Andrew McKenzie
1
Introduction
This chapter employs semantic fieldwork to offer new perspective on dislocated topical DPs in
the Kiowa language.1 These topics are often dislocated to the left periphery of the clause. For
instance, in (1), the object b´a`o, ‘(the) cat’, is placed the left of the subject ch´eg`un, ‘(the) dog’,
although objects typically follow subjects.
(1) B´a`o, b´ao cat ch´eg`un ts´eg˜un dog ´ ¯ al´¯e. ∅−´a:l´e: 3sA:3sO−chase.PF
‘The dog chased the cat.’ (lit. ‘The cat, the dog chased (it)’)
Previous studies of Kiowa have been unable to discern a motivation for this dislocation, since
it lacks the clear signs of syntactic movement found in more commonly studied languages. These
studies have also been unable derive dislocation from topichood in Kiowa, because it is very
diffi-cult to elicit for topics. This chapter will propose that we instead derive topichood from dislocation,
rather than the other way around. The hypothesis offered here is that the dislocation occurs to
re-move the possible ambiguity of a DP left in a discourse-neutral position. The DP does not have
1 This work was funded by an NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (#BCS-0843901), while I was at
the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and later during a post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Texas at Arlington. Many thanks go to my Kiowa-speaker consultants, especially Christina Simmons, and George and Marjorie Tahbone, and all others whose help has been crucial.
Examples are glossed as follows: The Kiowa examples are written in the Kiowa orthography developed by Parker McKenzie (??), and in IPA. On IPA glosses, low tone is left unmarked. The following abbreviations will be used: A: agent,D: dual, D: dative, DS: different subject/situation marking,EVID: indirect evidential,HAB: habitual,I: inverse number,IMPF: imperfective aspect,INV: inverse number,MIR: mirative,NEG: negation, O: direct object,PA: plural animate, PF: perfective aspect,PN: plural inanimate, PX: plural exclusive,R: reflexive,S: singular, S: intransitive
subject.
any particular role as topic, but a sort of discourse prominence emerges from the pragmatics— the
DP did not have to be dislocated, so a listener can interpret the change in position as a sign of the
DP’s importance. Oftentimes, that importance is the topic. The hypothesis has two advantages:
First, it explains the data and makes fruitful predictions. Second, it allows us to test topic effects
using well-understood methods of semantic and pragmatic fieldwork.
The rest of this chapter will lay out this hypothesis. The next section will discuss the relevant
facts concerning dislocation, showing that a standard syntactic account is untenable. Section 3 will
discuss the way that DPs are interpreted relative to various intensional operators and discuss the
hypothesis semi-formally. Section 4 will offer a situation semantics account that formalizes the
hypothesis, and Section 5 rounds up the discussion with an outlook on cross-linguistic testing.
2
A purely syntactic account does not suffice
2.1
Kiowa word order
The empirical focus of this chapter is dislocated topics in the Kiowa language, an endangered
member of the Kiowa-Tanoan family. It is currently spoken by a few dozen elder members of the
Kiowa tribe of Oklahoma. A few hundred others speak it as a heritage language, out of a tribal
population of over 12,000. Nascent efforts are underway to revitalize the language among children,
and it has long been taught as a second language at a number of schools and colleges in the state,
but its future as a living language is still in doubt.
Kiowa has a neutral word order of S-IO-DO-V (2a, Watkins 1984: 206). However, DPs can be
dropped (2b) or dislocated (2c,2d) based on the discourse (also see Watkins 1990).
(2) a. Bill bidl B. chˆe ¯ tsˆ˜e: horse h´aug`a.¯ ∅−h´O:gj `æ 3sA:3sO−buy.PF
‘Bill bought the horse.’
b. H´¯aug`a. ‘He bought it’ c. Chˆe
¯ Bill h´¯aug`a. d. Bill h´¯aug`a chˆe
The apparently free word order isn’t truly free. That is, the placement of DPs does not merely
reflect argument structure, but often the role each plays in the discourse. The most common roles
are topic and focus. Kiowa has no morphemes dedicated to expressing these discourse roles, so
dislocation (and perhaps prosody) is the only overt signal that these DPs bear these roles. For
instance, topical objects can be found to the left of the subject, like b´a`o ‘cat’ in (1) or chˆe
¯ ‘horse’ in (2c). Also, backgrounded DPs can be placed in a post-verbal position (2d).
