Sentence and discourse 1st Edition Guéron

Visit https://ebookultra.com to download the full version and
explore more ebooks
Sentence and discourse 1st Edition Guéron
_____ Click the link below to download _____
https://ebookultra.com/download/sentence-and-
discourse-1st-edition-gueron/
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookultra.com

Here are some suggested products you might be interested in.
Click the link to download
Starting Out The c3 Sicilian 1st Edition John Emms
https://ebookultra.com/download/starting-out-the-c3-sicilian-1st-
edition-john-emms/
Sentence Combining Workbook Third Edition Pam Altman
https://ebookultra.com/download/sentence-combining-workbook-third-
edition-pam-altman/
Statistical Theory and Methods for Evolutionary Genomics
Xun Gu
https://ebookultra.com/download/statistical-theory-and-methods-for-
evolutionary-genomics-xun-gu/
Thomas Killigrew Cavalier Dramatist 1612 83 Alfred Harbage
https://ebookultra.com/download/thomas-killigrew-cavalier-
dramatist-1612-83-alfred-harbage/

Cultural Foundations of Chinese Education 1st Edition
Mingyuan Gu
https://ebookultra.com/download/cultural-foundations-of-chinese-
education-1st-edition-mingyuan-gu/
Gene Discovery for Disease Models 1st Edition Weikuan Gu
https://ebookultra.com/download/gene-discovery-for-disease-models-1st-
edition-weikuan-gu/
Advances in Cancer Research Vol 83 1st Edition George
Klein (Editor)
https://ebookultra.com/download/advances-in-cancer-research-
vol-83-1st-edition-george-klein-editor/
Full Potential GMAT Sentence Correction Intensive 1st
Edition Bara Sapir
https://ebookultra.com/download/full-potential-gmat-sentence-
correction-intensive-1st-edition-bara-sapir/
Guweiz The Art of Gu Zheng Wei 1st Edition Guweiz
https://ebookultra.com/download/guweiz-the-art-of-gu-zheng-wei-1st-
edition-guweiz/

Sentence and discourse 1st Edition GuÃ©ron Digital
Instant Download
Author(s): GuÃ©ron, Jacqueline
ISBN(s): 9780198739425, 0198739427
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 1.95 MB
Year: 2015
Language: english

Sentence and Discourse
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 8/10/2015, SPi

OXFORD STUDIES IN THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS
general editors
David Adger and Hagit Borer, Queen Mary, University of London
advisory editors
Stephen Anderson, Yale University; Daniel Büring, University of California, Los
Angeles; Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Ben-Gurion University; Donka Farkas, University of
California, Santa Cruz; Angelika Kratzer, University of Massachusetts, Amherst;
Andrew Nevins, University College London; Christopher Potts, Stanford University;
Barry Schein, University of Southern California; Peter Svenonius, University of
Tromsø; Moira Yip, University College London
recent titles
45 Nonverbal Predication
Copular Sentences at the Syntax–Semantics Interface
by Isabelle Roy
46 Diagnosing Syntax
edited by Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver
47 Pseudogapping and Ellipsis
by Kirsten Gengel
48 Syntax and its Limits
edited by Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali, and Robert Truswell
49 Phrase Structure and Argument Structure
A Case Study of the Syntax–Semantics Interface
by Terje Lohndal
50 Edges in Syntax
Scrambling and Cyclic Linearization
by Heejeong Ko
51 The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax
edited by Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, and Florian Schäfer
52 Causation in Grammatical Structures
edited by Bridget Copley and Fabienne Martin
53 Continuations and Natural Language
by Chris Barker and Chung-chieh Shan
54 The Semantics of Evaluativity
by Jessica Rett
55 External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations
by Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Schäfer
56 Control and Restructuring
by Thomas Grano
57 The Interaction of Focus, Givenness, and Prosody
A Study of Italian Clause Structure
by Vieri Samek-Lodovici
58 The Morphosyntax of Gender
by Ruth Kramer
59 The Morphosyntax of Imperatives
by Daniela Isac
60 Sentence and Discourse
edited by Jacqueline Guéron
For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see pp. 311–12.

Sentence and Discourse
Edited by
JACQUELINE GUÉRON
1

3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
# editorial matter and organization Jacqueline Guéron 2015
# the chapters their several authors 2015
First Edition published in 2015
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015934833
ISBN 978–0–19–873941–8 (Hbk)
978–0–19–873942–5 (Pbk)
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, cr0 4yy
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

This volume is dedicated to Carlota Smith (1934–2007), who inspired
it. Carlota was a pioneer of the linguistics of Sentence and Discourse
(The Parameter of Aspect 1991/1997; Modes of Discourse 2003), an
esteemed colleague, and a noble soul.

Contents
General preface xiii
List of abbreviations xiv
About the contributors xvii
1 Introduction 1
Jacqueline Guéron
1.1 Presentation of the volume 1
1.1.1 Sentence grammar and discourse relations 3
1.1.2 The speaker and the subject 8
1.1.3 Sentence, discourse, and time 9
1.2 Contents of the volume 11
1.2.1 From sentence grammar to discourse 11
1.2.2 From discourse to sentence grammar 15
Part I. From Sentence to Discourse
2 On the temporal orientation of intensional subjunctives in Spanish 23
Brenda Laca
2.1 Intensional versus polarity subjunctives 23
2.2 The temporal orientation of matrix verbs selecting intensional
subjunctives 25
2.3 The semantics of volitionals 32
2.3.1 Volitionals as attitudes of preference 32
2.3.2 Volitionals as dispositions to act 35
2.4 Volitionals, evaluative-factives, and counterfactual morphology 38
2.5 Conclusion and outlook 41
3 Russian aspect in finite and non-finite modes: from syntax to
information structure 45
Eric Corre
3.1 Traditional accounts of the aspectual opposition 47
3.1.1 Situation aspect and viewpoint aspect 47
3.1.2 Conventions of use or “particular senses” 48
3.2 VA is neutral, SA is grammaticized 50
3.2.1 Prefixes are quantity markers 50
3.2.2 What is telicity? 52
3.2.3 SA is grammaticized, VA is neutral 54

3.3 From syntax to discourse: the case of infinitives 56
3.3.1 Corpus results 57
3.3.2 Commentary 61
3.3.3 Syntactic structure and discourse interaction 63
3.4 Conclusion 66
4 {A/a}spect/discourse interactions 67
Liliane Tasmowski
4.1 The imparfait/passé simple (IMPF/PS) tenses and (external)
temporal aspect 68
4.1.1 The role of the opposition IMPF/PS in the identification of
modes of discourse 68
4.1.2 The PS/IMPF opposition 70
4.2 Modes of action and the representation of Aktionsart 70
4.2.1 The role of Aktionsart in the grammar 70
4.2.2 The expression of telicity in Romance and Germanic languages 72
4.2.3 Telicity in Slavic languages 73
4.3 Examination of a corpus 75
4.4 Towards a solution 81
4.4.1 Discourse referents 81
4.4.2 Articled definite Npl versus unarticled bare indefinite Ø Npl 85
4.4.3 The definite article, a choice by default? 87
4.4.4 The definite article, a conditioned choice by default 89
4.5 Conclusion 91
5 Time talk in narrative discourse: evidence from child and adult
language acquisition 92
Maya Hickmann and Henriëtte Hendriks
5.1 Introduction 92
5.1.1 Temporality across languages 93
5.1.2 Temporality in child language 96
5.2 Temporal-aspectual markings in children’s narratives 100
5.2.1 Method 100
5.2.2 Results 102
5.2.3 Summary of child data 110
5.3 Comparative data from adults learning a second language 111
5.3.1 Method 111
5.3.2 Synthesis of results 112
5.4 Discussion 113
5.4.1 Summary of results 113
5.4.2 General cognitive determinants 115
viii Contents

5.4.3 Language-speciﬁc determinants 115
5.4.4 Levels of linguistic organization: functional determinants 117
5.5 Concluding remarks 118
Appendix: Picture sequences used as stimuli 119
6 On the syntax of modality and the Actuality Entailment 121
Jacqueline Guéron
6.1 Introduction: the Actuality Entailment 121
6.2 Arguments against the syntactic hypothesis 123
6.2.1 The data are not solid 123
6.2.2 The AE is not limited to modal auxiliaries in English 124
6.2.3 No need for two modal positions 125
6.2.4 AE without modals 126
6.2.5 The Aspect Projection 128
6.2.6 Agentivity 130
6.3 Towards an alternative hypothesis 131
6.3.1 Tense and Aspect as formal features 131
6.3.2 Operators versus verbs 132
6.3.3 Verbal scenarios 133
6.3.4 The agentive paradox 135
6.3.5 Aspect 137
6.3.6 Modality and “discours” 137
6.4 Conclusion 138
Part II. From Discourse to Sentence
7 Implicatures and grammar 143
Nicholas Asher
7.1 Introduction 143
7.2 Preliminaries 144
7.3 Moving to strategic conversation 149
7.4 The model 154
7.5 Back to implicatures 159
7.6 Conclusions 161
8 Perfect puzzles in discourse 162
Nicholas Asher and Jacqueline Guéron
8.2 Pancheva and von Stechow’s explanation 162
8.3 Some assumptions about aspect in English versus German and French 163
8.3.1 The second puzzle: perfect with the past tense 164
Contents ix

