DGfS 2013, University of Potsdam
NP Syntax and Information Structure
March 19, 2013
Predicate Inversion in the Colloquial Slovenian DP:
Information structure and the distribution of the nominal copula TA*
Emily C. Wilson (CUNY Graduate Center)
[email protected]
The Issues
The clitic (ta) in Colloquial Slovenian (CS) has traditionally been called the “adjectival
definite article” (Herrity, 2000). -
Its syntactic distribution within the extended NP is unexpected based on this
description – the Noun Phrases it appears don’t always contain adjectives, and they
are not always definite.
-
Previous analyses of TA as part of the extended AP domain (e.g. Marušič & Žaucer,
2010, Leu, 2010) are problematic, in terms of both the syntactic distribution and
semantic contributions of the clitic.
-
These constructions exhibit reversed information structure in which the adjective or
other modifier is interpreted as old information relative to the noun.
-
In fact, the presence of the clitic often signals contrast rather than (or in addition to)
the old information status of the modifier. We might expect different syntactic
structures to give rise to the different interpretations.
-
When the clitic appears in noun phrases with possessive pronouns there is interspeaker variation in grammaticality judgments of the available word orders and
interpretations.
I will argue that the syntactic and information structural properties of various TAconstructions can be explained in terms of a single, iterable syntactic operation, Predicate
Inversion (Den Dikken 2006). The pure, old information reading of the modifier is the result
of that predicate inverting around an overt noun. Contrast is introduced when there is a silent
pronoun heading the DP-internal predicate.
*
Thanks to Marcel den Dikken and Christina Tortora for helpful discussion and advice on
this project, and to Peter Jurgec, Lanko Marušič and Petra Mišmaš for judgments of the
Colloquial Slovenian.
1
2. Syntactic distribution of TA: This section summarizes the observations of Marušič and Žaucer (2006, 2008, 2010) and
Wilson (to appear).
If no article is present, the default interpretation of a Noun Phrase in CS is definite.
Indefinite NPs are introduced by the article, en, which has morphological agreement for
phi-features and case.
(1)
a. nov avto
the new car
b. en nov avto
a new car
c. en-ega
nov-ega
avt-a
a-M.S.GEN new-M.S.GEN car-M.S.GEN
The particle TA, does not decline. It is optional before an adjective or other modifier in a
definite DP (2a), but cannot appear with an unmodified noun (2b). It can appear inside an
indefinite noun phrase (2c). It quite often appears following a definite pronoun or
demonstrative, and can also be iterated if there are multiple modifiers present (2d). (2)
a. (ta) nov avto
the new car
b. (*ta) avto
the car
c. en (ta) nov avto
a new car
d. (moj/tist)(ta) rdeč (ta) nov avto (my/that) red new car
In addition to occurring with adjectives, TA can license a pre-nominal PP (3a) or (marginally)
relative clause, (3b) both of which would otherwise be obligatorily post-nominal. (3b is from
M&Ž, 2008). (3)
a. una *(ta) za pred hišo pometat metla that TA for in front of the house sweep.INF broom ‘that broom that we use outside'
b ? *(ta) ki je
učiri
padu s
kolesom fant
TA who CL.3S yesterday fell with bike
boy
‘the boy who fell with his bike yesterday’
3. Contrastive vs. ‘type’ reading.
TA-constructions can be divided into two categories, contrastive and non-contrastive.
In many cases a string can be used in either way:
(4)
Koupil sem ta nov avto
bought CL.1s TA new car 'I bought the NEW car (not the OLD one)'
'I bought the new-type car'
Certain types of modifiers, such as pre-posed relative clauses are only possible when
explicitly de-stressed, and these can yield only the 'type' or discourse-anaphoric reading.
