2.4 Anaphors
2.4.4 The coordinators so & as
Both so and as have many different uses in English, though their ranges of meaning overlap a great deal, which is why I’ll address them both together, highlighting their similarities and differences along the way. Some uses of so and as are best analyzed as coordinators, as in (60)–(62).21 In these cases, both so and as coordinate two clauses and say something about their temporal ordering. In a sentence like φ so ψ, the coordinator
21I use the term coordinator loosely here: I don’t mean to assert that these are in the head of &P. English-
teaching texts frequently describe so as a coordinating conjunction and as as a subordinating conjunction, even though both can be taken to introduce temporal information (as in (60)–(62)). At least for the so’s and as’s which introduce adjunct CPs—like purpose clause so or temporal clause as—these are likely not coordinators in the &P sense.
so conveys a causal relationship of ψ on φ. Given what we know about the universe, this also means that the event described by φ temporally precedes the event described by ψ. as, on the other hand, can be interpreted as coordinating events which are overlapping, or as conveying a causal relation opposite that of so, with φ as ψ meaning that φ is a consequence of (and thus temporally follows) ψ.
(60) Owen went to the mall(,) so Betty went home.
≡ Owen went to the mall, therefore Betty went home.
τ (go.mall(o)) < τ (go.home(b))22,23
(61) Owen went to the mall as Betty went home.
≡ Owen went to the mall while Betty went home.
τ (go.mall(o)) ∩ τ (go.home(b)) 6= ∅ (62) Owen went to the mall, as Betty went home.
≡ Owen went to the mall because Betty went home.
τ (go.mall(o)) > τ (go.home(b))
In (60), we understand Betty’s behavior as following Owen’s, likely as a consequence (be it direct or indirect), where in (61) and (62)—differentiated only by an intonational break, noted here with a comma—we understand Betty’s going home as occurring at the same time or prior to Owen’s going to the mall (respectively). The as- and so-clauses which are coordinated in this way can also be sentence-initial, as in (63–65), though some of these readings are easier to get when combining events which are stative or otherwise explicitly occur over longer periods of time.
In the non-fronted cases (60)–(62), these might occur in the head of C, as they do not allow the inclusion of the complementizer that. The same can’t be said (at least) for the purpose clause so in (63), however, which is perfectly grammatical with that.
(iv) So that Owen would remember to go to the mall, Betty left a note.
This suggests that there is indeed a syntactic distinction between coordinating so and subordinating as.
22Take τ to be a function from events to times, locating the time (interval) of the event, which can then
be compared with other times.
23Whether the relationship asserted by so should be taken as purely the temporal ordering of events (with
the casual inference as an implicature thereof) or as the casual relationship (with the temporal ordering an entailment thereof) is an interesting question, but one which is beyond the scope of the current project.
(63) SoOwen would remember to go to the mall, Betty left a note. (64) AsOwen was arriving at the mall, Betty was heading home. (65) AsOwen had arrived at the mall, Betty decided to go home.
The clause introduced by so in (63) is a purpose clause, so it is only felicitous with an irre- alis reading (expressed in subjunctive mood); contrast with (630), which is ungrammatical on the same purposive reading.
(630) * So Owen went to the mall, Betty left a note.
Other uses of so and as deal with degrees, as in (66–71). In some of these contexts, so and as are interchangeable, as in (66–67). In some other cases, though, so acts as something like an excessive, as in (68), or an emphatic, as in (69), where as does not. In other cases, as acts as an equative, as in (70–71), where so cannot. (Because the demonstratives can also make reference to contextual standards of comparison—and because the similarities and difference between the demonstratives and as and so are of interest in this context—I provide the demonstratives alongside them as well.)
(66) a. Owen was never so happy when he was at home. b. Oven was never as happy when he was at home.
c. Oven was never {this/that} happy when he was at home. (67) a. Owen was never so happy as he was when he was at the mall.
b. Oven was never as happy as he was when he was at the mall.
c. * Oven was never {this/that} happy as he was when he was at the mall. (68) a. * Owen went to the mall as much that Betty couldn’t stand it.
b. Owen went to the mall so much that Betty couldn’t stand it.
c. * Owen went to the mall {this/that} much that Betty couldn’t stand it. 33
(69) a. * Owen went to the mall as much! b. Owen went to the mall so much!
c. Owen went to the mall {this/that} much! (70) a. Owen was as happy as a clam.
b. # Owen was so happy as a clam.24
c. # Owen was {this/that} happy as a clam.25
(71) a. Owen went to the mall as much as Betty could stand. b. * Owen went to the mall so much as Betty could stand.
c. * Owen went to the mall {this/that} much as Betty could stand.