8.4 Moving to discourse 167
8.4.1 Perfects with discourse structure 170
8.5 Conclusions 177
9 The passé composé in Old French and Modern French: evolution
or revolution? 178
Patrick Caudal
9.2 Assessing the late perfectivization hypothesis: basic tenets
and evidence 181
9.2.1 The late perfectivization hypothesis: the OF PC as an intermediate
form between a resultative present and a full perfect 181
9.2.2 Arguments for the late perfectivization hypothesis 183
9.3 Re-assessing the perfectivization of the PC in OF: new data
and analysis 187
9.3.1 The present component of the PC in narrative uses:
imperfective or perfective viewpoint? 187
9.3.2 SOE uses of the OF PC: weak (inchoative) or strong
perfective uses? 188
9.3.3 Why the standard late perfectivization hypothesis is not fully
satisfying 193
9.4 Combining an innovative pragmatics with a conservative semantics
to account for the perfective uses of the PC in OF 196
9.4.1 Outlining a novel, composite account 196
9.4.2 The dynamic historical perspective issue: agentivity versus
SOE contexts 198
9.5 Conclusion: an evolution rather than a revolution 199
Appendix I: Corpus analysis 201
Appendix II: Formal implementation 203
10 Polyphonic utterances: alternation of present and past in reported
speech and thoughts in Russian 206
Svetlana Vogeleer
10.1 Aims 206
10.2 Different approaches to pronouns and tenses in ID and FID 207
10.3 Tenses in French and Russian reported speech 210
10.3.1 The French SOT 210
10.3.2 The Russian non-SOT 211
10.4 De re, de dicto, and de se readings of pronouns 212
10.5 Tenses in ID under saying predicates 214
x Contents

10.5.1 De re reading of tenses 215
10.5.2 Imparfait versus present in French 216
10.5.3 De dicto and de re present in Russian 217
10.5.4 Overlapping IMPERF-PST under saying predicates 220
10.5.5 Short conclusion 222
10.6 Present and past under cognitive factive predicates 222
10.7 From ID to (quasi-)FID 226
10.7.1 Colon and “primacy of direct discourse” 226
10.7.2 Bivocal (quasi-)FID 228
10.8 Conclusion 230
11 Free Indirect Discourse and the syntax of the left periphery 232
Alessandra Giorgi
11.2 Free Indirect Discourse: the properties 233
11.3 The syntax of the speaker’s temporal coordinate 234
11.4 FID and the C-speaker projection 238
11.4.1 Temporal locutions and the role of the speaker 238
11.4.2 Tenses 242
11.4.3 Some generalizations 245
11.5 Towards a syntax of Free Indirect Discourse 245
11.5.1 The syntax of tense in FID sentences 245
11.5.2 On the syntax of the “introducing predicate” 249
11.6 Conclusions 255
12 Subjectivity and Free Indirect Discourse 256
Jacqueline Guéron
12.1 Subjectivity 256
12.2 Literature 257
12.2.1 The power of literature 257
12.2.2 Unspeakable sentences 258
12.2.3 Iconic effects: the interaction of the ordinary and the
literary grammars 259
12.2.4 What the literary text lacks 263
12.3 Subject of Consciousness versus “point of view” 263
12.4 Free Indirect Discourse 265
12.4.1 The properties of Free Indirect Discourse 265
12.4.2 The grammar of Free Indirect Discourse 267
12.4.3 The syntactic structures of direct speech, indirect speech,
and free indirect speech (FID/RST) 270
Contents xi

12.4.4 The grammatical status of the FID text 279
12.4.5 Free Indirect Discourse in situ 280
12.5 Conclusion 281
Appendix: FID is not an attitude report 282
References 287
Index 307
xii Contents

General preface
The theoretical focus of this series is on the interfaces between subcomponents of the
human grammatical system and the closely related area of the interfaces between the
different subdisciplines of linguistics. The notion of “interface” has become central in
grammatical theory (for instance, in Chomsky’s Minimalist Program) and in linguis-
tic practice: work on the interfaces between syntax and semantics, syntax and
morphology, phonology and phonetics, etc. has led to a deeper understanding of
particular linguistic phenomena and of the architecture of the linguistic component
of the mind/brain.
The series covers interfaces between core components of grammar, including syntax/
morphology, syntax/semantics, syntax/phonology, syntax/pragmatics, morphology/
phonology, phonology/phonetics, phonetics/speech processing, semantics/pragmatics,
and intonation/discourse structure, as well as issues in the way that the systems of
grammar involving these interface areas are acquired and deployed in use (including
language acquisition, language dysfunction, and language processing). It demon-
strates, we hope, that proper understandings of particular linguistic phenomena,
languages, language groups, or inter-language variations all require reference to
interfaces.
The series is open to work by linguists of all theoretical persuasions and schools of
thought. A main requirement is that authors should write so as to be understood by
colleagues in related subﬁelds of linguistics and by scholars in cognate disciplines.
The ﬁne grained structure of clauses, including aspect, tense, modality, mood, and
force, interacts in a complex fashion with the mechanisms of discourse structure.
Current theories of clausal structure, appealing to the hierarchical ordering of
functional projections and their interaction with phasal domains of interpretation,
are now well developed, but raise urgent questions about how syntactic structure
building operations relate to the mechanisms that build larger discourse structures,
where the kinds of hierarchy and the combinatorial primitives seem to be quite
different. The current volume brings together a range of chapters that systematically
explore these issues, arguing that the grammatical structure of clauses impacts on the
way that stretches of discourse are organized, and that, in turn, the structure of
discourse feeds into the structuring of clauses.
David Adger
Hagit Borer

List of abbreviations
ACC accusative
AE actuality entailment
AspQ aspect-as-quantity
BM Banach Mazur (game)
COMP Complementizer
COND conditional
DAR Double Access Reading
DEM demonstrative
DO direct object
DP determiner phrase
DRS disourse representation structure
DRT Discourse Representation Theory
DTH Defective Tense Hypothesis
EDU elementary discourse unit
ET event time
FID Free Indirect Discourse
FF formal features
FUT future
Gen genitive
GER gerund
GL glue logic
ID indirect discourse
IE Indo-European
IMP imperative
IMPF imperfect/imparfait
IMPERF imperfective
IMPF-PR imperfective present tense
IMPF-PST imperfective past
IMPV imperfective viewpoint
IND indicative
INF inﬁnitive

INFP Information layer
INS instrumental
IP Inflection Phrase
IQAP indirect question–answer pairs
LF Logical Form
LOC locative
LOG logophor
Mid. Fr. Middle French
N neuter
NEG negative
NMLZ nominalizer
NP noun phrase
NSF not sentence-final
NVF not-verb-final
OBJ object
OF Old French
PA passé antérieur
PART particle
PAST PROG past progressive
PC passé composé
PERF perfective
PRF perfect
PF Phonological Form
PFVP perfective viewpoint
PKT Perfekt (German)
PIC Phase Impenetrability Condition
PL plural
POS possessive
POV point of view
PP past participle
PP-CP past participle, compound past
PPF pluperfect
PqP pluperfect/plus-que-parfait
PR present/présent
PRP present participle
List of abbreviations xv

PRT Präteritum (German)
PS passé simple
PST past
PTS perfect time span
QAP question–answer pair
REFL reflexive
REL relative clause marker
RST Represented Speech and Thought
RT reference time
SA situation aspect
SARG speech act related goal
SBJ subjunctive
SDRS segmented discourse representation structure
SDRT Segmented Discourse Representation Theory
SF sentence-final
SG singular
SI secondary imperfective
SID Standard Indirect Discourse
SOC subject of consciousness
SOE Sequence of Events
SOT Sequence of Tense
SP simple (perfective) past
ST speech time
SUBJ subject case
SUBORD subordinate
SUB.PR subjunctive present
TCL Type Composition Logic
TP Tense Phrase
VA viewpoint aspect
VF verb-final
vP verb phrase (voice phrase)
VP Verb Phrase (lexical)
xvi List of abbreviations

