism of FGD, in our comprehensive personal communications and in their seminars (1994-1997). For lack of space, I will not go here into the details of the formal definition of Topic and Focus in FGD (cf. Sgall et al. 1986: 216-220, and my counterarguments in Koktova: 1997b).

6.3 Outline of formalization In this section, I will treat the following issues: an alternative conception of deep representations (cf. 6.3.1); the system of features and values of my grammar (cf. 6.3.2), the modification of PetkevicTs pushdown store transducer as a possible means of generating deep representations of sentences (cf. 6.3.3), and a sample of word-order rules for Czech (cf. 6.3.4).

6.3.1 Deep representations It is possible to represent the "deep" features of my grammar (such as COMMUNICATIVE - INFORMATION, COMMUNICATIVE - IMPORTANCE, and TYPE-OF- SYNTACTIC-RELATION) by means of a graph. This graph, however, would be only an auxiliary device, and it would substantially differ from the FGD dependency graph in the following respects: (i) It would have to involve nonterminal nodes: (a) the node S for Clause/ Sentence, in order to prevent the verb as the "head" of an embedded clause to usurp its COMMUNICATIVE-INFORMATION and TYPE-OF-SYNTACTIC-RELATION characteristics, and thus to prevent the circularity in the definition of Topic and Focus (cf. 6.2 above), and, analogously, (b) the nonterminal nodes NP, AdjP and AdvP, to assure that the whole phrase may have different COMMUNICATIVE-INFORMATION characteristics than its ex-

Formalization

329

pansion base (noun, adjective, adverb) (for the notion of expansion base, cf. below in (iii)). For example, a NP may belong to the Contrastive Topic of the sentence, but the noun, or the adjective, may be all-new (Focus) within the NP. Thus, paradoxically, the abstract Chomskyan categories may find their place in an alternative grammar, to help to account for the intricacies of the information structure of the sentence. (ii) The structure of the sentence would be "flat" in that the verb would not be hierarchically higher than the occurrences of syntactic relation in a sentence: the verb would be represented at the same level as the occurrences of syntactic relations in a sentence, thus "cohabiting" with them (the obligatory, optional or free character of syntactic relations would be indicated by indices). Moreover, the verb would be directly integrated in the scale of degrees of COMMUNICATIVE-IMPORTANCE of the elements of the sentence, along with the occurrences of syntactic relations, without any stipulations about its position within the information parts of the sentence (such as the stipulation about its Focus-initial and Topic-final position in FGD). (iii) The notion of dependency (with its nonnatural, too wide conception of "head" and "dependents") should be dropped. Instead, one should work with the notion of expansion base. There are two types of expansion base in my grammar: the node for the Clause/Sentence (5), and Nouns, Adjectives and Adverbs, which can be analogously modified (for example, Noun can be modified by adnominal adjuncts, etc.). (iv) The members of coordination and apposition should be viewed as exhibiting various degrees of COMMUNICATIVE-IMPORTANCE (a feature which is analogous to, but slightly different from, "communicative dynamism" in FGD, in that it operates within every COMMUNICATIVE-INFORMATION unit, and in that its degrees can be neutralized). (v) There should be added additional mechanisms for the description of scoping properties of operators (indication of scoping expressions and of the material in their scopes), as well as of anaphoric relations within a sentence, according to my proposals in Chapters 3 and 5, respectively. (vi) There should be added indications of the relations of the deep elements to surface elements, such as the deep-to-surface correspondence of an occurrence of a syntactic relation (node) to a syntactically fullfledged empty categories (i.e., categories which correspond to occurrences of syntactic relations in the deep representation, such as pro, PRO, and parasitic gap).

330

Formalization

6.3.2 The features of Word-Order Based Grammar In this section, I present the features of Word-Order Based Grammar (feature matrices for word-forms). I have concentrated on capturing those features which would be called "deep" in a bistratal description, such as the features COMMUNICATIVEINFORMATION and COMMUNICATIVE - IMPORTANCE of the deep word - order (the communicative - information structure) of the sentence, on the scoping properties of focalizing scoping expressions, and on the basic syntactic feature, ΤYPE-OF-SYNTACTIC-RELATION (according to the neutral ordering of syntactic relations in (37a-b) in Chapter 2 above). As regards surface word-order, there are features for four types of surface word-order, with respect to whether or not purely surface (morphological) words are considered, and whether deleted occurrences of autosemantic, deep words are considered or not, as elements of surface word-order. I do not deal here in detail with surface phenomena such as morphological categories, agreement, condensations such as nominalizations, infinitival and gerundial constructions, and passivization (I have only introduced the corresponding features in the feature matrix). There are two kinds of feature matrices in Word-Order Based Grammar: (A) Feature matrices for lexical entries. These matrices capture the information for the lexicon, i.e., the phonological information, the morphological information, and the case-frame (valency) information, of autosemantic words, but not the information which is available only with the occurrence of words in actual sentences (word-forms), such as the information about the communicative-information structure of the sentence, the syntactic information, the (sentence-) semantic information, and the "surface" information. (B) Feature matrices (i) for word-forms (of autosemantic words), and (ii) for the nonterminal symbol S, representing sentences (clauses) in actual (complex) sentences, and for the nonterminal symbols for phrases. Every word-form of an autosemantic word and every subtree of an embedded sentence (corresponding to nonterminal nodes) corresponds to an occurrence of a syntactic relation, whose COMMUNICATIVE-INFORMATION value may differ from that of its "head". These matrices involve the phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and "surface" information, but not the information about case frames as in (A) above.

Formalization

331

Below in (517), I provide the list of the features and values of Word-Order Based Grammar for word-forms and nonterminal nodes according to my proposal. Several features have a hierarchical structure, where the value of a feature is a feature matrix. Some of the features which are not self-explanatory, and which have not been mentioned above, can be commented as follows: (a) The feature LEVEL provides information about embedded elements. It has values ranging from 3 to n, where η is greater than 3. The first level of embedding is the third level; the first absolute level is that of the node for the whole sentence (S0). The second level is the level of the elements of the main clause, i.e., of its verb and of the occurrences of syntactic relations cooccurring with it. (b) The feature EXPANSION-BASE has as its value the identity of the word-form which is being expanded by the word-form in question. The identity of a word-form is usually given in terms of the value of the feature COMMUNICATIVE-IMPORTANCE (absolute degree of communicativeimportance of autosemantic elements of the sentence). (c) The feature SURFACE-POSITION-1 accounts for the surface position of words in the sentence including that of autosemantic words which have been deleted on the surface (such as of PROs, pros, and parasitic gaps), and excluding surface (morphological) words which have no lexical and syntactic autonomy. Thus, SURFACE-POSITION-1 accounts for the possibly different surface positions of autosemantic words. A typical example of the usefulness of this feature is the prenominal surface position of restrictive adjectival adjuncts in English, Czech and German, which does not correspond to their deep position after the noun which they modify. (d) The feature SURFACE-POSITION-2 accounts for the surface position of words in the sentence including surface words but excluding deleted autosemantic words. Thus, SURFACE-POSITION-2 accounts for the positions of overt surface and autosemantic words in a sentence. This feature is very useful in accounting for surface sequences of words where autosemantic and surface words are mixed, such as in the case of the detachment of the sentence-initial segment by clitics of various kinds (both autosemantic and surface) from another segment. (g) The feature SURFACE-POSITION-3 accounts for the surface position of words in the sentence excluding deleted autosemantic words as well as purely surface (morphological) words. Thus, SURFACE-POSITION-3 accounts for the position of overt autosemantic words in the sentence.

332

Formalization

(h) The feature SURFACE-POSITION-4 accounts for the surface position of words in the sentence including deleted autosemantic words as well as surface words. Thus SURFACE-POSITION-4 accounts for the position of all, overt and deleted, autosemantic and surface words of the sentence. The features SURFACE-POSITION-1 and 4, involving the positions of deleted autosemantic words, are significant in accounting for the position of the elements of Noncontrastive Topic (because only Noncontrastive Topic can be expressed by zero forms). I consider also introducing the feature FUNCTIONAL-POSITION as another, more "functional" type of surface position, with values such as sentence-initial position, sentence-final position, clitic position, preverbal position, etc. (i) The feature AGREEMENT accounts for all cases of agreement, such as agreement between noun and verb in Czech and English, agreement between noun and adjective in Czech, agreement between noun and transgressive in Czech, etc. (j) A special issue is the identification of units to which a surface (morphological) word belongs (cf. the feature UNIT under the feature SURFACEWORD). There are several cases: (j 1) The surface word is an exponent of a morphological category V, N, Adj or Adv. In this case, the unit to which the surface word belongs is a wordform. This word form is identified by the value of the COMMUNICATIVEIMPORTANCE feature and additionally by the PHONOLOGY feature. In this case, the surface word is for example an auxiliary. (j2) The surface word is an exponent of the value of the feature TYPE-OFSYNTACTIC-RELATION of a word form. In this case, the unit to which the surface word belongs is likewise a word-form. This word form is identified by the value of the feature COMMUNICATIVE-IMPORTANCE and additionally by the feature PHONOLOGY. In this case, the surface word in question is a preposition. (j3) The surface word is an exponent of the value TYPE-OF-SYNTACTICRELATION of a sentence (clause). In this case, the unit to which the surface word belongs is the embedded clause. The clause is identified by the value of the feature COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE of the node S. In this case, the surface word in question is a subordinating conjunction. (j4) The surface word is an exponent of the value of the feature TYPE-OFCOORDINATION of occurrences of syntactic relations. In this case, the unit to which the surface word belongs (i.e. the coordinated sentence member which follows the conjunction) is identified by the number of the sentence

Formalization

333

member in coordination (i.e., by the value of the feature NUMBER) and by the value of the feature PHONOLOGY, because in coordination, all members are assumed to have the same degree of COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE. In this case, the surface word in question is a coordinative conjunction. Also elements which are attached to an autosemantic word form by an apostrophe (') can be conceived of as surface words (cf. I've, where's). There are cases of contracted surface words, which are directly attached to autosemantic words, so that they can be recognized only by a retrograde morphological analysis (cf. Koktova: 1985). An example is the contracted auxiliary of the verb byt 'to be ' in the second person of the preterite in Czech. Jsi 'are-2-sg' is the full form, and -s is the contracted form, which appears attached as an affix to very different word, cf. cos 'what-are', tos 'it-are', zes 'that-are', etc. As regards the semantic features SCOPE and the several kinds of coreference features, cf. the respective Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 above, respectively, for more theoretical empirical detail. The features TYPE-OF-SYNTACTIC-RELATION and OBLIGATORINESS account in a simpler way for what could be identified by the feature NEUTRAL-ORDERING, which is an ordered list of types of syntactic relations. The feature NEUTRAL-ORDERING-ENGLISH (which is not given here for lack of space and redundance) renders, with more precision, the table of the neutral ordering in (37a) in Chapter 2. It brings information about the obligatory, optional or free character of types of syntactic relations. There are seven inner participants (Actor, Adressee, Patient, Predicative Complement, Origin, Effect, and - according to my proposal - also the verb). All of these inner participants are obligatory except for Origin and Effect, which are optional. This feature has as its values the names of the types of syntactic relations. These names are features with three values, ID-NUM, INNERP, and MODE. These values are again features: the values of ID-NUM are the numbers of the types of syntactic relations in the systemic ordering, the values of INNERP are the values (inner) (= inner-participant) and (free) (= free syntactic modification), and the values of MODE are (gen) (= generated) and (gen or nogen) (= generated or not generated, i.e., optionally generated). Obligatory syntactic relations have the values of the two features, INNERP and MODE, as follows: INNERP: (inner-participant) and MODE: (gen), optional syntactic relations have the values INNERP: (inner-participant) and MODE (gen or nogen), and free syntactic relations have the values INNERP: (free) and MODE: (gen or nogen). The remaining values, viz., INNERP (free) and

334

Formalization

MODE (gen) account for the exceptional occurrence of certain adverbial syntactic relations as obligatory, i.e. in the case frames of certain verbs, cf. to behave in which manner. The list in (517) below brings a survey of the features and values of WordOrder Based Grammar. The features are written in capitals, and the values, in small letters, and they occur in brackets. The system of features and values is hierarchical in that a value may itself be a feature. Out of the values, only the final values are written in lower-case letters and put in brackets. (517) PART OF SPEECH: (V), (N), (Adj), (Adv) DEEP WORD ORDER: [COMMUNICATIVE INFORMATION: (NT), (CT),(WH-INDIR-F), ( W H - D I R - F ) , (NON-WH-F)], [COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE] (1),... (n) (n) greater than or equal to 1)] TYPE OF SYNTACTIC-RELATION: (1)... (40) NEUTRAL ORDERING ENGLISH (not given here for lack of space, cf. (37a) in Chapter 2 for the informal shape of the neutral ordering) [MORPHOLOGY [VERB: [TENSE: (simultaneous), (anterior), (posterior)] [ASPECT: (complex), (processual)] [ITERATIVITY: (-iterative) (-(-iterative)] [MODALITY-1: (indicative), (conditional), (subjunctive), (imperative)] [MODALITY-2: (assertion), (question)] [MODALITY-3: (without modality), (possibility), (necessity), (desirability)] [VOICE: (active), (passive)]] [NOUN: [NUMBER: (singular), (plural)] [DELIMITATION: (unique), (specific), (selectively specific), (definite), (generic)] [COUNTABILITY: (-(-countable), (-countable)] [COLLECTIVITY: (-collective), (-»-collective)]] [ADJECTIVE: [COMPARISON-ADJECTIVAL: (positive), (comparative), (superlative)] [ADVERB:

[COMPARISON-ADVERBIAL: (positive), (comparative),(superlative)]]

Formalization

335

SEMANTICS: [SCOPE: (-scope), (+scope: scoping expression (l)...(n)), (+scope: standing in the scope of scoping expressions (1)... (n))] COREFERENCE: [COREFERENCE-CONTROL: (-control), (+control: controller, (value of COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE and value of SURFACEPOSITION-4)), (+control: controllee, (value of SURFACE-POSITION-4))] [COREFERENCE-ANAPHORA: (-anaphora), (+anaphora: antecedent (value of COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE)), (•anaphora: postcedent (value of COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE)]] [COORDINATION: [TYPE: (-coordination), (+coordination: conjunctive) (-Koordination: disjunctive), (+coordination: adversative), (+coordination: consecutive), (-(-coordination: causative), (+coordination: contrastive)] [NUMBER-CONJUNCTIVE-DISJUNCΉVE (1)... (n) (n equal to or greater than 1)] [NUMBER-ADVERSATIVE-CONSECUTIVE-CAUSATIVE-CONTRASTIVE (1).... (n) (n equal to or greater than 1 and equal to or smaller than 2)]] [APPOSITION: [TYPE: (-apposition) (+apposition: generalizing), (+apposition: particularizing)] [NUMBER: (1)... (n) (n equal to or greater than 1, and equal to or smaller than 2)]] [STRUCTURE: [LEVEL: (3)... (n) (n equal to or greater than 3)] [EXPANSION BASE, (value of COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE and value of PHONOLOGY)] [COMMUNICATIVE INFORMATION-IN-SUBTREE: (NT), (CT), (WH-INDIR-F), (WH-INDIR-F), (NON-WH-F)] [COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE IN SUBTREE: (1)... (n) (n equal to or greater than 1)]] [SURFACE: [PHONOLOGY: (surface word form)] [SURFACE-POSITION-1: (1)... (n) (n equal to or greater than 1)] [SURFACE-POSITION-2: (1)... (n) (n equal to or greater than 1)] [SURFACE-POSITION-3: (1)... (n) (n equal to or greater than 1)] [SURFACE-POSITION-4: (l)...(n) (n equal to or greater than 1]

336

Formalization

[DELETION: (-deletion), (+deletion)] [AGREEMENT: (-agreement), (+agreement: noun, (value of COMMUNICATIVEIMPORTANCE) - verb, (value of COMMUNICATIVE-IMPORTANCE)] [SURFACE-WORD: (-surface-word), [(+SURFACE-WORD): [SURFACE-POSITION-1 (1)... (n)] [SURFACE-POSITION-2 (1)... (n)] [SURFACE-POSITION-3 (1)... (n)] [SURFACE-POSITION-4 (1)... (n) (n equal to a greater than 1)] [TYPE: (morphology-word), [(SYNTACTIC-WORD) (subordinating-conjunction) (coordinating-conjuction-1) (coordinating-conjunction-2)]] [UNIT: (value of COMMUNICATIVE-IMPORTANCE, of NUMBER (of coordination), and of PHONOLOGY)]]]

Here, I would also like to illustrate the system of features of Word Order Based Grammar by the feature matrix for the word-forms from the sentence (518a), with the deep representation in (518b), cf. (518c). (518)a. Leonard gave Lilian only a little lily (...but Louis, a lovely toy) b. [gave Lilian]'" [Leonard]CT [only a little lily]F Note that Leonard, as a sentence-initial element, is preferably Contrastive Topic; gave Lilian, preceding a focalizer, is preferably Noncontrastive Topic, and the rest of the sentence is Focus. On this interpretation, (518) could be an answer to the question What was given to Lilian, and by whom ? (this is indicated also by the contrastive continuation). The position of the verb in any information part of the deep representation is specified according to its position in the neutral ordering (second position after the modification of Attitude (scoping expressions)): as there is no modification of Attitude in the Noncontrastive Topic of (518), the verb occupies the first position within it.

