Äîêóìåíò âçÿò èç êýøà ïîèñêîâîé ìàøèíû. Àäðåñ îðèãèíàëüíîãî äîêóìåíòà : http://www.philol.msu.ru/~otipl/new/mscl/2008/abstracts/dekany.pdf Äàòà èçìåíåíèÿ: Wed Mar 19 02:22:42 2008 Äàòà èíäåêñèðîâàíèÿ: Thu Apr 8 09:35:30 2010 Êîäèðîâêà:

Comitative adjuncts: appositives and non-appositives
Expressions involving a comitative adverbial and a plural pronoun as its host DP (we with ambiguous in Hungarian . In the exclusive reading the comitative is added to the reference of the thus in total at least three persons are referred to. In the inclusive reading, on the other h and, th of the comitative is not added to the referent of the pronoun, but included in it. Under this readin John, for instance, refers to t wo persons: John and me. (1) (Mi) JÀnossal kisÈtÀltunk a tÑhoz. we-NOM John-COM p reV-walk-PAST-1PL the lake-ALLAT `We walked to the lake with John.' (exclusive reading) `I walked to the lak e with John.' (inclusive reading) In this talk I argue that the t wo readings do not display a structural differen ce: the comitative is a DPadjunct in both cases . It has never been called into question that in the exclusive reading the comitative is an adjunct. There is no general consensus, however, on the adjunction site: both VP-adjunction (Skrabalova 2003, Vassilieva and Larson 2005) and DP-adjunction (Ionin and Matushanski 2002) have been argu ed for. I show that in this reading in Hungarian the comitative co-binds anaphors, and therefore the DP-adjunction analysis is superior. As far as the inclusive reading is concerned , it is established that the pronoun and the comitative form a constituent, but it is subject to much discussion if the comitative is a complement (Vassilieva and Larson 2005), a conjunct (Vassilieva 2005) or an adjunct (Ionin and Matushansky 2002). Following Progovac (1997), I argue that the co mitative is an ap positive modifier of DP. In contrast her analysis, howev er, I claim that in the inclusive reading the co mitative binds a variable internal to the pronoun. Under this analysis all syntactic p roperties of the inclus ive reading fall into place. An alysing the comtative as a DP-adjunct in both readings raises the question of why certain syntactic operations disambiguate bet ween the two interpretati ons. For instance, only the ex clusive reading is available when the co mitative undergoes wh-movement (2) or a rel ative clause intervenes bet ween the pronoun and the comitative (3). The same holds wh en the comitative is a bare noun (4) or instead of with X, the comitative tak es the form with the help of X or in the co mpany of X (5). (2) Ki k who-Pl-NOM `Which perso *`Which pers ÌrtÀk JÀnossal a cikket? wirte-PASt-3PL John-COM the article-ACC ns wrote the article with John?' on wrote the article with John?' John) are pronoun, e referent g we with

(3) Mi , a kik mÈg sohasem voltunk kÝlfÆldÆn, JÀnossal NorvÈgiÀba utazunk. we-NOM who-PL yet n ever be-PASt-1PL abroad Jo hn-COM Norway-ILL travel-1PL `We h ave n ever b een abroad , and we are trav elling to Norway with John.' *`John and I have never been abroad , and we are travel ling to Norway.' (4) Ti bÀr melyi k kollegÀval you(PL)-NOM any colleagu e-COM `You(PL) make a good team with any o *`You(SG) make a good team with any jÑ csapatot alkottok. good team comprise-2PL f the colleagues .' of the colleagues.'

(5) a JÀnos tÀrsasÀgÀban sÝtÆttÝnk egy kenyeret . John-NOM co mpany-POSS.3SG-INESS bake-PAST-1PL a bread-ACC `We /*I baked a loaf of bread in the comp any of John.'


b JÀnos segÌtsÈgÈvel sÝtÆttÝnk egy kenyeret. John-NOM help-POSS.3SG-COM bak e-PASt-1PL a bread-ACC `We /*I baked a loaf of bread with (the help of) John. On the other hand, if the pronoun and the comitative are focalised together then the sentence can only receive the inclusive reading. (6) [
FO C

CSAK MI JàNOSSAL] mentÝnk el NorvÈgiÀba. only we-NOM John-COM go-PAST-1PL preV Norway-ILL `It is only I/*us with John that went to Norway .'

I argue that in the configurations mentioned above, entirely non-structural (interface) phenomena contribute to the unambiguous interpretation. Th e interaction between syntax and the Phonetic Form interface explains the unavailability of the inclusive reading when a relative clause interven es between the pronoun and the comitative: the Law of Gro wing Constituents (Behag el 1932, è. Kiss 2007) requires phonologically short subcomponents of a constituent to come closer to the head than heavy ones. I sho w that in the rest of the unambiguous constructions the interaction bet ween syntax and the Conceptual-Intentional interface rules out one of the p otential readings. The co mitative cannot b e a bare noun in the inclusive reading because bare nouns are non-referential elements and so they are unable to bind the reference of the p ronoun-internal variable. Th e pronoun cannot undergo wh-extraction in the inclusive reading because in appositive structures in general wh-extraction of the host DP l eads to ungrammaticality. Wh-elements are referentially open. Appositives are referentially fixed. I argue that this causes a clash of referentiality at the interpretation of the DP, thus the only possible reading is the ex clusive one. Comitatives of the form with the help of X or in the company of X trigger an ex clusive reading because the denotation of these phrases is [-animate]. In th e inclusive reading the denotation of the whole comitative phrase is by definition part of the denotation of we. We, ho wever, refers to a set of which all members are [+human] o r at least [-animat e]. Finally, the focalised pronoun + comitative string triggers an inclusive reading because among postnominal modifiers in Hungarian, only appositives can be focussed together with the noun they modify. I derive this fact fro m the referential non-distinctness of the pronoun and the co mitative. Th e results of the talk implicate that the division of labour between syntax and the interfaces plays a far more important role in the interpretation of co mitative adverbials than it has b een assumed so far.

References Behagel , Otto (1932). Deutsche Syntax IV. Heidelberg: Carl Winters è. Kiss, Katalin (2007). Free Word Order (Non-)configurationality and Phases. Ms ,. Hungarian Academy o f Sciences, Research Institute for Linguistics. Ionin, Tania and Ora Matushansky (2002). DPs with a t wist: a Unified Analysis of Russian Co mitatives. Available fro m http://www-rcf.usc.edu/ ~ionin/MyDo wnloads Progovac, Ljiljana (1997). Slavic and the Structure for Coordination. In Lindseth, Martin and Steven Franks (eds): Pro ceedings of FAS L 5: The Indiana Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Salvic Publications. 2 0 7 -2 3 3 . Skrabalova, Han a (2003). Co mitative Constructions in Czech. Available fro m http://www.cavi.univ-paris3.fr/ilpga/ed/student/stas/FDSL4.pdf Vassilieva, Masha (2005). Associative and Prono minal Plurality. Ph .D. dissertation, SUNY Stony Brook . Vassilieva, Masha and Rich ard K. Larson (2005). The semantics of the plural pronoun construction. Natural Language Semantics 13: 101-124.