My objective here is to assess the relevance of information structural notions for analyzing subject inversion in French. Subject inversion is not a unified phenomenon. In fact, there are three distinct constructions featuring an inverted subject. I show that the sentences do not have the same informational potential (the type of focus-ground articulation they are compatible with) depending on the construction they abide by. I propose a contextual factor -the informational solidarity between the verb and its first argument -to account for those differences. Then, I show that the three constructions share a common feature that pertains to a completely different dimension: the perspective chosen to describe the situation. I adopt Langacker's notion of absolute construal to characterize it. Finally, I present another common feature: the blocking of the referential anchoring of the referent of indefinite and partitive NPs.

Introduction †

Information structure is often invoked to analyze word order variations, in particular subject inversion in French. My point here is not to dismiss the relevance of information structure, but to put it in its right place. The various proposals linking subject inversion and information structure -the focusground and/or the topic-comment articulations of sentences -can be summarized in three proposals (1).

(1) a. Inverted subjects are narrow foci;

b. Inverted subjects occur in broad or all focus sentences; c. Inverted subject are detopicalized.

Until recently, the syntactic/constructional diversity of subject inversion has not been recognized. In fact, there are three different constructions featuring subject inversion, i. e. occurrence of subject NPs to the right of verbs.

( A close scrutiny shows that these constructions do not behave informationally in the same way, which calls into question the relevance of the claims in (1). Hence, the link between subject inversion and information structure must be investigated afresh. My objective is twofold. First, I characterize the difference between the three constructions as regard information structure. I propose that the informational solidarity between the verb and its first argument affords -"contribute to the possibility of"-the use of EXTR-INV and PRES-INV. Then, I bring to light what the three constructions have in common. It does not pertain to the packaging of content, but to the content itself: the perspective chosen to describe the situation. I propose the notion of absolute construal [START_REF] Langacker | Grammar and conceptualization[END_REF] to characterize it. Finally, I relate the blocking of the referential anchoring of specific indefinites and partitive NPs to the demotion of postverbal subjects from their primary status in the description. Before proceeding further, I sketch some backstage assumptions about subject inversion in French.

!" #$%&'()*+,"

Three constructions

There are three constructions featuring an inverted subject in French. The first oneinversion in extraction context (henceforth EXTR-INV) -is licensed by extraction. Its main criterial property is that it allows scrambling among the dependents of the verb (3) -a rather rare phenomenon in French - [START_REF] Bonami | Inversion du sujet, constituance et ordre des mots[END_REF].

(3) a. Je ne retrouve pas le livre que pensait [recommander [le professeur de philosophie] Subject à ses élèves pour l'examen] VP Lit. I do not find the book that intended [to recommend [the philosophy professor] Subject to his students for the exam] VP b. Je ne retrouve pas le livre que pensait [recommander pour l'examen [le professeur de philosophie] Subject à ses élèves] VP Lit. I do not find the book that intended [to recommend for the exam [the philosophy professor] SUBJECT to his students] VP

The other properties characterizing EXTR-INV are the unconstrained choice of verbs and the ban against referential NPs as direct object. In (4a), the bare noun cours is grammatical while the fully referential des cours de logique is not.

(4) a. la salle où fait cours Marie

Lit. the room where makes class Marie b. ?? la salle où fait des cours de logique le tout nouveau prof de philo

Lit. the room where makes classes of logic the newly appointed philosophy teacher

The second constructioninversion via permutation (PERM-INV) -resembles a permutation of VP and the subject NP (5).

(5) a. The third onepresentative inversion (PRES-INV) -is not always analyzed as a separate construction (see [START_REF] Lahousse | NP subject inversion in French: two types, two configurations[END_REF][START_REF] Lahousse | Quand passent les cigognes. Le sujet nominal postverbal en français contemporain[END_REF]. However, it does have specific features that set it apart from STYL-INV and PRES-INV. Firstly, the verb should be presentative (7a) or in the passive (7b) [START_REF] Marandin | Unaccusative inversion in French[END_REF]). 1 Secondly, the postverbal subject has object properties; in particular, it requires the encliticization of quantitative en when it is an indefinite nounless NP, which is a received criterion for objecthood (7). 2 1

The most frequent presentative verbs in the corpus Frantext (http://www.frantext.fr/) are : apparaître, arriver, commencer, cesser, éclater, mourir, naître, passer, retentir, surgir, … 2 In order to help the reader in the terminological maze: (i) Inversion in extraction context corresponds to the stylistic inversion of the generative tradition (i.a. [START_REF] Kayne | L'inversion du sujet en français dans les propositions interrogatives[END_REF][START_REF] Milner | Cyclicité successive, comparatives et cross-over en français[END_REF]); (ii) Presentative inversion corresponds to the unaccusative inversion proposed in [START_REF] Marandin | Unaccusative inversion in French[END_REF](iii) Inversion via permutation corresponds to the elaborative inversion in [START_REF] Marandin | Dans le titre se trouve le sujet[END_REF][START_REF] Marandin | Subject Inversion and Discourse in Romance[END_REF] or the focus inversion in Lahousse (1997[START_REF] Lahousse | Quand passent les cigognes. Le sujet nominal postverbal en français contemporain[END_REF]. Many illustrations of PRES-INV and PERM-INV may be found in [START_REF] Atkinson | Two forms of subject inversion in French[END_REF][START_REF] Bidois | L'inversion du sujet dans la prose contemporaine[END_REF][START_REF] Lahousse | Quand passent les cigognes. Le sujet nominal postverbal en français contemporain[END_REF]. Lit. I would like that be voted two others [decrees] Accordingly, the study of subject inversion must investigate each construction. This means that one should verify whether each proposal (for example (1) above) holds for all three constructions or merely for a subset of them.

Information structure and subject inversion

Due to space limitations, I do no give a detailed account of the many different proposals assigning inverted subjects a role in information structure (either focus-ground or topic-comment articulation). 3 Here, I give the more telling observations that motivate a change of tack.

-Proposal (1a): Inverted subjects are narrow foci (i.a. [START_REF] Drijkoningen | On the interpretation of postverbal subject positions[END_REF][START_REF] Zubizarreta | Prosody, Focus and Word Order[END_REF]. The claim can only be put to the test naturally with PRES-INV sentences. 4 I ran an informal survey and a pilot questionnaire (allowing statistical measures). Informants were given the description of a scenario (8a) and a question, either a partial question on the subject (8b) or a broad question (8c).

(8) a. Une assistante sociale discute avec une patiente qui se plaint de ses problèmes avec ses enfants.

c. Quel changement dans votre environnement personnel vous ferait le plus plaisir?

'What change in your life would please you most ?'

They were asked to judge the appropriateness of the answer, either an answer with a preverbal or a postverbal subject (9). 5

(9) a. Je voudrais que s'arrête [la brouille entre mes deux fils] Subject b. Je voudrais que [la brouille entre mes deux fils] Subject s'arrête.

'I would like that the quarrel between my two sons stops.'

The results are clear: informants or participants in the questionnaire clearly prefer the answers with preverbal subjects (9b) to answer partial questions (8b), while they accept answers with postverbal subjects (9a) to answer broad questions (8c).

Crucially, PERM-INV answers behave differently: they are judged appropriate to answer partial questions (10).

(10) Q: Quels papiers sont valides? There is something true in proposal (1b): both inverted subject and verb have the same informational status in the coda: either focus or ground. We will see shortly that this is a characteristic of EXTR-INV and PRES-INV clauses.

-Proposal (1c): Inverted subject are detopicalized (i. a. [START_REF] Comorowski | On quantifier strength and partitive noun phrases[END_REF]. The notion of topic is complex; it subsumes several dimensions [START_REF] Jacobs | Dimensions of topic-comment[END_REF]. Here, we limit ourselves to predication. In that dimension, the topic is a categorical subject: the entity of which the property denoted by the VP is affirmed or denied of. Claims (1c) amounts to saying that inverted subjects cannot be categorical subjects. In fact, this is true of subjects in PERM-INV where they are specificational (Marandin, in prep) if X and Y belong to different dimensions (typically, X is a contextual feature and Y a grammatical one). X makes the use or occurrence of Y possible and the relation may be gradient.

-" .+/)(0$12)+$3"4)32,$(215""

Definition

I introduce the notion of informational solidarity that is based on [START_REF] Saeboe | Optimal conditions for integration[END_REF] condition for the prosodic marking of the answer in ( 12) -one prosodic focus anchored on the subject-compared to that of ( 13) -double focus anchored on both subject and verb. Saeboe claims that it corresponds to a difference in the semantic construal of the question that the answer resolves. The question in ( 12) is made up of a single set of alternatives -a plausible illustration is given in ( 14) -, while the question in ( 13) is based on pairwise alternatives to « mother » and « die » as illustrated in (15). ( 14) {mother died, mother emigrated, father died, there was a fire, we lost our money, ..} (15) {{mother emigrated, mother died, …}, {father died, father emigrated, ..}} When two components of the proposition do not give rise to separate relevant alternatives (in the local context), we say that they are informationally interdependent ("they stick together"). Hence, we derive the general definition (16). 7 properties of the system. […] The term affordance refers to whatever it is about the environment that contributes to the kind of interaction that occurs. [..]" (Greeno 1994: 338). 7 The definition ( 16) is reminiscent of that of informational nonautonomy [START_REF] Jacobs | Informational autonomy[END_REF]. It is meant to overcome the difficulties of the procedural definition given by Jacobs. According to Jacobs, X and Y are informationally nonautonomous when « they are processed in one step ». Jacobs's definition tends to confuse the referential nonautonomy of a constituent (the identification of its referent depends on the clause (16) Informational solidarity : X and Y are informationally interdependent ('solidaires informationnellement') iff there are no salient alternatives to X and Y separately in the local context.

Hypothesis

I

Data

We already saw that PRES-INV clauses are dispreferred as answers to partial questions (see ( 8)-( 9) above). The use of post-verbal subjects as contrastive topics can be easily tested in relative clauses (RC) used to split the answer to a question. For example, the speaker may choose to answer question (18) by distinguishing different groups of students as in ( 19). In such a case, informants clearly prefer the answers with preverbal subjects (19a).

it is a constituent of) and the informational nonautonomy (it does not give rise to it own set of alternatives, rather it belongs to a set where it co-varies with other constituents). 8 I am currently launching a series of questionnaires to assess the results quantitatively.

