North
DEICTIC SPACE: atomic
viewEast
Time
Location
Linguistic Society 42, November 11-13, 2011, Toronto
Person
Universals
and Variation in Indexical Pronouns∗
Bettina Gruber (Utrecht University)
[email protected]
AT ONE GLANCE
First
and SPACE:
Secondnon-atomic
Person view
depend on Location and Time:
DEICTIC
Person
Time
Location
As opposedDEICTIC
to the SPACE:
traditional
view
atomic
view of the deictic sphere:
Time
Location
Person
Traditionally, deixis are taken to (at least) consist of the speech act parameters L OCATION, T IME and P ERSON
(cf. e.g. Anderson and Keenan 1985; Fillmore 1997), where P ERSON refers to the speaker and the hearer. These
three parameters are considered core-deictic categories. By contrast, I propose that P ERSON is non-atomic and
dependent on the spatial and temporal coordinates of the utterance context. I argue that this non-atomicity is
reflected in indexical personal pronouns, i.e. the category expressing P ERSON.
DEICTIC SPACE: non-atomic view
P ERSON
MAIN CLAIM
Time
Location
• is a complex, non-atomic deictic category
Person
• is defined by coordinates of L OCATION and T IME
(1)
DP
D
φP
[TIME] φ
N
[LOCATION]
[based on Déchaine and Wiltschko 2002]
Crucially, pronouns will not always appear as a fully fledged DP structure (cf. Déchaine and Wiltschko 2002).
In other words, we expect pronouns that lack temporal specification.
∗
I thank Sjef Barbiers, Heather Bliss, Norbert Corver, Alexis Dimitriadis, Marjo van Koppen, and Martina Wiltschko for feedback
on various parts of this project. All errors are mine.
1
NELS, 11–13 November, 2011
DETAILS IN A NUTSHELL
I. spatial and temporal features in indexical pronouns are interpretable but unvalued
(cf. Pesetsky and Torrego 2004)
II. spatial features in φ lead to a P ERSON-interpretation
III. D restricts the interpretation to a specific moment in time
(cf. Musan 1995; Gillon 2006)
IV. L OCATION: universally based on speaker’s location
i. identity with speaker’s location = first person pronoun
ii. non-identity with speaker’s location = second person pronoun
iii. speaker’s spatial coordinates encoded in CP (cf. Giorgi 2010)
V. T IME: locus of language variation
i. source: utterance time (TP)
ii. source: event time (VP)
Implication: Indexicality is not a purely semantic phenomenon; syntax contributes to the interpretation of (at
least some) context-dependent expressions in fundamental ways.
A note on D (cf. Bliss and Gruber 2011)
Following Gillon (2006, 2009), I take D to universally provide domain restriction
D-determiners always introduce domain restriction over their NP, regardless of what other properties they may have. Their function is to constrain the set introduced by the NP to a set of contextually salient individuals. (Gillon 2006:53)
(2)
a. Determiners restrict the domain of individuals (De ) to a contextually salient set (C).
b. C is determined by the discourse context and/or by immediate linguistic context.
However: Indexical pronouns already refer to contextually salient individuals. How can D introduce domain
restriction to an already restricted domain?
Musan (1995, 1999): De contains both individuals and stages of individuals:
[D]eterminer quantification is not quantification over individuals in their whole temporal extendedness but quantification over STAGES OF INDIVIDUALS. (Musan 1995:94)
Stage = temporal slice of an individual, an individual at a given time (to be distinguished from an individual in
its maximal temporal extendedness) (Musan 1995; cf. also Carlson 1980)
Implications for indexical pronouns:
(3)
D restricts the interpretation to a specific moment in time.
(4)
Consequently, only part of the individual denoted by φ is considered.
(5)
If D is lacking, the interpretation of the pronoun is not confined to a specific moment in time.
Question: Where does the temporal information in D come from? Or: Which temporal slice does D pick out?
