![Isabelle Berlanger 13
6) [PHILOSOPHERS] AND [LINGUISTS] WERE PRESENT,
one conjunct necessarily precedes the other at the surface, but the
asymmetric c-command that renders this situation cannot hold at LF : both
conjuncts have to receive the same status (licensing, marking, μ-role, etc.),
which would be impossible if one conjunct ccommands the other.
As for multiple wh-questions,
(7) [WHO]+Wh READ [WHAT]+Wh ?,
the two [+wh]-domains cannot be embedded into each other, because (7)
amounts to simultaneous questions. LF is hence symmetric, but PF is not :
an order has to be respected at the surface, and for this purpose one wh-
constituent has to ccommand the other.
Alan Munn, working on coordination, stated the problem clearly with
this question:“ How is an asymmetric syntax mapped into a symmetrical
semantics?”9
. Faced with this problem we can proceed in different ways.
First, we could give absolute priority to interpretation, renouncing
LCA for good. Different authors are working in that direction, in particular
Abels Neeleman (2007) who show how antisymmetric structures for X-
bar theory may be obtained without the use of LCA. Along that line there
remains the problem of obtaining
symmetric structures (for branching and coordination) and their
linearisation at PF. The LCA has the merit of pointing at the very link
between dependence and linearity which is here our main concern; that is
the reason why we do not want to abandon it.
In the opposite direction, we could give an absolute priority to
description, preserving an asymmetric structure for all levels of
representation. This is in fact the actual position of standard generative
theory, based on LCA. On those grounds, branching sentences cannot be
correctly interpreted, which cannot be accepted.
Another possibility is to adopt a mixed system, abandoning LCA at LF
level. In that case we would still have to examine how to obtain – by some
operations to be properly defined – a symmetric logical form from an
asymmetric base structure.
That is the point of view of Munn (1993) and to some extent of
Johannessen (1998), which they developed for coordination ; however
9
Alan Munn’s homepage, 2004.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19090776-250515023538-94290c08/85/Interfaces-In-Language-New-John-Partridge-30-320.jpg)
![Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface
18
(8) [MOST OF THE PHILOSOPHERS AND MOST OF THE
LINGUISTS]ZP
from the twin head [(PHILOSOPHERS, LINGUISTS)]N
(2)
by indirect
coordination, after the spread of the twin object and adjunction of AND :
8ʬ) QuantP
Co QuantP(2
)
AND
Spec Quant’(2
)
MOST
Quant DP(2
OF
D NP(2
)
THE
NP1 NP2
PHILOSOPHERS LINGUISTS
The challenge is now to show that twin structures will allow us to
reach (i) the right surface word order, and (ii) the expected non-linear
meanings, in particular the right interpretation for branching sentences.
3.3 PF with twin objects.
We have to explain how a symmetric coordinate structure like
O
Co O(2
)
O1 O2
is eventually read with the correct linear order. Recall that to know how to
read a coordinated sentence, we have to examine the ccommand relations](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19090776-250515023538-94290c08/85/Interfaces-In-Language-New-John-Partridge-35-320.jpg)
![Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface
20
is the general rule but, in somecases, the mere substitution of one conjunct
for the other leads to agrammaticality. There follows an example from
Czech15
:
(9) PģJDU TAM [J A TY].
will.go-1sg there I and you
‘You and I will go there’.
(10) *PģJDU TAM [TY A J]
will.go-1sg there you and I
‘I and you will go there’.
For sentence 10 to retrieve grammaticality, the verbal form has to agree
with the first conjunct TY. The second conjunct is ignored for the
purposes of agreement.
This close link between features and order of conjuncts is an
unexpected result we have to account for. It suggests that unbalanced-
coordination could be a specific answer to the lack of linearity of
coordinate structure: some languages tolerate symmetry well, accepting
the resulting phonetic ambiguity, which is manifested by commutativity,
while others do not accept it and devise some means to break
symmetry, thereby recovering linearity. Czech, for example, would in
some way adopt the following principle: Faced with a symmetric
constituent (twinned conjuncts), read first the conjunct that agrees with
the verbal form (or make only the conjunct you want to read first agree
with the verbal form). The wide variety of principles that govern the
spread of features is eventually a strong argument in favour of our
proposal: there is some indeterminacy at the core of syntax and every
language has to accommodate itself to this situation. Some languages do it
by unbalanced coordination. Whatever the adopted solution, it corresponds
to a language parameter.
To sum up this section we can say that twin objects allow to a main
requirement of the phonetic interface to be fulfilled, i.e. linearity at the
surface, settled despite the symmetry of twin structures. We now turn to
the semantics interface, examining what contribution twin objects can
bring at this level.
15
For a detailed analysis of the different cases of deviation, see Johannessen
(1998, ex.45, p.28).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19090776-250515023538-94290c08/85/Interfaces-In-Language-New-John-Partridge-37-320.jpg)
![Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface
22
11a)
The second (and preferred) reading, in which Alice and Bob got married to
each other, is given by the following structure with internal coordination17
11b)
From a semantic point of view, our structures with twin objects have a
double advantage. First, the scope of conjunction is made visible at LF,
contrary to usual standard structures which do not consider Co as an
operator, and hence could fail to give all the possible interpretations.
Second, the commutativity of conjuncts is easily explained.
Commutativity has not only a syntactic side, but also a semantic one, i.e.
the conjuncts can be permuted without change in the meaning of the whole
sentence:
(6) [PHILOSOPHERS] AND [LINGUISTS] WERE PRESENT,
(6b) [LINGUISTS] AND [PHILOSOPHERS] WERE PRESENT.
This commutativity arises immediately from the symmetry of LF. The
semantic scope of the conjunction is a twin object, whose elements are
treated on a par.
This is not the case in usual X-bar XP structures, and, generally
speaking, it will never be achieved in a structure where one conjunct
merely ccommands the other, as is the case with the usual analysis of
17
Technically, the coordination operates on the sets {Alice} and {Bob} denoted by
the NPs ALICE and BOB.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19090776-250515023538-94290c08/85/Interfaces-In-Language-New-John-Partridge-39-320.jpg)
![Isabelle Berlanger 23
coordination adopting the antisymmetric structure [ [ALICE] [ and [BOB]
] ]18
.
3.4.2. Branching
Let us go back to the typical branching sentence 5)
5) MOST PHILOSOPHERS AND MOST LINGUISTS KNOW
EACH OTHER
This sentence contains a conjunction and will then use a coordinate
structure as
early as the base level. We have furthermore to get the branching
interpretation,
that is to say quantifiers in mutual c-command relation. Twin objects will
again
provide a straightforward solution to this problem in allowing the parallel
raising
of quantifiers at LF:
5ʬ)
The twin object has raised in scope position, involving equal scopes for
the quantifiers. Meanwhile, the traces combined with the conjunction form
a non- linear island that will give rise to the expected readings at the
surface. At LF the twin quantified constituent has larger scope than
conjunction; the conjunction is itself internal to IP, a position where it
correctly links the arguments of the verbal head KNOW, recuperated via
18
See for example (Kayne, 1994, p.12), where this structure is viewed as a
consequence of LCA.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19090776-250515023538-94290c08/85/Interfaces-In-Language-New-John-Partridge-40-320.jpg)
![Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface
26
The problem is made very clear in languages that force their wh-
operators to raise overtly, rendering the scope positions visible at the
surface. The superiority effect of subject over object can be observed in
Bulgarian (example 13), whereas commutativity is the rule in Polish)20
(example 14):
13a) KOJ KOGO [ t VIDJAL t]
who-nom. who-acc. see
Who saw who?
13b) *KOJ [ t VIDJAL KOGO]
who-nom. see who-acc.
13c) *KOGO KOJ VIDJAL
who-acc .who-nom. See
14a) KTO CO [ t ROBIŁ t]
who what make
Who made what?
14b) *KTO [ t ROBIŁ CO]
who make what
14c) CO KTO ROBIŁ
what who make
Who made what?
Our solution predicts the commutativity of wh-constituents and will
therefore easily explain the Polish example, whereas it seems less
adequate for the Bulgarian one.
However, according to the strong parallelism in structure between
multiple wh-questions and branching quantification, the same arguments
will be relevant. As a matter of fact, superiority effects are analogous to
Unbalancing Coordination: two symmetrical constituents (as c-command
is concerned) are notwithstanding linearly ordered at the surface. For
unbalanced coordination we put forward the hypothesis that some specific
(parametric) spread of features allows one to distinguish those constituents.
In the case of superiority effects in the Bulgarian example, we could make
the assumption that the ordering prevailing at base structure has to be
preserved in the derivation till LF level, a hypothesis that needs further
investigation. In any case such ordering principle can be seen as a way to
keep with non-linear islands, eschewing the symmetry of syntax.
20
The examples are taken from Sabel (1998, p. 298, p. 323).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19090776-250515023538-94290c08/85/Interfaces-In-Language-New-John-Partridge-43-320.jpg)
![LEFT DISLOCATION AND THE THEME-TOPIC
INTERFACE:
EVIDENCE FROM LATE MODERN ENGLISH
1
DAVID TIZÓN-COUTO
1. Introduction
The terms ‘theme’ and ‘topic’ have been frequently debated in modern
linguistics since Mathesius (1939:234), one of the main scholars from the
Prague School, provided a seminal interpretation of the two parts found in
an utterance, namely ‘theme’ and ‘rheme’, (i. and ii. respectively) as:
i. “The starting point of the utterance” as “that which is known or at
least obvious in the given situation and from which the speaker
proceeds”.
ii. The core of the utterance as “that which the speaker states about, or
in regard to the starting point of the utterance”. [my underlining]
This triple characterization suggests that theme is the part of the sentence
that expresses known information; that it also embodies the point of
departure of the clause as message and, finally, that the theme represents
what an utterance is about. According to Gómez-González (2001:9),
Mathesius’s quote above suggests “three dominant interpretations of
communicative categories”:
a. semantic, suggesting that theme/topic establishes a relationship of
aboutness.
b. informational, rendering theme/topic as given information.
1
The research which is here reported has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Technology, grant number HUM2005-02351/FILO, and Xunta de
Galicia, grant number PGIDIT06PXIC302014. Both grants are hereby gratefully
acknowledged.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19090776-250515023538-94290c08/85/Interfaces-In-Language-New-John-Partridge-48-320.jpg)
![David Tizón-Couto 33
Topicalisation12
(T, henceforth), some formal features can be identified
which suggest a higher or lower degree of syntactic integration of left-
dislocated constituents, namely the syntactic function of the resumptive,
the possibility of direct replacement and the illocutionary patterns
illustrated by punctuation.