2.2
The limits of a syntactic approach
In a book (Adger et al., 2009) and a paper (?), the trio of David Adger, Daniel Harbour, and
Laurel Watkins (henceforth AHW) reveal many new facts about word order in Kiowa. These
facts will form the starting-off point for this investigation. One fact (from AHW 2012) is that the
dislocation does not seem to be linked to specific syntactic positions. ? discovered that dislocation
in Italian involved movement from an argument position to a specific functional projection in the
left periphery (TopP for topics, FocP for focus). His evidence was the relative ordering of topical
and focused DPs. The fixed projections provide a location for dislocated DPs, and the Top◦ and
Foc◦heads bear syntactic features that motivate the DPs’ movement. Rizzi’s methodology has been
successfully applied to many different languages, but AHW find no reliable evidence of ordering
of the same sort in Kiowa.
The second fact comes from AHW (2009): Certain adverbials occupy fixed positions in the
clause. These ‘selective particles’ are associated with functional projections in the inflectional
layer, and they select for particular values of verbal inflection on the head of the respective
projec-tion. For instance, the negation particle h`aun, ‘not’, is at NegP, and it must co-occur with verbal
negation marking at Neg◦ (3).2
2The selection requirement is one-way. For instance, the imperfective occurs regularly without `an. Negation has
been observed without the negation particle, although so rarely that occurrences might be speech errors. Also, the particle can appear without the selected morpheme if the paradigm does not have a specific form. The habitual particle `andoes not trigger imperfective marking on stative verbs or negated verbs, both of which lack aspect marking (6a).
(3) a. H`aun h˜On not d´e ´a¯ ¯umˆau. d´e−´˜Om−ˆO:
1SA:3IO−do−NEG
‘I didn’t do it.’
b. *H`aun h˜On not d´e ´¯a ¯um´¯¯e. d´e−´˜Om− ´e: 1SA:3IO−do−PF
The generic/habitual particle `an is at AspP and selects for imperfective aspect with eventive
verbs (4). (4) a. An` ˜ an HAB d´e ´¯a ¯um´¯¯au. d´e−´˜Om−´˜O:
1SA:3IO−do−IMPF
‘I do it/I often do it/I usually do it.’
b. * `An ˜ an HAB d´e ´¯a ¯um´¯¯e. d´e−´˜Om−´˜e: 1SA:3IO−do−PF
The somewhat mirative particle b´eth`au ([b´ethO]) is at EvidP and selects for indirect evidential
marking. It’s used to describe events that the speaker had been unaware of. AHW gloss it as
‘unbeknown’ in 2009 and asMIRin 2012. It’s usually translated as “I didn’t know (that P)” or “I
didn’t realize (that P)”.
(5) a. B´eth`au b´eth`O MIR b´e ´a¯ ¯umhˆel. b´e−´˜Om−hˆel 2sA:3iO−do.PF−EVID
‘I didn’t realize you did it.’
b. *B´eth`au b´eth`O MIR b´e ´¯a ¯um´¯¯e. b´e−´˜Om−´˜e: 2sA:3iO−do−PF
AHW (2009) demonstrate the location of the selective particles, observing that they cannot be
postverbal, and that when there is more than one, they appear in a fixed order.
(6) a. B´eth`au b´eth`O MIR h`aun h˜On not `an ˜ an HAB b´e ´a¯ ¯umˆauh`el. b´e−´˜Om−ˆ˜O:−hˆel
2sA:3iO−do−NEG−EVID
‘I didn’t know you didn’t do it. / I didn’t know you never did it.’
b. *B´eth`au `an h´aun b´e ´¯a
¯umˆauh`el c. *H`aun b´eth`au `an b´e ´¯a
¯umˆauh`el d. *H`aun `an b´eth`au b´e ´¯a
¯umˆauh`el
e. * `An b´eth`au h`aun b´e ´¯a
¯umˆauh`el f. * `An h`aun b´eth`au b´e ´¯a
¯umˆauh`el
These observations may suggest that the selection has more to do with compatibility of truth-conditions than a simple syntactic relationship, but pursuing this suggestion is beyond the scope of this chapter.
AHW derive the particles’ fixed order by placing their projections in a fixed order in the
in-flectional layer : Evid – Neg – Asp. This order is further demonstrated by the fact that the verbal
inflection in this head-final language mirrors the order of the selective particles.3
(7) EvidP b´eth`au MIR NegP h`aun not AspP `an HAB vP ´ ¯ a ¯um− do Asp◦ — Neg◦ –ˆau Evid◦ –h`el
The third fact that AHW discover is that the selective particles seem to delimit domains in the
structure that correspond to discourse roles. Adger et al. (2009: 134) describe three domains, listed
in Table 1:
Preparticular Particles Postparticular Verb Postverbal
Domain Domain Domain
Table 1: Apparent clause domains in Kiowa
The key section of interest in this chapter is the preparticular domain. The postverbal domain is
used for backgrounding; topicalized, focused, and wh-DPs are barred from this domain. The
post-particular domain between the selective particles and the verb is neutral with respect to discourse.
