15.01.2014 Views

handout

handout

handout

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Ivona Kučerová<br />

UCL, ivona@alum.mit.edu<br />

3 The proposal<br />

Sinn und Bedeutung 12<br />

Oslo September 22, 2007<br />

Basic intuition:<br />

structures are divided into domains and any domain can be partitioned at any position<br />

within the domain [this we learned from basic word orders] (≈ Mathesius’<br />

tradition)<br />

−→ there is a point in the structure from which everything up is given<br />

A formalization: G(iven)-operator<br />

−→ an operator that marks elements in its scope as given; the operator recursively<br />

propagates upwards and it terminates on an atomic semantic type – in our case on<br />

type t (or < s, t >) [a simplifying assumption]<br />

(10) G-operator:<br />

G(B) =<br />

{ λA α : Given(A).G(B A) B is of type < α, β > for some α, β<br />

other than s, t<br />

B for B of type < s, t ><br />

(11) < s, t ><br />

given<br />

given<br />

G<br />

new<br />

new . . .<br />

What the G-operator does for us:<br />

• once the operator starts propagating upwards it doesn’t stop unless it reaches<br />

the edge of a domain → structures are divided into domains in which given<br />

precedes new<br />

• the operator can be inserted at any place → a partition can fall at any place<br />

A note on interpretation of givenness: For concretness, I follow Sauerland (2005)<br />

in assuming that givenness gives rise to an existential presupposition (cf. Schwarzschild<br />

1999). My interest lies in how givenness applies compositionally, the actual lexical<br />

entry is not crucial.<br />

4

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!