The place of object positions in discourse Patricia Irwin, Swarthmore College [email protected]

Princeton Symposium on Syntactic Theory (PSST) April 6, 2018 1 1.1

Introduction Discourse referent establishment

Objects of transitives and pivots on existential sentences establish discourse referents (dRefs) with little extra context needed: (1)

Transitive direct object The princess kissed a unicorn at the Renaissance fair. It was sparkling white.

(2)

Pivot of there BE sentence There was a unicorn at the Renaissance fair. It was sparkling white.

Negation (and factors like modality) prevent (or complicate) the establishment of dRefs Karttunen (1976): (3)

Negation and dRef establishment The princess did not kiss a unicorn at the Renaissance fair. #It was sparkling white.

But what about subjects? (4)

Transitive subject a. A frog kissed the princess. b. . . . ??It was green and covered with warts. c. . . . It was a frightening sight.

(5)

Intransitive subject: unergative a. A unicorn whinnied. b. . . . ??It was sparkling white.

(6)

Intransitive subject: unaccusative a. A unicorn arrived. b. . . . It was sparkling white.

More intransitive subjects: (7)

a. b.

A unicorn trotted up. It was sparkling white. A unicorn walked in. It was sparkling white. 1

Irwin

PSST, Princeton, April 6, 2018

Not all sentences with indefinite subjects establish dRefs with the same facility. What is the source of the contrast between (5), (6), and (7) . . . ? (8)

i. ii. iii. iv.

Syntax? Semantics? Verb meaning? Pragmatics—context?

⇒ My answer: Yes!

1.2

Focus for this talk

Structure and meaning of sentences like (7), and those in (9): (9)

Existential unaccusative sentences a. A lady waltzed in. b. A cab pulled up. c. A clown came over. d. A little boy darted out.

Analysis explains an array of facts about the syntax and discourse function of sentences like these and others that I analyze as existential unaccusative sentences. (10)

2

Roadmap i. Introduction ii. Background: Unaccusative structures iii. The role of structure: PP extraposition iv. The role of verb meaning: Roots iv. Conclusion

Unaccusative structures

2.1 (11)

Background: ways of being unaccusative Structural definition of unaccusativity (Embick 2004; Irwin 2012) • no external argument • vP-internal argument requiring structural case

There’s more than one way for a sentence to be unaccusative (Kural 2002; Harves 2002; Deal 2009; Irwin 2012). (12)

Two broad, semantically-based classes of unaccusative verbs • change-of-state: e.g., break, freeze, melt • appearance, existence, motion: e.g., arrive, appear, come

(13)

Irwin (2012): Two unaccusative structures 2

Irwin

PSST, Princeton, April 6, 2018

i. ii. (14) A.

simple complement, associated with change-of-state predicates SC complement: associated with appearance, existence, motion predicates

Two unaccusative structures (Irwin 2012; Irwin 2018) Simple complement structure

B.

SC complement structure

vP v

vP DP

v

PredP Pred0

PathP Path

...

Predexist

DP

English “unaccusativity mismatches” pick out different structures (Table 1):

break-type arrive-type

causative-inchoative alternation X

there-insertion X

Table 1: Two types of unaccusatives (15)

Causative-inchoative alternation: break a. The kids broke the vase. b. The vase broke.

(16)

Causative-inchoative alternation: arrive a. A bunch of boisterous kids arrived. b. *The bus arrived a boisterous bunch of kids.

(17)

there-insertion: arrive a. A bunch of boisterous kids arrived. b. There arrived a bunch of boisterous kids.

(18)

there-insertion: break a. The vase broke. b. *There broke a beautiful vase.

Focus for the rest of the talk: the SC structure in (14)B—what I call the existential unaccusative structure.