I propose that the information is provided by syntax, i.e. the options are limited to syntactically available
temporal parameters. Consequently, possible candidates are: utterance time (TP) and eventuality1 time (VP)
(cf. among many others Zagona 1990; Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria 1997, 2000; Stowell 1993, 2007)
1
I use the term ‘eventuality’ to refer to all types of events, including states.
2
Gruber
A note on third person: Following numerous scholars, I take third person to be defined by the absence of
person-features (cf. e.g. Benveniste 1966; Harley and Ritter 2002; Bobaljik 2008). Consequently, I propose that
third person lacks L OCATION features in φ.
Some Predictions of the compositional analysis of P ERSON:
(6)
We expect to find languages that show this compositionality in the morphosyntax of their indexical
pronouns.
(7)
If languages differ with respect to the source of temporal information that can restrict the pronominal
interpretation to a certain stage, we predict interpretational and distributional differences between the
pronouns of those languages.
a. Languages that restrict their pronouns by means of utterance time, are expected to show effects
involving (non-)indexicality.
b. Languages that restrict their pronouns by means of eventuality time, will show effects reflecting
properties connected to the eventuality.
LOCATION: TURKISH
personal pronouns
ben
I
sen
you
o
he/she/it
demonstratives
bu
this
şu
that
o
that (further away)
locational adverbs
burada
here
şurada
there
orada
over there
[cf. Kornfilt 1997]
Proposal: I hypothesize that universally the difference between first and second person pronouns is defined by
a L OCATION-feature in φ. I propose that this feature relates to the speaker’s spatial coordinates, which I take
to be syntactically encoded in the left-most CP-layer (cf. Giorgi 2010).
i. A first person pronoun is characterized by L OCATION-features that are identical to the speaker’s L OCATION.
ii. A second person pronoun is characterized by L OCATION-features that are not identical to the speaker’s
L OCATION.
iii. The L OCATION-feature in the pronoun is interpretable but unvalued. The value, i.e. the actual coordinates
of the speaker, are added via an Agree-relation between the pronoun and the speaker’s location in C.
I suggest that Turkish shows the L OCATION-feature overtly as evidenced by morphemes shared between spatial
expressions and personal pronouns:
feature
+locationspeaker
-locationspeaker
-locationspeaker
no spatial feature
spell-out
b
s
ş
o
exponent
ben (I), bu (this)
sen (you)
şu (this)
o (that; he/she/it)
3
NELS, 11–13 November, 2011
UTTERANCE TIME: DUTCH
(8)
Je
moest in de jaren 20 de Charleston leren dansen.
youweak must in the years 20 the Charleston learn dance
‘In the 20ies, you had to learn the Charleston.’
Indexical 4
Generic 4
(9)
moest in de jaren 20 de Charleston leren dansen.
Jij
youstrong must in the years 20 the Charleston learn dance
‘In the 20ies, you had to learn the Charleston.’
Indexical 4
Generic 8
Weak pronoun: je
Strong pronoun: jij
φP
φ
DP
N
[L OCATION]
φP
D
[Tutterance ] φ
N
[LOCATION]
Many languages can employ second person pronouns in generic contexts, among them English, German and
Dutch. Whereas Standard English and Standard German both only have one set of pronouns, Dutch has both
weak and strong pronouns. Strong pronouns are generally excluded from generic readings2 and necessarily
receive an indexical intepretation.
Assuming that stages of individuals are relevant for the interpretation of a pronoun, an indexical reading necessarily concerns that stage of the individual that is present at the utterance:
Figure 1: Temporal anchoring to utterance time
Therefore, I propose that D in Dutch carries a feature that is valued by utterance time; following standard
assumptions, I take the utterance time to be located in TP.
I extend this analysis to English and German, arguing that the indexical pronouns of these languages correspond
to two different underlying structures even though there is only one spell-out.3
2
There are instances of strong pronouns that are reported as generic (cf. Tarenskeen 2010). However, these follow certain restrictions
which cast doubt on an analysis as purely generic readings as illustrated above. For details see Gruber (in preparation).