Formalization

(518)c. (i) The feature matrix for the word-form Leonard'. PHONOLOGY: (Leonard) PART OF SPEECH: (N) COMMUNICATIVE INFORMATION: (CT) COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE: (3) TYPE OF SYNTACTIC RELATION: (3 - Actor) OBLIGATORINESS: (obligatory) OCCURRENCE (1) SUBJECTHOOD: (+subject) NUMBER: (singular) DELIMITATION (unique) SURFACE-POSITION-1: (1) S URFACE-POSITION-2: (1) S URFACE-POSITION-3: (1) SURFACE-POSITION-4: (1) (ii) The feature matrix for the word-form gave: PHONOLOGY: (gave) PART OF SPEECH: (V) COMMUNICATIVE INFORMATION: (NT) COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE: (1) TYPE OF SYNTACTIC RELATION: (2) TENSE: (anterior) ASPECT: (complex) ITERATIVITY: (-iterative) MODALITY-1: (indicative) MODALITY-2: (assertion) MODALITY-3: (without modality) VOICE: (active) SURFACE-POSITION-1: (2) SURFACE-POSITION-2: (2) S URFACE-POS ITION-3: (2) SURFACE-POSITION-4: (2) (iii) The feature matrix for the word-form Lilian: PHONOLOGY: (Lilian)

337

338

Formalization

PART OF SPEECH: (N) COMMUNICATIVE INFORMATION: (NT) COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE: (2) TYPE OF SYNTACTIC RELATION: (13 - Addressee) NUMBER: (singular) DELIMITATION (unique) SURFACE-POSITION-1 (3) SURFACE-POSITION-2 (3) SURFACE-POSITION-3 (3) SURFACE-POSITION-4 (3) (iv) The feature matrix for the word-form only: PHONOLOGY (only) PART OF SPEECH (Adv) COMMUNICATIVE INFORMATION (NON-WH-F) COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE (4) TYPE OF SYNTACTIC-RELATION (1 - Attitude) SCOPE (+scope: scoping-expression,) SURFACE-POSITION-1 (4) SURFACE-POSITION-2 (4) SURFACE-POSITION-3 (4) SURFACE-POSITION-4 (4) (v) The feature-matrix for the surface word a: SURFACE WORD: (+surface-word) SURFACE-POSITION-1: SURFACE-POSITION-2: (5) SURFACE-POSITION-3: SURFACE-POSITION-4: (5) TYPE: (morphology-word) UNIT: [COMMUNICATIVE-IMPORTANCE (5), PHONOLOGY: (lily)] (vi) The feature matrix for the word-form little: PHONOLOGY: (little) PART OF SPEECH: (Adj) COMMUNICATIVE INFORMATION: (NON-WH-F) COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE: (6) TYPE OF SYNTACTIC-RELATION: (36 - restrictive adjunct)

Formalization

339

SCOPE: (+scope: in-the-scope-of-scoping-expression, (only)) LEVEL: (3) EXPANSION BASE: (COMMUNICATIVE-IMPORTANCE: (5), PHONOLOGY:(lily)) COMMUNICATIVE INFORMATION IN SUBTREE: (NON-WH-F) COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE IN SUBTREE: (2) SURFACE-POSITION-1: (5) SURFACE-POSITION-2: (6) SURFACE-POSITION-3: (5) SURFACE-POSITION-4: (6) (vii) The feature matrix for the word-form lily: PHONOLOGY: (lily) PART OF SPEECH: (N) COMMUNICATIVE INFORMATION: (NON-WH-F) COMMUNICATIVE-INFORMATION-IN-SUBTREE: (NON-WH-F) COMMUNICATIVE IMPORTANCE: (5) COMMUNICATIVE-IMPORTANCE-IN-SUBTREE: (2) TYPE OF SYNTACTIC-RELATION: (14 - Patient) SCOPE:(+scope: in the-scope-of-scoping-expression, (only)) NUMBER: (singular) DELIMITATION: (specific) SURFACE-POSITION-1: (6) SURFACE-POSITION2: (7) SURFACE-POSITION-3: (6) SURFACE-POSITION-4: (7) TYPE OF SYNTACTIC-RELATION: (3 - Actor) OBLIGATORINESS: (obligatory) OCCURRENCE: (1) SUBJHECTHOOD: (+subject) NUMBER: (singular) DELIMITATION: (unique) SURFACE-POSITION-1: (1) SURFACE-POSITION-2: (1) SURFACE-POSITION-3: (1) SURFACE-POSITION-4: (1)

340

Formalization

There are some other interesting points in these matrices. Note the double values of the COMMUNICATIVE-INFORMATION and COMMUNICATIVE-IMPORTANCE features with the expansion base lily, and with the adnominal adjunct little within the NP a little lily. As regards the surface positions, the point of change is the presence of the surface word a. The values of the surface positions 1 and 3 differ from position 2 and 4 with the words following the surface word a. In positions 1 and 3, the surface word is not counted as an element of word-order, and that is why these positions have as values lower numbers than the positions 2 and 4.

6.3.3 Modification of Petkevic's pushdown generator The "deep" distinctions of my grammar could be generated by Petkevic's 1987 pushdown store generator, which I have already modified in Koktova 1987, in that I substituted the rules generating negation occurring in the Focus and in the Topic by a rule which generates the adverbial modification of Attitude (i.e., scoping expressions in general). In this section, I would like to propose a further modification of Petkevic's generator, especially with respect to my five-partitioning of the COMMUNICATIVE - INFORMATION of the sentence. The generator has the shape of the sextuple G = (K, V^ V, Kff K', F) (cf. Petkevic 1987: 151-154), where Κ is the set of inner states of G; V0 is the output vocabulary; Vs is the pushdown store vocabulary; K0 is the initial state of G; K' is the set of final states, and F is the defining function. F consists of 14 rules (from 1A to 8C). These rules account also for apposition and coordination. In what follows, I shall concentrate only on the basic variants of these rules (the Α-variants), i.e., I will exclude coordination and apposition. Petkevii's 1987 rules can be described as follows. Rule 1A generates the verb. This verb is chosen in the lexicon along with its case frame. The auxiliary symbol W standing for store is placed at the bottom of the store, and the case frame of the verb is placed on the top of this symbol W. Rule 2 generates negation belonging to the Topic. Rule 3 makes it possible to skip a syntactic relation whose number is at the top of the store and transferred to the component K3 denoting a sequence of complementations that may still be applied to a semanteme (here, to the verb). This means that syntactic relations belonging to the Topic may be generated

Formalization

341

in an arbitrary order (i.e., they are assumed not to obey the "systemic" (neutral) ordering). Thus, if a syntactic relation has been currently skipped, it may be generated later. Rule 4 reflects the transition from syntactic relations belonging to the Topic to syntactic relations belonging to the Focus, i.e., from the inner state K, of the initial state IS equivalent to t (Topic) to the inner state Kt of the output state OS equivalent to/(Focus). Rule 5 makes it possible to skip a syntactic relation belonging to the Focus (this syntactic relation, of course, must not be obligatory). Once this syntactic relation is skipped, it cannot be generated anymore. Rule 6A generates an occurrence of a syntactic relation in the shape of a word form including the information about its appurtenance to the Topic or Focus, but without the number indicating the type of syntactic relation. Rule 7 generates negation belonging to the Focus. Rule 8A generates the number indicating the type of the syntactic relation whose occurrence has been generated by Rule 6A. In Koktova: 1987,1 presented a modification of this system of rules: I removed rules 2 and 7 generating negation, because negation should be viewed as generated as a regular scoping expression on a par with the other, over 300, scoping expressions, with which it shares the deep, scoping, as well as the general surface properties. I proposed to treat these expressions by means of a new type of adverbial modification - modification of Attitude, occupying the first position in the neutral ordering of syntactic relations both in Czech and English, and presumably universally. Presently, I propose a second, more substantial, modification of Petkevic's pushdown store generator. What is to be modified are rules 3,4, and 5 with respect to my introduction of six values of the feature COMMUNICATIVEINFORMATION. This new feature with its five values replaces the old, and inadequate, bipartition of the sentence into Topic and Focus. My modifications are as follows. (i) The modification of Rule 4. I propose that Rule 4 should be subcategorized into 10 subrules, accounting for the transitions between the five values of the feature COMMUNICATIVE-INFORMATION. The list of these rules is given in (519).

342

Formalization

(519) Rule number Accounts for the transition from value (...) to value (...) 4-1

from (NT) to (CT)

4-2

from (NT) to (WH-INDIR-F)

4-3

from (NT) to (WH-DIR-F)

4-4

from (NT) to (NON-WH-F)

4-5

from (CT) to (WH-INDIR-F)

4-6

from (CT) to (WH-DIR-F)

4-7

from (CT) to (NON-WH-F)

4-8

from (WH-INDIR-F) to (WH-DIR-F)

4-9

from (WH-INDIR-F) to (NON-WH-F)

4-10

from (WH-DIR-F) to (NON-WH-F)

(The informal interpretation of these rules is hopefully a matter-of-course: thus, following NT in the deep word-order may be CT. If there is not CT, NT may be followed by WH-INDIR-F. If there is not WH-INDIR-F, NT may be followed by WH-DIR-F. If there is not WH-DIR-F, NT is followed by NONWH-F as an obligatory part of the sentence, etc. An analogy holds for CT, WH-INDIR-F, and WH-DIR-F.) (ii) The modification of Rule 3 and Rule 5. Instead of Rules 3 and 5,1 introduce the rules A, B, C, and D. They are further subcategorized into subrules related to the five values of the COMMUNICATIVE-INFORMATION feature. Rule A accounts for the necessity of skipping a syntactic relation whose occurrence has just been generated. This is the case when the syntactic relation (n) is not free, i.e., when it is obligatory or optional (occurring in a case frame of the verb). Formally, it is necessary to skip A^ where Λ is a syntactic relation, and η is the number of the currently generated syntactic relation. Rule Β accounts for the necessity to skip the syntactic relations which precede, in the neutral ordering, the syntactic relation whose occurrence has just been generated. In this case, prototypically, no syntactic relation can be generated which precedes the currently generated syntactic relation in the neutral ordering. This reflects my assumption that in all parts of the sentence corresponding to the five values of the COMMUNICATIVE-INFORMATION feature, syntactic relations prototypically obey the neutral ordering. Thus, formally, there is the necessity to skip the sequence of syntactic relations (A r .

Formalization

343

...Λη /), where A is a syntactic relation, and η is the number of the currently generated syntactic relation. Thus, I reject the assumption that in the Topic, the syntactic relations are freely interchangeable. However, there are two possible relaxations to my principle, viz., the relaxations of certain syntactic relations in the neutral ordering in the Focus in English, and the relaxations based on the neutralization of communicative importance in Noncontrastive Topic and in the wh-parts of the Focus. Rule C accounts for the necessity to skip other occurrences of the currently generated free syntactic relation if there were generated an occurrence of another syntactic relation intervening between the current and the next occurrence of the syntactic relation. Considering the syntactic relation which have already been generated: if an occurrence of a syntactic relation has been generated, following it there cannot be an occurrence of another syntactic relation which has been generated previously to the generation of the syntactic relation which has currently been generated. In other words, a sequence of occurrences of syntactic relations must be avoided such that there would intervene, between the occurrences of a single syntactic relation, an occurrence of another syntactic relation. This can be exemplified by the inadmissibility of sequences such as *In London John at the Piccadilly Circus or *yesterday John at seven ο 'clock, between the occurrences of a free adverbial modification an occurrence of another syntactic relation intervenes (here: the Actor, John). Formally: the sequence [Xm... Y... Xm+/] is forbidden, where X and Kare variables for types of syntactic relations, and m and m+1 indicate the subsequent occurrences of the syntactic relation X. Rule D accounts for the impossibility to skip, in the neutral ordering, obligatory syntactic relations which have not yet been generated. The rules A, B, C, and D have also their "embedded" variants (Aemb etc.) accounting for the generation of syntactic relations 36-40 in (37b) in Chapter 2, which can occur only with nouns. Rule 6A would have another interpretation: in Word-Order Based Grammar, it generates occurrences of syntactic relations including the information about their appurtenance to one of the five values of the feature COMMUNICATIVE INFORMATION. Analogously, rule 8A would have another interpretation: in Word-Order Based Grammar it generates the number indicating the type of the syntactic relation which has been generated by Rule 6A.

