Post on 01-Sep-2018
transcript
Types of Topicalization & the Role of Reconstruction Elena Callegari
University of Oslo
elena.callegari@ilos.uio.no
1 Types of Topicalization
When we think of non-focal movement to the Left Periphery, we generally
think of Clitic-Left Dislocation (CLLD, Cinque 1990):
(1) A casa, i la ga…
The house, they it(cl) have1 (Trevigiano)
In fact, there are several other types of movement operations which front
non-focal constituents:
Simple Preposing (SP):
(2) Dije que terminaría el libro, y el libro he terminado. (Spanish)
I-said that I-would-finish the book, and the book I-have finished2. (Leonetti & Escandel-Vidall 2009: 157)
Quantifier Fronting (QF)(Cinque 1990, Arregi 2003, Giurgea 2015):
(3) “...ragazzi che qualcosa sanno fare, chi più chi meno”
“…kids that something they-can do, who more and who less” (Italian, Paisà corpus)
1 This is part of an actual dialogue which was recorded for an independent
project on subject topics in Northern Italian dialects. 2 This type of movement is referred to as «Verum Focus Fronting» in
Leonetti & Escandel-Vidall (2009). The term “verum focus” however suggests
that the polarity focus is always emphatic, which it need not be.
Word Order in the Left Periphery, 18/10/2017
2
Bare Neg Fronting (BNF):
(4) Mi scuso per la domanda cretina che poi tanto cretina non è!
I apologize for the question stupid, which very stupid not it-is (Italian, Paisà corpus)
Main Features:
CLLD requires mandatory clitic resumption of any fronted DP. PPs may not
be clitic-resumed (but they must in Sardinian, Spanish and Catalan, see
Cruschina 2010).
SP requires strict identity between the clause where the fronting occurs
(parasitic), and a preceding clause (host). The host always features a
non-finite clausal complement (usually the complement of a volitional/modal
verb), which is rendered finite (perfective) in the parasitic SP structure.
This results in the expression of a contrast in veridicality. Clitic-doubling is
impossible in SP:
(5) Volevo mangiare quella torta, e quella torta ho mangiato3
I-wanted to-eat that cake, and that cake I-have eaten (6) Volevo mangiare quella torta, e quella torta l’ho mangiata
*I-wanted to-eat that cake, and that cake it(cl)-I-have eaten.FEM
BNF fronts DPs or APs to the left periphery of a negated sentence, often
giving rise to a litotes reading (Horn 1989, 1991; van der Wouden 1995)
(see 4 and 7), but not necessarily (see 8):
(7) Il paese fa 13.000 abitanti. Quindi tanto piccolo non è
This town has 13.000 inhabitants. So very small not it-is (8) Trattarlo con un farmaco lo etichetta come malato anche se malato
non è.
Treating him with drugs labels him as ill, even though ill not he-is. (both from Paisà corpus)
3 Unless otherwise indicated, all examples are from Standard Italian.
Elena Callegari University of Oslo
3
Clitic resumption is absent, but may be possible in at least some cases
(more on this in section 4).
QF can be used in litotes environments (9), or take an existential function (10). In the latter case, it only fronts existential quantifiers like
someone/somebody:
(9) A: Luisa ha mangiato poco (litotes)
A: Luisa has eaten little B: Tanto non ha mangiato di certo
B: A-lot not she-has eaten for sure
(10) A: Luisa non ha mangiato nulla (existential)
A: Luisa not has eaten nothing B: Qualcosa ha mangiato, dai
B: Something she-has eaten, come-on = it definitely is the case Luisa ate at least something
In QF environments, clitic resumption is generally barred:
(11) *?Tanto non lo ha mangiato di certo
*?Much not it(cl) she-has eaten for sure
Goals:
- To determine what triggers these types of fronting. - To gain a clearer picture of what determines whether a non-focal
constituent is going to be clitic-resumed or not.
2 Reconstruction & The Locality of Movement
Reconstruction possibilities are going to be crucial in section 4 when
formulating an analysis for the different types of non-focal fronting.
How do the different types of topicalization behave with respect to
reconstruction?
Word Order in the Left Periphery, 18/10/2017
4
SP reconstructs for both binding and scope:
Binding (12) Leoi voleva riscoprire se stessoi, e se stessoi Leoi ha riscoperto.