(18) Que sont devenus les étudiants de Bernard? Lit. are no longer accepted the permits issued before 1960

Discussion

The fact that the informational solidarity between subject and verb affords on the other. Accordingly, the occurrence of the subject NP to the right of the verb cannot be associated with a single informational value. In fact, its value depends on the whole construction.

6" 7)+8,5+$02%"%)+41(*$3

Informational lightness

Descriptive grammarians repeatedly mention the intuition that (in substance) some sort of weakening affects the verb's meaning when the subject is postverbal (i.a. [START_REF] Fuchs | La place du sujet en français contemporain[END_REF][START_REF] Korzen | Pourquoi et l'inversion finale en français[END_REF]. They adduce two observations to support their intuition. The first one pertains to the use of root Lit. on the square were thronging onlookers. He went to the palace 10 The question of how informational solidarity is brought about in context exceeds the limits of the present study.

11 These are the sentences with a thetic favor; they show the well-known "eventcentered vs entity-centered reading" contrast. See also [START_REF] Wehr | Diskusstrategien im Romanischen[END_REF] b. Sur la place se pressaient des badauds. Immédiatement, ils le prirent à partie.

Lit. on the square were thronging onlookers. Immediately, they took him to task.

The other observation seems to point in the same direction. If one tries to paraphrase a de-PP complement, say de Paul in (23a), with a RC, most often a RC with an inverted subject turns out to be felicitous. This is verified when the underspecified relation denoted by de is predictable given the modified noun -write a novel in (23b)-or is given/well-known in the context: suppose (23c) is uttered in the context of a binding workshop. In fact, generalization (24) is not satisfactory. Indeed, it is far from clear how to weight bits of information. Moreover, it is not even true of presentative sentences in general: the descriptive content of the verbs is not bleached. It is not the same to use se presser ('throng') to describe the onlookers in ( 22) above, rather than flâner ('stroll') or manifester ('demonstrate'), etc. As for (23), the observation is certainly to the point, but its import should be discussed. It is expected that the more the relation between subject and verb is given, the less it gives room for independent alternatives for subject and verb [START_REF] Marandin | Subject Inversion and Discourse in Romance[END_REF]. Hence, the solidarity constraint alone explains the preference for a paraphrase with a RC featuring a postverbal subject. It says nothing regarding the weakening of verb meaning.

From now on, I radically change tack to account for the intuition that subject inversion is correlated with a modification of the sentence meaning.

Hypothesis

Based on two facts to be presented shortly, I propose that inversion is correlated with an attenuation of the dynamic dimension of the meaning of the clause. In particular, inversion is correlated with the attenuation of the causal efficacy of the agent (when the verb assigns such a role).

The first observation pertains to the use of agentive adverbs (Geuder 2002, henceforth Ag-ADV), such as intelligemment ('cleverly'), courageusement ('bravely'). Ag-ADVs indicate that the event described in the clause is a realization of the disposition of the agent: it "depends on the decisions of the agent" (Geuder, ibid.: 172). Informants' rating of Ag-ADVs occurring in RCs featuring EXTR-INV (25a) is telling: some consider them as ill-formed, others as weird, all would prefer the subject to be preverbal (25b).

( 25 Informants have no such reactions with VP-internal manner adverbs, -such as soigneusement ('carefully') in ( 26) -even if those adverbs refer to the action or behavior of the agent.

(26) Ma voiture, qu'a soigneusement révisée mon copain Pierre, devrait passer le test pollution sans problème.

They make the same judgment when Ag-ADVs occur in clauses featuring PRES-INV and verbs in the passive as in (27a): they clearly prefer preverbal subjects (27b).12 (27) a. ?? Quand sont bêtement multipliées les niches fiscales, les recettes diminuent. b. Quand les niches fiscales sont bêtement multipliées par dix, les recettes diminuent.

'When tax breaks are stupidly increased ten times, tax collections are reduced.'

In (25a) or in (27a), there is an entity playing the role of agent (by virtue of the verb meaning), but the whole event cannot be presented as the result of the causal efficacy of this entity as is required by the semantics of Ag-ADVs.

The second observation pertains to the use of discourse connectors and has the same flavor: using an explicit causal connector -which brings the causal relation to the fore -renders inversion dispreferred. The observation is based on the use of causal connectors du coup and de ce fait ('as a result') whose arguments are situations and whose interpretation involves factual causality [START_REF] Rossari | Connecteurs de conséquence et portée sémantique[END_REF]. Informants readily accept (28a The same judgment obtains with EXTR-INV ((28b) vs (28c)) and PERM-INV ((30b) vs (30c)). 13(29) a. On a examiné les éléments de preuve qu'avaient livrés à la presse les avocats de la partie adverse et qu'avait dû accepter le juge d'instruction. b. ?? On a examiné les éléments de preuve qu'avaient livrés à la presse les avocats de la partie adverse et que, de ce fait, avait dû accepter le juge d'instruction. b. On a examiné les éléments de preuve qu'avaient livrés à la presse les avocats de la partie adverse et que, de ce fait, le juge d'instruction avait dû accepter.

'One examined the proofs that the lawyers of the opposing party had disclosed to the press and that, as a result, the judge had to accept.'

(30) a. Mes étudiants ont très bien réussi. Ont pu s'inscrire en master dix d'entre eux. b. ?? Mes étudiants ont très bien réussi. Du coup, ont pu s'inscrire en master dix d'entre eux. b. Mes étudiants ont bien réussi. Du coup, dix d'entre eux ont pu s'inscrire en master.

'My students did well. As a result, ten of them could enrol in graduate school.'

Clauses featuring any type of inversion resist entering an explicit action chain, i.e. a discourse making explicit a causal link between two events, even if such a causal link is factually inferable.

Absolute construal

Several authors have proposed a notion of perspective to capture differences in prominence holding among the entities making up the situation described in clauses (i.a. Kuno 1987, Borshev & Partee 2002). [START_REF] Langacker | Grammar and conceptualization[END_REF] in the framework of Cognitive Grammar (CG) proposes to account for those differences with the general notion of construal. Construal refers to how the participants or aspects of situations are profiled in clauses. Differences in prominence may arise lexically (by virtue of the ranking of the arguments of lexical heads) and/or constructionally. Passive is a textbook case: the first argument of verbs (prototypically associated with the agentive role) is demoted to the advantage of the second. The agentive interpretation is still accessible, but the agent is no longer the center of the description (see ( 27) above). Two types of construal have been distinguished in CG (i. a. [START_REF] Langacker | Grammar and conceptualization[END_REF][START_REF] Maldonado | Dynamic construal in Spanish[END_REF]):

-The force dynamic perspective: profiling the force interactions between participants/aspects of the situation (causation or energy transfer); -The absolute perspective: profiling the participants/aspects of the situation independently of the force interactions between them.

The behavior of clauses featuring a postverbal subject is readily explained by hypothesis (31): the referent of the subject is no longer the center of the description because the perspective taken to describe the situation results in attenuating its dynamic participation in it.

(31) Subject inversion contributes to the absolute construal of the described situation.

Hypothesis ( 31) captures what the informants' judgments convey: the process is not profiled as dynamic « even though [it] may be clearly energetic in objective terms » (Langacker, 2000: 381). In (25a), (27a), there is an agent (explicit or implicit), but the situation cannot be presented as what comes about by virtue of her agency. In (28b, 29b, 30b), a cause-consequence is inferable on an encyclopedic or situational basis, but it cannot be profiled at the discourse level with an explicit causal connector.

Under hypothesis (31), the subject is no longer the center of the description (the "trajector" in Langacker's parlance). Thus, inversion breaks the default alignment (in construal) between "the most active participant" and "the primary figure of attention". This should impact the role the entity it refers to may play in discourse. For example, one may expect that postverbal subjects are less prone to be the source of anaphoric chains than preverbal ones. 14 Obviously, this could be the basis for the common claim that postverbal subjects are less "topical" than preverbal ones.

9" :;/;(;+12$3"$+%<)(2+'")/"1<;"4*=>;%1""

Another feature is common to the three constructions featuring an inverted subject: the referential anchoring of the referent of indefinite NPs is blocked. 15

Data

Two types of interpretation are blocked for postverbal subject NPs. In ( 32)-( 33) below, the fact is illustrated with RCs featuring EXTR-INV.

-specific nonpartitive reading for indefinite NPs. In (32), the only reading available for un étudiant chilien is specific given the negation (blocking the existential reading): (32b) is interpretable, while (32a) is not.

(32) a. ?? L'examen que n'a pas pu passer un étudiant chilien la semaine dernière faute d'être prévenu à temps sera annulé. b. L'examen qu'un étudiant chilien n'a pas pu passer la semaine dernière faute d'être prévenu à temps sera annulé.

'The exam that a Chilian student couldn't take last week because he didn't receive the notice in time will be cancelled.'

-partitive reading for quantificational NPs without explicit partitive complement. In (33a), beaucoup d'étudiants ('many students') cannot give rise to a partitive reading 'many students of the university', while such a reading is the preferred one in (33b): in (33a), it only has a cardinal reading 'a great number of students'.

( In sum, postverbal indefinite subject NPs cannot be specific and postverbal NPs with weak or partitive determiners cannot give rise to a partitive reading in the absence of an explicit partitive complement. Notice that indefinite NPs 16 The ill-formedness of (34a) cannot be ascribed to the fact that la plupart occurs to the right of verb, as it makes a good object: j'ai vu la plupart lire des romans policiers (Lit. I saw most read detective novels). 17 Scopal specific indefinites also must be preverbal. In (i) below, the indefinite un voisin cannot be specific: (i) cannot be continued with Tu sais, son ami qui est charpentier ('You know, his friend who is a carpenter'), while a continuation like Il ne sait pas encore à qui s'adresser ('He does not know yet whom to ask') is perfect.

The preverbal version of the RC (qu'un voisin peut lui recommander) allows both the specific and nonspecific reading. (i) Il veut uniquement une maison que peut lui recommander un voisin.

