# Amalgamation in mitigator constructions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Amalgamation in mitigator constructions

1 / 39
Amalgamation in mitigator constructions

## Amalgamation in mitigator constructions

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
##### Presentation Transcript

1. Amalgamation in mitigator constructions James Griffiths CLCG, Groningen j.e.griffiths@rug.nl DGfS workshop on Parenthesis and Ellipsis, 14 March 2013 Part of the Incomplete Parenthesis projectERC INCPAR 263836

2. An overview • Mitigators • What are mitigators? • Mitigators take three types of host • Mitigators display dissimilar properties according to their linear position • Accounting for dissimilar mitigators • Sentence-initial clausal mitigators: subordinate constructions • Interpolating clausal mitigators: paratactic constructions • Fragment answer mitigators are, underlyingly, clausal mitigators. • Amalgamation • Horn-amalgams • Mitigators in amalgamation: fragment amalgams • Conclusion

3. Mitigators • What’s a mitigator? • (1) I’m toldPete and Lucy are coming to the party. • (2) John will, Pete says, be late. • (3) Pete will turn up drunk, I’ll wager. • Mitigator: • A clause that may be interpreted as mitigating the speaker’s commitment to the truth of the assertion denoted by a host clause. • (see Schneider 2007) • Subclass of Urmson’s (1952) parenthetical verbs • Functionally related to Reinhart’s (1982) speaker-oriented parentheticals

4. Mitigators Mitigators can be distinguished across two dimensions: (A) Host type There are three host types: (i) clausal hosts (ii) fragment answer (FA) hosts (iii) subclausal constituent hosts (4) I’m toldPete and Lucy are coming to the party. (5) A: Who will be coming to the party? B: I reckonJohn and Lucy. (6) Pete and I’ll wagerLucy will be coming to the party. (where small caps = nuclear prominence)

5. Mitigators Clausal mitigators mitigate the assertion denoted by the host clause. (4) I’m told Pete and Lucy are coming to the party. - told(I, x) - x = Pete and Lucy are coming to the party. FA mitigators mitigate the assertion denoted by the FA. (5) A: Who will be coming to the party? B: Mary reckonsJohn and Lucy. - reckon(Mary, x) - x = John and Lucy are coming to the party. Constituent mitigators mitigate the assertion denoted by the host clause. (6) Pete and I’ll wagerLucy will be coming to the party. - wager(I, x) - x = Pete and LucyFwill be coming to the party.

6. Mitigators (B) Linear position respective to the host clause There are three positions: (i) preceding the hostsentence-initial (ii) surrounded by the host (iii) following the host (4) I’m told Pete and Lucy are coming to the party. (5) John will, Pete says, be late. (6) Pete will turn up drunk, I’ll wager. interpolating 6

7. Mitigators • (C) Interpolating mitigators display: • (i) Obligatory subject-verb inversion in Dutch and German • (7) Het boek, ({denkik/ * ikdenk}), ligt op tafel, ({denkik/ * ikdenk}). ‘The book, I think, is on the table.’ • (8) A: Waar is het boek? • B: Tussende tafel, ({denkik/ * ikdenk}) en de kast, ({denkik/ * ikdenk}). • ‘Between the table and the cupboard, I think.’ • (9) TussenTilburg {dachtik/ * ikdacht} en Amsterdam wordt de wegopengebroken. • ‘Between Tilburg, I thought, and Amsterdam the road is broken open.’ Sentence-initial and interpolating mitigators display dissimilar properties 7

8. Mitigators • (C) Interpolating mitigators display: • (i) Obligatory subject-verb inversion in Dutch and German • (ii) Optional so/zo • (10) Het boek, ((zo) denkik), ligt op tafel((zo) denkik). • ‘The book, so I think, is on the table.’ • (11) A: Waar is het boek? • B: Tussen de tafel, ((zo)denkik) en de kast, ((zo) denkik). • ‘Between the table and the cupboard, so I think.’ • (12)TussenTilburg(zo) dachtik en Amsterdam wordt de wegopengebroken. • ‘Between Tilburg, so I thought, and Amsterdam the road is broken open.’ 8