About the contributors
NICHOLAS ASHER is currently director of research at the Centre National de
Recherche Scientifique and is a member of the Institut de Recherche en Informatique
de Toulouse. Prior to that, he was Professor of Philosophy and of Linguistics at the
University of Texas at Austin. He specializes in formal semantics and pragmatics and
also has interests in computational semantics and NLP. He has written four books,
including a recent one on lexical semantics, Lexical Meaning in Context (Cambridge
University Press, 2011) and two on SDRT, a theory of discourse structure and
interpretation: Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse (Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, 1993) and Logics of Conversation (Cambridge University Press, 2003). He has
written over 190 papers for journals, learned conferences, and book chapters.
PATRICK CAUDAL is a CNRS researcher at the Laboratoire de Linguistique Formelle
(Université Paris-Diderot). He specializes in the semantics and pragmatics of tense,
aspect, and modality (TAM), and has a longstanding interest in the semantics/
pragmatics interface, particularly in relation to morphology and the lexicon. He
has worked extensively on those domains in Romance, Germanic, and Australian
languages, with a quadruple descriptive, typological, historical, and formal perspec-
tive. He has coordinated a number of international projects dedicated to TAM,
including the TAMEAL Marie-Curie project (“The Interrelation of Tense, Aspect
and Modality with Evidentiality in Australian Aboriginal Languages”).
ERIC CORRE is Professor of Linguistics in the English Department at the University
of Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3, where he completed his Dissertation in 2008 and has
been a member of the faculty since 2009. His research interests lie in the area of
aspect and event structure, with a focus on contrastive linguistics (English, Russian)
in the past few years. He has also collaborated with researchers in other languages—
Lithuanian, Khmer, and Hungarian—in particular in the domain of verbal prefix-
ation and complex predicates. Most of his publications are concerned with the verb
and verbal aspect. His 2009 book, De l’aspect sémantique à la structure de l’évé-
nement—Les verbes anglais et russes recapitulated the principle insights of 15 other
publications that ranged from the present perfect in English to verbal prefixation in
Russian.
ALESSANDRA GIORGI studied at La Sapienza University in Rome, at Scuola Normale
in Pisa and at MIT, Cambridge MA. She is now Professor of Linguistics at Ca’ Foscari
University of Venice. She is the author of several monographs: The Syntax of Noun
Phrases, with G. Longobardi (Cambridge University Press, 1991); Tense and Aspect,

with F. Pianesi (Oxford University Press, 1997); and About the Speaker (Oxford
University Press, 2010).
JACQUELINE GUÉRON is Emeritus Professor at the Université Paris 3. She holds a
PhD in French Literature from the University of Pennsylvania and a Doctorat d’Etat
from the Université Paris 7. She has co-edited a number of works on subjects dealing
with syntax and construal, most recently on tense, modality, and Creole syntax. She is
co-author, with Liliane Haegeman, of English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. In
the domain of sentence grammar she has published articles on extraposition, focus,
anaphora, inalienable possession, tense, aspect, and modality. In the literary domain,
her publications bear on metrical theory and Free Indirect Discourse as well as
literary criticism.
HENRIËTTE HENDRIKS obtained her PhD from Leiden University in 1993. She worked
as a researcher at the Max Planck Institute in Nijmegen for 12 years and has been
working at the University of Cambridge since 1998. She is currently Head of the
Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics and co-chair of the University of
Cambridge Language Sciences Initiative. Her main research interest is in the inter-
action between language and cognition, and typological differences across languages.
Research questions concern the influence of language-specific differences on first-
and second-language acquisition, and the effects of cognitive maturity on the acqui-
sition process.
MAYA HICKMANN received her PhD from the University of Chicago. She was a
member of the Max-Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (Nijmegen), then of two
Psychology labs (at the Université René Descartes). She is presently Research Dir-
ector at the CNRS in France and co-directs a Linguistics lab (Laboratoire Structures
Formelles du Langage, Université de Paris 8). Her publications focus on structural
and functional determinants of language development, typological constraints on
first and second language acquisition, and the relationship between language and
cognition. She is Chief Editor of the journal LIA (John Benjamins) dedicated to
language acquisition.
BRENDA LACA graduated in Linguistics at UDELAR (Montevideo) and obtained her
PhD in General and Romance Linguistics at the University of Tubingen. She has been
Professor of Linguistics at the University of Paris 8 since 2001, after teaching at the
Free University of Berlin and the University of Strasbourg. She is a specialist in
semantics and has done research on the semantics of word formation, on genericity
and the semantics of determiners, on tense and aspect, on verbal plurality and
pluractionality, and on modality.
LILIANE TASMOWSKI taught French and Romance linguistics at the University of
Antwerp, and subsequently, as a member of the Royal Flemish Academy for Science
xviii About the contributors

and the Arts, contributed to the study of Balkan linguistics. She is a doctor honoris
causa of the University of Timişoara and professor honoris causa of the University of
Bucharest. She is author or co-author of four books and about 130 articles, editor or
co-editor of some 25 collective works, and has directed more than 20 national or
international research programs, most of them related to problems of sentential
grammar / discourse worlds interferences.
SVETLANA VOGELEER is a professor at the School for Translators and Interpreters of
the Institut Libre Marie Haps (Brussels) and a research associate at the Centre of
Research in Linguistics (LaDisco), Université Libre de Bruxelles. Her research inter-
ests and publications are mainly concerned with the interaction between pragmatics,
semantics, and syntax of tense and aspect, nominal and verbal plurality, genericity,
reported speech.
About the contributors xix

1
Introduction
JACQUELINE GUÉRON
1.1 Presentation of the volume
This volume is devoted to the study of the interaction between the grammar of a
sentence and the form of a discourse. Its authors examine some of the ways in which
the functional constituents of sentence grammar, including Force, Mood, Modality,
Tense, and Aspect, and interpretive mechanisms such as anaphora and information
structure, interact with the organizing principles of discourse.1
The time is ripe for such an investigation. A well-articulated sentence grammar is
now available. From Syntactic Structures to the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1957,
1981, 1995, 2001), generative grammar has investigated in detail and, more recently,
radically simplified the formal rules of a model of sentence grammar based on an
autonomous syntactic component. In this framework, a sentence structure is derived
by means of a recursive Merge operation and Move and Agree relations which
match the interpretable formal features of descriptive lexical items—predicates,
arguments, and modifiers—with the uninterpretable formal features of the functional
heads defining the syntactic skeleton. The notion of phase is crucial. Feature-based
A-Movement rules which derive passive or middle structures and A0
-movement rules
which create Interrogative and other dislocating structures are restricted by locality
constraints and the “edge” properties of the two syntactic phases which make up the
sentence structure, the highest verb phrase (vP) and the Complementizer/Tense
Phrase (COMP/TP).
The theory of sentence grammar has developed independently of the study of
discourse. On the one hand, this reductionist approach accounts for the success
of the theory and its adaptability to such domains as comparative and diachronic
linguistics, psycholinguistics and the nascent study of the biological foundations of
Sentence and Discourse. First edition. Jacqueline Guéron
This chapter © Jacqueline Guéron 2015. Published 2015 by Oxford University Press
1
I am grateful to Parick Caudal, Claude Delmas, Henriette Hendriks, Maya Hickmann, Brenda Laca,
Liliane Tasmowski, and Svetlana Vogeleer for comments and suggestions on this introduction; and to Eric
Corre and Maurice Guéron for much appreciated technical help.

language. On the other hand, the availability of an explicit sentence grammar now
makes it possible and perhaps imperative to raise questions concerning the relation
of sentence to discourse. Do rules of sentence grammar contribute to determining the
form of a discourse? Do discourse relations impinge upon sentence grammar? The
work in this volume suggests that the answer to both questions is yes.
The term “Discourse” refers here both to a set of sentences which for the speakers
of a language form a coherent whole and to the principles determining the relations
between sentences which produce that coherence. Much previous work on discourse,
notably Benveniste (1966), Halliday and Hasan (1976), Hobbs (1985), Polyani (1985),
Asher (1993), Lascarides and Asher (1993b), Kamp and Reyle (1993), and Smith (1991/
1997) finds an echo in this volume.2
The originality of the present work lies in its
discovery of many new relations between sentence and discourse which, taken as a
whole, suggest that studies in one of these domains cannot be considered complete
unless tested for the impact of the other domain.
At first glance, sentence and discourse do not seem to share any principles of
organization. The sentence has a hierarchical structure derived by repeated applica-
tions of Merge. Structural relations like government, c-command, and Agree—
however formulated in the evolving theory of generative grammar—define
sentence-internal operator-variable, anaphor-antecedent, and goal-probe relations
between constituents. In the absence of c-command, discourse lacks operator-
variable type relations like interrogation, focus, polarity items, and universal and
existential quantification other than those defined within individual sentences. In the
absence of syntactic hierarchy, discourse lacks the embedded, extraposed, and modi-
fier clauses which derive complex sentences denoting temporal and causal relations
between states and events. A discourse is a linear concatenation of sentences for
which logical forms, not syntactic structures, determine appropriate combinations.
Since a discourse already consists of grammatical sentences, is it not hopeless to seek
a grammar of discourse in addition to the grammar of the sentence plus linear
composition.
Yet the native speaker has a particular discourse competence. She can distinguish a
coherent from an incoherent discourse just as easily as a grammatical from an
ungrammatical sentence (cf. Hobbs, 1985). On what basis is her judgment formed?
The work in this volume suggests that sentence and discourse are closely inter-
related, more specifically that sentence grammar encodes discourse relations which
impinge in turn on sentence construal.
2
Preliminary versions of Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were presented at a colloquium in honor of
Carlota Smith April 2–4, 2009, Université Paris 3—Sorbonne-Nouvelle.
2 Jacqueline Guéron