3

Irwin

2.2

PSST, Princeton, April 6, 2018

The existential unaccusative structure

Analysis from Irwin (2018): the structure of arrive-type unaccusatives shares some structure and meaning with existential sentences. This includes “verbs” like come over, dance in, walk up, etc. (Hoekstra and Mulder, 1990).1 (19)

Syntactically: unaccusative (single direct argument, vP-internal)

(20)

Semantically: contains an existential proposition (Irwin, 2016, 2018) – denotation contains an implicit, contextually-determined spatio-temporal element (Francez 2007; McCloskey 2014): PlaceP (informally “here”)

(21)

Discourse function: establishes (or re-establishes) a discourse referent for subsequent reference (“presentation”) by means of Instantiate (McNally 1992, 1997; McCloskey 2014)

(22)

Existential unaccusative structure: A lady waltzed in vP v waltz

PredP PathP

Pred0

Path PlaceP Predexist DP in here instantiate a lady The denotation of SC/PredP head in (22) builds on McCloskey’s (2014) analysis of Irish existentials.2 (23)

Denotation of the English existential predicate head J Predexist K = ńP ńLOC ńe [ instantiate (∩ ńx [ P(x) & LOC(x, e) ]) ]

(24)

Schematic analysis: a fancy lady waltzed in A fancy lady [vP waltzed [PredP [in here ] ] ]

(25)

The meaning of a fancy lady waltzed in, informally paraphrased: There’s a waltzing event extending along the path “in,” in which a fancy lady is a participant and that ends at a contextually-determined location with an

1

See also Moro’s (1997) discussion of arrivare ‘arrive’ in Italian (Moro, 1997: 232). McCloskey’s denotation of the Irish existential predicate ann ‘in it’ (akin to Predexist in the current analysis) informally put: “the property that a property has when it is instantiated by some individual x located at a contextually defined spatio-temporal location” (McCloskey, 2014: 36). 2

4

Irwin

PSST, Princeton, April 6, 2018

instantiation of a fancy lady. 2.3

Some consequences of the structure

2.3.1

Discourse

(26)

Existential unaccusative: XdRef A unicorn walked in. It was sparkling white.

(27)

Unergative: ??dRef A unicorn whinnied. ??It was sparkling white. (cf.: It was a magical sound.)

(28)

Change-of-state unaccusative: break ??dRef A stick broke. ??It was from a maple tree. (cf.: It made a loud crack)

(29)

Change-of-state unaccusative: freeze ??dRef A lake froze. ??It was filled with boats. (cf.: It was late in winter.)

2.3.2

Prosody

(30)

Existential unaccusatives: stress pattern associated with unaccusatives (Zubizarreta and Vergnaud 2006; Kahnemuyipour 2009, 2004; Kratzer and Selkirk 2007; Irwin 2011, 2012) a. A UNICORN came in. b. A LADY waltzed up. c. A little BOY darted out. d. A CLOWN came over.

2.3.3

Argument structure

Sentences like (31) are not “unaccusativity mismatches” after all—just as Hoekstra and Mulder (1990) showed for Dutch. (31)

3 3.1

there-sentences with “unergative” verbs a. There darted into the room a little boy. b. There walked into the bedroom a unicorn.

(Levin, 1993: 89)) (Milsark, 1974: 244)

Syntax: PP extraposition and existential unaccusativity Subject/complement extraction asymmetries

Complement/non-complement extraction asymmetries go way back (Ross 1967; Chomsky 1973; Huang 1982): compared to extraction from objects, extraction from subjects is degraded. 5

Irwin

(32)

•

3.2

PSST, Princeton, April 6, 2018

Complement/non-complement extraction (Chomsky, 2008: 147) a. Of which car did [they find the (driver, picture)]? b. *Of which car did [the (driver, picture) cause a scandal]? Asymmetries supported by experimental work on German, English, and other languages Jurka (2010) PP extraposition from existential unaccusative “subjects”

Structural explanation for asymmetries in PP extraposition.3 (33)

Subject PP extraposition: bad (Guéron, 1980: 637) a. A man with green eyes hit Bill. b. #A man hit Bill with green eyes.

(no extraposition) (PP extraposed)

(34)

Subject PP extraposition: OK a. A man walked in from India. b. A train chugged past with many passengers. c. A bird darted by with golden wings.

(35)

PP extraposition from existential unaccusative subject: OK a. A lady with auburn hair waltzed in. b. A lady waltzed in with auburn hair.

(no extraposition) (PP extraposed)

PP extraposition from unergative subject: bad a. A lady with auburn hair waltzed gracefully. b. ??A lady waltzed with auburn hair (gracefully). c. ??A lady waltzed (gracefully) with auburn hair.

(no extraposition) (PP extraposed) (PP extraposed)

(36)

(Guéron, 1980: 653, ex.56,a-c)

(37)

Claim from Guéron (1980): Presentation LF PP extraposition is acceptable only when the sentence was interpreted as conveying “the appearance of the subject in the world of the discourse” (Guéron, 1980: 653)—by means of her Presentation LF.

