Abstract
This paper considers the anaphoric status of the pro-form fer-ho (do it) in Catalan [This paper contains some ideas included in Busquets (2005)]. I discuss some anaphoric properties of fer-ho as deep anaphora. I also compare these properties to those of other types of anaphora, like VPE and pseudogapping (pg). I show that its interpretation is strongly constrained by information and discourse structure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In the examples used in this paper, other morphologically forms of the verb fer (do) will be found, such as: ‘faig’: [1pers, sg, present]; ‘fa’: [3pers, sg, present]; ‘faci’:[1/3pers, sing, subj, present]; ‘faré’: [1pers, sg, future]; ‘faria’: [1/3pers, sg, cond.]; ‘feia’: [1/3pers, sg, imperfect past].
The first one, called Missing Antecedent Phenomenon (map), is illustrated by the example below (Grinder and Postal 1971, p. 278), where \(\Delta \) denotes the elided material in the target clause:
(2) My uncle doesn’t \(\hbox {[have a spouse]}_{I}\) but your aunt does \(\Delta _{i}\) and he is lying on the floor
The pronoun he introduces a new entity which cannot be identified from the antecedent but it has to be recycled from the target clause. These types of examples are few and far between in Catalan, mostly due to its pro-drop nature.
See Merchant (2008) for a syntactic approach to voice mismatches and Verb Phrase Anaphora (vpa).
In this section I will follow the traditional view according to which arguments are syntactically licensed by the head verb and adjuncts are not syntactically constrained. Semantically, arguments are necessary participants in the event or state expressed by the verb, whereas adjuncts function as comments or elaborations of the event or state identified by the predicate (Saeed 1997).
For instance, the type of semantic contribution (arguments denote the participants of an event, individuals or entities that satisfy the represented state of affairs, whereas adjuncts refer to time, frequency, location, cause, goal, etc.). Other criteria are the iterative, optional and predictable nature of adjuncts, contrasted with the obligatory occurrence, distinctive selection and some free order of the arguments, possible extraction, etc.
Tests as (5) are used to differentiate between v’ or vp structures. For their part, Culicover and Jackendoff (2005) propose a structure with a maximal vp with nested vps:
(6) [\({}_{\mathrm{VP}}^{3}\) [\({}_{\mathrm{VP}}^{2}\) [\({}_{\mathrm{VP}}^{1}\) walked [\({}_{\mathrm{PP}}\) during 11 days]] [\({}_{\mathrm{PP}}\) on a highway in USA]]
Catalan clitics are not necessarily attached to complex VPs. The clitic climbing phenomenon is illustrated by the different distributional properties of fer-ho:
(7) a. [\({}_{\mathrm{SV1}}\hbox { ho}_{\mathrm{i}}\) va [\({}_{\mathrm{SV2}}\) fer-[e]\(_{\mathrm{i}}\)]]
b. [\({}_{\mathrm{SV1}}\) va [\({}_{\mathrm{SV2}}\) fer-ho]]
c. [\({}_{\mathrm{SV1}}\hbox { ho}_{\mathrm{i}}\) havia [\({}_{\mathrm{SV2}}\) de [\({}_{V'}\hbox { fer-[e]}_{\mathrm{i}}\)]
The distribution in (9c) shows that even a proposition can occupy the spec position. This could avoid a binding of a trace by its antecedent. Picallo (1990) suggests that in those cases, there is a co-indexation process between the head and the elements that form the vp. See Bonet (1995) or Solà (2002) for specific features of clitics in roman languages. It is important to note however that according to the configurations in (a,b,c), the syntax of the form fer-ho is simply a syntax with a complex or compositional semantics, as we will see later on.
In order to account for this asymmetry, several solutions have been proposed in the generative approach:
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{array}{ll} 1. [_{\mathrm{VP}} [_{\mathrm{V}'}\hbox { OA]}_{ \mathrm{V}'}\hbox {[SA]}] &{} (\hbox {Lobeck} 1986)\\ 2. [_{\mathrm{VP}} [_{\mathrm{V}} [_{\mathrm{V}'} [-{ max}] OA [_{\mathrm{V}'} [+{ max}]\hbox { SA}]]]] &{} (\hbox {Roberts} 1988)\\ 3. [_{\mathrm{VP}} [{}_{\mathrm{V}'}[-{ max}] [_{\mathrm{V}''}[+{ max}] OA [_{\mathrm{VP}} [-{ max}]]]]] &{}(\hbox {McNally} 1992)\\ 4. [_{\mathrm{TP}} [_{\mathrm{T}' }[_{\mathrm{VP}}\hbox { OA}]\hbox { SA}]]] &{}(\hbox {Dechaine} 1994) \end{array} \end{aligned}$$The configuration in (2) and (3) illustrate two variants of the so-called internal subject hypothesis (i.e. the subject is in [spec,vp], whereas (4) presupposes the external subject hypothesis (the subject occupies the [spec, tp] position).