1.1.1 Sentence grammar and discourse relations
Halliday and Hasan (1976) explored a crucial principle of discourse organization:
anaphoric relations over sentence boundaries. Asher (1993) further developed this
line of inquiry by defining “abstract objects”—propositions, events, and discourse
segments—to which specialized anaphors refer over sentence boundaries.
In subsequent work, Asher and his colleagues developed a Segmented Discourse
Representation Theory (SDRT), inspired by Kamp and Reyle, Hobbs, Polyani, and
others, which goes farther than its predecessors in providing an explanatory hier-
archical model of discourse structure. They introduce a glue logic which links the
logical forms of successive sentences by means of a limited number of primitive
rhetorical relations, such as CONTINUATION, ELABORATION, PARALLEL,
CONTRAST, EXPLANATION, BACKGROUND, and RESULT.
It turns out that the same functional items which refer to abstract objects in
discourse also refer to concrete objects in both sentence and discourse. In (1), for
example, adapted from Asher (1993), the same deictic and anaphoric terms (it, this,
that, these) refer to a concrete object, a house, in A, an abstract object, a proposition
(it in B), and an abstract discourse segment (that in A and B).
(1) A. This house has five bedrooms and cost 500,000 dollars. That house costs the
same. It only has three bedrooms but it has a pool. That’s all I know about
those two houses.
B. I don’t believe it. You obviously know more than that since you’re the
broker.
The rhetorical relations between successive sentences which are responsible for
discourse coherence are also encoded in sentence grammar. Asher showed, for
example, that the intersentential relations of CONTINUATION and ELABOR-
ATION imply a previously established discourse TOPIC. This analysis motivates
the construction of a hierarchical discourse tree structure in which the Topic segment
dominates Continuation and Elaboration comment segments. Other semantic rela-
tions between sentences such as CONTRAST and PARALLEL define sister relations
within the tree representation.
The notion of Topic, which is crucial for discourse structure, is explicitly named
within a sentence when one person asks another, for example, what the topic of the
talk is that they are going to give or what the talk will be “about”. Moroever the Topic
occupies a dedicated position in the Left Periphery of the syntactic sentential skeleton
(Rizzi, 1997).
Rhetorical relations linking successive sentences in discourse are also named by
the subordinating conjunctions which derive complex sentences. The relation of
Explanation which links S1 to S2 in the discourse in (2a) is named by the lexical
item because in a single sentence in (2b).
Introduction 3

(2) a. S1: John fell. S2: Bill pushed him. EXPLANATION: [S2 CAUSE of S1]
b. John fell [BECAUSE Bill pushed him].
Similarly, Hobbs (1985) proposes a discourse relation of BACKGROUND defined in
(3) and illustrated in (4).
(3) Background: Infer from S0 a description of a system of entities and relations
and infer from S1 that some entity is placed or moves against that system as a
background.
(4) S0 And one Sunday morning . . . I sat down in Penn Station. S1 And while I was
sitting there a young cat came up to me.
Note, however, that the temporal adverbial while which introduces the embedded
progressive clause in S1 already defines a Background relation for the perfective main
clause.
In both sentence and discourse, a pronoun often signals the presence of a Topic, an
entity presupposed as existing in the discourse world independent of the truth of the
sentence. In Italian or Arabic, for example, the difference between a Left Periphery
Topic or Focus is encoded by the presence or absence of a resumptive pronoun
within the sentence.3
A free (locally unbound) pronoun can also identify a topic in a sentence lacking a
left periphery. In both English and French, a focus constituent is identified by strong
stress while a topic is unstressed. The contrast between (5a) and (6a) with respect to
coreference, which cannot be accounted for on a structural basis, finds a natural
explanation in terms of information structure as encoded by stress (triggered in
French by a lexical focalizer): only an unstressed antecedent can be construed as
TOPIC of the sentence. (Stress is indicated by capitals in (5) and (6).)
(5) a. *Hisi mother loves JOHNi
FOCUS
b. Hisi mother LOVES Johni.
FOCUS TOPIC
(6) a. *Sai mère aime JEANi.
FOCUS
b. Seule sai MERE aime Jeani.
FOCUS TOPIC
3
On Italian see Frascarelli (2007), on Arabic Aguezzal-Lyassi (2012). For more on Topic and Focus, see
Lambrecht (1994).

Logophoricity is an anaphoric discourse phenomenon. In English, a lexical anaphor
may be construed as a logophoric pronoun coreferential with an antecedent topic
over an intervening sentence boundary, as in (7) from Zribi-Hertz (1989).
(7) Hei sat down at the desk and opened the drawers. In the top right-hand one was
an envelope addressed to himselfi.
The same anaphoric element can function as a logophor within a sentence. In
(8a, 8b), John, the antecedent of the anaphor himself, functions as a topic in a specific
portion of the discourse world introduced by the verb or VP. Coreference is possible
in (8a) where the verb please introduces a psychological world and in (8b) where
adorn and office introduce a discourse space. But (9a, 9b) are unacceptable under a
coreferential construal whatever the stress pattern; for in (9a) John is Focus and in
(9b) the Topic of the psych-world introduced by please is John’s mother, not John.
(8) a. Those pictures of himselfi please Johni.
b. Pictures of himselfi adorn [Johnis [office]].
(9) a. *Those pictures of himselfi show Johni.
b. *Pictures of himselfi please [Johni’s mother].
A pronoun bound by an operator rather than a topic is construed as a variable and
must be c-commanded by an operator, whatever the stress pattern of the sentence.
(10) a. Everyone loves his MOTHER.
b. *His mother LOVES everyone.
c. *Seule sa MERE aime chaque homme/tout le monde.
Abstract object anaphora refers to a propositional discourse object in (11b) and to an
eventive one in (12b).
(11) a. John said [that the butler is the murderer].
b. I don’t believe it.
(12) a. John said [that he was hit by a car].
b. John’s a liar. It never happened.
Abstract object anaphora is also encoded within sentence grammar. The sentences of
(13) contain a propositional abstract antecedent; those of (14) contain an event
antecedent.
(13) a. John said [that the butler is the murderer] but I don’t believe it.
b. I believe it [that the butler is the murderer]. You need not insist.
c. It is not true [that the butler is the murderer].
(14) a. [Goldwater won in Arizona] but it could never have happened in New York.
b. It happened [that Goldwater won in Arizona].
Introduction 5

But an informationally new abstract object cannot be linked to a pronominal within a
sentence, as shown by the contrast in (15).4
(15) a. I regret (to say) (*it) [that your candidacy is not retained].
FOCUS
b. I REGRET (it) [that your candidacy was not retained].
TOPIC
Discourse coherence can be based on mereological relations between a Focus in one
sentence and the Topic of the following sentence (cf. Kleiber, 2001).
(16) S1 We entered the town. S2 The church was on our right.
A mereological link between successive sentences does not suffice to produce a
coherent discourse segment, however. Sentence and discourse interact. Not only
must each sentence of a pair of sentences contain an appropriate topic–comment
relation but the second sentence must also constitute an appropriate comment for the
preceding topic sentence. Appropriate sentential links exist in (17) but not in (18).
(17) a. Mary is a soprano. Her voice often fills the concert hall with pleasing sound.
b. New York City is a great town. The mayor is very active.
(18) a. John is a baritone. #His shoelaces are often untied.
b. New York city is a great town. #The mayor is at the door.
Similar constraints hold within a sentence with a left-dislocated constituent, as
shown in (19) and (20).5,6
(19) a. Of which soprano does the voice often fill the concert hall?
b. Of which town is the mayor an Irishman?
(20) a. *?Of which baritone are the shoelaces often untied?
b. *Of which town is the mayor at the door?
Benveniste (1966) showed that elements of sentence grammar determine the mode
of discourse. Thus in French, the passé simple encodes the narrative mode (récit
4
And compare (13b) with “I believe (*it) that you are the new teacher, are you not?”
5
The left-dislocated Prepositional Phrase in (19) and (20) is a wh-item in syntax which also functions as
a Topic, as in the D-linking examples (25b) and (27a, 27b). English which defines an element or set of
elements presupposed as present in the discourse world (Random House dictionary). Moroever, of in
English, like di in Italian or en and dont in French, refers, in clause-initial position, to topical elements (cf.
the first line of Milton’s epic poem Paradise Lost: “Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit/of that
forbidden tree . . . Sing, Heavenly Muse.”
6
Bianchi and Chesi (2014) analyze this type of sentence in terms of interface constraints on syntactic
extraction. As they note, thetic sentences allow PP “extraction” of the subject more readily than do
categorial sentences. However, in cases like (19) and (20), discourse context would be necessary in order
to distinguish a thetic (all focus) from a categorial (topic–comment) sentence.

historique) while deictic terms encode discours involving communication between a
speaker and a hearer.7
In the other direction, mode of discourse can determine the
construal of a verbal form within a sentence. Eric Corre shows in this volume that the
imperfective verb in Russian, which generally encodes an imperfective (IMPERF)
viewpoint in the sense of Smith (1991), targeting the internal structure of an event,
takes on a perfective (PREF) viewpoint including the endpoints of an event when
referring to a previous topic or conversation topic as in (21):
(21) A. Nado skazat’ emu o sobranii
It-is-necessary to tell-perf him about meeting.
B. Ja uzhe govoril.
I already told-imperf.
Similarly, in the reportive mode, the French imperfective past cannot depict a
punctual event (cf. (22b)). But in the narrative mode, the imperfective may be the
preferred form (Tasmowski, 1985).
(22) a. Hier, Jean est tombé du train/est mort.
b. *Hier, Jean tombait du train/mourait.
(23) a. Deux heures après, notre héros tombait du train.
b. En 1885, Victor Hugo mourait.
A discourse contains R-expressions—Names, deﬁnite descriptions, and pronouns—
but no free variables. Nevertheless, a variable within a sentence can be construed as a
pronominal when its binder is (part of) the discourse topic. For example, wh-
movement is a sentence operation which obeys a Superiority (Closest Move) Con-
straint. Example (24b) is ungrammatical because the object NP is raised in syntax
over a wh-element in subject position closer to the Probe in COMP. Pesetsky (1987)
showed, however, that a D(iscourse)-linked wh-antecedent legitimizes an otherwise
unauthorized binding relation. In (25) the wh-phrase presupposes the existence in the
discourse of a set of books related to a set of boys with which the speaker and hearer
are familiar and which together establish a Topic (perhaps the lexical content of the
wh-expressions raises from Focus Phrase to Topic Phrase in Logical Form). Conse-
quently, both arguments are construed in situ as pronominals and movement need
not obey Shortest Move.
(24) a. Whoi [ti bought what]?
b. *Whati did [who buy ti]?
7
The hearer may be virtual rather than immediately present. The solution to Agatha Christie’s The
Murder of Roger Ackroyd turns on this distinction.
Introduction 7

