draft of November 2011

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.3 Back to CLLD and Topicalisation Let us now turn to our very first question, why Italian but not Greek clld-ed elements can be ambiguous between a referential and non-referential reading. It has now become clear that the clld facts mirror the anaphoric possibilities in the two languages. Our original example in (1) repeated in (82) is as ambiguous as the example in (77). The available interpretations are exactly those allowed in Italian between an indefinite antecedent and lo/la. (82) a. una gonna rossa la cerco da un po’ a red skirt her.cl look-for-1sg for a while A red skirt I’ve been looking for a while... b. ma non ne ho trovata nessuna che mi piaccia but not of-them.cl have-1sg found none-fem that me please-3sg.subj ... but have not found anyone that I like. c. ma non riesco a ricordarmi dove l’ho messa but not reach-1sg to remember where her.cl-have-1sg put puffle ... but I cannot remember where I’ve put it. Similarly, Greek (3) repeated in (83), is compatible only with the referential interpretation since, as we have seen, the Greek pronoun resists property anaphora. (83) a. mia kokini fusta tin psahno edho ke meres a red skirt it look-for-1sg here and days I’ve been looking for a red skirt for a few days ... b. =ke de boro na vro kamia pu na m’aresi and not can-1sg subj find-1sg none ... and I cannot find any that I like. that subj me-please-3sg c. ke de boro na thimitho pu tin eho vali and not can-1sg subj remember-1sg where her.cl have-1sg put ... and cannot remember where I put it. The possibility of property anaphora in Italian further allows clld examples where the dislocated element is not an indefinite, but a predicate like bella in (84). Unsurprisingly, this possibility is not available in Greek. (84) a. Bella lo é beautiful it.cl is 44
Beautiful she is. b. belle lo sono? beautiful it are Beautiful they are. While clld mirrors the anaphoric possibilities in the two languages; but Topicalisation does not, at least not directly. The interpretative possiblities in Topicalisation are the ones predicted by a movement derivation. Thus, the Topicalisation example in (85) is ambiguous like the corresponding example involving Focus-movement (86). In this, (85) contrasts with examples like (16b), repeated as (87), where IAD forces a de dicto interpretation of the antecedent. 31 (85) enan idravliko psahni o yanis one-acc plumber look-for-3sg the-nom Yanis-nom A plumber Yanis is looking for. look-for > ∃, ∃ > look-for (86) enan idravliko psahni o yanis one-acc plumber look-for-3sg the-nom Yanis-nom A plumber Yanis is looking for. look-for > ∃, ∃ > look-for (87) o Yanis psahni enan idravliko, ala dhe vriski puthena the-nom Yanis look-for-3sg one plumber but not find-3sg anywhere Yanis is looking for a plubmer but cannot find one anywhere. look-for > ∃ These facts point to the following conclusions. First, they reinforce the anaphoric nature of clld. At the same time they indicate that the properties of the pronominal system of languages is a crucial element in the crosslinguistic variation of anaphoric chains like clld and Topicalisation. 32 Second, Topicalisation, at least in Greek, involves a proper copy/trace rather than some null pronominal element. Taken together, these conclusions indicate that the the variation in the topic strategies adopted crosslinguistically cannot be understood just 31 This contrast between IAD and Topicalisation argues against the proposal by Dimitriadis (1994) to assume that the Topicalisation example is in fact a case of Empty Clitic Left Dislocation involving the same pro element implicated in IAD. 32 This is unlike non-anaphoric or true resumption where a line of research systematically relates crosslinguistic variation to the properties of C rather than the pronominal (Sells 1984; McCloskey 1990; McCloskey 2002; Shlonsky 1992; Rouveret 2002; Alexopoulou 2006). 45
Page 1 and 2: Topic-strategies and the internal s
Page 3 and 4: 1 Introduction Clitic Left Dislocat
Page 5 and 6: (5) a. Fetos i moda ine apesia; idi
Page 7 and 8: evidence of reconstruction, and, th
Page 9 and 10: 3.1 Greek manipulates structure whi
Page 11 and 12: 3.2 Indefinite pronominal anteceden
Page 13 and 14: 3.3 Bare nouns As has become eviden
Page 15 and 16: systematically employs articles and
Page 17 and 18: Syntax They can be left dislocated
Page 19 and 20: Further, Greek bare nouns have atom
Page 21 and 22: You will need a skirt sewn in India
Page 23 and 24: 4.1.2 Towards a crosslinguistic typ
Page 25 and 26: semantics of Greek Number? We will
Page 27 and 28: e felicitous subjects, even under r
Page 29 and 30: However, the data below indicate th
Page 31 and 32: generalisation is that only languag
Page 33 and 34: that the definite is a noun phrase.
Page 35 and 36: excellent one (so the time we took
Page 37 and 38: (66) *den prokite na vri ti yineka
Page 39 and 40: . o Napoleodas epline (ta) piatai k
Page 41 and 42: (75) a. o Yanis psahni idravliko al
Page 43: Let us now turn to subnominal ellip
Page 47 and 48: just semantically definite elements
Page 49 and 50: topic-strategies between the two la
Page 51 and 52: Alexopoulou, T. and C. Heycock (200
Page 53 and 54: Giusti, G. (1997). The categorial s
Page 55 and 56: Sells, P. (1984). Syntax and Semant

draft of November 2011

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?