Adverbialsätze im Diskurs

Transkript

1 Adverbialsätze im Diskurs Eine Diskursanalyse von assertierten und präsupponierten Adverbialsätzen Mailin Antomo Seminar für Deutsche Philologie, U Göttingen Rom, 5. Februar 2010 Contents 1 Getting the facts: two types of adverbial clauses 1 2 The semantics of V-to-C 3 3 Presupposition Tests A conversational presupposition Syntactic and semantic domain: Quantifier restricion The feature [Epist] Presuppositions in dynamic semantics Dynamic semantics Adverbial clauses in FCS Accommodation Conclusion 12 1 Getting the facts: two types of adverbial clauses Two kinds of German conjunctions which introduce an adverbial clause can be distinguished: 1. conjunctions which introduce always a verb-final clause 2. and conjunctions which introduce a verb-final or a verb-second clause. (1) a. Die Ärztin bestellt ein Bier, weil sie Durst hat. b. Die Ärztin bestellt ein Bier, weil sie hat Durst. (2) a. Ich nehme ein Bier, obwohl ich noch fahren muss. b. Ich nehme ein Bier. Obwohl: ich muss noch fahren. 1

2 (3) a. Die Kommissarin erreichte den Tatort, als/nachdem/bevor die Leiche gefunden wurde. b. *Die Kommissarin erreichte den Tatort, als/nachdem/bevor die Leiche wurde gefunden. (4) a. Ich würde mich freuen, wenn/falls du morgen kommst. b. *Ich würde mich freuen, wenn/falls du kommst morgen. Recap: Verb-final order V2 order causal and concessive clauses + + temporal and conditional clauses + - The availabiliy of V-to-C-movement is independent of the interpretation of the adverbial clause: (5) a. *Im Kühlschrank ist noch Pizza, wenn du hast Hunger. b. Wenn du Hunger hast: Im Kühlschrank ist noch Pizza. (6) a. *Pack doch mal mit an, nachdem du bist jetzt ja hier. b. Nachdem du jetzt ja hier bist: pack doch mal mit an. Used as speech act modification, conditional and temporal clauses are syntactically disintegrated, but cannot undergo V-to-C-movement. V2 order in German adverbial clauses can be subsumed under the notion of Embedded Root Phenomena: Embedded Root Phenomena (ERP): Syntactic transformations which are normally limited to unembedded (= root) clauses, but which occur in embedded clauses (here: V-to-C movement in German). Crosslinguistically, causal clauses can undergo root transforms whereas temporal clauses resist them (for an overview see : Heycock 2005, Haegeman 2003, Sawada and Larson 2004). Left Dislocation in English: (7) Mildred drives a Mercedes because her son, he owns stock in Xerox. (8) *Mildred bought a Mercedes when/before/after her son, he purchased stock in Xerox. 2

3 Topicalization in Swedish: (9) Vi foljer inte med därför att ÖIS we follow not with because that ÖIS gillar like vi inte. we not We aren t coming along because we don t like ÖIS. (10) *Vi akte hem när Peter vi hade talat med. we went home when Peter we had spoken to We went home when we had spoken to Peter. Topicalization (NP-wa) + a modal element in Japanese: (11) sake-wa karadani yoku-nai-darou-kara, oolong-cha-o nomo-u. sake-top health good-neg-may-because, oolong-tea-acc drink-will Because sake may not be good for (our) health, I will have oolong tea. (12) *Taro-wa kuru-darou-mae, minna-no naka-ga Taro-top come-may-before, everyone-gen relation-nom warukunat-ta. bad-become-pst Before Taro came, everyone was in a bad mood. 2 The semantics of V-to-C The occurrence of ERP is explained in terms of presupposition and assertion: Only non-presupposed embedded clauses can undergo root transforms (see Hooper and Thompson 1973, Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970, Wechsler 1991). Analysis along Truckenbrodt (2006): 2 context indices in C: <Deont S (,x)> and <Epist> (13) a. <Deont S (,x)>: S wants (from A) b. <Epist>: that it is Common Ground that/if p (14) In a context index <Deont S (,x)(,<epist>)> in C Epist is present iff a. C contains a finite verb with indicative or Konjunktiv II or b. C/CP is marked [+WH]. That means that only [V-in-C]-clauses trigger an update of the common ground. [V-in-I]-clauses can only be used as exclamatives or as deontic speech act: (15) a. Peter räumt sein Zimmer regelmäßig auf. b. Dass Peter (ja) sein Zimmer regelmäßig aufräumt! Structure meaning of a V2 declarative clause: (16) <Deont S, A, <Epist>> 3