(25) a. Which boyi [ti bought which book]?
b. Which booki did [which boy buy ti]?
A non-D-linked operator must c-command a variable within the sentence. A variable
does not create a discourse referent.
(26) Every man loves his wife. *She is in the next room.
However, if a sentence happens to contain a restriction introducing a new discourse
world and a subject with topic status in that world, then in the predicate of that
sentence and in subsequent sentences (provided locality and parallelism maintain the
new discourse world), the variable bound by the overt operator functions as a
pronoun, as in (27a, 27b), from Fauconnier (1984).
(27) a. Every man who loves his wife treats her well. He gives her flowers. He brings
her breakfast in bed . . .
b. If/When a man loves his wife, . . .
1.1.2 The speaker and the subject
Carlota Smith (2003) distinguished five Modes of Discourse: Narrative, Description,
Report, Information, and Argument identified by typical syntactic structures. These
modes all involve a single speaker/agent. Benveniste, as mentioned, distinguished the
récit historique which bears no internal sign of a narrator from discours containing
deictic grammatical markers (I, you, today) which reveal the presence of a speaker in
the act of communicating with a hearer.8
A host of lexical and functional constituents encode the presence of a speaker as
well, such as the choice of Interrogative, Exclamative, or Imperative Force in the
matrix, parentheticals, sentence adverbials, and evaluative or expressive terms.
Moroever, since the speaker has scope over all the sentences of the discourse, she
can insert her own references and judgments even within a sentence describing the
attitude of a subject. This may create an ambiguity as to the Responsible Source
(Smith, 2003) of the reference or judgment, as in (28a, 28b).
(28) a. Oedipus wants to marry his mother.
b. John insists that we invite his obnoxious colleague Oscar to dinner.
There is also a parallelism between attitudes available to the subject of a sentence and
those available to the speaker. In her analysis of embedded subjunctives in Spanish,
Laca (this volume) shows that the attitude of the matrix subject with respect to an
embedded subjunctive clause ranges over different values: some matrix verbs express
8
A récit need not exclude the pronoun “I” altogether (cf. “Sitôt levé, je courus à la terrasse la plus haute”
(As soon as I got up, I ran to the highest terrace), Gide, L’immoraliste). More precisely, “I” or “You,” if they
appear, do not define a deictic center of discourse (cf. Bianchi, 2003).

an attitude of belief or acceptance towards the proposition the complement denotes;
others denote an attitude of intention or disposition with respect to a possible
outcome. Laca compares the status of these embedded clauses to the complements
of modals. Modality in a matrix clause, which represents an attitude of the speaker,
makes the same semantic distinctions as do attitudes of the subject of a complex
clause. Deontic modality selects an outcome and contributes to moving the discourse
forward from the Speech Time, while epistemic modality implies a degree of confi-
dence in the truth of the proposition at issue at the point of Speech Time.
Sentence grammar distinguishes direct discourse with a speaker agent as in (29)
from indirect discourse with a subject agent as in (30).
(29) Leave! (Direct)
(30) John told Bill to leave. (Indirect)
What is not possible is to combine the grammar of indirect and that of direct
discourse within a single sentence. Thus, examples (31c) and (32c) are “unspeakable”
(cf. Banfield, 1982).
(31) a. John said (this): Get thee behind me, Satan. (Direct)
b. John told Satan to get behind him. (Indirect)
c. *John told Satan to get thee behind him/me. (Mixed)(Mixed)
(32) a. “How tall John is!” Mary said. (Direct)
b. Mary said that John is exceedingly tall. (Indirect)
c. *Mary said (that) how tall John is (!) (Mixed)
And yet the literary style of Free Indirect Discourse (FID) does exactly this: it
combines indirect and direct discourse within a complex sentence or sequence of
sentences. The pioneering analyses of this hybrid style were provided by Hamburger
(1973) for “erlebte Rede,” Kuroda (1973) for “non-reportive speech,” and Banfield
(1982) for “Represented Speech and Thought.” The existence of the FID style raises a
number of questions. As Giorgi (this volume) points out, the speaker has a FID
competence just as she has a sentence and a discourse competence. But how can a
sentence which is ungrammatical in ordinary discourse be grammatical in literary
discourse? And since FID is possible, why is it relegated to literary rather than
everyday discourse? The last three articles in this volume attempt to answer these
questions.
1.1.3 Sentence, discourse, and time
The studies in this volume support the hypothesis that the language faculty
contains two modules, sentence and discourse, which are in constant interaction,
as expressed in (33).
Introduction 9

(33) (i) The anaphoric and rhetorical relations between sentences responsible for
discourse coherence are encoded in sentence grammar.
(ii) These same intersentential relations constrain, in turn, the construal of the
individual sentences of a discourse.
Statement (33i) accounts for the fact that competence in sentence grammar implies
competence in the ability to produce and understand well-formed discourses. State-
ment (33ii) implies that relations between successsive sentences of a discourse
contribute to establishing the background world against which the truth of individual
sentences is tested.
There is another domain, in addition to mechanisms of discourse coherence, in
which an a priori difference between sentence and discourse is in part compensated
by their interaction within the language faculty, the domain of time.
A sentence is anchored at the single point of Speech or Reference Time associated
with a speaker. However complex the sentence, the temporal relations between its
subparts can all ultimately be traced to a single anchoring moment. Discourse evolves
over a successsion of points of time, so that the Event time of a previous sentence
rather than the Reference time of the speech act becomes the Reference time for the
following sentence. While a complex sentence can easily accommodate temporal
relations of overlap, the discourse specializes in describing successions of events in
time, as in narrative structures. While a sentence, which holds at a point of time, may
be stative, no discourse is stative, even if it is in the Descriptive Mode, since progress
over a spatial or mental domain involves a span of time (cf. Smith, 2003).
The sentence is anchored in a single point of view. Even a thetic sentence like “it is/
was raining” implies an observer. But a discourse may lack a point of view altogether
(cf. Benveniste on récit historique and the discussion of Free Indirect Discourse in
this volume). Any assertive sentence can take a tag and can be challenged by a hearer.
But only a whole discourse can be rejected. Temporal-causal relations within a
sentence are asserted because they are explicit; the same relations are only defeasible
implicatures in discourse.
(34) a. John fell because Bill pushed him (*but that’s not why he fell). (cf. 2b)
b. John fell. Bill pushed him (but that’s not why he fell). (cf. 2a)
However, complex sentences have a special mediating role between sentence and
discourse. The temporal and causal relations encoded by subordinating conjunctions
allow sentence grammar to capture the access to time inherent in the discourse
modes and thus to place under the control of a speaker relations between events and
times which are only implicit in discourse.
Patrick Caudal provides a vivid illustration of the role of the complex sentence
in the interaction between sentence and discourse in diachrony. The Modern
French Present Perfect (passé composé) evolved from a complex form with a

present tense meaning, incompatible with point adverbs like “yesterday”, into a
form allowing a simple perfective construal compatible with “yesterday.” Caudal
argues that this evolution can be attributed both to an element of the Old French
sentence grammar, namely, the ambiguous [+/ pefective F] of the auxiliary verb
avoir/être and to the SDRT discourse relation of Narration encoded by correlative
sentences of the type “When S1, S2.” The discourse relation disambiguated
the aspectual value of the auxiliary, determining a perfective construal of the
auxiliary which, ﬁrst pragmatically and then grammatically derived a perfective
perfect.9
1.2 Contents of the volume
1.2.1 From sentence grammar to discourse
In Chapter 2, “On the temporal orientation of intensional subjunctives in Spanish,”
Brenda Laca focuses on the interaction between lexical selection, functional struc-
ture, and temporal construal. She shows that the speaker’s choice of a matrix
volitional verb determines not only the Mood and Tense of its sentential comple-
ment, but the forward or backward movement in time of the entire sentence. Laca
investigates the grammar of intentional subjunctives, selected by volitional verbs
such as Spanish querer (want) or esperar (wish). While all volitional verbs select a
subjunctive complement and are unable to host pr0spective aspect, they differ in
temporal properties. Some volitional verbs, like querer, are forward shifting: they
cannot take retrospective aspect without an adverbial modiﬁer. Others, such as
esperar, behave like the modal verbs poder and deber: they are forward shifting
under a root or deontic construal of the matrix verb but are backward shifting
under an epistemic construal.
Laca accounts for the compatibility of both modals and certain volitionals with
retrospective aspect by means of a distinction made in Portner (1997). She proposes
that while some volitional verbs such as esperar (hope) denote evaluative propos-
itional attitudes, in which case they accept retrospective aspect, just like attitude verbs
such as think or believe; others, such as querer (want), introduce what Portner calls a
“disposition to act.” In this case they shift an event to the future and behave like
deontic modals, directive verbs, and causative verbs.
The alternation in sentence grammar between propositional attitudes and disposi-
tions to act, triggered by a lexical choice determining the mood, tense, and modality
9
The English present perfect did not evolve from a present tense resultative stative (John has his hand
raised now) to a perfective past (*John has raised his hand yesterday). English has temperal-causal
correlatives, yet it rejects examples like Caudal’s example (26): “*When the queen saw the king then she
has stood up to him.” The cause reduces to sentence grammar. The English present perfect auxiliary have
being obligatorily imperfective (cf. Guéron, 2004), it cannot merge with a participle to denote a past
perfective tense.
Introduction 11

of an embedded complement, impinges on discourse grammar by determining the
reflective or dynamic nature of the following sentences.
In Chapter 3, “Russian aspect in finite and non-finite modes: from syntax to
information structure,” Eric Corre fills a gap in the study of grammatical aspect.
Most studies of aspect examine only finite sentences, where grammatical aspect
cannot be dissociated from tense and lexical Aktionsart. This often leads to the
confusion of aspect with actionality. In Russian, however, where perfective (PERF)
or imperfective (IMPERF) aspect is lexically or morphologically defined on all verbal
forms, it is possible to separate these components. Corre’s study shows that in both
finite and non-finite verbs, actional/Aktionsart parameters like telicity are compat-
ible with either perfective or imperfective aspect.
Choice of IMPERF or PERF aspect in non-finite verbs is sometimes subject to
language-specific grammatical conventions. In other cases, aspect does seem to be
determined by Aktionsart. However in his study of IMPERF and PERF non-finite
forms occuring in semi-formal conversations on a Russian radio program, Corre
observed a significant number of cases in which choice of aspect must be accounted
for in terms of information structure interacting with interactional dynamism
between participants in conversation. In a number of characteristic cases, the IMPERF
form used to refer to a state of affairs described by a PERF verb in earlier portions of
conversation signals that the speaker considers the situation as the current topical
center of attention and as a consensual position of both interlocutors. A PERF form
then introduces information not previously taken into account. Finally, a later use of
the IMPERF form establishes a new topic or center of attention and a new consensus
between speakers.10
In Chapter 4, “{A/a}spect/Discourse Interactions,” Liliane Tasmowski’s analysis of
a French-to-Bulgarian translation of a narrative reveals how tense, aspect, and
nominal determination in sentence grammar interact with information theory in
discourse.
Like Corre, Tasmowski argues for the independence of the different components
of temporal interpretation, Aktionsart, aspect, and tense. Aktionsart does not deter-
mine aspect: lexico-semantic telicity is distinct from grammatical perfectivity, not
only in English, in which verbal morphology defines neither telicity nor perfectivity,
but even in Slavic languages, in which all verbs are lexically or morphologically
marked as perfective or imperfective. Aspect is in turn independent of tense: in both
Slavic and Romance languages, past tense allows a choice of either aspectual form.
In English, “consumption” verbs like eat define an atelic event when followed by
an indefinite or mass direct object and a telic event when followed by a definite,
10
It is interesting to compare the radio conversations Corre studies, which illustrate situations of
Gricean strong cooperativity between participants, with non-cooperative situations such as the courtroom
cross-examination analyzed by Asher in this volume.

specific, or quantized object. In Slavic languages like Russian, Polish, and Czech,
which lack determiners, construal takes the opposite path: a perfective verb usually
determines a bounded NP and a telic event. Tasmowski examines the case of
Bulgarian, a Slavic language which possesses not only lexically and morphologically
defined perfective and imperfective verbal forms, but, in addition, contrary to other
Slavic languages, an elaborate system of tenses plus a determiner system comparable
to that of French or English. Consequently, the prediction that in Slavic, a perfective
verb determines the construal of its selected argument as quantized may be tested: in
a language with overt nominal determination, such verbs should select a definite or
quantized argument.
Tasmowski then compares sentences with indefinite plural subjects in a French
detective novel by Simenon with their translation into Bulgarian. Surprisingly, in a
significant number of cases, an indefinite plural NP in French is translated by a
definite plural NP in Bulgarian, independent of the aspect or tense of the verb or the
Aktionsart of the vP. Simenon’s sentence “Des gens s’enfuirent” (people fled)
becomes, in Bulgarian, “Xorata se razbjagaxa+Perf.+Aorist” (literally “the people
refl+fled”). Since the contrast between definite and indefinite determiners is available
in Bulgarian as in French, such translation needs an explanation. After showing that
previously suggested analyses of definite NPs fail to apply, Tasmowski proposes that
if the indefinite plural subjects of Simenon are replaced by a definite plural subject in
Bulgarian, it is because in Bugarian the definite determiner marks a non-topical NP
whose reference is presupposed in the discourse context. She thus shows that one
cannot collapse the notion of Topic or “subject of predication” defined in sentence
grammar, with that of “old information” defined in discourse grammar.
The temporal-aspectual system of a language must be acquired before a speaker
can tell a story. In Chapter 5, “Time talk in narrative discourse: evidence from child
and adult language acquisition,” Maya Hickmann and Henriëtte Hendriks compare
the respective roles of grammar, cognitive development, and discourse constraints in
the acquisition of temporal-aspectual markers by children acquiring their native
language (L1) and by adults acquiring a second language (L2). A series of L1
experiments tested the ages at which English, French, German, and Mandarin
Chinese-speaking children acquired the temporal-aspectual markers of their lan-
guage and how they used their linguistic resources to tell a story. The grammars of
these languages differ: English has aspectually transparent progressive and preterite
forms independent of tense, while French and German merge imperfective aspect
and tense in the verbal paradigm, and Mandarin Chinese, which lacks verbal
morphology altogether, uses particles to mark the perfective and imperfective use
of verbs. The results of these experiments showed that speakers used different
linguistic means to anchor discourse across languages and ages: the aspect-neutral
present tense (French and German children and adults, English adults), the past
preterite form (young English children), aspect particles (Chinese adults, fewer
Introduction 13

among children) as well as connectives or merely reliance on discourse context or
pragmatic inferences (young Chinese children).
Telling a story requires that children (and adults) distinguish events which follow
upon each other serially from those which involve simultaneity and overlap. The
authors show that the way the children solved this task differed according to the
temporal-aspectual systems of their native grammars. The widespread Defective
Tense Hypothesis, which holds that children acquire tense mainly on the basis of
aspect/Aktionsart, was shown to hold only partially. While the English data support
this hypothesis and the Chinese data do so partially, Aktionsart played much less of a
role in tense selection for French and German children and for all monolingual adults
in the Indo-European group.
Finally, a comparison of these data with a second series of experiments on adult L2
acquisition suggests that cognitive factors cannot be the only deteminants of acqui-
sition, as some patterns were observed in both types of learners despite clearly
different cognitive systems. Both sets of data, child L1 and adult L2, furthermore
support approaches that explore the role of discourse determinants in the use and
acquisition of tense-aspect systems.
In Chapter 6, “On the syntax of modality and the Actuality Entailment,” by Jacque-
line Guéron, I argue that a semantic puzzle concerning modal sentences which has
been claimed to depend on syntactic structure depends in fact on discourse strategies.
Bhatt (1999) and Pin
~ón (2003) noted that a subset of sentences containing ability
modals come with an Actuality Entailment (AE). Hacquard (2009) showed that the
puzzling data, which extend to both possibility and necessity modals in French, are
related to differences in grammatical aspect. The actuality entailment in PERF (35b)
below is absent in IMPF (35a).
(35) a. Jeanne pouvait (IMPF) prendre le train (mais elle ne l’a pas pris).
J. was able (IMPF) to take the train (but she didn’t take it).
b. Jeanne a pu/put (PERF) prendre le train (# mais elle ne l’a pas pris).
J. was able (PERF) to take the train (but she didn’t take it).
Hacquard proposes a solution which crucially depends on the positions in syntax of
Modality and Aspect. Epistemic and Deontic modals would be generated respectively
above and below Tense. The syntactic scope of deontic modals accounts for the fact
that they trigger an actuality entailment on VP. This entailment is blocked by
Imperfective Aspect in an intervening Aspect node.
I argue that the actuality entailment has nothing to do with doubling the position
assigned to modal verbs in syntax, for it occurs systematically in sentence structures
lacking modal verbs altogether. I propose, rather, that the AE is triggered by a speciﬁc
goal-directed discourse strategy. When applied to sentences with either overt or
covert modality, such a strategy associates an event with an open time interval.
It is thus incompatible with a PERF construal, however obtained.

1.2.2 From discourse to sentence grammar
In Chapter 7, “Implicatures and grammar,” Nicholas Asher extends the domain of
application of the Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT) which he has
developed along with his collaborators over the years. In SDRT, “elementary dis-
course units” (EDUs, clauses in general) are linked by rhetorical relations such as
Parallel or Contrast, Explanation, Narration, Correction, and Direct or Indirect
Question–Answer Pairs. A logic for defeasible inference calculates sentential impli-
catures on the basis of a discourse structure which links the logical forms associated
with sentences. In Asher (2012b), reviewed here, Asher applied this theory to scalar
implicatures triggered by lexical items such as OR in “John or Mary came to the
party.” In a non-embedded context, the operator OR may be construed either as
exclusive (J. and M. did not both come) or inclusive (both came). Asher showed,
however, that when a scalar item is embedded under another operator, such as the
conditional operator IF in “IF you take salad OR dessert, you pay 20 dollars,” one of
the possible construals may be ruled out by the discourse context.
Asher compared the neo-Gricean approach to the “localist” approach of Chierchia
(2004) and Chierchia et al. (2008) according to which scalar implicatures, like other
sentence mechanisms, are calculated locally, thus allowing construal of embedded scalar
items. While inspired by the localist view as far as subsentential discourse units are
concerned, Asher multiplied examples showing that the calculation of alternative sets
relevant to deriving embedded scalar implicatures depends on the global discourse
structure, and more specifically on discourse relations as defined within SDRT.
In this volume, Asher demonstrates how SDRT, combined with a game theory
approach to conversation, can solve problems concerning implicatures generated in
the absence of strong Gricean cooperativity. An example of such a situation is a
courtroom scene in which the defendant and the prosecutor have different goals, yet
the defendant succeeds in deflecting the prosecutor’s inquiry by exploiting a misleading
implicature, a misdirection. Asher uses game theory to show how even in cases of
misdirection, it can be in the interest of both parties, in spite of their opposing interests,
to connect elements of discourse structure in ways that generate implicatures.
In Chapter 8, “Perfect puzzles in discourse,” Nicholas Asher and Jacqueline
Guéron review two puzzles associated with perfect tenses. We argue, first, that the
well-known puzzle concerning the grammaticality of adverbs like yesterday with the
present perfect in French and German but not in English can be solved very simply
within sentence grammar by invoking a parameter involving the morphosyntax of
aspect (cf. Guéron 2004).11
11
See Caudal (this volume) for the role of the adverb “yesterday” in the diachronic evolution of the
perfect form in French.
Introduction 15

The second puzzle involves a contrast in the use of the past perfect shown in
(36a, 36b).
(36) a. *We met John last night. He had arrived yesterday.
b. We met John this morning. He had arrived yesterday.
Pancheva and von Stechow (2004) and Pancheva (2004) propose a semantic con-
straint on the use of tense: a past perfect sentence disallows overlap between the
Reference Time (RT) and the Event Time (ET) (cf. Reichenbach, 1947). In the
ungrammatical (36a) above, the RT of the past perfect sentence, last night, overlaps
with the ET yesterday; this is not the case in (36b).
We point out, however, that overlap is not excluded in near-identical sentences
such as (37a, 37b), to be compared with (36a).
(37) a. We saw John last night. He had just FINISHED HIS THESIS yesterday.
b. We saw John last night. MARY had (already) arrived yesterday.
We argue that the past perfect puzzle cannot be solved without recourse to discourse
relations between sentences such as those proposed by Asher and Bras (1994), Asher
and Lascarides (2003), and Asher, this volume. The problem with (36a) is that the
temporal adverbs last night and yesterday are both focused. In the framework of
SDRT, a succession of two focused constituents of the same type introduces a causal
link between two successive sentences. Temporal overlap is excluded in (36a) simply
because a cause must precede its effect. In addition, we show how discourse relations
can account for contrasts involving not only past perfects but also future perfects,
simple past tenses, spatial terms, and pronominal anaphora.
In Chapter 9, “The passé composé in Old French and Modern French: evolution
or revolution?,” Patrick Caudal has recourse to both sentence grammar and the
discourse relations deﬁned in the SDRT model in order to solve a mystery
concerning the diachronic evolution of the French passé composé (PC) (present
perfect). The mystery lies in discovering the stages by which a form which
originally depicted a simple present result state, as in Latin habeo litteras scriptas
(I have letters written) and Old French (OF) desarmé sont (they are disarmed)
turned into the dynamic perfective form of Modern French j’ai écrit une lettre hier
(I wrote a letter yesterday).
Against the claim of earlier researchers that the perfective point of view was
introduced as late as the seventeenth century, Caudal and Roussarie (2006) and
Caudal (this volume) argue that perfectivity was, on the contrary, an early compo-
nent of the PC. It was at ﬁrst a weak kind of perfectivity, however, which did not
accept a past time adverb like hier. By examining two lengthy medieval texts, Caudal
shows how the PC structure evolved from depicting a simple result state to denoting
an inchoative result state within a Sequence of Events (SOE) context in correlative
constructions as early as twelfth- and thirteenth-century Old French (cf. (36)).

(38) Tant li prièrent li meillur Sarrazin/ Qu’el’ faldesteol s’est Marsilies asis. (Song
of Roland, 12th c.)
(The best Saracens begged him so much that upon his throne Marsile sat
down)
Caudal shows that in this early period, the SOE function of the PC was essentially
identical to the SOE function of Present Tense in narrative texts: it could occur in
Sequence of Event passages, but did not yet allow a punctual past time adverb or date,
unlike the modern French PC (“Il s’est assis sur la chaise hier/à 15h”—he sat down on
the chair yesterday/ at 3 pm).
While the inchoative resultative was only weakly perfective in an embedded
position in a correlative structure, it was more strongly perfective in matrix position,
as in (39).
(39) Quant la reine voit le roi/ . . . Si s’est contre le roi dreciee. (Chevalier de la
Charette, 13th c.)
(When the queen saw the king . . . she stood up against the king)
Still, it was not yet possible to add “hyer” (yesterday) or a precise date to such
sentences.
Caudal’s solution with respect to the ﬁnal step in the evolution of the French
present perfect towards strong perfectivity combines a “conservative semantics” with
an “innovative pragmatics” set within the SDRT. The conservative semantics takes
both the present auxiliary and the past participle as being active in the interpretation
of the verbal form. The innovative pragmatics refers to discourse functions within an
SDRT framework which pragmatically enrich the interpretation of the structure from
weak resultative perfectivity to a strong perfective interpretation. In time, this
pragmatic mechanism was instrumental in the semanticization of perfective
interpretations—with semantic perfectivity rendering the passé composé compatible
with deﬁnite past time adverbs. Caudal proposes that given an unstable two-part
verbal form, discourse functions may determine, and in the case of the French PC did
determine, whether the matrix present tense or the result-denoting past participle is
focused and consequently grammaticalized within a particular discourse context.
In Chapter 10, Svetlana Vogeleer examines “Polyphonic utterances” in literary and
non-literary language. A polyphonic sentence expresses two different non-
contradictory points of view: it represents two people speaking at the same time
(Bakhtin, 1984).12
12
The Bakhtinian notion of polyphony differs from that of Ducrot (1984). Ducrot judges all sentences to
be polyphonic since they are all associated with both a speaker of the words of the sentence and a “point of
view.” These two voices may diverge, as in the ironic “C’est du joli!” (That’s lovely!) where the speaker
approves and the point of view disapproves of the same state of affairs.
Introduction 17

Vogeleer examines the distinction between de re, de dicto, and de se pronouns
discussed in Abusch (1997), Castañeda (1989), and Chierchia (1989) and, by extension,
the de re, de dicto, and de se construals of sentences embedded under different types of
matrix predicates. Tense may also be de re, de dicto, or de se (cf. Schlenker, 2003).
While French and English use different tenses for the anaphoric tense system,
calculated from the subject’s reference time, and for the deictic tense system, calcu-
lated from the speaker’s speech time, Russian, which has but three tense forms—
present, past, and future—uses the same tenses for each system. Depending on the
context, a given tense may reﬂect the deictic system, the anaphoric system, or,
Vogeleer claims, both, deriving polyphony.
Although Russian grammar allows a present tense to denote a past time when
embedded under a past tense matrix verb, Vogeleer points out that the present tense
may also have a de re reading which introduces the speaker into the text. The de re
reading of the Russian present tense in Double Access sentences like “John said that
Mary is pregnant” is thus bivocal, with the subject’s voice embedded in the scope of
the speaker’s voice.
Contrary to the hypothesis that languages fall into two classes, either Sequence of
Tense (SOT) languages like English and French, in which past tense expresses an
anaphoric past time, or non-SOT languages like Japanese, in which present tense
expresses anaphoric past time (Ogihara, 1996, 1999), Russian belongs to both classes.
Unlike Japanese, anaphoric past time can be expressed in Russian not only by the
present tense but also by the imperfective past tense, with tense construal determin-
ing discourse structure. In (40a), the present functions as a semantically empty copy
of the matrix tense index and excludes the complement clause event from the
narrative line of the story. In the second case, (40b), it is a real past, like the
imperfective past in French, which needs a textual anchor and locates the event on
the temporal line of the narrative.
(40) a. On dogadalsia/ne dogadalsia, chto ona _ pjanaja.
(He realized/didn’t realize that she (Pres be) drunk.)
b. On dogadalsia/ne dogadalsia, chto ona byla pjanaja.
(He realized/didn’t realize that she be+past was drunk.)
Although, as mentioned earlier, the grammar of FID is distinct from that of indirect
discourse, Vogeleer has discovered examples from Dostoyevsky which actually do
illustrate polyphony or the merger of two voices. In certain passages the imperfective
form marks a transition between ordinary indirect discourse in either IMPERF or
PERF past tense and a sequence of sentences of FID in present tense.
In Chapter 11, “Free Indirect Discourse and the syntax of the left periphery,”
Alessandra Giorgi points out that the grammar of literary texts must be the ordinary
grammar of the language since readers have intuitions concerning what is acceptable

