Advanced Syntax

1. Lecture 10: Topic, Focus and Negative Fronting Advanced Syntax

2. So far we have seen that the front of the clause is reserved for the part of sentence semantics that deals with force • Interrogative/declarative/exclamative/etc. • This is where complementisers, inverted auxiliaries and wh-elements are situated • [CP if/that [IP he is alive]] • [CP will [IP he arrive on time]] • [CP who did [IP you speak to]] • [CP what a nice house [IP you have]] The Left periphery

3. But the front of the clause also houses other elements too: • Those people, [IP I don’t talk to anymore] • A: did you see Bill?B: no, (it was) JOHN [IP I saw] • Under no circumstances would [IP I lie to you] • All these examples involve the front of the clause (in front of the IP at least), but they do not contribute to the force of the sentence • Instead they seem to affect the information status of the fronted element • How important a piece of information it is • What kind of information it carries The Left periphery

4. Topicalisation is the name of the fronting movement in the following examples • John, I hate • In this school, we pay attention to rules • Ugly, he certainly was Topicalisation

5. Topic is a notion usually defined as what a sentence is about • Perhaps more accurately it is what a set of connected sentences (discourse) is about • what holds them together • A man walked into a shop • The shopkeeper greeted him • The man asked for a pound of cheese • He paid the shopkeeper and left A terminological note

6. Therefore, the topic is something that has already been introduced into a conversation • Or is assumed to be present (and to the fore) in both the speaker and hearers mind during the conversation • even if it hasn’t actually be mentioned • Certain things can be ‘triggered’ by the mention of something else • We went to a restaurant yesterday • The food was awful A terminological note

7. We say that the topic carries ‘old’ information What follows the topic (the comment) carries the new information A terminological note

8. We can see from our story that the topic is associated with certain forms • A man walked into a shop • The shopkeeper greeted him • The man asked for a pound of cheese • He paid the shopkeeper and left • Pronouns • Definite DPs • However, topics are not necessarily fronted • Why is the fronting movement called ‘topicalisation’? A terminological note

9. Unfortunately this is a misnomer and has caused some confusion ever since its introduction But the name has become standard and so we seem to be stuck with it A terminological note

10. To be fronted, an element not only needs to be a topic but it also must involve contrast • Contrast involves the comparison between at least two things • So contrastive topics involve the presupposition of a set of topics • things that have been previously introduced, or ‘triggered’ in a conversation • The speaker selects one of this set and contrasts it with the others in the comment The real nature of topicalisation

11. Three men went into a shop • One of them, the shopkeeper already knew • This implies that he didn’t know the other two • Because ‘the shopkeeper knew him’ is given as a piece of information contrasting with the other two men The real nature of topicalisation

12. Obviously a contrastive topic is moved to the front of the clause • But where does it move to? • A first idea is that it moves to the specifier of CP • The same place that the wh-phrase moves to • But there are reasons to believe that this is not so The Syntax of topicalisation

13. There can be more than one contrastive topic • In this school, this kind of behaviour we will not tolerate • There can only be one fronted wh-phrase • * who where did you meet? • Who did you meet where? • A contrastive topic can precede a wh-phrase • In this town, where can I buy some shoes? • In embedded clauses, the contrastive topic follows the complementiser • I said that, in this town, there are no shoeshops The Syntax of topicalisation

14. If the topic moves to a specifier position of some phrase, the fact that there can be more than one of them indicates that there must be more than one such phrase The Syntax of topicalisation

15. It has been suggested that the particular phrase involved is one dedicated to topicalisation, headed by an abstract ‘topic’ head The Syntax of topicalisation

16. Evidence in favour of this idea is that some languages overtly realise this abstract topic marker: • Japanese • kodomogaTerebi o mitachild nom TV acc watched “the child watched the TV” • TerebiwakodomogamitaTV top child nom watched “as for the TV, the child watched it” The Syntax of topicalisation

17. However, we need to ask what category the ‘Top’ head belongs to • It takes CP, IP and TopP complements • [TopP that idiot Top [CP who would [IP vote for]]] • ... [CP that [TopP this man Top [IP I just can’t stand]]] • [TopP in this place Top [TopP this behaviour Top [CP we don’t like]] • So it is not like a functional head • C  IP • I  VP • D  NP • Deg  AP The Syntax of topicalisation