This investigation relies on data retrieved from two electronic
collections containing literary texts from the Britain of the eighteenth and
the nineteenth centuries, namely Eighteenth-Century Fiction and
Nineteenth-Century Fiction. After a previous selection of texts, a corpus of
over 600,000 words was gathered for each century, which adds up to an
overall corpus of more than 1,200,000 words. All of the LD tokens here
researched (263 instances) have been retrieved through manual search.
Corpus # of words # of LDs Normalized
frequency
(10,000 words)
18th
century 608,076 95 1.562
19th
century 602,114 168 2.790
TOTAL 1,210,190 263 2.173
Table 2: Distribution of LD
2. Definition
I contend that the term left-dislocate includes every left-field constituent
which, within one speaker-turn2
, deploys a syntactic (referential index) or
semantic link with a proform or anaphoric phrase in the core of the clause
to which it is attached, except vocatives, self-correction items and the as-
2
For Ross (1973:553),
The rule of Topicalization [is] a process which is formally almost identical
to Left Dislocation, with the exception that while [Left Dislocation] leaves
behind a pronoun to mark the position in the sentence that the fronted NP
used to occupy, the rule of Topicalization does not.
If Ross’s definition is taken as a point of departure, the fact that the proform
occupies an object slot in the core, rather than the subject position, may render an
instance of LD more prototypical. LD (This paper, I wrote it) and T (This paper I
wrote) must be kept separate in the grammar (see section 5 in this paper).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19090776-250515023538-94290c08/85/Interfaces-In-Language-New-John-Partridge-50-320.jpg)
![Left Dislocation and the Theme-Topic Interface
34
for construction33
. Instances (1) and (2) below embody the two most
typical instances of LD, namely Subject LD and Object LD.
(1) The Pirates, for such they were, who had taken the Ship, being
English, French, and Irishmen, belonging to the Crew at
Madagascar, were moved at this Sight; particularly a desperate
young Man that commanded the Pirate Ship, he was charmed with
the Face of the reviving Charlotta, who lifting up her bright Eyes
ravished his Soul; (P. Aubin, Charlotta Du Pont, 28-29)
(2) I am just come from playing at ball in the garden, Lord Belmont of
the party: this sweet old man! I am half in love with him, though I
have no kind of hopes, for he told me yesterday, that lovely as I
was, Lady Belmont was in his eyes a thousand times more so.
(F.M. Brooke, The History of Lady Julia Mandeville, 62)
First, vocatives are left out of the left-dislocate label on the basis that
they refer to directly accessible elements from the interactional context. In
Lambrecht’s (1996:277) words, “in the case of vocatives, but not topics,
the accessible referent and the addressee are necessarily the same
individual”. This suggests that the vocative may be erased without causing
ungrammaticality or acutely affecting interpretation. According to Biber et
al. (1999:140), “[v]ocatives [such as (3) below] are used to single out the
addressee of a message”, while LDs [such as (4)] would single out a
referent in order to ease the interpretation of the coming predication.
3
The unit ‘speaker-turn’ is here imported (and adapted for written language) from
Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974). According to Ford, Fox and Thompson
(2003), turns are built through recurrent grammatical and prosodic constructions
which the speakers use as a convention. According to Duranti and Ochs
(1979:405), LDs “may be used not only to gain access to the speaking floor but
also to block or to reduce the access of others participating in the social
interaction”. For Geluykens (1992), such floor-taking function would be the origin
of LD as a construction. From his point of view (1992:45) “rather than being word
order variations, LDs operate on another level altogether: they are a process
whereby a speaker starts off with a REF, without any commitment to what comes
later, and waits for a cue from the hearer in order to add on a PROP” [my
underlining]. From my point of view, when producing an English LD, a speaker
self-selects turn and may or not have a clear mind about how to continue.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19090776-250515023538-94290c08/85/Interfaces-In-Language-New-John-Partridge-51-320.jpg)
![David Tizón-Couto 35
(3) Inhuman satirist! be thy spleen thy punishment. For my part, I do
not see what should provoke the bile of a philosopher, in the
innocent luxury of dress? (R. Bage, Man as he is, 78)
(4) Poor forlorn creature, where are now the revellers, the flatterers,
that he could once inspire and command! (O. Goldsmith, The Vicar
of Wakefield, 53)
Second, self-correction items such as (5) are not considered instances
of LD, since a speaker seems to self-select turn and often has a clear mind
on how to continue when he/she produces LD (6). In (5) the speaker
reformulates the whole sentence and the coreference between his
character and he is accidental. Nevertheless, if the copula was were not
uttered in (5), LD would take place.
(5) His character was, — he loved a jest in his heart — and as he saw
himself
in the true point of ridicule, […] (L. Sterne, Tristram Shandy, 39)
(6) Yes, and her petticoat; I hope you saw her petticoat, six inches
deep in mud, I am absolutely certain; and the gown which had been
let down to hide it, not doing its office. (J. Austen, Pride and
Prejudice, 76)
Third, prepositional phrases headed by as for have been excluded from
the notion of LD given that they are integrated in the following clause as
adjuncts and, therefore, they may occur without a proform (see Larsson
1979:42), as in (7), which is an essential component of LD. In addition,
they may be possible within a construction which Dik (1997:391) terms
‘parenthetical position’. The instances in (8) suggest that the as-for
construction (8a) behaves similarly to an adjunct (8b), which is also
acceptable under such parenthetical environment. However, LD is not
possible in this environment (8c).
(7) As for the piety of my people, much might be said and much
confessed or allowed. (W. Besant, Dorothy Foster, 3)
(8) a. He doesn’t have a clue, as for History, who Hitler and Mao are.
b. He doesn’t have a clue, unfortunately, who Hitler and Mao are.
c. *He doesn’t have a clue, History, who Hitler and Mao are.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19090776-250515023538-94290c08/85/Interfaces-In-Language-New-John-Partridge-52-320.jpg)
![Left Dislocation and the Theme-Topic Interface
36
Last, as shown in (9), two different LD processes, namely a semantic
relation of metonymy (his honour–he) and one of total identity (your
brother–he), result in ungrammaticality within the same sentence.
However, the as-for construction licenses such chains as illustrated in
(10).
(9) *His honour, your brother, he will doubtless in some way achieve
greatness, as his grandfather before.
(10) As for his honour, your brother, he will doubtless in some way
achieve greatness, as his grandfather before […] (W.Besant,
Dorothy Foster, 32)
The concept of LD here put forth is based on the notion that any left-field
constituent which is resumed cohesively within the ensuing has specific
discourse effects at the paragraph/chunk level. Such effects may be
determined by exploring the formal, informational and topicality
dimensions of instances of LD extracted from corpus analysis. Although
the analysis is here restricted to prototypical instances of LD, i.e. those in
which the resumptive carries out a core syntactic function (subject, object,
complement of preposition or subject complement), it must be pointed out
that this definition of LD does not reject the potential inclusion of other
less prototypical constructions within the concept of LD as embodied by
the structural pattern in (11):
(11) [CP …] (pause) [XPi] [CP … [(pro)NPi]…]]
3. Semantic interpretation
This section deals with the role of left-dislocated constituents as regards
two different functional semantic accounts in relation to ‘aboutness’ (what
the sentence/text is about), namely relational (sentence topics) and
referential (discourse topics). The interactive (speaker topics)
interpretation has been left out of this paper due to the written nature of
the data. This interpretation relies on the speaker’s assumptions about
activation states in others’ minds, and pays attention to the communicative
use of language. Although the interactive approach is considered highly
valuable4
for a comprehensive description of English LD, this paper relies
4
This approach is inspired by general textual conceptions such as Halliday and
Hasan’s (1976) ‘textual cohesion’, as well as by shaping definitions for LD, such](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19090776-250515023538-94290c08/85/Interfaces-In-Language-New-John-Partridge-53-320.jpg)
![David Tizón-Couto 37
on formal aspects for the evaluation of both topic persistence and
information status.
3.1. Relational semantic interpretation
3.1.1. Theoretical background
The notion of ‘relational aboutness’ refers to what the clause is about, to
the topic of the sentence (Reinhart 1981). This approach embodies the
double judgement proposed in classical sources:
The speaker announces a topic and then says something about it. Thus
John/ran away; That new book by Thomas Guernsey/I haven’t read yet. In
English and the familiar languages of Europe, topics are usually also
subjects, and comments are predicates (Hockett 1958:201).
As well as initially tied to the concept of subject5
, the notion of theme6
has also tended towards an aboutness interpretation7
and has thus been
frequently associated with the topic89
category at the sentence-syntax
level: “[t]he theme is what the rest of the sentence is about, it is context
dependent, it may be given information, and, it is likely to be definite or
generic” (Harlig and Bardovi-Harlig 1998:127). In fact, although Halliday
(1994:34) defines ‘topical theme’ as a separate kind of theme, it would
still simply constitute a type of theme with an ideational feature which
prompts aboutness:
The Theme of a clause ends with the first constituent that is either
participant, circumstance, or process. Since a participant in thematic
as Huddleston and Pullum’s (2002:1408): “[a] dislocated clause has a constituent,
usually a NP, located to the left or right of the nucleus of the clause, with an
anaphorically linked pronoun or comparable form within the nucleus itself” [my
emphasis].
5
According to Chafe (1994:55) for instance, “conversation could not function as it
does unless speakers took account of activation states in minds beyond their own”.
6
According to Chafe (1976:43), “so far as I can see at present, the best way to
characterize the subject function is not very different from the ancient statement
that the subject is what we are talking about”.
7
Halliday (1967:212) defines theme as “what is being talked about, the point of
departure for the clause as a message”.
8
Huddleston (1984:58), for instance, describes a topic as “what the sentence is
primarily about”.