(5) ?Dobil
sem nekej ta ki vedno pozen domače naloge oddajo študentov got-PAST CL.1S some TA that always late home exercises give-3PL students-ACC.PL ‘I got some that-always-turn-in-their-homework-late (type) students.’ 2
Adjectives, such as ‘former’ or ‘current’ and classifying adjectives only allow the contrastive
reading as observed by M&Z (2008) (example 6 is their 38b):
(6)
Moj ta bivši mož je pjanc my TA former husband CL.3s drunkard. 'my FORMER husband is a drunkard'
In the absence of contrast, adjectives that appear in TA-constructions are always predicative,
(they can appear as the predicates of copular sentences). One diagnostic of this is the
intersective semantics of predicative adjectives. The presence of TA forces the intersecitve
interpretation with adjectives that are otherwise ambiguous. (7)
a. Primož je
Primoz CL.3s
tist
that
lep
plesalc
beautiful dancer
b. Primož je
tist ta lep
plesalc
Primoz CL.3s that TA beautiful dancer (ambiguous)
(intersective only)
both: ‘Primož is that beautiful dancer’
When TA is absent, the phrase lep plesalc can either refer to someone who is beautiful in his
capacity as a dancer, or someone who is both beautiful and a dancer (7a). When TA is present
the intersective meaning is forced, so (7b) can only mean that Primož is the handsome one.
Interim Summary:
- Syntactic distribution: the clitic TA is possible in both definite and indefinite Noun
Phrases, and it can be associated with modifiers of various syntactic types, not just
adjectives. We can therefore expect that it is a functional element in the NP, but not a
definite article.
-
Information Structure effects: there are two distinct interpretive effects of
constructions with TA, a contrastive reading and a non-contrastive reading that
introduces a ‘type’ presupposition.
I’m going to propose an analysis that accounts for the distribution of ta based in a syntactic
derivation that produces reversed information structure in the DP/extended Noun Phrase.
4. Analysis of non-contrastive TA: the discourse-anaphoric and ‘type’ readings: According to den Dikken (2006), all predication relationships are mediated by a Relator head,
which takes the predicate and the subject as its dependents. What is traditionally referred to
as ‘attributive modification’ arises from a configuration in which the predicate occupies the
specifier position of the Relator Phrase and the subject is in the complement position, as
illustrated in (14). The Relator head in these cases can be equated with a functional head in
the extended projection of NP. (à la Cinque) :
3
(8) a. DP
D
that
RP (=FP)
APpred
R' (=F')
hot
R
NPsubj
ø
pizza
However, predication can also be mediated by a Relator head which has the predicate in the
complement position and the subject in the specifier. This occurs with various types of
predicative XPs, including ‘predicative APs’ and relative clauses.
(9)
DP
D
that
RP
NPsubj
R'
pizza
R
AP/CPpred
ø
hot/that we got from Ray’s
If a Relator Phrase with a predicate-as-complement structure is merged inside the DP ‘as is’
then the default information structure applied to the phrase is one in which the pizza is the
topic and the relative clause is marked as ‘new information’ or ‘focus’.
The predicative/intersective reading of the modifiers in non-contrastive TA
constructions points to a derivation that has the modifier originate in a Relator Phrase
with predicate-as-complement structure. Using Den Dikken ’s theory of predicate
inversion, Wilson (to appear) proposes the following derivation for these noun
phrases: (10)
RP
LP
NPsubj
car
R'
R
AP pred
new
AP pred
new
L'
R+LINKER
RP TA NPsubj
car
R'
<R>
4
<AP pred > A linker is merged with the relator phrase and the relator head raises, extending the phase and
creating a position for the predicate to move into, across the subject. Now the predicate has
been marked as old information and focus may fall on the noun. The relator and linker
together are spelled out by the nominal copula ta.
This constituent my then be selected by higher functional elements of the extended NP,
merging with additional APs, possessive pronouns and ultimately with either the indefinite
article or a definite D head.
The surface word order is due to the linker being phonologically proclitic on the linker phase,
which I represent with an arrow as in (11).
The inverted predicate must be interpreted as old information. Either discourse anaphoric or
what M&Ž (2007) refer to as the ‘type’ reading (example 13 is theirs).