4 S wants from A that it is common ground that... Consequences for embedded V2: V2 clauses add a proposition to the common ground (or exclude incompatible alternatives from the context set). Therefore, a V2 clause cannot be already part of the common ground before its being uttered (and therefore it cannot be presupposed). Assumption: temporal and conditional clauses causal and concessive clauses always presupposed neutral/context-dependent 3 Presupposition 3.1 Tests This claim is confirmed by standard tests for presupposition (see Geurts 1999): Holes: If A B, then: (17) a. A B b. It is possible that A B c. A C B d. A? B (18) a. Die Kommissarin erreichte den Tatort nicht, bevor die Leiche gefunden wurde. p b. Es ist möglich, dass die Kommissarin den Tatort erreichte, bevor die Leiche gefunden wurde. p c. Wenn die Kommissarin den Tatort erreichte, bevor die Leiche gefunden wurde, dann hat sie sich sehr beeilt. p d. Hat die Kommissarin den Tatort erreicht, bevor die Leiche gefunden wurde? p p = die Leiche wurde gefunden Plugs: If A B, then: (19) a. B A B b. It is possible that B A B c. Either B A B 4

5 (20) a. Wenn die Leiche gefunden wurde, dann erreichte die Kommissarin den Tatort, bevor sie gefunden wurde. p b. Es ist möglich, dass die Leiche gefunden wurde und dass die Kommissarin den Tatort erreichte, bevor sie gefunden wurde. p c. Entweder wurde die Leiche nicht gefunden oder die Kommissarin hat den Tatort erreicht, bevor sie gefunden wurde. p Further tests: Hey, wait-a-minute! -test: (21) a. Die Kommissarin hat geweint, als die Leiche gefunden wurde. b. Hey, warte mal, ich wusste nicht, dass die Leiche gefunden wurde. c.?hey warte mal, ich wusste nicht, dass die Kommissarin geweint hat. B A-test: If A B, then B A is a well-formed expression. (22) Die Leiche wurde gefunden und die Kommissarin erreichte den Tatort, nachdem sie gefunden wurde. Ok, so temporal clauses are presuppositional expressions. Why? 3.2 A conversational presupposition Pragmatic notion of presupposition: Presuppositions are speaker presuppositions part of the common knowledge (or presented as such) conversationally triggered The statement that P made in a given context presupposes that Q just in case it is necessary to assume that the speaker is presupposing that Q in order to understand or interpret correctly the statement (see Stalnaker 1974, 473). Advantages of a pragmatic derivation: The presupposition of a future temporal clause is context-dependent (example from Kadmon 2001, 210) (23) a. Susan cried before she finished her thesis. Susan finished her thesis. b. Susan died before she finished her thesis. Susan finished her thesis. 5

6 the lexical entries for presupposition triggers are not complicated Projection behavior not only descriptive but also explanatory force Main task: Derive the presupposition of a temporal adverbial clause on the basis of the lexical semantics of the trigger together with general assumptions about communication (conversational principles). So why are temporal clauses always presupposed? (24) ϕ temporal conjunction ψ ψ The function of temporal clauses: Temporal connectives express relations between times at which two propositions are evaluated. A temporal clause serves as a temporal anchor for the main clause. The interpretation of the proposition is dependent on the time with respect to which it is evaluated. The truth value of the main clause is dependent on a temporal parameter. (25) Susan came home after Bill left for the movies. (26) [[α]] M,g,t If the temporal parameter is not given, the sentence has no truth value. 6

7 Faktive Konjunktionen Ein Fall von pragmatischer Präsupposition? ϕ after ψ ψ t Gricean argument for the derivation of the presupposition: 1. It is common belief that S is cooperative. 2. In her utterance U, S uses ψ in order to date the event ϕ. 3. In order to serve as a temporal anchor, ψ must be given. 4. Hence, ψ must be taken for granted (i.e. presupposed) by S. 3.3 Syntactic and semantic domain: Quantifier restricion Temporal clauses can serve as the restriction on adverbs of quantification: (27-a) does not entail (27-b). (27) a. Maria telefoniert immer, während sie Auto fährt. b. Maria telefoniert immer. In contrast, a causal clause does not (obligatorily) restrict the adverb of quantification: A V2 weil-clause never does, the VL-weil-clause is ambiguous. (28) a. Maria ist immer krank, weil sie (hat) ein schlechtes Immunsystem (hat). b. Maria ist immer krank. Based on this observation, Johnston (1994) concludes that temporal clauses always restrict a (covert or overt) quantifier: (29) / während e1 (...e 1 )[...e 2 ] 7