9
See Pérez-Guerra (1999:17) for a list of scholars/references for which a pragmatic
theme embodies “the concern of the sentence”.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/19090776-250515023538-94290c08/85/Interfaces-In-Language-New-John-Partridge-54-320.jpg)
Interfaces In Language New John Partridge
- 1. Interfaces In Language New John Partridge download https://ebookbell.com/product/interfaces-in-language-new-john- partridge-38181552 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Interfaces In Language 3 1st Edition Marina Kolokonte Vikki Janke https://ebookbell.com/product/interfaces-in-language-3-1st-edition- marina-kolokonte-vikki-janke-51307782 Interfaces And Features In Second Language Acquisition A Study On The Acquisition Of Chinese Negation By English Speakers And Korean Speakers Jia Wang https://ebookbell.com/product/interfaces-and-features-in-second- language-acquisition-a-study-on-the-acquisition-of-chinese-negation- by-english-speakers-and-korean-speakers-jia-wang-49136340 Beyond Emotions In Language Psychological Verbs At The Interfaces Werner Abraham Groningen University Universitat Wien https://ebookbell.com/product/beyond-emotions-in-language- psychological-verbs-at-the-interfaces-werner-abraham-groningen- university-universitat-wien-43172962 Interfaces Explorations In Logic Language And Computation Esslli 2008 And Esslli 2009 Student Sessions Selected Papers 1st Edition Simon Charlow Auth https://ebookbell.com/product/interfaces-explorations-in-logic- language-and-computation-esslli-2008-and-esslli-2009-student-sessions- selected-papers-1st-edition-simon-charlow-auth-4142322
- 3. Exploring Time Tense And Aspect In Natural Language Database Interfaces Ion Androutsopoulos https://ebookbell.com/product/exploring-time-tense-and-aspect-in- natural-language-database-interfaces-ion-androutsopoulos-1076092 Interfaces Between Language And Culture In Medieval England A Festschrift For Matti Kilpi 1st Edition Alaric Hall https://ebookbell.com/product/interfaces-between-language-and-culture- in-medieval-england-a-festschrift-for-matti-kilpi-1st-edition-alaric- hall-2414836 The Productioncomprehension Interface In Second Language Acquisition An Integrated Encodingdecoding Model Anke Lenzing https://ebookbell.com/product/the-productioncomprehension-interface- in-second-language-acquisition-an-integrated-encodingdecoding-model- anke-lenzing-50217680 The Lexiconsyntax Interface In Second Language Aquisition Roeland Van Hout Et Al https://ebookbell.com/product/the-lexiconsyntax-interface-in-second- language-aquisition-roeland-van-hout-et-al-4715310 Information Highlighting In Advanced Learner English The Syntaxpragmatics Interface In Second Language Acquisition Marcus Callies https://ebookbell.com/product/information-highlighting-in-advanced- learner-english-the-syntaxpragmatics-interface-in-second-language- acquisition-marcus-callies-1642548
- 8. Interfaces in Language Edited by John Partridge
- 9. Interfaces in Language, Edited by John Partridge This book first published 2010 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2010 by John Partridge and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-2399-6, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-2399-9
- 10. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ................................................................................... vii Preface........................................................................................................ ix John Partridge Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface............................................. 1 Isabelle Berlanger Left Dislocation and the Theme-Topic Interface: Evidence from Late Modern English ......................................................................................... 31 David Tizón-Couto Declarative Root Clauses with ‘That’........................................................ 57 Virginia Hill Chickens and Eggs: Words, Accent and Context – What Came First? ..... 71 John Partridge Segmental Processes: Coda Removal vs Onset Provision......................... 91 Ann Delilkan From Musical Cadences to Linguistic Prosody: How to Abstract Speech Rhythm of the Past...................................................................... 113 Gladis Massini-Cagliari Languedocian: A Central and Interface Dialogue within Occitan........... 135 Claudi Balaguer The Five Languages of Switzerland ........................................................ 153 Felicity Rash Purism in Language Conflict: How Language Use Builds Frontiers....... 173 Sara Cotelli
- 11. Table of Contents vi Genocide and Ethnocide: The Suppression of the Cornish Language..... 189 Jon Mills The Effect of Migration on Local Identity and Sound Change: The Case of Glaswegian.......................................................................... 207 Natalie Braber and Zoe Butterfint Cross-Disciplinary Insights on Regional Dialect Levelling .................... 239 Dave Sayers ‘Ni Patois, Ni Français Régional’: Dual-Status Variables in Vernacular Northern French................................................................ 271 David Hornsby Use and Misuse of Linguistic Similarities to Teach French in Medieval Triglossic English.................................................................................... 289 Christel Nissille Modelling the Linguistic Mind................................................................ 311 Charles Denroche Contributors............................................................................................. 335
- 12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sincere thanks are due to the contributors; to David Hornsby, Vikki Janke and Khanh-Duc Kuttig of the Centre for Language and Linguistic Studies at the University of Kent for reviewing and editorial help; the many people who supported the conference, in particular to Patrick Bradley and the staff of UKC Hospitality for providing catering, rooms and conference services; Diane Peretti, Leanne Friend and other members of the School of European Culture and Languages’ secretarial staff for putting up with the organisers’ whims and running countless errands; Jacqui Martlew for her graphical wizardry; the Kent Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities for financial support; Lesley Farr of the UKC Design and Print Centre for programme and publicity design and printing; Mouton de Gruyter for supplying conference bags, Carol Koulikourdi, Vlatka Kolic and Amanda Millar of Cambridge Scholars Publishing for their infinite patience in negotiating the volume through the publishing process, Vlatka’s artwork for the final publication, and Amanda’s typesetting; and to the many whom I’m sure I’ve failed to include. This volume is dedicated to the memory of Antoine Peretti, who gave us our logo, and to those afflicted by the vile diseases of cancer, lymphoma, sarcoidosis and MNDA. May cures to them soon be discovered and much physical and mental suffering eradicated. —John Partridge Whitstable, 2010
- 14. PREFACE JOHN PARTRIDGE, CENTRE FOR LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF KENT The first Interfaces in Language conference came about as a result of the dissatisfaction expressed at an away-day of the Language and Literature Board of the School of European Culture and Languages at the orthodox distinctions made between the various perceived divisions in language study, e.g. syntax vs. semantics vs. pragmatics vs. phonology vs. morphology, and a wider concept of linguistic interfaces came under consideration, for example language and music, language and politics, languages in mutual contact, languages in mutual conflict, language and literature. It led us to encourage potential contributors at the conference to define and explore the particular interfaces which interested them, to see where there was common ground, where distinctions were to be made and where grey areas invite further investigation. The results were startling: contributors responded from America, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Poland, Spain and Switzerland as well as the UK, with themes ultimately grouped under three headings which have been roughly retained in this volume, although alternative constellations will undoubtedly suggest themselves. Categories and Orthodoxies addresses some of the most traditional interfaces, as its name implies. Contact and Conflict examines clashes and coalescences between languages; languages and politics; the mutual interaction of variants of a language and the imposition or choice of a non-native language over its native counterparts, whilst Language and Cognition, which sees language behaviour as partly at least influenced by factors other than those formally identified as strictly linguistic. Many of the wide range of resultant perspectives are represented here, as well as those treated by colleagues prevented at the last moment from attending the conference.
- 15. Preface x Categories and Orthodoxies Arguably the most rigid of the formal interfaces, that between syntax and semantics, is addressed by Isabelle Berlanger, examining the interface involved in linearity and joint objects and establishing links between logical and phonetic form which allow correct semantic interpretation of phonetic materials despite the non-linearity of their phonetic realisations. In the context of strict linearity and referentiality, but now introducing a discourse function, David Tizón-Couto examines left dislocation in Late Middle English, starting from a theme/rheme perspective, and identifies, dissects and reassembles semantic, informational and syntactic functions. Virginia Hill and John Partridge discuss in their separate yet ultimately similar ways the incorporation of a pragmatic component within language production. Hill envisages a pre-utterance illocutionary component in the syntactic component to account for a sentential adverb preceding the declarative complementiser in Romanian in a manner reminiscent of the Style Disjunct analysis hypothesised by Schreiber (1972), but without setting up the postulation and deletion of a lexicalised performative “Hypersentence” (Ross (1970) and Sadock (1969)), whilst Partridge adds a prosodic feature in discussing an initially plausible alleged complementarity between lexis and accentuation in English versus German, focussing on the basis of context (see Chapman 1998), and establishes a chained sequencing of operations leading from discourse context through discourse intention, simultaneous lexical selection and prosodic accentuation to ultimate utterance. Further in the prosodic vein, Ann Delilkan, working in a minimalist generative mode, establishes in her intricately argued papert hat segmental phonology alone is not able to handle nasal fusion in Malay and postulates that a prosodic component is the determinant factor. Gladis Massini-Cagliari crosses the diachronic/synchronic divide and addresses the frequently perceived but hardly understood interface between language and music, using prosody in the rhyme schemes and scores of Ancient Portuguese cantos to tease out phonetic values of words which had previously remained hidden. Contact and Conflict After Claudi Balaguer’s wide-ranging characterisation of variation and the interfaces between and within the languages of the arguably still monocentric Occitan world, Felicity Rash makes a strongly documented case to illustrate that despite the deeply-held partisanship of Switzerland’s
- 16. Interfaces in Language xi four language communities exemplified in Sara Cotelli’s investigation of the francophone linguistic purism practised in the Swiss Jura, with Jura French seeing itself threatened not only by German but a francocentric form of French, Swiss language policy is now tending to favour the adoption of a fifth language, English, essentially, it would appear, in the advancement and preservation of the nation’s interest, with the notion of Swissness, nationhood thus overriding deep-seated linguistic, even ethnic, preoccupations. This view was strongly reinforced in discussions following these presentations. Jon Mills portrays a startlingly different attitude to English, as he sees it a language imposed over centuries on the people of Cornwall, or rather, the ruling English political system suppressing the Cornish language from outside for reasons of political repression and control rather than English being selected from inside by national choice and self-interest, thus engendering an atmosphere in which a language with no remaining native speakers is apparently being artificially resurrected or reinvented for counter-political reasons, inspired by a defensible and certainly understandable feeling of cultural and ethnic solidarity. Less tendentious positions are reflected in papers where the issue is more of contact than of conflict, of factual tendency rather than determined decision. Natalie Braber and Zoe Butterfint portray the situation in which inhabitants of and migrants from Glasgow, a city famed for its fierce independence, showing the interaction of English English with Glaswegian English and establishing that migrants are exhibiting linguistic developmental tendencies “in exile” similar to those exhibited by those who have remained. Dave Sayers looks at the issue of language levelling across three language communities in the South-East of England and finds that despite fears of an ultimate unified vernacular emerging – dialect death – a number of factors are (sometimes counter-intuitively) active in establishing separate linguistic identities and awarenesses, whilst David Hornsby’s investigations of vernacular French spoken in the Pas-de-Calais show an insecurity of identity – a feeling at times of pride in local allegiance but also a sense of regional inferiority vis-à-vis the higher status of Parisian, perhaps ultimately a slightly uncomfortable sense of general not-belonging and social rootlessness in immigrants On the other hand Christel Nissille’s paper bears witness to the cheerful multilinguistic insouciance with which the cognate and sometimes misperceived resources of Latin, French and English were combined for the purpose of teaching French to the English in the Late Middle English
- 17. Preface xii period: a true case of contact rather than conflict, perhaps one which in our embattled world we might be well advised to emulate. Language and Cognition Finally Charles Denroche, the lone survivor from this section of the conference, contributes a thoughtful and meticulously constructed function-based, ideologically unbound, stock-take of what needs to go on in the mind and the resources and skills necessary for the language user to perform linguistically, not purely in the psycho-syntactic “hard-wiring” theoretical model sense, although this can be integrated within it, but in everything that goes on in linguistic behaviour, short of a neurolinguistic account. Concluding Remarks The Interfaces in Language conference: diverse? Certainly. Diffuse? No. The experimental and self-defining nature of the conference and its contributions brought to light many hitherto relatively unsung interfaces, whilst resulting discussions equally revealed unsuspected synergies. Worth it? Definitely! We thought it would be a one-off, but in response to demand we successfully ran Interfaces 2 in May 2009, with Interfaces 3 projected for 2011. References Chapman, S. (1998) Accent in Context. Bern: Peter Lang Ross, J.R. (1970) ‘On Declarative Sentences’. In: Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P.S. (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass: Ginn. Sadock, J.(1969) Hypersentences. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana Schreiber, P. (1972) ‘Style Disjuncts and the Performative Analysis’. Linguistic Inquiry III, 321-347
- 18. LINEARITY AND THE SYNTAX-SEMANTICS INTERFACE1 ISABELLE BERLANGER This paper explores the concept of linearity in natural language, considering the opposition between linearity of sound and possible non linearity of meaning. Our main question How does language manage to linearly encode non-linear meanings? forces us to work at interface levels, examining from a semantic and a syntactic point of view such concepts as dependence (a main ingredient of meaning) and order (a main aspect of surface form). We approach this question in the framework of generative grammar, by way of branching quantification. Branching sentences(Most linguists and most philosophers know each other) display quantifiers that have to be dealt with in parallel, without any ordering (semantic symmetry), in opposition to linear ordering at the surface (syntactic asymmetry). In this case dependence and order appear to be in conflict, an observation that leads us to an extension of the notion of syntactic object. We introduce twin objects (in mutual c-command relation) in the syntax, in opposition to “standard” generative theory, and show how those objects allow to obtain the right interpretation at LF interface level, without loss of linearity at the surface. Beyond quantification, twin objects appear to play a central role in coordination and multiple wh-questions, offering a general tool of representation for linguistic phenomena exhibiting symmetry. In the first section, after a short background on linearity of sound and usual ordering of quantifiers in logical formulas, we come in section 1.3 to a description of branching quantification. In section 2, we transpose the problem in the framework of generative grammar. First we examine the question of word order at the phonetic interface (section 2.1), then we outline the structure of branching sentences at the logical interface (section 2.2), so that we can expose in section 2.3the ϭ The ideas developed here were presented at the international conference “Interfaces in Languages” in April 2007 (School of European Culture and Languages, University of Kent, UK). I am grateful to the audience of the conference and to Thierry Lucas for their valuable hints and comments.