in this style. Normally a sentence is anchored by the speaker’s temporal and spatial
coordinates. Giorgi proposes that the parameter which distinguishes the FID style
from ordinary narrative discourse is a slightly different setting for the value of
temporal and spatial coordinates.
In Italian as in Russian FID only the imperfective tense (or future in past) may be
used. Another context in which the imperfective form is required in Italian is that of
dream reports (Giorgi and Pianesi, 2001b). Given the obligatory use of the imper-
fective past in both FID and dream contexts, Giorgi proposes that the imperfective is
an “anti-speaker tense,” necessarily anchored to a time distinct from that of the
speaker.
Giorgi situates FID sentences in the syntactic structure of the sentence. She
proposes that a verb of speech or thought which introduces an FID sentence projects
an Information layer (INFP) in the left periphery of a root sentence. The FID subject
raises to Spec of INFP while the matrix verb occupies the INFP head. This raising
operation allows the subject to replace the temporal and spatial coordinates in Comp,
which are usually those of the speaker, with its own coordinates.
Finally Giorgi compares the properties of FID sentences with those of Exclamative
sentences (Zanuttini and Portner, 2003) and of Vocative sentences (Moro, 2003),
which like FID, are strictly root phenomena. Giorgi’s INFLP also recalls Banfield’s
Expression Phrase likewise located above COMP.
In Chapter 12, “Subjectivity and Free Indirect Discourse,” Jacqueline Guéron
attempts to reconcile Giorgi’s syntactic left periphery approach with Vogeleer’s
exploration of the syntax and semantics of polyphony. Guéron assumes, with
Banfield (1982), that FID texts are “unspeakable,” and moreover, that the same
applies to all literary texts. Guéron claims that literary texts are derived by two
independent grammars. Unlike the ordinary everyday grammar, however, the liter-
ary grammar has a syntax but neither a lexicon nor an interpretive component of its
own. Its power is limited to the creation of novel combinatorial patterns of functional
items and the classificatory features of lexical items of the ordinary grammar on the
basis of prosodic, rhythmic, or other structural principles. The interaction of two
independent grammars applied to the same lexical items gives the literary text an
expressive power which is absent from ordinary language but this power, arising
from vague connotations, cannot be made explicit.
Guéron claims that no single grammar allows two points of view, that of the
speaker and that of the subject, to coincide. This can happen only when a text obeys
the rules of two different grammars, a property which defines all literary texts and no
non-literary text. From this point of view, Vogeleer’s discovery of polyphony in
Dostoyevskian sentences identifies a literary text.13
13
The polyphony Vogeleer identified in Double Access Reading (DAR) sentences is distinct from that
in the Dostoyevskian passages: only the latter is isochronic.
Introduction 19

Part I
From Sentence to Discourse

2
On the temporal orientation
of intensional subjunctives
in Spanish
BRENDA LACA
According to a distinction originally formulated by Stowell (1993) and subsequently
exploited by Quer (1998, 2006), “intensional” subjunctives—as opposed to “polarity”
subjunctives—are lexically selected by some semantic classes of matrix predicates
which also impose a particular temporal orientation on their argument clauses.
Careful examination of the licit temporal conﬁgurations for intensional subjunctive
clauses in Spanish shows, however, that they do not conform to a uniform pattern: in
particular, the argument clauses of volitionals deviate in manifold ways from the
expected temporal orientation and give rise in some cases to interpretive effects that
parallel those found with modal verbs. In this chapter, I explore the possibility of
accounting for the behavior of volitionals by exploiting their double nature as
evaluative propositional attitudes (attitudes of preference) and as dispositions to
act (Kenny 1963; Heim 1992; Portner 1997).
2.1 Intensional versus polarity subjunctives
The distribution of intensional and polarity subjunctives roughly corresponds to the
difference between semantic selection and licensing of a dependent element. Certain
matrix predicates require subjunctive mood in their argument clauses because of
their semantics—which determines, among other things, what sort of syntactic-
semantic objects they may combine with. But the subjunctive may also appear—in
argument clauses or in relative clauses—to signal scopal dependency of the clause in
certain environments (essentially, downward entailing ones).
This distinction actually continues a much older distinction, that between an
“optative” and a “dubitative” subjunctive. It seems, however, to rest on ﬁrmer ground
Sentence and Discourse. First edition. Jacqueline Guéron
This chapter # Brenda Laca 2015. Published 2015 by Oxford University Press

than its predecessor, since it is drawn on the basis of four clear-cut properties (Quer
1998, 2006),1
which are brieﬂy recalled below.
(a) Intensional subjunctives, by contrast with polarity subjunctives, do not alter-
nate with indicatives, as shown in (1a, 1b):
(1) a. Quiere que te vayas/ *vas.
want.pr.ind.3.sg that you go.pr.sbj.2sg./ go.pr.ind.2sg
‘S/he wants you to leave.’
b. No cree que te vayas/ vas.
not believe.pr.ind.3.sg that you go.pr.sbj.2sg./ go.pr.ind.2sg
‘S/he does not believe that you are leaving.’
(b) Secondly, intensional subjunctives do not “spread” to further embedded argu-
ment clauses, whereas polarity subjunctives license multiple subjunctive embedding:
(2) a. Quiere que digas que está/ *esté bien.
want.pr.ind.3.sg that say.pr.sbj.2sg that be.pr.ind.3sg/ be.pr.sbj.3sg well
‘S/he wants you to say that it’s all right.’
b. No cree que digas que está/ esté bien.
not believe.pr.ind.3.sgthat say.pr.sbj.2sgthat be.pr.ind.3sg/be.pr.sbj.3sgwell
‘S/he does not believe that you (will) say that it’s all right.’
(c) Thirdly, intensional subjunctives give rise to subject obviation effects that are
absent in the case of polarity subjunctives. Coreference between the matrix subject
and the subject of the subjunctive clause is perfectly possible in the latter case, but
seems excluded in the former:
(3) a. *Tratamos de que lleguemos a tiempo.
Try.pr.ind.1pl of that arrive.pr.sbj.1pl on time
*‘We are trying that we arrive on time.’
b. No estamos seguros de que lleguemos a tiempo.
not be.pr.ind.1pl sure of that arrive.pr.sbj.1pl on time
‘We are not sure we will arrive on time.’
(d) Finally, the matrix predicates selecting for intensional subjunctives impose a
particular temporal orientation on their argument clauses, which is not matched in
1
Thanks to J. Guéron (p.c.) for pointing out some fundamental unclarities in the distinction between
“intensional” and “polarity” subjunctives. Following Quer (2006), I tend to assume that they constitute two
different categories, which may converge in the same morphology in some languages. The fact that some
languages exhibit intensional subjunctives, but entirely lack polarity subjunctives, while other languages
distinguish morphologically between both types, provides some evidence for this split. As for Spanish,
some evidence from language acquisition and language attrition seems to point in the same direction
(Lozano 1995).
24 Brenda Laca

Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content

morne, enveloppé de la mélancolie particulière aux derniers jours
d'octobre; on eût dit que des chrysanthèmes neigeaient dans l'air,
tant la tombée du jour était obscure et jaune; toute une équipe de
terrassiers peinait avec des ahans de geindre au milieu de la route
ouverte en tranchée; c'était comme une bataille de pioches, de pics à
fleur du sol, un sol bossué d'éboulements et d'ornières, où avec de
grossiers jurons ébrouait tout un peuple en blouse de charretier.

Le soir tombait; dans le jour défaillant un groupe de femmes
d'ouvriers causait, échouées plutôt qu'assises sur un tas de grosses
pierres au bord du chemin, et j'aurais voulu que les heureux de cette
vie, chroniqueurs à mots de la fin bien rentés par le boulevard,
bourgeoises grassouillettes et coquettes fourrées de peluche et
d'astrakan, mondaines à dessous ruineux de valenciennes
enrubannées de moire, génies méconnus de brasserie traitant de Turc
à More critiques et éditeurs, j'aurais voulu que tous ceux-là
entendissent ce que disaient ces femmes, une d'entre elles surtout,
pas la plus laide certes, mais la plus jeune, avec un air de résignation
répandu sur toute sa pauvre face endolorie.
Nu-tête, avec un grand bandeau qui lui barrait le front et lui cachait
un œil, un œil qu'on devinait noir de coups sous la compresse, elle
tenait à la main un enfant, un mioche de trois ans au plus, pas mal
vêtu du reste, et donnait le sein à un paquet de langes suspendu à
son bras: «C'est pas qu'y soit méchant, murmurait la mère, mais

quand il a un verre de trop, c'est des coups de botte, des coups de
bouteille, tout ce qui lui tombe sous la main. L'autre jour, c'était la
paye, il m'a presque assassinée, on a dû me retirer de ses pattes; ah!
si y avait pas les enfants!...»
Le soir tombait: dans le jour défaillant d'automne un groupe de
femmes causait, plutôt échouées qu'assises sur un tas de grosses
pierres, près des fortifications.
Vendredi 6 novembre 1891

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ÂMES D'AUTOMNE
***
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

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

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.

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:

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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.

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.

Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!
ebookultra.com

Sentence and discourse 1st Edition Guéron

More Related Content

Similar to Sentence and discourse 1st Edition Guéron (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Sentence and discourse 1st Edition Guéron