Lit. He only wants a house that can recommend a neighbor with an explicit indication of specificity (37a) and NPs with an explicit partitive complement (37b) are bona fide postverbal subjects, along with presuppositional NPs (i. e. definite NPs) or anaphoric NPs (37c).

(37) a. L'examen que n'a pas pu passer un étudiant chilien que nous connaissons tous sera annulé.

Lit. the exam that could not take a Chilian student we all know will be cancelled

Analysis

I adopt [START_REF] Heusinger | Specificity and Definiteness in Sentence and Discourse Structure[END_REF][START_REF] Heusinger | Specificity, referentiality and discourse prominence: German indefinite demonstratives[END_REF] analysis of specificity. Specific indefinites introduce novel discourse referents that are anchored to an already established discourse entity. The identification of the newly introduced referent depends both on the anchor -that is either intended by the speaker or present in the universe of discourse -and on the anchoring function that enables the discourse participants to single out an entity that is the value for the variable introduced by the indefinite determiner. Heusinger analyzes the partitive interpretation of NPs with weak determiners along the same lines: they introduce a novel referent that is part of another. The whole -or the superset -must be referentially anchored to an already established entity (in the speaker's or discourse universe). 18Remember that postverbal indefinite subjects may be specific (37a) and that NPs featuring a weak determiner may be partitive (37b) as long as the anchor or the partitive complement are explicit in the NP. Hence, the readings per se are not blocked for postverbal subjects; what is specifically blocked is the referential anchoring itself. It is hard to see why the anchors would be inaccessible from the postverbal position or to deem the context responsible:19 the contexts are the same whether the subject is pre-or postverbal or the anchors implicit or explicit ((32a) vs (37a)).

What appears to go wrong is the identification function itself. It does not have enough content to single out the referent (in the case of indefinites) or the whole (in the case of partitives). More precisely, it goes through when the subject is preverbal; it does not when it is postverbal. One may conjecture that the prominence of the subject is the decisive factor. Thus, when the subject is preverbal, the selection/identification process can use the prominent status of the referent in the description and its full involvement in the described process. When it is postverbal, the referent is just another participant in the described situation. Another observation brings support to the conjecture that the identification of the referent does not go through because of the lack of identifying means. It suffices to enrich the description of the referent within the NP to make the specific reading of the indefinite NP felicitous. The identification means contributed by the NP compensate so to speak the lack thereof in the sentence: (39) is much better than (32a).

(39) L'examen que n'a pas pu passer un étudiant qui a séché tous les cours ce semestre sera annulé.

Lit. the exam that could not pass a student who cut all classes this term will be cancelled

In sum, referential anchoring is the only mechanism of accessing referents that is barred for postverbal subjects: anaphora and presupposition readily operate. If the conjecture presented here is on the right track, then the blocking of the referential anchoring would be another effect of the lack of prominence of inverted subjects with respect to the other participants in the described situation.

9?"@)+%3*42)+""

I have made three proposals to capture the fine-grained properties of the three constructions that feature the subject to the right of the verb.

-The informational solidarity holding in the context between the verb and its first argument affords EXTR-INV and PRES-INV, i. e. makes it possible without imposing it. This condition limits the information structure of EXTR-INV and PRES-INV clauses to be all in one piece: all focus or all ground. There is no constraint whatsoever on the information structure of PERM-INV.

-Subject inversion conveys an absolute construal of the situation described in the clause, which results in the attenuation of the dynamic aspects of the description: causal efficacy of the agent, clausal relations between clauses.

-The referential anchoring of the referent is not available for postverbal indefinite or quantificational NPs, which, I conjecture, is due to the lack of prominence of the subject.

Two general points can be made in the light of the analysis I have just proposed for subject inversion in French.

-Construal, in particular the relative salience of entities in the described situation, should be considered a relevant factor to explain word order variations. The analysis given here reinforces a similar claim made by [START_REF] Abeillé | Two types of preposing in French[END_REF] to capture the difference between two constructions showing object preposing in French.

-Word order potential to convey informational values depends on the construction. The striking fact presented here is that its potential to convey an absolute construal is the same across the three constructions featuring an inverted subject. One should not conclude too hastily that word order variations per se are primarily exponents of construal values. This again should be investigated construction by construction.

  ) a. Inversion in extraction-context [EXTR-INV]: le livre qu'a écrit Marie Lit. the book that has written Marie b. Presentative inversion [pres-inv]: Alors entra un soldat. Lit. Then entered a soldier. † Thanks to Claire Beyssade, Danièle Godard, Barbara Hemforth, and Alain Kihm for their companionship. Thanks to the pool of informants, linguists and non linguists, who patiently answered my questions about « preverbal Paul and postverbal Marie ». In particular: Lâl Marandin and Michèle Grégoire. c. Inversion via permutation [PERM-INV] : Sont reçus Pierre et Marie. Lit. passed Pierre and Marie

  (7) a. Alors en entrèrent deux autres [de soldats]. a'. * Alors entrèrent deux autres [de soldats] Lit. Then entered two others [soldiers] b. Je voudrais qu'en soient votés deux autres [de décrets]. b'. * Je voudrais que soient votés deux autres [de décrets]

(

  12) Q. What happened to make you leave home ? A. [my MOther died] F (13) Q. What became of your parents ? A. [my MOther] F [DIED] F (..)

(

  23) a. le roman de Paul Lit. the novel of Paul b. le roman qu'a écrit Paul Lit. the novel that has written Paul c. le roman qu'a relié Paul Lit. the novel that has bound Paul Taking advantage of studies on similar usages in English (i. a. Bolinger 1989, Zubizarreta 1998), one could reformulate the observation as in (24) from an informational perspective. (24) The content of the verb is informationally light in EXTR-INV and PRES-INV.

  [Les cartes de crédit et le permis de conduire] NP-SUBJ [ne sont pas des pièces d'identité] VP NP < VP Lit. credit cards and the driving license are not IDs

b. [Ne sont pas des pièces d'identité] VP [les cartes de crédit et le permis de conduire] NP-SUBJ VP < NP 'The credit cards and the driving license are not IDs' There is no constraint on the verb but, unlike EXTR-INV, no licensing context is required, referential objects are grammatical (6a) and scrambling is not possible (6b). (6) a. Fait [un cours de logique aux linguists] NP-OBJECT [tout nouveau prof de philosophie] NP-SUBJECT Lit. gives a class of logic to linguists each newly appointed philosophy teacher b. * Fait un cours de logique [tout nouveau prof de philosophie] NP-SUBJECT aux linguistes. Lit. gives a class of logic each newly appointed philosophy teacher to linguists

  propose that EXTR-INV and PRES-INV are sensitive to the informational solidarity of the verb and its first argument realized as the subject, while PERM-INV is not. More precisely: (17) Contexts where subject and verb are informationally interdependent afford EXTR-INV and PRES-INV.

Intuitively, when speakers use (1a) le livre qu'a écrit Marie, there are no relevant alternatives to Marie and/or écrire ('write') that are under discussion or merely relevant (say for contrast) in the current context. On the contrary, le livre que Marie a écrit is compatible with a context where Marie or écrire are singled out among other entities or relations in the current context. More technically, hypothesis (17) makes a prediction: EXTR-INV and PRES-INV clauses should be hindered -hence judged less appropriate by informantswhen the discourse role of the subject requires alternatives. There are two such roles: (i) narrow focus resolving a partial question, (ii) contrastive topic à la

[START_REF] Büring | The Meaning of Topic and Focus[END_REF] S-topic)

. Accordingly, EXTR-INV and PRES-INV clauses should be dispreferred when subjects -or verbs -are narrow foci or contrastive topics. Both predictions are borne out; the results come from informal surveys I ran following traditional linguistic methodology

(Sprousse 2005). 8

  Les étudiants que[Bernard] Subject a entraînés sont devenus des sportifs professionnels, ceux de Marie sont devenus des profs de gym. b. Les étudiants qu'a entraînés[Bernard] Subject sont devenus des sportifs professionnels, ceux de Jean-Marie sont devenus des profs de gym. 'The students Bernard trained became professional sportspersons, Jean-Marie's became PE teachers.'Even more, a direct answer to (18) with preverbal subject like Les étudiants que Bernard a entraînés sont devenus sportifs professionnels is implicational, unless it is used with a marked parenthetical intonation: 9 the subject (Bernard) or the verb (entraîner) invoke alternatives (other teachers, other relations between teachers and students, ..) worth being elaborated to fully address the issue conveyed by (18).

	' What became of Bernard's students ?'
	(19) a. a.	A. Est symboliquement responsable la lignée maternelle, alors
	que sont financièrement responsables les parents biologiques.
		Lit. is symbolically responsible the mother's line, while are financially
	responsible the biological parents
	b.	A. Est responsable la lignée maternelle. Sont aussi responsables
	les oncles maternels du père.
		Lit.

We already saw that subjects in PERM-INV clauses may be narrow foci ((10) above). PERM-INV clauses may also feature a constrastive predicate or a contrastive subject (20), which means that subject and VP give rise to two distinct sets of alternatives. Moreover, they may simply be all focus sentences (21). Thus, it is confirmed that PERM-INV clauses are informationally different from EXTR-INV or PRES-INV clauses.

(20) Q. Dans cette société, qui est responsable d'un nouveau-né? 'In this society, who is responsible for a newborn baby?' is responsible the mother's line. Are also responsible the uncles on the mother's side of the father (21) Q. Quel est le nouveau règlement? 'What's in the new regulation ?'

A. Ne sont plus acceptés les permis delivrés avant 1960.

  EXTR-INV and PRES-INV has a direct impact on clauses: it limits their informational potential. They are either all focus or all ground. In other words, their informational structure is all in one piece: subject and verb together feed the focal or the ground part of the content of the whole sentence. Indeed, this is what is observed in actual discourses. 10 PERM-INV clauses behave differently: they may convey an informationally partitioned content. Subjects in PERM-INV may be narrow foci or contrastive topics (but not categorical subjects!). In fact, PERM-INV clauses are just indifferent to the relation of informational solidarity between subjects and verbs. Hence, we must conclude that the three constructions behave differently as regards information structure: EXTR-INV and PRES-INV on one side, PERM-INV

  ) a. ?? Ma voiture, qu'a gentiment révisée mon copain Pierre, devrait passer le test pollution sans problème. b. Ma voiture, que mon copain Pierre a gentiment révisée, devrait passer le test pollution sans problème.

