Birner 94

Question 1

Topic of this paper

Answer 1

Info status and word order: inversion

Question 2

Grice’s property of nondetachabilty

Answer 2

The same proposition expressed in a different lexical or syntactic form will convey the same implicature,

Question 3

Birner’s 94 argument

Answer 3

Inversion is an information-packaging mechanism, allowing the presentation of relatively familiar information before a comparatively unfamiliar logical subject (v. prince zpg)

Question 4

Birner’s inversion definition

Answer 4

A sentence in which the logical subject appears in post verbal position, while some other, canonically postverbal, constituent appears in clause-initial position

Question 5

Birner’s critique of claims that inversion marks FOCUS

Answer 5

• meaning of “focus” varies
• require postponed NP represent new info unless contrastive, but postponed may felicitously represent evoked information in a no contrastive inversion

Question 6

Birners critique of argument that inversion with a proposed directional adverb has been termed ‘exclamatory’ or ‘emphatic’

Answer 6

This type of inversion not always exclamatory or emphatic

Question 7

B’s critique of princes claim that ‘locative/directional preposing’ marks an OP as salient shared knowledge, where OP is obtained by replacing the ‘tonically stressed constituent’ with a variable whose instantiation corresponds to the new info.

Answer 7

Counter example:

Beneath the chin lap of the helmet sprouted black whiskers
OP: something sprouted somewhere =salient shared knowledge?

Question 8

B’s critique of rochemont’s identification of two types of focus: presentational and contrastive. Expression is presentational if not c-construable (under discussion)

Answer 8

Counter example of nussibeh and the jump rope story. Under discussion and not contrastive

Question 9

B’s (kinda) critique of claim that inversion is determined by ‘formal’ or ‘notional’ weight of the subject and verb.

Answer 9

Has much in common with her argument, BUT she argues that felicity of inversion is not the relative familiarity of the subject and the verb, but rather that of the subject and the proposed element.

Question 10

Birner and green’s discourse functions of inversion

Answer 10

Green gives discourse functions to various types of inversion and says (aside from quotative and sub-aux) all serve “connective function.”. Birner “all inversions essentially perform such a connective function.”

Question 11

Birner vs. inversion as “defocussing device” (penhallurick)
Defocussing = subject position reserved for elements in focus, where focus defined as “what the speakers attention is centered on in relation to t he event specified by the verb”

Answer 11

Basically, opposite found quite often. Example of Jesse Jackson sample, not new,but not as salient as “it” (party war that was proposed)

Question 12

Anaphoric bridges

Answer 12

In certain PP preposings, the PP itself needn’t be salient, but instead serves as a bridge between the salient NP contained within it and the prior context. Certain proposed NPs Can also serve this function (ward).

Question 13

Posited bridging effect

Answer 13

Preposed constituent linking prior info with the current utterance requires only that SOME nontrivial element thereof represent relatively familiar information 243

This linking function is equally well served whether the connecting material represents an entity (prince and NPs only) OR an attribute, OR action, etc.

Question 14

Birner’s discourse-familiarity

Answer 14

It is (in B’s view) not the (assumed) familiarity of the info to the hearer that is relevant, but rather the familiarity WITHIN the DISCOURSE of the information represented by the proposed and postponed constituents

Question 15

Example of infelicitous DN verb DO (gym shirt example)

Answer 15

A.) have you seen my gym shirt?
B.). In the closet is your gym shirt.

Note: HN verb HO = ok
Ex. Sitting and talking with an elderly man was your brother.

Question 16

Birner’s pragmatic constraint on inversion

Answer 16

The proposed element in an inversion must not be newer in the discourse than the postponed element.

Question 17

Possible reason for her pragmatic constraint

Answer 17

Allow the new element to be processed in terms of its relationship to preceeding (familiar) info. Inversion may serve info-packaging function to present info that is relatively familiar in the discourse before info that is relatively unfamiliar in the discourse .

Question 18

Recency of mention and relevance to inversion

Answer 18

In 21 of 29 cases of DO verb DO, the preposed element was more salient than post posed element.

DO(more recent) verb DO less recent.

Suggests that speakers recognize varying degrees of discourse familiarity based on recency of mention.

Question 19

Salience definition

Answer 19

Gradient notion that reflects not whether an entity is in the hearers consciousness but to what degree the hearer is believed to be attending to that entity.

Question 20

Inferrables in Birner’s study

Answer 20

Inferrable info may be collapsible with evoked info for purposes of determining felicity of an inversion- specifically, Inferrable may be treated as DO

Question 21

Containing inferrables in Birner’s study

Answer 21

Discourse status of containing Inferrable NP depends on the discourse status of entity from which it is inferred

Question 22

Definiteness in B’s study

Answer 22

While inversion is sensitive to discourse familiarity, definit eness seems to be sensitive to hearer familiarity. Strong tendency for initial constituent to be definite because the initial element in an inversion tends to be discourse old and any element that is DO is also HO.

No such tendency in postponed constituent because DN elements on this position are both HO and HN common (unused elements common). Anaphoric pronouns cannot appear in postposed position, but deictic pronouns ok.

Question 23

Non-be verbs in Birner’s study

Answer 23

• evoked in discourse; example of things going in places evoking verb GO (OP?)
• semantic meaning of verb Inferrable; example of coiled rope and LAY
• Inferrable characteristic; example of smells WAFTING

Share with BE the property of being “informationally light” in context.

In all cases, the main verb in an inversion must represent evoked or Inferrable information in the discourse

Question 24

Subject and info status in prince v. Birner

Answer 24

Prince- canonical sentences: constituents representing DO entities were more likely to be subjects than were DN entities.

Birner- inversion, opposite: DN info tends to be represented by postposed subject, so preposed constituent in an inversion, rather than postposed subject, patterns with princes canonical sentence subjects in being discourse old.

This contrast suggests that discourse familiarity in fact correlates not with subject hood but rather with relative sentence position.

Question 25

Birner’s findings in accord with Horn’s

Answer 25

Horn: initial position typically reserved for familiar info, preferentially salient or presupposed. Horn’s conclusion that what is relevant for info packaging is not subject hood but rather initial position. Leftward movement rules to move familiar info left and rightward movement rules to move unfamiliar into focus, consistent with inversion data (whether right or left).