9. Mitigators • (C) Interpolating mitigators display: • (i) Obligatory subject-verb inversion in Dutch and German • (ii) Optional so/zo • (iii) Semantically vacuous not in English • (13) Eve, (I shouldn’t expect), won’t be coming, (I shouldn’texpect). • (interpretation: [I expect ¬[Eve will be coming]]) • (14) A: Where on earth are my car keys? • B: Not (I don’t think) on the table, (I don’t think). • (interpretation: [I think ¬[not on the table]]) • (15) John but not billI don’tthinkare coming to the party. • (interpretation: [I think ¬[Bill]]) 9

10. Mitigators • (D)Sentence-initial mitigators cannot display: • (i) subject-verb inversion in Dutch and German • (16) {Ikdenk/ * denkik} dathet boek op tafelligt. • ‘I think the book is on the table.’ • (17) A: Waar is het boek? • B: {Ikdenk/ * denkik} tussende tafel, en de kast. • ‘I think between the table and the cupboard.’ • (18)Tussen{ikdacht/ * dachtik} Tilburg en Amsterdam wordt de wegopengebroken. • ‘Between I thought Tilburg and Amsterdam the road is broken open.’ 10

11. Mitigators • (D)Sentence-initial mitigators cannot display: • (i) subject-verb inversion in Dutch and German • (ii) so/zo • (19) * Ik denk zodat het boek op tafel ligt. • ‘I think the book is on the table.’ • (20) A: Waar is het boek? • B: * Ikdenkzotussen de tafelen de kast. • ‘I think between the table and the cupboard.’ • (21) * TussenikdachtzoTilburg en Amsterdam wordt de wegopengebroken. • ‘BetweenI thoughtTilburg and Amsterdam the road is broken open.’ 11

12. Mitigators • (D)Sentence-initial mitigators cannot display: • (i) subject-verb inversion in Dutch and German • (ii) so/zo • (iii) Semantically vacuous not in English • (22) I shouldn’t expect Eve won’t coming. • (interpretation: ¬ [I expect ¬[Eve will be coming]]) • (23)A: Where on earth are my car keys? • B: I don’t think noton the table. • (interpretation: ¬[I think ¬[on the table]]) • (24) John but I don’t thinknot Bill are coming to the party. • (interpretation: ¬[I think ¬[Bill]]) 12

13. Subordinate and paratactic clausal mitigators • Accounting for the distribution in Table 1 • An explanation for the dissimilar properties observed between sentence-initial and interpolating clausal mitigators already exists in the literature: • - sentence-initial mitigators subordinate their host clause • - interpolating mitigators are paratactically related to their host clause • (following Bresnan 1968, Jackendoff 1972, Reinhart 1983, Corver & Thiersch 2001, Reis 1995, 2000, Steinbach 1999, 2007, Ackema & Neeleman 2004, Fortmann 2006, 2007, De Vries 2007, Kiziak2007, Van Maastricht 2011) 14

14. Interpolating clausal mitigators • Interpolating clausal mitigators display the following internal syntax: • (25) [CP Op/zo1 [C′denk2 [TPikt2t1] • The mitigator verb selects for a host-denoting Op • A′-movement of Op triggers subject-verb inversion • The operator is optionally spelled-out as so/zo • (Corver & Thiersch 2001, Schelfhoutet al. 2004, De Vries 2006, Van Maastricht 2011, Zwart 1997:252-255) • Evidence for A′-movement: • - island effects • (26) * John will, [Op1Mary heard [islandthe rumour that Pete sayst1]], be late. • - parasitic gaps • (27) John will, [Mary’s implied __ without directly saying], be late. 15

15. Interpolating clausal mitigators • Paratactic nature of interpolating mitigators accounts for the properties listed in Table 1 because: • With interpolating mitigators: there exists an operator to be realized as so/zo • With sentence-initial mitigators:thereexists no operator to be realized as so/zo • With interpolating mitigators:A′-movement of so/zo = subject-verb inversion • With sentence-initial mitigators: no A′-movement of so/zo = no inversion • Question: why can interpolating mitigators host vacuous not, while sentence- initial mitigators cannot? • Answer: I don’t know. • Thus, vacuous not must remain only a diagnostic of paratactic mitigators. 16

16. Interpolating clausal mitigators: external syntax • ‘Special’ adjunction: • Potential ways to implement this: • De Vries’ (2007, 2008, 2012) par-Merge; cf. Griffiths (2013) • Hornstein & Nunes’ (2008) labelless Merge • Potts’ (2005) CI logic 17

