In this paper we examine constraints on the use of seven sentence-types permitting the non-canonical appearance of the logical subject in post-verbal position: inversion in English and in Farsi, presentational and existential there-sentences in English, presentational ci-sentences and subject inversion in Italian, and es+subject postposing in Yiddish. We show that these sentence-types share a common discourse constraint: each requires the NP in non-canonical (i.e. postposed) position to represent information that is unfamiliar in some sense. The discourse function of postposing is contrasted with that of another sentence-type involving post-verbal subjects: right-dislocation in English. Unlike postposed NPs, the marked NP of English right-dislocation represents information that is familiar within the discourse; concomitantly, a pronoun coreferential with the marked constituent appears in this constituent's canonical position.
We argue, then, that the function of postposing is to place subjects representing unfamiliar information in sentence-final position. On this analysis the functional difference between these sentence-types and English right-dislocation can be straightforwardly accounted for. Given that the marked NP of right-dislocation is coreferential with an intrasentential pronoun, we would expect this NP to represent a discourse-old entity, as do anaphoric pronouns in general. Thus, it is not accidental that right-dislocation does not serve to keep unfamiliar information out of subject position; the presence of the pronoun rules out such a function.
ABBOTT, B. (1992). Definiteness, existentials, and the ‘listy’ interpretation. In C. Barker & D. Dowty (eds.), Proceedings of SALT II (pp. 1--16). Columbus, Ohio.
2.
ABBOTT, B. (1993). A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 39–55.
3.
AISSEN, J. (1975). Presentational-THERE insertion: A cyclic root transformation. Chicago Linguistic Society, 11, 1–14.
4.
BELLETTI, A. (1988). The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 1–34.
5.
BERRUTO, G. (1986). Un tratto sintattico dell'italiano parlato: Il c'È presentativo. In K. Lichem, et al., (Eds.), Parallela 2: Aspetti della sintassi dell'italiano contemporaneo (pp. 61–73). Tubingen: G. Narr.
6.
BIRNER, B. (1994). Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language, 70, 233–259.
7.
BIRNER, B.(To appear). Recency effects in English inversion. In E. Prince, A. Joshi, & M. Walker (eds.), Centering in discourse.Oxford University Press.
8.
BIRNER, B., & MAHOOTIAN, S. (1995). Functional constraints on inversion in English and Farsi. Paper presented at the First International Conference in Contrastive Semantics and Pragmatics, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK.
9.
BIRNER, B., & WARD, G. (1994). Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 20, 93–102.
10.
BOLINGER, D. (1977). Meaning and form.London: Longman.
11.
BREIVIK, L. (1981). On the interpretation of existential there. Language, 57, 1–25.
12.
BURZIO, L. (1986). Italian syntax.Dordrecht: Reidel.
13.
CALABRESE, A. (1992). Some remarks on focus and logical structures in Italian. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 91–127.
14.
CHAFE, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. Li (ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York: Academic Press.
15.
DAVISON, A. (1984). Syntactic markedness and the definition of sentence topic. Language, 60, 797–846.
16.
ERDMANN, P. (1976). There sentences in English.Munich: Tuduv.
17.
FIRBAS, J. (1966). Non-thematic subjects in contemporary English. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague, 2, 39–56.
18.
FREEZE, R. (1992). Existentials and other locatives. Language, 68, 553–595.
19.
GELUYKENS, R. (1987). Tails (right dislocations) as a repair mechanism in English conversations. In J. Nuyts & G. de Schutter (eds.), Getting one's words into line: On word order and Functional Grammar (pp. 119–130). Dordrecht: Foris.
20.
GROSZ, B., JOSHI, A., & WEINSTEIN, S. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 44--50). Cambridge, MA.
21.
HANNAY, M. (1985). English existentials in functional grammar.Dordrecht: Foris.
22.
HARTVIGSON, H., & JAKOBSEN, L. (1974). Inversion in present-day English.Odense: Odense University Press.
23.
HAWKINS, J.A. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness.Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
24.
HAWKINS, J.A. (1991). On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 405–442.
25.
HIRSCHBERG, J. (1991). A theory of scalar implicature.New York: Garland.
26.
HOLMBACK, H. (1984). An interpretive solution to the definiteness effect problem. Linguistic Analysis, 13, 195–215.