Leoi wanted to-rediscover him selfi, and him selfi Leoi has rediscovered.
Scope (13) Lucia voleva presentare ad ogni ragazzo il suo professore, e ad ogni
ragazzo il suo professore Lucia ha presentato.
Lucy wanted to introduce to each boy the POSS. professor, and to each boy the POSS. professor Lucia has introduced
(a) ✓ “the POSS. professor” is bound by “Lucia”
(b) ✓ “the POSS. professor” is bound by “each boy”
BNF reconstructs for both binding and scope:
Binding (14) Se stessoi, Luigii non ha visto di certo
Himselfi, Luigii not has seen for sure Scope For at least some cases of litotes fronting, it can be shown that the fronted
quantifier must obligatorily reconstruct for scope. One such case is (15):
(15) A: Non ha mangiato nulla
A: Not he-has eaten nothing (=he ate nothing) B: Tutto non ha mangiato di certo
B: Everything not he-has eaten for sure Why reconstruction?
Reconstructed vs. non-reconstructed scope in (15):
(16) ¬ > ∀ = it is not the case that he ate everything (hence: he ate a little, or he ate a lot, ..)
(17) ∀ > ¬ = Everything was not eaten = He ate nothing
- If we follow Giurgea (2015) in assuming that the fronted quantifier
functions like a CT, then the non-reconstructed version would violate
Büring’s (1999) generalization on the usage of CTs (S-Topics): at
Elena Callegari University of Oslo
5
least one of the questions in the topic value muts remain open after
the utterance.
- The non-reconstructed version is literally a restatement of what stated
by A, so it is a violation of both the maxim of relevance and that of
manner.
Note that BNF is very local:
(18) Vuole essere gentile, ma gentile non è
He-wants to-be kind, but kind not he-is (19) *Vuole essere gentile, ma gentile non credo che sia
*He-wants to-be kind, but kind not I-believe that he-is(subj) (20) Vuole essere gentile, ma gentile non credo che lo sia
He-wants to-be kind, but kind not I-believe that it(cl) he-is(subj)
Does CLLD reconstruct? Two discordant analyses:
Frascarelli (2004), Frascarelli & Hinteholzl (2007). CLLD does not
reconstruct, neither for binding nor for scope.
Cecchetto (2001): CLLD of a DP is always accompanied by reconstruction
for binding, and can or can not be accompanied by reconstruction for scope.
CLLD is indeed compatible with both a surface and an inverse reading, at
least with some types of quantifiers (existentials). It also seems to be the
case that the surface reading is only available (but see section 5) when
clitic resumption applies.
(21) Qualcuno lo amano tutti
Someone him(cl) love everyone = Everyone loves someone ✓ ∀ > ∃ (everybody loves someone different)
✓ ∃ > ∀ (someone specific is loved by everyone)
(22) A: Nessuno ama nessuno
A: Nobody loves nobody B: Qualcuno amano tutti!
B: Someone love everyone!
Word Order in the Left Periphery, 18/10/2017
6
✓ ∀ > ∃ * ∃ > ∀
3 A Prosodic Trigger
Following a tradition started by Vallduví & Engdahl (1996), Zubizarreta
(1998) (see also Hamlaoui & Szendrői (2015), Szendrői (2002, 2003,
2017), Samek-Lodovici (2005, 2006, 2015)), I argue that the (initial)
trigger behind topicalization is prosodic. For the local types of topicalization,
prosody seems to be all there is to it.
The size and location of the material in focus has an effect on whether
topicalization takes place, and what constituent(s) this targets. Consider the
following structures:
(23) Una gonna rossa ce l’ho, sì. (CLLD)
A red skirt, locative(cl) it(cl)-I-have, yes. (24) Volevo andare piano, e piano sono andato (SP)
I-wanted to-go slowly, and slowly I-have gone (25) Brutto non è, quello è sicuro. (BNF)
Ugly he-is not, that is for-sure
At first sight, (23-25) have nothing in common: not the type of constituent
fronted, not the polarity of the sentence, not the presence/absence of clitic
resumption. What they do have in common is the fact that (i) they are all
verb-final, (ii) they all feature a polarity focus:
(26) A red skirt I DO have, yes.
(27) I wanted to drive slowly, and so I DID
(28) Ugly he is definitely NOT, that’s for sure.