(13)
Ne pijem
s
ta zelene flaše, ker
prnaša nesrečo
not drink-1s from TA green bottle because brings bad.luck
“I don’t drink from green bottles, because it brings bad luck”
By marking the predicate ‘green’ as old information, the construction contributes the
presupposition that a category defined by ‘greenness’ exists for bottles and is familiar to the
speaker and hearer.
5
(11)
DP
my
D'
D∅
FP
<my>
F'
phase
F∅
LP
AP
L'
new
R+L
RP
TA
NP
car
R'
<R∅>
<AP>
It is also possible for the Linker Phrase to become the subject of a new predication and for
inversion to apply again:
(12)
DP
my
D'
D∅
LP2
AP2
red
L'
R +L2
RP
TA
LP1subj
AP
fast
R'
L'
R+L1
<R>
<AP2pred>
RP
TA
NPsubj
car
R'
<R∅>
<AP1pred>
The predicate inversion operation appears to be freely available for AP predicates in Colloquial
Slovenian, and marginally available for CP predicates.
6
5. Analysis of contrastive TA: Inversion of a null-headed NP predicate
Let us return to an example of the contrastive use of TA, repeated here for convenience:
(6)
Moj ta bivši mož je pjanc my TA former husband CL.3S drunkard. 'my FORMER husband is a drunkard'
For this type of construction, there is reason to believe that the predicate is a null-headed NP,
and the need to license this silent element is the trigger for inversion.
Non-intersective APs, like ‘former’ cannot serve as the predicates of copular sentences
(which are derived from predicate-as-complement small clauses). In (6) `former´ must
therefore originate in specifier of a Relator Phrase.
But Predicate Inversion still seems to have applied:
The restriction that the modifier be interpreted as old information is still in effect in the
contrastive construction.
(15)
Q. Zakaj si poklical pomorskega reševalca?
‘Why did you call the coastal rescuer?’
A. Poklical smo ta gorskega reševalca (ne ta pomorskega)
‘We called TA mountain rescuer (not TA coastal one)’
(16)
Q. Zakaj misliš, da so te rešil tako hitr?
‘Why do you think you got rescued so quickly?’
A. #Poklical smo ta gorskega reševalca (ne ta pomorskega)
‘We called TA mountain rescuer (not TA coastal one)’
A' Poklical smo gorskega reševalca (ne ta pomorskega)
‘We called the mountain rescuer (not TA coastal one)’
M&Ž (2006) propose that in these constructions a null NP heads the predicate of a reduced
relative clause containing TA. This silent pronoun brings in contrast just as the overt pronoun
one in English does, by linking to an alternative set.
I propose that the adjective modifies a null-headed NP which is directly predicated of the
overt NP in a predicate-as-complement configuration (14). According to Den Dikken (2006)
a null-headed predicate triggers inversion because the silent element must be licensed by
movement into a derived specifier position.
I derive the contrastive ta-construction with a null-headed NP as shown in (14). The silent
pronoun ONE must be licensed in a derived specifier position, and this is what triggers
inversion.
7
(14)
DP
my
D'
D∅
LP
FPpred
AP
former
L'
F'
R+L
RP
TA
F
ONE
NPsubj
husband
<R∅>
R'
<FPpred>
6. Possessives as inverted predicates.
Range of possible TA-constructions in which the possessive pronoun is the only adjective
modifying the noun:
(17) ? ta moj avto
(contrastive, %type)
(18) % en ta moj avto
(type only)
(19) % moj ta avto
(type only)
Example (18) is the only instance that I know of where TA is following instead of preceding
the modifier that it is associated with.
The most consistent judgment from speakers is that the order in (17) is relatively acceptable
in a contrastive context, referring to a definite and specific car that is owned by the speaker.
As in ‘He didn’t buy MY car, he bought the other guy’s car.”
This word order falls out from the analysis given in (14) above, but with ´my´replacing
´former´.
