UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles On her own Parsimonious Compositionality: Probing Syntax and Semantics with French propre A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics by Isabelle Charnavel 2012 © Copyright by Isabelle Charnavel 2012 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION On her own Parsimonious Compositionality: Probing Syntax and Semantics with French propre by Isabelle Charnavel Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Los Angeles, 2012 Professor Dominique Sportiche, Chair This dissertation focuses on the French word propre roughly meaning ‘characteristic-of’ and corresponding to English own found in ‘her own thesis’. This adjective makes extremely varied and complex contributions to the meaning and properties of sentences it occurs in. The present work addresses the question of how these contributions arise. Parsimoniously assuming a unique lexical entry for propre, these contributions are compositionally derived by a specific DP-internal structure and different interactions with focus. More precisely, propre is analyzed as taking as argument a possessive relation characterized as most specific. Unlike postnominal propre , prenominal propre exhibits ii three main readings called restrictive, possessor and possessum propre : restrictive propre has a standard intersective truth-conditional effect; possessor and possessum propre do not, but induce focus alternatives respectively to the possessor and to the possessum; possessum propre moreover gives rise to scalarity effects. These readings are argued to derive from a principle of minimization and different interactions with focus; in particular, the behavior of possessum propre shows the presence of a covert focus operator akin to even . When combined with a pronominal possessor like son (‘his’), the behavior of propre provides probes bearing on binding theoretic issues. First, son propre exhibits complex correlations between focus, locality and animacy: possessor propre is subject to locality only when it is inanimate, unlike possessum propre not so constrained. The difference between possessor and possessum propre underscores an interaction between focus and binding. Moreover, the distribution of possessor son propre sheds new light on how to formulate condition A supporting the relevance of local binding domain (for non-exempt anaphors) and the need for exemption (from condition A). As inanimate French anaphors like son propre are never exempt, they provide a crucial tool for delimiting locality, allowing a reduction of condition A (at least in French) to phase theory based architectural principles. iii The dissertation of Isabelle Charnavel is approved. Hilda Koopman Philippe Schlenker Yael Sharvit Dominique Sportiche, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2012 iv Scientiae In Libertate, Libertati In Scientia v TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1. The project: parsimony and compositionality ......................................................................... 1 2. Theoretical questions ............................................................................................................... 3 3. Results ...................................................................................................................................... 5 4. Outline ................................................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 1: Describing the meaning and the distribution of propre 1. Roadmap ................................................................................................................................ 11 2. DP-internal distribution of propre ......................................................................................... 12 2.1. Postnominal propre ....................................................................................................... 13 2.2. Prenominal propre ........................................................................................................ 16 2.3. Syntactic analysis .......................................................................................................... 22 2.3.1. A raising adjective selecting a possessive relation ............................................... 23 2.3.1.1. Derivation of postnominal propre with complement ................................................................................................. 24 2.3.1.1. Derivation of prenominal propre ......................................................................................................................................... 26 2.3.1.2. Derivation of postnominal propre without complement .......................................................................................... 28 2.3.2. Superlative ............................................................................................................ 30 2.3.3. Summary: assumptions about prenominal propre for the rest of the study .......... 31 3. The different readings of prenominal propre ........................................................................ 32 3.1. Restrictive propre (truth-conditional propre ) ............................................................... 33 3.2. Possessor propre ........................................................................................................... 36 3.3. Possessum propre ......................................................................................................... 41 3.4. Further readings ............................................................................................................ 46 3.4.1. Agentive propre .................................................................................................... 47 3.4.2. Reflexive propre ................................................................................................... 47 3.4.3. Ownership propre ................................................................................................. 47 4. The sentential distribution of son propre ............................................................................... 48 4.1. Possessor son propre: correlation between locality and inanimacy ............................. 50 4.2. Possessum son propre: no correlation between locality and inanimacy ...................... 54 5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 57 6. Appendix: Questionnaire (possessor son propre : correlation between inanimacy and locality) ......................................................................................................................................... 58 6.1. Design and material ...................................................................................................... 59 6.2. Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 63 6.3. Results ........................................................................................................................... 64 vi CHAPTER 2: Deriving the different readings of prenominal propre 1. Roadmap ................................................................................................................................ 69 2. Basic elements of the analysis: economy and focus .............................................................. 71 2.1. Principle of minimization .............................................................................................. 72 2.1.1. Principle of minimization: relevance .................................................................... 73 2.1.2. Principle of minimization: focus (possessor propre ) ............................................ 74 2.1.3. Principle of minimization: focus and relevance (possessum propre ) ................... 75 2.2. Interaction of propre with focus ................................................................................... 76 2.2.1. The problem of possessor propre .......................................................................... 76 2.2.2. Readings and focus targets .................................................................................... 78 3. Theory of focus ...................................................................................................................... 79 3.1. The questions ................................................................................................................ 79 3.2. Some influential theories of focus ................................................................................ 82 3.2.1. Rooth (1985, 1992) ............................................................................................... 82 3.2.1.1. Focus semantic value ................................................................................................................................................................. 82 3.2.1.2. The case of focusing adverbs ................................................................................................................................................. 85 3.2.1.3. The case of multiple foci ........................................................................................................................................................... 86 3.2.2. Schwarzschild (1999) ............................................................................................ 87 3.2.2.1. Givenness ........................................................................................................................................................................................