Elena Callegari University of Oslo
7
Cross-linguistically, the to-go strategy to mark (at least some types) of
polarity focus is to assign main stress to the finite verb4:
(29) A: Ja ne sčitaju Yurija Solomina talantlivym aktiorom (Russian)
A: I not consider Yurija Solomina talented.INSTR actor.INSTR B: Net, on BYL talantlivym aktiorom
B: No, he WAS talented.INSTR actor.INSTR (Pereltsvaig 2007:100-101)
(30) A: Karl har ikke matet hunden (Norwegian)
A: Karl has not fed the-dog B: Han HAR gjort det!
B: He HAS done that!
Languages differ on whether they allow the type of stress shift in (29-30):
- Norwegian, Russian, English: stress shift is possible, resulting in in
situ focalized finite verbs.
- Hungarian (Hamlaoui & Szendrői 2015; Szendrői 2017): stress shift
is available for some constituents which cannot be interpreted
exhaustively, such as universal quantifiers.
- Italian, Spanish: these are stress-rigid languages (Samek-Lodovici
2005, 2006, 2015; Szendrői 2017; Ortega-Santos 2016). The
application of stress shift is limited.
In languages like Italian, the (initial) trigger of topicalization is the
necessity to remove a non-focal constituent from a main stress position,
which explains why all the fronting structures in (23-25) have an identical
focus value ([¬p, p]). 4 Other strategies consist in stressing specific discourse particles (as in
Dutch, see Hogeweg 2009), the complementizer (German and Norwegian, see
Hetland 1992, Lohnstein 2016), clitics (Slovenian, Jasinskaja 2015), or in
adding specific adverbials (alright in English, quidem in Latin, see Danckaert 2014).
Word Order in the Left Periphery, 18/10/2017
8
How does the polarity focus reading arise? Consider a standard SP
construction like (31):
(31) Había que leerse el Quijote, y el Quijote se leyó. (Spanish)
(S)he-had to read the Quijote, and the Quijote she-read (Leonetti & Escandel-Vidall 2009: 171)
The strict SP identity requirement means that every constituent (verb
included) in the parasitic SP sentence is old information, and thus, in a
sense, topical. The only bit of truly new information is the tense specification
on the parasitic verb: [- finite] in the host, and [+ finite] in the parasitic
clause. It is this finite tense specification which triggers the stressing of the
verb, and hence the movement of whatever constituent follows it.
Why polarity focus? The finite tense specification on tha parasitic sentence’s
verb signals how whatever activity was described in the host has taken place.
Polarity focus stresses whether a given proposition is true or false. The tense
specification does something equivalent: it marks the action as finite, thereby
marking it as true.
Note that a stress-shift language like Norwegian can realize structures like
those in (31) without necessarily resorting to fronting:
(32) Atle ville spise brunost, og han SPISTE brunost (Norwegian)
Atle wants to-eat brunost, and he ATE brunost (33) Atle ville spise brunost, og spise/spiste brunost, det gjorde han.
Atle wants to-eat brunost, and eat/ate brunost, that did he.
4 Why Different Types of Topicalization?
Why is only CLLD accompanied by mandatory clitic-resumption?
Some previous accounts which will not work (at least not all the way):
Elena Callegari University of Oslo
9
(i) Cinque (1990): the fronted bare quantifier in QF structures, being an
operator, exploits the same operator-variable mechanism exploited by
wh-movement and focalization, hence no clitic is necessary.
SP can front constituents which are not operators (see 2, 5, 31) (ii) Arregi (2003): CLLD is a contrastive operation, hence only contrastive
topics can be clitic-resumed.
Not all CLLD topics must be contrastive: (34) A and B have a friend, Paola, who is supposed to come by to
borrow one of A’s cocktail dresses to wear for the inauguration of
her art gallery. Before he leaves to go to work, A tells B she should
lend Paola her blue dress, or perhaps the pink one, as those are
the prettiest she possesses. When A comes home after work, B tells
him:
“A proposito, a Paola alla fine le ho dato il vestito rosa. Quello blu
non le stava”
“By the way, to Paola in-the end to-her(cl) I-have given the dress pink. That blue not to-her fit”
(iii) Constituents which are semantically of type e (individuals) should be
clitic-resumed5-.