8 In contrast, weil combines two existentially closed events: (30) weil ( e1 (...e 1 ), e2 (...e 2 )) = Quantifier-restrictions carry an existence presupposition! This explains why temporal clauses are presupposed. A temporal conjunction combines with an event e 1 to form an interval i. The quantifier is restricted with respect to this interval. (31) Conjunction (e 1 ) = i Während: The conjunction während restricts the quantification to a maximal possible runtime: (32) f(e 2 ) i Bevor: A bevor-clause restricts the quantified event e 2 to have ended before the beginning of the adjunct clause event: (33) END (f(e 2 )) BEGIN (f(e 1 )) Nachdem: A nachdem-clause contributes an interval which is the aftermath of the interval desscribed by the adjunct clause: (34) END (f(e 1 )) BEGIN (f(e 2 )) Conditional clauses: The analysis is the same for conditional clauses: As shown in Kratzer (1991) and Lewis (1975), the function of a conditional clause is to restrict the domain of a quantifier over worlds: (35) W (if p) (q) As restrictions of a quantifier, they are presupposed to be non-empty. Syntactic domain: A temporal conjunction combines two open events. In contrast, a causal conjunction can express a binary relation between two closed events. A temporal connective applies to a smaller semantic domain than because. That this semantic difference is reflected in the internal syntactic structure of our two types of adverbial clauses has been shown independently by Haegeman (2003): 8

9 (36) peripheral adverbial clause: Sub Top Foc Force Fin central adverbial clause: Sub Fin 3.4 The feature [Epist] I assume that at logical form, every (declarative) proposition is marked for the feature [+/-Epist]. unembedded clauses are always marked [+Epist] presupposed embedded clauses are marked [-Epist] non-presupposed embedded clauses are marked [+Epist] [Epist] is a semantic feature V-to-C-movement in embedded clauses is not a trigger of [+Epist] but an indication Temporal adverbials: Due to pragmatic reasons (see above), in a construction ϕ temporal subordinator ψ, ψ is always marked [-Epist]. All temporal subordinators (nachdem, als,...) inherit the feature [-Epist]. Causal adverbials: Causal relations are semantically not specified with respect to the feature [+/-Epist]. The setting of the feature is defined lexically: da is marked [-Epist], denn [+Epist] and weil is unmarked for assertionhood 1 4 Presuppositions in dynamic semantics 4.1 Dynamic semantics meaning = update function from context sets to context sets Presuppositions = felicity conditions on context sets: a context set c must satisfy φ s presuppositions for φ to be interpretable in c. adequate for the analysis of discourse phenomena beyond the boundary of a single sentence 1 cf. three semantic classes of adverbial complementizers in Swedish (see Wechsler 1991), since vs because in English, puisque vs car in French 9

10 Heim (1982) s version of dynamic semantics: File Change Semantics In processing a discourse one sets up files where information is stored. A sentence is a function from a file F 1 into a file F 2. For any file F, Dom(F) is its domain, where Dom(F) is a set of indices. In processing an indexed expression we must check if the index is already active in Dom(F) Indefinites introduce a new file card, while definites update an existing file card: (37) Yesterday, I met a man. The man was Italian. a. I met [a man] i : Dom(F 2 ) = Dom(F 1 ) i b. [The man] i was Italian: i Dom(F) In dynamic semantics, presuppositions are requirements on the context are treated on a par with anaphoric expressions: they must link up to an antecedent (see Geurts 1999 and Van der Sandt 1992). 4.2 Adverbial clauses in FCS Not only NPs but also propositions carry a numerical index at LF. Therefore, a file contains file cards for entities (= Dom(F en )) and file cards for events (= Dom(F ev )). A proposition can introduce a new event or link up to an already known event as antecedent. Example: (38) a. (Fred hat gestern wieder geraucht) i. Er bedauert es i. b. (Fred hat seine Mutter besucht) i. Davor i war er im Kino. (39) a. (Fred hat gestern wieder geraucht) i. Er bedauert, (dass er gestern wieder geraucht hat) i. b. (Fred hat seine Mutter besucht) i. Bevor (er seine Mutter besucht hat) i, war er im Kino. A proposition can serve as antecedent for a pronoun (see (38)) or for another (anaphoric) proposition (see (39)). Formalism: Whereas NPs are marked for the feature [+/-definite], propositions are marked [+/-Epist]. With respect to this feature, they impose different appropriateness conditions on files: 10