One could argue that there is a semantic core common to these uses, connecting the degree-relating and event time-relating uses of so and as, but such a project is beyond the scope of the current enterprise.
so and as can also act anaphorically, referring to events, as in (72) (see also Cornish 1992; Gast & K ¨onig 2008).
(72) a. Owen went to the mall, and Betty did so, too. b. Owen went to the mall, as did Betty.
In comparing the anaphoric uses of so and it, Cornish 1992 argues that the did so construc- tion, as in (72a), is an anaphoric use, in contrast to the so did construction, as in (73).
(73) Owen went to the mall, and so did Betty.
The latter, (Cornish 1992: 165) argues is a “variant form of also”.
24This is felicitous with an emphatic so, but not as an equative.
25This is felicitous with a contextual standard of happiness c, on a reading where Owen was as happy
as c at the time that he was a clam. This reading is also available for (70a). This sentence is infelicitous on a purely equative reading, however, where Owen was never himself a clam.
Finally, we turn to the examples that are most relevant to the current project, where so and as are used to refer anaphorically to a proposition, as in (74).
(74) a. Owen went to the mall. I know so, because I saw him there. b. Owen went to the mall, as is known.
There has been some work on so as a propositional anaphor going back to Ross 1972; Han- kamer & Sag 1976, and more recently, in particular in responses to polar questions (Gast & K ¨onig 2008; Sailor 2012; Needham 2012; Meijer in press). (I am not aware of any equiva- lent work on as.) Needham 2012 argues that so is a propositional anaphor which picks out the propositional content of the current Question Under Discussion (Roberts 1996), pre- supposing uncertainty with respect to that proposition on the part of the speaker. Meijer in press argues that so isn’t a simple propositional anaphor of type hs, ti, but instead is an anaphoric adverb. If so were of type hs, ti, then it would have to be the argument of a covert complementizer in order to combine with predicates like believe (on the Kratzer- Moulton approach). But so, unlike that-clauses with a covert complementizer, can be top- icalized, as in (75) in contrast to (76a), and cannot be the complement of content nouns, as in (77c).
(75) A: My father gave his life so that we may have a chance to defeat this.
B: So you’ve told us. (Star Wars Rogue One, quoted in Meijer in press) (76) a. * [CP C [IP John likes Mary ] ] Jane didn’t believe.
(Boˇskovi´c & Lasnik 2003: (3e)) b. [CP That [IP John likes Mary ] ] Jane didn’t believe.
(Boˇskovi´c & Lasnik 2003: (4e)) (77) a. I believe/claim/am afraid so.
b. my belief/claim/fear that pigs fly
c. * my belief/claim/fear so (Moulton 2015: (6))
Instead, Meijer in press argues that so is an anaphoric adverb, of type hhe, hs, tii, he, hs, tiii. It modifies a predicate like believe (of type he, hs, tii), 26 and provides the propositional-
content-bearing-individual argument of that predicate via (presupposed) propositional anaphora. (It is adverbial in that so also carries other information on the Meijer in press account, such as the antecedent proposition’s not being settled on the discourse Table.) This accounts for the movement properties of so (in contrast to that-clauses), and may also account for why so cannot be used as a response particle (see discussion in Meijer in press).
The behavior described above for so can also be seen with as. Consider (750) and (770):
(750) A: My father gave his life so that we may have a chance to defeat this.
B: As you’ve told us.
(770) a. I believe/claim/am afraid as much.
b. my belief/claim/fear that pigs fly c. * my belief/claim/fear as much
Despite their many similarities, so and as do differ in their behavior, even in this propo- sitional anaphoric use. One obvious difference is that, where so functions on its own, as in some cases also needs the word much, especially when in complement position; see (78).
(78) a. I believe so.
b. I believe as *(much). c. I believe not.
Because of the way so can stand alone in this way, it has sometimes been considered to act as a response particle, with not as its negative counterpart (Sailor 2012; Needham
26Meijer in press: fn. 18 assumes that “an additional layer, e.g. Kratzers (1996) VoiceP, adds an attitude
2012). Another difference between so and as, perhaps related to this last point, is that so can be combined with sentential adverbs (Meijer in press: fn. 2), where as and the other (non-null) propositional adverbs discussed here cannot; not, like so, is felicitous in such constructions.27
(79) Is John coming tonight? a. Possibly so. b. * Possibly as (much). c. Possibly not. d. * Possibly this. e. * Possibly that. f. * Possibly it. g. * Possibly which. h. Possibly.
The null complement is felicitous in this construction, as in (79h); we turn to this next.