SP can front constituents of type e (see again 5, 31)6.
Concerning the property of ranging over individuals: 54 examples of BNF in
the Paisà corpus. Half of them could potentially be turned into CLLD
structures, half of them could not. The latter half mostly consists of mass
nouns/non-atomic entities:
5 This solution is explored in Arregi (2003), but later rejected on the basis
of universal quantifiers, which are of type (et)t but can still be clitic-resumed.
Arregi (2003) thus concludes that it is the clitic itself which is interpreted as
ranging over individuals, which cannot be correct either given the grammaticality of
the reconstructed reading in (21). 6 Note that the grammaticality of (5) also excludes an explanation in terms
of the referentiality of the fronted DP. Referentiality seems however to be a factor
in Greek, where only referential topics can undergo CLLD (Alexopoulou and
Kolliakou 2002; Alexopoulou and Folli 2010)
Word Order in the Left Periphery, 18/10/2017
10
(35) “(...) l'abissale ignoranza (...) di chi evoca premesse "filosofiche"
e scientifiche per una disciplina come la medicina che SCIENZA NON
E'!!”
“(…) The abysmal ignorance (…) of those who resort to "philosophical" and scientific premises to describe a discipline like medicine that SCIENCE NOT IT-IS !!
… *che scienza non lo è!!!
... *that science not it(cl) it-is!!!
This talk: BNF and SP exhibit total reconstruction (Saito 1989). The trigger behind the displacement is arguably prosodic (which explains cross-linguistic
differences and identical focus values contexts).
Both types of movement can be captured in terms of PF movement
(Sauerland & Elbourn 2002). Movement of the fronted element takes place
at PF, which explains the lack of semantic/syntactic effects.
Supporting evidence 1: locality (as seen in BNF). Unlike CLLD (Cinque
1990, Abels 2012), the fronted constituent in BNF environments will only go
as far as it takes to be outside of a main stress sposition.
Supporting evidence 2: the extreme variation characterizing the target of SP
fronting. SP can front nominal constituents, APs, adverbials, and in fact it
may target pretty large constituents:
(36) Volevo mettermi a scrivere in soggiorno, e a scrivere in soggiorno mi
sono messa.
I-wanted to-start to write in-the living room, and to write in-the living room I have started
Elena Callegari University of Oslo
11
5 Non-Reconstructed QF: a Fourth Type of Topicalization
From section 2: clitic-less movement reconstructs. Consider however existential
QF:
(37) A: Mario ha mangiato tutto
A: Mario has eaten everything B: Qualcosa non ha mangiato
B: Something not he-has eaten * ¬ > ∃
✓∃ > ¬
Why no reconstruction?
“Qualcosa” is a PPI, hence it cannot appear in downward entailing
environments.
This appears to be a fourth type of topicalization:
i. CLLD with no reconstruction
ii. CLLD with reconstruction (possible with fronted existentials)
iii. PF movement (SP and BNF)
iv. Existential QF (no clitic resumption but no reconstruction)
6 Conclusions
- The (initial) trigger of topicalization is prosodically motivated.
- A prosodic analysis of topicalization explains why structures like SP
come with a polarity focus.
- SP and BNF are examples of total reconstruction. BNF can also be
shown to be very local. The properties of both structures follow from
a PF movement analysis.
- If we analyze topicalization in terms of reconstruction, we find there
are four types of topicalization: CLLD without reconstruction, CLLD
Word Order in the Left Periphery, 18/10/2017
12
with reconstruction (restricted), cliticless fronting with reconstruction,
cliticless fronting without reconstruction (restricted).
7 References
Abels, K. (2012). The Italian left periphery: A view from
locality. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(1), 229-254.
Alexopoulou, D., & Folli, R. (2010). Indefinite topics and the syntax of
nominals in Italian and Greek. In The 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 28) online proceedings.
Alexopoulou, T., & Kolliakou, D. (2002). On linkhood, topicalization and
clitic left dislocation. Journal of Linguistics, 38(2), 193-245.
Arregi, K. (2003). CLLD is contrastive topicalization. In Proceedings of the 26th annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (Vol. 9, p. 1).
Bocci, G. (2013). The Syntax Prosody Interface: A cartographic perspective with evidence from Italian (Vol. 204). John Benjamins Publishing.