18. But it is not a predicate, taking arguments • So it is not like any thematic head • It is a head which is nothing like any other head • This means it cannot be analysed with the categorial features [±F, ±N, ±V] • This is a problem for the theory of categories The Syntax of topicalisation

19. Another possible analysis is that the topic is in an adjunction structure • This accounts for why there can be more than one of them • There would be no abstract ‘topic’ head required The Syntax of topicalisation

20. We know that adjunction movements are possible • When a head moves to another head, it adjoins to it • Given that the topic is a phrase, it makes sense that it will adjoin to another phrase (CP, IP, etc.) The Syntax of topicalisation

21. We have seen that topics can precede wh-phrases and follow complementisers • This button, who wants to press? • I think that, this button, the president shouldn’t press • In the first case the topic must be adjoined to the CP and in the second it must be adjoined to IP Adjunction site of the topic

22. Adjunction site of the topic

23. However, it appears that it is not optional whether the topic adjoins to CP or IP • A topic cannot adjoin to the IP of a main clause: • * when did, [IP that man, [IP you meet]] • A topic cannot adjoin to the CP of an embedded clause: • * I think, [CP that man, [CP that I don’t like]] Limits on the topic Adjunction site

24. One way to describe all this is: • The topic has to adjoin to the highest possible clausal node • Usually this is CP • But nothing can adjoin to the CP of an embedded clause • Because this CP is selected by a governing head • Therefore, in this case, it has to adjoin to the next highest clausal node • i.e. The IP Account of Limits

25. It is hard to see whether a subject can topicalise because it is already at the front of the clause: • ? John, hates Bill • Even if the subject is of an embedded clause it is difficult to tell: • John, I think, hates Bill • Does this involve topicalisation of the subject or an epenthetic comment? • John hates Bill, I think More limits on topicalisation

26. However, a subject does not precede a wh-phrase in a main clause • Who does John like  * John, who does like • This suggests that subject cannot topicalise • But the subject of an embedded clause can precede a wh-phrase in the main clause • That man, who thinks likes Mary • This cannot be treated as an epenthetic comment • * that man likes Mary, who thinks • So it is only the subject of the main clause that cannot topicalise More limits on topicalisation: subjects

27. We have seen that there can be more than one topic • In this town, gun slingers, the sheriff shoots • However, it is not possible to have more than one DP topic • * Mary, flowers, I gave • This is very odd and has no obvious explanation More limits on topicalisation: DPs

28. We have seen that adverbials of all kinds (VP and sentential) can occupy the initial position • Quickly, he hid the evidence • Obviously, I had never seen him before • This looks like the topic position • It is at the front of the clause • It has a similar intonation pattern • While it can have the same contrastive meaning that topics do: • Today, we will start on a new project • But this isn’t always the case • He suddenly realised the time • Suddenly, he realised the time Topicalisation and adverbials

29. It seems that these are two different processes: • Today, who wants to go first • * suddenly, who realised their mistake • Who did suddenly John realise was missing • Fronted adverbs therefore seem to adjoin to the IP, even in main clauses • Adverbs can be topicalised (adjoined to CP in main clauses), but only if contrastive Topicalisation and adverbials

30. This involves a fronted element and a ‘resumptive pronoun’ in the place associated with it • That man, I don’t like him • Given that there is a pronoun in this kind of structure, it is not easily analysed as involving movement • Moreover, subjects can be left dislocated • My father, he doesn’t like cats Other kinds of topicalisation: left dislocation

31. The meaning of a left dislocation structure is also different from topicalisation • It is mainly used to introduce a new topic rather than to contrast a set of established topics • A: well, that’s life! • M: life, don’t talk to me about that Other kinds of topicalisation: left dislocation

32. A dislocated item is adjoined in the same place as a topic: • CP of a main clause • [CP My idea, [CP what do you think about it]] • IP of an embedded clause • I assumed that, [IP my father, [IP he wouldn’t like it]] Other kinds of topicalisation: left dislocation