344

Formalization

Thus, the set of rules resulting fromt the modification of Petkevic's proposal is as listed in (520). (520) Rule 1A (original rule - generates the verb) Rules 4-1 to 4-10 (my rules) Rules A, B, C, D (my rules) Rule 6A (modified (reinterpreted) rule) Rule 8A (modified (reinterpreted) rule) The particular steps in the generation of a sentence would consist in the application of the rules of the modified set as described above. It should be noted that in the generation, the rules are not applied according to numerical order (1, 2,...). Thus, first comes the rule 6A (generating the word-forms of parts of speech except for the verb), or 1A (analogue of 6 A for the verb), and then comes 8A, assigning the word-form the type of syntactic relation, encoded numerically, according to the position of the type of the syntactic relation in the neutral ordering), then rules A, B, C, and D, accounting for skipping syntactic relations, and then, as the case may be, rules of the group 4, accounting for the transition to a different COMMUNICATIVEINFORMATION value. Thus, in the sentence (521a), with the deep representation in (521b), the first word-form, gave, belonging to Noncontrastive Topic, and the following word-form, Leonard, belonging to Contrastive Topic, would be generated as in (522) (I omit the rest of the generation for lack of space and for the mere iteration of the steps). Note that in (521), unlike in (518), Lilian belongs to Focus ((521) has a different information structure, with Lilian and lily belonging to the Focus). (I assume, still in conformity with Petkevic's proposal, that the verb should be generated, for technical reasons, as the first element of the representation, because its case frame determines the occurrence of types of syntactic relations). (521)a. Leonard gave Lilian a lily b. gave'" LeonardCT [Lilian a lily]F (522) The generation of gave and Leonard 1. 1 A: 1A generates the word-form of gave without η 2. 8A: 8A generates the η of gave: 2 (the verb) 3. A: A accounts for the necessity to skip 2 in the neutral ordering

Formalization

345

4. Β: Β acccounts for the necessity to skip the syntactic relations which precede 2 (the verb) in the neutral ordering: 1 5. C: C is not applied because the verb is an obligatory syntactic relation 6. D: D accounts for the impossibility of skipping obligatory syntactic relations occurring in the case frame of give which have not yet been generated: 3 - Actor, 13 - Addressee, 14 - Objective 7. 4-1: 4-1 reflects the transition from gave" to LeonarcT 8. 6A: 6A generates the word-form of Leonard without η 9. 8A: 8A generates the η of Leonard: (3 - Actor) 10. A: A accounts for the necessity to skip 3 in the neutral ordering 9. Β : Β accounts for the necessity to skip the syntactic relations which precede, in the neutral ordering, the currently generated syntactic relation (3 - Actor): 1, 2 10. C: C is not applied because Actor is an obligatory syntactic relation 11. D: D accounts for the impossibility of skipping the obligatory syntactic relations which follow Actor in the neutral ordering with respect to the case frame of give and which have not yet been generated: 13 - Addressee, 14 - Patient 12.4-7:4-7 accounts for the transition from LeonarcT to Lilyr, etc. (to be continued by the generation of Lilian).

6.3.4 A sample of surface word-order rules for Czech In this section, I present only the simplified and informal version of these rules (examples can be found in the previous chapters of this book, or are added in relevant cases to the rules). In such rules, the left-hand side would be the "deep basic ordering", standing for the basic ordering of COMMUNICATIVE- INFORMATION parts and for the neutral ordering of the types of syntactic relations within them, and the right-hand side of the rule would be the actual description of the surface word-order (difference from the hypothesized deep word-order). These rules can be arranged into thematic groups, such as rules for Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic, rules for wh-elements, rules for operators, rules for segmentators, etc. Among them, there are rules which are universal, almost universal, parametric, and language specific. Here is the sample of these rules: 1. Rules for Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic: 1.1 Contrastive Topic preferably precedes Noncontrastive Topic. 2. Rules for wh-elements:

346

Formalization

2.1 In independent non-echo interrogative clauses, interrogative pronouns stand sentence-initially. 2.2. In subordinate clauses, the directly interrogative elements stand preferably after the indirectly interrogative element, but they may stand before the indirectly interrogative element (unlike in English). 2.3. In subordinate clauses, the elements of the Topic may occur between the directly and indirectly interrogative pronoun. 2.4. Only directly interrogative wh-elements in a subordinate clause may be extracted. 3. Rules for operators: 3.1. The first scoping expression of a sequence can be shifted leftwards, across elements belonging to the Topic, to the sentence-initial position, being followed by clitics or the finite verb (in this condition, Czech differs from English). This yields a surface-detached scope of the operator. The shifted operator is subject to the hierarchical scope interpretation. 3.2. A scoping expression out of a sequence of scoping expressions may be shifted to a pre verbal position, whereby the verb belongs to the Topic, and hence, it stands outside the scope of the operator (surface-detached scope of the operator). 3.3. A scoping expression can be shifted to the position between Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic (surface-detached scope of the operator). 3.4. The verb belonging to the Focus may shift leftwards, to the sentenceinitial position, i.e., before the scoping expressions. Thus, the material in the scope of the scoping expression is split, straddling the scoping expression: it consists of the verb, standing before the scoping expression, and of the rest of the Focus, standing after the scoping expression. (The Subject expressed by a zero form stands outside the scope of the scoping expression. If it is non-zero, it would stand, on the surface, after the scoping expression.) 3.5. Certain operators, such as ani 'not-even', temer 'almost' may shift rightwards, over a sentence of clitics, to the sentence-final position, having in its scope the verb and possibly other elements. 3.6. Certain temporal operators (uz 'already', etc.) may have a scope which is a subpart of a communicative-information part, such as of Focus or of Contrastive Topic. More than one operator (along with its scopes) may occur in such a communicative-information part. 3.7. Operators stand, on the surface, preferably after wh-expressions in their scope, which yields a surface-backward scope. 3.8. The elements of the Topic may intervene between the wh-expression and the operator, which yields a surface-detached scope of the operator.

Formalization

347

3.9. If the operator is the only element of the Focus (having in its scope the Topic or its contrastive part), it may stand sentence-finally or sentencemedially. 3.10. Operators having in their scope short expressions may stand (nonpreferably in poetical speech) after these expressions or after phrases that contain them, cf. tobe jenom 'to you only' or pro TVOJE ocijen 'for your eyes only'. 3.11. Certain operators (certain communicative particles, such as jako 'asif', proste' simply') may stand in the (non-parenthetical) sentence-final position, with different degrees of plausibility (the best plausibility has the particle jako). 3.12. In elliptic sentences where the Topic is expressed by the pronoun to 'it', certain operators constituting the Focus (such as predevsim 'above all') can stand after the pronoun, carrying the peak of intonation. This yieds a surface-backward scope. 4. Rules for segmentators. 4.1. The first segment (CT, a subpart of CT, a subpart of NT, a wh-element) is detached from the rest of the sentence by a sequence of clitics, which is subject to a certain ordering (cf. Chapter 2 - 2.5 and 6.1 below). This rule is obligatory if there are clitics in the sentence. 4.2. The Focus of the sentence is detached from the preceding rest of the sentence by a cluster of focalizers. Some focalizers, such as jen ('only') must stand immediately before their scope, i.e., they cannot be shifted leftwards (unlike in English). 4.3. A second part of CT may be detached from the rest of the sentence by the semantically fullfledged verb, or by the future auxiliary, or by a (backward-jumping) operator. 4.4. The first segment may be detached from the rest of the sentence by backward-jumping operators (such as uz 'already') (or by a sequence of such operators), by conjunctions (such as ale 'but'), by sentence-connectors (such as nicmene 'nevertheless'), or by other expressions functioning as operators. The same segmenting function can be assumed by combinations of these expressions, such as ale uz 'but already'. 4.5. The rules 4.1 and 4.2 may be combined in two ways: either the clitics and operators stand side-by-side, yielding one long case of segmentation of the sentence in two parts, or they may segment the sentence twice, i.e., into three parts. 4.6. The rules 4.1,4.2, and 4.3 may be combined in a sentence to yield a triple segmentation, i.e., a segmentation into four parts.

348

Formalization

4.7. The Focus of the sentence can be segmented into two parts by the leftward shift of an operator as a part of the Focus. 4.8. The Focus of the sentence can be segmented by a nonpronominal element of the Noncontrastive Topic. This yields two parts of the Focus (a split Focus); the first part is usually an adverbial modification of Frequency, Manner, or Direction. 4.9. Noncontrastive Topic can be segmented if the first part thereof is a clitic pronoun, itself playing the role of a segmentator. In this case, between the pronominal and nonpronominal part of Noncontrastive Topic a second part of Contrastive Topic or a part of Focus (typically, a verb along with an operator) may intervene. 4.10. Noncontrastive Topic consisting of two nonpronominal elements may be segmented by an operator. 4.11. The Subject as the first part of Noncontrastive Topic may be detached from the rest of Noncontrastive Topic by an operator. 5. Rules for leftward shifts (for the shift of Contrastive Topic and operators, cf. A and C above). 5.1. The verb belonging to Focus can be shifted to the sentence-initial position, across Noncontrastive Topic and across other elements of the Focus, such as an operator. 5.2. The adverbial modifications of Frequency, Manner, Time, Place, and Direction can be shifted to sentence-initial position across Noncontrastive Topic, cf. Rule (25) above. 5.3. Adverbial modifications in Noncontrastive Topic can be shifted to sentence-final position in colloquial Czech. 6. The rule about the position of the clitics in a cluster. 6.1. In Czech, the position of clitics in a cluster is as follows: [auxiliary - reflexive pronoun - Dative clitic personal pronoun - Accusative clitic personal pronoun - Instrumental clitic personal pronoun - the deictic pronoun] (to be contrasted with German es ihnen). 7. Rules about surface coordination. 7.1. On the surface, there must coordinated wh-pronouns functioning as certain types of syntactic relations in multiple wh-questions, such as a Subject/Object pronoun and an adverbial pronoun, cf. kdo aproc 'who and why', and various adverbial pronouns, cf. kdy a kde 'when and where'. 7.2. Coordinated on the surface must be different parts of the Focus if each involves an operator, cf. Jijen maso a jen ν nedeli 'He eats only meat and only on Sunday'. 8. Additional rules.

Formalization

349

8.1. If a verb in the Focus shifts leftwards to a sentence-medial position, across an element of the Topic, it shifts along with a short adverbial modification, and also along with an operator which has in its scope the whole rest of the Focus including the verb (cf. U Marty mu asi rychle predd Karel ty penize In Martha's place him perhaps quickly will-hand-over Charles that money 'In Martha's place, Charles will probably quickly hand him over the money'). This is not so in the case of the shift of the verb to sentence-initial position, cf. *Znal dobre jizkolobeh roku He knew well already the course of the year. 8.2. Negation in sentences with explicit contrastive context can be placed preverbally or postverbally, whereas in sentences without an explicit contrastive context, it can be placed only preverbally. 8.3. The Contrastive Topic expressed by a full NP can climb fom an infinitival construction to the main clause, cf. Karla jstne navrhli poslat na hory Charles, (Object) we proposed to send (trace,) to the mountains 'We proposed to send Charles to the mountains'. If such a NP remained in situ, it would be ambiguous between two interpretations, Contrastive and Noncontrastive Topic, cf. Navrhli jsme poslat Karla na hory We proposed to send Charles to the mountains). 8.4. Noncontrastive Topic expressed by a clitic pronoun can climb from an infinitival construction to the main clause if there is a sentence-initial element to which the clitic element can be appended, cf. Zitra ho chci poslat na hory Tomorrow him, I-want to send (trace,) to the mountains Ί want to send him tomorrow to the mountains'. 8.5. Clitic reflexive pronouns (se, si) can occur as enclitics (after the first segment) or as proclitics (occurring after an embedded and parenthetically detached clause and proclitically appended to the following segment, cf. Karel, azbude mit cas, se tijiste prihldsi 'Charles, when he has time, will certainly let you know'). 8.6. Clitic reflexive pronouns of infinitival constructions occur rather enclitically than proclitically, cf. pomoci mu nebdt se -pomoci mu se nebdt 'to help him not to be afraid', where nebdt se is the form of a lexical verb 'to be afraid', with the clitic reflexive pronoun se as purely formal (surface) element. 8.7. Clitic reflexive pronouns of an infinitival construction is usually shifted leftwards, to the beginning of the infinitival construction, before the Topic of the infinitival construction, cf. cestujici jsou povinni se za jizdy drzet the passengers are obliged themselves during the ride to hold 'the passengers are obliged to hold firm (the holders) during the ride' (where se is a genuine (semantic) clitic reflexive, functioning as Direct Object).

350

Formalization

8.8. There are special rules for the multiple occurrence of spatiotemporal adverbial modifications within a single communicative-information part. With temporal adverbial modifications, the semantically wider modification precedes the narrower one (vcera vecer 'yesterday in the evening', or the other way round: ν cervenci 1997 'in July 1997'). With local modifications, the wider modification precedes the narrower one. On the other hand, if the adverbial modifications occur in different information parts of the sentence (such as in Topic and Focus), their order is not restricted; the first one prototypically plays the role of Contrastive Topic, cf. U Öerneho more jsme byli ν Bulharsku, ne ν Rumunsku 'At the Black Sea, we were in Bulgaria, not in Rumania'). 8.9. An adjectival adjunct prototypically precedes its expansion-base noun, whereas a PP adjunct prototypically follows its noun. 8.10. An adverbial modification of an adjective precedes the adjective if it is short, and follows it if it is long (heavy enough). 8.11. A short adverbial modification of an adverb prototypically precedes the adverb. 8.12. A short modification of Manner usually precedes the verb. 8.13. An adjectival adnominal adjunct must be detached from its expansion-base noun if the noun belongs to a different communicative part of the sentence than the adjective (cf. nounCT - adjective13) in Praceto byla tezka WorkCT it was hardF. In English, such content would have to be structured linguistically in quite a different way. 8.14. An adjectival adnominal adjunct can be detached from its expansionbase noun belonging to the same communicative-information part if it precedes its noun (in poetic parlance), cf. KRASNY [tarnprijelf jinocli 'BEAUTIFUL/ [came there]7 ladF'. There are syntactic and processing limitations on this detachment, cf. ΊΖα mnou jednou ν nedeli KRASNY prijel do Prahy jinoch To my place - one Sunday - BEAUTIFUL - came to Prague lad One Sunday, there came to my place a BEATIFUL lad'. Theoretically, however, the detached adjective can occur anywhere in the sentence. 8.15. An adjectival adnominal adjunct belonging to a different communicative-information part than its expansion-base noun and preceding its noun, such as [Adjective" - NounF], can be detached from its noun, but there are very limited possibilities: the adjective must stand sentence-initially, cf. Malyc7 to by I oslikF, ne mula LittleCT it was a donkeyF, not a mule. 8.16. The same holds, mutatis mutandis, for the expansion of an adjective by an adverbial modification, and of an adverb by another adverb.

Formalization

351

8.17. An Object clause cannot be placed after a nonclausal syntactic relation if both of them belong to the same Nonfocus communicative-infomation part of the sentence (such as Contrastive Topic), cf. *[Karel, aby mu podala penize, pozddalf Marii Charles, that she should pass him the money, asked Mary; the clause must be placed sentence-initially. On the other hand, adverbial clauses can be placed in this position, cf. rule 8.5 above.

6.4 Conclusion In this section, I have offered a criticism of the dependency-based Praguean Functional Generative Description, whose major fallacy is the overrating of the dependency graph with its rigid mathematical properties, which run counter to the structuring of natural language. It is not possible to describe correctly by this graph the "Topic-Focus articulation" (or information structure) of the sentence, and rules relating the putative "deep word-order" as a theoretical abstraction to the segmented and pulsating surface word-order are generally lacking. Second, I have proposed an outline of the formalization of Word-Order Based Grammar (there is still much work to be done on the formalism). I have chosen a monostratal (multidimensional) description, in which highly different types of information can be economically captured by means of features and their values. I have proposed that the grammatical and even semantic information may be effectively provided by a system of features and their values. The feature-based description has proven very useful in the formal account of the distinctions of deep word-order as well as of surface wordorder. I have also proposed a modification of Petkeviö's pushdown store generator, by means of which the "deep" distinctions, such as the distinctions of deep word-order and the types and occurrences of syntactic relations, could be generated. Finally, I have offered a sample of surface word-order rules for Czech.