27.
HORN, L.R. (1986). Presupposition, theme, and variations. Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 168--192). Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.
28.
JENKINS, L. (1975). The English Existential.Tübingen: Niemeyer.
29.
KUNO, S. (1971). The position of locatives in existential sentences. Linguistic Enquiry, 2, 333–378.
30.
LAKOFF, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things.Chicago: Chicago University Press.
31.
LAMBRECHT, K. (1981). Topic, anti-topic, and verb agreement in nonstandard French. In Pragmatics and Beyond, II,6.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
32.
LARSON, R. (1988). Light predicate raising. Lexicon Project Working Papers, 27. MIT: Center for Cognitive Science.
33.
LASNIK, H. (1992). Case and expletives: Notes toward a parametric account. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 381–405.
34.
LEVIN, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
LUMSDEN, M. (1988). Existential sentences: Their structure and meaning.London: Croom Helm.
36.
MAHOOTIAN, S. (1993). A null theory of codeswitching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
37.
MILSARK, G. (1974). Existential sentences in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
38.
MILSARK, G. (1977). Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis, 3, 1–30.
39.
PENHALLURICK, J. (1984). Full-verb inversion in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 4, 33–56.
40.
PINTO, M. (1994). Subjects in Italian: Distribution and interpretation. In R. Bok-Bennema & C. Cremers (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands (pp. 175–186). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
41.
PRINCE, E.F. (1981a). Topicalization, focus-movement, and Yiddish-movement: A pragmatic differentiation. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 7, 249–264.
42.
PRINCE, E.F. (1981b). Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–254). New York: Academic Press.
43.
PRINCE, E.F. (1981c). On the inferencing of indefinite-this NPs. In A.K. Joshi, B.L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 231–250). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
44.
PRINCE, E.F. (1986). On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions. Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory. Chicago Linguistic Society, 22, 208–222.
45.
PRINCE, E.F. (1988). The discourse functions of Yiddish expletive es+subject-postposing. Papers in Pragmatics, 2, 176–194.
46.
PRINCE, E.F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In S. Thompson & W. Mann (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text (pp. 295–325). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
47.
PRINCE, E.F. (1994). The notion ‘construction’ and the syntax-discourse interface. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, University of Pennsylvania.
48.
RANDO, E., & NAPOLI, D. (1978). Definites in there-sentences. Language, 54, 300–313.
49.
REULAND, E., & TER MEULEN, A. (1987). The representation of (in)definiteness.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50.
ROCHEMONT, M., & CULICOVER, P. (1990). English focus constructions and the theory of grammar.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
SAFIR, K. (1985). Syntactic chains.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
53.
SZABOLCSI, A. (1986). From the definiteness effect to lexical integrity. In W. Abraham & J. de Mey (eds.), Topic, focus, and configurationality (pp. 321–348). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
54.
TOMLIN, R. (1986). Basic word order: Functional principles.London: Croom Helm.
55.
TERKEL, S. (1974). Working.New York: Avon.
56.
WALD, B. (1983). Referents and topic within and across discourse units: Observations from current vernacular English. In Flora Klein-Andreu (ed.), Discourse perspectives of syntax, 91--116. New York: Academic Press.
57.
WARD, G. (1988). The semantics and pragmatics of preposing.New York: Garland.
58.
WARD, G. (1995). A comparison of English and Italian presentationals. Unpublished manuscript.
59.
WARD, G., & BIRNER, B. (1994). A unified account of English fronting constructions. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 1 (pp. 159–165). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.
60.
WARD, G., & BIRNER, B. (1995). Definiteness and the English existential. Language, 71, 722–742.
61.
WARD, G., & BIRNER, B. (1996). On the discourse function of rightward movement in English. In A. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 463–479). Center for the Study of Language and Information. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
62.
WILDER, L.I. (1933). Farmer boy.NY: Harper.
63.
WOISETSCHLAEGER, E. (1983). On the question of definiteness in “an old man's book.”Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 137–154.
64.
ZIV, Y. (1982). Another look at definites in existentials. Journal of Linguistics, 18, 73–88.
65.
ZIV, Y., & GROSZ, B. (1994). Right dislocation and attentional state. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference and of the Workshop on Discourse (pp. 184–199). Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics.