- 19. Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface 2 conflict between dependence and order in generative terms, which brings us to question Kayne’s Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA). In the same section we examine coordination and multiple wh-questions, an intensively studied linguistic phenomenon. Section 3 comes to our main point, defining twin objects and coordination, and exposing their use at PF and LF levels (sections 3.3 and 3.4).With twin objects at hand we can then give an elegant solution to the branching problem in section 3.4.2. Finally, in defence of twin objects we show in section 3.4.3, they are extremely useful in the representation of multiple wh-questions. Section 4concludes the paper. 1. Linearity and language In the formal analysis of natural language, we attempt to extract the syntactic structure of sentences, passing them through the filter of interfaces, to eventually get “sounds” and “meanings”. On the one hand, the syntax-phonetic interface deals with the “sound” of a sentence (in particular the ordering of the words at the surface) ; on the other hand, the syntax-semantics interface gives access to its interpretation, generally in the form of a logical formula2 ).1 In this paper we focus on quantification, a main ingredient of meaning. An adequate syntactic structure has to be given for any sentence, even if the requirements at the interfaces appear to be conflicting. 1.1. Linearity and sound Natural language is linear in its sound. This is a physical constraint on our sentences : there is necessarily a precedence relation between the words. This surface order holds the mathematical properties of a linear ordering : for any different words A, B and C (i) Antisymmetry: If A precedes B, then B does not precede A (ii) Transitivity: If A precedes B and B precedes C, then A precedes C (iii) Totality: Either A precedes B or B precedes A. If a set is linearly ordered, its elements can be arranged “in a line”, one after the other. This is the case for words in a sentence. 2 We are dealing here with first order formulas, i.e. formulas of standard predicate logic, with quantifiers on individual variables, first order predicates and relations.
- 20. Isabelle Berlanger 3 1.2 Linearity and meaning Is there some sense in ordering meanings just as we order words? In fact, first order formulas present linearly ordered symbols. This is nonetheless not with a view to matching the surface order of the sentence – it is well known that such a correspondence does not exist – but rather to capturing its meaning. As a matter of fact, there is a close connection between the linear ordering of the quantifiers and dependence between them, hence interpretation. When two quantifiers appear in a formula, one of them necessarily precedes the other, inducing an embedding of their respective scopes: Q1 precedes Q2 ⇔Q2 is in the scope of (depends on) Q1. Different orderings of quantifiers lead thus to different interpretations, taking into account natural language ambiguities3 : 1) MOST PHILOSOPHERS KNOW TWO LINGUISTS 1aʬ) (MOST PHILOSOPHERS x) (TWO LINGUISTS y) (x KNOW y) MOST precedes TWO ; TWO in the scope of MOST More than 50% of philosophers know two linguists, possibly different ones for each philosopher 1bʬ) (TWO LINGUISTS y) (MOST PHILOSOPHERS x) (x know y) TWO precedes MOST ; MOST in the scope of TWO There are two linguists that are known by most of philosophers (maybe not the same philosophers for each linguist) 3 We will not enter here into the details of formalization, focusing on ordering matters. For a precise formalisation with generalized quantifiers, see among others (Westerståhl, 1989).
- 21. Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface 4 Schematically, these two cases are represented by the following situations (with P the set of philosophers, L the set of linguists, and a link between elements of those sets when the relation K of knowing is satisfied between them): Figure 1. Two cases of linear dependence between P’s and L’s. Philosophers and linguists related by the relation K, whose cardinalities are given respectively by the quantified expressions most and two. We obtain a linear dependence of one quantifier on the other when one of those subsets varies with the elements of the other: either the known linguists vary with the philosophers under consideration, or the set of philosophers varies with the linguists. This close connection between dependence and precedence invites us to transpose the natural linearity of sound into meaning. But why should meaning be restricted to the linear case? The much discussed question of correspondence between surface order and meaning has somewhat put this main question aside. In the lines of schemas here above we could imagine interpretations in which no variation of subsets X or Y takes place :
- 22. Isabelle Berlanger 5 Figure 2. Different types of non linear quantification. These four situations could respectively be the interpretation of the following four sentences: 2) THREE PHILOSOPHERS FOUGHT, ALL IN ALL, WITH FIVE LINGUISTS. 3) MOST PHILOSOPHERS AND MOST LINGUISTS (ALL) KNOW EACH OTHER. 4) THREE PHILOSOPHERS MARRIED THREE LINGUISTS. 5) FOUR TALES WERE STUDIED, TWO BY TWO, BY TWO PHILOSOPHERS. In these cases the quantifiers depend on each other in a non linear manner. In sentence 2) we only know there are three philosophers and five linguists entering the relation of fighting, without other precision about its internal structure. In the interpretation of this sentence, the quantified domains X and Y can be considered separately. In this case the quantifiers are said to be independent. In 3), on the other hand, we have more information about the internal structure of the relation of knowing: all members of X are related to all members of Y. To interpret the sentence, the two domains have to be simultaneously taken into account, in parallel.
- 23. Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface 6 This is a case of complex dependence between quantifiers. As for sentences 4) and 5), they exhibit other complex dependencies between argumental domains X and Y, neither linear nor independent. In 4) the relation is one-to-one. The philosophers and the linguists entering the relation cannot be chosen independent of each other; the two domains have to be simultaneously taken into account to capture the relation. The same is true for sentence (5) with a complex one-to-two relation. Generalising the link between order and dependence, we expect these sentences to correspond to formulas where quantifiers are not linearly ordered, in order to avoid embedded scopes which are synonymous with linear dependencies: Non linear dependence ⇔ scopes of Q1 and Q2 ⇔ Q1 and Q2 between Q1 and Q2 non-embedded not linearly ordered 1.3 Branching quantification Henkin first proposed extending the first order language to allow for non linearly ordered quantifiers, called branching quantifiers.4 Branching quantifiers are exactly what we need to formalize sentences (2) to (5), which we may accordingly call branching sentences. We adopt Sher’s notation, putting the quantifiers one under the other, and linking them by a brace to point out the complex relation existing between them: Q1 . . . Qn It is important to note that branching per se does not suffice to state what exactly the relation consists of. This could only be specified by the associated semantic definition. To match the intended interpretation we can specify to the right of the formula the internal structure of the relation, if quantitative particularities are known. In borderline cases the different quantifiers are independent of each other, a situation which is denoted by 4 See (Henkin,1961). In connection with natural language, see in particular the work of Hintikka, Westerståhl, Barwise and Sher.
- 24. Isabelle Berlanger 7 transforming the brace into a vertical line. Using the appropriate branching prefix, the sentences (2) to (5) can eventually be formalised as follows: THREE PHILOSOPHERS x 2ʬ) x FOUGHT WITH y FIVE LINGUISTS y MOST PHILOSOPHERS x 3ʬ) x know y (ALL/ALL) MOST LINGUISTS y THREE PHILOSOPHERS x 4ʬ) x MARRIED y (ONE/ONE) THREE LINGUISTS y TWO PHILOSOPHERS x 5ʬ) x studied y (ONE/TWO) FOUR TALES y Of the above formulas, only (2ʬ) is equivalent to some first order formulas5 . In this case the use of branching is called non-essential. The other sentences show that essential uses of branching can be found in natural language. These branching formulas express complex relations between quantified domains that cannot be reduced to linear combinations of quantifiers. Now we have to examine how branching can be taken into account in a formal grammar for natural language. Generally speaking, the question is 5 In contrast to the others, sentence (2) can be formalized by the conjunction of two first order formulas: ((three philosophers x) (exists linguist y) (x fought with y) and (five linguists y) (exists philosopher x) (x fought with y)).