'My car my pal Pierre has kindly overhauled should pass the pollution test easily'

  Quand la température augmente et que, de ce fait, s'écroulent les ponts de neige, il est trop tard pour partir en rando sur les glaciers. c. Quand la température augmente et que, de ce fait, les ponts de neige s'écroulent, il est trop tard pour partir en rando sur les glaciers.

	). One can infer a
	cause-consequence relation (based on world knowledge) between the two
	temporal clauses. If one makes it explicit (28b), informants bulk: they repute
	(28b) weird and clearly judge (28c) more appropriate.
	(28) a. Quand la température augmente et que s'écroulent les ponts de neige,
	il est trop tard pour partir en rando sur les glaciers.
	b. ??

'When temperature rises and , as a result, the snow bridges collapse, it's too late for a treck on the glaciers.'

  b. Les romans qu'apprécient la plupart des garçons sont du genre sentimental.Lit. the novels that like most of the boys belong to the romantic genre c. les romans qu'apprécient {Marie et ses soeurs | de tels étudiants} .. Lit. novels that like {Marie and her sisters | such students} ..

	Furthermore, bare quantificational NPs (personne, rien, tout, chacun
	('nobody, nothing, all, each')) -whose interpretation is not partitive and
	which require a loose contextual restriction -are well-formed postverbal
	subjects even if they are not very frequent in actual use (38).

(38)a. Paul aimait cette Lina que ne plaignait personne.

Lit. Paul loved this Lina for whom felt-sorry nobody b. une vie où ne se produit jamais rien Lit. a life where happens never nothing

'A social worker talks to a patient who complains about her problems with her children.' b. Parmi tous vos problèmes, lequel devrait s'arrêter pour que soyez plus tranquille? 'Among your problems, which one should stop so you could live more quietly?'3 In particular, I leave aside[START_REF] Lahousse | NP subject inversion in French: two types, two configurations[END_REF][START_REF] Lahousse | Quand passent les cigognes. Le sujet nominal postverbal en français contemporain[END_REF] claim that the inverted subject is an informational focus in EXTR-INV and PRES-INV (her « inversion ordinaire ») and an identificational focus in PERM-INV (her « inversion focus exhaustif »).[START_REF] Abeillé | Two types of preposing in French[END_REF] Unfortunately, EXTR-INV cannot be tested. One could have thought of sentences featuring a locative inversion (extraction of locative PPs), but for some reason, their use is limited to narratives (contra[START_REF] Bonami | Inversion du sujet, constituance et ordre des mots[END_REF]. For example, sur la place principale se trouve la grande mosquée ('on the main square stands the great mosque') cannot be used naturally to answer either où se trouve la grande mosquée ? ('where is the great mosque') or qu'est-ce qui se trouve sur la place principale ? ('what is on the main square').

"In any interaction involving an agent with some other system, conditions that enable that interaction include some properties of the agent along with some

It implicates a residual topic[START_REF] Büring | The Meaning of Topic and Focus[END_REF]. Intuitively, it amounts to bringing about the effect that there is more to say about the question .

PERM-INV clauses cannot be put to the test because there is no Agent role assigned in such clauses.

In the absence of any explicit link, the discourse relations between the two temporal clauses are additive rather than causal. Thus, the predominant relation to intuition is one of contiguity in (28a), addition in (29a) and elaboration in (30a) (following[START_REF] Keller | Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar[END_REF] taxonomy).

'The stadium of the university, where many students are training at night, is a nice place.' 14 I owe this prediction to Barbara Hemforth (pc).15 To my knowledge, this feature has remained unnoticed until now, to the exception of[START_REF] Tasmowski | Les phrases à première position actancielle vide, Par la porte ouverte (il) entrait une odeur de nuit et de fleurs[END_REF][START_REF] Tasmowski | Les phrases à première position actancielle vide, Par la porte ouverte (il) entrait une odeur de nuit et de fleurs[END_REF] Marandin 2000 where it is wrongly analyzed as the reflex of some sort of anaphoric opacity.

I assume here that bare strong partitives (i.e. la plupart) involve the same mechanism.

Likewise, one cannot invoke a weak crossover effect since the blocking is observed in the three constructions, i. e. there are no operators playing around.


Jacques Jayez
email: jjayez@ens-lsh.fr

Evidentiality and Determination *

This paper investigates the semantic properties of the French determiner quelque. It is shown that quelque conveys inferential evidentiality, that is, it selects interpretations in which the speaker infers the proposition conveyed by the sentence that hosts the determiner. This accounts for several other properties, for instance the fact that quelque is anti-specific and does not combine freely with negation. A notable consequence of the analysis is that the free choice and positive polarity behaviour of quelque are reduced to its basic semantics. * We gratefully acknowledge the support of

Introduction

The French determiner quelque, although it is somewhat literary or formal in many of its uses in modern French 1 , still attracts interest from semanticists, due to its particular combination of properties [START_REF] Corblin | Quelque[END_REF][START_REF] Culioli | A propos de quelque[END_REF][START_REF] Jayez | Determiners and (un)certainty[END_REF][START_REF] Van De Velde | Les indéfinis comme adjectifs[END_REF]. At first sight, quelque is an existential anti-specific indefinite, because an interpretation where the referent of the NP is identified by the speaker is precluded. In this respect, it is totally similar to un quelconque [START_REF] Jayez | How many are several? Argumentation, meaning and layers[END_REF]Tovena, 2002, 2006). In this paper, we show that quelque is an evidential determiner which qualifies the mode of information available to the speaker, and that anti-specificity is a side-effect of evidentiality (section 3.2). The paper is organised as follows. In section 2, we present the main properties of quelque. In section 3, we define the anti-specificity profile of this determiner (3.1), show how it relates to evidentiality (3.2), and how this relationship accounts for various problematic observations (3.3). In section 3.4, we clarify the similarities and differences with free-choiceness. Finally, in section 4, we address the peculiarity of the combination of quelque with negation and show how it follows from its semantic profile.

Main properties of quelque

Quelque is an existential indefinite determiner and can be found in many standard contexts for the class, for instance assertive positive and negative sentences, imperative and interrogative sentences, antecedents of conditionals, etc. However, three properties distinguish quelque from a plain indefinite like un 'a'.

First, the identity of the individual referred to must not be known by the speaker, or, more generally, by any relevant agent that believes that the sentence is true. 2 (1)a is weird because one normally assumes that the speaker is able to identify the friend she met yesterday.

(1) a. ??Hier j'ai rencontré quelque amie 'Yesterday I met some friend or other' b. Hier, Yolande a dû rencontrer quelque amie 'Yesterday, Yolanda must have met some friend or other' Second, it was observed by [START_REF] Culioli | A propos de quelque[END_REF] that the epistemic source matters. In more general terms, we note that some inferential source must be involved in the interpretation of the sentence hosting quelque. So, quelque is infelicitous when there is clearly no inference by the relevant epistemic agent. In (2)a, the speaker, who is the default epistemic agent, depends on Yolanda's declaration, not on her own inferential capabilities. In general, quelque is not natural with non-inferential reportives such as selon NP 'according to' NP or paraît-il 'I hear', see (2)b. This must not be confused with a requirement of ignorance, since, in (2), the speaker may perfectly ignore who Yolanda met.

(2) a. ??Yolande m'a dit qu'elle avait rencontré quelque amie 'Yolanda told me she had met some friend or other' b. ??D'après sa soeur, Yolande a rencontré quelque amie 'According to her sister, Yolanda met some friend or other' However, Culioli observes that quelque is fine in habituals and we note that this holds in cases where there is no apparent inference, see (3).

(3) L'après-midi, elle allait habituellement voir quelque ami 'In the afternoon, she usually visited some friend or other'

Sensitivity to ignorance and inference is not found with some abstract mass nouns either. ( 4) is felicitous although the speaker directly witnesses Yolanda's emotional state.

(4) J'ai vu que Yolande éprouvait quelque irritation 'I saw that Yolanda felt some irritation'

Third, quelque has a particular profile with respect to negation [START_REF] Corblin | Quelque[END_REF]. It exhibits a 'PPI-like' behaviour [START_REF] Baker | Double negatives[END_REF][START_REF] Szabolcsi | Positive polarity -Negative polarity[END_REF] analogous to that of some. In particular, it is infelicitous in the immediate scope of antiadditive operators (5). Example ( 5) is anomalous if quelque has narrow scope.

(5) Yolande n'a pas dû trouver quelque fichier 'Yolanda must have not found some file' ??[neg > quelque] vs. [quelque > neg]

These properties do not seem to form a coherent set. However, we propose an analysis that shows that the behaviour of quelque is more homogeneous than these preliminary observations suggest.

Epistemic properties of quelque

In the previous section, we saw that quelque is sensitive to ignorance of and inference by the epistemic agent. This raises several questions, that we address in turn. Is there a relation between ignorance and inference? How does habituality fit into the picture? How can one account for the compatibility of quelque with abstract nouns?

Ignorance

Borrowing from [START_REF] Jayez | Epistemic determiners[END_REF], we define ignorance of an agent with respect to a description as in ( 6). ( 6) says that a ignores which individual satisfies the description ∆ if and only if no individual satisfies ∆ in all the epistemic alternatives she entertains.3

(6) Let a be an agent and ∆(x) a set of formulas in the free variable x. Note M, d |= ∆(x) the fact that M, g x d |= ∆(x) for some g. At w, a ignores which individual satisfies ∆(x) whenever there is no d such that, for all the epistemic alternatives w i of a in w, M w i , d |= ∆(x).

Quelque requires that the epistemic agent ignore which individual satisfies the description provided by the sentence. We use the label C-ignorance to refer to this constraint in the sequel. For instance, in (1)a, the epistemic agent should ignore which individual satisfies the property λx.friend(x) & met-yest.(x). This is implausible since the value of x is supposed to be a friend of the speaker, who is the default epistemic agent. More precisely, for an epistemic agent a with a set of alternatives W , we have (7).

