Prince 88

Question 1

Canonical subjects (info stat and definiteness)

Answer 1

Canonical subjects TEND to represent old information and to be definite

Question 2

Marking of definite NPs

Answer 2

Definite article the
Demonstrative articles this, that
Possessive adjectives my, her
Proper nouns
Personal Pronouns
Certain quantifiers argued definite all, every

Question 3

Marking of indefinite

Answer 3

Indef art a, an, zero art

Other quantifiers some, any, one, six

Question 4

Plural generics?

Answer 4

Formally definite, cannot occur in there sentences. In other words, the same formally indefinite NP can have a:

1) . Generic understanding: I love bagels. Unicorns are popular.
2) . Non-generic: I bought bagels. I dreamt that unicorns were grazing outside.

Only the non- generic understanding is available in there sentences
1). There are bagels with cinnamon nowadays. There are unicorns outside.

Question 5

Formal definiteness vs. informal definiteness

Answer 5

Formal refers to definiteness based on linguistic form ?

Informal refers to definiteness based on information status ?

Question 6

Princes 88 goals (a-d)

Answer 6

A. Are subjects significantly more likely than non subjects to be definite?
B. are subjects significantly more likely than non subjects to be HO entities?
C. Are subjects significantly more likely than non subjects to be DO entities?
D. If the answer to any two of the above is affirmative, are they independent tendencies, or is one a reflex of the other?

Question 7

Focus-preposition constructions

Answer 7

Structure the proposition they convey into two parts, an open proposition (a) and an instantiation of the variable in that open proposition (b)

Original sentence: it’s John I like.
A. (OP). I like X.
B. X = John
OP is generally taken to be old info

Question 8

Other focus-proposition constructions

Answer 8

(marked my stress or) syntactic forms:
It-clefts
Wh-clefts
Topicalization
Focus-movement
Etc?

Question 9

Summary of info status in prince 88

Answer 9

1. Entities HO or HN
2. Entities DO or DN
3. DN status says nothing of hearer status, HO status says nothing of DS.
4. BUT: DO must be HO ( no DO, HN)
5. AND: HN must be DN

Question 10

Prince’s 4 categories on info status

Answer 10

1. HN, DN: brand-new
2. HN, DO: does not exist
3. HO, DN: unused
4. HO, DO: evoked (text, sit)

Question 11

The effect of information status on subject hood

Answer 11

1. Each info variable (hearer status and discourse status) is significant
2. Both HO and DO entities are more likely to be subjects than HN and DN, respectively
3. Inclusion of inferrables has no significant effect

Question 12

Princes answers to her questions

Answer 12

1. Subjects are more likely than no subjects to be definite
2. and to represent both HO
3. and DO entities.

However, these tendencies are not independent. In particular, the apparent tendency for subjects to be HO is simply a reflex of a real tendency for them to be DO. (because cant be HO and DN)