- 25. Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface 8 to explain how natural language manages to linearly encode non linear meanings. The main point will be to obtain logical forms for branching sentences — in the sense of providing access to the right meaning – while maintaining descriptive adequacy. As a matter of fact, the linguistically minded logician is looking for a formalization that not only leads to the right interpretation, but preserves a maximal amount of syntactic information about the sentence. Logical formulas do not pursue this latter objective; for example the formulas above do not take into account the arrangement of the quantified nominal groups, in particular their possible coordination. Syntactical representations in a formal grammar cannot avoid this difficulty. Linguistic formalisms have to cope with representations of the sound and meaning of sentences, making explicit the link between them. As we are interested in dependence and linearity problems, we have to work within a framework that pays attention to the link between syntactic and semantic questions. Generative grammar, with its Logical Form (LF) and Phonetic Form (PF) interfaces, constitutes such a framework. In the following we examine how to translate the concepts of order and dependence in generative terms; then we show how the representation of branching leads to conflicting requirements at the interfaces. 2. Linearity and generative grammar Roughly speaking, generative grammar attempts to derive the logical form LF and the phonetic form PF of a sentence from a base structure proceeding from the lexicon. At each level of the derivation the structure is represented by a syntactic tree satisfying the X-bar theory6 . PF and LF are the interfaces that give respectively access to the sound and the meaning of the sentences. 2.1 Phonetic form and order The surface order of words is given at the phonetic interface PF. It amounts to the ordering of the terminal nodes of the corresponding syntactic tree. But how do we know that this ordering is linear? That question is often obliterated, the order between terminals being taken as a primitive of syntactic trees (A precedes B iff the terminal A appears at the left of the terminal B in the tree). This is not an acceptable position if we want to understand the order of words at the surface. As a matter of fact, 6 According to Chomsky’s Minimalist Program. See e.g. (Chomsky, 1995).
- 26. Isabelle Berlanger 9 the only primitive relation in trees is that of dominance between nodes. Unfortunately, dominance cannot discriminate trees regarding the ordering of terminals. The following trees are equivalent; no order is defined between the terminals A and B: Figure 3. Equivalent trees. In his seminal work The Antisymmetry of syntax, Kayne shows how the dominance relation can lead to a linear ordering of terminal nodes, that is to say an antisymmetric, transitive and total relation. His ordering is based on asymmetric c-command (henceforth ccommand) and the relation of precedence (marked ) Determined by it : (i) The constituent A ccommands the constituent B iff A c-commands B but B does not c-command A ; (ii) When a node A ccommands a node B, each terminal Ti dominated by A precedes each terminal Tj dominated by B (a statement supported by good linguistic intuition): A ccommands B | | | | | | | | T1 T2 Figure 4. Precedence relation between terminals. Unfortunately, the relation just defined is not a linear ordering: it is no longer antisymmetric or transitive, and it is not even total. This can be observed in a tree such as in Figure 5, where (i) E G (since A ccommands D), but also G E (since B ccommands C); (ii) E G, G F but E F and (iii) E and F are not related by (since each one ccommands the other). For details on these definitions and properties, see Kayne (1994, ch.1)
- 27. Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface 10 I A B C D E F G H Figure 5. Result of redefined Eventually, Kayne imposes a strong constraint on syntactic structures to make the relation a linear ordering. This is the very meaning of his Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA): from now on, trees have to put terminal nodes in relation in an antisymmetric way; too “symmetrical” trees have to be rejected: D D B C B C A Figure 6. Non-admissible vs. admissible tree. Note that, following LCA, this tree furnishes the same order at the surface as the fully equivalent tree D C B A Figure 7. Equivalent tree. What are the consequences of LCA for generative minimalist grammar trees? Kayne shows that X-bar syntactic structures satisfy the axiom LCA, with the result that standard maximal projections composing the trees (XP with one head X, one specifier SpecXP and one complement CompXP)
- 28. Isabelle Berlanger 11 give the expected order between terminal nodes, and hence the expected word order in the corresponding phrase: Spec-X-Comp7 . The idea is that we can cut sentences into major constituents in a specified order, next in sub-constituents, and so on. That procedure will furnish syntactic structures which in turn will give access to meaning. There is thus a close link between phrase structure and word order, between dependence (ccommand ) and linearity, a result in the same vein as the link between dependence and order into logical formulas. Recall that branching interpretations forced us to escape linearity, extending our logical language to branching quantifiers. We have now to examine how to cope with branching structures in generative grammar. 2.2 Logical form and scope At the level of logical form LF, we have to know the scope of all operators in order to get the right interpretation for a sentence. In generative grammar, the scope of quantifiers is fixed by c-command domain after raising in scope position (PP theory). Multiple quantification goes with multiple raising at LF, resulting in embedded scopes: the higher the position, the larger the scope. Dependence is thus directly translated in the hierarchy, by way of c-command: Figure 8. (TWO LINGUISTS) in the scope of (MOST PHILOSOPHERS) 7 The strength of LCA is to explain properties of X-bar structures which were formerly taken as primitives, thereby giving a better foundation to generative grammar. For a detailed critique of LCA and its connections with X-bar theory, see (Abels Neeleman, 2007).
- 29. Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface 12 Now recall from section 1.2 that non linearity in meaning is independence or complex dependence between quantifiers, that have to be treated on a par. Along those lines, branching amounts to mutual c- command between quantifiers at LF8 . Non-linear dependence ⇔ non-embedded scopes ⇔ mutual c-command between Q1 and Q2 for Q1 and Q2 of Q1 and Q2 at LF The logical form of (2) would then be something like 2) ti FOUGHT WITH tj QuantPi QuantPj THREE PHILOSOPHERS FIVE LINGUISTS But this is just the situation prohibited by LCA. Non-linear dependence goes with some symmetry at LF, but symmetric structures are inadmissible because they prevent defining an order between the terminals. 2.3 The branching conflict Translated into generative terms, the opposition between “linearity of sound” and “non-linearity of meaning” amounts to a conflict between syntactic asymmetry (at PF) and semantic symmetry (at LF). Interestingly, this conflict does not concern only quantification. It appears to be a central issue for other linguistic phenomena, in particular coordination and multiple wh-questions. In coordinate sentences, 8 For a similar position, see May (1985).
- 30. Isabelle Berlanger 13 6) [PHILOSOPHERS] AND [LINGUISTS] WERE PRESENT, one conjunct necessarily precedes the other at the surface, but the asymmetric c-command that renders this situation cannot hold at LF : both conjuncts have to receive the same status (licensing, marking, μ-role, etc.), which would be impossible if one conjunct ccommands the other. As for multiple wh-questions, (7) [WHO]+Wh READ [WHAT]+Wh ?, the two [+wh]-domains cannot be embedded into each other, because (7) amounts to simultaneous questions. LF is hence symmetric, but PF is not : an order has to be respected at the surface, and for this purpose one wh- constituent has to ccommand the other. Alan Munn, working on coordination, stated the problem clearly with this question:“ How is an asymmetric syntax mapped into a symmetrical semantics?”9 . Faced with this problem we can proceed in different ways. First, we could give absolute priority to interpretation, renouncing LCA for good. Different authors are working in that direction, in particular Abels Neeleman (2007) who show how antisymmetric structures for X- bar theory may be obtained without the use of LCA. Along that line there remains the problem of obtaining symmetric structures (for branching and coordination) and their linearisation at PF. The LCA has the merit of pointing at the very link between dependence and linearity which is here our main concern; that is the reason why we do not want to abandon it. In the opposite direction, we could give an absolute priority to description, preserving an asymmetric structure for all levels of representation. This is in fact the actual position of standard generative theory, based on LCA. On those grounds, branching sentences cannot be correctly interpreted, which cannot be accepted. Another possibility is to adopt a mixed system, abandoning LCA at LF level. In that case we would still have to examine how to obtain – by some operations to be properly defined – a symmetric logical form from an asymmetric base structure. That is the point of view of Munn (1993) and to some extent of Johannessen (1998), which they developed for coordination ; however 9 Alan Munn’s homepage, 2004.
- 31. Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface 14 their techniques are quite heavy and not easily adapted to quantification. This solution could also be rejected following Kayne’s homogeneity argument according to which LCA founds all the restrictions on phrase structure familiar from X-bar theory, and must therefore be applicable to all levels of representation. Along that line the weakening of LCA is for us a better solution than its rejection. A fourth possibility consists in weakening LCA on the whole syntactic representation, allowing local transgressions on particular constituents. That is to say we accept symmetric constituents at any level, creating locally non-linear islands. That is the point of view we develop in the sequel; it allows us to preserve the homogeneity of syntactic representation and to maintain a link between dependence and linearity, which is essential if we want to take branching into account. It has been brought recently to our attention that other authors have used an approach similar to ours. Such is the case of Moro (2000), who proposes a weak version of Kayne’s antisymmetry restricting LCA at PF level10 .Here are a few elements of comparison, without entering into details. Moro’s Dynamic Antisymmetry admits symmetric structures before PF (called points of symmetry), which are linearised at PF by movement (symmetry triggers the movement). Connecting phrase structure and movement theories, Moro’s results are very interesting, in particular for coordination : one will easily obtain surface linearisation of coordinated structures (by movement of one of the conjuncts) without breaking theirinterpretation. However, some usual movements are not much discussed by Moro, for example the raising of quantifiers. Branching will then be difficult to explain because movement and preservation of symmetry are incompatible in his system, a problem that needs further investigation. We now turn to our solution, putting forward its strong points, which we think give an adequate solution to the initial problem of conflict between semantic symmetry and syntactic antisymmetry. 3. Twin objects The three preceding sections support, we think, the following somewhat unusual hypothesis: syntactic structures may comprise symmetric constituents in violation of the LCA. We name them twin objects. Twin objects are not to be considered as a default of some odd structures or as a failure that further research would eliminate, but as 10 Thanks to the anonymous referee for this relevant reference.
- 32. Isabelle Berlanger 15 genuine and well-defined syntactic objects, entering the derivations as any other ones. They are the common point linking branching, coordination and multiple wh-questions. We first define them, then show how they are used in coordinated structure, triggering the expected phonetic and logical forms. 3.1 Definition We define a twin object of category X (denoted by X(2)) as the result of merging two constituents of the same category X and same bar level : Figure 9. Definition of twin objects. If necessary the explicit notation (X1; X2) is used to make apparent the components it is made of. Twin objects behave like any other usual syntactic object. They are formed by merging two constituents simultaneously selected11 : Figure 10. Twin objects with various levels of projection and categories. 11 In their definition and formation twin objects are equivalent to Moro’s points of symmetry. We are happy to note that quite different problems (small clauses, wh- extraction and clitics for Moro; branching and coordination for us) find a similar solution, based on the necessity of symmetric structures inside syntax. A more detailed study could examine the differences in the constructions and their implications, e.g. our twin labelling vs. Moro’s lack of projection.