I have not found evidence for this pattern.
As pointed out by Miller (1992) for do so, this form does not refer to the meaning of the entire maximal V’/VP containing the main verb and its arguments, but rather to the meaning of the verb. This seems to be the case also for fer-ho in Catalan.
Vallduví and Vilkuna (1998, pp. 83–84) define Kontrast as an operator-like element which generates a set M of semantic alternatives, along the lines of Rooth (1992), for a focused constituent a. M contains a set of objects matching a (i.e. they are comparable in that they are of the same semantic type).
This mechanism allows orphans to get syntactic features without licencers in the local context. Properties are inherited from the lexicon of the previous sentence, from a non-linguistic context or the appropriate link with the semantic role of the orphan’s antecedent (Culicover and Jackendoff 2005, p. 263).
Here this translation is mine. The translation in King James goes: [...] my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions [1, Kings, §11, 12]
Miller (2013) notices that cataphoric pg is possible in comparatives. The examples with fer-ho however allow cataphoric reference in non comparative environments.
This is equivalent to a first-order logical formula: \(\exists \)x [woman(x) \(\wedge \) walk(x)].
Culicover and Jackendoff (2005, p. 284) draw a distinction based on states, action events, and non-action events. Accordingly, a ternary anaphora process is necessary: do so anaphora, vpe and X happen anaphora. Do so being the most restricted is only compatible with action events. vpe has no constraints and X happen anaphora occurs with all kinds of events but not with states.
Quirk et al. (1972) state that ellipsis with do so is possible with activities, accomplishments, and delimited verbs (processes). In contrast, do so is incompatible with psychological verbs, raising verbs and stative verbs. Subsequently, they differentiate two types of ellipsis processes: do...,do...so and so do where do is [temp] node, and do so, do it and do that, where do is inside [vp].
Gràcia (1986, p. 232 and 274) noticed that only non stative verbs are compatible with the verb pro-form fer-ho.
It is worth noting that agentivity, initially incompatible with states, could be misbehaved in certain contexts:
(19) [Estima el teu enemic com un germà]\({}_{\mathrm{i}}\). Jo \(\hbox {ho}_{\mathrm{i}}\) faig
Love your enemy as a brother. I do it
This has been pointed out by Culicover and Jackendoff (2005, p. 284) referring to the antecedents for do so.
Causative constructions associated to fer (do), for instance, would be of two types: \({ fer}_{1}\) which selects an event (a 2 place analysis), and \({ fer}_{2}\) with an np and a clausal event (a 3 place analysis) with an empty pro: [\(_{\mathrm{sv} }[_{\mathrm{v}}\) [\({ fer}_{2} [_{\mathrm{npi}} [_{\mathrm{ip} }[_{\mathrm{npi} }\) pro [\({}_{\mathrm{v}'}\)...]]]]]]].
Along the lines of Alsina (1996), the representation should be as follows: ‘\({ fer}-{ ho}\langle \hbox {[P-A]}_{1}\) P*\(\langle {\ldots }[ ]_{1}\)...\(\rangle \rangle \)’. Where P-A corresponds to the proto-agent (or indeterminate human agent) and P* is the predicate contextually related by fer-ho. In these cases, the control relation is associated to a non lexicalized agent position.
Adam Haslett, Els inicis del dol. http://www.barcelonareview.com/38/c_ah.htm
A Predicative-drs is a function from discourse referents into drss. That is, a combination of one or more discourse referents yields a drs (Asher 1993, p. 70). For instance, the verb love’ is graphically represented as: \(\lambda \hbox {x.}\lambda \hbox {y}\langle \){y},{love(x,y)}\(\rangle \).
For Mikkelsen et al. (2012), restrictions on acceptability for correlates come from the pragmatic restriction on orphans: “An orphan is felicitous only if it can be interpreted as what the clause is about”, following Reinhart’s notion of aboutness. Here I propose for Catalan a pragmatic restriction closely related to focus and its alternatives, in the line of Rooth (1992). It seems to me, however, that both are conceptually compatible.
Another option would be to treat this type of discourses as entity chains where each discourse unit contains one or several discourse units that share the same global focus, along the lines of Knott et al. (2001).
Note that i (‘and’) is also possible in these examples.
References
Agbayani, B. K., & Zoerner, E. (2004). Gapping, pseudogapping and sideward movement. Studia Linguistica, 58(3), 185–211.
Alsina, À. (1996). The role of argument structure in grammar. Evidence from Romance. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Asher, N. (1993). Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Baltin, M. (2012). Deletion versus pro-forms: An overly simple dichotomy? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30, 381–423.
Bonami, O. (1999). Les constructions du verbe : le cas des groupes prépositionnels argumentaux. Analyse syntaxique, sémantique et lexicale. Paris: Thèse Paris-7.