17. Fragment answer mitigators • The clausal account sketched extends naturally to FA mitigators if one adopts the PF-deletion approach (Lasnik 2001, Merchant 2001) to fragment answers: • Sentence-initial FA mitigators = embedded fragment answers • (cf. Temmerman 2012, Griffiths 2013) • (31) A: Who’s done it? • B: [CP1I assume [CP2[John’s mother]1[TPt1has done it]]]. 18

18. Fragment answer mitigators • Interpolating FA mitigators • (32)A: Who will be late? • B: [CP [DP [DP John and Bill] [CP(so) I think]]1[TPt1will be late]. 19

19. Clausal & fragment answer mitigators • Interim summary: • Clausal and FA mitigators display the same properties because, modulo PF-deletion, they are the same construction. • Big question: • What about constituent mitigators? 20

20. Intermezzo: Horn-Amalgams • (33) John is going to I think it’s Chicagoon Sunday. • Terminology: Chicago= the content kernel • I think it’s Chicago= the interrupting clause (IC) • John is going to Ø on Sunday = the host clause • Paraphrase of (33): John is going to someplace on Sunday, and I think that place is Chicago. • Lakoff (1974): the IC is a hedged assertion. 21

21. Intermezzo: Horn-Amalgams Horn-Amalgams: (33) John is going to I think it’s Chicagoon Sunday. Kluck (2011): Host clause: John is going to e on Sunday IC: I think it’s Chicagothat John is going to on Sunday. e = null existential indefinite (akin to someplace) IC = an it-cleft 22

22. Horn-Amalgams: Kluck (2011) • e and IC are parenthetically coordinated • Step 1: IC is par-Merged with Par0 to create Par’ • Step 2: Par’ is Merged with Par’ to create ParP, a coordination phrase • Step 3: ParP is Merged to the ‘spine’ of the tree • par-Merge (cf. De Vries 2007, 2008, 2012, Kluck 2011, Heringa 2012): • the output of par-Merge α does not dominate its input β and γ. • β and γ are not dominated by any nodes which come to dominate α. • par-Merge is permitted only when one of the inputs for par-Merge is the functional head Par0 Par’ Par0IC • ParP • e Par’ • Par0 IC … PP … to ParP ePar’ Par0 IC

23. Horn-Amalgams: Kluck (2011) (34) John is going to [ParPei <Parʹ Par0 [CPIP I think it’s Chicago1ithat John is going to t1on Sunday]>] on Sunday Where < > and = par-Merge strikethrough and = ellipsis

24. Horn-Amalgams vs. constituent mitigators • (33) John is going to I think it’s Chicagoon Sunday. Horn-Amalgam • (34) John is going to I think Chicago on Sunday. Constituent mitigator • Similarity: • In both cases, Chicago is interpreted both as an argument (of going to) and a proposition with the following focus-background structure: • background = [John is going to x on Sunday] • focus = Chicago(where Chicago = x) • Difference: • In Horn-amalgams, the syntax explicitly displays this focus-background structure, via the use of an it-cleft. • This is not the case with constituent mitigators – we only see the focus.

25. Constituent mitigators as amalgamation • An account of constituent mitigators: what’s required • Retain Kluck’s (2011) account of how a subclausal constituent can appear to function as an argument and a proposition simultaneously. • (i.e. by postulating that e and the IC are coordinated) • Retain the intuitive idea that mitigators modify propositions, regardless of whether their host appears to be subclausal • (in the case of FAs and constituent mitigators) • Account for the sentence-initial vs. interpolating mitigator distinction already observed (i.e. Table 1) • How: • Employ the fragment answers in (31) and (32) as ICs of amalgamations. • The result: a fragment amalgam

26. Constituent mitigators as amalgamation • Deriving sentence-initial constituent mitigator constructions: • Step 1: • Derive an embedded fragment answer (cf. (31)) • (35) [CP1I think [CP2Chicago1[TPJohn is going tot1on Sunday]]]. NB – the embedded fragment answer provides us with the focus-background structure required

27. Horn-Amalgams vs. constituent mitigators • Step 2:employ the embedded fragment as an IC of an amalgamation structure: (36) John is going to I think Chicago on Sunday

28. Horn-Amalgams vs. constituent mitigators • Deriving interpolating constituent mitigator constructions: • Step 1: • Derive an fragment answer with a paratactic mitigator attached to it (cf. (32)) • (37)[CP [DPJoop1 [CPdenk2ikt2] [TPJaap en t1komenuit Nederland]]].