- 33. Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface 16 After entering the structure twin objects can spread by merging with other, single (i.e. non-twin) constituents. Merging with a twin constituent amounts to merging with each of his components. In this way a new, more complex twin constituent can be formed, whose category depends on the categories of the components by the usual projection rules. For example12 : Figure 11. Spread of a twin object in syntactic structure. 3.2 Coordination By definition, twin objects give rise to a violation of the LCA, for their components are in amutual c-command relation. Consequently no order can be defined between them, a situation that cannot be accepted at the PF interface. Acceptance of twin objects thus entails the existence of an operation which would reduce them to single objects, in order to get a globally linear structure at the surface. Now this is exactly the role of coordination: a conjunction is nothing but an operator making one single 12 In my thesis (Berlanger, 2005), I consider a quantified NP (labelled QuantP) as an extension of DP whose quantifier (here, most) occupies the Spec position. See for example (Giusti,1997) for a similar analysis. The detail of the labelling does not matter here, the important point being the presence of twin quantified phrases.
- 34. Isabelle Berlanger 17 object from two. From now on, we propose to see a coordinate structure as the result of putting a twin object in the scope of a conjunction13 . We have now all the ingredients to define coordinate structures. We make the hypothesis that coordination is adjunction of a conjunction Co to a twin constituent X(2 ), creating from the two conjuncts X1 and X2 a single constituent X of the same category and the same level: Figure 12. Adjunction of Co to a twin object. Accordingly the structure of (6) is 6) Coordination always applies to a twin object, directly as above or indirectly after the spread of a twin object in the structure. We can for example obtain 13 According to this proposal, we think of the conjunction as an operator, as much as quantifiers, wh-words and negation, with which it can interact. See Camacho (2003, p.37) for an opposite point of view.
- 35. Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface 18 (8) [MOST OF THE PHILOSOPHERS AND MOST OF THE LINGUISTS]ZP from the twin head [(PHILOSOPHERS, LINGUISTS)]N (2) by indirect coordination, after the spread of the twin object and adjunction of AND : 8ʬ) QuantP Co QuantP(2 ) AND Spec Quant’(2 ) MOST Quant DP(2 OF D NP(2 ) THE NP1 NP2 PHILOSOPHERS LINGUISTS The challenge is now to show that twin structures will allow us to reach (i) the right surface word order, and (ii) the expected non-linear meanings, in particular the right interpretation for branching sentences. 3.3 PF with twin objects. We have to explain how a symmetric coordinate structure like O Co O(2 ) O1 O2 is eventually read with the correct linear order. Recall that to know how to read a coordinated sentence, we have to examine the ccommand relations
- 36. Isabelle Berlanger 19 between the conjunction and the twin object it is adjoined to (directly or indirectly) when entering the derivation. Analysing the coordinate structure above, we observe (i) a lack of ordering of the conjuncts (they are in mutually c-command relation) and (ii) a lack of ordering between the twin of conjuncts and the conjunction itself (there is no ccommand relation between them). Accordingly, because of the violation of LCA, the conjuncts cannot be ordered and the conjunction would neither precede nor follow the twin of conjuncts, thus eliminating four of the six possible combinations, namely Co-O1-O2, Co-O2-O1, O1-O2-Co, and O2-O1-Co. The remaining possibilities are then O1 - Co - O2 and O2 - Co - O1. This means that conjunction has to be placed between the conjuncts at the surface, whereas conjuncts may be put indifferently in any of the two possible orders. Accordingly, the above structure has two distinct readings at the surface. There is thus some phonetic ambiguity inherent to any coordinate sentence. Sentences (6) and (6b), for example, have exactly the same structure (see above): (6) PHILOSOPHERS AND LINGUISTS WERE PRESENT. (6b) LINGUISTS AND PHILOSOPHERS WERE PRESENT. We touch here on a main characteristic of coordination, i.e. the commutativity of the conjuncts. What is put forward here is the syntactic side of commutativity: the conjuncts can be permuted without change in the grammaticality of the sentence. Our analysis shows it is the very lack of linearity at the core of coordinate structure that ensures this commutativity, and consequently the descriptive adequacy of our structures14 . However, we learn from Johannessen (1998) that there is some exception to commutativity in various languages. She calls this phenomenon unbalanced coordination (UC). The syntactic commutativity of conjuncts 14 The obvious difference between He found the princess and got married and He got married and found the princess does not raise a grammatical question, but a pragmatic one. We will not treat here what Johannessen regards as pseudocoordination (Johannessen 1998, p.48).
- 37. Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface 20 is the general rule but, in somecases, the mere substitution of one conjunct for the other leads to agrammaticality. There follows an example from Czech15 : (9) PģJDU TAM [J A TY]. will.go-1sg there I and you ‘You and I will go there’. (10) *PģJDU TAM [TY A J] will.go-1sg there you and I ‘I and you will go there’. For sentence 10 to retrieve grammaticality, the verbal form has to agree with the first conjunct TY. The second conjunct is ignored for the purposes of agreement. This close link between features and order of conjuncts is an unexpected result we have to account for. It suggests that unbalanced- coordination could be a specific answer to the lack of linearity of coordinate structure: some languages tolerate symmetry well, accepting the resulting phonetic ambiguity, which is manifested by commutativity, while others do not accept it and devise some means to break symmetry, thereby recovering linearity. Czech, for example, would in some way adopt the following principle: Faced with a symmetric constituent (twinned conjuncts), read first the conjunct that agrees with the verbal form (or make only the conjunct you want to read first agree with the verbal form). The wide variety of principles that govern the spread of features is eventually a strong argument in favour of our proposal: there is some indeterminacy at the core of syntax and every language has to accommodate itself to this situation. Some languages do it by unbalanced coordination. Whatever the adopted solution, it corresponds to a language parameter. To sum up this section we can say that twin objects allow to a main requirement of the phonetic interface to be fulfilled, i.e. linearity at the surface, settled despite the symmetry of twin structures. We now turn to the semantics interface, examining what contribution twin objects can bring at this level. 15 For a detailed analysis of the different cases of deviation, see Johannessen (1998, ex.45, p.28).
- 38. Isabelle Berlanger 21 3.4 LF with twin objects A twin object appearing at the LF level shows some semantic symmetry present in the sentence. Its two constituents will be treated “on a par”. This is a direct consequence of the definition of twin objects. Indeed, as they belong to a unique (twin)-constituent, it is merely impossible to treat them differently from a semantic point of view: they receive ˠ-roles at the same time, as a pair of objects, if they move they move together, they are licensed in the same way by the same head, and so on. All phenomena involving symmetry will lead to syntactic structures containing twin objects. At section 2.3 we outlined three such phenomena: coordination, branching and multiple wh-questions. We now show how twin objects allow the right interpretation in those cases. 3.4.1. Coordination Let us consider the following sentence: (11) Alice and Bob got married. Recall that coordination is adjunction of a conjunction to a twin object. As an adjunct, the operator Co is a very mobile constituent. It can raise at LF like any operator, to reach its scope position. The scope of conjunction Co is by definition its c-command domain at LF. According to our proposal, this scope is always a twin object. As is expected for an interface level, in this way LF furnishes the ingredients for semantic interpretation. As a matter of fact, the two constituents of the twin scope indicate what kind of objects have to be coordinated (propositions, properties or sets). Note that sentence (11) is ambiguous. This fact is easily explained by our structure. The semantic scope of conjunction (appearing at LF) can indeed be distinct or not from its syntactic scope, as is the case for any operator. If the conjunction AND raises at LF we obtain a first reading in which Alice and Bob each got married (but not to each other)16 : 16 In this case the coordination operates on the two propositions ALICE GOT MARRIED and BOB GOT MARRIED denoted by the IP’s.
- 39. Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface 22 11a) The second (and preferred) reading, in which Alice and Bob got married to each other, is given by the following structure with internal coordination17 11b) From a semantic point of view, our structures with twin objects have a double advantage. First, the scope of conjunction is made visible at LF, contrary to usual standard structures which do not consider Co as an operator, and hence could fail to give all the possible interpretations. Second, the commutativity of conjuncts is easily explained. Commutativity has not only a syntactic side, but also a semantic one, i.e. the conjuncts can be permuted without change in the meaning of the whole sentence: (6) [PHILOSOPHERS] AND [LINGUISTS] WERE PRESENT, (6b) [LINGUISTS] AND [PHILOSOPHERS] WERE PRESENT. This commutativity arises immediately from the symmetry of LF. The semantic scope of the conjunction is a twin object, whose elements are treated on a par. This is not the case in usual X-bar XP structures, and, generally speaking, it will never be achieved in a structure where one conjunct merely ccommands the other, as is the case with the usual analysis of 17 Technically, the coordination operates on the sets {Alice} and {Bob} denoted by the NPs ALICE and BOB.
- 40. Isabelle Berlanger 23 coordination adopting the antisymmetric structure [ [ALICE] [ and [BOB] ] ]18 . 3.4.2. Branching Let us go back to the typical branching sentence 5) 5) MOST PHILOSOPHERS AND MOST LINGUISTS KNOW EACH OTHER This sentence contains a conjunction and will then use a coordinate structure as early as the base level. We have furthermore to get the branching interpretation, that is to say quantifiers in mutual c-command relation. Twin objects will again provide a straightforward solution to this problem in allowing the parallel raising of quantifiers at LF: 5ʬ) The twin object has raised in scope position, involving equal scopes for the quantifiers. Meanwhile, the traces combined with the conjunction form a non- linear island that will give rise to the expected readings at the surface. At LF the twin quantified constituent has larger scope than conjunction; the conjunction is itself internal to IP, a position where it correctly links the arguments of the verbal head KNOW, recuperated via 18 See for example (Kayne, 1994, p.12), where this structure is viewed as a consequence of LCA.
- 41. Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface 24 the pair of traces (ti; tj). The structure obtained CP(2 ) is globally a twin object, a most fortunate situation for a sentence that does not have any non-branching equivalent in first order logic. This mechanism gives us a better understanding of the relationships between coordination and branching, linearity of sound and non linearity of meaning. Twin objects are to be accepted at LF level but they are prohibited at PF level. Without twin objects we do not have branching interpretations, but without coordination branching structures could not be pronounced. We can think of twin structures as imposed by our intentional-conceptual system which is able to manage non linear information, whereas the conjunction is needed to make this very presence compatible with linearity condition at the sensori-motor interface. The general case is given by the sentence 12) Q1 A AND Q2 B ARE IN RELATION R, whose logical form 19 is 12ʬ) CP(2 ) Spec(2 ) IP QuantP(2 ) QuantP QuantP CoordP VP Q1 A Q2 B ARE IN RELATION R Spec (ti; tj) AND 3.4.3. Multiple wh-questions To strengthen our proposal, it is important to examine how twin objects could profitably throw a light in other linguistic domains than 19 This result is in the same vein as May (1985). Kayne explicitly rejects it as contradicting the LCA, though without giving an alternative to May’s attractive Scope Principle. See Kayne (1994, note 29, p.137).
