The domain of Finiteness Anchoring without Tense in copular amalgam sentences

562 Pages·2015·2.85 MB·English

The domain of Finiteness
Anchoring without Tense in copular amalgam sentences
by
Teresa O’Neill
AdissertationsubmittedtotheGraduateFacultyinLinguisticsinpartialfulfillmentofthe
requirementsforthedegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy,TheCityUniversityofNewYork
2015
ii
(cid:13)c 2015
Teresa O’Neill
All Rights Reserved
iii
ThismanuscripthasbeenreadandacceptedfortheGraduateFacultyinLinguisticsinsatisfaction
ofthedissertationrequirementsforthedegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy.
MarceldenDikken
Date ChairofExaminingCommittee
GitaMartohardjono
Date ExecutiveOfficer
MarceldenDikken
WilliamHaddican
WilliamMcClure
SupervisoryCommittee
THECITYUNIVERSITYOFNEWYORK
iv
Abstract
The domain of Finiteness
Anchoring without Tense in copular amalgam sentences
by
Teresa O’Neill
Advisor:MarceldenDikken
The central thesis of this work is that a clause consisting only of left-peripheral functional
structure can be fully finite. Generative models of clause structure typically assume that a finite
clausemustbetensed,includingaprojectionofTandatemporalrelationbetweentheproposition
andtheutterancecontext.Inlightofevidencefromtenselesslanguages,thisassumptionhascome
under scrutiny in recent years. This dissertation offers a new body of evidence from English, a
tensedlanguage,insupportoftheclaimthatfiniteclausescanlacktheprojectionofT.
Drawing on the results of formal acceptability experiments, this dissertation presents an orig-
inal investigation of the understudied family of specificational copular amalgam sentences (e.g.,
She wrote about finiteness is what she did), which differs from canonical specificational copular
sentences with respect to a number of syntactic and semantic properties. The most salient of these
properties is the occurrence of a root clause in the role of logical and structural subject. I propose
thatcopularamalgamsentencesarefinite,buttheirfunctionalspineconsistsonlyoftheC-domain,
lackingprojectionsofTandV.SinceC-domainheadscanprojectintheabsenceofTandV,there
canbenoimplicationalrelationbetweenhigherandlowerheadsinthefunctionalsequence.
v
Copularamalgamsshowthatfinitenesscanbereducedtophenomenaoriginatingintheleftpe-
ripheryoftheclause.Thesephenomenainclude[T]and[(cid:30)]inflection,thelicensingofanindepen-
dently referential subject, and independent anchoring of the proposition to the utterance context.
Independentanchoring,whichistypicallyconflatedwithtemporalanchoringintheTdomain,ob-
tainsviadeixistotheutterancecontextinfiniteclausesthatlackT.Thisdissertationhastwomain
contributions: to catalogue the properties of a typologically rare, yet understudied construction,
andtochallengetheExtendedProjectionsmodeloftheclause.
Acknowledgements
When the end of this journey seemed too far away, I used to read the acknowledgements in dis-
sertations I admired, and (in addition to becoming a little misty-eyed), I would feel reinvigorated
and inspired to pick up my writing again. Finally, here I am, writing my own acknowledgements
section. Of course, I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to so many people for helping me aca-
demically, materially, and emotionally that there is no way I can thank everyone adequately. This
isjustastart.
Firstofall,Iamdeeplygratefultomycommitteemembersforsupportingthisproject,andfor
theirexcellentandpatientfeedback.SincemyfirstdayofSyntax1somanyyearsago,Ihavebeen
in awe of Marcel den Dikken’s brilliant mind, encyclopedic knowledge (of perhaps everything),
and crystal clear teaching style. His incredibly thorough and astute responses to questions, mus-
ings, and work in progress keep me focused and restrained. The sheer speed with which he crafts
substantiveandinsightfulrepliestoemailsisunparalleled(andalittleeerie).Itisimpossibletobe
idle under his guidance. I must also thank Marcel for introducing me to specificational sentences
through his seminar on cleft sentences at the CUNY Graduate Center. I may never have stumbled
uponthesemarvelousbeastsotherwise!
Christina Tortora has been an invaluable source of support throughout this project. I thank
Christina for teaching me to slow down and to be patient with the literature, the data, and myself.
Her mentoring style wisely balanced free-rein to explore unorthodox ideas and a healthy amount
vi
vii
of restraint. Her insistence on clarity in thinking and writing has transformed my approach to
scholarship and to teaching. I admire her deep respect for non-normativized linguistic phenomena
andtheirusers,whichaddsjoyandpurposetotheworkofthesyntactician.Iwillalwaysbegrateful
toChristinaforherconfidenceinme.
