Functional Compositionality and the Interaction of Discourse Constraints

We argue for the existence of functionally complex constructions whose elements compositionally impose discourse-functional constraints on the use of the whole. In particular, we examine th-clefts (as in That’s John who wrote the book), equatives with epistemic would and demonstrative subjects (as in That would be John), and simple equatives with demonstrative subjects (as in That’s John). We show that, contra previous approaches, the latter two constructions need not be analyzed as truncated clefts. Rather, the properties that these constructions share with th-clefts can be straightforwardly accounted for as the sum of the constraints on their shared elements—that is, the equative construction, the demonstrative subject, and the presence of a contextually salient open proposition. The convergence of these elemental properties in each of these three constructions results in the possibility of the demonstrative being used to refer to the instantiation of the variable in the open proposition, which in turn predicts a complex of distributional behaviors shared by precisely the constructions that share these properties. Because these distributional behaviors can be straightforwardly explained in terms of this functional compositionality, the motivation for a truncated-cleft analysis disappears. These results support the view that not all functional properties must be learned on a construction-by-construction basis; instead, the discourse functions of an utterance are built up compositionally from those of its parts.

[1]  Gregory Ward,et al.  A pragmatic analysis of the epistemic would construction in english , 2003 .

[2]  Ellen F. Prince,et al.  Gapping and causal implicature , 1986 .

[3]  Ron Zacharski,et al.  Pronouns without NP antecedents: how do we know when a pronoun is referential? , 2005 .

[4]  Riitta Valimaa-Blum,et al.  Finnish Word Order as a Set of Syntactic Constructions , 1988 .

[5]  Gregory Ward,et al.  Uniqueness, Familiarity, and the Definite Article in English , 1994 .

[6]  Bonnie L. Webber,et al.  Discourse Deixis: Reference to Discourse Segments , 1988, ACL.

[7]  Wilbert Spooren,et al.  Text representation : linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects , 2001 .

[8]  E. Prince The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-status , 1992 .

[9]  Betty J. Birner,et al.  Information status and noncanonical word order in English , 1998 .

[10]  C. Fillmore,et al.  Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction , 1999 .

[11]  Betty J. Birner,et al.  Information Status and Word Order: An Analysis of English Inversion. , 1994 .

[12]  Brad Abbott,et al.  Definiteness and Indefiniteness , 2008 .

[13]  Laura A. Michaelis,et al.  TOWARD A CONSTRUCTION-BASED THEORY OF LANGUAGE FUNCTION : THE CASE OF NOMINAL EXTRAPOSITION , 1996 .

[14]  Laurence R. Horn,et al.  The handbook of pragmatics , 2004 .

[15]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation , 1998 .

[16]  Roberta Facchinetti,et al.  Modality in Contemporary English , 2003 .

[17]  Mira Ariel Accessibility theory: An overview , 2001 .

[18]  Rose Maclaran The semantics and pragmatics of the English demonstratives , 1982 .

[19]  G. Pullum,et al.  The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language , 2002 .

[20]  Nancy Hedberg,et al.  Discourse pragmatics and cleft sentences in English , 1990 .

[21]  Daniel Büring Identity, Modality, and the Candidate Behind the Wall , 1998 .

[22]  John Penhallurick,et al.  Full‐verb inversion in English , 1984 .

[23]  A. Goldberg Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure , 1995 .

[24]  Nancy Hedberg,et al.  The Referential Status of Clefts. , 2000 .

[25]  Ellen F. Prince,et al.  Toward a taxonomy of given-new information , 1981 .

[26]  Line Mikkelsen Copular Clauses: Specification, predication and equation , 2005 .

[27]  William Croft,et al.  Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective , 2001 .

[28]  Adele E. Goldberg,et al.  Subject-auxiliary inversion: A natural category , 2005 .

[29]  Mira Ariel Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents , 1990 .

[30]  J. Nuyts Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective , 2001 .

[31]  Ellen F. Prince,et al.  On the Syntactic Marking of Presupposed Open Propositions , 1986 .

[32]  E. Prince A COMPARISON OF WH-CLEFTS AND IT-CLEFTS IN DISCOURSE , 1978 .

[33]  António Branco,et al.  Anaphora processing : linguistic, cognitive and computational modelling , 2005 .

[34]  Betty J. Birner,et al.  Definiteness and the English Existential , 1995 .

[35]  Leiv Egil Breivik,et al.  On the interpretation of existential there , 1981 .

[36]  A. Goldberg,et al.  The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions , 2004 .

[37]  R. Freeze EXISTENTIALS AND OTHER LOCATIVES , 1992 .

[38]  Betty J. Birner,et al.  There-Sentences and Inversion as Distinct Constructions: A Functional Account , 1993 .