- 42. Isabelle Berlanger 25 quantification. We adopt similar structures for multiple wh-questions and branching quantification, for in the two cases parallel interpretation of the operators is required. To return to sentence (7): 7) WHO READ WHAT? Note that in the case of multiple wh-questions no coordination occurs (much like in sentences (2) with independent quantifiers). The absence of a twin object at the base level of the structure does not prevent the double raising of wh-words. The logical form of (7) is 7ʬ) CP(2 ) SpecCP(2 ) IP ti READ tj SpecCP1 SpecCP2 WHOi WHATj The resulting structure is globally a twin structure, with equal scopes for the wh-words, involving the expected semantic symmetry. Such a structure has to be interpreted as simultaneous questions, establishing a link between two variables (the readers and the writings) put in a complex non linear dependency relation. First, the relation is non-linear because the writings cannot be relativized to the readers (as in What did each reader read?) nor can the readers be relativized to the writings (as in Who did read each writing?). Second, the relation is complex, because question (7) induces the answerer to explicit the internal structure of the relation R of reading by pair- answers ALICE READ PERRAULT, BOB READ ANDERSEN, ... (it is not sufficient to mention only the argumental sets). In accepting twin objects in interrogative structures, we clearly give priority to the adequacy of interpretation and its exigence of symmetry at the LF level. But interpretive adequacy cannot obliterate descriptive adequacy at PF level. We have here to cope with the problem of the so called superiority effects, that is to say, the possible non commutativity of wh-constituents.
- 43. Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface 26 The problem is made very clear in languages that force their wh- operators to raise overtly, rendering the scope positions visible at the surface. The superiority effect of subject over object can be observed in Bulgarian (example 13), whereas commutativity is the rule in Polish)20 (example 14): 13a) KOJ KOGO [ t VIDJAL t] who-nom. who-acc. see Who saw who? 13b) *KOJ [ t VIDJAL KOGO] who-nom. see who-acc. 13c) *KOGO KOJ VIDJAL who-acc .who-nom. See 14a) KTO CO [ t ROBIŁ t] who what make Who made what? 14b) *KTO [ t ROBIŁ CO] who make what 14c) CO KTO ROBIŁ what who make Who made what? Our solution predicts the commutativity of wh-constituents and will therefore easily explain the Polish example, whereas it seems less adequate for the Bulgarian one. However, according to the strong parallelism in structure between multiple wh-questions and branching quantification, the same arguments will be relevant. As a matter of fact, superiority effects are analogous to Unbalancing Coordination: two symmetrical constituents (as c-command is concerned) are notwithstanding linearly ordered at the surface. For unbalanced coordination we put forward the hypothesis that some specific (parametric) spread of features allows one to distinguish those constituents. In the case of superiority effects in the Bulgarian example, we could make the assumption that the ordering prevailing at base structure has to be preserved in the derivation till LF level, a hypothesis that needs further investigation. In any case such ordering principle can be seen as a way to keep with non-linear islands, eschewing the symmetry of syntax. 20 The examples are taken from Sabel (1998, p. 298, p. 323).
- 44. Isabelle Berlanger 27 4. Conclusion The existence of branching quantification in natural language forces us to face the conflict between semantic symmetry and syntactic asymmetry, and therefore to admit twin objects at the level of logical form. As a matter of fact, with twin objects at hand we can represent equal scopes, giving access to branching interpretations. According to the terms of the minimalist program, this can be seen as an interface condition imposed by our conceptual system, which is able to treat non-linear information. Starting with a requirement at the syntax-semantics interface, we come next to show that twin objects are useful at other levels of representation. They appear to be a main ingredient of coordinated structures. We propose a symmetric base structure for coordination, and show that it does not keep off descriptive adequacy. As a matter of fact, if we take seriously into account the correspondence postulated by Kayne between ccommand hierarchy of syntax and linearity at the surface, we are led to accept the phonetic ambiguity of coordinate structures as a direct consequence of the weakening of the LCA axiom at all syntactic levels. In that way the commutativity of conjuncts, a main property of coordination, turns out to be easily explained. Kayne did little to explore the consequence of LCA at LF level, but it is really the same axiom that accounts for non linear dependence at LF (that is to say, branching) and non linear dependence at PF (that is to say, commutativity), reinforcing the cohesion of the grammar. Hence, combining twin objects at LF level (for the representation of scopes) and base level (for the representation of coordinate structures), we get a precise representation of all scopes of all operators, including coordination operators, something logical formulas or standard generative structures are unable to do. That allows us to reach interpretative as well as descriptive adequacy, in particular for branching sentences. On those grounds twin objects contribute to a better understanding of the interactions between syntax and semantics, order and dependence. They help us to understand how natural languages succeed in putting non-linear meanings in a linear form. Ultimately, according to us, no particular principle is required to explain branching sentences, but a common process, amounting to accepting symmetry at the base of the structures, is used in phenomena a priori as diverse as coordination, branching quantification and multiple questions. Then, while dealing with the linearity problem twin objects settle a link between various linguistic domains, a point that improves their relevance.
- 45. Linearity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface 28 The problem of non-linearity in syntax is open for further investigations. New applications of twin objects could yet reinforce the generality of the solution. They could arise from bringing into the picture other theories proposing a weakening of LCA, such as Moro’s Dynamic Antisymmetry. More work has also to be done to study the variations adopted by different languages vis-à-vis symmetry. The great variety of principles suggests parametric variations, an assumption to be explored. In yet another direction, further researches would investigate if our results are in direct link with a particular theoretical framework (generative grammar) or, on the contrary, give evidence of an essential characteristic of natural language itself. 5. Bibliography Abels, K., and Neeleman, A. (2007) Universal 20 without the LCA. Draft 2.3, ttp://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000279 Barwise, J. (1979) ‘On branching quantifiers in English’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 47-80. Barwise, J. Cooper, R., (1981) ‘Generalized quantifiers and natural language’ Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159-219. Berlanger, I. (2005) La quantification ramifie en grammaire générative. Dissertation doctorale, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL). Camacho, J. (2003) The Structure of Coordination. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol. 57. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Chomsky, N. (2002) On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. Dougherty, R.C. (1970) ‘A Grammar of Coordinate Conjunction, part I’ Language 46, 850-898. Giusti, G. (1997) ‘The categorial status of determiners’ In: Haegeman, L. (ed.), TheNew Comparative Syntax. London : Longman, 95-144. Haegeman, L. (1994) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. 2nd ed.Oxford: Blackwell. Henkin, L. (1961) ‘Some remarks on infinitely long formulas’ Infinitistic Methods:Proceedings of the Symposium on Foundations of Mathematics, Warsaw, 1959. Oxford: Pergamon, 167-183. Hintikka, J. (1998) The principles of mathematics revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. (1974). Quantifiers vs Quantification Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 5,153- 177. Johannessen, J.B. (1998) Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- 46. Isabelle Berlanger 29 Kayne, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of syntax. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 25.Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. May, R. (1985) Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. —. (1989) Interpreting logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 387- 435. Munn, A. (1993) Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures PhD dissertation, University of Maryland (USA). Moro, A. (2000) Dynamic Antisymmetry. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 38. Cambridge(Mass.): MIT Press. Puskas, G. (2002) Floating quantifiers: what they can tell us about the syntax and semantics of quantifiers. Generative Grammar in Geneva, 3, 105-128. Sabel, J. (1998) Principles and Parameters of Wh-Movement. Habilitationsschrift, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität, Frankfurt/ Main. Sabel, J.(2003) Amalgamation in Syntax and LF. Notes de conférence. Sher, G. (1990) ‘Ways of branching quantifiers’ Linguistics and Philosophy, 13,393-422. Szabolcsi, A. (1997) (ed.) Ways of scope taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer. van Benthem, J. (1986) Essays in logical Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel. Westerståhl, D. (1989) ‘Quantifiers in formal and natural languages’ In: Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer,vol. IV, 1-131. —. (1987) ‚Branching generalized quantifiers and natural language’ In: Gärdenfors, P. (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers. Dordrecht: Reidel, 269- 298. Zoerner, E. (1999) ‘One Coordinator for All’ Linguistic Analysis, 29, 322- 341
- 48. LEFT DISLOCATION AND THE THEME-TOPIC INTERFACE: EVIDENCE FROM LATE MODERN ENGLISH 1 DAVID TIZÓN-COUTO 1. Introduction The terms ‘theme’ and ‘topic’ have been frequently debated in modern linguistics since Mathesius (1939:234), one of the main scholars from the Prague School, provided a seminal interpretation of the two parts found in an utterance, namely ‘theme’ and ‘rheme’, (i. and ii. respectively) as: i. “The starting point of the utterance” as “that which is known or at least obvious in the given situation and from which the speaker proceeds”. ii. The core of the utterance as “that which the speaker states about, or in regard to the starting point of the utterance”. [my underlining] This triple characterization suggests that theme is the part of the sentence that expresses known information; that it also embodies the point of departure of the clause as message and, finally, that the theme represents what an utterance is about. According to Gómez-González (2001:9), Mathesius’s quote above suggests “three dominant interpretations of communicative categories”: a. semantic, suggesting that theme/topic establishes a relationship of aboutness. b. informational, rendering theme/topic as given information. 1 The research which is here reported has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology, grant number HUM2005-02351/FILO, and Xunta de Galicia, grant number PGIDIT06PXIC302014. Both grants are hereby gratefully acknowledged.