(38)

Claim from existential unaccusativity PP extraposition is relatively acceptable in these sentences because it is extraction from a complement—the complement of the Predexist head.

⇒ The existential unaccusative analysis gives us a syntactic understanding of the PP extraposition data. (39) 3

Schematic analysis: a lady waltzed in with auburn hair A fancy lady [vP waltzed [PredP [in here ] ] ]

Thanks to an anonymous Glossa reviewer for telling me to make this point loud and clear.

6

Irwin

PSST, Princeton, April 6, 2018

(40)

At least two technical ways this might happen—but in either case, extraction is from complement of Pred i. PP extraposition as stranding: a lady moves from complement of the Predexist head, stranding the PP, as in (41) ii.

Postposing of PP followed by remnant movement: the PP postposes from the complement of Predexist , and then the lady... moves, as in (42)

(41)

PP extraposition as stranding a. [vP waltzed [PredP in [a lady] [with auburn hair] ] ] b. [a lady] [vP waltzed [PredP in [ with auburn hair ] ] ]

(42)

Postposing of PP followed by remnant movement a. [vP waltzed [PredP in [a lady] [with auburn hair] ] ] b. [vP waltzed [ in [a lady] ] ] [with auburn hair] c. [a lady t ] [vP waltzed [PredP in ] [with auburn hair]

PP extraposition and there sentences PP extraposition is acceptable from what Guéron calls TI-1 (there be sentences), as well as TI-2 (“presentational there”) sentences (43)

(44)

4

TI-1: PP extraposition acceptable a. There was a mouse with cute ears in the corner. b. There was a mouse in the corner with cute ears.

(no extraposition) (PP extraposed)

TI-2: PP extraposition acceptable a. There danced into the room a lady with auburn hair yesterday. (no extrapos.) b. There danced into the room a lady yesterday with auburn hair. (PP extrapos.)

The role of verb meaning: syntax, roots, and discourse

⇒ To what extent does the verb matter for the existential unaccusative structure? (45)

Verbs in the existential unaccusative sentences we have seen so far—activity verbs (typically unergative) ⇒ waltz, dance, chug, dart, run, . . .

(46)

None of verbs in the the relevant PP extraposition sentences “mean” appearance Guéron (1980): these sentences convey “appearance on the scene” even though the verbs are not synonymous with appear (47):

(47)

Presentation sentences: verbs not synonymous with appear (Guéron, 1980: 653, ex.56,a-c) 7

Irwin

PSST, Princeton, April 6, 2018

a. b. c. (48)

A man walked in from India. A train chugged past with many passengers. A bird darted by with golden wings.

It is “not possible to state lexical constraints on PP Extraposition”—conclusion from Guéron (1980: 663): • Similar observations occur in the literature on existentials4

⇒ These observations are strikingly contemporary! • Compatible with recent, root-based approaches to argument structure: syntactic structure as a crucial contributor to vP meaning • A variety of positions on the contribution of root meaning to structure: from no semantic contribution (Marantz 1997; Borer 2005; Mateu 2002), to those in which roots have low-level semantic types (e.g., Embick 2009; Levinson 2007, 2010 Levinson 2010—to name a few). We can use the existential unaccusative structure as a way of probing the interaction between the semantic content of the root (if there is any semantic content—this is subject to debate) interacts with interpreted syntactic structure. 4.1

Meaning in the existential unaccusative structure

Some technical assumptions about structures and meanings: (49)

Roots are merged as adjuncts/modifiers of little-v (Marantz, 2009b, 2013) • The root contributes semantic/encyclopedic information—manner by which change of state/location (coming into existence in the discourse center) has come about

(50)

The direct argument to a “verb” (the v + root complex) is interpreted as a caused change of state (Marantz 2009a; Wood 2012, 2015) • The eventive v head and the SC/PredP structure itself yield an interpretation of (caused) change of location or state – coming-into-existence and change-of-location are two types of change of state

(51)

A little boy danced in

4

This observation is reminiscent of conclusions from Partee and Borschev’s line of research on existential sentences: “the verbs that may occur in existential sentences are an open class; some are independently characterizable as existential or perceptual, and others may undergo ‘semantic bleaching”’ (Partee et al., 2011: 138).

8

Irwin

PSST, Princeton, April 6, 2018

vP

v

√

PredP

dance

Pred0

PathP Path in

PlaceP

Predexist

here

DP a little boy

Repeat of the paraphrase from (25), this time with a little boy danced in: (52)

The meaning of a little boy danced in, informally paraphrased There’s a dancing event extending along the path “in,” in which a little boy is a participant and that ends at a contextually-determined location with an instantiation of a little boy.

(53)

4.2

The little boy dances, but this sentence/structure is underspecified a. Scenario 1: dancing is what propels the little boy into the room b. Scenario 2: the boy enters the room, dancing, on a cart pulled by his older sister (judgments on this vary) Pushing the structure and meaning: smile, burp, bark

Can other, typically unergative roots occur in the existential unaccusative structure? dance, smile, burp, bark (54)

Existential unaccusative sentences: dance, smile, burp, bark a. A little boy danced in. b. ??A little boy smiled in. c. ?A little boy burped in. d. ?A little dog barked in.

⇒ Big differences in acceptability/required context 4.2.1

From root content to root context

Take a step back from existential unaccusatives to look at directed motion sentences: (55)

Directed a. The b. The c. The d. The

motion sentences: dance, smile, burp, bark little boy danced into the room. little boy smiled into the room. little boy burped into the room. little dog barked into the room.

9

Irwin

PSST, Princeton, April 6, 2018

⇒ There are differences in interpretation with respect what happens to the puppy or little boy’s body. dance In all scenarios, the boy’s body ends up in the room: (56)

The little boy danced into the room. the boy entered the room

(57)

The boy danced into the room, #but he didn’t go in.

(58)

The boy danced into the room, #but he only stuck his hand in.

smile In all scenarios, the boy’s body does not end up in the room: (59)

The little boy smiled into the room. the boy did NOT enter the room–he turned his face in the direction of the room

Sentence (59) has to mean that the boy stayed outside the room: (60)

The boy smiled into the room, #and he stayed there for an hour.

(61)

The boy smiled into the room, Xand then he stuck a foot in.

(62)

The boy smiled into the room, Xand then he walked in.

If roots have no content, why do sentences with dance allow a change of location for the possessor of the (dancing) body (56), but sentences smile do not (59)? burp and bark (63)

The little boy burped into the room. the boy did NOT enter the room but stuck his (burping) head in ?the boy entered the room while burping

(64)

The little puppy barked into the room. the puppy entered the room OR the puppy stayed outside the room

What about the way-construction? (Jackendoff 1990; Marantz 1992; Goldberg 1995; Goldberg and Jackendoff 2004, . . . ) Adding a way or -self NP suddenly yields a change-of-location interpretation with smile, burp, bark (super productive): 10

Irwin

(65)

4.3

PSST, Princeton, April 6, 2018

a. b.

John smiled his way into the room John entered the room John smiled into the room John didn’t enter the room

Back to discourse and existential unaccusatives

The existential unaccusative structure has the discourse function of presenting an entity—conceived as a whole body—for subsequent reference. Contrast in acceptability between dance in (66) and smile in (67): (66)

A little boy danced in. ⇒ easy to construe as “presentational”

(67) ??A little boy smiled in. ⇒ hard to construe as “presentational” (68)

A little boy danced in. He bowed to the parents seated in the audience.

But for smile, without additional context, (67) sounds unacceptable: (69) ??A little boy smiled in. He bowed to all the parents. The syntax can generate (67) and (69), but the root contributes meaning such that we need considerably more context for the sentence to sound acceptable. (70)

Context: A story about a time when I was sitting by the window at a cafe We glanced out the window, and a little boy smiled in. He bowed and then walked away.

4.3.1

Conclusions from these root-structure interactions √ dance implicates a body conceived as a whole ⇒ less context needed for change of location, since the whole body can move

(71) (72)

(73)

√

smile implicates a body part (the face/mouth) ⇒ more context needed for change of location, since the lips/mouth can’t move separately from a body5 √ Existential unaccusative structure with smile requires the most additional context • Discourse function of the structure: present a whole entity for subsequent reference. ⇒ But this meaning needs (is most compatible with) a “whole body” interpretation.

5

Even in a Cheshire cat context, the whole cat’s body undergoes a change in location—it’s not that only the cat’s smile changes location, it’s just that we only see the smile.