AHW (2012) point out that it is unlikely that the domains actually exist. Instead, the particles’
fixed position allows them to serve as a milestone for dislocation, especially when there is only one
3Aspectual marking is neutralized under negation, so it is missing from the tree structure shown. Also, AHW use
overt DP. Furthermore, they find that DPs in the preparticular domain can be interpreted differently
than those in the postparticular domain. In (7), the subject DP f´¯a, ‘some people’ is in the scope of
the habitual particle `an. It is not interpreted as a topic.
(7) bˆot bˆot because `an ˜ an HAB [ chˆau tsˆO: thus f´¯a p´a: some ´et g`ı ¯s`¯aujej`au. ] ´ et−g˜ı:+sOte+tO 3iA:3pnO−night+work+act
‘as some people are wont to work at night’ (?: 113)
The same goes for the embedded subject ˆelch`o
¯hy`op‘old women’ in (8); the elderly women are brought up as part of the generic event, in a parenthetical context. They are not mentioned again,
so they are not topical.
(8) Y´a h´aig´ad´¯au j ´æ−h´˜ aig`a+dO: 1sD:3pnO−know+be chˆau tsˆO: thus `an ˜ an HAB [ˆelch`o ¯hy`op ˆ elts˜o-hyop old woman-INV
g`a `aunf`¯o ¯g`a ] gja−˜On+p˜o:-gja
3paD:3pnO−foot+sound-IMPF
t´o`oba thooba´ quiet
g`a d´au`¯ ¯e ¯. gja−d´O:=˜e: 3p−be=when.DS
‘I know how elderly women sound walking in moccasins when it is silent.’ (Adger et al.
2009: 138)
In contrast, the subject in (9), ch´at ‘door’, is in the preparticular domain and has topicality.
(9) . . . . . . ch´at ts´at door `an ˜ an HAB h´ab´e h´ab´e sometimes p´¯a ¯q`uh`e¯ ph´˜a:+kiju=h˜e: lock+lie=without d´au d´¯au d´O−d´O: 1pxD:3sS−be
‘Our doors4were sometimes unlocked’ (Adger et al. 2009: 138)
The fourth fact (AHW 2009/2012) is that dislocation of topics to the preparticular domain is
preferred but not obligatory. Three pieces of evidence support this fact: Prominent DPs can be
situated in the postparticular domain; a DP can land between selective particles; and speakers
prefer preparticular dislocation.
Apart from wh-words, no DP is obliged to be in the preparticular domain. Thus, some DPs that
are clearly the topic of discussion are located in the postparticular domain. These DPs cannot be
postverbal. (10) Q´¯a ¯hˆı¯ kij´˜a:hˆ˜ı: man g`au gO and m`¯ay´ı ¯ ma:y´˜ı woman `e ¯ h´¯eb`a,. . . ˜ e−h´e:ba 3d−enter.PF
‘A man and a woman came in, . . . ’
a. n`au n˜O and:DS h´ej´au h´et´O still h´aun h´˜On not m`¯ay´ı ¯ ma:y´˜ı woman k´¯ıgˆau. ∅−kh´ı:gˆO: 3s−exit.NEG
‘. . . and the woman still hasn’t left’.
b. n`au m`¯ay´ı
¯h´ej´au h´aun k´¯ıgˆau. c. *n`au h´ej´au h´aun k´¯ıgˆau m`¯ay´ı
¯. (?: 106)
Even some focused DPs are in the postparticular domain. For instance, answers to wh-questions
can be postparticular, even though the wh-word itself must be dislocated. Focused DPs cannot be
postverbal. (11) a. Hˆaund´e hˆOnd´e what `an an HAB `a f´autj`au? a−p´Ot−tO 2sA:3sO−eat−IMPF
‘What do you usually eat?’
b. * `An hˆaund´e `a f´autj`au? (12) a. C´¯ı k´ı: meat `an an HAB g`at f´autj`au. gjat−p´Ot−tO 1sA:3pnO−eat−IMPF
‘I usually eat meat’
b. `An c´¯ıg`at f´autj`au.
c. * `An g`at f´autj`au c´¯ı.
(?: 105)
Second, some DPs dislocate to a location between selective particles. For instance, in (13), the
DP cˆaug`au`al q´¯o
¯b´au, ‘other old people’, is placed between the mirative b´eth`au at EvidP and the habitual `an at AspP.5 It is interpreted as a topic.
(13) B´eth`au b´ethO
MIR
cˆaug`au`al kˆO−gO=al other-INV=too
q´¯o ¯b´au kij´o:b´˜ O elder.INV chˆau tsˆO: thus `an an HAB ´a hotgˆu ¯y`¯¯ı ´ a−hotgˆ˜u−yi
3pa−run around−IMPF.EVID
‘We didn’t realize that other old people ran around like that’ (?: 67)
Third, although discourse-prominent DPs need not be dislocated to the preparticular domain,
AHW report a clear speaker preference for doing so. This preference suggests that the dislocation
is subject to a pragmatic effect.