(7)

C-ignorance For a (modal) tripartite form Φ(

[Quelque] x [R][S]
), where Φ is a possibly null/ complex modal operator, an interpretation is appropriate only if it does not entail: ∃x(∀w ∈ W (w |= Φ(R(x) & S(x)))).

Where evidentiality comes in

The status of evidentiality is complex. A well-known open issue is its relation to modality. [START_REF] Aikhenvald | Evidentiality[END_REF] equates evidentiality with linguistic marking of information source. She claims that, in itself, evidentiality "does not imply any reference to validity or reliability of knowledge or information" (p. 5). We consider that quelque pertains to evidentiality because it qualifies the information source. By using quelque, the speaker signals that she does not use perceptual or hearsay evidence containing the proposition expressed by the sentence. This is compatible with the speaker using perceptual or hearsay evidence to feed an otherwise inferential process through which she produces the proposition. Moreover, quelque does not commit the speaker to a particular modal force, as shown by ( 8).

(8) a. Yolande a peut-être rencontré quelque ami 'Perhaps Yolanda met some friend or other' b. Yolande a nécessairement rencontré quelque ami 'Yolanda necessarily met some friend or other'

Accordingly, we propose that quelque marks inferential evidentiality, i.e. the fact that the source of information is an inferential process by the speaker. Since modal adverbs and epistemic verbs convey inferential evidentiality, they are compatible with quelque. Quelque does not require an explicit independent marking of evidentiality. Rather, it is licensed by interpretations. This accounts for the fact that it may be found in simple declarative sentences whenever an inferential evidential interpretation is available, see (9).

(9) Il y a de la lumière dans le bureau; quelque idiot a oublié d'éteindre 'The light is on in the office; some idiot has forgotten to switch it off'

The representation of evidentiality is a difficult matter. Following Aikhenvald and Westmoreland (1995), we do not base evidentiality on modal status. In this case, one can consider that assertive sentences correspond to pairs s, φ , where φ is the main content and s is the source of evidence (hearsay, inference, etc.). Is it possible to order sources? One might define the strictest source of evidence as in (10). When an agent, using the maximal source σ, asserts that φ, either the other sources do not suggest the contrary or the agent prefers the strictest source in any case.

(10) σ is a unique maximal source of evidence = def for every agent a and every source s = σ, if σ, φ a , then either (i) ¬ s, ¬φ a or (ii), if s, ¬φ a , then a believes that φ.

There are at least two problems with this type of approach. First, the existence of a unique maximal source of evidence is not guaranteed. For some propositions, there may be several competing sources with equal strength. Second, the very term of 'source' is unclear since it covers the type of evidence and the type of processing. For instance, what 'source' does an inferential process applied to some visual evidence constitute?

We propose to distinguish sources proper and their treatment. In certain cases, the treatment determines the type of source. E.g. visual processing can only apply to visual cues. Inferential processing may apply to the result of other types of processing. E.g., an agent can infer a proposition from what she 'sees', i.e. from the result of applying visual processing to visual cues. For quelque, what counts is the processing. More precisely, quelque requires that the corresponding existential proposition be reached through inferential processing.

(11)

C-inf A form [quelque] x [R] [S]
is appropriate only under interpretations where the epistemic agent infers that

[∃] x [R] [S].
In most cases, inferential processing leads to conclusions that are weaker than those reached through perceptual processing, which accounts for the contrast in ( 12).

(12) a. Yolande a dû epist ouvrir la porte. En fait, je me souviens, je l'ai vue 'Yolanda must epist have opened the door. Actually, I remember I saw her' b. ??J'ai vu Yolande ouvrir la porte. En fait, elle a dû epist l'ouvrir 'I saw Yolanda open the door. Actually, she must epist have opened it' But this is not necessarily so. In (13), the mathematical conclusion is inescapable. Yet, quelque is licensed by the inferential origin of the proposition that there exists some extremum.

(13) Puisque la dérivée s'annule et change de signe sur I, elle a nécessairement quelque extremum 'Since the derivative has a zero and changes signs over I, it necessarily has some extremum'

Are ignorance and evidentiality, as expressed in C-ignorance (7) and C-inf (11), related in some way? A way of reformulating the question is: does the fact that a situation conforms to C-ignorance entail the fact that it conforms to C-inf, or the reverse, or is there no entailment? If a ignores which individual satisfies ∆, she cannot, in general, have direct access to this piece of information. However, she might have indirect, noninferential, access to it, by hearsay for instance. So C-ignorance does not entail C-inf. Suppose that a can infer that some individual satisfies ∆ in a situation s. a might be in a position to infer which individual satisfies ∆. Then, s would violate C-ignorance. So, there is no logical relation between C-ignorance and C-inf.

However, there is a pragmatic relationship. When a situation conforms to C-inf, using an indefinite makes the ignorance interpretation most plausible, as evidenced by the contrast in (14). While (14)b is not impossible, it is more difficult to interpret than (14)a.

(14) a. Yolande a rencontré une amie, Louise 'Yolanda met a friend, Louise' b. #Yolande a dû rencontrer une amie, Louise 'Yolanda must have met a friend, Louise'

We won't try to account for this preference here, because this would involve the notoriously complex issue of the scope of indefinites. We simply consider ignorance as the default option in the context of epistemic inferential operators. This leads one to hypothesise that, at some point in time, quelque was basically an evidential determiner and that the expected preference for anti-specificity has been grammaticalised as a semantic rigid feature.4

Epistemic dimensions

Habitual sentences

Habitual sentences obey C-ignorance, as shown by ( 15)

(15) a. ??A l'époque, je voyais toujours Yolande avec quelque amie, Marie 'At that time, I used to see Yolanda with some friend or other, Mary'

Habituality may facilitate an ignorance reading because it presupposes a set of eventualities. In (16)a, the speaker is unable to assign a precise identity to the friends. In (16)b, ignorance is distributed over the seeing-events: the speaker is unable to list the event-friend pairs.

(16) a. A l'époque, je voyais toujours Yolande avec quelque amie 'At that time, I used to see Yolanda with some friend or other' b. A l'époque, je voyais toujours Yolande avec quelque amie, Marie, Pauline ou Thérèse 'At that time, I used to see Yolanda with some friend or other, Mary, Pauline or Therese'

A plausible logical form for (16)a is given in ( 17), which says that there is a contextually relevant past interval I such that there is an appropriate set of subintervals i hosting events e where the speaker sees Yolanda with some friend5 . In view of ( 7), the speaker does not identify the friends in question. This is in agreement with the fact that, in (16)b, three different persons (Mary, Pauline and Therese) may be the value of the variable bound by the quelque operator in the different epistemic alternatives.

Unexpectedly, habituality seems to allow a violation of C-inf (11), since the epistemic agent may have witnessed the events she refers to. In fact the crucial factor in habituality is the existence of a sort of inference from particular occasions to a regularity. Habituality judgements present a series of particular occasions as a law-like repetition6 . Under this view of habituality, ( 11) is not violated since the speaker infers the habitual proposition.

As expected, a limited non-inferential repetition is not compatible with quelque, (18).

(18) ??J'ai vu sept fois Yolande rencontrer quelque ami 'I saw Yolanda meet some friend or other seven times'

Tropes

In 'Yolanda showed some courage' c. Il y a quelque hypocrisie à prétendre cela.

'There is some hypocrisy in this claim'

The abstract mass nouns under consideration denote external qualities (beauty), feelings (irritation) and dispositions (intelligence). As noted in [START_REF] Jayez | Determiners and (un)certainty[END_REF], with such nouns, quelque has a distribution very similar to that of un certain 'a certain', see

(20) a. Yolande a montré un certain courage. 'Yolanda showed some courage' b. Il y a une certaine hypocrisie à prétendre cela.

'There is some hypocrisy in this claim' (2000) for this type of approach.

In both cases, there is a diminutive flavour. For instance, in (19)a and (20)b, the speaker implies that she is not sure that Yolanda showed courage to a high degree or in a strong form. This corresponds to a Q-implicature [START_REF] Horn | A Natural History of Negation[END_REF] triggered by the indefinite. By indicating that Yolanda exhibited a particular degree or form of courage, the speaker implicates that, for all she knows, Yolanda did not show higher degrees or clearer forms of courage. However, un certain and quelque do not match perfectly, as illustrated in ( 21). How do we account for these differences? Intuitively, the NP complements in (21) denote particularised properties exhibited in particular spatio-temporal settings. These instantiations of properties are usually analysed as tropes [START_REF] Williams | On the elements of being I[END_REF]Campbell, 1990;[START_REF] Maurin | If Tropes[END_REF][START_REF] Moltmann | Events, tropes, and truthmaking[END_REF], i.e. particular entities that can enter similarity classes corresponding to abstract properties, like Yolanda's kindness (in the kindness class) or the colour of my car (in the colour class). So, quelque laideur in (21)a,b refers to the content of a 'particular' (= spatio-temporally localised) ugliness. For contrasts like those in (21), we set up a new distinction. External tropes are directly observed by agents. This is the case for ugliness or limp. Internal tropes correspond to internal states or processes of which only certain effects can be directly observed. For instance, courage and hypocrisy may show in behaviour (language, gestures, actions, etc). As a result, although an agent witnesses the symptoms of an internal trope, she may not know what trope it is. This distinction between a trope and its manifestation makes room for an inference from the latter to the former. In the terms of (11), the speaker infers that some trope exists. Note that the distinction between two kinds of tropes has lexical correlates, as exemplified in ( 22). ( 22) a. ??Marie a montré de la beauté / laideur 'Mary showed beauty / ugliness' b. Marie a montré du courage / de l'intelligence 'Mary showed courage /intelligence'

Ignorance and free-choiceness

As noted in the introduction, quelque resembles un quelconque, another French antispecific determiner. In view of the fact that un quelconque is an epistemic free-choice determiner [START_REF] Jayez | Epistemic determiners[END_REF], one may wonder whether quelque is in the same class. Following [START_REF] Jayez | Free choiceness and non-individuation[END_REF], we characterise free choice items as follows.