Bonet, E. (1995). Feature structure of romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 607–64.
Büring, D. (2003). On Dtrees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics & Philosophy, 26(5), 511–545.
Busquets, J. (2005). A propos de fer-ho (le faire) anaphorique en Catalan. In: F. Lambert, H. Nolke (Eds.), La syntaxe au cœur de la grammaire.
Busquets, J. (2006). Stripping vs. VP-ellipsis in Catalan: What is deleted and when? Probus, 18(2), 159–187.
Chao, W. (1988). On ellipsis. Dissertation thesis, New York, Garland.
Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Davis, L. H. (1979). Theory of action. Englewood Cliffs, New-Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Déchaine, R.-M. (1994). Ellipsis and the position of subjects. Proceedings of NELS, 24, 47–63.
Depiante, M. A. (2000). The syntax of deep and surface anaphora: A study of null complement anaphora and stripping/ bare argument ellipsis. University of Connecticut dissertation, Connecticut.
Fiengo, R., & May, R. (1994). Indices and identity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gardent, C. (1991). Gapping and VP ellipsis in a unification-based grammar. Dissertation Thesis, Edinburgh.
Gengel, K. (2007). Focus and ellipsis: A generative analysis of pseudogapping and other elliptical structures. Ph.D. thesis, Universitat Stuttgart, Stuttgart.
Gràcia i Soler, M. L. (1986). La teoria temàtica. Ph.D. thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Grinder, J., & Postal, P. M. (1971). Missing antecedents. Linguistic inquiry, 2, 269–312.
Hankamer, J., & Sag, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 269–312.
Hoeksema, J. (2006). Pseudogapping: Its syntactic analysis and cumulative effects on its acceptability. Research on Language and Comunication, 4, 335–352.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jayaseelan, K. A. (1990). Incomplete VP deletion and gapping. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 64–81.
Johnson, K. (2001). What VP-ellipsis can do, and what it can’t but not why. In C. Collins & M. Baltin (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell & Sons.
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kehler, A. (2000). Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23, 533–575.
Kehler, A., & Ward, G. (1999). On the semantics and pragmatics of identifier so. In K. Turner (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view (Vol. I)., Current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface series Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Knott, A., Oberlander, J., O’Donnell, M., Mellish, C. (2001). Beyond elaboration: The interaction of relations and focus in coherent text. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 181–196). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Laka, I. (1990). Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Massachusetts: MIT.
Lakoff, G. (1966). Stative adjectives and verbs in English. Mathematical linguistics and automatic translation. The National Science Foundation 17, Computational Laboratory, Harvard University.
Levin, A. (1986). Main-verb ellipsis in spoken English. New York: Garland.
Lobeck, A. (1986). Syntactic constraints on VP anaphora. Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington.
López, L. (1999). VP-ellipsis in English and Spanish and the features of auxiliaries. Probus, 11(2), 263–297.
Mann, W., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243–281.
McNally, L. (1992). VP coordination and the VP-internal subject hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(2), 336–41.
Merchant, J. (2008). An asymmetry in voice mismatches in VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 169-17.
Merchant, J. (2013). Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 77–108.
Mikkelsen, L., Hardt, D., & Ørsnes, B. (2012). Orphans hosted by VPA anaphora. In J. Choi, E. A. Hogue, J. Punske, D. Tat, J. Schertz, & A. Trueman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th west coast conference on formal linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Miller, P. (1992). Clitics and constituents in phrase structure grammar. New York: Garland.
Miller, P. (1997). Auxiliary verbs in old and middle French: A diachronic study of substitutive ’faire’ and a somparison with the modern English auxiliaries. In V. E. Kemende & N. Vincent (Eds.), Parameters and syntactic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, P. (2013). Pseudogapping is a case of VP-Ellipsis. In CSSP. Paris: Université Paris Diderot.
Picallo, C. (1990). Modal verbs in Catalan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 8, 285–312.
Quirk, R., Geenbaum, S., & Leech, G. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
Roberts, I. (1988). Predicative APs. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(4), 703–710.
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.
Saeed, J. I. (1997). Semantics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sag, I., & Hankamer, J. (1984). Toward a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7, 325–345.
Solà, J. (2002). Clitic climbing and null subject languages. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 1, 225–255.
Vallduvi, E., & Vilkuna, M. (1998). On rheme and kontrast. In P. Culicover & L. McNally (Eds.), The limits of syntax. New York: Academic Press.
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Villalba, X. (2000). The syntax of sentence periphery. Barcelona: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.
Webber, B. L. (1979). A formal approach to discourse anaphora. New York: Garland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Busquets, J. Fer-ho Anaphora in Catalan: Semantic and Discourse Properties. J Psycholinguist Res 47, 307–324 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9538-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9538-3