2.3
Summary
AHW have greatly enhanced our understanding of Kiowa phrase structure. This section has
pre-sented four of the facts they uncovered. The first is that there is no clear evidence for a syntactic
movement account following Rizzi (1997). The second is the existence of fixed adverbials in the
inflectional layer. The third is AHW’s use of these adverbials as guideposts to delimit apparent
domains, which are broadly linked to discourse configuration. Finally, the dislocation of topics is
preferred but not obligatory. These facts demonstrate that there is not a one-to-one link between
domains and discourse roles, so the explanation for the dislocation and domain effects must lie
elsewhere.
2.4
A new direction of inquiry
While AHW (2012) rule out a purely syntactic motivation for these facts, they leave the question
open without rashly speculating a more definitive proposal. They also do not attempt to base their
inquiry on any particular notion of topichood. Throughout, they rely on an intuitive sense of topic,
noting the extreme difficulty of attempting to elicit judgments based on accounts of topicality
prevalent in the literature (???). Given the numerous different types of topic, we might wonder if
there is even such a thing as a ‘topic’ in a formal sense.
This chapter suggests taking a different tack on the matter. Testing directly for topic presumes
what if the DP’s topic status is derived from its ordinary meaning? Taking this approach would
allow us to use well-tested techniques of semantic fieldwork to determine the meaning of the DPs.
Based on those meanings, we can then try to derive the source of a sense of topicality.
The hypothesis of this chapter is that Kiowa speakers are dislocate these DPs solely to
disam-biguate them.6 Specifically, the dislocation rules out one possible type of meaning, called “opaque”
(see the next section). Crucially, the dislocation is not itself tied to any particular discourse role
like topic. Any sense of topichood is pragmatic and emerges from the prominence associated with
the dislocation. Essentially, dislocation signals to the listener that the DP is referential and
promi-nent enough to be targeted for disambiguation. The listener can conclude that if it’s promipromi-nent, it
may well be the topic.
The next section will lay out this hypothesis in a semi-formal fashion. Afterwards, I will flesh
it out more thoroughly using situation semantics.
3
Transparency and emergent topicality
3.1
Transparent and opaque readings
The hypothesis relies on the distinction between transparent and opaque readings of DPs. These
readings are types of meaning that reflect the way a DP is interpreted, and often make sentences
ambiguous. For instance, the proposition Alissa is looking for a book is ambiguous. On the opaque
reading, Alissa would be happy to find any book. In fact, there might turn out not to be a book at
all. On the transparent reading, Alissa is looking for a specific book presumed to exist.7
One way to distinguish these readings is to complete them with different follow-up sentences.
6I assume, along with AHW, that dislocation of Kiowa DPs involves movement, based on the typical
diagnos-tics. That said, in the semantics, simple movement and base-generation with a silent pronoun are identical. The actual mechanism of dislocation is not a concern in this chapter, so I will only describe the change in placement as ”dislocation.”
(14a) is acceptable under the opaque reading, but not the transparent one. Conversely, (14b) is
acceptable under the transparent reading, but not the opaque one, because it refers to a specific
book.
(14) a. Alissa was looking for a book, but couldn’t find one.
b. Alissa was looking for a book, but couldn’t find it.
The opaque reading gets that name because the DP a book is interpreted relative to the possible
worlds or situations where the search is successful described by the verb look for are successful. It
is cut off from anaphoric reference, as if it were hidden behind a screen. In the transparent reading,
the DP is not interpreted relative to look for, so it is visible to an antecedent and can refer to a
particular book.
Transparency is most obvious with indefinite DPs, but it also applies to definite ones as well.
With definites, transparency distinguishes between anaphoric readings and intensional or bound
variable readings. For instance, the phrase Alissa thinks Bill is handsome is ambiguous. On the
transparent reading, the definite DP Bill denotes the Bill in the real world. On the opaque reading,
Billdenotes the guy who Alissa thinks is Bill, but who might be someone else. That is, Bill here is
interpreted with respect to Alissa’s beliefs, introduced by the verb think.
The transparency distinction applies to all intensional operators, including those associated
with aspect. And that’s where it can apply here. For instance, in (7), the DP f´a¯ ([p´a:]), ‘some
people’, is in the scope of the habitual operator `an. In this case it is interpreted opaquely, i.e.
relative to that operator. The speaker is describing a scenario where he is at the office late, noting
that there were usually people there after dark.
(70) bˆot because `an HAB [ chˆau [ thus f´¯a some ´et g`ı ¯s`¯aujej`au. ] Agr-work:at:night ] ‘as some people are wont to work at night’
In semantic terms, the sentence can be paraphrased as ‘since in most situations (i.e. most
is interpreted relative to the operator paraphrased as most situations. That is, for each situation
there were some people, but it could have been different people each time.
