3 The status of non-verbal elements in PVUs
The inventory just given has shown that the conditions licensing inclusion of nonverbal
elements in a PVU cannot be syntactic, as all kinds of syntactic material
can appear in PVUs. Rather, these conditions are discourse-pragmatic. Specifically,
I argue that the inclusion of non-verbal elements in a PVU is licensed by the
following discourse-pragmatic criterion:
The referents of non-verbal elements in a PVU must either (a) be
discourse-active or discourse-inferable, or (b) form part of an introduced
topic together with the verb. Stated otherwise, they must be
part of the common ground, either (a) actually, or (b) by requested
accommodation.
This criterion holds for all PVUs in my corpus. Before proceeding to the discussion
of examples, I should say that the distinction between conditions (a) and
(b) is intended as practically useful rather than theoretically watertight, since
even newly introduced topics can often be regarded as discourse-inferable in some
way. (Phrased in terms of the Question Under Discussion framework, a new question
usually stands in some definable relation to a previously active question.).
As was pointed out in the previous chapter, introducing a new topic is equivalent
as a discourse move to a request that it be accommodated as part of the
common ground, so the difference between ‘new topic’ and ‘discourse-inferable
topic’ comes down to a question of how much accommodation is being requested,
so to speak. In terms of the QUD model, both types of elements can be described
as expressing part of the QUD being introduced – which is the main function of
PVUs generally, as the next chapter argues – rather than part of its answer. I
will have more to say below about the broader generalization underlying the two
types.