- 49. Left Dislocation and the Theme-Topic Interface 32 c. syntactic, assuming that theme/topic constitutes a special point of departure that is associated with initial position.” Within these interpretations, matters can be made more precise by specifying the context to which they are applied: Interpretations of the theme-topic interface Levels at which they are applied Semantic (aboutness) Relational (clause) Referential (text) Interactive (speaker) Informational (givenness) Relational (clause) Referential (text) Interactive (speaker) Syntactic (first position in the sentence) Relational Table 1: The theme-topic interface according to Gómez-González (2001) This paper reconsiders each main interpretation of the theme-topic interface and explores the role of Left Dislocation (LD, henceforth) regarding these three interpretations for the theme-topic interface. The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a definition of left- dislocate which, by extension, defines the LD structure. Section 3.1 tackles the status of left-dislocated items as semantic topics or themes at the clause level. First, it is argued that the notions of subject, topic and theme must be kept distinct. Second, it is argued that aboutness remains a workable construct, particularly in the case of LD, i.e. left-dislocates are instances of the conflation of theme and topic in the syntax/discourse of English. Section 3.2 discusses the status of left-dislocates as discourse/text topics. Data are calculated regarding the topicality (‘Topic persistence’ in Givón 1983) of left-dislocated items in Late Modern English (lModE) discourse. According to the data, LD can be profiled as a structure which triggers topicality at the paragraph/chunk level. Section 4 deals with the informative features of LD. The heterogeneous informative character of the left-dislocates suggests that LD is in fact a marked syntactic strategy in lModE, not subject to the principles which rule the organization of the clause, namely, given-before-new and end-weight. Section 5 argues that although LD is worthy of inclusion within the syntactic component, it does not comply with the necessity of integration in the syntactic skeleton of the clause. In fact, if LD is compared with a strategy such as
- 50. David Tizón-Couto 33 Topicalisation12 (T, henceforth), some formal features can be identified which suggest a higher or lower degree of syntactic integration of left- dislocated constituents, namely the syntactic function of the resumptive, the possibility of direct replacement and the illocutionary patterns illustrated by punctuation. This investigation relies on data retrieved from two electronic collections containing literary texts from the Britain of the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, namely Eighteenth-Century Fiction and Nineteenth-Century Fiction. After a previous selection of texts, a corpus of over 600,000 words was gathered for each century, which adds up to an overall corpus of more than 1,200,000 words. All of the LD tokens here researched (263 instances) have been retrieved through manual search. Corpus # of words # of LDs Normalized frequency (10,000 words) 18th century 608,076 95 1.562 19th century 602,114 168 2.790 TOTAL 1,210,190 263 2.173 Table 2: Distribution of LD 2. Definition I contend that the term left-dislocate includes every left-field constituent which, within one speaker-turn2 , deploys a syntactic (referential index) or semantic link with a proform or anaphoric phrase in the core of the clause to which it is attached, except vocatives, self-correction items and the as- 2 For Ross (1973:553), The rule of Topicalization [is] a process which is formally almost identical to Left Dislocation, with the exception that while [Left Dislocation] leaves behind a pronoun to mark the position in the sentence that the fronted NP used to occupy, the rule of Topicalization does not. If Ross’s definition is taken as a point of departure, the fact that the proform occupies an object slot in the core, rather than the subject position, may render an instance of LD more prototypical. LD (This paper, I wrote it) and T (This paper I wrote) must be kept separate in the grammar (see section 5 in this paper).
- 51. Left Dislocation and the Theme-Topic Interface 34 for construction33 . Instances (1) and (2) below embody the two most typical instances of LD, namely Subject LD and Object LD. (1) The Pirates, for such they were, who had taken the Ship, being English, French, and Irishmen, belonging to the Crew at Madagascar, were moved at this Sight; particularly a desperate young Man that commanded the Pirate Ship, he was charmed with the Face of the reviving Charlotta, who lifting up her bright Eyes ravished his Soul; (P. Aubin, Charlotta Du Pont, 28-29) (2) I am just come from playing at ball in the garden, Lord Belmont of the party: this sweet old man! I am half in love with him, though I have no kind of hopes, for he told me yesterday, that lovely as I was, Lady Belmont was in his eyes a thousand times more so. (F.M. Brooke, The History of Lady Julia Mandeville, 62) First, vocatives are left out of the left-dislocate label on the basis that they refer to directly accessible elements from the interactional context. In Lambrecht’s (1996:277) words, “in the case of vocatives, but not topics, the accessible referent and the addressee are necessarily the same individual”. This suggests that the vocative may be erased without causing ungrammaticality or acutely affecting interpretation. According to Biber et al. (1999:140), “[v]ocatives [such as (3) below] are used to single out the addressee of a message”, while LDs [such as (4)] would single out a referent in order to ease the interpretation of the coming predication. 3 The unit ‘speaker-turn’ is here imported (and adapted for written language) from Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974). According to Ford, Fox and Thompson (2003), turns are built through recurrent grammatical and prosodic constructions which the speakers use as a convention. According to Duranti and Ochs (1979:405), LDs “may be used not only to gain access to the speaking floor but also to block or to reduce the access of others participating in the social interaction”. For Geluykens (1992), such floor-taking function would be the origin of LD as a construction. From his point of view (1992:45) “rather than being word order variations, LDs operate on another level altogether: they are a process whereby a speaker starts off with a REF, without any commitment to what comes later, and waits for a cue from the hearer in order to add on a PROP” [my underlining]. From my point of view, when producing an English LD, a speaker self-selects turn and may or not have a clear mind about how to continue.
- 52. David Tizón-Couto 35 (3) Inhuman satirist! be thy spleen thy punishment. For my part, I do not see what should provoke the bile of a philosopher, in the innocent luxury of dress? (R. Bage, Man as he is, 78) (4) Poor forlorn creature, where are now the revellers, the flatterers, that he could once inspire and command! (O. Goldsmith, The Vicar of Wakefield, 53) Second, self-correction items such as (5) are not considered instances of LD, since a speaker seems to self-select turn and often has a clear mind on how to continue when he/she produces LD (6). In (5) the speaker reformulates the whole sentence and the coreference between his character and he is accidental. Nevertheless, if the copula was were not uttered in (5), LD would take place. (5) His character was, — he loved a jest in his heart — and as he saw himself in the true point of ridicule, […] (L. Sterne, Tristram Shandy, 39) (6) Yes, and her petticoat; I hope you saw her petticoat, six inches deep in mud, I am absolutely certain; and the gown which had been let down to hide it, not doing its office. (J. Austen, Pride and Prejudice, 76) Third, prepositional phrases headed by as for have been excluded from the notion of LD given that they are integrated in the following clause as adjuncts and, therefore, they may occur without a proform (see Larsson 1979:42), as in (7), which is an essential component of LD. In addition, they may be possible within a construction which Dik (1997:391) terms ‘parenthetical position’. The instances in (8) suggest that the as-for construction (8a) behaves similarly to an adjunct (8b), which is also acceptable under such parenthetical environment. However, LD is not possible in this environment (8c). (7) As for the piety of my people, much might be said and much confessed or allowed. (W. Besant, Dorothy Foster, 3) (8) a. He doesn’t have a clue, as for History, who Hitler and Mao are. b. He doesn’t have a clue, unfortunately, who Hitler and Mao are. c. *He doesn’t have a clue, History, who Hitler and Mao are.
- 53. Left Dislocation and the Theme-Topic Interface 36 Last, as shown in (9), two different LD processes, namely a semantic relation of metonymy (his honour–he) and one of total identity (your brother–he), result in ungrammaticality within the same sentence. However, the as-for construction licenses such chains as illustrated in (10). (9) *His honour, your brother, he will doubtless in some way achieve greatness, as his grandfather before. (10) As for his honour, your brother, he will doubtless in some way achieve greatness, as his grandfather before […] (W.Besant, Dorothy Foster, 32) The concept of LD here put forth is based on the notion that any left-field constituent which is resumed cohesively within the ensuing has specific discourse effects at the paragraph/chunk level. Such effects may be determined by exploring the formal, informational and topicality dimensions of instances of LD extracted from corpus analysis. Although the analysis is here restricted to prototypical instances of LD, i.e. those in which the resumptive carries out a core syntactic function (subject, object, complement of preposition or subject complement), it must be pointed out that this definition of LD does not reject the potential inclusion of other less prototypical constructions within the concept of LD as embodied by the structural pattern in (11): (11) [CP …] (pause) [XPi] [CP … [(pro)NPi]…]] 3. Semantic interpretation This section deals with the role of left-dislocated constituents as regards two different functional semantic accounts in relation to ‘aboutness’ (what the sentence/text is about), namely relational (sentence topics) and referential (discourse topics). The interactive (speaker topics) interpretation has been left out of this paper due to the written nature of the data. This interpretation relies on the speaker’s assumptions about activation states in others’ minds, and pays attention to the communicative use of language. Although the interactive approach is considered highly valuable4 for a comprehensive description of English LD, this paper relies 4 This approach is inspired by general textual conceptions such as Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) ‘textual cohesion’, as well as by shaping definitions for LD, such
- 54. David Tizón-Couto 37 on formal aspects for the evaluation of both topic persistence and information status. 3.1. Relational semantic interpretation 3.1.1. Theoretical background The notion of ‘relational aboutness’ refers to what the clause is about, to the topic of the sentence (Reinhart 1981). This approach embodies the double judgement proposed in classical sources: The speaker announces a topic and then says something about it. Thus John/ran away; That new book by Thomas Guernsey/I haven’t read yet. In English and the familiar languages of Europe, topics are usually also subjects, and comments are predicates (Hockett 1958:201). As well as initially tied to the concept of subject5 , the notion of theme6 has also tended towards an aboutness interpretation7 and has thus been frequently associated with the topic89 category at the sentence-syntax level: “[t]he theme is what the rest of the sentence is about, it is context dependent, it may be given information, and, it is likely to be definite or generic” (Harlig and Bardovi-Harlig 1998:127). In fact, although Halliday (1994:34) defines ‘topical theme’ as a separate kind of theme, it would still simply constitute a type of theme with an ideational feature which prompts aboutness: The Theme of a clause ends with the first constituent that is either participant, circumstance, or process. Since a participant in thematic as Huddleston and Pullum’s (2002:1408): “[a] dislocated clause has a constituent, usually a NP, located to the left or right of the nucleus of the clause, with an anaphorically linked pronoun or comparable form within the nucleus itself” [my emphasis]. 5 According to Chafe (1994:55) for instance, “conversation could not function as it does unless speakers took account of activation states in minds beyond their own”. 6 According to Chafe (1976:43), “so far as I can see at present, the best way to characterize the subject function is not very different from the ancient statement that the subject is what we are talking about”. 7 Halliday (1967:212) defines theme as “what is being talked about, the point of departure for the clause as a message”. 8 Huddleston (1984:58), for instance, describes a topic as “what the sentence is primarily about”. 9 See Pérez-Guerra (1999:17) for a list of scholars/references for which a pragmatic theme embodies “the concern of the sentence”.
- 55. Another Random Scribd Document with Unrelated Content
- 56. *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PRINCESS DEHRA *** Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. START: FULL LICENSE
- 57. THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
- 58. PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license. Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
- 59. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
- 60. This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
- 61. with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that: • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
- 62. about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.” • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works. • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
- 63. damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
- 64. INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
- 65. remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many
- 66. small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate. While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate. Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
- 67. Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org. This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
- 68. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com