3
Some varieties of English actually differentiate between a short form (‘ya’) and a long form (‘you’). Preliminary evidence points
to them corresponding to φP and DP structures, respectively; only ‘ya’ seems to be able to receive a generic reading, whereas ‘you’
is restricted to indexical interpretations. However, this is still subject to further research. As for German, as reported in Gruber (2008),
the account extends to Bavarian varieties which show second person pro-drop. The overt pronoun necessarily leads to an indexical
interpretation, whereas the pro-drop version allows for a generic reading.
4
Gruber
EVENT TIME: BLACKFOOT
2 sets of person proclitics
1st person
n-itn-
long forms
short forms
2nd person
k-itk-
3rd person
w-itw[Bliss and Gruber 2011; cf. Frantz 2009]
(10)
(11)
a. niksı́ssta
n-iksı́ssta
1-mother
‘my mother’
Inalienable Relation: Short form 4
a. * nááattsistaama
n-aaattsistaama
1-rabbit
Alienable Relation:
b. * nitsiksı́ssta
nit-iksı́ssta
1-mother
Long form 8
b. nitááattsistaama
nit-aaattsistaama
1-rabbit
‘my rabbit’
Short form 8
Long form 4
short form: n-
long form: nit-
φP
φ
[Bliss and Gruber 2011]
DP
φP
D
N
[Tevent ] φ
[L OCATION]
N
[LOCATION]
Claim: the short forms are the spell-out of L OCATION; the long forms additionally contain a morpheme expressing T IME. These two morphemes map onto the structure as follows (Bliss and Gruber 2011):
(12)
φP
a.
φ
n-/k-/w-
b.
N
DP
φP
D
-itφ
n-/k-/w-
N
Claim: The distribution of long and short forms corresponds to temporally bounded versus unbounded eventualities. Unbounded eventualities do not restrict the interpretation of a pronoun to a specific stage; they hold
irrespective of any temporal restriction and hence do not require the morpheme -it in the person proclitic.
What about generic sentences? Preliminary data suggest that Blackfoot can use second person pronouns in
generic contexts. As predicted by my analysis, the proclitics are not sensitive to these contexts, i.e. the long
DP forms do not inhibit a generic reading the same way they do in e.g. Dutch. Blackfoot proclitics contain a
D-element linked to the eventuality, not to the utterance, hence indexicality is not forced.
Prediction: Coercing possession into a temporally bounded relation should be possible.
5
NELS, 11–13 November, 2011
(13)
b. Amo nito’tokáán
amo nit-o’tokaan
DEM 1-hair
‘This is my (clipping of) hair (of his).’
a. Amo no’tokáán
amo n-o’tokaan
DEM 1-hair
‘This is my (own) hair.’
[Bliss and Gruber 2011]
Claim: -it- picks out the relevant stage of the individual denoted by the proclitic at which the possessor relationship holds, i.e. the time associated with it (cf. Bliss and Gruber 2011)
Other domains in which a complimentary distribution holds:
Nouns
Verbs: tense & aspect
Verbs: modality
Verbs: argument structure
Short Form n-, k-, winalienable possession
perfect
epistemic modal
prepositional prefixes
Long Form nit-, kit-, otelsewhere (alienable possession)
elsewhere (past, future, imperfective)
elsewhere (counterfactual, deontic)
elsewhere (applicatives, causatives)
[Bliss and Gruber 2011]
Another Example: Perfect (from Bliss and Gruber 2011)
(14)
Perfect is expressed
a. by means of the verbal prefix ikaa-4
b. which obligatorily selects the short form proclitics
(15)
a. kikááyo’kaa
k-ikaa-yo’kaa
2-PERF-sleep
‘You have slept.’
b. * kitsikááyo’kaa
kit-ikaa-yo’kaa
2-PERF-sleep
intended: ‘You have slept.’
Adopting an Extended Now (XN) theory of the perfect (McCoard 1978), the eventuality denoted by the predicate has current relevance to the subject:
(16)
Nikáı́samaihpiyi.
n-ikaa-isam-a-ihpiyi
1-PERF-long.time-IMPF-dance
‘I have danced for a long time.’
