Functional Compositionality

1. Functional Compositionality

2. Some linguistic forms are elemental, i.e. they cannot be broken down into more basic forms with more basic functions: • definites: the beer • gapping: Sally brought the wine, and Mary, the beer. • (cf. work in Construction Grammar)

3. Other constructions are functionally complex, i.e. composed of more basic constructions, each of which imposes its own constraints on the use of the whole.

4. (1) There are two O-rings around the seal, and on about five, perhaps half a dozen STS flights, on each flight there are six seal areas, three segments, three breaks in each of two solids. [Challenger Corpus]  preposed PP plus existential there

5. Not the same as inversion: ...on each flight there are six seal areas, three segments, three breaks in each of two solids. ...on each flight are six seal areas, three segments, three breaks in each of two solids.

6. A single argument-reversing construction? Or two distinct constructions?

7. Functionally distinct from inversion: (2) Jill and John sat eating pizza. Jill took a slice and carefully picked off all the mushrooms, then took a big bite. #Across from her there was John, working on his fourth or fifth slice.  postposed NP must represent h-new information [...] Across from her was John, working on his fourth or fifth slice.  inversion OK with h-old/d-old, h-old/d-old [...] John was across from her, working on his fourth or fifth slice.[CWO]

8. While inversion requires that the preposed constituent be at least as familiar as the postposed constituent, PP preposing with an existential comprises two distinct constructions used simultaneously rather than a single construction with a single function, and is correspondingly subject to the constraints on those two component constructions.

9. Thus, such sentences require the preposed PP to represent discourse-old information (satisfying the constraint on preposing) and the postposed NP to represent hearer-new information (satisfying the constraint on postposing).

10. On each flightthere are six seal areas must be must be discourse-old hearer-new cf. inversion: On each flight are six seal areas must be no newer than

11. To summarize: • Inversion is a single construction subject to a single discourse constraint • PP preposing + existential is the sum of two constructions and is subject to the discourse constraints on both

12. PP preposing with existential thereis a functionally compositional construction – that is, one whose discourse constraints are built up straightforwardly from those of the more basic constructions of which it is composed.

13. Another family of functionally compositional constructions: That would be X and its relatives (Birner, Kaplan, & Ward 2007)

14. The original (rather small) question: What does it mean to say That would be X rather than simply That’s X?

15. Epistemic would: (3) a. Q: Can you tell us if you recognize this clothing? A: That would be our standard attire, correct. [Simpson transcripts, 2/7] b. Dad: Uh… Who’s that boy hanging out in our front yard, Danae? Danae: That would be Jeffrey, my not-so- secret admirer. [‘Non Sequitur’ comic, 3/3/02]

16. Use of epistemic would requires a contextually salient OP: (4) Dad: Uh… Who’s that boy hanging out in our front yard, Danae? Danae: That would be Jeffrey, my not-so- secret admirer. (5) ‘that boy hanging out in our front yard is X’

17. The epistemic would construction has a great deal in common with clefts – another set of OP-requiring constructions.

18. Clefts: (6) a. A: Well, has the cat discovered the hamsters yet? B: The hamsters? Actually, it’s the dog that is enthralled with the hamsters. [Switchboard Corpus] b. A: How long do you cook the meatballs? B: The meatballs you just, after you form them, fry them in a pan until they’re browned on all sides and then drain off all the grease. Then what I usually do is I freeze them. [Switchboard Corpus]

19. (7) a. NF: …One of, one my fellow soldiers came by and shook my bed and said, Come on Fredzo, get up… and the Sergeant himself said, ‘Leave him alone, he’s too short.’ KF: Hmm. NF: I mean, the, that was the platoon sergeant that said that. [Hedberg 1990, ch. 4, ex. 12]

20. b. A: Kennedy was convinced he would have needed Texas in the ’64 election and chose to take his chances. B: Lee – I was only kidding. Besides – do we really know that was JFK that was shot and not a stand in? [http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/ showthread.php?t=532&goto=nextoldest, 6/15/04]

21. Clefts: • it-clefts: it’s the dogs that is enthralled with the hamsters • wh-clefts: what I usually do is I freeze them • th-clefts: that was the platoon sergeant that said that

22. Th-clefts require an OP unless the referent is present in the visual context (cf. Prince 1981’s ‘situationally evoked’ information): (8) Hey, that’s your cousin who’s sitting on the curb, isn’t it?

23. In addition to full it-clefts and th-clefts, there are what have been referred to as ‘truncated clefts’ (Hedberg 2000, inter alia): • equative • structurally and functionally like clefts • but no relative clause

24. (9) Tonight Keith and I were home hanging out in the apartment, eating our dinner and trying to watch this incomprehensible subtitled Indian film I brought home from the video store, when a knock came at the door. We were expecting a friend to drop by with some clothes for Zeke, so we figured it was her. [www.12pointfont.com/02/120702.html]

25. (10) A: Me? I never wallow. I suffer in silence. B: No, that’s Christine. [movie ‘Must Love Dogs’] (11) Cleft variant: That’s Christine who suffers in silence.

26. These would appear to have the same structure as simple equatives: (10) A: Me? I never wallow. I suffer in silence. B: No, that’s Christine. (12) A: Who’s that woman over there? B1: It’s Christine. B2: That’s Christine.