29. Horn-Amalgams vs. constituent mitigators • Step 2:employ the fragment answer as the IC of an amalgamation structure: (38) Jaap en Joopdenkikkomenuit Nederland.

30. Conclusions • Advantages of the fragment amalgamation approach: • Accounts for the sentence-initial vs. interpolating mitigator dichotomy observed not only in constituent mitigator constructions, but in their clausal and FA counterparts • Employs machinery already required extraneously • Parenthetical coordination (for Horn-amalgams, see Kluck 2011) • PF-deletion (for fragment answers, see Merchant 2004) • Additionally, it explains why linear adjacency between modified constituent and mitigator is always observed (see (37)): they are phrase mates within the IC! • (39) * That I guess book was written by Mary. • (intended: That book was written by someone, and I guess that someone is Mary)

31. Conclusions • Disadvantages of the fragment amalgam approach • Requires redundant repetition of the entirety of the host clause as the IC. • Requires obligatory deletion: • (40) * John is going to [I think Chicago John is going to on Sunday] on Sunday. • Thanks for listening!

32. References Ackema, P. and Neeleman, A. 2004. Beyond Morphology – Interface Conditions on Word Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bresnan, J. 1968. Remarks on adsententials. Ms., MIT. Corver, N. & Thiersch, C. 2001.Remarks on parentheticals. In van Oostendorp, M. & Anagnostopoulou E. (eds.) Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th anniversary of the comparison of grammatical models group in Tilburg. Utrecht: Roquade. Fortmann, C. 2006. The complement of verba dicendi parentheticals. In Proceedings of the LFG 06 Conference, ed. by Butt, M. & King, T. H., 240-255. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Fortmann, C. 2007. The complement of reduced parentheticals. In Dehé, N. & Kavalova, Y. (eds.) Parentheticals. pp. 89-120. John Benjamins: Amsterdam. Griffiths, J. 2013. Parenthetical verb constructions, fragment answers, and constituent modification. Ms., University of Groningen. Heringa, H. 2012. Appositional constructions. PhD thesis, University of Groningen. Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kiziak, T. 2007. Long extraction or parenthetical insertion? Evidence from judgement studies. In Parentheticals, ed. by. Dehé, N. & Kavalova, Y., 121-144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kluck, M. 2011. Sentence Amalgamation. PhD thesis, University of Groningen. Lakoff, G. 1974. Syntactic Amalgams. In Papers from the 10th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, ed. by Galy, M., Fox, R., & Bruck, A., 321-344. Chicago: University of Chicago. Lasnik, H. 2001. When can you save a structure by destroying it? In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 31, ed. by Kim, M. and Strauss, U., 301-320. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Maastricht, L. van. 2011. Reporting and Comment Clauses: A cross-linguistic study. MA thesis, University of Groningen. Merchant, J. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics 1. Oxford: OUP. Merchant, J. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661-738. Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reinhart, T. 1983. Point of View in Language – The Use of Parentheticals. In Essays on Deixis, ed. by Rauh, G., 169-194. Tübingen: Müller & Bass. Reis, M. 1995. Wer glaubst du hat recht? On so-called extractions from verb-second clauses and verb-first parenthetical constructions in German. Sprache und Pragmatik36: 27–83. Reis, M. 2000. Wh-movement and integrated parenthetical constructions. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, Proceedings from the 15th workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax, ed. by Zwart, J.-W. & Abraham, W., 3-40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schelfhout, C., P.-A. Coppen & N. Oostdijk 2004. Finite comment clauses in Dutch: a corpus-based approach. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16, 331-349 Schneider, S. 2007. Reduced parenthetical clauses in Romance languages: A pragmatic typology. In Dehé, N. & Kavalova, Y. (eds.) Parentheticals. pp. 237-260. John Benjamins: Amsterdam. Steinbach, M. 1999. Notes on Parenthetical Constructions. Stuttgart/Tübingen: Arbeitsberichte des SFB 340, No. 144. Steinbach, M. 2007. Integrated parentheticals and assertional complements. In Parentheticals, ed. by Dehé, N. & Kavalova, Y., 51-87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Temmermann, T. 2012. The syntax of Dutch embedded fragment answers. On the PF-theory of islands and the wh/sluicing correlation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Urmson, J. O. 1952. Parenthetical verbs. Mind 61(244):480-496. Vries, M. de 2006. Reported Direct Speech in Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands 23, 212-223 Vries, M. de 2007. Invisible Constituents? Parentheses as B-Merged Adverbial Phrases. In Parentheticals, ed. by Nicole Dehé & YordankaKavalova, 203-234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vries, M. de. 2008. The representation of language within language: a syntactico-pragmatic typology of direct speech. Studia Linguistica 62, 39-77. Vries, M. de. 2012. Unconventional Mergers. In Ways of Structure Building, ed. by Uribe-Etxebarria, M. & Valmala, V., 143-166. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zwart, J.-W. 1997. Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 33