( The fact that quelque obeys NO WINNER is no surprise because it is predicted by Cignorance. As for NO LOSER, there is no reason why quelque should conform to it if its sensitivity to ignorance is a consequence of its evidential side, as we argue. If an agent infers that some entity satisfies a given property, she is not bound to believe also that a particular entity does not satisfy the property. There is simply nothing in C-inf that should lead to NO LOSER. We conclude that analogy with free choice items is superficial and that the evidential inference constraint is the core of quelque.

Negative speculations

'PPIs' like some are out in the immediate scope of negation. More in detail, they are not easily or not at all accepted with a narrow scope interpretation, and perceived as marked with a wide scope interpretation, if accepted. For instance, ( 27) is rejected or taken to be about a specific undisclosed file. This type of behaviour, noted already by [START_REF] Baker | Double negatives[END_REF], is at the heart of the characterisation of PPIs as items constituting a specific phenomenon.

(27) Yolanda did not find some file * [neg > some]

Example (5), repeated below, illustrates the same phenomenon with quelque, where the wide scope reading is akward although not impossible. Furthermore, like some [START_REF] Szabolcsi | Positive polarity -Negative polarity[END_REF], quelque is infelicitous in the immediate scope of antiadditive operators, whose definition is recalled in ( 28).

(5) #Yolande n'a pas dû trouver quelque fichier 'Yolanda must have not found some file'

??[neg > quelque] vs. [quelque > neg] (28) O is antiadditive = df O(a ∨ b) = O(a) ∧ O(b)
Clausal negation is antiadditive, as shown by the equivalence (John didn't see Mary or Yolanda ⇔ John didn't see Mary and John didn't see Yolanda). Thus, despite the evidential touch provided by the modal, the presence of clausemate sentential negation affects the status of example (5).

Given the foregoing data, it may be worth exploring a little further the similarity between quelque and PPIs. Indeed, they both see their statuses restored when nested under not one but two negations [START_REF] Baker | Double negatives[END_REF][START_REF] Corblin | Quelque[END_REF], as presented in the next subsection.

The double licensor effect

Observe that, by and large, the distribution given by Szabolcsi for someone/something corresponds to that of quelque8 . E.g. quelque is licensed under extraclausal negation or after an NPI-intervener.

(29) a. Je ne pense pas que Yolande ait trouvé quelque fichier 'I don't think that Yolanda has found some file' ⇒ I don't think that Yolanda has found any file b. Yolande ne trouvait pas toujours quelque excuse 'Yolanda didn't always find some excuse' ⇒ Sometimes, Yolanda didn't find any excuse As noted by Baker, antilicensors have the special property of seeing their effect 'undone' by another antilicensor stacked upon them. In other words, an antilicensor is compatible with a 'PPI' when both are in the scope of a higher operator, which corresponds to the 'rescuing' effect discussed by Szabolcsi and exemplified in (30) for English and French.

(30) a. I am surprised that Yolanda didn't find some file b. Je suis étonné que Yolande n'ait pas trouvé quelque fichier Despite the years, this rescuing effect by a second occurrence of antilicensor is an old problem whose analysis hasn't found yet real agreement upon, let alone a widely accepted explanation. Let us mention two recent proposals that witness the variety of opinions in the literature. According to Szabolcsi, 'PPIs' have two NPI ('dormant') features which get activated and/or licensed under different conditions. In short, Szabolcsi's idea, found also in [START_REF] Krifka | A compositional semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions[END_REF], is that combinations made up by pairs of antilicensor plus PPI behave like NPIs, which means that they require another antilicensor that works as licensor of the combination. An opposite view has been proposed by [START_REF] Ladusaw | Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations[END_REF] and recently revisited by [START_REF] Schwarz | Light negation and polarity[END_REF], who claim that rescuing is an illusion. In the concerned configurations, according to them, the apparent antilicensor is in fact a non-antilicensing negation.9

It is difficult to arbitrate between these two conceptions. For one, Szabolcsi's account involves spelling out, which is difficult to control. Second, the pairs made of antili-censer+PPI and NPIs do not make a perfect match. As shown by the marginality of (31), si ('if'), that is a good licensor for standard NPIs, does not rescue the combination pas+quelque in certain cases.

(31) ??Si la police n'a pas trouvé quelque preuve, il sera relâché 'If the police didn't find some evidence, he will be freed' Third, Schwarz and Bhatt postulate a light negation and look for a German realisation (nicht), which is expletive in certain environments. The expletive negation in French is ne, but ne does not behave like a 'light' negation in their terms, as illustrated by (32)c.

(32) a. Ich gehe nicht, bevor du nicht aufgeräumt hast ( Schwarz and Bhatt,ex. 21) 'I won't leave before you have cleaned' b. Je ne partirai pas avant que tu n'aies nettoyé c. * Je suis surpris que Yolande n'ait trouvé quelque fichier lit. I am surprised that Yolanda neg-expl have-subj found some file Finally, it is possible to build cases that are acceptable although they feature some nonlight antilicensors, such as negative concord words rien (nothing) and personne (nobody) in ( 33).

(33) a. Je suis surpris que rien n'ait troublé quelqu'un 'I am surprised that nothing has puzzled somebody' b. Je suis surpris que personne n'ait vu quelque chose 'I am surprised that nobody saw something'

In the remainder, we explore a different path. Instead of arguing for or against some form of licensing, we point out the connection between the meaning of quelque and certain aspects of its PPI-like behaviour and we try to build on it.

Negating a composite meaning

First, recall that quelque is sensitive to evidentiality, as it has been proposed in this paper. By using [quelque R S], the speaker signals that she has only indirect and inferential evidence that an unidentified individual (Conventional Implicature part) satisfies the restriction and the scope ('at issue content', in the terms of [START_REF] Potts | The Logic of Conventional Implicatures[END_REF]). The scoping pas > quelque is odd in a clause because it amounts to conveying two contradictory pieces of information. On the one hand, the speaker negates the existence of an individual satisfying R and S (34)a, but on the other hand, she simultaneously signals that it must be an unidentified individual (34)b. For instance, the interpretation of example (5) comes out something like 'Yolanda must not have found any file, an unidentified one', which is queer. It is not clear how one is expected to resolve the anaphora if the antecedent is to be found within an empty set. Let us note by ⊗ the conjunction of at issue content and CI. Let a be the epistemic agent. The interpretation of example ( 5) with quelque under the scope of negation is provided in (35).

(35)

2 must-epist [¬∃x(x = y & file(x) & found(x)) ⊗ unknown(y, a)]
In words, (35) says that it is necessary from the point of view of the epistemic 'must' modality that there is no x that is a file and is found and the value of x is equal to that of an unbound variable y, and it is conventionally implicated that y is unknown to the relevant agent. Compare (35) with the wide scope interpretation of quelque, paraphrased as 'There is a file-an unidentified one-which Yolanda must have not found'. This is for the behaviour of quelque under one sentential clausemate negation. Extraclausal negation does not count as antilicensor, as it was pointed out above with respect to (29)a. In our proposal, we notice that this negation is fine when it provides the evidential touch, as in (36) where 'not-excluding' means 'accepting as possible'.

(36) Je n'exclus pas que Yolande ait trouvé quelque fichier 'I do not exclude that Yolanda might have found some file'

For other examples, we ascribe the improvement in the status of the sentence to the fact that the CI of ignorance is integrated into the interpretation because intermediate scope is possible. The sequence [ matrix clause Neg XP] [ that clause quelque R S] negates the existence of a situation where some individual, an unidentified one, satisfies R and S. Sentence (37)a reports Mary's personal thought and is acceptable. It is paraphrased as 'According to Mary, it is not the case that, for some scruple s, an unidentified one, Yolanda experienced s'. On the contrary, sentence (37)b, paraphrased as 'Mary did not say that for some scruple s, an unidentified one, Yolanda experienced s', reports Mary's words and is more marginal. The problem in interpreting it is that it is unclear whether (and how) the form of words used by Mary involves non-identification.

(37) a. Marie ne pense pas que Yolande ait eu quelque scrupule 'Mary does not think that Yolanda had some scruple' b. ?Mary n'a pas dit que Yolande avait eu quelque scrupule 'Mary didn't say that Yolanda had had some scruple'

More generally, there is some improvement whenever negation targets a situation that would license the use of quelque. Possible causes for this improvement are the local computation of felicity10 and the presence of subjunctive in French, which indicates a possible (but unrealized) situation, see the examples with semantic negation and regular negation in (38). At the present moment, we see no evidence in favour of one cause and against the other. In the end, it may well be the case that both contribute.

(38) a. Il est faux que Yolande ait trouvé quelque fichier 'It is false that Yolanda has found some file' b. Il n'est pas vrai que Yolande ?a / ait trouvé quelque fichier Finally, as for (29)b, toujours acts as a quantifier on situations. The sentence says that it is not the case that, for a given period T , ∀s ∈ T [ s quelque R S]. As pointed out already by Culioli, quelque is licensed by habitual operators. (39) [( 29)b] Yolande ne trouvait pas toujours quelque excuse 'Yolanda didn't always find some excuse' Independent evidence supporting our proposal of exploiting the meaning of quelque, rather that stipulating licensing/antilicensing constraints, comes from the striking parallelism with the expression Je ne sais quel (lit. 'I don't know which'), which has gone unnoticed in the literature, to the best of our knowledge. The data in (40) show that Je ne sais quel with narrow scope is awkward in the scope of clausemate sentential negation, see (40)a, while negation in a higher clause does not affect it, see (40)b. This is all the more interesting because Je ne sais quel is generally not considered to be polarity sensitive.

(40) a. #Yolande n'a pas trouvé je ne sais quel fichier 'Yolanda did not find I do not know which file' b. Marie ne pense pas que Yolande ait trouvé je ne sais quel fichier 'Mary does not believe that Yolanda found I do not know which file'

Concluding remarks

Quelque is an indefinite determiner that marks that the existence of an entity satisfying restriction and scope is information gained via inference. The availability of this type of reading suffices to make its use felicitous. This 'light' way of constraining its use, as opposed to heavier constraints expressed in terms of syntactico-semantic marked contexts, makes it possible to encompass a distribution that cannot be characterised in terms of licensing configurations. The relevance of the distinction between external and internal tropes is an example in point. Furthermore, our analysis draws attention to the fact that the nominal domain may also convey evidential information, although evidentiality is most often discussed with respect to the verbal domain.