Bear in mind, however, that DPs can be transparent even in the scope of the intensional operator.
In Alissa thinks Bill is handsome, Bill is interpreted inside the embedded clause whether it is
transparent or opaque. If the DP in (7) had been interpreted transparently, the people would have
been the same ones, and the sentence would be ascribing the property of working at night to them.
The transparent reading could be paraphrased as ‘there are some people who in most situations are
working’. Outside of a particular context, the sentence is ambiguous. Typically, though, a given
context will eliminate one.
While the context will generally eliminate one reading, a more reliable way is to place the DP
outside the scope of the operator. In the scope of the operator the DP can be either transparent or
opaque, but outside the scope, only a transparent reading is allowed (Table 2).
DP outside of operator scope DP inside scope acceptable
operator transparent yes
operator opaque yes
transparent operator yes
opaque operator no
Table 2: Possible interpretations of DPs based on scope
In English this effect can be forced by relativization: in the sentence There’s a book that Alissa is
looking for, the DP a book can only be interpreted transparently relative to look for. Likewise, in
(9), the DP ch´at ([ts´at]) is not interpreted with respect to the habitual situation (the usual night).
Instead, the doors referred to are always the same ones.
(9) . . . . . . ch´at door `an HAB [h´ab´e [sometimes p´¯a ¯q`uh`e¯ lock+lie=without d´au d´au.]¯ Agr−be] ‘Our doors were sometimes unlocked’
3.2
Emergent topicality
To summarize: Transparent DPs refer, while opaque DPs do not. This distinction will help provide
a motivation for the interpretation of transparent DPs as topics, because the nebulous sense of
topicality emerges from well-understood notions of semantics and pragmatics. Dislocation has
two effects:
1. It rules out an opaque reading, forcing a transparent or referential one. The speaker is making
sure that the DP is not interpreted opaquely.
2. Since the transparent DP could have been left in the postparticular domain, its dislocation
signals its prominence. The listener can infer that the DP plays an important role in the
discourse. In the absence of any focus interpretation, the listener can then infer that the DP
is likely to be topical in some way, even if it carries no actual semantics of topichood.
Not only does this hypothesis explain the apparent topicality of dislocated Kiowa DPs, it has
the advantage of tying in to the cross-linguistic observations linking transparency and topichood.
Cross-lingusitically, opaque DPs make poor topics. Under an account where topichood drives
dislocation, this generalization needs a mechansim to derive it. However, on this account, no
additional mechanism is needed to prevent opaque topics, because the apparent topicality of the
DP emerges from its transparent semantics, not the other way around.
This result leads to some other predictions, which can be tested with elicitation. For one,
dislocated DPs should not have quantificational variability effects, as in (7) where you get different
people for each situation. Preliminary testing indicates this is the case. For instance, in (15),
speakers only get a transparent reading for ‘child’, because it is not in the scope of the generic
operator. (15) Sˆa ¯n S´an child `an an HAB ´an c`¯od´ep ´an−ko:d´ep
3SD:3PNS−be bored.IMPF
If the DP is in the scope of the operator, an opaque reading is possible, as (16) shows. In (16b),
the meaning is paraphrased as ‘in most (classroom) situations, the students (in those situations)
get bored.’ With this context, the speaker accepted (16b) and disapproved of the dislocated DP in
(16a).
Context:
A friend of yours is teaching Kiowa to some children. However, he’s not a very
exciting teacher, so oftentimes, the students stop paying attention.
(16) a. # Sˆa
¯n `an ´an c`¯od´ep. b. `An sˆa
¯n ´an c`¯od´ep.
So far, I have only discussed the generic operator, introduced by the habitual particle `an, but the
hypothesis ought to apply to the particles that select for negation, modality, and evidentiality. This
warrants further testing, along the same lines, but we already can see how it works by recalling
example (10), repeated below.
The lead-in sentence in (10) introduces a man and a woman, who serve as topic for the
follow-up. In the follow-up, the DP m`¯ay´¯ı
¯ is contrasted against the man. Speakers produced ‘the woman’ in a preparticular domain, accepted it in a postparticular one, and rejected it in a postverbal one.