33. Appendix 1:Strong island (in)sensitivity in fragments • Griffiths & Lipták (to appear): • Fragment answers = remnant-fronting + TP-deletion at PF (Merchant 2001, 2004) • Parallelism must pertain at PF between question and fragment answer • Contrastive focus is island-sensitive (Drubig 1994, Krifka 2006) • Non-contrastive remnant extraction from a relative clause: • (23) A: I heard that John speaks the same B.L. that someone in your syntax class speaks. • B: Yeah, [CP [Bill]1 [TP John speaks the same B.L. that t1 speaks]]. • LF representation • A: [someone in your syntax class1λx([TP John speaks the same B.L. that x1 speaks]) • B: [Bill1λx([TP John speaks the same B.L. that x1 speaks]) 34

34. Appendix 1:Strong island (in)sensitivity in fragments • Contrastive focus LF movement is island-sensitive • A contrastively-focused element must pied-pipe its containing island to the relevant scope position • (24) John only introduced the man that Jilladmires to Sue. a) (LF) John only [[the man that Jill admires]1λx ([vP introduced x1])] to Sue. b) (LF) # John only [Jill1λx ([vP introduced the man that x1 admires])] to Sue. • (Krifka 2006) • Contrastive remnant extraction from a relative clause: • (25) A: I heard that John speaks the same B.L. that Maryspeaks. • * B: No, [CP [Bill]1 [TP John speaks the same B.L. that t1 speaks]]. • B’: No, [CP[the same B.L. that Bill speaks]1[TP John speaks t1]]. • LF representation • A: [the same B.L. that Mary speaks1λx ([TP John speaks x1]) • * B: [Bill1λx ([TP John speaks the same B.L. that x1 speaks]) • B’: [the same B.L. that Billspeaks1λx ([TP John speaks x1]) 35

35. Appendix 2: A functional typology of RPCs Functional typology of RPCs Speaker-oriented Reportative - Are a function of the speaker - Express an ‘evidential meaning’ (Rooryck 2001) Mitigators Mitigate the speaker’s commitment to the truth of the host clause John will, {I’m told / they say / I hear / it seems}, by late. Evaluative Expresses speaker’s emotional stance towards the host clause John will, {I hope / I pray}, by late. Speech-act Expresses the intended illocutionary mood John will, {I admit / I confess / I concede}, by late.

36. Appendix 2: A functional typology of RPCs Functional typology of RPCs Speaker-oriented Reportative Devoid of speaker content - A case of ‘objective modality’ (Lyons 1977:797ff) - Quotation Report with subject of RPC as deictic center “Myi horrible girlfriend,” Trevori {says / grimaces}, “is coming over later.” Free indirect speech Report with the same deictic centre as indirect speech Hisihorrible girlfriend, Trevori{thinks/ grimaces} to himself, is coming over later.

37. Appendix 2: A functional typology of RPCs Functional typology of RPCs Speaker-oriented Reportative Devoid of speaker content - A case of ‘objective modality’ (Lyons 1977:797ff) - - Are a function of the speaker - Express an ‘evidential meaning’ (Rooryck 2001) Mitigators Quotation Evaluative Free indirect speech Speech-act Focus of today’s presentation Those RPCs to which the account can be extended (see Griffiths 2013) 38

38. Appendix 2: A functional typology of RPCs Functional typology of RPCs Speaker-oriented Reportative Devoid of speaker content - A case of ‘objective modality’ (Lyons 1977:797ff) - - Are a function of the speaker - Express an ‘evidential meaning’ (Rooryck 2001) Mitigators Quotation Evaluative Free indirect speech Speech-act Focus of today’s presentation Those RPCs to which the account can be extended (see Griffiths2013) 39