Cases of items that exhibit free choiceness and negative polarity sensitivity are well known, e.g. English any. The proximity of free choiceness with positive polarity is more rarely mentioned. At first sight, quelque might look as a candidate to this double labelling, but we show that both labels do not help us to unravel its meaning. The unfelicity of quelque under clausemate negation is a manifestation of the more general issue of computing implicatures. The striking similarity with the behaviour of je ne sais quel, which can be treated as a case of conflict with the CI, provides support to our position.

  (17) ∃I(P ast(I) & Always i,e [i ⊏ I & duration(e) = i & e |= The speaker sees Yolanda] [[Quelque] x [e |= x is a friend of Yolanda][e |= the speaker sees Yolanda with x]])

  individus [. . .] qui se caractérisaient par une certaine laideur 7 'Two persons [. . .] who were characterised by a certain ugliness' b. #Deux individus [. . .] qui se caractérisaient par quelque laideur c. Il avait une certaine claudication quand il marchait 'He had a certain limp when he walked' d. #Il avait quelque claudication quand il marchait

  issue content = ∃x(x = y & R(x) & S(x)) = φ b. CI = y is not identified and φ is only inferredNext, we exploit the well established fact that negation does not see CIs in general.

In what follows, we use epistemic agent to refer to this type of agent, the speaker by default.

As shown in[START_REF] Farkas | Varieties of Indefinites[END_REF] and[START_REF] Jayez | Epistemic determiners[END_REF], a correct representation of ignorance is actually more complex because it has to take into account scope problems. We disregard this additional source of complexity, since it is tangential to the main issues we address here.

We leave the evaluation of this hypothesis for future research. See[START_REF] Combettes | La grammaticalisation d'un déterminant indéfini: quelque en Moyen Français[END_REF] for the diachrony of quelque

As many others, we use a habituality operator analogous to the generic operator. However, we do not resort to a possible world approach, in addition to intervals and events, seeLenci and Bertinetto

This inferential move has been recently mentioned by[START_REF] Glasbey | Bare plurals in object position: which verbs fail to give existential readings, and why?[END_REF] in connection with psychological verbs that disallow bare plurals in object position. According to Glasbey, such verbs, like to hate or to like, generalise over a limited set of events

Excerpt from: http://blog.lefilmfrancais.com/index.php?2006/05/25/2888-paolo-sorrentinorealisateur-de-lamico-di-famiglia

For quelqu'un 'somebody' and quelque chose 'something', data are more complex.

An NPI under Ladusaw's analysis, but seeSchwarz and Bhatt (2006, 189) for a more cautious view.

On this point, we refer the reader to the ongoing discussion about local/global implicatures.

the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (grant Elico ANR-06-CORP-028-01).


Marta Donazzan
email: donazzan@linguist.jussieu.fr

Lucia M Tovena
email: tovena@linguist.jussieu.fr

A temporal analysis for 'irrealis' ZAI

The Mandarin Chinese adverb ZAI, in its adverbial use, displays a number of peculiarities-concerning the temporal orientation of the predicate, its aspectual properties and the syntactic/logical role of the sentence where it occurs-which, as a whole, have been subsumed under the feature 'irrealis'. In this paper, we consider ZAI as an additive particle in the domain of events and we propose to derive its 'irrealis' flavour from constraints on the structure and temporal location of the asserted event. As an additive particle, ZAI conveys a presupposition which cannot be recovered indipendently from the context of occurrence.

Introduction

Both in traditional grammars and in monographic studies [START_REF] Ma | Gen fuci zai you guan de jige jushi (some patterns related to the adverb zai)[END_REF], [START_REF] Li | Guanyu you he zai (about you and zai)[END_REF], [START_REF] Liu | The scalar particle zai[END_REF]), the adverb ZAI is usually described as satisfying two major distributional constraints, which set it aside from other aspectual and repetitive adverbs of Chinese (for instance, hai 'still' and you 'again'). One restriction is that it seems to be confined to irrealis/future contexts, see the examples (1) and (3). The other is that it cannot modify non-eventive predicates, see (2).

( The restriction on the context has received much attention in the literature, but, to the best of our knowledge, its relation with the restriction on the lexical aspect of the verb is an area of infrequent analysis. In the present paper, it is proposed that the irrealis flavour of ZAI comes from constraints on the structure and temporal location of the event. We defend the idea that ZAI is an additive particle specialised for the temporal domain.

The paper is organised as follows. In section 2, we discuss the irrealis flavour of ZAI and propose to treat it as a temporal rather than a modal constraint. In section 3, we give more evidence for an aspectotemporal characterization, focussing in particular on the nature of the presupposed material. Next, we examine the aspectual restrictions on the sentences hosting ZAI, we present data concerning the distribution of the adverb with respect to the predicate structure and we propose to characterise ZAI as a modifier of eventive predicates. Finally, in section 4, we survey some data that show that the notion of addition applied to events surfaces in different forms of repetition, depending on the predicate type, the arguments and contextual restrictions. Concluding remarks close the discussion.

The irrealis constraint

Prospective events

ZAI is mainly restricted to clauses that describe what we may call 'prospective events ', see (1a,b). This situation has been captured either via a temporal restriction [START_REF] Renaud | Etude léxicographique de zai (à nouveau)[END_REF]) or a modal one [START_REF] Liu | The scalar particle zai[END_REF]. More precisely, [START_REF] Renaud | Etude léxicographique de zai (à nouveau)[END_REF] caracterize the eventuality asserted by ZAI as 'future with respect to R[eference] T[ime]'. [START_REF] Liu | The scalar particle zai[END_REF] adopts a stronger position and adds an 'irrealis' feature to the lexical content of the adverb. However, one should notice that caracterizing the opposition in (1) as due to an irrealis constraint makes too strong a prediction. As we can see from (4), realised events are not always ruled out, as it would be expected if such a constraint were at work. In example (4a), the event of meeting cannot be ordered with respect to utterance time, assuming a Reichembachian framework for temporal ordering of predicates. The configuration expressed can be characterised as having Reference Time which precedes both event and Utterance Time which in turn cannot be ordered among them, i.e. <RT, {ε 1 , UT}> where ε 1 is the event, RT the reference time and UT the time of utterance. An even stronger case is made by (4b), where the event of meeting is asserted to be realised in the actual world, since the temporal adverb zuotian 'yesterday' sets its occurrence in the past with respect to utterance time. The configuration is <RT, ε 1 , UT>. In this case too, the occurrence of ZAI does not make the sentence ungrammatical. This example is interesting insofar as it allows us to tease apart futurity from realisation. On the one hand, Event Time is asserted to follow Reference Time in both sentences (4a,b), hence the temporal location of the event with respect to Reference Time-set by the frame adverbial na shihou 'at that time'-goes as expected for ZAI. The prospective facet of the traditional characterisation of the event is upheld. On the other hand, in neither sentence the event is asserted to occur before UT, hence the irrealis facet cannot be mantained.

Beside this empirical problem, notice that a modal constraint on a VP-level adverb is hard to maintain on theoretical grounds as well, since it appears to be unmotivated at the syntax-semantics interface. Indeed, modal functional projections are higher than vP/VP in the structure of the sentence [START_REF] Cinque | Adverbs and Functional Heads: a Crosslinguistic Perspective[END_REF], as generally assumed in the principles and parameters paradigm. Arguments in favour of considering ZAI a VP-level adverb can be found in [START_REF] Lin | again' and 'again': a grammatical analysis of you and zai in Mandarin Chinese[END_REF], where it is argued that ZAI must be located at vP level because it occurs after modal verbs and it seems sensitive to the thematic properties of the verb.

In order to account for the preceding observations, a temporal ordering is introduced in the characterisation of ZAI according to which the event described by the sentence must follow Reference Time. We also follow much literature in assuming that ZAI, as an additive adverb, does not affect the truth conditions of the sentence hosting it, see [START_REF] Kartunnen | Conventional implicature[END_REF]; [START_REF] König | The Meaning of Focus Particles: a comparative perspective[END_REF] and followers. Hence, a sentence containing ZAI implies the host sentence, e.g. ( 5a) entails (5b). Hong-Kong Tomorrow Zhangsan will go to HK.

Our proposal for the asserted content of the adverb is given in ( 6).

(6) zai' (P)(ε 1 ) = 1 iff P (ε 1 ) ∧ RT < ε 1

The fact of assuming that the asserted event must occur after the Reference Time introduced by the main clause enables us to predict the main distributional restrictions of ZAI correctly, while leaving open the possibility of mapping realised events, a case illustrated by example (4). In short, (6) allows configurations <RT, {ε 1 , UT}>, cf. (4a), as well as <RT, ε 1 , UT>, cf. (4b), and <UT, ε 1 > as usually accepted.

Future reference and virtuality

The issue of the nature of ZAI is not easily settled. The mandatory presence of a modal auxiliary in the clause hosting ZAI, e.g. hui in example (7b), may be taken as evidence for postulating a modal constraint on ZAI. When expressing an event which is future with respect to reference time, the modal seems to be required, as illustrated by the contrast in ( 7), a fact that makes it hard do distinguish between modality (hence 'irreality') and future reference. Modal hui is generally assumed to conflate temporal and modal functions, in partial analogy with modal auxiliaries in other languages, as for example English will. Recent proposals, in particular, treat hui as a fully grammaticalized temporal marker. For instance, [START_REF] Lin | Temporal reference in Mandarin Chinese[END_REF] analyses hui as a temporal operator which always shifts forwards the time of the event. This characterisation appears to be too strong, when one considers that hui behaves as a true epistemic modal which can refer to past or simultaneous eventualities, as [START_REF] Lu | La subordination adverbiale en Chinois contemporain[END_REF] and [START_REF] Wang | Hui yu feixianshixing ('hui' and irreality)[END_REF] have indipendently pointed out. Once one assumes an epistemic value for hui, its necessary contribution to the expression of future reference follows straightforwardly. The fact that future reference and epistemic uncertainty coincide is well established 1 .

Temporal and aspectual restrictions

The presupposed event(s)

ZAI may seem not to conform to the traditional notion of additive particles as focus sensitive particles because it occupies a fixed position in the clause. However, it does conform to it in the sense that it relates the value of the particular expression in its scope to a set of alternatives.