7. Conclusion In this book, I propose an alternative theory of grammar, called Word-Order Based Grammar. It is based on the principles of deep and surface word-order, of lexical valency, and of the recursive expansion of the sentence. The principle of deep and surface word-order is viewed as the major principle. The formal framework of my grammar is a monostratal (multidimensional) description, where grammatical information is rendered by complex feature structures. In the context this book, I offer a critique of the constituency-based Chomskyan paradigm and of the Praguean dependency-based Functional Generative Description. In Chapter 2,1 characterize word-order as a highly organized, segmented, and pulsating structure, as the major carrier of sentential meanings, and as a synergetic system sui generis. The major function of word-order is the modification of the temporal linearity of verbal communication, which is by itself a disadvantage, especially in spoken communication. Natural language has developed three means of such modification, which safeguard fluent and effective communication under the condition of the limited human processing capacities: (a) the deep segmentation, or the multipartitioning of the communicative-information structure of the sentence; (b) the pulsation of the sentence as the alternation of more and less communicatively important elements, and (c) the surface segmentation. The phenomena of (b) and (c) partly overlap. I propose that the following types of word-order should be distinguished: fixed deep word-order, free deep word-order, fixed surface word-order, free surface word-order coresponding to deep word-order, and free surface wordorder not corresponding to deep word-order (where the phenomena of surface segmentation and pulsation are concentrated). I use the notion of deep word-order as equivalent to the notion of the communicative- information structure of the sentence, and I show that it is a useful and well substantiated abstraction. I have, however, on surface word-order, and I propose several surface word-order universale, mainly the surface segmentation and the pulsation of the sentence. Natural language has a tendency toward free word-order. The phenomena of fixed word-order are not absolute; they are relaxed, to a considerable extent, across languages. The distinction between configurational and noncon-

354

Conclusion

figurational languages is rather a matter of degree than a clear-cut binary opposition. Within deep word-order, or the communicative-information structure of the sentence, I distinguish Noncontrastive Topic, Contrastive Topic, the indirectly interrogative part of the Focus, the directly interrogative part of the Focus, and the non-wh part of the Focus. There are two counteracting but balanced tendencies: the tendency toward surface word-order which corresponds to deep word-order (tendency to regularity), and the tendency toward surface word-order which does not correspond to deep word-order (the tendency toward (psycholinguistically functional) irregularity). The languages which I compare are English, Czech, German, Russian, and French. With respect to my new distinctions, I propose an alternative wordorder typology, based on the notions of pulsation, segmentation, and relaxation. I offer also considerations about a possible alternative typology of word-order errors. In Chapter 3,1 offer an alternative account of scoping expressions. I distinguish focalizing scoping expresions (operators) and quantifiers. I propose that focalizing scoping expressions should be viewed as generated by a new type of adverbial modification, and I account for their scoping properties in terms of four basic cases of their occurrence in the communicative-information structure of the sentence. The basic case is the occurrence of scoping expressions as the first element of the Focus, with the rest of the Focus in their scope; the scoping expressions and/or the material in their scope may occur also in the Topic. I propose a new type of occurrence of scoping expressions: the multiple occurrence with the hierarchical scope interpretation. Also, I describe a number of special occurrences of scoping expressions in the communicative-information structure of the sentence, their (scope-ambiguous and scope-unambiguous) surface positions, and special semantic issues connected with their scoping properties (such as the semantics of negation, allegation, and presupposition accommodation). I advocate a broad conception of scoping expressions: they involve semantically very different, but functionally equivalent, expressions, ranging from sentence adverbials through focalizers to communicative particles, interjections, and even communicative pauses. I show that the interpretation of the relative scopes of quantifiers is due to the interplay of deep and surface word-order, as well as to pragmatic factors.

Conclusion

355

In Chapter 4,1 propose an alternative treatment of wh-extraction and a new subcategorization of empty categories and pronouns. I claim that the majority of the Chomskyan constraints on extraction are void because the examples can be improved by an appropriate context. Thus, out of about twenty Chomskyan constraints, I retain only one, and I propose two hitherto unnoticed constraints of my own, which yield cases of unimprovable inacceptability. Further, I treat the position of extracted and moved elements in the communicative structure of the sentence. I propose that the extracted elements syntactically and communicatively belong to the clause from which they have been extracted. I distinguish three types of wh-elements: the directly interrogative elements in the matrix clause, the indirectly interrogative elements in the embedded clause(s), and the directly interrogative elements in the embedded clause(s). (A clause is a constitutive part of a sentence, involving only one finite verb or its functional equivalent, such as a coordination of finite verbs, whereas sentence is an independent unit, which is defined with respect to its illocutionary force, and which possibly consists of several coordinated or subordinated clauses). Accordingly, the Focus of the embedded clause may consist of three parts (two wh-parts and the non-wh-part), of which the communicatively most important is the non-wh-part, with respect to which the wh-question is asked. Further, I propose an alternative cross-categorization of empty categories and pronouns. I distinguish syntactically (and communicatively) fullfledged vs. non-fullfledged expressions: syntactically fullfledged empty categories are PROs, pros, and parasitic gaps; syntactically non-fullfledged empty categories are traces (which can be dispensed with in linguistic theory); syntactically fullfledged pronouns are nonresumptive pronouns (including reflexives, and possessive pronouns), and syntactically non-fullfledged pronouns are resumptive personal pronouns. In Chapter 5,1 provide an alternative account of anaphora in the complex sentence, in the simple sentence, and in general (in the text). Anaphora in the complex sentence is almost unrestricted. The only problematic case is that of anaphoric renaming (of a pronoun by a NP), which can be accounted for in terms of the communicative-information structure of the sentence, and the case when the embedded sentence involving the NP precedes the matrix sentence containing the pronoun. On the other hand, anaphora in the simple sentence is restricted by the communicative-information structure of the sentence. There are four basic cases of anaphora in the simple sentence according to the deep direction of the ana-

356

Conclusion

phoric relation (deep forward and deep backward anaphora), and to the ordering of the syntactic relations of the antecedent and the postcedent with respect to the neutral ordering of syntactic relations. I also offer an alternative account of VP-ellipsis, anaphoric reduction and gapping: these constructions can be viewed as various ways of reference to a part of the sentence involving the verb with respect to the various kinds of (intended) communicative-information structuring of the second (postcedent) conjunct. Anaphora in general can be described in terms of several principles, which I have proposed, inter alia, on the basis of a detailed empirical study of Slavic languages, with their distinct anaphoric forms, especially with respect to the position of the antecedent and the postcedent in the communicative-information structure of the sentence (thus, both the antecedent and the postcedent may be noncontrastive, contrastive, focal, etc.). To these principles belongs the principle of balance between minimality and explicitness of anaphoric expressions, the principle of greater univocality of the zero anaphoric expression (PRO, pro, parasitic gap) with respect to the personal pronoun, and the principle of a hierarchy of anaphoric expressions according to their markedness. In Chapter 6,1 provide an outline of the formalism of Word-Order Based Grammar based on complex feature structures. I insist on the inadequacy of the description based on the rigid mathematical properties of the dependency graph. In this book, I have presented an unorthodox view on natural language as a synergetic system, with word-order distinctions constituting the backbone of grammar. This has consequences for the shape of an adequate description of natural language.

References (The abbreviation ELL stands for The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (R. E. Asher J. Μ. Y. Simpson (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, 1994).

Abraham, Werner 1992 Theme-rheme, constituency and the question of configurationality, Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 58: 11-39. Adamec, Premysl 1988 Κ vyjadroväni a rozpoznäväni koreference ν cestine a ν rustine [On expressing and recognition of coreference in Russian and in Czech], Ceskoslovenskd slavistika 1988: 167-177. Adger, David 1994 Transformations, ELL 9: 4664-4666. Altmann, Hans 1976 Die Gradpartikel im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ameka, Felix 1994 Interjections, ELL 4: 1712-1715. Anderson, John, M. 1994 Case grammar, ELL 2: 453-464. Aoun, Joseph - Norbert Hornstein - David Lightfoot - Amy Weinberg 1987 Two types of locality, Linguistic Inquiry 18: 537-73. Ariel, Mira 1988 1994

Refereeing and accessibility, Journal of Linguistics 24: 65-87. Pragmatic operators, ELL 6:3250-3253.

Armstrong, David M. 1988 Can a naturalist believe in universale?, in: E. Ullman-Margalit (ed.), 103-116. Atkinson, Martin 1994 Null subject languages, ELL 5: 2855-2857. 1994

Parameters, ELL 6: 2941 -2942.

Authier, Jean-Marc 1989 Two types of empty operators, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 117-125 Avgustinova, Tanya 1992 The Bulgarian verb complex. University of the Saarland, Dept. of Computational Linguistics: CLAUS Report 15.

358 References Avgustinova, Tania - Karel Oliva 1996 The position of sentential clitics in the Czech clause: contribution at the Prague School Linguistic Conference, Prague, April 1996 d'Avis, Franz-Joseph 1993 Zur Lage auf den w-Inseln, Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik: Extraktion im Deutschen 1: 63-98 Baker, Carl L. 1995 Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English, Language 71: 63-101. Bartsch, Renate 1972 Adverbialsemantik. Frankfurt: Athenäum. Bauer, Laurie 1994 Heads and modifiers, ELL 3: 1529-1531. Bearth, Thomas 1992 Constituent structure, natural focus hierarchy and focus types in Toura, Folia Linguistica 26: 75-94. Beaver, David 1995 Accommodating Topics. Report for the workshop on contextual dependency, Charles University, Prague, February 1995. Beck, Sigrid 1993 Negativinseln,Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik: Extraktion im Deutschen I: 99-133. Bellert, Irena 1977 On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 337-350 Belletti, Adrianna 1993 Case checking and clitic placement, in: Michael Starke (ed.), Geneva Generative Papers 1/2: 101-116. Benedicto, Elena 1995 Subject structural positions and their interpretation. Lecture at the seminar of formal semantics, Prague, Charles University, June 1995. Berger, Tilman 1989 Die transphrastische koreferentielle Subjekts- und Objektselipse im Russischen, in: W. Girke (ed.), 9-34. Berman, Stephen 1994 Wh-clauses and quantificational variability: two analyses, Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für Computerlinguistik, report No 61. Berman, Stephen and Arild Mestrik (eds.) 1992 Proceedings of the Stuttgart ellipsis workshop, Stuttgart, University of Stuttgart

References

359

Bickerton, Derek 1987

He himself: Anaphor, Pronoun, Or...?, Linguistic Inquiry 18: 345-349.

Bily, Milan 1981

lntrasentential pronominalization and functional sentence tive. Lund: University of Lund. Bolinger, Dwight 1985 Two views of accent, Journal of Linguistics 21: 79-124.

perspec-

Borer, Hagit 1989

Anaphoric AGR: in: Oswald Jaeggli - Ken Safir (eds.): 9-110.

Bosch, Peter 1983

Agreeememt and anaphora. London: Academic Press.

Bouchard, Denis 1985 The binding theory and the notion of accessible SUBJECT, Linguistic Inquiry 16: 117-133. Bresnan,Joan 1982

Control and complementation, Linguistic Inquiry 13: 343-434.

Brody, Michael 1985 On the complementary distribution of empty categories, Linguistic Inquiry 16: 505-546. Burridge, Kenelm Ο. L. 1994 Typology of word-order change, ELL 9: 4820-4824. Cann, Ronnie 1994 X-bar syntax, ELL 9: 5065-5070 Carden, R. 1982

Backward anaphora in discourse context, Journal of Linguistics 18: 361-387.

Cardinaletti, A. 1992

Spec-CP in verb-second languages. Geneva Generative Papers 0:1-9.

Carr, Philip 1994

Philosophy of linguistics and of science, ELL 6: 3027-3028.

Carston, R. 1994

Syntax and pragmatics, ELL 8: 4481-4487.

Chafe, Wallace L. 1976 Givennesss, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and points of view, in: Charles N. Li - Sandra Thompson (eds.): 5-55. Charniak Eugene - Yorick Wilks (eds.) 1976 Computational Semantics, Amsterdam: North Holland

360

References

Chen, Ping 1986

Discourse and particle movement, Studies in Language 84: 79-96.

Chierchia, Gennaro 1992 Anaphora and dynamic logic, Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 111183. Chomsky, Noam 1972 Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace. 1975 Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon. 1981 Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. 1986 Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1994 Language and Thought. Wakefield: Rhode Island. 1995

Bare phrase structure. In: Gert Webelhuth (ed.), 385-439.

Chung, Sandra 1989 On the notion of 'null anaphor in Chamorro', in: Osvald Jaeggli - Ken Safir (eds.), 14-185. Chung, Sandra - James McCloskey 1987 Government, barriers, and small clauses in Irish, Linguistic Inquiry 18: 173-237. Cinque, Guiglielmo 1990 Types of A'-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Collins Chris 1997 Local economy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Cooper, Robin 1979 The interpretation of pronouns, in: Frank Henny - Helmut S. Schnelle (eds.), 61-92. Cooper, R. P. 1994 Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ELL 3: 1532-1535. Corbett Greville G. - Norman M. Fraser - Scott McClashan (eds.) 1965 Heads in grammatical theory, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Croft, William 1994a Typological approach to the study of grammar, ELL 9:4809-4813 1994b Universals, linguistic, ELL 9: 4850-4852. Crookston, Ian 1994 C-command, ELL 2: 491-492. Cullen, Connie 1994 Generative grammar, ELL 3: 1366-1370.

References

361

Danes, Frantisek 1968 Typy tematickych posloupnosti ν textu [Types of thematic sequences in text], Slovo a slovesnost 29: 125-141. Davison, Alice 1988 Operator binding, gaps, and pronouns, Linguistics 26: 181-214. Deutsch, Werner 1995 Das Allgemeine und das Spezielle im Erstspracherwerb am Beispiel der Personenreferenz. Report for the 5'h Summer School of the German Society for Linguistics, Saarbrücken, Germany. Dik, Simon C. 1994 Functional grammar, ELL 3: 1318-1322. Dikken, Marcel de 1995 Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dryer, Matthew S. 1991 SVO languages and the OV: VO typology, Journal of Linguistics 2: 443-482. Duskovä, Libuse 1994 Mluvnice soucasne anglictiny na pozadi cestiny [The grammar of contemporary English compared with Czech], Praha: Academia. Eijck, Jan van 1994 Formal semantics, ELL 3: 1276-1284. Engdahl, Elisabet - Enric Vallduvi 1995 Information packaging and grammar architecture: a constraint-based approach. University of Edinburgh: ms. Eroms, Hans-Werner 1992 Thema-Rhema Schichtungen und Setzungen [Theme-rheme layers and structures], Folia Linguistica 26: 3-18. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi 1992 Resumptive pronouns in islands, in: Helen Goodluck - Michael Rochemont (eds.), 89-109. 1996 The dynamics of focus structure. Book ms., Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel. Fillmore, Charles 1968 The case for case, in: Emmon Bach and Robert Harms: Universals in linguistic theory. 1-88. Firbas, Jan 1971 1992

On the concept of communicative dynamism in the theory of functional sentence perspective, Brno Studies in English 7: 12-47. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

362

References

Fodor, Janet 1992 Islands, learnability and lexicon. In: Helen Goodluck and Michael Rochemont (eds.), 109-181. Foley, William 1994 Information structure, ELL 3: 1678-1685. Frampton, John 1990 Parasitic gaps and the theory of wh-chains, Linguistic Inquiry 21:4987. Fraser, Norman M. 1994 Dependency grammar, ELL 2: 860-864. Freidin, Robert (ed.) 1991 Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge, MIT Press. Fretheim, Thorsten 1994 Intonation, pragmatic, ELL 4: 1754-1756. Gabelentz, Georg von der 1868 Ideen zur vergleichenden Syntax - Wort- und Satzstellung, Zeitschrift ftir Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwisssenschaft 6:376-384. Gardent, Ciaire 1995 Higher order unification and focus. Lecture at a research colloquium, Saarbrücken, December 1995. Garrod, Simon - Anthony Sanford 1995 Resolving sentences in a discourse context, in: S. Garrod and A. Sanford (eds.): Report for the 5th Summer School in Linguistics of the German Society for Linguistics, Saarbrücken, Germany. Gazdar, Gerald - Ewan Klein - Geoffrey Pullum- Ivan Sag 1985 Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Giorgi, Alessandra 1988 Review of Safir 1985. Journal of Linguistics 24: 536-541. Goodluck, Helen - Michael Rochemont (eds.) 1992 Island constraints. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Greenbaum, Sidney 1969 Studies in English adverbial use. London: Longmans. Greenberg, Joseph 1963 Universals of language, Report of Dobbs Ferry conference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Groenendijk, Jerome - Martin Stokhof 1991 Dynamic predicate logic, Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39-100.