(10) Q´¯a ¯hˆı¯ kijj´˜a:hˆ˜ı: man g`au gO and m`¯ay´¯ı ¯ ma:y´˜ı: woman `e ¯ h´¯eb`a,. . . ˜ e−h´e:ba 3D−enter.PF
‘A man and a woman came in,. . . ’
a. . . . n`au n˜O and.DS m`¯ay´¯ı ¯ ma:y´˜ı: woman h´ej´au h´et´O still h´aun h´˜On not k´¯ıgˆau. ∅−kh´i:−gˆO: 3S−exit.NEG
‘and the woman still hasn’t left.’
b. . . . n`au h´ej´au h´aun m`¯ay´¯ı
¯ k´¯ıgˆau. c. . . . *n`au h´ej´au h´aun k´¯ıgˆau m`¯ay´¯ı
The dislocation pattern reflects the pragmatic value of disambiguation— moving ‘the woman’
out of the scope of negation makes it impossible for it to be interpreted relative to the negative
(event) operator. Now, it may be the case that this DP is a contrastive topic, which would bring
particular meaning to the sentence (B¨uring, 1997). However, this topicality does not itself trigger
dislocation— instead, it is the value the speaker gives to disambiguation that triggers it. Besides
explaining why DPs dislocate to the preparticular domain, this hypothesis also explains why DPs
can be placed between selective particles (13). Again, the explanation is derived from the ordinary
semantics of the DP and pragmatics. The dislocation only needs to place the DP outside the scope
of a particular operator, relative to which the speaker finds it important to highlight the transparency
of the DP. Standard notions of economy would preclude dislocating the DP any further.
To summarize, I propose that these ‘topical’ DPs are not inherently topical at all. They are
located to highlight their transparent reading, and the dislocation lets the listener infer the DPs’
dis-course prominence. This hypothesis also explains the facts detailed in the previous section. There
is no clear target for the dislocation because the dislocation only needs to put the DP out of the
scope of a particular operator. The adverbials’ intensional operators set apparent domains through
their scope-bearing properties. The dislocation is preferred to leaving the DP in the postparticular
domain because it eliminates a potential ambiguity. In addition, it accounts for dislocation between
particles, and it allows us to test for ‘topics’ using ordinary semantic fieldwork techniques.
4
Formal implementation
In this section I will work out the hypothesis, and demonstrate the value of a particular theory
in developing semantic fieldwork. The formal framework I assume is a possibilistic situation
semantics (??). This is a semantics built upon the well-known compositional semantics of ?, with
the addition of a class of semantic objects called situations. Readers familiar with this model can
4.1
Situation semantics and contextual restriction
A situation is a part of a possible world.8 Situations can correspond to a wide variety of events,
spatiotemporal locations, and even individuals. They include the room you are in right now, your
stomach, the sack of Rome in 410, the 2012 Olympics, and so on. Moreover, any two situations
can be summed to form larger situations.9 As a result, most situations are composed of parts that
are also situations.
Situations are used restrict the realm of truth-judgment of the utterances they appear in. For
instance, if you say It rained, you are not describing an entire world, but just a part of it. That part
of a world is a situation.10 The truth-value of the uttered proposition is evaluated solely against
that situation. If you assert It rained about the situation corresponding to Montreal last night, the
proposition is true if and only if it rained in Montreal last night. The weather anywhere else last
night, or in Montreal at any other time, is irrelevant to the judgment.
4.2
Situations in the grammar
Situations are referred to by pronouns. We use the indexed variable sito denote situations (i is any
number), and they are of semantic type s. Situation pronouns behave like any other pronouns—
they can be anaphoric or bound, and they are present in the syntax, even though they are silent
(Cresswell, 1990; ?). The use of situations can be divided into two types, the first of which will
be important for the discussion to come. The first type of use is the resource situation; the second
type is the topic situation.
A resource situation is a pronoun inside a nominal expression that restricts the domain of the
8Not necessarily a proper part, though. We can define a possible world as a situation that is not part of any other
situation. This allows us to maintain the semantic effects of possible worlds while removing worlds from the ontology.
9Logically speaking this is the case, although pragmatics can restrict the types of summing used in actual natural
language (?).
10Situations were first proposed by Barwise & Perry (1983), however, they did not characterize situations as parts
determiner or quantifier. For instance, if you are in a caf´e with a friend, and you say ‘Everyone
is looking at their cell phone, you obviously don’t intend for everyone to mean ‘everyone in the
world’. Instead, you are referring to some particular part of the world— a situation.11
Resource situations occur in the grammar as a silent pronoun inside the DP. The DP [ Everyone
(s3) ] picks out ‘everyone in s3’:
(17) [ Everyone (s3) ] is looking at their cell phone. →
∀x[ (x is a person & x is in s3) → x is looking at x’s cell phone ]
Resource situations also occur with definite determiners, preserving a presupposition of
unique-ness by restricting a determiner’s domain to a part of the world with a unique object bearing the
relevant property. For instance, in the sentence The dog is chasing cars again, the DP the dog does
not presuppose that there is only one dog in the world. Instead, it contains a resource situation
(let’s say s4) that refers to a part of the world where there is a unique dog. If s4 refers to your
family, then [ the dog (s4) ]picks out the family dog.12
The above examples have anaphoric resource situations, but like any pronoun, resource
situa-tions can be bound by an operator. Through binding, a DP can be interpreted opaquely relative to
an operator via its resource situation. Imagine you have a friend who is obsessed with the radio
station at 97.5 FM. She tells you:
(18) Every time I get in a car, I turn the radio to 97.5, baby!
