Adjunct Clauses, Presupposition and Root Transformations
Richard K. Larson and Miyuki Sawada

Affiliation: SUNY-Stony Brook

Mailing address: Dept. of Linguistics

SUNY-Stony Brook

Stony Brook NY 11794-4376 USA

Email address:Richard.Larson@sunysb.edu

msawada88@hotmail.com

Hopper and Thompson (1973: hereafter H&T) observe that "Root Transformations" in English are possible in, and only in, adjunct clauses whose content is not presupposed. Thus Left Dislocation is allowed in "because"-clauses (1a), whose content is typically not presupposed. By contrast, Left Dislocation is blocked in "when"-, "before"-, and "after"- clauses (1b), whose content typically is presupposed (Heinamaki 1978). (1c) shows that when presupposition is forced upon a "because"-clause by association with negation, Left Dislocation is blocked. Other root transforms like Negative Constituent Preposing, Directional Adverb Preposing, Tag Question Formation, and Topicalization pattern similarly. The correlation that H&T observe raises a simple, but puzzling question: how could a semantic/pragmatic phenomenon like presupposition constrain syntactic operations like root transformations?

We suggest a solution to this puzzle based on recent work by Johnston (1994), who argues for an important semantic difference between "because"- adjuncts vs "when"-/"before"-/"after"-adjuncts. According to Johnston, "because" takes a closed event sentence as its complement, and expresses a relation between closed event sentences (2a,b). By contrast "when", "before", and "after" take an open event sentence as complement, yielding an open event sentence that typically functions as a restriction on an adverb of quantification (3a,b). This analysis explains the difference in presuppositional behavior under Diesing's (1992) observation that quantifier restrictions are presupposed. Given that "when"-, "before"-, and "after"-adjuncts function as Q-restrictions, whereas "because"-adjuncts do not, the former will be presupposed whereas the latter (typically) will not.

We propose that the extra semantic element in Johnston's analysis of "because" complements - the event quantifier - corresponds to an additional layer of syntactic structure XP (4a,b), and that the latter explains the availability of root transforms. In brief, the complement of "because" is a larger syntactic domain than that of "when"-, "before"-, and "after"-, and this extra layer of structure is the domain of root transforms, like Left Dislocation (4c). We cite a variety of cross-linguistic data supporting the view that "because"-complements are syntactically larger/richer than "when"-, "before"-, and "after"-complements. Languages include: (a) Haitian Creole, which allows tense, mood, aspect and sentential negation in verb-doubled "because"-clauses, but not in "when"-clauses (5a,b); (b) Sakha, which exhibits subject - verb agreement in "because"-clauses, but not in "when"-clauses (6a,b); (c) Swedish, which shows main clause word order and root transforms in "because"-clauses, but not in "when"-clauses (7a,b); Japanese, which permits topic and modal phrases in "because"-clauses, but not in "when"-clauses (8a,b). We also discuss the identity of the categories XP and YP in (4).

H&T's correlation is thus seen to be an artifact of a deeper asymmetry between "because"- vs. "when"-/"before"-/"after"-adjuncts. The former take a richer complement which permits certain syntactic operations, but blocks use as a quantifier restriction. The latter take a poorer complement, which blocks these syntactic operations, but permits use as a quantifier restriction, yielding a presuppositional effect as a by-product.

Examples

(1) a.

Mildred drives a Mercedes because her son, he owns stock in Xerox. (= H&T's (241))

b.

*Mildred bought a Mercedes when/before/after her son, he purchased stock in Xerox.

c.

*Sam is going out for dinner, not because his wife, she can't cook, but because he wants to discuss Q-magic with Stella. (= H&T's (245))

(2) a.

John left because Bill arrived.

b.

BECAUSE ( Ee [arrive(e,b) & PAST(e)]) ( Ee [leave(e,j) & PAST(e)])

(3) a.

John (always) left when Bill arrived.

b.

ALWAYS ( arrive(e,b) & PAST(e) )( leave(e,j) & PAST(e) )

(4) a.

because [XP [X' Ee [YP ...] ] ]

b.

when/before/after [YP ... ]

c.

because [XP her son [X' Ee [YP he owns stock in Xerox ] ] ]

5. (Lefebvre and Ritter 1993)

a.

Achte Jan pa te achte fle yo, Mari fache.

buy John NEG PST buy flower Det, Mary angry

'Since John didn't buy the flowers, Mary is angry.'

b.

*Di m pa di l sa, li ale.

tell I NEG tell him that, he go

'As soon as/When I didn't tell him that, he left.'

6. (Nadya Vinokurova, p.c)

a.

Marty belesipie-ti-n atylaa-bat-a toqo dieri amerika-qa baar-a.

Marty bike-3-acc sell-NEGPST-3 because America-dat exist-3

'Marty didn't sell his bike because he was in America.'

b.

*Marty belesipie-ti-n atylaa-bat-a amerika-qa baar-a kemiger.

Marty bike-3-acc sell-NEGPST-3 America-dat exist-3 time-dat-3

'Marty didn't sell his bike when he was in America.'

(7) (Anderssen 1975:83)

a.

USA har startat ett nytt krig darfor att Nixon, han ar ju inte klok.

USA has started a new war because Nixon, he is (as is obvious)not sane.

'The USA has started a new war because Nixon, he is crazy.'

b.

*Vi kom till Stockholm nr Henry, han var pa vg till Kairo.

we came to Stochholm when Henry, he was on way/road to Cairo

'We came to Stockholm when Henry, he was on the way to Cairo.'

(8) a.

Taro-wa raishuu kuru-daroo-kara, soba-o motte kite moraou.

Taro-TOP next week come(NPST)-may-because, noodle-ACC bring come Bene(NPST-lets)

'(Lit.)Because Taro may come here next week, (I) will ask him to bring soba-noodles.'

b.

Taro- *wa/-ga raishuu kuru-(*daroo)-toki, soba-o motte kite moraou.

Taro-TOP/NOM next week come(NPST)-may-when, noodle-ACC bring come Bene(NPST-lets)

'When Taro may come, (I) will ask him to bring soba-noodles.'

References

Andersson, L. (1975) Form and Function of Subordinate Clauses. Doctoral Dissertation. Göteborg University. Göteborg.

Diesing, M. (1992) Indefinites. MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Heinamaki, O. (1978) Semantics of English Temporal Connectives. Univ. of Indiana: IULC.

Hooper, J. B. and Thompson, S.A. (1973) "On the Applicability of Root Transformations," LI 4:465-497.

Johnston, M. (1994) The Syntax and Semantics of Adverbial Adjuncts. Doctoral Dissertation. University of California at Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz.

Lefebvre, C. and Ritter, E. (1993) "Two Types of Predicated Doubling Adverbs in Haitian Creole. In Byrne, F and Winford, D (eds.) Focus and Grammatical Relations in Creole Languages. (pp. 65-91) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.