27. But then a sentence like That’s Christine is ambiguous between two syntactic analyses: • simple equative • truncated cleft • We will argue that the truncated-cleft analysis is unnecessary.

28. The OP is required not for felicity, but for the cleft-like reading – i.e., to have a th-cleft paraphrase. I can say That’s Christine out of the blue with no infelicity.

29. These equatives are functionally compositional: Their pragmatic properties are built up from those of their components.

30. Any equative with demonstrative that as its subject will, in the presence of a salient OP, have a cleft-like reading and show cleft-like properties.

31. Commonalities among theconstructions

32. We looked at three constructions that shared the following properties: • demonstrative subject • equative structure • contextually salient OP

33. (13) [context: a knock at the front door] a. That would be Christine. [TWBX] b. That’s Christine who’s at the door. [th-cleft] c. That’s Christine. [th-equative]

34. TWBX

35. Recall that the combination of the equative, demonstrative, and OP makes possible the use of the demonstrative to refer to the instantiation of the OP variable: (14) a. A [holding cup]: Whose is this? B: That would be my son. My youngest son, to be exact. [conversation, 2/4/01] OP: ‘this cup belongs to X’

36. b. Villager [in reference to an ogre]: He’ll grind your bones for his bread! Shrek: Actually, that would be a giant. [movie ‘Shrek’] OP: ‘the creature that grinds your bones for his bread is X’ A: The pot’s light. B: That would be me. [tosses in a chip] [poker game, 1/31/03] OP: ‘the person who failed to ante is X’ c.

37. Salient OP introduces a new (unknown) entity into the discourse model (e.g., the person who failed to ante), rendering it available for discourse deixis. Discourse deixis: I bet you haven’t heard this story.(Levinson 1983) That’s a lie.(Lyons 1977)

38. Three predictions • Ambiguity between variable reference and reference to some other salient entity • Apparent number disagreement due to verb agreeing with variable rather than salient plural entity • Apparent tense disagreement due to present-tense reference to instantiation rather than to salient past event

39. Ambiguity: A: The pot’s light. B: That would be me. [tosses in a chip] OP: ‘the person who failed to ante is X’ [Looking through a photo album] That would be me.

40. In some cases, context fails to disambiguate: (15) [King dips his finger in a bowl held by a servant and then licks the food off his finger and proclaims it delicious.] King: What do you call this dish? Servant: That would be the dog’s breakfast. [movie ‘Shrek 2’] OP: ‘you call this dish X’

41. Apparent number disagreement: (16) a. Also, here’s hoping you won’t burn your leaves, wasting them, despite the fact that burning them is illegal in most Illinois counties – that would be the populated ones, like Cook, DuPage, Lake, e.g. [email, 4/24/01] OP: ‘the Illinois counties in which burning leaves is illegal are X’  note singular that with plural NP

42. b. No, I’m sorry, but I must disagree with the observation that cats are energy sinks. That would be children under the age of ... say 12. [email, 06/06/01] OP: ‘X are energy sinks’ c. I heard your names (that would be you and Andy) on NPR yesterday. [email, 6/26/02] OP: ‘I heard the names of X’

43. The demonstrative is used to refer to the (singular) instantation of the variable: I heard your names (that would be you and Andy) on NPR yesterday. [email, 6/26/02] OP: ‘I heard the names of X’ TWBX conveys ‘X (that) = you and Andy’

44. Choice of demonstrative can disambiguate: (17) The show started on ABC as Two Guys, A Girl And A Pizza Place. The show centered on three young characters just starting out in life - that would be the two guys and a girl. [www.poobala.com/twoguysandagirl.html] OP: ‘the three young characters just starting out in life are X’ Cf. ...those would be the two guys and a girl.

45. Apparent tense disagreement: (18) a. S: Do you remember a rainy afternoon we spent together? My father had driven your mother and David into town for a music lesson. L: How old was he? S: I don’t know... Fourteen, fifteen. L: That would be the oboe. [movie ‘Sabrina’] OP: ‘David was taking lessons in X at that time’

46. Compare with expected verb complex: ‘I bought two hundred extras when I put this roof on.’ ‘When was that?’ I asked. He looked up at the clouds. I don’t know whether he was divining the weather or the past. ‘Right after the war,’ he said. ‘That would have been forty-six.’ [Barbara Kingsolver, Animal Dreams, 1990, Harper Collins, p. 275] OP: ‘I put this roof on at time X’ b.

47. TWBX makes an assertion either: • instantiating the variable, or • about some referent (in this case, a past event) • In the latter case, this instantiation is occurring in the present, hence the present tense is appropriate.

48. Th-clefts

49. (19) A: The KKK is consistently hateful. B: I thought they were working on their kinder, gentler image - kind of like compassionate hatred. C: [...] [T]hat’s George Bush who is practicing compassionate hatred. [www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/ archives/001292.php] OP: ‘the one practicing compassionate hatred is X’

50. Three predictions • Ambiguity between variable reference and reference to some other salient entity • Apparent number disagreement due to verb agreeing with variable rather than salient plural entity • Apparent tense disagreement due to present-tense reference to instantiation rather than to salient past event