Cinque, G. (1990). Types of Ā-dependencies. MIT press.
Cecchetto, C. (2001). Syntactic or semantic reconstruction? Evidence
from pseudoclefts and clitic left dislocation. Semantic interfaces, 90-144.
Cruschina, S. (2010). Syntactic extraposition and clitic resumption in
Italian. Lingua, 120(1), 50-73.
Danckaert, L. (2014). Quidem as a marker of emphatic
polarity. Transactions of the Philological Society, 112(1), 97-138.
Elena Callegari University of Oslo
13
Dimroth, C./Andorno, C./Benazzo, S./Verhagen, J. (2010). Given
claims about new topics. How Romance and Germanic speakers link changed
and maintained information in narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 3328-3344.
Frascarelli, M. (2004). DISLOCATION, CLITIC RESUMPTION AND
MINIMALITY A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEFT AND RIGHT TOPIC
CONSTRUCTIONS. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2002: Selected Papers from" Going Romance," Groningen, 28-30 November 2002, 256, 99.
Frascarelli, M., & Hinterhölzl, R. (2007). Types of topics in German
and Italian. On information structure, meaning and form, 87-116.
Giurgea, I. BARE QUANTIFIER FRONTING AS CONTRASTIVE
TOPICALIZATION1. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics.
Hamlaoui, F., & Szendrői, K. (2015). A flexible approach to the
mapping of intonational phrases. Phonology, 32(1), 79-110.
Hetland, J. (1992). Polaritätsfokus, VERUM-Fokus, Kopffokus. STUF-Language Typology and Universals, 45(1-4), 3-16.
Hogeweg, L. (2009). The meaning and interpretation of the Dutch
particle wel. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(3), 519-539.
Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation.
Jasinskaja, K. (2016). Information structure in Slavic. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure.
Lohnstein, H. (2015). Verum focus. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure.
Word Order in the Left Periphery, 18/10/2017
14
Leonetti, M., & Escandell-Vidal, V. (2009). Fronting and verum focus
in Spanish. Focus and background in Romance languages, 155-204.
Lyding, V., Stemle, E., Borghetti, C., Brunello, M., Castagnoli, S.,
Dell'Orletta, F., & Pirrelli, V. (2014). The PAISA corpus of italian web
texts. In Proceedings of the 9th Web as Corpus Workshop (WaC-9) (pp. 36-43).
Neeleman, A., Titov, E., Van De Koot, H., & Vermeulen, R. (2009).
A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. Alternatives to cartography, 1551.
Neeleman, A., & Vermeulen, R. (Eds.). (2013). The syntax of topic, focus, and contrast: An interface-based approach (Vol. 113). Walter de
Gruyter.
Ortega-Santos, I. (2016). Focus-related operations at the right edge in Spanish: Subjects and ellipsis (Vol. 7). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pereltsvaig, A. (2007). The universality of DP: A view from
Russian. Studia linguistica, 61(1), 59-94.
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery.
Saito, M. (1989). Scrambling as semantically vacuous A'-
movement. Alternative conceptions of phrase structure.
Samek-Lodovici, V. (2005). Prosody–syntax interaction in the expression
of focus. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 23(3), 687-755.
Elena Callegari University of Oslo
15
Samek-Lodovici, V. (2006). When right dislocation meets the left-
periphery.: A unified analysis of italian non-final focus. Lingua, 116(6), 836-873.
Samek-Lodovici, V. (2015). The interaction of focus, givenness, and prosody: A study of Italian clause structure. Oxford University Press.
Sauerland, U., & Elbourne, P. (2002). Total reconstruction, PF
movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry, 33(2), 283-319.
Szendrői, K. (2002). Stress-focus correspondence in Italian. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000: Selected Papers from" Going Romance" 2000, Utrecht, 30 November-2 December, 232, 287.
Szendrői, K. (2003). A stress-based approach to the syntax of
Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20: 37–78.
Szendrői, K. (2017). The syntax of information structure and the PF
interface. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2(1).
Vallduví, E., & Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of
information packaging. Linguistics, 34(3), 459-520.
Van der Wouden, T. (1996). Litotes and downward
monotonicity. Negation: a notion in focus, 7, 145.
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, Focus, and Word Order (Linguistic inquiry monographs; 33). MIT Press.