(17)
(At least) two potential readings (cf. Iatridou et al. 2002):
a. LB = perfect level adverb: There is a time interval (the perfect time span) whose LB is a long time
ago and whose RB is R (now) and throughout that time interval, I danced (continuously).
b. LB = existence of subject: There is a time interval (the perfect time span) whose LB is when I
was born, and whose RB is R (now) and in that time interval, there is at least one eventuality of me
having danced for a long time.
Claim: The boundaries of the perfect time span demarcate the eventuality denoted by the predicate, yielding
an interpretation of the predicate as a property.
(18)
This property denoted by the perfect predicate is
a. relevant to the individual’s experience over their lifetime or over an extended period
b. permanently attributed to the individual
c. in a temporally unbounded relation with the individual
4
Frantz (2009) identifies this morpheme as a perfective marker. However, we analyse it as a perfect rather than a perfective: (i) It
can co-occur with an imperfective marker. (ii) It expresses the meaning of the English adverb already. (iii) Like the English perfect, it
cannot occur with the adverbial yesterday.
6
Gruber
References
Anderson, Stephen R., and Edward L. Keenan. 1985. Deixis. In Language typology and syntactic description
iii: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, ed. Timothy Shopen, 259–308. Press Syndicate of the University
of Cambridge.
Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale, chapter La nature des pronoms, 251–257. Paris:
Gallimard.
Bliss, Heather, and Bettina Gruber. 2011. Decomposing Blackfoot proclitics. Handout GLOW 2011, University
of Vienna.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. The Linguistic
Review 25:203–230.
Carlson, Gregory N. 1980. Reference to kinds in English. New York: Garland Publishing.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33:409–442.
Demirdache, Hamida, and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 1997. The syntax of temporal relations: A uniform approach to tense and aspect. In Proceedings of WCCFL 16, ed. Emily Curtis, James Lyle, and Gabriel Webster,
145–159. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Demirdache, Hamida, and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. In Step by
step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honour of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan
Uriagereka, 157–186. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1997. Lectures on deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Frantz, Donald G. 2009. Blackfoot grammar. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2nd edition.
Gillon, Carrie. 2006. The semantics of determiners: Domain restriction in Skwxwú7mesh. Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Gillon, Carrie. 2009. The semantic core of determiners: Evidence from Skwxwú7mesh. In Determiners:
Variation and universals, ed. Jila Ghomeshi, Ileana Paul, and Martina Wiltschko, 177–214. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Giorgi, Alessandra. 2010. About the speaker: Towards a syntax of indexicality. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Gruber, Bettina. 2008. Complementiser agreement in Bavarian – new evidence from the Upper Austrian variant
of Gmunden. Master’s thesis, University of Vienna.
Gruber, Bettina. in preparation. The syntax of indexicality. Doctoral Dissertation, Utrecht University.
Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: a feature geometric analysis. Language 482–526.
Iatridou, Sabine, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Roumyana Izvorski. 2002. Some observations about the form
and meaning of the perfect. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 189–238. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. New York: Routledge.
McCoard, Robert W. 1978. The English perfect: Tense choice and pragmatic inferences. Amsterdam: NorthHolland.
Musan, Renate. 1995. On the temporal interpretation of noun phrases. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
Musan, Renate. 1999. Temporal interpretation and information-status of noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 22:621–661.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2004. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. URL http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/pesetsky/Pesetsky_
Torrego_Agree_paper.pdf.
Stowell, Tim. 1993. The syntax of tense. Manuscript, UCLA, Los Angeles.
Stowell, Tim. 2007. The syntactic expression of tense. Lingua 117:437–463.
Tarenskeen, Sammie. 2010. From you to me (and back) – the flexible meaning of the second person pronoun in
Dutch. Master’s thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Zagona, Karen. 1990. Times as temporal argument structure. Paper presented at “Time in Language”.
7