11As ? points out, there are surely other effects of domain restriction as well, such as the exclusion of speech-act
participants. The sentence here could be true even if you are in the caf´e and not looking at your cell phone. Whether effects like this are pragmatic or situation-based has yet to be determined.
12In theory, one could abuse this feature of resource situations to wreak pragmatic havoc. For obvious reasons, we
generally don’t, but we could. For instance, if you and a friend entered a library full of desks, and you told your friend Sit at the desk, the friend would be puzzled because the context would supply the library as the resource situation of the desk. Your request would only be felicitous if there were a unique desk in the library. In this context that is a clearly false presupposition. Meanwhile, you reply that you meant the desk in this particular spot you had in mind, having reduced the resource situation to a spot where that desk was unique. I don’t think your friend would be amused.
The radio could be different every time your friend gets in a car, and we can capture this variability
by binding the resource situation of the radio. For instance, assuming that every time universally
quantifies over situations, the sentence has the following meaning, where the situation pronouns
bound by the universal quantifier are in boldface:
(180) ∀s[ (s [ I get in a car ]) → ∃s0[ s0[ I turn on [ the radio (s) ] to 97.5 ] ] ]
(180) can be paraphrased: For all situations s such that s is a situation of me getting in a car,
there is a situation s0 of me turning on [ the unique radio in s ] to 97.5.13
4.3
Formalizing the hypothesis
Given the use of resource situations, and the availability of binding them, we can now formalize
the way that dislocation rules out a opaque reading. Semi-formally, an opaque DP is interpreted
relative to some operator. We cannot derive this interpretation by mere scope, because transparent
DPs can be in the scope of the operator. We can derive it with resource situations: A DP is opaque
relative to whichever operator binds its resource situation (19a). A transparent DP’s resource
situation is not bound by that operator (19b), whether it is in the scope of that operator or not.
(19) a. opaque: [ OPs [ the DP (s) ] sentence ]
b. transparent: [ OPs [ the DP (s1) ] sentence ]
The use of resource situations can be applied to all the examples we have seen so far, and also
provides an explanation for an apparent counterexample. In the following translation task, I give
the speaker the lead-in sentence in (20a), and had him translate the sentence in (20b).
Context: Two men are talking about a farm. One indicates the barren fields:
13The expression in (180) is simplified quite a bit for exposition. Both the meaning and the paraphrase would need
to contain a matching function (?) to ensure a one-to-one correspondence between the situation of the restrictor and that of the nuclear scope, and the restrictor would require an expression of the minimality of the getting-into-a-car situation, to avoid also counting every situation that includes it. (??)
(20) a. [Speaker A:] ´ Op ´ op there h´aun h´˜On not ´etj´e ´ ePt´e much d´aumg`a d´˜Om-gja earth-on g`a d´aumˆau.¯ gja−d´˜O:−mˆ˜O: 3PN−be−NEG
‘There isn’t much on the ground there.’
b. [Speaker B:] Chˆe ¯g`au tsˆ˜e:−gO horse−INV s´on s´on˜ grass `an ˜ an HAB ´et c´od´of`autj`au.¯ ´ et−ko:d´o+pOP−tO
3IA:3PNO−much+eat.IMPF
‘The horses eat a lot of grass’
The follow-up clause (20b) introduces two dislocated DPs, neither of which had been
men-tioned in the context. Thus, they should not be topics, and they were clearly not focused. So why
were they dislocated? An account based on discourse role cannot explain the dislocation, but this
account based on situation semantics gives a clear explanation. The context makes it clear that the
farm is under discussion. The farm is referred to by a situation pronoun, let’s call it s7. The two
DP’s both have the same resource situation; s7. Thus, (20b) can be translated as “[the horses (s7)]
are often eating [ the grass (s7)]”. That is, the horses on the farm are eating the grass that’s on
the farm. The double dislocation highlights each DP’s transparent reading, and crucially rules out
any opaque reading relative to the habitual. Thus, it rules out readings like ‘there are often horses
eating a lot of grass’.
I also tested whether the DPs could have been left behind. As predicted by the hypothesis, the
speaker accepted one or both DPs in the preparticular domain, but preferred dislocating them both,
even though neither is a topic.