33. There is a construction which seems to be a mixture of contrastive topicalisation and left dislocation: • As for my wife, she didn’t leave the house • The fronted element is a contrastive topic • But the structure also involves a resumptive pronoun • As subjects can appear as ‘as for’ topics, this is how we can contrastively topicalise a subject in English • They are adjoined like other topics • As for this idiot, why would anyone vote for him • I think that, as for me, I wouldn’t buy his car Other kinds of topicalisation: As For topics

34. Consider the following: • A: you’ve met Bill, haven’t you? • B: no, JOHN I know, but not Bill • Obviously the fronted element (JOHN) is contrastive Focus

35. But it is not a topic • It carries new information • it corrects something that was wrongly believed • So it is new to the hearer • It has a different intonation pattern to the topic • It carries more stress • There is no pause after it • John, I know • JOHN I know Focus

36. Something that introduces new and important information is called a focus • In English, focus is usually marked by intonation alone – main stress: • A: who did you meet? • B I met BILL • A: who knows the answer • B: JOHN knows the answer Focus

37. But it can be fronted, particularly if it is strongly contrastive (as in corrective situations) • A: who did you meet • B: I met BILL • : ??? BILL I met • A: you met John • B: no, BILL I met • : no, I met BILL Focus

38. Unlike topicalisation, only one fronted focus is allowed: • A: you met John at his house • B: * no, IN THE PARK BILL I met • This suggests that this movement is not an adjunction • Therefore it moves the focus into a specifier position • But which one? The syntax of focus fronting

39. The fronted focus position precedes the subject • The obvious candidate would be specifier of CP • This is supported by the fact that fronted foci and wh-phrases are in complementary distribution: • * BILL who met • But against this hypothesis is the fact that fronted foci follow complementisers • I said that BILL I met The syntax of focus fronting

40. There are independent reasons why wh-elements and foci cannot appear in the same sentence • You can’t ask for new information and provide new information in the same sentence • This is shown by the ungrammaticality of the following, which doesn’t involve focus fronting: • * who likes BILL • All in all, then, we can assume that the fronted focus does not move to the specifier of CP • There must be another phrase between the CP and the IP The syntax of focus fronting

41. What heads this phrase? What is its category? The syntax of focus fronting

42. We know that C takes an IP complement • But the phrase containing the fronted focus cannot be IP as • There can be no extra inflection • * BILL will I may meet • Inflections take VP (or vP) complements, not IP The syntax of focus fronting

43. A possible solution: • similar to the ‘little v’ there is a ‘little i’ • V = [-F, +V, -N] v = [+V, -N] • I = [+F, +V, -N] i = [+F, +V] • Complementisers select for a [+F, +V, -N] complement • IP and iP satisfy this requirement The syntax of focus fronting

44. However, ‘i’ is never overtly realised, so we have no direct evidence of its existence The syntax of focus fronting

45. Negative phrases can be moved to the front of the clause • [Not a single person] have I seen all day • Note that there is an inverted auxiliary in this structure • Perhaps the fronted negative moves to the specifier of CP Negative fronting

46. But like Foci, fronted negatives follow complementisers • I said that [under no circumstances] was the money to be spent • So it seems as though the relevant position is specifier of iP • Note that the inverted auxiliary occupies the ‘i’ position • This is overt evidence for its existence Negative fronting

47. The question arises • If both foci and fronted negatives move to specifier of iP, why is the inversion only with fronted negatives? • The difference between negatives and foci are that negatives affect the type of clauses they are part of Focus and Negative Fronting

48. Something happened, didn’t it • Nothing happened, did it • Positive sentences are tagged with negative tags • Negative sentences are tagged with positive tags • John arrived and so did Bill • No letter arrived, an neither did a parcel • Positive sentences trigger ‘so’ • Negative sentences trigger ‘neither’ Focus and Negative Fronting

49. There is no indication that there is such a thing as a ‘focus’ type of sentence • In this way, negatives are like wh-elements • Their presence affects the meaning of the whole sentence Focus and Negative Fronting

50. Wh-elements affect the status of the CP by agreeing with the C head • So something must be in this position Focus and Negative Fronting