I thank Bill McClure for his help over the years with the semantic ingredients of my proposal,
and for introducingme to the toolsof model-theoretic semantics. Hisopenness to the dataand the
analyticalapproachhelpedmetothinkfreelyaboutthepuzzlesIwrestledwith,andhisskepticism
encouragedmetopursueunorthodoxsolutions.
AlthoughBillHaddicanjoinedmycommitteemorerecently,hisguidancehastransformedthis
project. I got into this for the data, and stayed for the theory, but we all know the adage about the
house built on sand! I remember my first meeting with Bill, where I explained my naïve approach
to constructing surveys. Bill said, very gently, that I should probably throw it out and start over. I
am so glad that he did! The methods and tools he introduced me to have bolstered the credibility
and rigor of this work immensely, and have left me with a growing set of skills that I otherwise
mayneverhavedeveloped.
Many other teachers have helped to form me as a scholar, a teacher, and a human being. At
CUNY,IlearnedfromDianeBradley,RicardoOtheguy,andJanetFodor,amongmanyotherthings,
to write like a linguist. Gita Martohardjono introduced me to the process of doing research in her
SecondLanguageAcquisitionLaboratory.IalsothankGitafortakingachanceonanInternational
Studies major and offering me the opportunity to learn linguistics at the Graduate Center. In more
recent months, Samer Al-Khatib has offered indispensable guidance as I delve deeper into the
semantics side of the field. Sam has been a patient and generous teacher. I am also grateful to
Daniel Kaufman and Chris Collins for introducing me to linguistic fieldwork, my other passion
viii
in linguistics (besides wacky English sentences). When I encountered Martina Wiltschko’s work
on endangered First Nations languages, my eyes were opened. I am grateful to Martina, not only
forsharingherworkonHalkomelemandBlackfoot,butalsoforhergenerousfeedbackandastute
criticismonanotherproject,whichresonatewithmestillasIdevelopasaresearcherandawriter.
Finally, I thank my students, who throughout the years have taught me so much about linguistics,
languages, humanity, and myself. CUNY students remain the hardest-working people I have ever
met.
Without my linguist-friends, finishing a dissertation would have been far too daunting—and
boring. I am lucky to have passed my time at the Graduate Center with such a brilliant, skeptical,
fun-loving, supportive, and hard-working group of people. For good times, emotional support,
sounding-boarding,Kraftwerk,play-dates,adviceonteaching,upstateretreats,andmanyvigorous
hoursofkvetching,Ithank,innoparticularorder,MarisaNagano,EmilyZane,EmilyOlsen,Alex
Funk, Frances Blanchette, Sonya Elliot, Chris Warnasch, Katie Hawkland, Elizabeth Pratt, and
Emily Wilson. Consortium classes at NYU introduced me to many more wonderful classmates,
in particular, Jim Wood, Neil Myler, and Tricia Irwin. I am grateful to them for many stimulating
discussions and advice on post-post-graduate life. I thank my non-linguist friends for keeping me
grounded, for reminding me that there’s a lot more to life than dissertating, and for providing me
withawealthofdata(especiallyRachel,Katie,Ben,andSara).
I am grateful to Nishi Bissoondial for keeping our program running, for navigating the im-
mense CUNY bureaucracy, for patiently helping me with many last-minute urgent requests, and
for emotional support over the years. Likewise, I thank Maria Cadme at Queens College for her
hardwork,skill,andkindness.
Finally, without my family, I would never have come this far. My New York family has taught
ix
me what generosity really looks like. The gifts of support I have received from them—financial,
temporal, cultural, emotional—are immeasurable. I thank Grammy and Warren for their gifts and
theirloveforourlittlefamily.ToDeniseandJimmy,Iwillneverbeabletoadequatelyexpressmy
gratitude. Their devotion to the wellbeing of four generations of a family is an inspiration, and a
comfort during these hectic months of writing. I am grateful to my parents and my siblings (and
siblings-in-law) for everything—but especially for their gift of beautiful and peaceful spaces to
writein,fortakingcareofMimi,fortheirfaithinme,andfortheirlove.AspecialthankstoMimi
for reminding me to focus on the things that matter, and for showing me how to find joy in the
smallthings.
There should be a special award for dissertation spouses. Throughout this process, Edmund
hasbeenachampion.Hehaslivedthroughthelastfewhecticmonthsofwritingwithcheerfulness,
patience,andgrace.Asgenerousbreadwinner,skilledhomemaker,devotedfather,andlovinghus-
band, he has kept me whole throughout this often stressful time. I cannot thank him enough. I am
happytobehomeagain.
ForEdmundandMiriam
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Copularsentences:backtobasics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 Roadmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4.1 Part1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4.2 Part2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4.3 Part3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
I The Data
12
2 Overviewofcopularamalgams 13
2.1 Variationincopularclauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Classifyingcopularsentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.1 Specificationandpredication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.1.1 Reversibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.1.2 Connectivityeffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.1.3 Optionalityofthenon-finitecopula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.1.4 Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
x