References 363 Groenendijk, Jerome - Τ. Μ. V. Janssen - Martin Stokhof (eds.] 1981 Truth, Interpretation and Information, Dordrecht: Foris Grosu, Alexander 1985 Subcategorization and parallelism. Theoretical Linguistics 12: 214231. Grosz, Barbara 1995 The structure of discourse. Lecture at the Mathesius School of Linguistics and Semiotics, Prague, November 1995. Grosz, Barbara - Candace Sidner 1985 The structure of discourse. Stanford Research International: Technical note 169. Gussenhoven, Carol 1985 Two views of accent: a reply, Journal of Linguistics 21: 125-138. Gutknecht, Christoph - Lutz Roelle 1996 Translating by factors. N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Haeberli, Eric 1993 Scrambling and feature checking, in: M. Starke (ed.), Geneva Generative Papers 1/2: 26-46. Haegeman, Liliane 1984 Parasitic gaps and adverbial clauses, Journal of Linguistics 20: 229232. 1992 Sentential negation in Italian and the NEG criterion, Geneva Generative Papers 0/0: 10-27. 1993 Object clitics in West Flemish, in: Michael Starke (ed.): Geneva Generative Papers 0/0: 1-31. 1995

The syntax of negation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

Haider, Hubert 1995 Invarianten der syntaktischen Strukturierung Report for the 5'h Summer School in Linguistics of the German Society for Linguistics, Saarbrücken, Germany. Hajicovä, Eva 1983 Topic and Focus, Theoretical Linguistics 10: 268-286. 1984 Presupposition and allegation revisited, Journal of Pragmatics 8: 155163 Hajicovä, Eva - Barbara Hall Partee - Petr Sgall 1996 Topic, focus, tripartite structures, and semantic interpretation. Charles University, Prague: ms. Hajicovä, Eva (ed.) 1993 Functional description of language. Proceedings of the conference. Charles University, Prague.

364

References

Hale, Ken 1992

Basic word-order in two free word-order languages. In: Doris L. Payne, Pragmatics of word-order flexibility. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985 An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. Harman Gilbert (ed.) 1993 Conceptions of the human mind, Hillsdale: Erlbaum Hartmann, David 1994 Particles, ELL 6: 6953-3958. Haueis, Eduard 1992 Thema und Rhema - Vorschlag zur Trennung eines unglücklich verbundenen Paares, Folia Linguistica 26\ 19-28. Hawkins, John 1983 Word order universals. New York: Academic Press. 1993 Heads, parsing, and word-order universals. In: Greville Corbett et al. (eds.), Heads in grammatical theories, 231-265. Hawkins, John (ed.) 1993 Explaining language universals. Oxford: Blackwell. Hays, David 1986 "How many levels should a grammar recognize?, in: Jacob Mey (ed.): 25-31. Heim, Irene 1990

"Ε-type pronouns and donkey anaphora, Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137-177.

Herweg, Michael 1988 Ansätze zu einer semantischen und pragmatischen Theorie der Interpretation pluraler Anapher. University of Hamburg: ms. Herweg, Michael - Tibor Kiss 1995 Theoretische und kognitive Aspekte einer deklarativen Grammatik des Deutschen. Report for the 5th Summer School in Linguistics of the German Society for Linguistics, Saarbrücken, Germany Hestvik, Arild 1992 Subordination and strict identity interpretation of reflexives, in Stephan Berman - Arild Hestvik (eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart ellipsis workshop, 99-125. Heusinger, Klaus von 1994 Definite Kennzeichnungen: Anaphora und Salienz (Definite descriptions: anaphora and salience). Report No 150/11-5. University of Constance.

References 365 Hewitt, C. D. 1992 Greenberg universale, ELL 3: 1500-1504. Higginbotham, James 1983 Logical form, binding, and nominals, Linguistic Inquiry 14: 395-420 Hirschbühler, Paul - Daniel Valois 1992 Argument extraction out of indirect questions in French, in: Helen Goodluck - Michael Rochemont (eds.), 195-222. Hirst, Graemle 1994 Reference and anaphora resolution in natural language processing, ELL 7: 3487-3489. Hoek, Karen van 1995 Cognitive reference points: a cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints, Language 71: 310-340. Hoffmann, Ludger 1992 Thema und Rhema, Folia Linguistica 26: 29-46. Horn, Lawrence 1989 A natural history of negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hornstein, Norbert - Amy Weinberg 1987 On the existence of logical form, Proceedings of the GLOW colloquium, Venice: 33-34. Horvath, Julia - Michael Rochemont 1986 Pronoun in discourse and sentence grammar, Linguistic Inquiry 17: 759-766. Hoskovec, Tomas 1995 On the case frames of verbs. Charles University, Prague: ms. Huang, J. C.-T. 1989 Pro-drop in Chinese: a generalized control theory, in: Osvald Jaeggli Ken Safir (eds.). 185-214. Huang, Yan 1994

The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Huck, Geoffrey J. - Almerindo E. Ojeda (eds.) 1987 Syntax and semantics 20. Amsterdam: North Holland. Hudson, Richard 1987 Zwicky on heads, Journal of Linguistics 23: 109-123. 1988

Coordination and grammatical relations, Journal 303-339.

of Linguistics 24:

1989

Gapping and grammatical relations, Journal of Linguistics 25:57-94.

366

References

Hyams, Nina 1989 The null subject parameter in language acquisition, In: Osvald Jaeggli and Ken Safir, The null subject parameter, 215-239. Iatridou, P. 1988

Clitics, anaphors, and the problem of coindexation, Linguistic Inquiry 13: 698-703.

Ioup, Georgette 1975 Some universals for quantifier scope, in: John P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 4:37-78. Jacennik, Barbara - Mathew S. Dryer 1992 Verb-subject order in Polish, in: Doris Payne (ed.): 209-243. Jackendoff, Ray 1987 The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory, Linguistic Inquiry 15: 369-411. Jacobs, Joachim 1982 Syntax und Semantik der Negation im Deutschen (Syntax and semantics of negation in German). München: Fink. 1983

Fokus und Skalen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Jaeggli Osvald - Ken Safir (eds.) 1989 The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Jaworska, Ewa 1994 Control, ELL 2: 742-745. Johnson, Kyle 1988 Clausal gerunds, the ECP, and government, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 83-609. Johnson-Laird, Phillip 1993 How the mind thinks, in: Gilbert Harman (ed.): 173-216. Kamp, Hans 1981 A theory of truth and semantic representation, in: Jerome Groenendijk - Τ. Μ. V. Janssen - Martin Stokhof (eds.): Truth, Interpretation and Information. Dordrecht: Foris. 1995

Einstellungen, Einstellungsberichte und sprachliche Kommunikation. Report for the 5th Summer School of the German Society for Linguistics, Saarbrücken, Germany.

Kayne, Richard 1989 Null subjects and clitic climbing, in: Osvald Jaeggli - Ken Safir (eds.), 239-262. 1994 The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Keijsper, Cornelia Eva 1985 Information structure. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

References

367

Kluender, Robert 1992 Deriving island constraints from principles of predication, in: Helen Goodluck - Michael Rochemont (eds.)· 23-258. Köhler, Reinhardt 1994 Synergetic linguistics, ELL 8: 4454-4455. Koktova, Eva 1985 A retrograde morphological analysis of Czech. Charles University, Praha: ms. 1986 Sentence adverbials. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1987

On the scoping properties of negation, focusing particles sentence adverbials, Theoretical Linguistics 14: 173-226. 1988a (review)Joachim Jacobs, Fokus und Skalen, 1983, Journal of Pragmatics 12: 253-270. 1988b (review) Michael Rochemont, Focus in Generative Grammar, 1986, Journal of Pragmatics 12: 241-253. 1989

(review) Joachim Jacobs, Syntax und Semantik der Negation im Deutschen, 1982, Journal of Pragmatics 12: 760-769. 1990 On negation, Journal of Pragmatics 14: 597-626. 1991a (review) George Lakoff: Women, fire, and dangerous things, 1987. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 23: 197-212. 1991b (review) Igor Mel'cuk: Dependency syntax: theory and practice, 1988. Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 56: 77-85. 1991c Zum Stand der Thema-Rhema Forschung in der heutigen Slavistik. Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 55: 51-72. 1992a On new constraints on anaphora and control, Theoretical Linguistics 18: 101-178. 1992b Anaphoric expressions across clause boundary in pro-drop languages, Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 58: 39-63. 1993

Wh-extraction and parasitic gaps in a functional theory, Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 59-60: 59-104. 1995a (review) R. E. Asher - J. Μ. Y. Simpson: Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 1994. Journal of Pragmatics 24: 535-556. 1995b

Segmentace vypovedi (The segmentation of the utterrance). Slovo a slovesnost 56: 252-266. 1995c On the prototype theory of conceptualization. Charles University, Dept. of Philosophy, Prague. 1996a Wh-extraction and the topic-focus articulation of the sentence, Theoretical Linguistics 22: 207-30. 1996b Wh-extraction and the topic-focus articulation of the sentence. In: Barbara Partee and Petr Sgall, (eds). 256-271. 1997a Are there constraints on wh-extraction? Journal of Pragmatics 21: 523-530.

368

References

1997b Word-order based grammar. Grant work, Research Support Scheme of the Open Society Foundation, Prague. 1997c Deep and surface word-order. Doctoral dissertation at the department of General Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, Charles University, Prague. 1997d Anaphora and movement. Doctoral dissertation at the Department of English, Faculty of Philosophy, Charles University, Praha. 1997e Word-order and typology, in Bohumil Palek (ed.) Proceedings of LP'96: Typology: prototypes, item orderings and universals, Charles University Press 1997f (review) Liljana Progovac: Negative and positive polarity 1995. Functions of Language. 1997g (review) Marcel de Dikken: Particles, 1995. Functions of Language. in press a. (review) Yan Huang, The syntax and pragmatics anaphora, 1994. Journal of Pragmatics. in press b. Towards a new theory of syntax, Part I and Part II Theoretical Linguistics. submitted a. The communicative-pragmatic aspects of syntax and semantics. Journal of Pragmatics. submitted b. Review of Liliane Haegeman: The syntax of negation. Journal of Pragmatics. König, Ekkehardt 1981 The meaning of scalar particles in German, in: H. Ekmeyer - H. Rieser, eds., 30-65. 1986 Function words in a bilingual German - English dictionary. A new proposal, Lexicographica 3: 138-154. 1988 Gradpartikeln. University of Berlin: ms Könitz, Β. 1982

Enklise und Proklise und Thema-Rhema Gliederung Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 38: 36-46.

Koster, Jan - Eric Reuland 1991 Long distance anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krifka, Manfred 1991 A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions, in: S. Moore - A. Wyner (eds.). Proceedings of SALTI, Cornell: 127-158. 1995 Association with focus. Report for the workshop on conceptual dependency, Charles University, Prague, February 1995. Kubofi, Petr 1995 Topic, focus, and some aspects of the semantics of discourse. Report for the workshop on contextual dependency, Charles University, Prague, February 1995.

References

369

Kuno, Susumo 1983 Functional syntax, anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kuppeveit, Jan van 1994 Topic and comment, ELL 9: 4629-4633. Laenzlinger, Christopher 1993 Principles for a formal account of adverbs syntax, in: Michael Starke (ed.), Geneva Generative Papers 1/2: 47-76. 1998

Comparative studies in word-order variation, Amsterdam: Benjamins

Lakoff, George 1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lamb, Sidney 1966 Outline of stratificational Georgetown Press.

grammar.

Georgetown: University of

Lambrecht, Knud 1994 Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lang, Ewald 1979

Zum Status der Satzadverbiale, Slovo a slovesnost 40: 200-213.

Langacker, Ronald 1966 On pronominalization and the chain of c-command, in: David A. Reibel - Sanford A. Schane (eds.): 160-168. 1994

Cognitive Grammar, ELL 2: 590-593.

Lappin, Shalom 1985 Pronominal binding and coreference, Theoretical Linguistics 12: 241264. 1992 The syntactic basic of ellipsis resolution, in: Stephen Berman - Arild Hestvik (eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop. Lasnik, Howard - Mamoru Saito 1992 Move a. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lasnik, Howard - Juan Uriagereka 1988 A course in GB syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lee, David 1987

The semantics of just, Journal of Pragmatics 11: 377-398.

Leezenberg, Michiel 1994 Indexicals, ELL 3: 1648-1651. Levin, Beth - Malka Rappaport Hovav 1995 Unaccusativity: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

370

References

Li, Charles Ν. - Sandra Thompson 1976 Subject and Topic: a new typology of languages: New York: Academic Press. Lichtenberk, Frank 1994 Reflexives and reciprocals, ELL 7: 3504-3509. Lieb, Hans-Heinrich 1983a Integrational Linguistics I. Amsterdam: New Holland. 1983b Akzent und Negation im Deutschen. Umrisse einer einheitlichen Konzeption, Linguistische Berichte 84: 1-32; 85: 1-48. 1992b An integrative view of linguistic meaning, in: Maxim Stamenov (ed.): 239-268. Lieb, Hans-Heinrich (ed.) 1992a Prospects for a new structuralism. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lötscher, Andreas 1992 Text and Theme. Tübinger: Niemeyer. Lutz, Uli 1993

Zur Extraktion aus Adjunksätzen im Deutschen Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik: Extraktion im Deutschen I: 131-190.

Malinovsky, Milan 1979 Disjunkty (Disjuncts), PhD. diss., Charles University, Prague Manzini, Rita M. 1983 On control and control theory, Linguistic Inquiry 14: 442-447. 1992 Locality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1994 Locality, minimalism, and parasitic gaps, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 481508. Marantz, Alec 1995 The minimalist program, in: Gert Webelhuth (ed.): 351-383. Marty, Anton 1897 Über die Scheidung von grammatischem, logischem und psychologischem Subjekt und Prädikat, Archiv für systematische Philosophie III, 2: 174-190; 3: 194-333. Materna, Pavel - Petr Sgall 1980 Functional sentence perspective, the question test and intensional semantics, Statistical Methods in Linguistics 1-2: 141-161. Mathesius, Vilem 1939 Ο tak zvanem aktualnim cleneni vetnem (On the so-called ThemeRheme articulation of the sentence), Slovo a slovesnost 5: 171-174.

References

371

May, Robert 1985 Logical form, its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McCawley, James 1994 Generative Semantics, ELL 3: 1398-1403. McConnel-Ginet, Sally 1982 Adverbs and logical form, Language 58: 144-184. Mclnnes, Fergus R. 1994 Entropy, ELL 3: 1140-1141. Meibauer, Jörg 1991 Existenzimplikaturen bei rhetorischen w-Fragen, Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik: Aspekte von W-Fragesätzen: 111-136. Meiran, N. 1994

Memory: organization, ELL 5: 2445-2447.

Mel'cuk, Igor 1988 Dependency grammar: theory and practice. New York: State University Press. Mellish, Christopher S. 1994a Disambiguation, role of knowledge, ELL 2: 935-940. 1994b Unification-based grammars, ELL 9: 4853-4856. Mey, Jacob 1993

Pragmatics. Oxford: Pergamon.

Mithun, Marianne 1992 Is basic words order universal?, In: Doris Payne, (ed.): 15-62. Mittwoch, Anita 1994 Discourse anaphora, ELL 2: 956-958. Mohanan, K. P. 1985 Remarks on control and control theory, Linguistic Inquiry 16: 635-648. Mosegaard-Hansen, Maj-Britt 1998 The function of discourse particles, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Müller, Gereon 1998 Incomplete Category Fronting, A derivational approach to remnant movement in German, Dordrecht: Kluwer Muskens, R. A. 1994 Coreference, ELL 2: 769. Neidle, Carol 1994 Lexical functional grammar, ELL 5:2147-2153.

372

References

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1994 Chomsky's philosophy of language, ELL 2: 564-541. Nichols, Johanna 1985 The grammatical marking of theme in literary Russian, Issues in Russian morphosyntax: 170-186. Noelke, Henning 1982 Problems in the semantic-pragmatic description of French adverbials like me me, aussi, surtout and seulement, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 17: 157-168. Oliva, Karel 1988 Some aspects of GPSG from a Praguian viewpoint, Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 49: 3-34; 50: 89-112. 1989 Review of Uszkoreit 1986. Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 51: 63-72. 1991

Cases of 'fixed' word-order in a 'free' word-order. CLAUS report 14: University of the Saarland.

Ouhalla, John 1988 A note on bound pronouns, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 85-494. 1991

Functional categories and parametric variation. London and New York: Routledge

Pafel, Jürgen 1991 Zum relativen Skopus von W- und Q-Phrasen, Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik: Aspekte von W-Fragesätzen: 33-74. 1993 Ein Überblick über die Extraktion aus Nominalphrasen im Deutschen, Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen der Computerlinguistik: Extraktion im Deutschen I: 191-246. Panevovä, Jarmila 1980 Formy afunkce ve stavbe ceske vety (Forms and functions in the structure of the Czech sentence). Prague: Academia. 1986 The Czech infinitive in the function of Objective, and the rules of coreference, in J. Mey (ed.). 123-142. 1995 Referencni platnost elidovanych aktantü (Referential validity of ellided actants). Ms.: Charles University, Prague. Partee, Barbara H. 1993 On the 'scope of negation' and polarity selectivity, in: E. Hajicova(ed.): 179-196. 1994a Topic, Focus, and Quantification. Ms.: University of Massachussetts, Amherst. 1995b Point of view and the semantics of quantification. Seminar of formal semantics, Prague, Charles University, June 1995.

References

373

Partee, Barbara - Petr Sgall (eds.) 1996 Discourse and meaning. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Payne, Doris 1992 Nonidentifiable information and pragmatic rules in O'odham. In: D. Payne (ed.): 137-167. Payne, Doris (ed.) 1992 Pragmatics of word-order flexibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pechmann, Thomas - Hans Uszkoreit- Johannes Engelkamp - Dieter Zerbst 1994 Word-order in the German midle field. CLAUS report 43: University of the Saarland. Peregrin, Jaroslav 1988 Theory of types: good servant, bad master, Prague Studies in Mathematical Linguistics 10: 159-176. Petkevic, Vladimir 1987 A new dependency-based specification of underlying representations of sentences, Theoretical Linguistics 14: 143-172. 1993 Underlying structures and unification, Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 59: 23-44. 1995 Control and Agreement. Charles University, Prague: ms. Petrie, H. L. 1994 Pauses and hesitations, ELL 6: 2993-2994. Pfeiffer, Oskar - Michael Pücek - Petr Sgall 1994 Die Thema-Rhema Gliederung im Deutschen und ihre automatische Analyse, in: U. Klenk (ed.), Computatio Linguae II: 148-165. Pinkal, Manfred 1991 On the syntactic-semantic analysis of bound anaphora. CLA US report 6: University of the Saarland. Piiha, Petr 1981

On the case frames of nouns, Prague Studies in Mathematical Linguistics 7: 215-224.

Pritchett, Bradley 1992 Parsing with grammar: islands, heads, and garden paths, in: Helen Goodluck - Michael Rochemont (eds.): 321-350. Quakenbush, Stephen 1992 Word-order and discourse type. In: Doris Payne (ed.): 279-305. Quirk Randolph - Sidney Greenbaum - Geoffrey Leech - Jan Svartvik 1972 A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longmans. Ramat, Paolo 1994 Negation, ELL 5: 2769-2774.

374

References

Reinhart, Tanya 1981a Definite NP-anaphora and c-command domains, Linguistic Inquiry 12: 605-635. 1981b Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophien 27: 53-94. 1983 Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helms. Reis, Marga 1991 Echo-w-Sätze und Echo-w-Fragen, Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen der Computerlinguistik: Aspekte von w-Fragesätzen: 75-110. Rizzi, Luigi 1990

Relativized minimality. Cambridge, ΜΑ:: MIT Press.

Rochemont, Michael 1986 Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1992 Bounding rightward Α-dependencies, in: Helen Goodluck - Michael Rochemont (eds.): 73-794. Rochemont, Michael - Peter Culicover 1990 English focus construction and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Romero, Maribel 1995 Focus in Sluicing. Lecture at the seminar of formal semantics, Prague, Charles University, June 1995. Rooryck, John 1992 Negative and factive islands revisited, Journal of Linguistics 28: 343374. Rooth, Mats 1992 Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy, in: Stephen Berman - Arild Hestvik, Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop. Ross, John 1968 Rude, Noel 1992

Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral disertation. Cambridge: MA. Word-order and topicality in Nez Perce. In: Doris Payne (ed.): 193-209.

Rüzicka, Rudolf 1983

Remarks on control, Linguistic Inquiry 14: 303-324.

Saddy, Douglas 1992 Sensitivity to islands in an aphasic individual, in: Helen Goodluck Michael Rochemont (eds.): 399-418. Safir, Ken 1985

Syntactic chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

Sag,Ivan 1987

375

Gradient hierarchy and linear precedence, in: Geoffrey J. Huck Almerindo E. Ojeda (eds.): 303-348.

Scheller, Andrea 1996 Negation und Informationsstruktur: thematisiert, Thematisiert, polemisiert. Prague, Charles University: ms. Schnelle, Helmut 1979 Syntax und Semantik: wo stehen wir heute?, Linguistische Berichte 63: 1-25. 1984 Linguistics and bioengineering, Theoretical Linguistics 11: 1-4. 1986

Different approaches to integrational linguistics: some reflections on Η. H. Lieb's Integrational Linguistics, Theoretical Linguistics 13: 225-239.

1995

Theoretical net-linguistics. Lecture at the 5th Summer School in Linguistics of the German Society for Linguistics, Saarbrücken.

Schnelle, Helmut - Edgar Rothacker 1984 Elements of theoretical net-linguistics, Theoretical Linguistics 11: 87-116. Schwarz, Monika 1995 Indirekte Anapher. Lecture at the 5th Summer School in Linguistics, Saarbrücken, Germany. Sells, Peter - Thomas Wasow 1994 Anaphora, ELL 1: 116-122. Sgall, Petr 1994

Dependency-based formal description of language, ELL 2: 867-876.

Sgall, Petr - Eva Hajicovä - Jarmila Panevovä 1986 The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic Dordrecht: Reidel and Prague: Academia.

aspects.

Sgall, Petr - Jarmila Panevovä 1988 Dependency syntax - a challenge. Theoretical Linguistics 15: 73-86. Shockey, Linda 1994 Sentence stress, ELL 7: 3843-3845. Siewierska, Anna 1994 Word-order and linearization, ELL 9: 4993-4999. Smilauer, Vladimir 1966 Novoceskd skladba (Syntax of Modern Czech). Praha: Stätni pedagogicke nakladatelstvi (The state pedagogical publishing house). Sornicola, Rosanna 1994 Topic, Focus, and word-order, ELL 9: 4633-4640.

376

References

Speas, Margaret 1990 Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Stamenov, Maxim (ed.) 1992 Current advances in semantic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Starke, Michael (ed.) 1993 Geneva generative papers 1/2, University of Geneva Press Starosta, Stanley 1993 Word-order and focus in constrained dependency grammar, in: E. Hajicovä (ed.): 237-253. 1994 Lexicase, ELL 4: 2167-2174. Steedman, Mark 1994 Categorial grammar, ELL 2: 467-472. Steinitz, Renate 1969 Adverbialsyntax. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Steube, Anita - Spaeth, A. 1996 Zum Zusammenwirken vom grammatischen Wissen und Kontext in Informationsstrukturierung. Paper at the Prague School Linguistic conference, Prague, April 1996. Sticha, FrantiSek 1987 Komunikativni funkce umist'oväni vychodiska (tematu) na konci vety (The communicative function of placing the Topic at the end of the sentence), Nase fee 70: 69-79. Stirling, Lesley 1994

Logophoricity and long-distance reflexives, ELL 4: 2302-2306.

Stucky, Susan 1987 Configurational variation in English, in: Geoffrey J. Huck - Almerindo E. Ojeda ((eds.): 377-397. Svartvik, Jan 1979 The corpus of spoken English, London: Longmans Svartvik, Jan - Quirk, Randoph 1979 A corpus of English conversation. London: Longmans. Svoboda, Ales 1981 Diatheme. Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyne. 1984

Ceske slovosledne pozice ζ pohledu aktuälniho cleneni (Czech word-order positions from the viewpoint of the Theme-Rheme articulation), Slovo a slovesnost 45: 22-34; 88-120.

Toman, Jindrich 1992 Anaphors in binary tres: an analysis of Czech reflexives. In: Jan Köster and Eric Reuland (eds.): 151-171.

References

377

Tomioka, Satoshi 1995a On the mismatch between variable binding and sloppy identity .University of Massachussetts: ms. 1995b Focus, contrastiveness, and semantic types. Lecture at the seminar of formal logic, Prague, Charles University, June 1995. Uhlirovä, Ludmila 1987 Knizka ο slovosledu (A book about word-order). Prague: Academia. Ullman, Margelit Ε (ed.) 1988 The Boston reader in philosophy, Boston Uszkoreit, Hans 1987 Linear precedence in discontinous constituents: complex fronting in German, in: Geoffrey J. Huck - Almerindo E. Ojeda (eds.): 405-425. 1995 Performanzmodellierung in der Computerlinguistik. Report for the 5th Summer School in Linguistics of the German Society of Linguistics, Saarbrücken, Germany. Vallduvi, Enric - Elisabet Engdahl 1995 The linguistic realization of information packaging. University of Edinburgh: ms. Veselovskä, Lida 1993a Long-distance wh-movement. University of Olomouc: ms. 1993b Wh-movement and multiple questions. University of Olomouc: ms. Vlk, Tomas 1988

Toward a transduction of underlying structures into intensional logic, Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 50: 35-71.

Wales, Katie 1994 Ambiguity, ELL I: 89-91. Warner, Anthony K. 1994 Generalized Phrase-Structure Grammar, ELL 3: 1361-1366. Webelhuth, Gert 1995 X bar theory and case theory. In: Gert Webelhuth (ed.): 15-88. Webelhuth, Gert (ed.) 1995 Government and binding theory and the minimalist program. Oxford: Blackwell. Weil, Henri 1844

De Vordre des mots dans les langues anciennes compareses aux langues modernes. Paris. [1978] Reprinted in Amsterdam: North Holland

Westergaard, Marit 1986 Definite NP anaphora: a pragmatic approach. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.

378

References

White, Lydia 1992 Subjacency violations and empty categories in second language acquisition, in: Helen Goodluck - Michael Rochemont (eds): 445-464. Wilks, Yorick 1976 The Philosophy of Language. In: Eugene Charniak - Yorick Wilks (eds). Computational Semantics. Amsterdam: New Holland: 205-235. 1977 1994

Methodological questions about approaches to understanding natural language, Journal of Pragmatics 1: 69-83. Artificial intelligence, ELL 1: 228-237.

Yamaguchi, K. 1993 Echo utterances, ELL 3: 1084-1085. Yokoyama, Olga 1993 Discourse, word-order, and the human factor, in: E. Hajicovä (ed.): 253-270. Zemb, Jean Marie 1979 Zur Negation, Sprachwissenschaft 4: 159-188. Zimovä, Ludmila 1994 Zpüsoby vyjadrovdni vetnych clenu ν textu: konkurence pojmenovdni, pronominalizace a elize (The ways of expression of sentence members in the text: the competition of naming, pronominalization and ellipsis). Brno: E. Purkyne University. Zubizaretta, Maria Luisa 1998 Prosody, focus, and word-order, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Zwarts, Frans 1994 Negative expressions, ELL 5: 2774. Zwicky, Arnold 1985 Heads, Journal of Linguistics 21: 1-30.

Index of authors Abraham, W. 5, 22-3, 56, 69, 357 Adamec, P. 305, 357 Adger, B. D. 3, Altmann, H., 357 Ameka, F. K. 148, 357 Anderson, J. M. 3, 357 Aoun, J. 274, 357 Ariel, M. 124, 148, 357 Aristotle 128 Armstrong, D. 4, 357 Atkinson, M. 3, 357 Authier, J.-M. P. 232, 357 Avgustinova, T. 5, 18, 35, 48, 79, 80-1, 84, 96, 99, 106, 308, 357, 358 d'Avis, F. J. 34, 190-2, 214, 218, 358 Baker, C. L. 260, 285, 358 Bartsch, R. 124-5, 358 Bauer, L. 322, 358 Bearth, T. 83, 358 Beaver, D. 132, 156-8, 358 Beck, S. 189, 358 Bellert, I. 358 Belletti, A. 5, 84, 358 Benedicto, E. 46, 358 Berger, T. 305, 358 Berman, S. 7, 132, 156-7, 358, Bickerton, D. 240, 284-5, 359 Bily, M. 251, 359 Bolinger, D. 5, 12, 37, 59, 359 Borer, H. 272, 359 Bosch, P. 251, 255, 258-9, 281, 288, 359 Bouchard, D. 272-4, 285, 359 Bresnan, J. 7, 20, 185, 249, 261, 264-7, 272-3, 276, 290, 359 Brody, M. 273, 359 Burridge, K.O.L. 359 Cann, R. 3, 359

Carden, R. 359 Cardinaletti, A. 5, 59, 317, 359 Carr, P. 3, 359 Carston, R. 3, 359 Chafe, W. 5, 35, 359 Charniak, E. 359 Chen, P. 91, 360 Chierchia, G. 310, 360 Chomsky, N. 2, 3, 5-8, 11, 21-2, 31, 33-5,44-5, 88,95, 119, 130, 169-171, 175, 179-181, 184, 187-8, 190, 199-200, 212, 216, 218, 231,245,248, 250, 256, 268-9, 272-5, 309, 329, 354-5, 360 Chung, S. 274, 360 Cinque, G. 6, 7, 34, 170, 175-9, 208, 218, 360 Collins, C. 360 Cooper, R. P. 310, 360 Corbett, G.G. 360 Croft, W. 83, 360 Crookston, I. 360 Culicover, P. 5, 87, 255, 258, 280, 360 Cullen, C. 3, 360 Danes, F. 5, 37, 361 Davison, S. 170, 172, 361 Deutsch, W. 213, 361 Dik, S. 38, 44, 59, 360 de Dikken, Marcel 361 Dryer, M. 369 Duskovä, L. 59, 361 Eijck, J. van 361 Engdahl, E. 4-5, 18, 29,45-6, 56, 60, 83, 89, 132, 176, 322, 361 Engelkamp, J. 47, 378 Eroms, H. W. 5, 361

380

Index of authors

Erteschik-Shir, Ν. 5, 44-5, 107, 232, 234-5,240-1,361 Fillmore, C. 17, 361 Firbas, J. 5, 16, 18, 35, 38, 56, 60, 91, 113,261,322, 361 Fodor, J. 187, 362 Foley, W. 5, 16,38,271,362 Frampton, J. 170, 179, 239, 362 Fräser, Ν. Μ. 3, 322, 361, 362 Freidin, R. 3, 201, 362 Fretheim, T. 5, 362 Gabelentz, G. von der 5, 362 Gardent, C. 362 Garrod, S. 119,310,312, 362 Gazdar, 362 Giorgi, A. 362 Goodluck, H. 170, 187-8, 261-2, 365, 367,373-4, 362 Greenbaum, S. 364, 379 Greenberg, J. 5, 28-9, 41, 54, 82, 115, 362 Groenendijk, J. B. 310, 362 Grosu, A. 140, 363 Grosz, B. 7, 119, 363 Gussenhoven, K. 5, 363 Gutknecht, C. 363 Haeberli, E. 5, 11, 23-4, 89, 176, 363 Haegeman, L. 5-6, 11, 24-6, 60, 85. 89, 99, 107-8, 125-6, 154, 280, 363 Haider, H. 5, 27, 30-1, 81, 90, 363 Hajicovä, E. 5, 12, 40, 120, 126-7, 132, 155, 363 Hale, K. 5, 16, 40, 53, 91, 364 Halliday, Μ. A. K. 35, 119, 364 Hartmann, D. 97, 111, 129, 147, 364 Haueis, E. 5, 364 Hawkins, J. 5, 364 Hays, D. 3, 322, 364 Heim, I. 364 Herweg, Μ. 4, 143,315, 364

Hestvik, A. 294. 296, 299, 309, 364 Heusinger, Κ. von 310, 312, 364 Hewitt, C. D. 365 Higginbotham, J. 274, 365 Hirschbühler, P. 188, 365 Hirst, G. 313, 365 Hoek, K. van 310, 365 Hoffmann, L. 5, 33, 365 Horn, L. 128, 365 Hornstein, Ν. 357, 365 Horvath, J. 251, 365 Hoskovec, T. 18, 365 Huang, J.-C. T. 171, 179, 272, 274, 365 Huang, Y. 3,7, 249, 268-272, 309, 313, 365 Huck, G.J. 365 Hudson, R. 3, 294-5, 322, 365 Hyams, N. 108, 112, 366 Iatridou, P. 366 Ioup, G. 366 Jacennik, B. 366 Jackendoff, R. 159, 275, 366 Jacobs, J. 7, 119-124, 130, 148, 198, 366. Jaeggli, O. 359-360, 366 Janssen, T.M.W. 366 Jaworska, Ε. 366 Johnson, Κ. 273-4, 366 Johnson-Laird, P. 366 Kamp, Η. 143,310, 366 Kayne, R. 5, 6, 27-30, 83, 89, 366 Keijsper, C. E. 5, 28-9, 47, 83, 366 Kiss, T. 4, 367 Klein, E. 367 Kluender, R. 188, 204, 367 Köhler, R. 11,367 König, Ε. 128-9, 368 Könitz, Β. 5, 60, 368 Koster, J. 368 Krifka, Μ. 5, 7, 132, 138-9, 148, 368

Index of authors

Kubon, P. 368 Kuno, S. 5, 238, 369 Kuppeveit, J. van 5, 16, 39, 369 Laenzlinger, C. 5, 11, 129-130, 369 Lakoff, G. 3, 367, 369 Lamb, S. 369 Lambrecht, Κ. 96, 369 Lang, Ε. 369 Langacker, R. 3, 248-250, 252, 254-8, 263, 278-281, 284, 320, 369 Lappin, S. 284, 296-7, 303-5, 309, 369 Lasnik, H. 6-7, 60, 87-9, 170-1, 179-183, 202, 212-3, 221, 232, 235-8, 241,245,369 Lee, D. 369 Leech, G. 369 Leezenberg, Η. 369 Levin, Β. 369 Levinson, S. 270, 313 Li, C. 370 Lichtenberk, F. 370 Lieb, H.-H. 3, 17, 120, 130, 370 Lightfoot, D. 357 Lötscher, A. 5, 33, 60, 370 Lutz, U. 195, 215, 243, 363, 370

381

Meiran, N. 18, 60, 322, 371 Mel'cuk, I. 5,31,66, 185,371 Mellish, C. S. 371 Mestrik, A. 359 Mey, J. 371 Mithun, M. 5 , 4 0 , 9 1 , 3 7 1 Mittwoch, A. 371 Mohanan, K. P. 273, 276-7, 371 Mosegaard-Hansen. M. 371 Müller, G. 371 Muskens, R. A. 371 Neidle, C. 371 Newmeyer, F. J. 2, 3, 372 Nichols, J. 305, 372 Noelke, H. 372 Ojeda, A.E. 368 Oliva, Κ. 5, 18, 35, 42, 47-8, 79-81, 84, 96, 99, 106, 148, 185, 261, 308, 328, 358, 372 Ouhalla, J.6, 372

Pafel, J.7, 21, 132, 160-3, 165, 193-4, 372 Panevovä, J.7, 17, 66, 267-8, 326, 372 Partee, B. 7, 126-7, 131-2, 366, 368, 372, Malinovsky, M. 370 373 Manzini, R. 6-7, 170, 184-7, 206, Payne, D. 5, 7, 39, 40, 53, 364, 366, 371, 373 208-210, 212-3, 215, 272-4, Pechmann, T. 5, 47, 373 276-7, 370 Marantz, A.6, 370 Peregrin, J. 373 Marty, Α. 5, 370 Pesetsky, D. 183, 212 Materna, P. 9, 370 Petkevic, V. 18, 79, 267-8, 321, 323, Mathesius, V. 5, 35, 39, 44, 91, 108, 127, 328, 340-1,344, 351,373 363, 370 Petrie, H. L. 12, 148, 373 May, R. 296, 371 Pfeiffer, O. 16, 77-8, 373 McCawley, J. 371 Pinkal,M. 310-1,373 McClashan, S. 361 Pifha, P. 373 McCloskey, J. 274, 361 Pritchett, B. 373 McConnell-Ginet, S. 371 Progovac, L. 368 Mclnnes, F. R. 371 Pullum, G. 364 Meibauer, J. 198, 371

382

Index of authors

Quakenbush, S. 5,40, 373 Quirk, R. 108, 132, 146-7, 260

Sornicola, R. 5, 16, 42-3, 375 Spaeth, A. 376 Speas, M. 6, 287, 376 Stamenov, M. 376 Ramat, P. 85, 154, 373 Starke, M. 376 Rappaport, Hovav M. 370 Starosta, S. 5, 43, 59, 376 Reinhart, Τ. 6, 248-9, 252-3, 255, Steedman, M. 296, 376 258-260, 264, 277, 280, 282, Steinitz, R. 376 287-8, 291, 308-9, 374 Steube, A. 376 Reis, Μ. 195-8, 228-9, 374 Sticha, F. 5, 60, 376 Rizzi, L. 6, 173-5, 185, 207-210, 214, Stirling, L. 376 237, 280 Rochemont, Μ. 5, 12, 31-3, 87, 89, 170, Stokhof, Μ. B. J. 310, 364-5 187-8, 251,255,258, 280, 364, Stucky, S. 376 365, 368, 373, 374 Svartvik, J. 10, 108, 113, 379, 376 Roelle, L. 365 Svoboda, A. 5, 16,44, 60, 326, 376 Romero, Μ. 224, 228, 294, 297-8, 374 Rooryck, J. 189-190, 193, 209-210, 216, Tesniere, L. 17, 326 Thompson, S. 5, 359, 370 280 Rooth, Μ. 158, 294, 298-9, 314-5, 374 Toman, J. 376 Rosengren, I. 198 Tomioka, S. 167, 294, 300-1, 303, 377 Ross, J. 280, 374 Rothacker, Ε. 374 Uhlirovä, L.5, 60, 96, 113, 377 Rude, Ν. 374 Ullman, Μ. E. 377 Rüzicka, R. 275, 374 Uriagereka,60, 87, 170-1, 179, 202, 232, 235-8, 241, 245, 269 Saddy, D. 207, 374 Uszkoreit, H.5, 21, 47-8, 378, 377 Safir, K. 277, 359-360, 362, 369, 374 Sag, I. 5, 66, 90, 364, 375 Van Valin, R. D. 66, 271 Saito, M. 6-7, 87-9, 170, 179-183, 202, Vallduvi, E. 4-5,18, 29 45-6, 56, 83, 89, 212-3, 221,232, 369 132, 176, 322, 363, 377 Sanford, A. 119, 310, 312, 364, 369 Valois, D. 158, 367 Scheller, A. 5, 375 Vennemann, Τ. 44 Schnelle, Η. 3, 4, 360, 375 Veselovskä, L. 180, 377 Schwarz, Μ. 310, 319, 375 Vlk, Τ. 9, 377 Seuren, P. 159 Sgall, P. 3, 5-7, 16-7, 23,40, 56, 66, Wackernagel, J. 35,42, 99, 105 79-80, 113, 126-7, 132, 155, Wales, Κ. 377 159, 227, 322-8, 366, 370, 375 Warner, A. K. 377 Shockey, L. 375 Wasow, T. 381 Sidner, C. 119, 365 Webelhuth, G. 6, 360, 370, 377 Siewierska, A. 5, 16, 38, 41-2, 65, 83, Weil, H. 5, 377 375 Weinberg, A. 357,368 Smilauer, V. 375

Index of authors

Westergaard, Μ. 251, 259, 261-4, 280-1, 287-8, 377 White, L. 378 Winter, W. 65, 75, 78,95-6, 102, 104, 106, 144, 164, 167, 194, 196-8, 201, 213-5, 219, 222, 229, 233, 236-9, 242, 257, 267, 276, 285-6, 289, 303 Wilks, Y. 2-5, 360, 378 Yamaguchi, K. 378

Yokoyama, O. 5, 60. 378 Zemb, J. M. 378 Zerbst, D. 47, 378 Zimovä, L. 60, 305, 378 Zubizaretta, M. L. 378 Zwarts, F. 150, 378 Zwicky, A. 5, 96, 107, 322, 365, 378

383

Subject index (The numbers refer to chapters and sections.) accent (see also intonation, stress) 2.2.1.1, 2.4.1.3, 4.4.1, 5.6 acceptability 1, 4.2.1.3, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5.2, 5.1, 5.3, 5.4 accessibility hierarchy 4.3.4 accessibility, of the topic 2.4.1.1 activation 2.3.3.1 actor 2.4.1.5 acquisition 4.2.1.8 A'-dependency 4.2.1 adjunction 2.2.1 address-based dependency 4.2.1.7 addressee 2.4.1.5 adverbial modification (verb-phrasal vs. sentential) 5.2, 5.4.4 affect alpha 4.2.1.6 agreement 6.4 allegation 3.6.3 alternative values 3.2.1, 3.2.2 ambiguity 5.5, 5.6 anaphora (anaphoric reference) Ch. 5 (passim) anaphoric expressions 5.1, 5.6 apposition 2.4.2.2, 6.4 argumental, syntactic relation 4.2.1.7, 4.2.1.1, 4.3.4 attitude: the adverbial modification Attitude of 3.1, 3.3.1, 6.5 verbs of propositional attitudes 4.3.4 autonomy of linguistics 1 autosemantic word 6.3 auxiliary verb 2.5, 6.3

benefit, adverbial modification of 2.4.1.5, 5.4.1 binding 2.4.2.2, 4.2.1 passim, esp. 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.3, 5.2.6 blocking 4.2.1.3, 4.2.1.4 bounding, semantic 2.2.2.10 bridge verbs 4.2.1.8, 4.3.5

case frame, of verbs 2.1, 2.4.1.5 case shift 2.1, 6.2 Catalan 2.2.3.1 categorial index 4.2.1.7 cause, adverbial modification of 2.4.1.5, 4.3.4 c-command 2.2.1.4, 4.2.1.7, 5.2.2, 5.2.7, 5.6.2 c-construable 2.2.1.5 center, of attention and of prominence 2.2.2.11 chain 4.2.1.5 Chinese 5.2.5 Chomsky: the Chomsky an paradigm in linguistics 1, 2.2.1, 4.2.1, 5.2.6, 5.2.7 class, nonnatural 6.2 clitics, as segmentators 2.2.1.3, 2.2.2.1, 2.5 clitic climbing 2.4.4.2 clitic left dislocation 4.2.1.4 cognitive commitment 1 cognitive content 1 cognitive linguistics 1 communicative dynamism 2.2.2.1, balance, of the principle of economy and 2.2.2.5, 2.4.2.2 communicative importance Ch. 2 passim, explicitness 5.6.2 esp. 2.3.1, 2.4.1.1, 6.4 barrier 4.2.1, 5.2.6

386

Subject index

communicative information Ch. 2 passim, esp. 2.3.1, 2.4.1.1, 6.1, 6.3 COMP 4.2.1 configurational languages Ch. 2 (passim), esp. 2.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.2.1 conjunctions, as focalizers 3.5 connectors, sentential 3.5 constituency 1, 3.2.2 constraints on wh-extraction 4.2, 4.3 contacting function, of scoping expressions 2.1, 3.5 containment, as scoping relation 3.6.6 context, improving of unacceptability by context 4.3, 5.3 Contrastive Topic 2.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.1.3, 2.5, 5.5, 5.6 control 5.2.4 coordination 2.4.2.2, 4.3.2, 4.5.2, 5.1, 6.3 coreference, pragmatic 5.2.2 coreferentiality 5.2.5, 5.6.2.2 cross-categorization of empty categories and pronouns 4.5 c-selection 4.2.1.4 Czech 2.4, 2.5, 3.5, 3.6.2.1, 4.3.3, 5.6.1, 6.3 deep word-order Ch. 1 (passim), Ch. 2 (passim), Ch. 4 (passim) fixed deep word-order 2.3.3.1, 2.4.1 free deep word-order 2.3.3.2, 2.4.2 deletion 6.4 delimiting features 6.3 dependency 1, 6.2 dependency, unbounded 4.2.1.7 diatheme 2.2.2.14 directional adverbial modifications 2.4.1.5 directly interrogative wh-elements 4.4.2, 4.4.3 discontinuous Focus 6.2 disjunct, attitudinal 3.2.3.10, 3.5

Discourse-linking 4.2.1.1 echo-questions 3.6.5.3, 4.2.2.2.1, 4.4.4 economy, principle of 5.1, 5.6.2.1 effability (expressibility) of natural language 4.3.1 ellipsis 3.6.6, 5.5 empty categories 4.5 empty-category principle 4.2.1 (passim), esp. 4.2.1.3, 4.2.1.6, 4.2.1.7 entropy 2.3.2 epsilon operator 5.6.2 error, woord-order 2.6 expansion, recursive 1, 6.3 explicitness, principle of 5.1, 5.6.2.1 extraposition 2.4.1.3, 2.4.4.2 extraction Ch. 4 passim, esp. 4.3 factive island 4.2.1.9, 4.3.5 features and values 6.3 fixed word-order 2.3.2, 2.4.1, 2.4.3 focalization 2.4.4 focalizers 3.2.3.4, 3.5, 5.3 focalizing scoping expressions Ch. 3 (passim) Focus Ch. 2 (passim), Ch. 4 (passim), 5.5, 5.6, 6.2 Focus slot 2.4.3 focus, Cinque 4.2.1.4 focus of focalizers 3.2.3.4 Fokus, Jacobs 3.2.1 forking dependency 4.2.1.7 form - function, dichotomy of 6.1 free adverbial modification 2.4.1.2, 3.3, 6.2

free distribution of syntactic relations into Topic and Focus 2.4.2.1 free word-order 2.3.2, 2.4.2, 2.4.4, 2.4.5 French 2.7, 3.2.3.7, 3.6.2.3 Functional Generative Description 1, 2.2.2.10, 6.2

Functional Grammar 2.2.2.4

Subject index

387

inner participant 6.3 functional heads 6.2 Functional Sentence Perspective 2.2.2.5 Integrational Linguistics 1 interjections 3.5 intonation 2.3.3.3, 2.3.3.4, 2.4.1.3, gapping 5.5 2.6, 3.2.2, 4.2.1.4, 4.2.2.1.1, generalized binding 5.2.6 4.4.1, 5.2.2 generalized control 5.2.7 intracluster scoping interpretation generative rules of Word-Order Based Grammar 6.3 3.3.2.7 generic NPs, extraction of 4.2.2.1.1 irregularity, communicative 2.3.2 German 2.2.3.2, 2.3.3.2, 2.3.3.4, islands Ch. 4 (passim), esp. 4.2.1.9, 4.3 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3, 2.4.2.2, 2.4.3, Italian 4.2.1.3, 4.2.1.4 2.5, 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.2.4, Japanese 2.4.3, 4.2.1.1, 5.5 3.6.5.2, 4.2.2 government 4.2.1 (passim), esp. 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.3, 4.2.1.6, 4.2.1.7, 5.2.6 layers of types of anaphoric expressions grammatical function 5.2.4 5.1, 5.6.2 Greenbergian universale 2.2.2.10, Learnable Phrase Structure Grammar 2.3.3.3, 2.4.3 4.2.1.8 left dislocation 2.4.4.1, 4.2.1.4 head 2.2.1.4, 2.4.1.4, 6.2 leftward shifts 2.2.1.3, 2.3.3.5, 2.4.5, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar 3.4 1, 2.2.2.1, 2.2.3.1 level 6.3 heaviness 2.2.1.4, 2.2.1.5, 2.2.2.10, Lexical Functional Gramar 5.2.4 2.2.3.2, 2.4.2 lexical valency, the principle of 1 Hebrew 4.5.2 Linear Correspondence Axiom 2.2.1.4 hesitation pauses 3.5 linearity, temporal, of verbal communihierarchical scoping interpretation 3.3.2 cation 2.1 hierarchy of anaphoric expressions local adverbial modification 2.4.1.5, 5.6.2.3 5.4.4 Hindi 4.2.1.2 Locality 4.2.1.7 Hintergrund 3.2.2 logophoricity 5.6 host quantifier 5.6.2 Hungarian 2.4.3 meaning, sentential 2.1 Minimality 4.2.1.3, 4.2.1.4 modifier 2.4.1.4 iconicity 2.2.2.10 monostratality, of linguistic description imposition 2.4.1.3 6.1 indirectly interrogative wh-expressions Move alpha 4.2.1.6 4.4.2, 4.4.3 movement 2.2.1, Ch. 4 (passim), esp. INFL 4.2.1, 5.2.6 4.4 information packaging 2.2.3.1 inheritance, of focus 2.2.1.5, 2.4.2.1 multiple occurrence of scoping expresinnateness 1 sions with the hierarchical scope interpretation 3.3.1 inner island 4.2.1.9, 4.3.5

388

Subject index

multiple occurrence of syntactic relations prominence 2.2.2.11 2.4.1.2 pronominal anaphoric reference 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 multiple wh-questions 4.4.2 pronouns, personal, as anaphoric expresnegation 2.4.3, 3.2.2, 3.2.3.5, 3.2.3.8, sions 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.8, 3.5, prototype modeling 1 pulsating character of word-order 1, 2.1, 3.6.2, 4.2.1.4, 4.2.2.1.1, 4.2.2.1.2 2.4.5, 2.5, 2.6 net-theoretical linguistics 1 pushdown store generator 6.3 neutral ordering, of syntactic relations 2.4.1.5, 2.4.2.2, 5.4 quantified NP 5.2.2, 5.4.3 New Structuralism 1 quantifier 2.4.2.2, 3.1, 3.6.5, 4.2.1.4, nominals 4.5, 5.2.6 5.5.1, 5.5.2 nonconfigurational languages Ch. 2 (passim), esp. 2.1, 2.3.1, raising 2.4.4.2, 5.2.4 2.4.2.1, 3.2.2 recursive expansion, the principle of 1, Noncontrastive Topic 2.1, 2.4.1.3, 2.5, 6.1, 6.4 5.5 reduction, anaphoric (as opposed to ellipnonnatural class 6.2 sis) 3.6.6, 5.5, 5.6.2 non-wh-elements of the Focus 2.4.1.1, redundancy, in ellipsis and in reduction 4.4.2, 4.4.3 5.5 nuclear scope 3.2.3.9 referential specificity 4.2.1.8, 5.6.2 referential syntactic relation 4.2.1.3, 4.2.1.4 obligatoriness, of syntactic relations 6.3 operator 3.5, 3.2.3.9 reflexive pronouns 5.1, 5.2., 5.4, 5.6.2 regularity, communicative, the principle parasitic gap 4.2.1.4, 4.2.1.6, 4.2.1.7, of 2.3.2 4.5 (passim), esp. 4.5.3 relativized minimality 4.2.1.3 relaxations of fixed word-order 2.4.2.2, parenthesis 2.4.2.2, 3.4 2.4.4, 2.4.5 particles, communicative 3.2.3.5, 3.5 renaming (anaphoric) 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.3 particles, verbal 2.4.4.3 restrictive adjunct 2.4.1.5 percolation, of index 4.2.1.7 restrictor 3.2.3.9 piecemeal character of conveying new resumptive pronouns 4.5.1, 4.5.4 information 2.1 rheme: see Focus pragmatic operator 3.2.3.1 rightward movement 2.4.4, 3.4 pragmatics Ch. 5 (passim) Russian 2.5, 2.6, 3.5, 5.6.1 precede-and-command 5.2.1 presupposition accommodation 3.6.4.2 scale of referential specificity 4.2.1.8 primacy and recency effect 2.4.1.3 scope (of focalizing scoping expressions) pro, PRO 4.5.1, 4.5.4, 5.2.6, 5.2.7, 2.1, Ch. 3 (passim), esp. 3.3 5.6.1 scope, relative, of quantifiers 3.6.5, 6.2 processing 2.4.3 scope of wh-expressions 4.4.2 processing complexity 4.2.1.7, 4.3

Subject index

scope-ambiguous and scopeunambiguous surface positions 3.4 scrambling 2.2.1.1, 2.2.1.2 segmentation, of the sentence 2.1, 2.2.2.1, 2.5, 2.7, 3.5 semantic range (Jacobs) 3.2.2 sentence adverbials 3.5 shift (movement) 2.4.4, 2.4.5 sloppy reading 5.2.2, 5.5, 5.6.2 sluicing 5.5.1 spotlight 2.2.2.12 stress 3.6.5.3, 5.6.1, see also accent and intonation stylistic inversion 2.2.1.5, 2.4.4.1 subjacency 4.2.1.4, 4.2.1.6, 4.2.1.7 subject 5.6, 6.3 SUBJECT 5.2.6 subjecthood 6.3 subsystems in the neutral ordering of syntactic relations 2.1, 2.4.1 surface positions 6.3 surface word-order fixed surface word-order 2.3.3.3, 2.4.3 free surface word-order corresponding to deep word-order 2.3.3.4, 2.4.4 free surface word-order not coresponding to deep word-order 2.3.3.5, 2.4.5 surface position 6.3 surface word 6.3 synergetic character of natural language 2.1, 2.3.2, 5.1 syntactic accent 3.2.3.8 syntactic range (Jacobs) 3.2.2 syntactic relations 2.4.1.5, 6.3 syntactically (and communicatively) fullfledged vs. non-fullfledged expressions 4.5

389

tail 2.2.2.4, 2.2.2.12, 2.2.3.1 temporal linearity of verbal communication 2.1 theme 2.2.2.4, 2.2.2.5, 5.2.3 theta roles 4.2.1.3, 5.2.6 Topic: see also Focus (Ch. 2 (passim), Ch. 4 (passim), 6.2) Topic-Focus dichotomy 6.2 topicalization 2.2.1.7, 2.4.4.1, 4.2.1.6 Toura 2.4.3 trace 4.5 (passim), esp. 4.5.4 transition (Firbas) 2.2.2.5 Turkish 2.4.3 typology of word-order 2.6 universale of word-order 2.6 valency frames 2.1, 2.4.1 verb, its position in the communicativeinformation structure 2.4.2.1, 6.2

verb, as a type of syntactic relation 2.4.1.5 verb, as a segmentator 2.2.2.1, 2.5 verbal particles 2.4.4.3 vocative (as scoping expression) 3.5 West Flemish 2.2.1.3, 3.2.3.3 wh-expressions Ch. 4 (passim) wh-extraction Ch. 4 (passim) word-order Ch. 2 (passim) X-bar theory 6.2 zero anaphoric expression (zero form) 5.1, 5.2.5, 5.6.1

Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs Edited by Werner Winter Mouton de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 81 Linguistic Change under Contact Conditions. Edited by Jacek Fisiak. 1995. 82 Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World. Edited by John R. Taylor and Robert E. MacLaury. 1995. 83 Insights in Germanic Linguistics I: Methodology in Transition. Edited by Irmengard Rauch and Gerald F. Carr. 1995. 84 Meaning as Explanation. Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory. Edited by Ellen Contini-Morava and Barbara S. Goldberg. 1995. 85 Autolexical Theory. Ideas and Methods. Edited by Eric Schiller, Elisa Steinberg and Barbara Need. 1996. 86 Creole Languages and Language Acquisition. Edited by Herman Wekker. 1996. 87 Peter Harder, Functional Semantics. A Theory of Meaning, Structure and Tense in English. 1996. 88 Language Contact in the Arctic. Northern Pidgins and Contact Languages. Edited by Ernst Häkon Jahr and Ingvild Broch. 1996. 89 A Bibliography on Writing and Written Language. Edited by Konrad Ehlich, Florian Coulmas and Gabriele Graefen. Compiled by Gabriele Graefen and Carl W. Wendland, in collaboration with Georg F. Meier and Reinhard Wenk. 1996. 90 Historical, Indo-European, and Lexicographical Studies. A Festschrift for Ladislav Zgusta on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Edited by Hans H. Hock. 1997. 91 Henning Andersen, Reconstructing Prehistorical Dialects. Initial Vowels in Slavic and Baltic. 1996. 92 Natural Phonology. The State of the Art. Edited by Bernhard Hurch and Richard A. Rhodes. 1996. 93 Hans H. Hock and Brian D. Joseph, Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. 1996. 94 Insights in Germanic Linguistics II: Classic and Contemporary. Edited by Irmengard Rauch and Gerald F. Carr. 1997. 95 Seiichi Suzuki, The Metrical Organization of Beowulf. Prototype and Isomorphism. 1996. 96 Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology. Edited by Jacek Fisiak. 1997. 97 Advances in Morphology. Edited by Wolfgang U. Dressier, Martin Prinzhorn and John R. Rennison. 1997.

98 Language Change and Functional Explanations. Edited by Jadranka Gvozdanovic. 1997. 99 Modality in Germanic Languages. Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Edited by Toril Swan and Olaf J. Westvik. 1997. 100 Language and its Ecology. Essays in Memory of Einar Haugen. Edited by Stig Eliasson and Ernst Häkon Jahr. 1997. 101 Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday. Edited by Raymond Hickey and Stanislaw Puppel. 1997. 102 Robert S. Bauer and Paul K. Benedict, Modern Cantonese Phonology. 1997. 103 Studies in Middle English Linguistics. Edited by Jacek Fisiak. 1997. 104 Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse. Edited by Anna Duszak. 1997. 105 New Approaches to Chinese Word Formation. Morphology, Phonology and the Lexicon in Modern and Ancient Chinese. Edited by Jerome L. Packard. 1997. 106 Codeswitching Worldwide. Edited by Rodolfo Jacobson. 1997. 107 Salish Languages and Linguistics. Edited by Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins and M. Dale Kinkade. 1997. 108 The Life of Language. Papers in Linguistics in Honor of William Bright. Edited by Jane H. Hill, P. J. Mistry and Lyle Campbell. 1997. 109 English Historical Linguistics and Philology in Japan. Edited by Jacek Fisiak and Akio Oizumi. 1998. 110 Marta Harasowska, Morphophonemic Variability, Productivity, and Change. The Case ofRusyn. 1998. 111 James Dickins, Extended Axiomatic Linguistics. 1998. 112 Advances in English Historical Linguistics. Edited by Jacek Fisiak and Marcin Krygier. 1998. 113 Fragments of the Tocharian Α Maitreyasamiti-Nätaka of the Xinjiang Museum, China. Transliterated, translated and annotated by Ji Xianlin, in collaboration with Werner Winter and Georges-Jean Pinault. 1998. 114 Language Change. Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics. Edited by Ernst HakonJahr. 1998. 115 Jacob L. Mey, When Voices Clash. A Study in Literary Pragmatics. 1998. 116 Productivity and Creativity. Studies in General and Descriptive Linguistics in Honor of Ε. M. Uhlenbeck. Edited by Mark Janse with the assistance of An Verlinden. 117 Philip Baldi, The Foundations of Latin. 1998. 118 Numeral Types and Changes Worldwide. Edited by Jadranka Gvozdanovic. 1999. 119 Birgit Anette Olsen, The Noun in Biblical Armenian. Origin and Word Formation - with special emphasis on the Indo-European heritage. 1999. 120 Bob Morris Jones, The Welsh Answering System. 1999. 121 Eva Koktova, Word-Order Based Grammar. 1999.