As recalled in the previous section, the contribution of an additive adverb to the meaning of sentences is not expressed in terms of modification of their truth conditions. Additive adverbs affect the felicity conditions of host sentences as they trigger presuppositions. We propose that ZAI triggers two presuppositions. The first one is the traditional presupposition of existence of at least another event ε 2 (called alternative or antecedent), which is the proper of additive items. The presuppositional status of ε 2 is confirmed by the fact that the committment to its existence is preserved in negative contexts. As shown by example (8), adding a continuation that denies the existence of the presupposed event leads to inconsistency. The second presupposition stems from the nature of ZAI as it concerns the temporal order between asserted and presupposed events. The presupposed event ε 2 must precede the asserted event ε 1 , as illustrated by the contrast between ( 9) and (10). In (10), ε 1 temporally precedes ε 2 and the sentence is akward. 1 The temporal constraint on the positioning of the event seems to be flouted in some cases of subordinate clauses introduced by -de shihou, as noted by [START_REF] Alleton | Les adverbes en chinois contemporain[END_REF]

[P (ε 2 ) ∧ ε 1 = ε 2 ∧ ε 2 < ε 1 ]
The presuppositional and asserted status of ε 2 and ε 1 respectively is illustrated by (13). Under negation, event ε 1 is negated but the presupposition of ε 2 survives, so the sentence is understood as saying that we met in the past but we will not meet another time. As a result, ZAI is interpreted as 'anymore'. Two more points must be made. First, the presence of the ordering follows from the fact that ZAI applies to the domain of events. It is not an order on which scalar inferences are drawn. Second, the existential presupposition may be satisfied by verification, when antecedents can be found in the context, see ( 14), but also by accommodation, when the existence of alternatives is accepted as information shared by speaker and hearer although it has not yet been introduced in the domain of discourse. This is usually not the case for unspecialised additive particles, e.g. English also and French aussi (also), but is not uncommon for temporal additive adverbs, e.g. French encore (again/still). ( 14

General considerations for an aspecto-temporal constraint

The structure of the predicate, and in particular its dynamicity, also affect the temporal reference of the eventuality, besides modals and explicit tense and aspect markers. 2 In particular, the contrast in dynamicity can be held responsible for the socalled 'prospective interpretation' of simple present in English and other European languages. When occurring in simple present, dynamic predicates must be interpreted as describing events holding at intervals located after RT (15a), whereas non dynamic predicates, i.e. statives, overlap with RT (15b).

(15) (a) Peter plays the piano (*now/ this evening) (b) Peter is ill (now/ *this evening)

If the generalization on the role of dynamicity holds for Mandarin Chinese too, it may provide the ground for correlating the two distributional restrictions observed for ZAI and illustrated by examples (1)-(3). As pointed out in the introduction, ZAI is restricted to clauses containing eventive (dynamic) predicates (2). The argument goes as follows. Given the general fact that eventive predicates in non-past sentences are necessarily future with respect to RT, together with the fact, specific to Mandarin Chinese, that eventualities future with respect to RT are necessarily modalized, we conclude that the 'irrealis' flavour of ZAI does not come from a specific requirements but results from the conjoint action of the temporal (non-past) and structural (dynamic) constraints.

Taking into account properties of predicates

ZAI cannot modify homogeneous predicates. States are thus excluded (2) as well as dynamic predicates under the progressive operator ( 16).

(16) *Zhangsan Zhangsan zai ZAI zai-shuijiao. PROG-sleep (Zhangsan is still sleeping)

Up to here we have treated eventualities as points that can be ordered. But now we need to consider the cumulative property of predicates while preserving the identity of the eventualities. Therefore, we have to look at the interval occupied by an eventuality and consider its boundaries. In order to do this we borrow the temporal trace function τ [START_REF] Link | Algebraic semantics for event structures[END_REF][START_REF] Krifka | Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics[END_REF] that takes eventualities as argument and returns their running time, i.e. the smallest time at which they occur. When τ is applied to a state it returns an interval open on both sides. The (reformulated) constraint τ (ε 2 ) < τ (ε 1 ) builds a temporal chain, and the two eventualities are distinct and ordered.

If the ordered eventualities are states, they must be disjoint. Otherwise they may overlap, the overlap would contain an interval, cumulativity applies and an unattested reading of duration would result, making ZAI similar to still.

There is one case where the incompatibility of ZAI with states leads to a coherced dynamic reading and this is in the comparative construction. ZAI can occur with attributive predicates [START_REF] Ma | Gen fuci zai you guan de jige jushi (some patterns related to the adverb zai)[END_REF] describing states, which allows the sentence to be interpreted as describing a change of state. The comparison is carried out between two stages, i.e. disjoint states, of the same subject in (17). Activities can also be seen as homogeneous down to a certain granularity. Notice that atelic activities may occur with ZAI if an interruption in the activity is supposed, see (18), even when not overtly expressed. When τ is applied to an activity it returns an interval with a closed initial boundary and an open final one. Two events can be distinct and ordered.

Additive readings

In this section, we look at the distribution of the adverb with respect to lexical aspectual information coming from complements and adjuncts. There appears to be a relation between the predicate type and the different forms in which repetition may surface.

The temporal constraints discussed in section 2 differentiate ZAI from repetitive adverbs like English again and French encore. For instance, again allows a reading where the asserted event ε 1 precedes RT, as in ( 19).

(19) She says she has visited London again this year.

ZAI differs from again also with respect to the definition of the properties that ε 1 shares with the presupposed event ε 2 . In the case of again, the full description of ε 1 is to be used to identify ε 2 . For instance, example (20) can only be understood as saying that the previous event of drawing was an event of 'drawing two circles' and it is deemed unfelicitous if the previous event of drawing was an event of 'drawing three circles' or an unspecified number of circles.

(20) She draw two circles again.

On the contrary, ZAI does not impose such a strict parallelism between events 3 . More generally, the telicity/atelicity of the predicate and the referential properties of its argument play a role in building the characterisation of the presupposed event and affect the interpretation of the repetiton. Measure complements provide a boundary for processes. The relevant interpretation for ZAI in (21a) is increase rather than repetition of the entire event, as shown for (18). Assuming that the direct object of a transitive verb measures out the event, an interpretation as increase holds also with non referential objects. Repetition of the whole event occurs only when the object is definite and referential (21b). We observe that, in order to capture formally the different interpretations, the notion of 'repetition' as existence of more than one event to which the same event predicate applies-as proposed for adverbs like again and wieder, see von [START_REF] Von Stechow | The different readings of wieder 'again': a structural account[END_REF] among others-is too strong. The event property contained in the existential presupposition triggered by ZAI cannot be built independently from the distributional context. We tackle this issue in a separate paper (Tovena and Donazzan, in prep.).

Conclusion

In this paper, we have provided a detailed analysis of Mandarin adverb ZAI as an additive particle specialised for the temporal domain. Analyses of repeti-3 French encore is similar to ZAI in this respect, as we can see from the example below.

(i) Elle a tracé d'abord un cercle sur le trottoir et puis encore deux cercles sur la chaussée. She first drew one circle on the pavement, and then two more circles on the road.

tive adverbs as additive items have already been proposed in the literature, but we extend the approach primarily to cover the aspecto-temporal restrictions of ZAI. On top of a general condition of temporal ordering between asserted and presupposed events, we put an ordering constraint with respect to RT, but not UT, which concerns the asserted event and allows us to distinguish between future vs unrealised events. In this way, the futurity of the asserted event is captured, room is made for the irrealis flavour of ZAI and, at the same time, the possibility of a realised asserted event, attested in (4), is ruled in. This temporal constraint can be related to the the distribution of the adverb with respect to the predicate structure. The strict linear precedence of distinct temporal traces rules out overlap between eventualities, confining ZAI to non-homogenous (dynamic) predicates.

Finally, characterising ZAI as aspectually and temporally marked seems to be well motivated insofar as the two facets are naturally related to each other. There is crosslinguistic evidence that the instantiation of dynamic predicates is necessarily mapped after RT when the sentence is interpreted as non-past4 . In this general picture, the irrealis flavour of ZAI can be derived from a parametric requirement of Chinese, a language that most of the time resorts to modal operators to express future reference with respect to RT.

  Tomorrow Zhangsan will be dismissed from the hospital.

  will sing one more song (but he didn't sing before)

  t go to Macao anymore, travelling there is far too dangerous!

  be two inches longer.

  Xiangzi. book/(booktitle) Zhangsan will read one more book / will read again Luotuo Xiangzi.

  . The semantic relation that the temporal clause entertains with the matrix clause in such examples needs to be considered in more detail. The issue would bring us beyond the scope of this paper.No ordering constraint is imposed on the presupposed event ε 2 with respect to reference time, i.e. the configuration <ε 2 , RT> is admissible, as exemplified by (4), as well as <RT, ε 2 >, cf. (11).

	(9) Zhangsan	hui	chang	yi	shou	ge,
	Zhangsan	MOD	sing	one	CL	song
	yihou	hui		zai		chang	yi	shou.
	after	MOD	ZAI	sing	one	CL
	Zhangsan will sing a song, and then he will
	sing another one.
	(10) #Zhangsan		houtian	hui
	Zhangsan		the.day.after.tomorrow	MOD
	qu	Xianggan,	mingtian	hui	zai
	go	Hong-Kong,	tomorrow	MOD	ZAI
	qu.
	go
	(Zhangsan will go to HK the day after
	tomorrow (and) tomorrow he will go again.)
	(11) Zhe		zhong	cai	hen	haochi,	chi	le
	This	kind		dish	very	tasty	eat	PERF
	yi	ci,	(kending)	hui	zai	chi!
	one	time	for-sure		MOD	ZAI	eat
	This dish is very tasty, once you have tried it,
	you will eat it again!
	The presuppositional content of the adverb is
	given in (12).
	(12) ∃ε 2

See[START_REF] Kaufmann | Formal approaches to modality[END_REF] for a recent review and references.

This is the case at least for languages that need to express simultaneous events by means of progressive operators or other explicit marking, like English and Chinese[START_REF] Smith | The parameter of aspect[END_REF].