8
(20)
DP
LP
D'
FPpred
my ONE
L'
R+L
D∅
<LP>
RP
TA
NPsubj
car
R'
<R∅>
<FPpred>
When the D head is merged, it is not possible for the pronoun to subextract from the Linker
phase. The entire FP must move into spec DP to check its definiteness and to spell out the left
edge of the higher phase.
There is no a priori reason to exclude the possibility of a type reading for moj as an inverted
predicate that is not modifying a null-headed NP, in other words a ‘type’ reading. This reading
seems to throw people’s judgments into conflict. Future research with a larger sample of
informants may tease apart the micro-parameters that lead to this diversity, but for now I will
suggest possible derivations for the attested forms in the grammars of my informants:
(21)
NumP
a
Num'
Num∅
LP
AP
L'
my
R+L
RP
TA
NP
car
R'
<R∅>
<AP>
The acceptability of the ta-moj order with a type reading could be due to interference from
Standard Slovene, which has no indefinite article. In this case the bare linker phrase can be
assumed to distribute as an NP based on the nominal feature of TA.
9
(22)
LP
AP
L'
my
R+L
RP
TA
NP
car
R'
<R∅>
<AP>
(23)
DP
my
D'
D∅
LP
AP
L'
<my>
R+L
RP
TA
NP
car
R'
<R∅>
<AP>
As is the case with (20) the edge of the DP phase must be lexicalized somehow, but in this
case the most economical way to satisfy that requirement is to move the AP by itself into
spec DP. Since in the ‘type’ construction the inverted predicate does not have a silent ONE
as its head, there is no licensing requirement forcing it to remain in the specifier of the linker
phrase, so the entire LP is not forced to move. Ta is proclitic on the lower phase, which has
only the NP avto left in it, resulting in the order moj ta avto.
10
7. Conclusion:
-
The so-called ‘adjectival definite article’, TA, has been historically been mislabeled as
such, considering that it can appear without adjectives and in indefinite Noun Phrases.
An analysis of TA as a nominal copula which spells out a Linker head can account for
this distribution.
-
The Linker analysis also provides insight into the meaning contribution of TA in both
the contrastive and non-contrastive constructions:
-
-
In the type or discourse-anaphoric readings it is the combination of the
semantics of a predicate-as-complement structure with the information
structural marking as old information that creates the presupposition of a kind
or type denoted by the modifier.
-
In the contrastive constructions, a null pronoun introduces contrast, but also
triggers predicate inversion because it must be licensed by movement to the
specifier of a Linker Phrase.
The range of inter-speaker variation with respect to ta moj and moj ta constructions
calls for more research, but can potentially be explained within this framework.
REFERENCES:
Bošković, Ž. 2009.The NP/DP analysis and Slovenian. Proceeding of the University of Novi Sad
Workshop on Generative Syntax 1, 53–73. Cinque, G. 1994. Evidence for Partial N-Movement in the Romance DP. In G. Cinque et al. (eds.)
Paths Toward Universal Grammar, 85–110. Washington, DC: Georgetown UP. Cinque, G. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Dikken, M. den. 2006. Relators and Linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and
copulas. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Herrity, P. 2000. Slovene; A comprehensive grammar. New York: Routledge.
Marušič, F. 2008. Slovenian Clitics Have No Unique Syntactic Position. In Annual Workshop on
Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Stony Brook Meeting 2007, 266–281. Marušič, F. & Žaucer, R. 2010. A definite article in the AP—evidence from colloquial Slovenian, ms.,
University of Nova Gorica. Marušič, F. & Žaucer, R. 2008. On the adjectival definite article in Slovenian. Pismo, 102–124. Marušič, F. & Žaucer, R. 2006. The definite article ta in colloquial Slovenian. In Annual Workshop on
Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Princeton Meeting, 2005, 189–204. Wilson, E. (to appear) The particle TA in Colloquial Slovenian. In Annual Workshop on Formal
Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Third Indiana Meeting, 2012. 11