The use of resource situations in opacity and the link to dislocation also lead to an interesting
prediction: Donkey anaphors in Kiowa should not be able to dislocate. Donkey anaphors have long
posed problems to accounts of anaphora reliant on c-command. ? provides a solution based on
resource situations; essentially, the donkey anaphor is a covert definite description whose resource
(21) When a man has a donkey, he beats it
∀s[ s [ a man has a donkey ] → ∃s0[ s0 [ the man (s) ] beats [ the donkey (s) ] ] ]
= ‘For all situations s such that a man has a donkey, there is a situation s0such that the man
in s beating the donkey in s.’14
A donkey anaphor is always interpreted relative to an aspectual operator; thus, it cannot be
dislocated outside of its scope. This prediction was tested with a follow-up sentence, in which the
DP was accepted in the postparticular domain, but not the preparticular domain.
(22) Q´¯a ¯h`¯¯ı kijj´˜ah˜ı: man ´ath´auk`aui ´ atij´OkOj donkey
´an d´auch`¯ ¯e ¯, ´ an−d´O:=ts˜e: 3SD:3SS−be=when.SS, . . . . . . ‘When a man has a donkey. . . ’
a. `an an HAB q´¯a ¯h`¯¯ı kijj´˜ah˜ı: man gˆug`¯u ∅−gˆu:−gu 3S−hit−IMPF
‘the man hits it’
b. el.* q´¯a
¯h`¯¯ı`an ∅ gˆug`¯u
I used a full DP in (22) rather than a pronoun because there are no 3rd person personal pronouns
in Kiowa. Early attempts at elicitation trigger disapproval of the donkey anaphor in the
preparticu-lar domain, as predicted. However, the speaker hesitated to accept the postparticupreparticu-lar domain. The
confused judgment is likely due to pragmatics. Kiowa lacks third person personal pronouns, and
speakers frown upon repeating DPs far more than English speakers do. As a result, it may simply
be the case that any overt donkey anaphor is bad. Further testing is required, perhaps with clearer
contexts, or speakers more willing to accept slightly awkward expressions, but current indications
are promising.
4.4
Summary
This section presents a formalized account of the hypothesis, based on situation semantics. The
transparency of the DP is actually determined by the transparency of its resource situation.
Dislo-cation removes any possible opaque readings, and highlights the anaphoric nature of the resource
situation, which in turn provides a referential meaning for the DP.
5
Conclusion
This chapter has offered and tested a hypothesis about dislocated topical DPs in Kiowa: That
these DPs, thought to be dislocated because they are interpreted as topics, are in fact interpreted
as topics because they have been dislocated for an independent reason, pragmatic in nature. The
speaker wishes to disambiguate the DP and highlight its transparency relative to some intensional
operator. Dislocation is not necessary for disambiguation, so the mere fact of dislocation allows
the listener to deduce a discourse prominence for the DP. Instead of proposing that the semantics
of the DP is affected by the process, we can see that the semantics of the DP is contributing to
triggering the process. Thus, simple semantic fieldwork can verify the semantics, and provide a
plausible motivation for the dislocation.
The hypothesis still requires a bit more testing, but it has important cross-linguistic
implica-tions. Many studies of dislocated DPs with apparent topic hood, or of scrambling, are at a loss to
explain the motivation for the dislocation, because of the difficulty in discovering what semantic or
pragmatic effects upon the DP result from topichood. This hypothesis provides a way out of that
labyrinth by making the semantics and pragmatics the motivation for the dislocation, which leads
to the topical interpretation. It explains the data, makes novel confirmed predictions, and does not
require the formulation of complicated notions of topic or information structure. Lastly, it
demon-strates the importance and usefulness of semantic fieldwork even in areas traditionally thought to
References
Adger, David, Daniel Harbour & Laurel Watkins. 2009. Mirrors and microparameters: Phrase
structure beyond free word order. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Barwise, Jon & John Perry. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
B¨uring, Daniel. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus — the 59th street bridge accent. London:
Routledge.
Cresswell, M. J. 1990. Entities and Indices. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Watkins, Laurel. 1984. A Grammar of Kiowa. Lincoln, Neb.: U of Nebraska Press.
Watkins, Laurel. 1990. Noun-Phrase Versus Zero in Kiowa Discourse. International Journal of
Abstract
This chapter offers new perspective on dislocated DPs interpreted as topics. Typical accounts
build on the DP’s sense of topicality, and attempt to derive the dislocation from it. However, the
facts concerning topics in Kiowa elude any generalization built on topicality. Instead, the
disloca-tion has independent semantic and pragmatic motivadisloca-tion, from which the sense of topicality can
be derived. Speakers dislocate DPs to rule out opaque readings and privilege transparent ones.
Since transparent readings do not require dislocation, dislocation highlights the transparent
read-ing, allowing the listener to make a pragmatic inference that the DP is discourse prominent. This
hypothesis explains the distribution of topical DPs in the left periphery and accounts for the
dislo-cation of non-topical DPs as well. It also allows us to make progress on topicality using well-tested
means of semantic fieldwork, instead of relying on nebulous notions of topichood.