11

Irwin

5

PSST, Princeton, April 6, 2018

Conclusion

What is the source of the contrast in dRef establishment between sentences like (74) and those in (75)? (74)

Intransitive subject: unergative A unicorn whinnied. ??It was sparkling white.

(75)

Intransitive subject: existential unaccusative a. A unicorn arrived. It was sparkling white. b. A unicorn trotted up. It was sparkling white.

(76)

i.

Syntax: existential unaccusative in structure; explains PP extraction from the existential unaccusative structure

ii.

Semantics: existential unaccusatives share parts of the denotation of existential there BE sentences

iii. Verb meaning: root content contributes to available interpretations involving movement and body parts vs. wholes iv. Pragmatics—context: verbal root and syntax interact to require more or less context for the “presentational” interpretation

12

Irwin

PSST, Princeton, April 6, 2018

References Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense: Volume I: In Name Only. Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232–286. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Deal, Amy Rose. 2009. The origin and content of expletives: Evidence from “selection”. Syntax 12:285–323. Embick, David. 2004. Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, 137–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Embick, David. 2009. Roots, states, stative passives. Handout of talk presented at Roots, Stuttgart, June 11, 2009. Francez, Itamar. 2007. Existential propositions. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, Adele E, and Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80:532–568. Guéron, Jacqueline. 1980. On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition. Linguistic Inquiry 11:637–678. Harves, Stephanie. 2002. Unaccusative syntax in Russian. Doctoral Dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Hoekstra, Teun, and René Mulder. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7:1–79. Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Irwin, Patricia. 2011. Intransitive sentences, argument structure, and the syntax-prosody interface. In Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), ed. Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer, and Barbara Tomaszewicz, 275–284. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Irwin, Patricia. 2012. Unaccusativity at the interfaces. Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, New York, NY. Irwin, Patricia. 2016. English as a discourse ergative language. Paper presented at the workshop, “Between Existence and Location: Empirical, Formal and Typological Approaches to Existential Constructions” held at the University of Tübingen, Germany, University of Tübingen, Germany. Irwin, Patricia. 2018. Existential unaccusativity and new discourse referents. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1):1–42. Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jurka, Johannes. 2010. The importance of being a complement: CED effects revisited. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD.

13

Irwin

PSST, Princeton, April 6, 2018

Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2004. The syntax of sentential stress. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2009. The syntax of sentential stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents. In Notes from the linguistic underground, ed. James D. McCawley, number 7 in Syntax and Semantics, 363–385. New York, NY: Academic Press. Kratzer, Angelika, and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24:2/3:93–135. Kural, Murat. 2002. A four-way classification of monadic verbs. In Theoretical approaches to universals, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, 139–163. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levinson, Lisa. 2007. The Roots of Verbs. Doctoral Dissertation, New York University. Levinson, Lisa. 2010. Arguments for pseudo-resultative predicates. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28:135–182. Marantz, Alec. 1992. The way construction and the semantics of direct arguments in English: A reply to Jackendoff. In Syntax and the Lexicon. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 26 , ed. E. Wehrli and T. Stowell, 179–188. New York: Academic Press. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, ed. Alexis Dimitriadis et al., volume 4, 201–225. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics. Marantz, Alec. 2009a. Resultatives and re-resultatives: Direct objects may construct events by themselves. Paper presented at PLC. Marantz, Alec. 2009b. Roots, re-, and affected agents: Can roots pull the agent under little v? Paper presented at Roots conference, Stuttgart, June 2009. Marantz, Alec. 2013. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130:152–168. Mateu, Jaume. 2002. Argument structure. relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. Doctoral Dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. McCloskey, James. 2014. Irish existentials in context. Syntax 17:343–384. McNally, Louise. 1992. An interpretation for the English existential construction. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA. McNally, Louise. 1997. A semantics for the English existential construction. New York, NY: Garland. Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Partee, Barbara H., Vladimir Borschev, Elena V. Paducheva, Yakov Testelets, and Igor Yanovich. 2011. Russian genitive of negation alternations: The role of verb semantics. Scando-Slavica 57:135–159.

14

Irwin

PSST, Princeton, April 6, 2018

Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Wood, Jim. 2012. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, New York, NY. Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Switzerland: Springer International. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 2006. Phrasal stress and syntax. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk C. van Riemsdijk, 522–568. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

15