11 (40) Novelty/Familiarity Condition for propositions: Let F be a file, p i an atomic proposition. Then p i is appropriate with respect to F iff: a. if p i is marked [+Epist], i / Dom(F ev ), and b. if p i is marked [-Epist], i Dom(F ev ). A proposition marked [+Epist] affects the domain of a file: Dom(F 1ev ) + p i[+epist] = Dom(F 2ev ) = {p N : p N Dom(F 1ev ) p i } In contrast, a proposition marked [-Epist] doesn t affect the domain of a file: Dom(F 1ev ) + p i[ Epist] = Dom(F 1ev ) Back to the data: Since V2-adverbial clauses are marked [+Epist], they cannot be used if i is already active in Dom(F ev ): (41) a. (Fred hat den Bus verpasst) i. Deswegen i kam er zu spät. b. (Fred hat den Bus verpasst) i. Er kam zu spät, weil (er den Bus verpasst hat) i. c. (Fred hat den Bus verpasst) i. *Er kam zu spät, weil (er hat den Bus verpasst) i. (42) a. *Fred ist auch deswegen zu spät gekommen, weil er hat den Bus verpasst. b. Fred ist auch deswegen zu spät gekommen, weil er den Bus verpasst hat. (43) *Fred ist nicht zu spät gekommen, weil er hat den Bus verpasst, sondern weil er hat verschlafen. (44) *Bist du traurig, weil du hast dein Handy verloren? By negating or questioning p i, one assumes that i Dom(F ev ). 4.3 Accommodation Due to their rich descriptive content, presupposed clauses can be used without antecedent. They are interpreted by way of accommodation. (45) a. Fred bedauert, (dass er gestern wieder geraucht hat) i. b. Fred war im Kino, bevor (er seine Mutter besucht hat) i. 11

12 Under which conditions is accommodation possible? (46) Ich war gestern auf einer Hochzeit. Der Bräutigam war betrunken. (47)?Ich war gestern auf einer Hochzeit. Der Arzt war betrunken. The presupposed information must be uncontroversial, easily inferable from the context (here: bridging) (48) Franz Kafka wurde 1883 in Prag als Sohn einer jüdischen Kaufmannsfamilie geboren. (...) Nachdem er sein Abitur im Jahre 1901 mit befriedigend bestand, wurde er von seinen Eltern mit einer Reise (...) belohnt. 2 The acceptability depends on the genre of discourse/ Textsorte (49) Was hat denn Peter gestern gemacht? a.?er ist ins Kino gegangen, bevor/nachdem er seine Mutter besucht hat. b. Er ist ins Kino gegangen, bevor/nachdem er dann/erst seine Mutter besucht hat. The temporal clause can be more easily accommodated if we use dann/erst (= presuppositional bridges). 5 Conclusion two types of adverbial clauses: presupposed and non-presupposed the presuppositional behavior of temporal clauses can be explained in pragmatic terms At LF, propositions are marked for the feature [+/-Epist] Depending on this feature, a proposition can introduce a new event or pick up an antecedent presupposed clauses can accomodate Due to their syntactic disintegration, V2 weil-clauses can express a wider range of interpretations Open questions Counterfactual theories of causation predict that causal clauses are presupposed Accomodation nature of the feature [Epist] 2 from Wikipedia, 9,

13 References Geurts, B.: 1999, Presuppositions and Pronouns, Elsevier, Oxford. Haegeman, L.: 2003, Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax, Mind & Language 18(4), Heim, I.: 1982, The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases, PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Heycock, C.: 2005, Embedded root phenomena, in M. Van Riemsdijk, H./Everaert (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. II, Blackwell, Oxford, pp Hooper, J. and Thompson, S.: 1973, On the applicability of root transformations, Linguistic Inquiry 4, Johnston, M.: 1994, The syntax and semantics of adverbial adjuncts, PhD thesis, UCSC. Kadmon, N.: 2001, Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition, and Focus, Blackwell, Oxford, Massachusetts. Kiparsky, P. and Kiparsky, C.: 1970, Fact, in M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph (eds), Progress in Linguistics, Mouton, The Hague, pp Kratzer, A.: 1991, Modality, in D. W. Stechow, Arnim von (ed.), Semantik. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp Lewis, D.: 1975, Adverbs of quantification, in E. L. Keenan (ed.), Formal semantics of natural language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp Sawada, M. and Larson, R. K.: 2004, Presupposition & root transforms in adjunct clauses, in K. Moulton and M. Wolfs (eds), Proceedings of NELS, Vol. 34, GLSA, UMASS, pp Stalnaker, R.: 1974, Pragmatic presuppositions, in M. Munitz and P. Unger (eds), Semantics and Philosophy, New York University Press, New York, pp Truckenbrodt, H.: 2006, On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to c in german, Theoretical Linguistics 22(3), Van der Sandt, R. A.: 1992, Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution, Journal of Semantics 9, Wechsler, S.: 1991, Verb second and illocutionary force, in D. Leffel, Katherine/Bouchard (ed.), Views on Phrase Structure, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp