Discourse Configurational Languages

DISCOURSE CONFIGURATIONAL LANGUAGES

OXFORD STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE SYNTAX Richard Kayne , General Edito r PRINCIPLES AND PARAMETER S OF SYNTACTIC SATURATION Gert Webelhut h VERB MOVEMENT AND EXPLETIV E SUBJECTS IN THE GERMANIC LANGUAGES Sten Vikner PARAMETERS AND FUNCTIONAL HEADS: ESSAYS IN COMPARATIVE SYNTAX Edited by Adriana Bellett i and Luizi Rizz i DISCOURSE CONFIGURATIONS LANGUAGES Edited by Katalin E. Kiss

DISCOURSE CONFIGURATIONAL LANGUAGES Edited by KATALIN E. KISS

New Yor k Oxfor d OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1995

Oxford Universit y Pres s Oxford Ne w York Toront o Delhi Bomba y Calcutt a Madra s Karach i Kuala Lumpur Singapor e Hon g Kon g Toky o Nairobi Da r es Salaam Cap e Town Melbourne Aucklan d Madri d and associate d companies in Berlin Ibada n

Copyright © 199 5 by Oxford Universit y Press, Inc . Published b y Oxford University Press, Inc . 200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 1001 6 Oxford i s a registered trademar k of Oxford University Press, Inc . All rights reserved . N o part of this publication may be reproduced , stored in a retrieval system , o r transmitted, i n any form or by any means , electronic, mechanical , photocopying, recording o r otherwise , without the prior permission o f Oxford University Press. Library o f Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Discourse configurational languages / edited b y Katalin 6. Kiss . p. cm . — (Oxfor d studies in comparative syntax) ISBN 0-19-508833-6. — ISB N 0-19-508834-4 (pbk. ) 1. Grammar, Comparative and general—Topic and comment. 2. Generative grammar . I. Kiss, Katali n fi . II . Series. P298.D57 199 4 415—dc2 0 93-4103 7

246897531 Printed in the United State s o f Americ a on acid-free paper

Contents 1. KATALI N E. Kis s Introduction, 3 2. JULI A HORVAT H Structural Focus, Structural Case, and the Notion of Feature-Assignment, 28 3. MARC O SVOLACCHIA , LUNELLA MEREU AN D ANNARITA PUGLBELLI Aspects of Discourse Configuationality i n Somali, 65 4. JO

N ORTIZ DE URBINA Residual Verb Second and Verb First in Basque, 99

5. ENRI C VALLouvf Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan, 122 6. JUA N URIAGEREKA An F Position in Western Romance, 153 7. IANTH I MARIA TSIMPL I Focusing in Modern Gret'.k, 176 8. KATALI N E. Kiss NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian, 207 9. MARI A VILKUN A Discourse Configuationality i n Finnish, 244

10. HYO N SOOK CHOE

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing, 269

11. Mi-JEUNGJ o The Theory of Syntactic Focalization Based on a Subcategorization Feature of Verbs, 335 12. PlETER MUYSKE N

Focus in Quechua, 375

This page intentionally left blank

DISCOURSE CONFIGURATIONAL LANGUAGES

This page intentionally left blank

1 Discourse Configurational Languages Introduction* KATALIN E . KIS S

1. Goals The purpos e o f thi s volum e i s to describ e i n th e generativ e framewor k th e lan guage type in which primary sentence articulatio n is motivated b y discourse-se mantic, rather than theta role o r case, considerations . Unti l recently, the existenc e of suc h a languag e typ e ha s no t bee n acknowledge d i n mainstrea m generativ e research. A s a consequence o f the fac t tha t generativ e researc h focuse d o n En glish fo r a long time, an d as a consequence o f the assumptio n that the grammar s of al l language s ar e instantiation s o f on e an d th e sam e Universa l Grammar , i t has been hypothesized that the phrase structure identified in the English sentence , involving a grammatical subject—V P dichotomy , c-commande d b y a single op erator position reserved for a WH operator, constitute s the core o f sentence struc ture i n ever y language . Th e possibilit y tha t thi s hypothesi s ma y no t b e correc t has bee n raised , amon g others , by th e studie s o f th e volum e Subject and Topic (Li an d Thompson (1976)) . A s this volume demonstrate d o n empirical materia l from variou s languages, th e structura l rol e tha t th e grammatical subjec t play s i n the English sentenc e ma y be fulfille d b y a constituent no t restricted wit h respec t to grammatica l functio n o r cas e i n othe r languages ; or , in generativ e terminol ogy: th e structura l relation [NP , S ] can be used t o express no t only th e function 'grammatical subject, ' associate d wit h th e most prominen t thet a role , but , alter natively, th e discourse-semanti c functio n 'topic, ' a s well . Actually , the volum e * Th e ide a o f compilin g thi s boo k wa s initiate d b y th e EUROTY P project o f th e Euro pean Scienc e Foundation, i n the Word Orde r Workgrou p o f which the editor was assigned the task o f studyin g discourse configurationality . Som e o f the editing , an d th e writin g of the Introductio n an d th e editor' s chapte r o n Hungaria n wa s conducte d whil e sh e wa s a Fellow a t th e Cente r fo r Advance d Stud y i n th e Behaviora l Science s a t Stanford . Sh e gratefully acknowledge s th e financia l suppor t o f th e Andrew W . Mellon Foundation . 3

4

Discourse Configurational Languages

Subject and Topic has not been the first one to put forth this idea; it emerge d as early a s Brassa i (1860 , 1863-1865) , an d ha s bee n i n th e cente r o f th e wor k o f the Pragu e Schoo l fo r decade s (see , fo r example , Sgal l an d HajiCov a (1973) , HajiCova (1983) , and Sgal l (1984)) . Within th e generative framework, firs t i t appeared that the 'leas t costly' way of derivin g th e sentenc e structur e o f a topic-prominen t languag e i s t o appl y Topicalization, a transformation available in the grammar of English and simila r languages, as well, to a D-structure with a grammatical subject—VP articulation (see, fo r example, Horvat h (1981)). I n this approach, however , topic-prominen t and subject-prominen t language s diffe r merel y i n ho w frequentl y the y utiliz e Topicalization, which , o n th e on e hand , blur s th e differenc e betwee n th e tw o language types , and , o n th e othe r hand , doe s no t reflec t th e intuitio n tha t in a topic-prominent language , the topi c is , in a way, an alternative t o the subjec t a s the VP-external argument. Ther e have also been attempts t o generate topic-prominent sentenc e structur e b y applyin g Topicalizatio n t o a fla t S(entence)—se e Farmer (1980) , an d E, Kis s (1976, 1981) . Thes e approache s coul d no t captur e the parallellism between the subject-predicat e and topic-predicate structures , either. Apparently , the generative framework became flexible enough t o represen t both the differences an d the similarities of the two language types after the emergence o f the 'principle s and parameters* theory of Universal Grammar (Chomsk y (1981)). Particula r innovation s in generativ e theory tha t hav e provide d mean s of representin g topic-prominen t languages as a typ e different from , bu t paralle l to, th e subject-prominen t typ e includ e th e base-generation o f the subjec t insid e the V-projectio n i n ever y languag e (see , fo r instance , Koopma n an d Sportich e (1990)), or the assumption of Head (Verb) Movement (se e Chomsk y (1986)). Th e base-generation o f the subjec t inside the VP has lead t o the recognition o f Sub ject Movemen t a s a transformation simila r t o Topicalization; an d as a result of this, subject-prominen t an d topic-prominen t language s ca n b e viewe d no w a s differing i n whether their sentence structur e is derived by externalizing th e gram matical subject, or by externalizing an arbitrary argument. (E. Kiss (thi s volume) , in fact , propose s to analyze Topicalization, together with Subject Movement, as NP Movement , redefining NP Movement as a transformation creating a syntactic predicatio n relation. ) Naturally , thi s approac h require s a n explanation (per haps i n term s o f case theory ) o f why argument-externalization mus t involv e th e grammatical subjec t in some languages , and can involve any argument in others . Alternatively, th e subject i n subject-prominent language s an d the topic in topicprominent language s ca n be assigned t o different VP-externa l positions , an d the structurally paralle l subject-predicate an d topic-predicate relations can be established b y Verb Movement int o the head position o f the maximal projection domi nating the subject, or into the head position of the maximal projection dominating the topic , respectively (see , fo r instance , Ortiz de Urbina (1991)) . The fac t that many languages have a designated structura l positio n fo r focus , akin to the WH-position o f the English sentence, ha s become recognize d i n gen erative theory in the second hal f of the seventies—owing to the work of Schachter (1973) on Akan, Hausa, and Ilonggo; Horvath (1976), (1981), and E. Kiss (1977), (1981) o n Hungarian ; Givon (1975 ) o n variou s Bant u languages ; Awobuluyi

Introduction 5

(1978) o n Yoruba ; Watter s (1979 ) o n Aghem ; an d d e Rij k (1978 ) o n Basque , among others. Wherea s th e early studie s focuse d o n where t o assum e th e focu s position i n phrase structure , an d how to analyz e the Focusing transformation , in the eightie s an d earl y ninetie s th e comparativ e perspectiv e o f th e Governmen t and Bindin g theor y an d th e principle s an d parameter s approac h ha s le d t o th e question wh y over t focu s movemen t i s triggere d i n som e language s bu t no t i n others. I s i t th e cas e tha t language s may diffe r i n whethe r th e focu s operato r must occup y a scope positio n a t S-structure or at LF (cf. E . Kiss (1987))? O r is a designated structura l focus positio n licensed in languages in which the syntac tic feature [+Focus]—assumed to trigger Focus interpretation both at LF and PF— is limited t o being assigne d by a particular X° category , namely V (see Horvat h (1981), (1986)) ? Wit h the emergence of functional projections , furthe r possibili ties o f description hav e arisen: language s may have a particular functional projection wit h a head marke d [-fFocus] , an d focu s movemen t may be triggere d b y the necessity of spec-head agreement , o r by the requirement o f feature licensin g (see Choe (1989, thi s volume) and Brody (1990)). I n this framework, languages with structura l focus and languages with focus-in-situ can, again , be viewe d ei ther a s differing i n the leve l o f representation a t which the spec-hea d agreemen t or feature licensin g must take place, or a s differing i n the feature s of thei r func tional heads . As generativ e analysi s ha s bee n extende d t o mor e an d mor e languages , i t has becom e obviou s tha t language s in whic h topi c an d focu s for m ke y consti tuents o f sentenc e structure , i.e. , language s i n whic h primar y sentenc e arti culation serve s t o expres s discourse-semanti c functions, represent a type whic h is presumabl y a s commo n a s th e languag e typ e represente d b y English ; i t spreads acros s continent s an d acros s languag e families . I n Europe , Basqu e (de Rij k (1978) , Orti z d e Urbin a (1991) , Eguzkitz a (1987) , Rebusch i (1989)) , Catalan (Vallduv i (1990 , 1991)) , Hungaria n (Horvat h (1986) , E . Kis s (1987)) , Bulgarian (Rudi n (1986)) , Russia n (Kin g (1993)) , Gree k (Tsimpl i (1990) , Agouraki (1990)) , Finnis h (Vilkun a (1989)) , Romania n (Primus (1992) , Ulric h (1985)), Turkis h (Erguvanl i (1984)), an d severa l o f th e Caucasia n languages , among the m Armenian (Comri e (1984) ) an d Circassia n (Ouhall a (1991) ) hav e been identifie d a s discourse-configurationa l languages . Fro m Asia , Nepal i (Wallace (1985)), Hindi (Gambhir (1981)), and Korean (Choe (1989), J o (1986)) have bee n reporte d t o b e discourse-configurational , wherea s Japanese , an d in some accounts, Chines e ar e known to be topic-prominent. Africa n discourse configurational language s include , amon g others , Somal i (Lecarm e (1992) ; Svolacchia, Mereu , an d Pugliell i (thi s volume)) , th e Chadi c language s (Tulle r (1992), Horvat h (thi s volume)) , the Bant u Aghem an d Kikuy u (Watter s (1979) , Clements (1984)) , Yorub a (Awobuluy i (1978 ) an d Berbe r (Calabres e (1987) , Ouhalla (1990)) . O f th e America n India n languages , Haid a (Enric o 1986 , in preparation) , Omah a (Rudi n (1992)) , th e Maya n languages (Englan d (1991) , Aissen (1991)) , an d Quetchu a (Muyske n (thi s volume) ) ar e know n t o b e discourse-configurational. Accordin g t o evidenc e presente d i n Schachte r (1973), th e Austronesia n Ilonggo ma y als o belon g t o th e languag e typ e i n question.

6

Discourse Configurational Languages

The eleven paper s in this volume analyze discourse-configurational languages from fou r continents : Chadic , Somali , Basque , Catalan , Ol d Romance , Greek , Hungarian, Finnish , Korean , an d Quetchua . (Th e orderin g o f th e paper s i n th e volume corresponds t o the "areal" order of the languages that they discuss.) Thes e papers serve , o n the one hand, to establish empiricall y th e claim tha t discourse configurational language s represent a widespread languag e type that is to be reckoned with when formulating hypotheses about Universal Grammar. O n the other hand, the y ai m t o explor e way s o f representin g discourse-configurationa l lan guages in the generative framework; they propose phrase structures for such languages, an d attemp t to identif y th e parameter s o f Universa l Gramma r tha t ar e responsible fo r topic-prominenc e an d fo r structura l focus. Althoug h the analy ses proposed her e converge t o a considerable extent , n o unified solution i s pro vided; rather, alternative hypotheses are put forth, the viability of which will have to be teste d b y furthe r research .

2. What is Discourse Configurationality? The properties o n the basis of which a language is categorized a s discourse con figurational are , i n intuitiv e terms, th e following : A. Th e (discourse-)semanti c function 'topic, ' servin g t o foregroun d a specifi c individual tha t somethin g wil l b e predicate d abou t (no t necessaril y identica l with th e grammatica l subject) , i s expresse d throug h a particula r structura l relation (in other words, it is associated with a particular structural position). B. Th e (discourse-)semanti c functio n 'focus, ' expressin g identification , i s realized throug h a particular structura l relation (tha t is , b y movemen t int o a particular structural position). While these two properties ofte n co-occur , they are independent of each other. Most o f th e language s studied in thi s volum e share both , i.e. , the y ar e typ e AB discourse-configurational languages , but , fo r instance , Aghe m i s show n (b y Horvath) onl y t o hav e property B (typ e B discourse-configurationality) . Ther e are als o language s whic h onl y displa y propert y A (typ e A discourse configurationality); th e best-known example i s Japanese. Properties A and B ar e sometime s realize d i n modifie d forms . Fo r instance , in Finnis h th e semanti c functio n o f contras t ma y cu t across , an d supersed e th e functions o f topic and focus: ther e is a sentence initial position (i n addition t o a topic position ) tha t ca n b e occupie d b y a contraste d elemen t o f eithe r topi c o r focus function . Below, I wil l giv e a brief semanti c an d syntacti c characterizatio n o f proper ties A and B, and their key notions , the topic an d the focus—partl y o n the basi s of previou s literature, partly o n th e basi s o f th e studie s i n thi s volume . I wil l compare th e syntacti c realizations of topi c and focus acros s languages , pointing

Introduction 7

out th e invarian t elements i n the language-specifi c descriptions, an d attemptin g to identif y th e parameter s of variation. 3. Topic-Prominence Topic a s a (discourse-)semantic ter m denote s th e functio n of the constituen t tha t the sentence i s about. Unde r a particular, semantic , o r 'notional, ' interpretatio n of the subject-predicate relatio n (se e Rothstein (1983)) , the topic is identical with the subjec t o f predication, o r in othe r words , wit h th e 'notiona l subject. ' Although th e topic , o r notiona l subject , ver y ofte n coincide s wit h th e gram matical subject, that is, with the constituent expressing the most prominen t thet a role, and bearing nominative case and agreeing with the finite ver b i n many languages, thi s i s no t necessarily so . Sentence s which have a grammatical subjec t can b e subjectles s semantically . Th e distinctio n between proposition s contain ing a notiona l subject, an d proposition s no t containin g any (categorica l versu s thetic judgements in the logica l theor y of Marty (1918), (1965)) has been intro duced int o generative literature by Kuroda (1972-73). A s he puts it, categorica l judgements, displaying a notional subject-notional predicat e structure , consist of two acts : th e act of recognition o f that which is to be made the notional subject , and the ac t of affirmin g o r denying what is expressed b y the predicat e abou t th e notional subject . I n accordanc e wit h thei r rol e o f fore-groundin g a particula r individual a s th e subjec t o f predication , notional subjects/topic s ar e [+specific ] referring expressions . (Mos t type s of generics , fo r instance , definit e generics , can als o functio n a s topics—as expecte d o n th e basi s o f analyse s treatin g them as referentia l expressions, representing names o f kinds—se e Carlso n (1978 ) o r Heyer (1985)) . Her e are two categorical judgements, displaying a notional subject—notional predicat e structure: (1) a . Fid o i s chewing a bone . b. Th e do g is a domestic animal . A theti c judgement, containin g a mere notiona l predicate, o n the othe r hand , consists o f a singl e act : th e ac t o f th e recognitio n o f th e materia l o f a judgement. Th e linguisti c realizations of thetic judgements include impersonal , exis tential, presentative , an d universal sentences: (2) a . I t i s raining. b. Ther e i s a dog i n th e room . c. A do g cam e int o the room. d. Al l dog s lik e bones. Although i t i s no t predicte d b y Marty' s theor y tha t a categorica l judgemen t can contai n more tha n on e notiona l subject, this seem s t o b e th e cas e i n many natural language s (in the majorit y o f those discussed in this volume) . Conside r the Catala n sentence s in (3):

8

Discourse Configurational Languages

(3) a . L'Ann a e l caf e [e l v a fe r ahir ] Anna th e coffee i t mad e yesterda y 'The coffe e Anna made yesterday. ' b. E l caf e 1'Ann a [e l va fe r ahir ] The two sentences mea n exactly the same, whic h argues against a recursive, two level notiona l subject-notional predicat e structure , such that, for example, i n (3a ) el cafe el va fer ahir is predicated o f I'Anna, an d withi n th e predicate , el va fer ahir is predicated o f el cafe. I t seems mor e appropriat e to say that the sentence s in (3a ) an d (3b ) mak e statement s abou t two participants o f the given event , tha t is, the y predicate abou t two notiona l subjects . The notion of topic, o r notional subject , has also been reinterpreted i n dynami c semantic frameworks. Accordin g to Vallduvi (1990, thi s volume), the role of the topic (in his terminology, 'link') is to indicate under which address in the hearer's knowledge store th e new information carried by the sentence i s to be entered. A language is identified as topic-prominent, more precisely, a s a discourse configu rational language with property A, if it realizes categorica l an d thetic judgements in differen t syntacti c structures . Englis h i s obviousl y no t o f thi s type , a s sen tences (la , b) , expressing categorical judgements, and sentences (2a-d) , express ing theti c judgements , hav e th e sam e syntacti c structure . No w compar e thei r Hungarian equivalents : (4) a . [

T

Fido] [ vp rag eg y csontot] Fido chew s a bon e 'Fido i s chewin g a bone.' b. [ T A kutya ] [vp haziallat] the do g domestic-anima l 'The do g is a domestic animal. '

(5) a . [

vp

Esik a z eso ] falls th e rai n 'It is raining.' b. [ vp Van egy kutya a szobaban ] is a do g th e room-i n 'There is a dog in th e room.' c. [ vp Bejott eg y kutya a szobaba ] came a do g th e room-into 'A do g has com e int o the room.'

Although a universally quantified subject is in preverbal position , it s position i s different fro m tha t of a nonquantified specifi c subject . Thi s become s clea r if fo r example a sentence adverbial , whic h must be external t o the VP, is inserted int o both sentenc e types :

Introduction 9

(6) [

Fido] szerinte m [ ] vpszereti a csontot Fido according-to-m e like s th e bon e 'Fido, accordin g t o me, likes bones. ' T

(7) a . *[

Minden kutya ] szerinte m [ ] VP szereti a csontot every do g according-to-m e like s th e bon e 'According to me, all dogs lik e bones.' b. Szerinte m [ vp minden kutya szereti a csontot ] T

In the language type which assign s to categorial an d thetic judgements differ ent syntactic structures, the notional subject , o r topic, doe s no t have to coincid e with the grammatical subject at all. Thu s sentences (5a-c) , or (7b), in which the grammatical subject , not being referentia l and specific , i s not suitabl e fo r a no tional subjec t role , ca n b e reformulate d a s sentence s wit h a notiona l subject notional predicate articulation, predicating about the object or the goal argument: (8) a . [

A szobaba ] [ vpbejott eg y kutya ] the room-int o cam e a do g 'Into the room came a dog.' b. [ T A csontot ] szerinte m[ vpminden kuty a szereti ] the bone-AC C according-to-m e ever y do g like s 'In my opinion, bones are liked by every dog. ' T

The question whether in a particular language categorical an d thetic judgements are expressed by identical or different syntacti c structures i s actually no t a trivial one. A s Vallduvi (1993) showed in connection with Catalan, a T(opic) V P structure ca n be easil y misdiagnose d as a S(ubject ) VP structure—owing t o th e fac t that i n the case o f an agentive predicate , the agent is the most unmarked carrie r of bot h th e topi c rol e an d the grammatica l subjec t role . T o decide th e issue , i t has to be carefully examined whether or not specific and non-specific (including universally quantified ) grammatical subject s shar e th e sam e structura l positio n (if the y do, the language doe s no t distinguish categorical an d thetic judgements syntactically; hence i t is not topic-prominent). I t is, naturally, also t o be teste d if a sentence-initia l grammatica l subjec t occupie s th e sam e positio n as , say , a proposed object ; o r i n cas e a sentenc e contains a proposed grammatica l subject and a proposed object , whethe r their relativ e orde r i s free . I f i t is , i t i s indica tive of property A (topic-prominence). (Recal l that in the great majorit y o f dis course-configurational language s with property A, more than one topic is possible , and thei r orde r i s free. ) To make the classification of languages on the basis o f criterion A even mor e difficult, ther e als o exis t comple x borderlin e cases . I n Finnish , accordin g t o Vilkuna (thi s volume) , ther e i s a syntacti c positio n whic h i s to be fille d b y th e topic in the case o f categorical judgements. I n the case o f thetic judgements, on the othe r hand , th e sam e positio n ha s t o b e fille d b y th e grammatica l subject. Vilkuna calls the latter case default topicalization. In another language type, represented, fo r example , b y Dutc h an d Icelandic , o r b y Germa n i n embedde d

10

Discourse Configurational Languages

contexts (see Diesin g (1992)), the grammatical subjec t occupie s the VP-external subject-of-predication positio n not onl y if it i s referential an d specific , but als o if it is quantified (accordin g to Diesing, if it is quantified and specific) . I n Hungarian (se e E . Kiss (199la) ) or in Mayan (Judith Aissen p.c.) quantified phrases are moved into an A-bar position distinc t from the topic position . Apparently , in Dutch, Icelandic , an d i n Germa n embedded clauses, th e topi c position an d th e quantifier positio n are not distinguished; or, in these languages, the condition of complement externalizatio n is tha t th e complemen t be [+specific] , rathe r tha n referential and [+specific] (see Diesing (1992), chapters 3.3 and 3.4). I n any case, neither Finnish, no r Dutch, Icelandic, o r German are topic-prominent accordin g to our criterion, as categorical an d thetic judgements are not consistently distinguished i n either o f them. To illustrate the difficultie s o f distinguishing between T VP an d S VP structures, let us refer to a case in Basque. A s Ortiz de Urbina (this volume) explains , in a Basqu e sentenc e o f th e orde r [X P YP V], X P function s a s topic , an d Y P functions a s focus—unles s X P i s subject , an d Y P i s object , i n whic h case th e sentence can also be communicatively neutral. T o account for its neutrality, Ortiz de Urbina assumes SOV to be the initial order, and derives TFV by Topicalization, Focusing, an d V Movement (which is a necessary correlat e o f Focusing), as follows: [Ty j Fy j V k [t j t j tk]]. Thi s derivation would predict th e possibilit y o f [T j [S t; V]] sentences; however , suc h sentences d o not exist; i n an OSV sentence, S is necessarily focus. Th e description faces a dilemma: i t either needs an ad ho c filter t o rule out [T { [S t; V]] sentences, or it assimilates th e neutral SOV order t o the TFV pattern, an d allow s objec t foc i no t t o b e interpreted a s identifyin g operators. The identification o f topic ma y be problematic no t only because of the close correspondence between the topic an d the grammatica l subject. Th e topi c ma y also be difficult t o distinguish from non-topi c lef t periphera l elements . I n Hungarian, fo r instance , a lef t periphera l elemen t ca n b e eithe r CP-interna l o r CP external, an d i t function s a s a notiona l subject onl y i n th e forme r cas e (cf . E . Kiss (1987 , ch . 2) , an d (1991b)) . A CP-internal left periphera l elemen t (i.e. , a topic) i s alway s referential an d specific ; a CP-externa l lef t periphera l element, on the other hand, can also be a quantifier o r a predicative nominal , eve n a verbal prefix. Fortunately , in Hungarian there ar e als o som e forma l (syntacti c an d phonological) criteri a fo r distinguishin g between th e tw o type s o f constituents. The CP-internal topi c i s proposed from the VP by a movement rule , th e equivalent o f Englis h Topicalization , henc e th e topic—ga p relatio n i s subjec t t o Subjacency. Th e CP-externa l lef t periphera l elemen t ha s bee n identifie d a s a n instance of Left Dislocation: it can be associated wit h a resumptive pronoun, its relation t o the corresponding gap does no t have to observe Subjacency , etc. This naturall y does not mean that it is the syntactic rul e called Topicalizatio n that creates constituents functioning a s topics/notional subjects across languages; or that a constituent derived in syntax by Left Dislocation i s never topi c seman tically. O n th e contrary , the topi c is analyze d a s the outpu t of Lef t Dislocatio n in many languages—especially in those in which it is associated with a resumptive pronoun, a s i n Haid a (Enrico (1986, an d i n preparation)) , Jakaltek an d Tzotzi l

Intr

\

(Aissen (1991)) , or Somal i (Svolacchi a e t al . (thi s volume)) . Th e stud y o n So mali distinguishe s betwee n topic s create d b y Cliti c Lef t Dislocation , an d topics created b y Hanging Topic Lef t Dislocatio n (cf . Cinque (1990)), traditionally calle d nominativus pendens. Th e latter are more loosely related t o the subsequent predi cate: the y hav e nominativ e case , an d the y ar e no t argument s o f th e predicat e (therefore, the y d o not actuall y qualify a s subject s o f predication , o r topics, ac cording t o the criteria t o be presented below) . Wherea s sentenc e adverbial s of ten shar e th e left-periphera l positio n of topic constituents, they are not analyze d as suc h i n th e paper s o f thi s volume ; onl y argument s ar e claime d t o hav e th e ability o f denotin g that which th e sentenc e i s about . (I n E . Kis s (thi s volume) , locatives an d temporals ar e allowed optionall y t o have th e statu s o f non-obliga tory arguments ; henc e the y ca n be analyze d a s topics. ) It is importan t to emphasize that the answer to the question o f whether a lan guage display s propert y A—o r propert y B—o f discours e configurationalit y i s independent o f th e traditiona l configurationalit y issue, i.e. , whethe r o r no t th e grammatical function s 'subject ' an d 'object ' ar e configurationally distinguishe d in th e give n language . Th e existenc e o f a notional subjec t positio n ha s nothin g to d o wit h whethe r th e grammatica l subjec t an d th e objec t occup y structurall y parallel o r non-paralle l position s inside th e notional predicate . Tw o of th e lan guages claime d t o b e discourse-configurational : Haid a (Enric o (1986 , an d i n preparation)), and Hungarian in the analysis of E. Kiss (thi s volume), ar e assume d to have a flat VP , which also include s the subject . I n th e other case s it is eithe r explicitly claime d o r implicitl y assume d tha t th e base-generated positio n o f th e subject i s structurall y more prominen t tha n tha t o f th e object . The forma l propertie s o f th e topi c constituent s o f the language s examine d i n this volume can be summarized as follows: Th e topic has a morphological marke r in two of the languages (Korean and Quetchua); apparently topic marker s ar e less frequent tha n focu s markers . Th e studie s tha t als o conside r fact s o f phonolog y claim tha t th e topi c canno t bea r th e main stres s o f the sentence . Syntactically, the topic i s external t o the notional predicate—eve n thoug h th e syntactic categor y assigne d t o th e notiona l predicat e i s no t th e sam e i n ever y language (i t i s unclear to wha t extent thi s i s du e t o factua l difference s betwee n the languages , an d to what extent t o differences in notation). I n Finnish, an d in Hungarian (accordin g t o E. Kiss) , i t is sai d to be external t o the VP. I n Basque , Catalan, Korean , Somali , an d i n Hungaria n i n th e analysi s o f Horvath , i t i s ex ternal t o th e IP . I n Gree k i t i s externa l t o T(ense)P . I n Quetchua , wher e I P i s claimed t o be dominate d b y a focus projectio n calle d Ev(indential ) Phrase , i t i s external to EvP . The precise : location of the topi c als o depend s on whethe r or not th e give n languag e allows multipl e topics . I n case it does, the author s usu ally assig n th e topics t o adjoined positions. Thu s i n Catalan i t is adjoined t o IP; in Greek , to TP; i n Quetchua , t o EvP. (Th e adjunctio n analysi s correspond s t o the standar d G B analysi s o f Topicalization a s adjunctio n to IP—se e Lasni k an d Saito (1992). ) I n Somali , the topic i s placed i n [Spec , CP] , an d multiple topic s are derived by the recursion o f the C projection. E . Kiss derives multipl e topic s in Hungaria n b y moving one into [Spec , T(ense)P], an d adjoining th e rest t o TP.

12

Discourse Configurational Languages

In Korean, which allows a single topic per clause, the topic is placed i n [Spec , CP] by Jo. Cho e analyzes Korean topic constructions similar to relative clauses : the topicalize d N P is external t o a Topic Phrase , th e specifie r o f which i s occu pied b y a n empty operator . Topics typicall y precede WH-phrases. Som e author s take thi s as evidence of their being adjoined to CP. A t the same time, however, topics in embedded clause s tend t o follo w th e complementizer . I n fact , Bulgaria n is th e onl y languag e de scribed i n th e literatur e surveye d i n thi s introductio n i n whic h th e topi c o f a n embedded sentenc e ca n preced e th e complementize r (se e Rudi n (1986)) . I n Catalan, Hungarian, or Korean no contradiction arises i n the relative orderin g of the complementizer , th e topic , an d th e WH-phras e becaus e th e WH-phras e i s assigned t o th e specifie r position o f a projection below th e complementize r (IP , VP, and FP, respectively). Anothe r way of resolving this contradiction is assuming CP-recursio n (se e fo r instance, Aissen (1991)). I n Somali , th e strin g of top ics can be not only followed, but also interrupted, or preceded b y the focus, which is derive d b y placin g both topic s an d the focu s into the specifie r positio n o f re curring C P projection s (se e Svolacci a e t al . (thi s volume)) . Some languages , for instance Somali, Catalan, and Greek, also have after-topics, whic h shar e th e phonologica l propertie s an d the morphologica l marke r (if any) o f pre-topics. After-topic s expres s ol d information ; it i s unclear, however , if the y hav e an y other semanti c function. Vallduv i (1993 ) show s tha t a Catala n post-topic doe s no t functio n as a notiona l subject , o r i n hi s dynami c semantic s framework, a s an address under which the information conveyed b y the sentenc e is t o b e entered. The topi c i s often associate d with a resumptive pronoun or clitic (mor e ofte n than th e focus) . Ther e i s a n obligator y resumptiv e pronoun i n Somali , Greek , and Catalan , an d a n optiona l resumptiv e pronoun i n Korean . Othe r language s reported in the literature in which the topic co-occur s wit h a resumptive pronoun include Haida (Enrico (1986, and in preparation)), Bulgarian (Rudin (1986)), and Jakaltek an d Tzotzil (Aisse n (1991)). There i s n o genera l agreemen t amon g th e author s o n whethe r topic s ar e ex tracted fro m th e predicate by movement, or base-generated i n their surfac e position and associated with the predicate-internal gap by coindexation. Th e presenc e of a resumptiv e pronou n i n Somali , Greek , an d Korea n (a s wel l a s i n Haid a (Enrico (i n preparation) ) an d Jakalte k and Tzotzi l (Aisse n (1991)) ) i s take n t o be evidence of base-generation. I n the case of Korean (and Haida, Jakaltek, and Tzotzil), th e assumptio n of base-generation is als o supporte d by th e limited oc currence o f topic in embedded contexts , and by a lack o f Subjacency effects . I n Greek, th e topic can not only bear a case corresponding t o the predicate-internal gap, a s expecte d i n th e cas e o f movement , but , alternatively , i t ca n als o bea r nominative. A t th e sam e time , th e topic-ga p relatio n observe s Subjacency . Tsimpli resolves th e contradiction betwee n the presence o f a resumptive pronoun, indicative o f bas e generation , an d th e observanc e o f islan d constraints , indica tive of movement, by base-generating the topicalized lexical element i n situ, and moving a n invisibl e pro, generate d i n argumen t position a s a siste r t o th e resumptive clitic . A similar derivation is propose d by Choe .

Introduction 1

3

The structural relation holding between th e topic constituen t an d the predicat e phrase (whether its syntactic category be VP, IP, TP, FP, or EvP in the give n lan guage) appears to be a version of th e syntacti c predication relatio n identifie d in Williams (1980 ) an d Rothstein (1983) . (I n Somali , th e situatio n ma y be mor e complex, owing to the mingling o f the topics and the focus.) Thi s syntactic predication relatio n is , i n essence , a strictl y loca l relatio n (marke d b y coindexation ) between tw o maxima l projections—one o f which , functionin g as th e subjec t o f predication, c-command s th e other , functionin g as th e predicate , an d bind s a n argument positio n i n it. Th e locality relatio n betwee n th e subject o f predicatio n and th e predicate i s hard to give an invariant formulation, give n tha t the techni cal details of description in the different language s do not coincide; for instance , the precis e formulatio n is affecte d b y whethe r the subjec t o f predicatio n occu pies specifie r position , adjoine d position , o r ca n occup y either . Th e localit y condition on predication was identified i n Williams (1980) as mutual c-command. With the emergence o f Infl, it had to be reformulated as mutual m-command (se e Rothstein (1983)) . If , however, Topicalization involves adjunction, as propose d by mos t of th e authors of this volume, then eve n m-command is to o restrictive , because i n th e framewor k of Chomsky (1986) , th e complemen t o f a hea d doe s not m-command th e constituents adjoine d t o the maximal projectio n o f the hea d (thus e.g. th e IP complement o f C does not m-command the NPs adjoined to CP) . A locality condition that would adequately constrain in most languages described in thi s volum e the relatio n between th e subjec t of predication an d th e predicat e would b e the requiremen t tha t ther e b e n o intervening maxima l projectio n tha t c-commands th e predicate, an d does no t c-command th e subjec t o f predication. (Alternatively, predicates could be analyzed as being o f the category X', and the subject o f predication could be identifie d wit h the specifie r of XP, as in Stowel l (1981). Thi s view , however, would no t b e compatibl e wit h analyse s i n whic h the topic phrase i s adjoined to the predicate phrase , for instance, wit h the analy ses of Catalan , Greek , o r Quetchua proposed i n thi s volume. ) If th e structural relation holdin g between the topic an d the predicate in topic prominent languages is, indeed, the same syntactic predication relatio n tha t hold s between th e subjec t an d the predicat e i n subject-prominen t languages, the n th e main differenc e between th e two language type s i s tha t i n topic-prominent lan guages th e (primary ) syntacti c predication structur e i s alway s directl y mappe d on a notional predication relation, whereas in subject-prominen t language s thi s is not the case . It is reasonabl e to assum e that th e notional predication structure (tha t is , th e categorical o r the thetic nature) of a sentence is part of its meaning, and it is 'rea d off th e structur e entering semanti c interpretation i n every language . The n th e subject-prominent Englis h an d th e topic-prominen t languages described i n thi s volume diffe r i n th e leve l o f representation at whic h they structurall y represent predication. Wherea s i n topic-prominent language s i t i s represented a t S-struc ture already , in English, th e predicatio n structur e ma y be identifie d a t LF, afte r operator movemen t has taken place (se e Guero n (1980) , an d Rothstein (1983)) . Hence a quantifier , o r a non-specific, obligatoril y stressed , focu s phras e i s re -

14

Discourse Configurational Languages

moved fro m subject positio n t o operator positio n prio r t o predication interpreta tion, s o it is not interprete d a s a notional subject . In vie w of this , th e criterio n o f topic-prominence ca n be reformulate d a s fol lows: a language has property A of discourse configurationalit y i f an d onl y i f in that languag e ther e i s a one-to-on e correspondenc e betwee n th e syntacti c an d notional predicatio n structures . The possibility of representing the notional predication structur e o f a sentenc e structurally eithe r visibly , a t S-structure , o r invisibly , a t LF , might b e regarde d as a parametri c variatio n allowe d fo r b y Universa l Grammar . I t als o hold s o f other semantically significant relations, fo r instance, of various operator-variabl e relations, that they can be structurally encoded eithe r at S-structure o r at LF across languages. However , th e assumptio n tha t language s ca n choos e a t rando m be tween representin g th e categorica l versu s theti c semanti c structur e o f sentence s at S-structure , an d representin g i t a t LF , would b e contrar y t o th e spiri t o f th e Principle o f Least Effort o f Chomsky (1991), o r the Earliness Principle o f Pesetsky (1989). Englis h i s presumably force d t o externaliz e th e grammatica l subjec t i n every case, an d subsequently remove it from subjec t position i f it is not a [^specific] referrin g expression , an d canno t be interprete d a s a notiona l subject , be cause i n Englis h th e grammatica l subjec t canno t receive nominativ e cas e fro m Inflection insid e the VP. Onc e the condition s of nominative assignmen t are sat isfied, argumen t externalization is free—via Topicalizatio n an d PP Preposing. I f this assumptio n i s right , the n topic-prominenc e an d subject-prominenc e deriv e from a paramete r determinin g th e wa y o f nominativ e assignmen t i n a give n language. The language type represented b y Dutch, Icelandic, or German embedde d sen tences does no t confor m eithe r t o th e subject-prominen t o r t o th e topic-promi nent type. I t is beyond the scope of this introduction and this volume to speculat e about whic h parameter s interac t i n triggerin g an d constrainin g complemen t externalization i n these languages. The variatio n observed amon g topic-prominent languages ca n be trace d bac k to a fe w mino r parameters . I n th e syntacti c realization o f th e topic-predicat e structure, th e syntacti c category o f th e predicat e can var y (i t ca n b e VP , IP, FP, etc.) I t i s als o subjec t t o parametri c variation whethe r o r no t th e topi c i s mor phologically marked , an d whether or not it bears the case assigne d t o the gap in the predicate . Th e ga p i n th e predicat e ca n b e eithe r empty , o r fille d wit h a resumptive pronoun/clitic . Th e presenc e o r absenc e o f resumptiv e pronoun s may be a secondary effect, dependin g on whethe r the topi c i s related t o the ga p by movemen t o r merel y b y construal . I t varie s whethe r a language allow s on e or more topi c pe r clause; this, again , may be a consequence o f whether the topi c argument i s externalize d vi a substitution , o r b y som e othe r means . Or , i f multiple topicalizatio n i s substitutio n into th e specifie r position s dominate d b y an iterate d maxima l projection, the n th e possibilit y o f multipl e topicalizatio n depends o n whethe r or no t th e maxima l projectio n immediatel y dominating the topic ca n b e iterated.

Introduction 1

5

4. Focus-Prominence The term focus is used in linguistic literature in at least two different senses : i t can denot e the sentenc e par t carrying new information , and i t can als o mea n an operator expressing identification. Th e two meanings are often referre d to as wide focus an d narrow focus, respectively . I n generative synta x the latter notion, that of th e focus operator , has gaine d significance . Althoug h th e focus operato r has neither a morphologica l marker , no r a n invarian t positio n i n English , it s pres ence i n a sentenc e ha s visibl e consequences ; thu s i t trigger s Wea k Crossove r effects, simila r t o quantifiers—se e Chomsk y (1976) . Consider , fo r instance: (9) a . *HiS ; mother love s JOHN; . b. His ; mother loves John ;. Whereas i n (9b) John an d the pronoun his are co-referent, i n (9a) they ar e not— obviously becaus e i n (9a ) the focused JOH N i s an operator, which , incapable o f referring, ca n only bind a pronominal, provided i t c-commands th e pronominal . Although at LF the focus operator is moved into an A-bar position from which it c-commands his, the c-command conditio n o f binding shoul d be satisfied b y the variable lef t behin d i n its S-structur e position . It is the focus operator tha t is associate d wit h a particular structura l positio n in mos t discourse-configurationa l languages , as well . As fo r it s semanti c role, th e focu s operator operates o n a se t o f contextually relevant entitie s present i n th e domai n o f discourse , and identifie s al l an d onl y the elements o f this se t of which the predicate holds . Consider , fo r example, th e interpretation o f th e following Hungarian sentence : (10) JANO S kapott jelest. John go t A + *It was Joh n wh o go t A+.' We can use (10) in a context or situation which involves a previously establishe d set of persons: fo r instance, the members o f a class. Th e focusing of Jdnos mean s that of the members o f this set John is the only one of whom it is true that he got A+. The intuitiv e content of focusing ha s been formulated semantically in various ways. Szabolcs i (1981) an d (1983 ) describe d th e semanti c function o f focu s i n terms o f firs t orde r predicat e logic , showin g that th e propose d interpretatio n i s equivalent to a Montagovian higher order representation. I n her formulation, th e meaning of (10 ) can be paraphrase d as follows : (11) Fo r ever y x, x go t A+ if an d only i f jc=John. The significanc e of Szabolcsi's wor k o n focus consisted, among other things , in arguing against the views that focus is a stylistic or pragmatic phenomenon (see Rochemont (1978)) , o r tha t it s semanti c contribution ca n b e analyze d as a mer e

16

Discourse Configurational Languages

conversational implicature (see Horn (1981)). A s Szabolcsi (1981 ) demonstrated on Hungaria n material , a focu s operator changes the truth condition s of a sen tence; fo r instance , it change s th e logica l consequence s o f the sentence . Com pare (12a, b) with their counterparts involving focusing in (13a, b). Wherea s (12b ) is a logical consequenc e o f (12a) , (13b ) i s not a logical consequenc e o f (13a): (12) a . Jane s e s Mar i jeles t kapott , John an d Mar y A + go t 'John an d Mary got A+.' b. Jano s jeles t kapott . John A + go t 'John go t A+.* (13) a . JANO S ^S MAR I kapot t jelest . John an d Mar y go t Af 'It was John an d Mary wh o got A+.' b. JANO S kapot t jelest . John go tA + 'It was John wh o got A+.' In accordanc e with th e fac t tha t (13b) i s no t a logica l consequenc e o f (13a) , either sentence can be conjoined with the negation of the other, without any con tradiction arising. I f the two subjects were not focused, such a conjunction would be impossible . (14) Ne m JANOS kapott jelest, hanem JANOS ES MAR I (kapott jelest). not Joh n go t A + bu t Joh n an d Mary go t A + 'It was not John who got A+ but it was John and Mary (who got A+).' Kenesei (1986 , 1993) , whil e maintaining the quantificational approach t o fo cus, argue d agains t Szabolcsi' s formul a in (11), whic h treats focu s a s an opera tor expressin g exhaustive listing, and proposed t o analyz e focus a s a n operato r expressing identification , or , when contrastive, expressing exclusio n b y identifi cation wit h respect t o som e domai n of discours e D. I t i s a n appealin g property of th e quantificationa l approac h t o focu s that i t ca n easil y accoun t fo r th e fac t that th e semanti c operatio n performe d b y th e focu s ha s tw o versions : i t ca n express contras t (tha t is , identificatio n with exclusion) , o r identificatio n only. When th e focus operato r quantifies o n a closed set of individuals, the identifica tion of the subset of which the predicate holds also creates a complement set , of which th e predicate doe s not hold—henc e identification goe s togethe r wit h ex clusion (fo r slightl y differen t view s o n this , se e Szabolcs i (1992 ) an d E . Kis s (1993, n.7)) . I f th e relevan t set o f entitie s quantifie d ove r i s no t a closed set , naturally, complemen t formation cannot take place ; henc e th e subse t identifie d as suc h o f whic h th e predicat e holds cannot be contraste d with a complement subset o f which the predicate doe s no t hold. For example :

Introduction 1

7

(15) A Habor u 6s beke t TOLSZTO J frta . the Wa r an d Peace-AC C Tosto y wrot e 'War an d Peace wa s writte n by TOLSTOY.' In the unmarked case, (15) does not presuppose a closed se t of persons who might have written War and Peace. Consequently , th e focu s operato r identifie s th e writer of War and Peace withou t also excluding particular, contextually relevan t individuals a s it s author . Constituent s no t denoting individuals , fo r instance , adverbials of manner, do not expres s identificatio n by exclusion, either , since — as Szabolcsi (1983) an d (1992) argues—complemen t formation (similar t o other Boolean operations ) i s only meaningful when applied t o individuals (se e (16a)) . The context, however, can individuate predicative constituents, as well—by list ing them . Th e lis t als o provides a closed se t of them ; henc e i n suc h case s (fo r example, i n (16b)) both condition s of 'identificatio n b y exclusion' ar e satisfied . (16) a . Jano s FIGYELMESE N toltott e k i a kerdofvet . John carefull y fille d i n th e questionnair e 'John fille d i n the questionnaire CAREFULLY. ' b. Jano s ne m FIGYELMESEN , haner n LASSA N toltott e k i a John no t carefull y bu t slowl y fille d i n th e kerdofvet. questionnaire. 'John filled in the questionnaire not CAREFULLY but SLOWLY* In the influential work of Rooth (1985), the focus is assumed t o generate a set of alternatives . Thu s the sentenc e JOHN got A+, whe n use d i n a situatio n in volving, say , a clas s consistin g o f fiv e member s (John , Mary , Eve , Susan , an d Peter), expresses that the alternatives exist that John got A+, Mary got A+, Eve gotA+, Susan got A+, and Peter got A+. A problematic feature of Rooth's theor y is tha t i t doe s no t represen t th e exhaustivenes s involve d i n man y instance s o f focusing; unless the sentence contains an explicit only, Rooth' s representatio n will not impl y that of the set of alternatives only th e alternative John gotA+ i s true . The non-quantificationa ! approach to Focusing, treating focus a s a n operato r generating a se t o f alternativ e propositions, argue s agains t th e quantificationa l view, amon g others , b y pointin g ou t tha t th e quantificationa l approac h implie s the movemen t of focus into A-bar position , eve n thoug h Focusin g doe s no t ob serve Subjacency, th e criterion of movement transformations. Thu s in th e sen tence They are looking for an ex-convict with a RED shirt, th e focu s i s th e adjective red, whic h canno t b e moved ou t o f its NP . I n Rooth's approach, th e identification o f focu s doe s no t ru n int o thi s problem . Alternative s o f th e fol lowing type are generated t o th e proposition expresse d i n the sentence: They are looking for an ex-convict with a BLUE shirt; They are looking for an ex-convict with a WHITE shirt; an d the focu s i s th e constituen t (whethe r majo r or minor ) that has different values i n the alternatives. However , on the one hand, it i s not obvious that L F movement i:; subject to Subjacency. O n the othe r hand, in Ian-

18

Discourse Configurational Languages

guages with overt focus movement, Focusing doe s observe Subjacency : onl y the equivalent of the whole constituent an ex-convict with a red shirt ca n be focused , whether o r not red is given contrastiv e stress withi n it. Interpret:atio n must obviously b e derive d th e sam e wa y a s th e interpretatio n o f interrogativ e phrase s with a n embedded WH-word i s derived (for instance , in An ex-convict with what shirt are they looking for?). I t woul d no t b e counter-intuitiv e at al l t o assum e that in suc h cases , the focus/interrogative operato r quantifie s ove r th e individu als bein g looke d for , instea d o f colors , an d t o refe r t o pragmatic s th e fac t tha t the individual s looked for in the domain of discourse are all ex-convicts wearing a shirt . Notic e that th e answe r require d b y a questio n involvin g a n embedded WH wor d cannot be o f the categor y of the WH-word; it must be o f the category of th e whol e WH-move d phrase : (17) a . Milye n szm u inge s fegyenc-e t keresnek ? what colore d shirte d convict-AC C search-the y 'A convict wit h what shir t are they lookin g for? ' b. *Piros . /*Piros-at. red / red-AC C c. Piro s szfn u inge s fegyenc-et . red colore d shirte d convict-AC C 'A convic t with a red shirt. ' d. Piro s szfn u inge s pr o -et . red colore d shirte d -AC C 'One wit h a red shirt.' The fac t tha t th e answe r must be heade d by fegyenc 'convict ' (o r b y a pro co indexed wit h fegyencc in the preceding question) indicates that interrogation op- operates ove r convict s and not colors . In anothe r semanti c approach—elaborated , amon g others , b y vo n Stecho w (1981, 1991), Jacobs (1983) , von Stechow an d Uhmann (1986), and Krifka (1991), (1992)—called the structured meaning approach , the focus feature of a constituent induces th e partitioning of the semantic representation of the sentence into a focus par t an d a background/presupposition part . Fo r instance , the focu s struc ture in (18a ) determine s th e structure d meanin g (18b) : (18) a . [ s John [ vp introduced [ F Bill] t o Sue]] b. (18b) expresses tha t th e individua l wh o has th e propert y o f havin g bee n intro duced t o Sue by John i s Bill. As has been observed , the interpretation of a large se t of operators (only, even, must, not, always, the generic operator , or the superlative) is sensitive to the focusbackground structur e o f it s sentence : th e backgroun d i s understoo d a s th e restrictor of the operator, an d the focus is understood a s its nuclear scope. Con sider the logical paraphrasis of (19), involvin g the universal adverbial quantifier always:

Introduction 1

9

(19) Joh n alway s goes o n vacatio n wit h MARY. always c , 3x(John goe s o n vacation wit h x in c) , John goe s o n vacatio n with Mary In (19 ) always quantifie s over case s i n whic h there i s someon e wh o Joh n goe s on vacatio n with , an d th e sentenc e mean s tha t i n eac h suc h cas e it i s Mar y tha t John goe s o n vacatio n with . The 'structure d meaning' approac h t o focus has led to a non-quantificational , relational vie w of focus. Accordin g to this, the focused constituent itself is never an operator ; i t alway s represents th e nuclea r scop e o f a n operator . I f th e sen tence contains no overt operator (othe r than the focus), an invisible illocutionar y operator i s assumed . Whe n th e focu s appear s t o hav e scop e ove r a n operator , for instance , over a universal quantifier, as in JOHN met everybody, i t is, in fact, the illocutionar y operator tha t has wid e scope . The relational view of focus has been elaborated o n the basis o f languages not containing a structura l focu s position . Fo r speaker s o f language s tha t hav e a particular A-bar position fo r focus, this view is somewhat counterintuitive; in such languages, fo r exampl e i n Hungarian , the focu s slot i s syntacticall y clearl y on e among th e operato r positions . I n an y case , i t i s necessar y tha t th e empirica l material o n whic h the variou s semanti c analyse s of focu s ar e based b e derive d from th e languag e type discusse d i n this volume , a s well . The 'pragmatic ' vie w of focus , claimin g that the focus , a s wel l a s th e topic , are no t par t o f th e truth-conditional , logico-semantic interpretatio n o f th e sen tence, bu t merely expres s the informational value of its logico-semantic content , has also live d on; it has been formulate d in an explicit, partiall y formalize d way, for example , i n the work of Vallduvi (1992). Vallduv i assumes that the interpre tive componen t o f gramma r also contain s a special, non-truth-conditiona l mod ule o f sentenc e interpretation , calle d informatio n packaging . Th e inpu t t o information packaging is the so-called informatio n structure of the sentence, which is non-distinc t fro m it s S-structur e i n discours e configurationa l languages . (I n the cas e o f language s lik e English , th e mappin g o f S-structur e o n informatio n structure i s mor e complex ; i t als o take s th e structur e o f pitch accent s int o con sideration.) Vallduv i describes th e informational role of focus in the framework of Fil e Chang e Semantics : wid e focus is th e par t o f th e sentenc e tha t i s t o b e entered int o the hearer's knowledg e store . A narrow focus may involve a mor e complex operation; for instance, the replacement of an entity in a previously stored proposition (se e als o Huc k an d Na (1990)) . As fo r it s forma l properties , th e focu s operato r i s ofte n morphologicall y marke ; it bears a focus marker in Kikuyu (see (Horvat h (this volume))), Somali, and Q etchua, as well as in Haida (Enric o (1986), an d in preparation), an d ther e are variou s optiona l focu s marker s i n Ol d Romance , too . Korea n onl y mark s contrastive focu s morphologically . I n Somali , ever y matri x clause obligatoril y has a focus. I n Somal i an d Quetchua , an d certai n Haid a dialects , th e focu s i s restricted t o matrix—o r tensed—clauses . I n Greek , ther e i s a somewha t differ ent restriction : th e focu s ca n als o b e locate d i n a n embedde d claus e (provide d the matrix clause has none), but it must have matrix scope. Mor e than one focus

20

Discourse Configurational Languages

per claus e seem s t o be impossible in every languag e except in Korean—conse quently most studie s plac e th e focus in a specifier position . I n Korea n multipl e focus construction s analyze d b y Choe, on e focus move s to [Spec , FP], an d th e rest ar e adjoine d t o it . I n Somali , a n objec t focus—unlik e a subjec t focus—i s associated wit h a resumptive pronoun . In mos t o f th e language s know n t o hav e a structura l focu s position , fo r in stance in Aghem, most Chadi c languages (Horvat h (this volume)), in Basque, Old Romance, Hungarian , Greek , Korea n (i n th e constructio n studie d b y Jo) , Quetchua, and Bulgarian (Rudin (1986)), the focus is located next to the inflected V. Th e exception s includ e Catala n an d Haid a (Enric o (i n preparation)) , wher e the possibility o f non-adjacenc y betwee n th e focu s an d th e V ma y be a consequence o f free scramblin g i n the post-focus sentenc e part , Kikuyu (Horvath (thi s volume)), wher e the focu s is nex t to the complementizer , Somali , and the Korean focu s constructio n described b y Choe. I n Finnish, Greek , an d Korean, th e focus constituen t ca n also remain optionall y i n situ . The close surface relationship betwee n th e focus and the V led Horvath (1981, 1986) t o th e conclusio n tha t th e sourc e o f th e [+F(ocus) ] featur e tha t focuse d constituents assume as a result of Focus Movemen t i s the V. She claimed tha t in languages wit h structural focus th e featur e [+F] i s part o f the featur e matrix o f the V, and can be assigne d b y th e V to a constituent tha t it govern s an d is adja cent to, that is, if the general conditions o f feature assignment ar e observed. Th e focus paramete r o f Universa l Gramma r also provide s a n alternativ e optio n o f association wit h the feature [+F]: language s can choose to associate [+F ] freel y with an y category . Thi s i s wha t happens i n language s wit h focus-in-situ , fo r instance, i n English . Tuller (1992 ) noticed tha t in certain Chadic languages, for instance, i n Tangale, Ngizim, o r Kanakuru , the focu s ca n no t onl y occup y a verb-adjacen t position ; alternatively i t ca n als o sho w u p i n a periphera l position . Sh e conclude d tha t the sourc e o f the [+F ] featur e is inflection — provided i t is verbal , tha t is , i f Vto-Infl movemen t ha s take n place . The n Inf l ca n assig n [+F ] t o a constituen t adjoined t o VP , which i t govern s an d t o whic h i t i s adjacent , or , alternatively, Infl can move up to C in LF, and can assign [+F ] to the constituent in [Spec , CP ] under spec-hea d agreement . In a n approac h becomin g mor e an d mor e wide-spread , th e focu s operato r i s associated with a functional projection o f its own; it occupies th e specifier posi tion o f the projectio n of a focus head . Th e firs t proposal s alon g these line s ap peared i n Uriagerek a (1988 ) (i n whose work , includin g Uriagerek a (1992 ) an d (forthcoming a and b), F is a head associate d no t only with focus , bu t wit h an y operator expressin g a poin t o f view) , i n Cho e (1989) , an d i n Lak a (1990 ) (i n whose theor y I P i s a complement t o a sigm a hea d includin g negation an d em phatic affirmation) . A n influential versio n of this theory was put fort h i n Brody (1990). Brod y (1990 ) claims—followin g Horvat h (1981, 1986)—tha t focu s in terpretation i s du e t o a [+F(ocus) ] featur e assigne d b y th e V . Th e V i s raise d into F, the head position of a functional focu s projection, where it assigns its [+F ] feature t o th e constituen t move d into [Spec , FP] . V movement into F i s forced

Introduction 2

1

by par t A o f th e followin g Focu s Criterion , analogou s t o th e WH-Criterio n proposed b y Ma y (1985 ) an d Rizzi (1990) : (20) A . Th e Spe c o f a n FP mus t contain a [+F]-phrase . B. Al l [+F ] phrase s mus t b e i n a n FP. The focu s projectio n i s claime d t o b e presen t bot h i n th e sentenc e structur e o f languages wit h structura l focus , an d i n tha t o f language s wit h focus-in-situ ; th e difference betwee n th e two types is derived fro m the parametrization o f the level of representatio n a t whic h th e Focu s Criterio n applies . I f i n a language condi tion A of th e Focus Criterio n mus t be observe d a t S-structure, the languag e will have structura l focus; i f i t i s only checke d a t LF , the languag e wil l hav e focus in-situ. Horvath (thi s volume ) give s a criticism o f the view that th e 'structura l focus ' versus 'focus-in-situ ' variatio n derive s fro m a parametric variatio n i n th e leve l of applicatio n o f th e Focu s Criterion , showing o n th e basi s o f comparativ e evi dence (taken , in part, from Tulle r (1992) ) that it canno t account fo r th e rang e of variation of S- structure focus positions attested within th e set of designated Focu s languages. Sh e argues that under the minimal assumption that there is a syntac tic featur e [+F ] whic h constituent s mus t receiv e t o b e interprete d a s identificational focus , the observed range of S-structure variation with respect t o focus position falls out o f independently motivated parameters o f feature assignment. Thes e parameters allo w th e followin g mode s o f associatio n wit h th e fea ture [+F] : [+F ] ca n b e assigne d b y a functiona l head, th e categor y o f whic h (typically Inf l o r C ) may var y acros s languages . Th e featur e [+F ] ca n be trans mitted b y Infl/C int o a position governe d b y Infl/C, o r it can be assigned b y Infl / C to [Spec , IP/CP ] under spec-hea d agreement . I n language s with focus-in-sit u no functional head carries th e featur e [+F] ; association with [+F] is free. Horvat h predicts, an d demonstrates, a ful l parallelis m between th e kind s of variatio n ob servable with respect t o case assignment , and [+F ] assignmen t acros s languages . In thi s volume , Choe , Orti z d e Urbina , Tsimpli , Uriagereka , an d Muysken s present focu s theories involvin g a separat e functiona l focus projection . In Choe' s approach , th e feature [+F ] i s assigne d i n D-structure, an d it can b e assigned (a t least i n Korean) to more tha n one constituent per clause . [+F ] con stituents ar e licensed i f the y agre e with a [+F ] head ; therefore , the y mus t mov e to [Spec , FP] , o r be adjoine d to it—eithe r i n synta x or in LF. The featur e [+F ] i s carrie d b y Inf l i n the theor y o f Orti z d e Urbina (thi s vol ume), too . Jus t a s interrogative clause s licens e a [+WH ] Infl , emphatic clause s license a [+F ] Infl . Th e Operato r Criterio n ( a more genera l versio n o f the WH Criterion) require s tha t a n operator occupyin g scope positio n b e i n a spec-hea d relation wit h a head marke d for the relevant feature. Sinc e i n Basque ther e is V Movement to Infl , an d (V+Infl ) Movemen t t o C , the focu s lands i n [Spec , CP] . Motivated by th e theor y o f parametrization of Chomsky (1991) , in whic h pa rameters ar e associated with functional categorie s rather than levels o f represen tation, Tsimpli (thi s volume) modifies Brody's theory (1990) alon g the following lines. Language s wit h obligatory Focu s Movement , lik e Hungarian , languages

22

Discourse Configurational Languages

with optional Focu s Movement , lik e Greek , an d presumably als o languages wit h no syntacti c Focu s Movement , lik e English , al l hav e a n F projectio n i n thei r sentence structures ; the y onl y diffe r i n th e valu e o f the F featur e carried b y th e head o f their FP projection. I n Hungarian the head of FP is always marke d [+F] ; in English, it is presumably always [-F], wherea s in Greek it can have either value . In thi s theory , th e [+F ] featur e i s freel y assigne d i n D-structur e i n al l languag e types. Th e over t Focu s Movemen t o f a constituent marked [+F ] i s triggere d i n case th e hea d o f F P i s als o marke d [+F]—b y a Focus Criterio n operativ e a t S structure, which requires that a [+F] head be in spec-head agreemen t wit h a [+F ] operator. The theorie s o f [+F ] assignmen t surveye d abov e ca n captur e th e proces s o f Focusing i n most o f the language s described i n the volume : i n Chadic, Somali , Basque, Ol d Romance , Hungarian , Greek , an d Quetchua , an d the y ca n als o ac count for Haida (Enrico (in preparation)), Bulgarian (Rudin (1986), or the Mayan languages (Aisse n (1991)) . I n thes e languages , th e constituen t functionin g as a focus operato r occupies a designated A' position, wher e it c-commands it s scope. In thre e o f th e language s examined: i n Finnish , Catalan , an d i n a particular construction i n Korean , something els e i s goin g on . Finnish actuall y can b e see n a s a parametric varian t of th e canonica l typ e o f discourse-configurational language s with propert y B . I n Finnish , a s show n b y Vilkuna, focu s constituent s ca n eithe r b e move d int o a designate d A ' position : [Spec, CP] , o r they ca n b e lef t i n situ . Thi s A ' position , however , i s associate d not wit h th e featur e [+F] , bu t wit h th e featur e [+Contrastive] ; henc e i t i s ope n not onl y fo r a focu s bu t als o fo r a contrastiv e topic . I f functiona l head s can , indeed, conve y suc h affectiv e features a s [+WH ] o r [+F] , the n i t is plausibl e t o assume tha t th e se t o f feature s tha t ca n b e associate d wit h C universall y als o includes [+Contrastive] . I n Finnish, th e [+Contrastive ] positio n ([Spec , CP] ) i s outside th e topic slo t ([Spec , IP]). Thi s property ma y be related t o the fac t tha t the Contrastiv e position ca n als o host a topicalized constituent. Catalan seem s t o represen t a radicall y differen t case . A s Vallduv i argues , Focusing i n Catala n does no t involv e any focu s movement o r an y [+F ] assign ment. I n th e Catala n sentence , th e non-focu s constituent s ar e moved , an d th e focus constituent s are lef t i n situ . Everythin g that is not ne w information i s dis located fro m th e IP . I f a singl e constituen t remains , i t i s t o b e interprete d a s narrow focus , i.e. , a s a focus operator . The Korean construction tha t Jo (this volume) describes, whil e different from the canonica l cas e o f Focusing , does no t represen t a n isolate d pattern . I n th e Korean constructio n i n question , a s wel l a s i n Turkish , Armenia n (se e Comri e (1984)), or Hungarian, th e focu s is in complementary distributio n wit h the con stituent tha t i s closest t o the V in the VP . Thi s constituen t is non-referential ; i t has n o theta-role; it form s a complex predicat e wit h the V. I n Korea n an d Hun garian, eve n it s syntacti c movemen t possibilitie s ar e limited ; tha t is , i t display s several propertie s typical of incorporate d constituents. J o argue s tha t th e posi tion o f this constituent, a V-adjacent, V'-dominate d A' position, when vacated, is allowed by principle s of Universal Grammar to host an operator. I n Hungarian, where the incorporated constituent is at the lef t edg e of the VP, alternative analy-

Introduction 2

3

ses are als o possibl e (se e Horvat h and E. Kis s i n this volume) , fo r instance, th e focus an d the incorporated constituen t ca n be assigne d to separate , adjacen t positions (on e outsid e th e VP , the othe r insid e th e VP) , an d th e simultaneou s fill ing of the two positions can be ; blocked by some principle or filter. In language s where this non-argumen t position i s neste d i n the VP, the possibility o f alterna tive explanation s i s les s obvious . I n additio n t o Korean , Aghem, i n whic h th e focus positio n i s between th e V and the direc t object , migh t als o represen t thi s type. I n the focus construction described by Jo the focus operator i s not in scope position, s o a t LF i t must undergo Operator Movement . Jo's theor y raises an interesting theoretical possibility. Namely , Focusin g an d incorporation shar e importan t properties acros s languages . Th e adjacenc y be tween th e focu s an d th e inflecte d V i s stricte r i n mos t language s tha n an y ver sion o f featur e assignment—whethe r unde r government , o r unde r spec-hea d agreement—would justify. I t appears that the strictness of this adjacenc y requirement i s onl y parallele d b y the ; adjacenc y conditio n o f incorporation . I t i s als o remarkable tha t bot h Focusin g an d incorporatio n ar e typicall y license d b y th e same category : th e inflected V. Focu s Movemen t involves incorporation o n th e phonological leve l i n man y languages ; the focuse d constituen t doe s no t simpl y assume heavy stress corresponding to its semantic weight; it also deletes th e stres s of the adjacen t inflected V; that is, the focus an d the V form a single phonologi cal word . Th e questio n tha t arises is naturally whether the similaritie s betwee n Focusing an d incorporatio n ar e accidental , or Focusin g i s incorporation . I f th e feature [+F ] i s inherently associated wit h the (inflected ) V, then it is not implau sible t o assum e tha t featur e sharing can als o tak e plac e vi a incorporation . It i s generall y believed , an d in Horvath (1986 ) i t is als o state d i n the for m of a universal principle, that interrogative WH-phrases shar e the syntactic behavio r of foci . Thi s assumption is basically confirme d i n canonical discourse-configu rational language s wit h propert y B , i n whic h th e focu s occupie s a scop e posi tion. Interrogativ e WH-phrases mus t land in the focus position i n Somali, Chadic , Aghem, Basque, Hungarian, Haida, Omaha, Quetchua, Korean, and in Greek main clauses. WH-phrase s an d foci giv e the illusion o f sharing the sam e landin g sit e in Bulgarian, too, eve n though , as Rudin (1986 ) argues , WH-phrases i n fact oc cupy [Spec , CP], while foci ar e adjoine d to IP. WH-phrases , whethe r interroga tive or relative, land in the position associate d wit h the feature [+Contrastive ] i n Finnish. In Catalan , wher e the focus > operato r does no t occup y a scop e position, WH phrases nevertheles s d o undergo WH-Movement t o scop e position . Summarizing th e informatio n provide d b y th e paper s o f thi s volum e o n typ e B discours e configurationality : i n languages with property B the focus operato r occupies—or, a t least , ma y occupy—a n A-ba r positio n a t S-Structure . I t typi cally occupie s a n invarian t A-bar position ; bu t thi s i s no t necessaril y s o (cf . Tangale, Ngizim). Th e exact locatio n of the landing site o f Focus Movemen t i s subject to parametric variation: i t can be [Spec, VP], [Spec, IP], [Spec, FP], [Spec , CP], a VP-adjoined position , a n FP-adjoined position , or even a n A-bar position under V .

24

Discourse Configurational Languages

A focu s operato r move d int o VP-externa l positio n c-command s it s scope ; a focus operato r occupyin g an A-bar positio n unde r V, o n th e othe r hand , obvi ously does not c-command it ; it needs further LF-movement . I n some languages , the focu s operato r i s require d t o hav e matri x scope; i n others , i t ca n als o hav e embedded scope . Th e presenc e o f a focus operato r i s typicall y optional , bu t i t may als o b e a n obligatory elemen t o f sentenc e structure . In the canonical typ e of languages with property B , a constituent assumes th e feature [+F ] b y movement int o the designated A-bar position. Th e source , or , at least, licenser , o f th e featur e [+F ] i s presumabl y the hea d I , V+I, F , or C . Th e [+F] feature of a focused phrase is assigned—or licensed—under spec-head agree ment, o r i t is assigne d under government and adjacency . Th e featur e [+F ] usu ally has no morphological reality (but it can also be spelled ou t in the form of an inflectional morpheme , a s is the case i n Berber accordin g t o Tsimpli). Th e rel evant featur e can be , instea d o f [+Focus] , [+Contrastive] . In languages displaying S-structure Focus Movemen t int o scop e position , interrogative WH-phrases shar e the landing site o f foci. I t still remain s a questio n whether interrogativ e WH-phrases als o share th e feature [+F]—give n that many languages allo w mor e tha n on e WH-phrase bu t onl y on e focu s pe r claus e (Ko rean, o n the othe r hand , allows the overt, syntacti c movement o f mor e tha n on e focus bu t onl y a singl e WH-phrase per clause).

References Agouraki, G . (1990 ) "O n th e Projectio n of Maxima l Categories : th e Cas e o f C P an d F P in Moder n Greek, " UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 183-200 , Universit y College London . Aissen, J . (1991 ) "Topi c an d Focus i n Mayan, " Language 68 , 43-80. Awobuluyi, O. (1978) "Focu s Constructions a s Noun Phrases," Linguistic Analysis 4 , 93 114. Brassai, S . (1860, 1863-65 ) "A magya r mondat," Magyar Akademiai Ertesitff. A Nyelves Szeptudomdnyi Osztdly Kozldnye 1 , 179-399; 3 , 3-128, 173-409 . Brody, M. (1990 ) "Som e Remarks on the Focus Fiel d i n Hungarian, " UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 201-226, Universit y Colleg e London . Calabrese, A. (1987 ) "Focu s Structur e in Berber : A Comparative Analysis with Italian, " in M. Guerssel and K. Hale, eds. , Studies in Berber Syntax. Lexicon Project Working Papers 14. Cente r fo r Cognitiv e Science , MIT , Cambridge , Massachusetts . Carlson, G . (1978 ) Reference to Kinds in English, Garland, Ne w York. Choe, H . S . (1989 ) "Restructurin g Parameter s an d Scramblin g i n Korea n an d Hungar ian," i n L. Marac z an d P . Muysken, eds., Configurationality,, Foris, Dordrecht. Chomsky, N. (1976) "Condition s o n Rules of Grammar," Linguistic Analysis 2, 303-352. Chomsky, N . (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht . Chomsky, N . (1986 ) Barriers, MI T Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Chomsky, N. (1991) "Some Notes o n Economy o f Derivation and Representation, " i n R. Freidin, ed. , Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MI T Press , Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Introduction 2

5

Clements, G. N. (1984) "Binding Domains in Kikuyu," Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 14, 2, 37-57. Comrie, B. (1984 ) "Som e Propertie s of Focus i n Moder n Eastern Armenian," Annual of Armenian Linguistics 5 , 1-21 . Diesing, M. (1992 ) Indefinites, MIT Press , Cambridge , Massachusetts . Eguzkitza, A. (1987 ) Topics on the Syntax of Basque and Romance, Indian a University Linguistics Club . England, N. (1991 ) "Change s i n Basic Wor d Order in Mayan Languages," International Journal of American Linguistics 57 , 446-486. Enrico, J . (1986 ) "Wor d Order , Focus , an d Topi c i n Haida, " International Journal of American Linguistics 52 , 91-123. Enrico, J . (i n preparation ) Haida. Grammar, unpublished manuscript, Queen Charlott e Islands Museum , Skidegate, British Columbia. Erguvanli, E. E . (1984 ) The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar, University of California Press , Berkeley. Farmer, A . K . (1980 ) On the Interaction of Morphology and Syntax, Doctora l disserta tion, MIT, Cambridge , Massachusetts. Gambhir, V . (1981) Syntactic Restrictions and Discourse Functions of Word Order in Standard Hindi, Doctora l dissertation , University of Pennsylvania. Giv6n, T. (1975) "Focus an d th e Scope o f Assertion. Some Bantu Evidence," Studies in African Linguistics 6, 185-205 . Hajic'ova', E . (1983 ) "Topi c an d Focus," Theoretical Linguistics 10 , 268-276. Heyer, G. (1985) "Generi c Descriptions, Default Reasoning, and Typicality," Theoretical Linguistics 12 , 33-72. Horn, L. (1981 ) "Exhaustivenes s an d the Semantic s of Clefts, " Proceedings of the llth Annual Meeting of NELS, MIT , Cambridge, Massachusetts, 125-142 . Horvath, J. (1976 ) "Focu s i n Hungarian and the X-bar Notation," Linguistic Analysis 2, 175-197. Horvath, J . (1981 ) Aspects of Hungarian Syntax and the Theory of Grammar. Doctora l dissertation, UCLA. Horvath, J. (1986) FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian, Foris , Dordrecht. Huck, G . J., an d Y. Na (1990) "Extrapositio n and Focus," Language 66 , 51-77. Jacobs, J . (1983 ) Fokus und Skalen. Zur Syntax und Semantik von Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Niemeyer, Tubingen. Jo, M.-J . (1991) Fixed Word Order and the Theory of the Pre-Verbal Focus Position in Korean, Doctora l dissertation, University o f Washington, Seattle, Washington. Kenesei, I. (1986 ) "O n th e Logi c of Focus," i n W. Abraham and S . d e Meij, eds. , Topic, Focus and Configurationality, Joh n Benjamins, Amsterdam, Kenesei, I . (1993 ) "O n th e Synta x of Focus, " unpublishe d manuscript, Universit y of Delaware, Newark, and Universit y of Szeged , Hungary. King, T. H. (1993) "VP Internal Subjects in Russian," paper presented o n the 2n d workshop o n Forma l Approache s to Slavi c Linguistics , MIT , Cambridge , Massachu setts, May 1993 . E. Kiss, K . (1977) "Topic and Focus i n Hungarian Syntax," Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 8 , 1-42. E. Kiss, K. (1981) "Structura l Relations in Hungarian, a "Free" Word Order Language," Linguistic Inquiry 12 , 18'i-215 . E. Kiss , K. (1987 ) Configurationality in Hungarian, Reidel , Dordrecht .

26

Discourse Configurational Languages

E. Kiss (199la) "Logical Structur e in Syntactic Structure: the Case of Hungarian," in C.T. J. Huang and R. May, eds., Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure, Kluwer , Dordrecht. E. Kiss , K . (1991b ) "A n Argumen t for Movement, " i n H . Haide r an d K . Netter , eds. , Representation and Derivation in the Theory of Grammar, Kluwer , Dordrecht . E. Kiss , K . (1993 ) "Genericity , Predication , an d Focus," unpublishe d manuscript , Linguistic Institut e of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences , Budapest . Koopman, H. , an d D. Sportiche (1990 ) "Subjects, " unpublished manuscript, UCLA. Krifka, M . (1991) " A Compositional Semantic s for Multiple Focus Constructions, " Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) I, Cornell Working Papers 11. Krifka, M . (1992 ) " A Framewor k for Focus-Sensitiv e Quantification," in C . Barke r and D. Dowty , eds., SALT II. Proceedings from the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory. Working Papers in Linguistics 40, Ohi o Stat e University, Columbus, 215-236. Kuroda, S.-Y . (1972-73) "Th e Categorica l an d th e Theti c Judgement, " Foundations of Language 9, 153-185. Laka, I. (1990) Negation in Syntax. On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections, Doctora l dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts . Lasnik, H. , an d M. Sait o (1992 ) Move Alpha, MI T Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts. Lecarme, J. (1992) "Focus en Somali: syntax et interpretation," Linguistique Africaine 1. Marty, A. (1918 ) Gesammelte Schriften. II . Band , 1 . Abteilung, Max Niemeyer , Halle . Marty, A. (1965 ) Psyche und Sprachstruktur, Verla g A. Francke, Bern . May, R . (1985 ) Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, MI T Press , Cambridge , Massachusetts. Ortiz d e Urbina , J . (1991 ) Parameters in the Grammar of Basque, Foris , Dordrecht . Ouhalla, J . (1991 ) "Focussin g i n Berbe r and Circassia n and th e V 2 Phenomenon, " un published manuscript , University College London. Pesetsky, D. (1989) "Language Particular Processes an d the Earliness Principle," unpublished manuscript , MIT, Cambridge , Massachusetts. Primus, B . (1992 ) "Th e Rol e o f Grammatica l Relations i n Wor d Orde r Universals, " EUROTYP Working Papers, ESF , Strasbourg. Rebuschi, G . (1989 ) "I s ther e a V P i n Basque?, " i n L . Marac z an d P . Muysken, eds., Configurationality. The Typology of Asymmetries, 85-116 , Foris, Dordrecht . Rijk, R.P.G . d e (1978 ) "Topi c Fronting , Focu s Positionin g and th e Natur e of th e Verb Phrase in Basque, " i n F. Jansen, ed., Studies on Fronting, Pete r d e Ridde r Press , Lisse. Rizzi, L . (1991 ) Relativized Minimality, MI T Press , Cambridge , Massachusetts. Rochemont, M. (1978 ) A Theory of Stylistic Rules in English, Garland Press, New York. Rooth, M. (1985) Association with Focus, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Rothstein, S . (1983 ) The Syntactic Forms of Predication, Doctora l dissertation , MIT , Cambridge, Massachusetts. Rudin, C . (1986 ) Aspects of Bulgarian Syntax: Complementizers and Wh Constructions, Slavica, Columbus. Rudin, C. (1992) "Topic and Focus in Bulgarian," to appear in Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Schachter, P . (1973) "Focu s an d Relativization, " Language 49 , 19-46 . Sgall, P., ed. (1984) Contributions to Functional Syntax, Semantics, and Language Comprehension, Academia, Praha.

Introduction 2

7

Sgall, P., and E. HajiCovd (1973 ) Topic, Focus, and Generative Semantics, Scriptor Verlag, Kronberg Taunus. Stechow, A. von (1981) "Topic , Focus, an d Relevance," in W. Klein and W. Levelt, eds. , Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics, Reidel , Dordrecht . Stechow, A. von (1991 ) "Curren t Issues in the Theory o f Focus," in A. von Stecho w and D. Wunderlich , eds., Semantics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, D e Gruyter, Berlin. Stechow, A . von , an d S . Uhman n (1986) "Som e Remark s o n Focu s Projection, " i n W. Abraham an d S . d e Meij , eds. , Topic, Focus, and Configurationality,, John Benjamins, Amsterdam . Stowell, T . (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, Doctora l Dissertation , MIT , Cambridge , Massachusetts. Szabolcsi, A. (1981 ) "Th e Semantic s of Topic-Focus Articulation," in J. Groenendij k et al., eds. , Formal Methods in the Study of Language 2 , 503-540 , Matematisc h Centrum, Amsterdam. Szabolcsi, A. (1983) "Focussin g Properties , o r the Trap of First Order," Theoretical Linguistics 10 , 125-145. Szabolcsi, A . (1992) "Wea k Island s and Scope," in C. Barker and D. Dowty, eds., SALT II. Proceedings from the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Working Papers in Linguistics 40, Ohio Stat e University, Columbus , 407-436 . Tsimpli, I . M . (1990 ) "Th e Claus e Structur e an d Wor d Orde r o f Moder n Greek, " UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2 , 226-258, University College London . Tuller, L . (1992 ) "Th e Synta x of Postverba l Focu s Construction s in Chadic, " Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10 , 303-334. Ulrich, Miorit a (1985 ) Thetisch und kategorisch, Narr , Tubingen. Uriagereka, J. (1988 ) On Government, Doctora l dissertation , University of Connecticut, Storrs. Uriagereka, J . (1992 ) "Th e Synta x o f Movemen t in Basque, " in J . Lakarr a an d J . Orti z de Urbina , eds, Syntactic Theory and Basque Syntax, ASJU, Donostia . Uriagereka, J. (forthcomin g a) "Aspects o f Clitic Placement i n Western Romance," Linguistic Inquiry. Uriagereka, J. (forthcoming b) "Government Restrictions and Basque Movements," Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Vallduvi, E. (1992 ) The Informational Component, Garland , New York. Vallduvi, E . (1993 ) "Catala n a s VOS: Evidenc e fro m Informatio n Packaging," i n W . J. Ashby e t al. , eds. , Linguistic Perspectives in the Romance Languages, Joh n Benjamins, Amsterdam. Vilkuna, M . (1989 ) Free Word Order in Finnish, Suomalaise n Kirjallisuude n Seura, Helsinki. Wallace, W. D. (1985) Subjects and Subjecthood in Nepali: An Analysis of Nepali Clause Structure and Its Challenges to Relational Grammar and Government and Binding, Doctora l dissertation , University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Walters, J. (1979 ) "Focu s i n Aghem," in L. Hyman, ed., Aghem Grammatical Structure, Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7 . Williams, E . (1980 ) "Predication, " Linguistic Inquiry 11 , 203-238.

2 STRUCTURAL FOCUS, STRUCTURAL CASE, AND THE NOTION OF FEATURE ASSIGNMENT JULIA HORVATH Tel-Aviv University

1. Introduction Cross-linguistic variatio n wit h respect t o th e syntacti c position(s) occupie d b y arguments, e.g. by subjects, within clauses has traditionally been in the center of research withi n the framewor k of G B theory , an d ha s give n ris e t o importan t developments in relation to the parametrization of UG. (see e.g. Chomsky (1981), Travis (1984), Bore r (1986), Koopma n and Sportiche (1990)). Likewise , varia tion among languages with respect to the S-structure position(s) of Wh-phrases— in particular , in situ vs . move d int o [SPEC , CP]—ha s receive d considerable attention (se e e.g. Ma y (1985), Chomsk y (1986), Kuroda (1988), Rizz i (1991)). A further , fundamentall y similar, instanc e o f cross-linguisti c variation , involv ing the range of S-structure positions for focus—i.e., for constituents interprete d as the (identificational ) FOCU S of their clause—however ha s gon e largely unrecognized until recently.1 The first proposal involving restrictions an d languageparticular difference s i n th e syntacti c distributio n o f FOCU S an d thei r incorporation int o th e theor y o f GB appeared i n Horvat h (1981 , 1986) ; only a couple of recent papers take up this topic of obvious theoretical significance , such as Tuller (1988, 1992), Brody (1990), proposing modification s and additions (t o be discussed below ) for the account of the syntax of Focus i n the former works. The present study will undertake further investigatio n of the sources and theoretical implications of the cross-linguistic variation manifested b y th e syntax of Focus, more precisely, the existence and specific location(s ) of designated—i.e. syntactically/structurally limited—Focu s positions in a variety of languages. 28

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 2

9

Our discussio n wil l evaluate and elaborate th e hypothesis put forwar d origi nally b y Horvat h (1981, 1986 ) accordin g t o whic h (a ) there is a fundamental parallelism between the nature and origin of structural Focus positions (a s attested in languages such as Hungarian, Aghera, Basque) and of structural Caseassignment position s (as e.g. those of nominative and objective Case in languages such as English), and (b) the parallelisms observed are to be captured by the claim that UG has a syntactic feature [-fFOCUS] , whic h in terms o f its formal prop erties—namely, it s mode(s) , leve l an d condition(s ) of assignment—i s o n a pa r with (structural ) Case features . Naturally , the substance , an d consequently, th e function o f the [+FOCUS] feature postulated is distinct from, thoug h still to some extent parallel to, that of Case features. While the contribution of Case involves the licensin g o f arguments, more precisely o f A-chains, the [+FQCUS ] featur e is claimed t o turn a constituent that (unlike wh-phrases) intrinsically has no operator-element int o one that eventually ca n play the role of a variable-binding operator (on a par with wh-phrases), i.e. , i n this framework , [+FOCUS ] i s the feature tha t license s th e A-ba r chai n whic h at leas t sinc e Chomsk y (1976 ) i s commonly assume d to constitut e the LF-representation o f Focus. Strikin g sup port fo r thi s view of th e contribution of th e [+FOCUS ] feature postulated her e comes fro m th e contrasting behavior of focused vs. topicalized phrase s with respect to weak crossover, discussed recently in Lasnik an d Stowell (1991); thei r study shows that Focus phrases but not topicalized phrases ac t at LF like phrase s containing true quantifiers, even though superficially both look lik e plain, nonquantified phrase s occupying A-bar positions.2 Based on the above assumptions, Horvath (1981,1986) formulated a "FOCUSParameter" fo r UG , providin g th e followin g tw o option s fo r th e statu s o f th e [-fFOCUS] feature : (1) FOCUS-Parameter : a. [+FOCUS] : a feature associate d freel y wit h any category—derivin g the English-typ e languages, i.e. Focus in situ b. th e "grammaticalized" version of the [+FOCUS] feature: an intrinsic part of the feature-matrix o f a single category, namely , V—meant to derive the Hungarian-type, structurally limited, instantiation s of Focus This FOCUS-Parameter, in conjunction wit h an independently motivated "Locality Condition o n Feature-Assignment" requirin g that any feature-assigning categor y govern and be adjacent t o the recipient of the feature, was claimed to be abl e to account fo r th e distinctio n between the tw o type s of S-structur e realizations o f Focus (Englis h vs. Hungarian), as well as for the particular S-structure positions of Focu s attested in a couple of additiona l "designated" Focu s languages . In subsequent work, Brody (1990) proposes a modification o f the above analy sis, based crucially on the introduction of a functional categor y F, projecting into a Focu s Phras e (FP) . Whil e Brody's theor y of Focu s retain s Horvath' s (1981 , 1986) assumption s regarding (a) th e existenc e an d assignment-propertie s o f a syntactic featur e [+FOCUS], a s wel l as (b ) th e categor y V being th e sourc e of

30

Discourse Configurational Languages

the [+FOCUS ] featur e in the Hungarian-type languages, it incorporates in addi tion t o these the following pair of well-formedness conditions—paralle l to those familiar from the analysis of +WH CP's, i.e . to the so-called "Wh-Criterion " (May (1985), Rizz i (1991)) : (2) a . A t S-structur e an d LF th e Spe c o f a n FP must contai n a +f-phrase . b. A t LF all +f-phrases mus t be in an FP.3 (Brod y (1990 , (lOa, b)) Notice no w tha t th e optio n o f havin g i n ou r theor y o f Focu s som e well formedness conditio n like (2) , henceforth referred t o as the "FOCUS-Criterion," immediately raise s th e following new question: I s the cross-linguistic variatio n observed wit h respect t o th e S-structur e position s o f Focus constituent s du e t o the parametrization of the status/origin of the feature [+FOCUS]—as implied by the FOCUS-Parameter in (1)—or to the parametrizatio n o f a FOCUS-Criterion such as (2), or possibly, to a combination of these? In Brody's (1990) analysis , it is the parametrization of his FOCUS-Criterion, in particular, of condition (2a) t o apply onl y a t L F vs . t o appl y bot h a t LF an d a t S-structure , tha t is take n t o b e the sourc e o f the contras t betwee n the S-structur e of English vs . Hungaria n Focus, whil e the way the feature [+FOCUS] i s assigned t o constituents is assume d to be essentially invariant. 4 In thi s study , w e will critically compar e an d reevaluate th e various assumptions in the abov e two theories o f the synta x of Focus, wit h particular reference to th e question o f whic h typ e o f parameter is abl e t o provide a more adequate account of a fuller rang e o f cross-linguistic, a s wel l as language-internal , varia tion regardin g S-structure positions fo r Focu s element s foun d whe n w e g o be yond th e limite d Englis h vs . Hungaria n contrast. I n additio n t o evidenc e fro m Hungarian, the empirical material for broadening the typology of structurally limited Focus positions will b e drawn fro m a variety of African languages , namely from Kikuyu , Aghem (Bantu), and some of the Chadic languages studied in Tuller (1992), such as Western Bade and Kanakuru. The majo r conclusion s emergin g fro m ou r discussio n wil l b e th e following : (a) Th e mechanism of [+FOCUS] assignmen t by an X° category i s needed any way, fo r the cas e of Hungaria n in contrast t o that of e.g. English , als o i n a framework incorporatin g the (parametrized) FOCUS-Criterion (as admitte d also i n Brody 1990) . (b) Parametrizatio n o f th e FOCUS-Criterio n (a s e.g . i n Brod y 1990 ) make s incorrect prediction s wit h respect t o the rang e of variation exhibited b y S structure realizations of Focus in different designate d Focus languages. (c) Th e parametrization of the feature [+FOCUS] an d its assignment along line s matching those motivated independently by the stud y o f (structural) nominative Cas e doe s see m t o provid e a constraine d ye t sufficientl y flexibl e account o f th e S-structur e syntax of Focus .

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 3

1

Hence ou r proposal wil l be to capture th e S-structur e variation involvin g Focus b y limitin g parametric variatio n t o th e singl e proces s o f th e associatio n o f the [+FOCUS ] featur e wit h categories. 5

2. [+FOCUS] Assignment and/or the FOCUS-Criterion 2.1. Feature-Assignment and Focus in Hungarian Given th e recen t proliferatio n o f new functional categories headin g full-fledge d maximal projections in analyses of clause structur e (starting with Pollock (1989)), it is indeed not unreasonable to entertain the following two hypotheses, a s in fac t has bee n don e by Brod y (1990) : (a) Grammar s have a functional categor y F, projecting an FP, where F is a formative tha t corresponds t o "FOCUS." (b) Th e source of the contrast between Focus-in-situ language s (a s English) and designated Focus-positio n language s (as Hungarian) is the parametrizatio n of the FOCUS-Criterion (se e 2) , specifically, o f (2a) above , t o apply eithe r only a t LF or als o a t S-structure . These tw o proposal s indee d seem , a t firs t glance , t o accoun t fo r th e relevan t English/Hungarian contrast elegantly, on the analogy of Wh-in-situ vs . overt Wh movement languages. To illustrate the English/Hungarian contrast under discus sion, conside r th e followin g set s o f example s (wher e th e Focu s constituen t i s capitalized): (3) a . I threw awa y the newspaper. b. I threw awa y THE NEWSPAPER. (='It's th e newspaper tha t I threw away' ) (4) a . Eldobta m a z ujsagot . away-threw-I th e newspaper-ac e 'I thre w awa y the newspaper ' b. A Z UJSAGO T dobta m el . THE NEWSPAPER-AC C threw-I awa y 'It's th e newspaper that I thre w away' c. *Eldobta m A Z UJSAGO T away-threw-I TH E NEWSPAPER-AC C d. *A Z UJSAGO T eldobta m THE NEWSPAPER-AC C away-threw- I The well-known descriptiv e generalization s behin d suc h dat a ar e (a) that un like English , Hungarian does no t permit Focus i n situ a t S-structure, an d (b) that the designate d Focus positio n o f Hungaria n is left-adjacen t t o th e verb . I t i s b y now als o widel y accepted tha t this S-structur e Focus positio n i s a n A-ba r posi tion whic h c-command s the ver b an d it s argument s followin g i t (se e th e argu -

32

Discourse Configurational Languages

ments of Farkas (1986) , Horvat h (1986 , pp. 147-14 8 n. 40)). Thus, th e S-struc ture representatio n propose d b y Brod y (1990 ) fo r Hungaria n base d o n hi s F P hypothesis an d FOCUS-Criterion i s consisten t wit h these generalizations, i f w e make th e no t unmotivate d additional assumptio n tha t th e inflecte d V get s pre posed int o F. 6

While the contrast between the above S-structur e Focus configuratio n and in-situ Focus woul d indee d follo w straightforwardl y fro m th e parametrizatio n o f th e application o f (2a ) (S-structur e vs . LF) , ther e obviousl y i s mor e t o th e stor y o f the designate d Focu s positio n o f Hungarian . Note th e followin g tw o question s raised b y the descriptive generalization s characterizin g the S-structur e syntax of Focus i n Hungarian: 1. Wh y doe s th e ver b nee d t o mov e into th e (alleged ) F node ? 2. Wh y is strict adjacency required between this node an d the Focus constitu ent i n it s SPEC ? The clai m tha t th e (finite ) verb indeed need s t o prepos e i n Focu s construction s is motivate d b y th e relativ e orde r betwee n a variet y o f normall y preverba l par ticles (an d othe r incorporate d verba l modifiers) and the verb . (Se e e.g . th e con trast betwee n (4b ) an d (4d ) above , an d th e discussio n i n Brod y (1990). ) Th e distinct additiona l requiremen t o f adjacenc y betwee n th e propose d V an d th e Focus positio n i s illustrate d belo w (cf . (4b)) : (6) *A Z UJSAGO T valoszinuleg/szerintii k dobta m el . THE NEWSPAPER-AC C probably/according-to-the m threw- I awa y Crucially, neither the necessity of V-movement in Focus construction s nor the above adjacency requirement follow simpl y from th e SPEC-head relatio n betwee n the Focuse d elemen t an d F require d b y th e FOCUS-Criterion . I n regar d t o th e latter, notic e tha t the mer e fac t o f two element s bein g i n a SPEC-head configu ration doe s not impl y stric t adjacenc y betwee n th e two , a s show n b y th e grammaticality of the examples below for two of the best-known cases of SPEC head relations:

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 3

3

(7) Who in you r opinion should w e invit e to th e meeting ? (8) The boys / somebody certainl y could hav e arrive d b y now. 7 Thus, sinc e the FOCUS-Criterion provide s n o account for the above tw o fact s of Hungaria n Focus , w e nee d t o postulat e th e existenc e o f som e additiona l mechanism(s) i n orde r t o answe r question s 1 and 2 posed above . As fo r questio n 1 , involvin g the nee d fo r V-movement , on e ma y firs t tr y a minimal addition to the FOCUS-Criterion account by stating that F needs to be "lexicalized" i n orde r t o b e "visible, " i.e. , t o be abl e t o functio n a s F , fo r pur poses o f th e FOCUS-Criterion . Bu t clearl y suc h a n amendmen t wil l no t solv e the problem . I f th e V happene d no t t o b e i n F a t th e leve l o f S-structur e i n a particular derivation , tha t woul d just rende r th e relevant clause , namel y (2a) , of the FOCUS-Criterion voi d in that derivation at S-structure , F being "invisible. " Accordingly, n o movement int o the SPE C o f FP would (nee d to ) occu r prio r t o S-structure i n suc h a derivation. Since bot h V-raising to F an d proposing o f th e Focus X P into [SPEC,FP ] coul d i n principl e tak e plac e withi n LF , creating th e configuration fo r Focus require d by the FOCUS-Criterion, unde r this hypothesi s we woul d incorrectly predic t tha t Hungarian will i n fac t permi t in-sit u Focus a s well. Thu s w e nee d t o loo k fo r a differen t answe r t o questio n 1 , preferabl y on e that coul d als o provid e a solutio n t o the problem o f the adjacenc y requirement , raised i n questio n 2 . The followin g tw o alternativ e hypothese s eac h provid e a n answer t o bot h question s 1 and 2 ; eac h o f the m cruciall y involve s th e proces s (postulated i n Horvath (1981 , 1986) ) by means of which a n X° category assign s the syntacti c featur e [+FOCUS] : Hypothesis A Consider the proposal made in Brody (1990). Unde r his analysis, the reason wh y V must mov e into F in Hungarian Focu s sentences is that the XP occupying the [SPEC.FP] positio n a t S-structur e must receiv e th e [+FOCUS ] featur e in orde r to satisf y th e FOCUS-Criterio n a t S-structure (se e (2a) ) an d thi s featur e ca n b e assigned to non-A positions only by V. 8 That is, following the analysis in Horvath (1981, 1986) , thi s accoun t assume s th e categor y V to be abl e t o carr y th e syn tactic featur e [+FOCUS] , and , crucially, t o assig n it under the condition s famil iar fro m th e assignmen t o f othe r syntacti c feature s b y a n X ° category , suc h a s Case. Thes e condition s o n feature-assignmen t ar e (a ) governmen t by , an d (b ) adjacency t o the feature-assigning head. Consequently , w e have here a n account for wh y V need s t o prepos e i n Focu s construction s (namely , t o gover n th e [SPEC,FP] position) , an d also for why this V needs t o be strictl y adjacen t t o the [SPEC.FP] position . Hypothesis B This alternativ e proposal, whic h I would like to explore here , als o maintains that the reason fo r V-movement in Hungarian Focus construction s an d for the neces sary adjacenc y betwee n the Focused constituen t and V is the need fo r the phrase eventually interprete d as Focus t o receive the syntacti c feature [+FOCUS ] fro m an X° category, under the familia r condition s of government and adjacenc y (se e

34

Discourse Configurational Languages

also Horvath 1981,1986) . But it diverges fro m the former account—and also from Horvath (1981 , 1986)—i n claiming that V is nor the carrier and assignor of the [+FOCUS] feature. 9 I t maintains instead that V onl y helps th e particula r func tional head involved t o assign the feature, by "lexicalizing" it.10 Before turnin g to some evidenc e that may help us decide betwee n thes e tw o alternative views , notic e wha t unites thes e two accounts: the y bot h assum e th e existence o f a mechanism of syntactic feature-assignment by an X° category cru cially involve d in the syntax of Focus (a t least) i n Hungarian. Whether i t is parameters involvin g thi s feature-assignmen t proces s o r th e parametrize d FOCUS-Criterion that accounts fo r the variation observable i n the syntax of Focus i n languages wil l be th e majo r topi c o f discussio n i n th e rest of thi s study . But firs t le t us consider briefl y the issue raised b y the above tw o alternatives a s to whethe r the X ° category that i s the sourc e of th e [+FOCUS ] featur e i s V it self, o r some functiona l hea d (suc h as, e.g., a category F),

2.2. The Source of the (+FOCUS] Feature The idea that in Hungarian (and also in several other designated Focus languages) the source and assigner of the syntactic feature [+FOCUS] i s the category V was originally propose d a s part of the framework for the syntax of Focus outlined i n Horvath (1981 , 1986), and has been adopted unchanged int o Brody's (1990) account o f Focus , referre d t o above . The basi s fo r thi s clai m wa s th e systemati c relation o f governmen t and adjacenc y tha t V appeare d t o bea r wit h respec t t o Focus constituent s at the level of S-structure. However, as noted also in Ortiz de Urbina (1986) an d Tuller (1992), thi s claim raises the conceptual problem o f why it would be exactly the lexical category V, rather than any other lexica l category , that ca n ac t a s th e sourc e an d assigne r of th e featur e [+FOCUS ] i n designate d Focus languages . Moreover, on e ma y wel l wonde r why suc h a featur e woul d originate i n a lexical, rathe r than a functional, category i n the firs t place. Thus , the claim that V is the [+FOCUS] assigning categor y appear s t o be a rather un natural stipulatio n i n the abov e analyses . Proponent s o f suc h a n analysi s coul d of cours e poin t out an apparently parallel case , namely that of structural accusative Case , a s in fac t ha s bee n don e i n Horvat h (1981, 1986) . Specifically , i t could b e note d tha t in man y language s V is the category assignin g accusativ e Case unde r the purel y structura l (i.e. , non-thematic/lexical ) condition s o f gov ernment and adjacency; hence the alleged associatio n between [+FOCUS] assign ment and the category V is not as unique as it might seem a t first glance . Bu t as we wil l se e below , ther e ar e (a t least ) tw o majo r conceptua l reason s wh y thi s alleged parallelism , an d more generally, the idea of V being th e assigner o f th e [+FOCUS] featur e (i.e., Hypothesis A ) is untenable . First, notice tha t a syntactic feature tha t i s associated with, i.e. , originate s in the feature-matri x of , a lexical category may be expecte d t o potentiall y exhibit sensitivity t o particula r lexica l instantiation s of th e feature-assignin g category , as well as sensitivity to the thematic relation (o r the lack of it) between the fea ture-assigning head and the phrase which is to receive th e feature. Both of these

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 3

5

possibilities ar e actually substantiated in relation to Case assigne d b y V; in particular, thi s latte r feature , whe n assigne d b y V, may b e no t onl y structural (a s e.g. i n English), but also inherent, the latter type of assignment exhibiting precisely th e kin d of lexical/themati c sensitivit y referred t o above . Bu t crucially , [•fFOCUS] assignmen t neve r seem s t o manifes t thi s kin d o f sensitivity, i.e. , i t never seem s to be a lexically o r thematically governe d process . Secondly, [- f FOCUS] assignmen t is distinct i n nature even from purely structural feature assignmen t processes done by uncontroversially lexical categories, such a s fo r instanc e (structural ) accusativ e Cas e assignmen t b y V mentione d above. Recall "Burzio's generalization," which states that if a verb assigns accusative Case, then it assigns a theta-role to its subject (Burzio (1981)). This prin ciple expresse s a dependency relatio n tha t holds betwee n th e structura l featur e accusative Cas e o n V an d the theta-assignmen t propertie s o f this category . N o similar dependency relation appears to be exhibited with respect t o the presence/ absence of the feature [+FOCUS ] and thematic properties of V. Yet, if [+FOCUS ] is just another structurally assigned feature of V, one could in principle expect to find suc h phenomena, as we actually do in the case of V-assigned structural Case , Thus, [+FOCUS ] manifests no association/interaction whatsoeve r wit h the lexi cal category V alleged t o be its sourc e and assigner i n the Hungarian-typ e lan guages. The abov e dissimilaritie s betwee n Cas e feature s assigned b y V and the fea ture [+FOCUS] should not be dismissed on the grounds that they have to do with intrinsic differences between Case and Focus, sinc e there is a parallel systemati c difference holdin g within the set of Case features in the above respects, namely between Cas e assigne d b y lexical vs . Cas e assigne d b y functional categories . Contrast the behavior o f Case feature s whose source is a lexical category , suc h as V discusse d above, wit h that o f nominativ e Case , whos e sourc e i s a func tional category, namely, I (or within the framework of Pollock (1989), the functional categor y T) . No t surprisingly , nominative Case assignment—jus t lik e [-fFOCUS] assignment—ha s no thematically o r lexically governe d version ; du e to being assigne d by a functional head , it is uniformly structural, an d it manifests no dependency relation with thematic properties (comparabl e e.g. to Burzio's generalization). These observation s then strongly suggest that it is not V—or any other lexical category—tha t is the source and assigner of the [+FOCUS ] feature in designate d Focus languages , but rathe r som e functional X° category, a s as serted b y ou r Hypothesi s B in sectio n 2.1 . Empirica l evidenc e i n favo r of this conclusion fro m th e case of Hungarian is presented below . Recall tha t under Hypothesis B , the explanation for why V seems t o have t o prepose in Hungarian Focus sentences, an d to appear adjacent t o the Focus phras e has nothin g to do with the category V as such (i t has no [+FOCUS ] feature t o assign); rather the explanation for these generalization s is simply that V acts in the cases considered a s the element tha t provides lexica l content/substanc e for a functional hea d possessing the [+FOCUS] feature , thus enabling the latter to assign thi s feature . Consequently , this account makes a n interestin g prediction: i f a Hungarian Focus sentence turn s out to have no (phonologically overt) V, then some othe r overt lexical X° category will prepose t o th e Focus-adjacen t posi -

36

Discourse Configurational Languages

tion, in order t o "lexicalize" the [+FOCUS]-assigning functional head. This pre diction i n fac t turn s out t o b e correct , a s demonstrate d by th e contrast s in (9 ) and (10) : (9) a . JANOSNAL j vol t Mar i magasab b t{ JOHN-BY wa s Mar y talle r 'Mary wa s taller tha n JOHN.' b. JANOSNAL ; magasab b Mar i t{ JOHN-BY talle r Mar y 'Mary is taller tha n JOHN.' c. *JANOSNAL ; Mar i magasab b t{ JOHN-BY Mar y talle r (10) a . MAR I vol t m a faradt . MARY wa s toda y tire d 'MARY was tired today. ' b. MAR I farad t ma . MARY tire d toda y 'MARY is tired today.' c. *MAR I m a faradt . MARY toda y tire d If th e featur e [+FOCUS ] originate d i n th e lexica l categor y V , we woul d ex pect sentence s (9b) an d (lOb ) t o be impossible; bu t in reality, they ar e perfectly grammatical Focus sentences . Furthermore, if one tried to claim that in example s (9b) and (lOb) there is a phonologically null V—parallel to the past tense copula volt in (9a)-(10a)—which gets preposed, an d this is the category tha t assigns th e feature [+FOCUS] , on e would leave the contrast between the grammatical (9b)(lOb) and the ungrammatical (9c)-(10c) with no explanation; ther e woul d be no reason wh y the subject in (9c) and the adverb in (lOc) should not be able to occur before the predicate adjective, given that they do occur before it in (9a) and (lOa) respectively. Unde r our Hypothesis B, o n the othe r hand, the grammaticalit y of the (b ) sentence s an d th e ungrammaticalit y of th e (c ) sentence s woul d follo w automatically; i n the absence of a verbal element, the A heading th e small claus e must propos e in order to lexicalize the [+FOCUS]-assignin g functional head.

2.3. Focus Positions and the [SPEC,FP] Hypothesis So far we have argued (a) that even if one assumes the existence o f a category F (and FP) and a parametrized Focus-Criterion—as in (2)—one still needs a mechanism o f feature-assignmen t by a n X ° categor y involvin g the syntacti c feature [+FOCUS] in designated Focus languages , and (b ) that in th e latter type of languages, the source and assigner of the feature [+FOCUS] is not V but rather some functional X ° category. Th e nex t issu e t o addres s the n i s whethe r the variatio n exhibited by the S-structure syntax of Focus is best accounted for (a ) in terms of a universal category F, projecting an FP, in conjunction with the parametrization

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 3

7

of conditio n (2a ) o f the Focus-Criterion (a s propose d i n Brod y (1990)) , or (b ) in term s o f parameters involvin g the wa y in which the [+FOCUS ] featur e i s ac quired, namely , in terms of its particular source/assigner and its mode of assign ment. Whil e th e cas e o f Focu s i n Hungaria n ha s show n th e nee d fo r th e mechanism o f [+FOCUS ] assignment , i t canno t she d ligh t o n th e abov e issue , since i t turn s out to b e consisten t wit h either o f th e tw o assumption s abou t th e source of variation . Specifically, the "designated " S-structur e position of Focus phrases i n Hungarian could b e du e to th e process of [+FOCUS]-assignmen t be ing limite d t o a particular functiona l hea d (t o be identifie d belo w a s I) and tak ing plac e a s a result o f a SPEC-head relation , or , alternatively, i t may be du e t o the nee d fo r th e nod e F postulate d b y Brod y (1990 ) t o satisf y claus e (a ) o f th e Focus-Criterion (se e (2) ) alread y a t th e leve l o f S-structur e i n Hungaria n (i n contrast to , e.g., English) , i.e., to have it s SPEC fille d by a [+FOCUS] phras e a t S-structure. S o let u s se e what types o f cases o f designated Focu s coul d hel p u s decide th e issue raise d above . A theory whic h derive s th e phenomenon o f designate d S-structur e Focu s po sitions from th e requirement fo r the SPEC o f the category F P to contain a [+FOCUS] phras e a t S-structure , impose d b y th e relevan t versio n o f th e Focus-Criterion, makes a number of rather specifi c predictions, amon g them th e following: (a) I n all designated Focus languages , the position o f the ex-situ Focu s elemen t at S-structure will be identica l to its position a t LF, namely the [SPEC.FP ] position (du e to the Focus-Criterion). 11 (b) Accordin g to the Focus-Criterion, i f a clause in a designated Focus languag e has som e projectio n o f th e categor y V as it s onl y Focuse d element , thes e categories to o wil l hav e to appea r i n th e SPE C o f FP positio n a t the leve l of S-structur e (se e Brod y (1990) o n Focuse d V' s i n Hungarian). (c) Sinc e th e S-structur e positio n o f Focu s i n designate d Focu s language s i s supposed t o be the [SPEiC,FP ] position, any differences found wit h respec t to the structural position of Focus among various designated Focus languages will have to result from correspondin g differences in the position o f the F P or o f th e SPE C withi n FP in th e phras e structur e of these languages . Fur thermore, du e to the same requirement, on e would not expect t o fin d mul tiple (functionall y identical) S-structur e Focu s position s "scattered" in th e clause structure of a single designated Focus language. This is so since under any reasonabl y restrictiv e notio n o f derivin g th e hierarchica l arrangemen t of functional categories (whethe r by functional selection, or by Grimshaw's (1991) extende d projectio n mechanism) , th e categor y FP—an d henc e [SPEC,FP]—would fit into, i.e., woul d get licensed i n the sequence of func tional categories tha t make up clause-structure only at one single place, simi larly to the other, more familiar functiona l categorie s o f the clause (e.g . TP) . In th e followin g sectio n we wil l discus s empirical data, drawn from a variety of African languages , that bear on th e abov e predictions. Specifically, the case s

38

Discourse Configurational Languages

to be presented will be shown to contradict predictions (a)-(c ) of the [SPEC.FP ] hypothesis o f designate d S-structur e Focus , an d wil l cas t seriou s doub t o n th e tenability o f the accoun t of Focus formulate d in terms o f a parametrized Focus Criterion.

3. The Range of Variation 3.1. Scope and the Focus Position An accoun t of the synta x of Focus tha t is based o n the Focus-Criterion—o n th e analogy o f th e Wh-Criterion—wil l involv e parametrizatio n o f conditio n (2a) , given below as (11), to draw the distinction between in-situ Focus language s (like, e.g., English) , and designated Focu s language s (see Brod y (1990)). (11) A t (S-structur e and) LF the SPE C o f an FP mus t contai n a [+FOCUS ] phrase. Based o n whethe r the abov e claus e o f th e Focus-Criterio n mus t b e satisfie d already at S-structure , or onl y at the leve l of LF we wil l get designate d Focu s languages, or in-situ Focus languages, respectively. Under this theory of the syntax of Focu s then , a s note d i n predictio n (a ) above , th e S-structur e positio n o f a (moved) Focu s phras e i n designate d Focu s language s wil l necessaril y b e th e position i t occupie s a t LF ; namely , a t bot h level s i t wil l b e i n th e [SPEC,FP ] position. Consequently , the scop e o f Focu s i n designate d Focu s language s will correspond to the S-structure position o f the Focus phrase . Bu t thi s prediction i s contradicted b y th e cas e o f severa l designate d Focus languages , suc h as , fo r in stance, Aghem. According t o a thorough descriptive study by Walters (1979), Aghem ( a Bantu language spoken in Cameroon) i s a designated Focus language, with an SVO word order. Th e designate d syntacti c Focus positio n in Aghem, i n term s o f linea r or der, i s the position immediately following V. Thus consider the following instances of S-structure Focus, involving both interrogative wh-phrases and non-wh Focu s phrases (o n th e universa l requirement fo r interrogativ e wh-constituent s t o b e [+FOCUS], se e Horvath (1986 , sectio n 2.3): 12

(12) a . fi l a z i ki- M a n 'so m friends S M P 2 ea t fuf u i n far m 'The friend s at e fuf u i n th e farm. ' b. r t WHER E fuf u 2 ea 'Where di d th e friend s ea t fufu? ' c- ' k 5 ? friends S M P 2 ea t I N FAR M fuf u 'The friend s at e fuf u I N TH E FARM. '

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 3

9

(1 friends S M P 2 ea t fuf u wit h han d 'The friends at e fuf u wit h (their ) hands. ' b friends S M P 2 ea t HO W fuf u 'How di d th e friend s eat fufu? ' c.. friends S M P 2 ea t WIT H HAN D fuf u 'The friends at e fuf u WIT H (THEIR ) HANDS. ' While th e (a ) sentence s ar e unmarke d a s t o Focus , bot h th e (b ) an d th e (c ) sentences exhibit their unique Focus phrase, obligatorily, in the immediately post verbal position (se e Walters (1979, pp . 147-148)) . What is crucial t o notice her e from ou r poin t o f vie w i s tha t i n example s (b ) an d (c) , th e Focu s phras e get s interpreted a s havin g scop e ove r th e entir e sentence . Ye t these Focu s phrase s arguably occur at the level of S-structure in a position that does not have the entire sentence withi n it s c-comman d domain ; fo r instance , th e subject-N P occurrin g in the [SPECJP] position is apparently outside of the c-command domain of the Focus phrase . So , assumin g ;;cop e t o be determine d o n the basis o f c-comman d relations, th e prediction o f identity between S-structur e an d LF Focu s position s in designate d Focu s languages , note d a s prediction (a ) i n 2. 3 above , appear s t o be falsifie d b y th e fact s o f Aghem. Ther e ma y b e tw o potentia l way s t o tr y t o avoid thi s conclusion . On e coul d tr y t o clai m (a ) tha t th e immediatel y post- V Focus phrase s o f Aghem actuall y are in a [SPEC.FP ] position tha t doe s c-com mand the rest o f the clause, o r (b) that the subject-NP' s exhibite d i n our Aghem examples ar e not in an A-position, but rathe r i n som e peripheral A-bar position, and henc e fo r purpose s o f scop e interpretatio n the y migh t stil l coun t (base d o n the corresponding empt y category in the relevant A-position) a s being within the scope o f Focus . Bu t i n fac t neither o f thes e claim s seem s tenable . Startin g wit h (b), Walter s point s ou t tha t subject-NP' s i n Aghe m clause s uniforml y occu r t o the left o f I and V, unless the y are Focused, indicatin g that thi s i s the normal Aposition fo r subjects . Also th e obligator y appearanc e o f wha t Walters analyze s as an expletive element (glossed as DS="dummy subject") i n sentences wit h postV subjects, suc h as (14), argues—i f h e is righl—that the clause-initial N P in our Aghem examples i n (12)-(13) is in an A-position, namely , the SPEC of IP posi tion, an d no t i n som e left-dislocale d posilion . (14) a m o z i a-fi n b£-'ko \ DS P 2 ea t FRIEND S fuf u 'THE FRIENDS at e fufu. ' Turning no w t o clai m (a) , maintainin g tha i Ih e immediatel y posl- V Focu s posilion, i.e., Ih e allege d [SPEC,FP] , in Aghem i s hierarchically highe r tha n th e clause-initial SPEC of IP position just discussed, would imply the following kind of clause-structure:

40

Discourse Configurational Languages

While suc h a structur e woul d ge t th e scop e fact s right , derivin g fro m i t th e actual order of constituents attested would involve a number of very curious stipulations. T o get th e adjacenc y relation betwee n V an d th e Focu s phrase , firs t of all on e woul d need t o clai m tha t all intervenin g complements o f th e V ge t dis placed t o som e right-periphera l position, following [SPEC,FP] . Bu t firs t o f al l there woul d be n o wa y t o forc e suc h a n operation , moreove r Watters' s (1979 ) careful descriptio n notes no phenomenon—such as e.g. a n intonation break—that could be take n as indication of any sor t o f right dislocation i n Focus sentences . Furthermore, withi n suc h a structure , ther e seem s t o b e n o reasonabl e wa y t o explain ho w th e Focu s phras e receive s th e featur e [+FOCUS] . Notic e tha t nei ther V nor I gover n th e [SPEC,FP ] position , s o neithe r o f thes e coul d serv e a s Focus-assigners, eve n i f they wer e adjacen t to it; th e F node tha t does probabl y govern [SPEC.FP ] i s no t adjacen t t o it , du e t o th e intervenin g subjec t i n th e [SPEC,IP] position . Assumin g a modifie d version o f structur e (15 ) i n whic h F follows rathe r tha n precede s it s I P complemen t would eliminat e thi s las t prob lem, bu t i t woul d introduc e instea d a ne w undesirabl e stipulation . Unde r thi s analysis, th e interna l structure of F P i n Aghem woul d be th e exac t opposit e o f the othe r phrases—suc h a s e.g . I P and VP—i n th e language : FP , exceptionally, would have a head-final, rather than the normal head-initial, order a t the X' level, and woul d i n additio n hav e it s SPE C follow , rathe r tha n precede , th e X ' con stituent. In light o f all these problems , on e must conclude tha t a structure i n which th e S-structure post- V Focu s positio n c-command s th e whol e claus e (a s i n (15) ) i s not a tenabl e alternative . Consequently , w e ar e bac k t o ou r origina l clai m tha t the fact s o f Aghe m Focu s sentence s falsif y predictio n (a ) (sectio n 2.3 ) o f th e parametrized Focus-Criterio n accoun t of th e synta x of Focus , sinc e i n thi s lan guage th e S-structur e designated Focus positio n is apparentl y distinct from th e position o f Focu s at th e leve l of LF .

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 4

1

3.2. Focusing of Verbal Projections While th e prediction o f the parametrize d Focus-Criterion wit h respect t o the S structure positio n o f Focuse d V-projection s o f designate d Focu s language s i s clearly th e sam e a s it is with respect t o al l othe r categorie s (se e predictio n b in section 2.3) , whe n w e conside r th e cas e o f Focu s i n Kikuy u (a s describe d i n Clements (1984)) , w e discove r tha t th e fact s o f a t leas t thi s languag e see m t o contradict this expecte d parallelism . In Kikuy u (a Bantu language spoken in East Africa), a (single) Focused con stituent appear s i n a structura l position immediatel y following COMP (i.e. , th e head of CP), marked by a preclitic "focus particle " ne (glossed a s "FP"), accord ing t o the analysi s of Clements (1984). Kikuy u being a rigid SV O language, the Focused phrase , following the overt or non-overt C, occurs to the left o f the sub ject (unles s the subjec t itself i s the Focused element): 13 (16) a . n e KAANAK 8 KamaYt i a - 6 n-'i 'it FP SP-seeT 'It's Kanak e (that) Kamau saw. ' b. n 6 MBER8 YA MO-TE O6-RE A Kama, 'u a-5n-'ir£ Kaanakg FP FRONT O F CP-TRE E PP-DE M SP-seeT 'It's in fron t o f tha t tree that Kamau saw Kanake. ' (=Clements (1984 , (9b,c)) ) Furthermore Clement s (1984 ) establishe s (a ) tha t th e S-structur e positio n o f these Focu s phrase s is due to movement , i.e. t o thei r being extracte d ou t o f th e clause, an d (b ) that thes e phrase s sho w up precede d b y th e ne "focu s particle " only i n thi s post- C designate d Focu s position . No w considerin g firs t wha t thi s focus particl e could possibl y be, there ar e two conceivable analyses : (a) it coul d be the overt morphological manifestation of the feature [+FOCUS], being assigned to a phrase in the post-C position by some appropriatel y located functiona l head , most likely , by C, or (b) ne could be claimed t o be the head of FP occupying the F position . Thi s latte r hypothesi s howeve r immediatel y turn s ou t t o b e incom patible wit h th e ide a o f [SPEC.FP ] bein g th e designate d Focu s position , sinc e there i s n o possibl e phras e structur e we ca n postulat e fo r Kikuy u clauses (se e (16) above) within which ne and the phrase immediately followin g it could b e in a SPEC-hea d configuration. 14 S o within any theor y o f Focu s base d o n th e pa rametrized Focus-Criterion, w e would be led to assume hypothesis (a) regarding the natur e of ne; the conception o f ne as the over t realizatio n o f the structurall y assigned [+FOCUS ] featur e we have postulated woul d indeed permi t u s to claim that the Focus phrase s marke d by this particle occupy the [SPEC,FP] position— to th e lef t o f a phonologically nul l F node—i n Kikuy u clause structure , as on e would expect based o n the Focus-Criterion. Bu t notice now that if this is so, and the SPE C o f FP position i s indee d immediatel y t o th e righ t of C and to th e lef t of th e subjec t position , then a n obvious problem i s posed by th e additiona l phenomenon describe d by Clement s (1984) an d exemplifie d by th e following:

42

Discourse Configurational Languages

(17) Kama. u ne-a-dn-'i'r £ Kaanak £ FP-SP-see-T 'Kamau sa w Kanake. ' While the information given on the above construction by Clements (1984 ) i s rather incomplete , wha t we do know about such examples, base d o n the glosses , as well a s on his discussion , is that they exhibit th e sam e focu s particle that w e see on Focused NP' s i n the alleged [SPEC,FP ] position. (Clement s demonstrate s for instance , tha t thi s preverba l focu s particl e an d th e on e o n phrase s i n th e [SPEC.FP] position ar e mutually exclusive i n clauses, for non-semantic reasons. ) Since th e focu s particl e appear s i n th e sentence-typ e show n i n (17 ) attache d t o the lef t o f th e V- I complex , crucially , followin g th e subject , an d neithe r o f th e arguments of the clause is interpreted as Focus, i t is reasonable t o infer that what we have here i s a Focused verba l projection. The data presented b y Clement s i s insufficient t o determin e whether the sentenc e involve s VP/I' o r V Focusing, o r possibly bot h o f thes e options , but i n an y cas e th e fac t relevan t fro m ou r poin t of view , i.e., fro m th e poin t of view of the parametrize d Focus-Criterion, i s that under suc h a n accoun t any Focuse d verba l projectio n bearing ne woul d be pre dicted, wrongly, to appear at S-structure to the left o f the subject , namely i n the [SPEC, FP]—o r i n the cas e o f V possibly i n th e F—position o f Kikuy u clausestructure, just lik e th e Focuse d phrase s d o in (16). 15

3.3. Focus Positions, FP's, and Variations of Clause Structure Consider nex t th e phrase-structure o f som e o f the Chadic designate d Focu s lan guages—studied i n Tulle r (1988 , 1992)—fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f th e param etrized Focus-Criterion, in particular from the point of view of prediction (c) noted in sectio n 2.3 . Tuller (1992 ) discusse s severa l strictl y SVO Chadic language s whic h exhibi t a designate d Focu s positio n (both for W H an d fo r non-W H constituents ) t o th e right o f V in linea r order. I n som e o f thes e languages—a s i n Western Bad e and Podoko—the Focuse d phras e occur s immediatel y afte r V itself , precedin g th e direct objec t (i f there i s one) , an d i n others—a s i n Kanakur u and Tangale—th e Focused phras e occur s immediatel y afte r a V+N complex , whic h arise s (a s ar gued by Tuller) vi a the incorporation o f the head o f the direct object . (Thi s latte r incorporation process , induce d b y th e lac k o f Cas e transmissio n i n V-heade d chains i n th e relevan t languages , wil l mak e n o differenc e fo r purpose s o f ou r discussion.) T o illustrat e th e cas e o f suc h post- V Focu s languages , conside r examples (18 ) fro m Wester n Bade, and (19 ) fro m Kanakur u (=Tuller (1992 , (1 ) and (5))) : Western Bad e (18) a . Saak u a a bon a kajluwaan . S Inf l coo k tuw o 'Saaku wil l cook tuwo. '

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 4

3

b. Saak u a a bsn a K9M ? S Inf l coo k WHA T 'What wil l Saak u cook?' c. gafa- n K E viiriidgwaran ? caught WH O giant-ra t 'Who caught a giant rat? ' d. g a ba r II - T E tagda-w ? you giv e T O WH O mone y 'Who did you giv e the money to?' Kanakuru (19) a . ar e lowo i JEWO I l a lusha . bury boy-th e SLAVE-TH E i n bus h THE SLAV E buried th e boy in the bush.' b. n a dibar e garn i MANDAI ? buy ram-th e WH O 'Who will buy the ram?' c. ka a na i MANDAI ? you cal l WH O 'Who ar e you calling?' Trying to mak e sens e o f the abov e alternation s in constituen t order unde r th e parametrized Focus-Criterion hypothesis is quite problematic to begin with. This hypothesis implies that the S- structure position o f the Focus phras e i n these des ignated Focus language s must be the SPE C o f FP. This i n turn raises firs t o f al l the sam e proble m tha t we pointed ou t i n connection wit h th e cas e o f Aghem i n section 3.1 , havin g to d o with the scop e o f Focus/(WH)-phrases an d the highl y implausible syntacti c consequences involved . (See the discussion o f structure (15) , which applie s wit h equal forc e to the case o f Western Bad e an d Kanakuru.) Bu t let us ignor e the issue o f scope for the sak e of argument . I n that case , we coul d in fact sugges t a clause structur e for these language s that woul d actuall y exhibit the Focu s phrase s o f (18)-(19) i n a [SPEC.FP] position :

44

Discourse Configurational Languages

What we would need to assume in order to get the Focus dat a in (18)-(19) on the basis o f such a structure is that V (in (19 ) wit h the incorporated N ) raises t o I, presumably vi a F, in compliance wit h the ECP . Sinc e thi s V-movement t o I is a well-motivate d operation , th e structure in (20)—together with th e assumptio n of movemen t o f the phras e t o be interprete d a s Focus int o th e [SPEC,FP ] position—may indee d see m t o constitut e a n adequat e accoun t o f th e S-structur e o f Focus i n the languages unde r discussion withi n th e framewor k o f the param etrized Focus-Criterion (recall though the residual proble m of scope). But when we tak e not e o f som e additiona l facts , involvin g th e rang e o f possibl e desig nated Focus positions observable in these, and other, languages, it becomes clea r that th e parametrize d Focus-Criterion i s quit e ill-suited fo r accommodatin g th e relevant phenomena . Notice firs t o f al l the variatio n manifested wit h respec t t o the hierarchical position of Focus between individual designated Focu s languages . In particular, while e.g. i n Western Bade the designated Focus position—i.e. , the SPEC o f FP position, under the parametrized Focus-Criterion account—follow s the S-structur e subject-positio n (namely , the [SPEC.IP ] position) , i n othe r rig idly SVO languages, such as in Hausa, as well as in Kikuyu (see sectio n 3. 2 (16)), the designate d Focu s positio n i s clause-initial, i.e. , i t precedes th e S-structur e subject-position. Wha t thi s variatio n woul d impl y i n term s o f th e parametrize d Focus-Criterion accoun t of the synta x of Focu s i s tha t th e hierarchica l positio n of F P (an d consequently [SPEC,FP] ) differ s i n th e tw o language-types . Specifi cally, th e categor y F i n th e gramma r o f Haus a an d Kikuy u woul d hav e t o b e assumed to take IP a s its complement, whereas F in Western Bade (as well as in several other post-V Focus language s studied in Tuller (1992) ) would have to be specified a s taking VP as its complement, and in fact heading th e complement o f I. However , th e incorporatio n o f language-particula r distinctions involvin g th e complement-taking propertie s o f a functiona l hea d lik e F int o an y reasonabl y restrictive theor y of selectio n i s quite problematic. Notic e firs t that what we ar e dealing wit h here is not lexically determined variation in the kind of complement for differen t choice s of F; rather the alleged F selects a unique complement within each of these languages. More importantly, if one tried to maintain that the abov e cross-linguistic variatio n in the hierarchica l positio n of FP in clause-structur e i s still du e t o distinc t selectional propertie s o f F i n th e language-type s involved, one woul d fac e th e followin g problem : Th e categor y F P itself i s no t subjec t t o selection; in all th e designate d Focus language s referred t o in thi s study, the al leged F P ca n occu r i n embedde d a s wel l a s i n matri x clauses , ye t ther e ar e n o verbs, complementizers o r any other heads in these languages that select specifi cally a n FP , nor an y head s tha t prohibi t the presenc e o f F P in/as thei r comple ment. S o F would have t o be a n optionally occurring functiona l category tha t is irrelevant/invisible fo r selectiona l processes . Bu t i f so , the n on e canno t reason ably clai m tha t it stil l i s a category tha t selects it s complement . A parallel argument against the us e of selectio n fo r functiona l categories , in volving the category Neg, i s presented by Grimsha w (1991). I n her comprehen sive stud y o f functiona l categories , Grimsha w propose s a theor y o f phras e structure based on the notion of "extended projection," defined wit h reference to a "functiona l feature " specifying a n F-value for each head; this theory offers a n

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 4

5

alternative, non-selectional , accoun t for th e positionin g of functiona l categorie s in hierarchica l structure , an d consequentl y permit s a significantl y more restric tive theory o f selection . Within Grimshaw' s projection-based theory , th e differ ence w e foun d between th e hierarchica l positio n o f th e allege d F P i n Wester n Bade vs . i n Haus a woul d b e capture d b y attributin g differen t F-value s t o th e category F i n the two language-types . Specifically , F taking V P (bearing th e F value [FO] ) as its complement—se e Western Bade—woul d b e claime d t o b e a n [Fl] category; in contrast, the Hausa-type languages would be claimed to have F with the F-value [F2], whil e the [Fl ] categor y i n the verbal projection woul d be I, thus accounting for IP occuiring as the complement of F in this language-type. Although thi s alternativ e theory seem s t o provid e a mor e plausibl e accoun t for th e variation of Focus unde r discussion than one based o n selection would , it would also raise some problems of its own. According to Grimshaw's (1991 ) well motivated proposal , (a ) maxima l projections tha t ar e no t lexicall y selecte d ca n be license d onl y i f the y constitut e part o f a n 1-selecte d "extende d projection, " and (b ) th e F-valu e o f categorie s formin g an extended projectio n ma y diffe r b y no more tha n one. Thi s i n turn implies that an intermediate (i.e., not 1-selected ) projection lik e our alleged F P would have to be an obligatory part of all clauses , since i n its absence , th e lowe r maxima l projection s makin g u p th e claus e (e.g . IP, VP) will not be part of a well-formed extende d projection, an d consequently will not get licensed i n Grimshaw's system. But of course, thi s would be incom patible wit h the Focus- Criterio n (a s in Brody (1990)), which is formulated with reference t o the category FP: if FP were indeed obligatorily present in all clauses, then the Focus-Criterion woul d wrongly predict that universally, all clauses must have some Focused element, and furthermore that in designated Focus languages, every claus e mus t have som e elemen t appearin g in th e [SPEC.FP ] positio n al ready a t th e leve l o f S-structure . Mechanically , on e coul d o f cours e avoi d thi s conflict, b y claimin g (a ) tha t the categor y F , and henc e FP , is i n fac t presen t i n every clause , an d (b ) that the Focus-Criterion i s sensitive no t t o the presence o f F, but rathe r t o som e featur e [+/-f ] occurrin g o n th e nod e F . This woul d work , but notice that such a move would call into question the significance of the node F for the syntax of Focus, an d would create the possibility o f this new [+/-f ] fea ture being associate d wit h some X° category othe r tha n F , thus bringing us on e step close r to th e conceptio n o f Focus tha t is argue d fo r i n th e present study. Finally, a further problemati c aspect of the FP-based accoun t of th e synta x of Focus i s uncovere d whe n we conside r som e intra-languag e variatio n describe d in Tuller (1992) , involvin g the existence of more than one alternative Focus po sition i n som e o f th e Chadi c designate d Focus languages , such as i n Kanakuru, Tangale, an d Ngizim . T o illustrate the issue , compar e th e followin g Kanakur u Focus sentence s (=Tuller (1992 , (28a , c))) wit h those presente d i n (19) : (21) a . BASH A she e tup a ya . 2perf V D O 'BASHA sen t him.' b. SH I man tupa. 'We sen t HIM.'

46

Discourse Configurational Languages

In addition to having a designated Focus position in the position specified i n (20 ) above, example s (21)—an d Tuller' s discussion—revea l tha t Kanakur u als o ha s an alternative designated Focus position, whic h occurs clause-initially (in Tuller's analysis thi s i s th e SPE C o f C P position) . No w notic e tha t i n orde r t o accoun t for suc h intra-language variation regarding the designated Focus position , a theory of Focu s base d o n the Focus-Criterio n woul d see m t o requir e th e generatio n o f FP in more tha n on e (non-adjacent ) hierarchical positio n i n the clause-structur e of the same language, since both of the possible Focus-positions exhibite d would need t o be [SPEC,FP ] positions. Thi s i n turn would mea n tha t the categor y F in Kanakuru, for instance, would have to be assigne d two alternative F-values : in addition to the specification [Fl], accounting for the examples i n (19) (see struc ture (20)) , F will als o nee d a n additional , higher F-value , presumabl y (a t least ) [F3], t o generat e sentence s a s those i n (21) . Th e situatio n is even mor e trouble some, i f th e simultaneou s use o f th e tw o Focu s position s i n a singl e claus e i s indeed impossible, as implied by Tuller's description. In this case one would als o need to state in some wa y a dependency relation between th e specification o f the two F nodes for the alleged [+/-f ] feature . It has to be noted here that a potential alternative analysis for the Kanakuru-type languages—which postulates a singl e FP an d movemen t o f F t o som e highe r hea d positio n whos e SPE C woul d thu s count somehow as a [SPEC,FP] position providing the option of Kanakuru clauseinitial Focus—woul d no t work. Clause-initia l Focus sentence s manifes t n o evi dence fo r hea d movemen t tha t i s no t presen t als o i n post- V Focu s clauses . Crucially, in both types of Focus sentence s of Kanakuru, the S-structure positio n of th e raised V-complex, which would include the head F (se e structur e (20)), is not highe r tha n I , a s show n b y th e fac t tha t i t follow s th e [SPEC,IP ] (i.e. , th e subject) position ; consequently , the strictl y clause-initial, pre-[SPEC,IP ] occur rence o f Focu s i n Kanakur u could no t b e attribute d t o hea d movemen t withou t ad hoc stipulation s about the placemen t of the Specifie r o f this particular raise d head. In sum , the possession o f two F-values (i n a single language)—eve n more so than th e apparen t optionalit y o f F—i s a propert y attribute d t o F tha t i s excep tional amon g functiona l categories . A s such , it strengthen s ou r impressio n tha t an accoun t o f th e synta x o f Focu s withi n th e framewor k o f th e parametrize d Focus-Criterion ca n b e achieve d onl y a t th e cos t o f reducin g th e intrinsicall y structural notions of F and [SPEC.FP] to the status of diacritics t o designate Focus positions.

4. Parameters of Feature-Assignment and the Syntax of Focus 4.1. Functional Heads and the [+FOCUS] Feature In view of the false predictions and other problems discusse d i n sections 3.1 , 3.2 , and 3.3, it seems that the parametrized Focus-Criterion account , and specifically, its direc t consequenc e that al l designate d Focus position s atteste d i n languages are [SPEC,FP ] positions , canno t adequately accommodate th e rang e of S-struc ture Focus phenomena . Recall in addition the point we made in section 2.1 : Any

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 4

7

analyses of Focus, even those assuming a parametrized Focus-Criterion—as Brody (1990)—need th e (additional ) mechanism of [+FOCUS ] assignment . The [+FO CUS] featur e bein g a n instance o f th e independentl y existing clas s o f syntacti c features, fo r i t t o exhibi t variatio n in th e sam e respect s a s othe r syntacti c fea tures d o (a s e.g . wit h respec t t o sourc e an d mod e o f assignment ) i s i n fac t th e null hypothesis. Give n the inadequacies of the parametrized Focus-Criterio n ac count i n conjunctio n with th e abov e fact s regardin g the featur e [+FOCUS] , w e propose her e th e following alternative hypothesis (mentione d alread y a t the end of sectio n 1 and a t th e beginnin g o f 2.3 ) t o replac e th e Focus-Criterion-base d account o f th e S-structur e synta x of Focus : (22) Th e S-structure variatio n exhibited by languages with respect t o Focus is du e t o variatio n i n th e wa y th e featur e [+FOCUS ] i s acquire d b y categories, i.e. , i t i s du e t o parameter s involvin g the syntacti c feature [+FOCUS]. On the one hand, this hypothesis seems t o permit more flexibility with respect to possibl e S-structur e Focu s position s tha n th e parametrize d Focus-Criterio n framework did , whic h is a desirabl e consequenc e i n vie w o f ou r discussio n i n section 3 . O n th e othe r hand , i t stil l i s highl y restrictiv e an d ric h i n specifi c empirical predictions regarding the range and types o f variation expected within the synta x o f Focus ; thi s i s becaus e wha t w e ar e claimin g her e i s tha t Focu s constructions do not involve any parameters o f their own, rather, they only manifest th e effects o f (specific settings for) independently existing, general parameters o f syntactic feature s an d syntacti c feature-assignment . Belo w w e will examine and elaborate this hypothesis and its empirical consequences i n light of the variet y of Focus phenomen a introduced in th e previous sections . Before turnin g to this, notic e first tha t by adoptin g the hypothesis i n (22 ) w e automatically eliminate the claim that all designated Focus position s are S-struc ture [SPEC,FP ] positions , which was inherent t o the parametrize d Focus-Crite rion hypothesis . This i n tur n immediatel y eliminates th e proble m involvin g the scope o f Focu s discusse d i n relatio n t o Aghem i n sectio n 3.1 , sinc e th e frame work o f hypothesi s (22) , unlik e th e parametrize d Focus-Criterio n account , im plies no necessary identity between the S-structure an d the LF positions of Focus . Furthermore, th e proble m pointe d ou t i n sectio n 3.2—tha t i n Kikuyu , Focused V-projections occur in a distinct, hierarchically lower position tha n other Focuse d constituents—also gets resolved; droppin g the parametrized Focus-Criterion ac count mean s tha t w e n o longe r predic t tha t al l Focu s element s i n a particula r language wil l necessarily occu r in th e sam e positio n (namel y in [SPEC.FP] ) a t S-structure. The issue of how our alternative hypothesis (se e (22) ) is able to ac commodate cases o f intra-language and cross-linguistic variatio n wit h respect to S-structure Focus-positions—such as those i n Kikuyu, as well a s Western Bade , Hausa and Kanakuru (presented in sectio n 3.3)—wil l be taken u p in ou r discus sion below. In sections 2.1 and 2.2 we established that in designated Focus language s like Hungarian the [+FOCUS ] feature originate s in and is assigned by an X° category,

48

Discourse Configurational Languages

and tha t this X ° is a functional, rathe r tha n lexical, categor y o f the clausa l pro jection. Another syntactic feature that arises o n categories du e to the presence o f a particula r functiona l hea d o f the claus e is , o f course , Nominativ e Case. Thus , it is natural to ask whether and how parameters familia r fro m analyse s of Nomi native Cas e ma y provide a way to accoun t for the variatio n exhibited b y desig nated Focu s language s with respect t o possible Focu s positions . S o we turn first to th e discussio n o f th e source s o f variatio n i n th e synta x o f Focu s amon g an d within designate d Focu s languages , and the n retur n t o th e issu e o f wha t i n ou r framework account s for the difference between designated Focus vs . the Englishtype Focu s i n sit u phenomenon . Suppose that in designated Focus languages, the [+FOCUS ] featur e originates in th e feature-matri x o f som e functiona l X ° categor y o f th e clause , mos t obvi ously, C or I (o r som e othe r inflectiona l head , i f on e assume s Pollock' s spli t I hypothesis). W e propose tha t the identit y o f the particula r X° category serv ing a s the sourc e of the featur e [+FOCUS ] constitutes one dimension o f para metric variatio n manifested by th e synta x of Focus. Thus , conside r fo r instanc e the S-structur e positio n o f Focu s i n Wester n Bad e (example s (18) ) vs . tha t o f Kikuyu Focu s phrase s (examples (16)). The fact tha t the Focus positio n i n West ern Bad e i s t o th e righ t o f th e subjec t (=[SPEC,IP]) position , an d a s argue d b y Tuller (1992) , is an A-bar position immediately following the I+V complex, sug gests tha t in this language the source of the [+FOCUS ] featur e is the category I , which assign s thi s feature , under governmen t an d adjacency , t o a VP-adjoine d constituent. In contrast, Kikuyu Focus phrase s precede th e subject (= [SPEC,IP] ) position, an d appea r immediatel y followin g the nod e C . This differenc e ca n b e accounted fo r by claiming that the sourc e o f the [+FOCUS ] featur e i n Kikuyu is the categor y C . The condition s an d mod e o f [+FOCUS ] assignmen t i n th e tw o languages woul d then b e identical—governmen t (t o the right ) an d adjacency — and the y would diffe r minimall y in terms of I vs. C being th e sourc e o f the fea ture [+FOCUS] . Note that the postulatio n of thi s parameter is full y consisten t wit h the paral lelism implie d by ou r hypothesis between (formal ) properties o f th e [+FOCUS ] feature an d of the featur e Nominative Case. Th e variatio n of structura l Focus i n Western Bade vs. Kikuyu accounted for above is precisely mirrore d b y the variation of Nominative Case in languages like Irish, Welsh, and Standard Arabic (VSO clauses) vs . Germani c V 2 language s suc h a s West Flemish . Specifically , whil e Nominative Case assignment takes place under government and adjacency in both of these language-types , they diffe r minimall y with respect t o the identit y of th e source, i.e. , assigne r o f Nominativ e Case : i n Irish , Welsh , an d Standar d Arabi c the sourc e o f Nominative Cas e i s the categor y I , wherea s i n the Wes t Flemish type language s i t i s th e categor y C (see , e.g. , Rizz i (1991) , base d o n wor k b y McCloskey an d b y Haegeman ; Koopma n an d Sportich e (1990) ; Fass i Fehr i (1989)). Having establishe d tha t U G permit s variatio n wit h respec t t o whic h clausa l functional head—namely , C o r I—i s th e sourc e o f th e [+FOCUS ] featur e (jus t like i t does with respect to Nominative Case), consider the intra-language variation o f Focus w e demonstrated in section 3. 3 based o n Kanakuru . The existenc e

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 4

9

of th e tw o alternativ e Focus position s show n i n example s (19)—post-I+ V Fo cus—and (21)—clause-initial , (or possibly post-C ) Focus—no w falls naturally in place. Kanakuru (as well as Tangale and Ngizim, discussed i n Tuller (1992) ) can be construe d i n ou r framewor k to exhibi t th e conjunctio n of th e sam e tw o pos sible settings fo r Focus-assigne r tha t wer e manifested, respectively, b y Wester n Bade an d b y Kikuyu ; namely , Kanakuru would hav e bot h th e categor y I (se e examples (19) ) an d th e categor y C (se e example s (21) ) specifie d a s possibl e sources o f [+FOCUS]. Note that the case of Nominative Case again turn s out to display a parallel pattern: the option of more than one alternative assigne r withi n the sam e language i s motivated i n Rizzi (1991 ) for Italian . Specifically , Rizzi' s proposal fo r preverba l vs . postverba l subject s i n Italia n involve s tw o indepen dent assigners for Nominative Case: the highest inflectional head, AGR, and the first inflectiona l hea d abov e VP, namely T. Another dimensio n of parametri c variation involving the [+FOCUS ] feature , and consequentl y the S-structur e synta x of Focus , i s reveale d whe n w e tur n t o the questio n of how t o account for the properties o f Hungarian Focus, presente d in section s 2.1 and 2.2. What is immediately obvious is that [+FOCUS ] i n Hungarian cannot be a feature o f C, since the designated Focus position neither needs adjacency t o no r governmen t by C i n th e S-structur e o f Hungarian . Instead, a Focused phras e occur s immediatel y precedin g th e inflecte d V (se e ou r discus sion o n V-raising an d examples (4 ) and (6 ) i n 2.1). Consequently , the sourc e o f the [+FOCUS ] feature in Hungarian, within our framework of assumptions, turns out to be the categor y I, similarl y t o the case o f Western Bade discusse d above . We assum e furthermor e tha t I ca n assig n it s [+FOCUS ] featur e onl y i f i t get s "lexicalized" by V, or some other lexical head moving into it (see examples (4b,d ) and (9)-(10)). 16 No w wha t i s crucia l t o notic e her e i s tha t Hungaria n clausa l heads consistentl y precede their complements. Give n this, th e fact that the des ignated Focu s positio n occur s immediatel y to th e left o f th e V+ I comple x im plies tha t th e Focu s positio n i s th e SPEC of IP position , rathe r tha n som e VP-internal o r VP-adjoined position. S o the structur e suggested withi n Brody' s (1990) framework , given as (5) in 2.1, ca n be adapted to reflect ou r present pro posal a s follows:

50

Discourse Configurational Languages

Thus, [+FOCUS ] assignmen t b y I apparentl y take s plac e i n a SPEC-head configuration i n Hungarian . This i s i n contras t t o th e wa y w e sa w [+FOCUS ] being assigne d i n Wester n Bade ; i n th e latte r language-typ e (se e Tulle r (1992 ) and the data in (18)), I assigns the [+FOCUS ] featur e to a phrase tha t i t govern s within/adjoined t o it s complement. S o i t follow s tha t beyon d variatio n i n th e assigner o f th e [+FOCUS ] feature , another paramete r motivate d fo r th e synta x of Focus involve s the mode of feature-assignment: SPEC-hea d relatio n wit h vs. government b y th e [+FOCUS ] assigner . Remarkably , thi s paramete r to o i s on e established independently , for variation of other feature-assignment processe s (se e e.g. Koopma n an d Sportich e (1990)) . Mos t prominently , Nominativ e Cas e i s commonly claime d t o manifes t th e effect s of precisely this parameter : Nomina tive assignmen t unde r SPEC-hea d agreemen t (a s in English , French , an d SVO clauses o f Standard Arabic) vs . Nominative assignment unde r government—and adjacency—(as i n Irish, Welsh, an d VSO-clauses o f Standar d Arabic) . Notice tha t our analysis for Hungaria n implies tha t th e [SPEC,IP ] position i n this languag e is a n A-bar rathe r tha n a n A-position, du e t o th e presenc e o f th e operator-creating/licensing [+FOCUS ] featur e on I. 17 (Assumin g th e VP-inter nal subjec t hypothesis, the SPE C o f IP is open i n UG to be a n A-bar positio n a s well a s a n A-position.) Not e tha t the abov e claim cause s n o proble m i n relatio n to Nominative Case assignment , sinc e it is independently known that subjects in Hungarian—in contras t to , e.g. , English—d o not receive thei r Nominativ e Cas e in th e SPE C o f I P position ; Nominativ e Cas e is , arguably , assigne d i n a post verbal, an d consequentl y post-I , positio n ( a situatio n commonl y atteste d i n a variety o f languages). I n fact th e distinction drawn in ou r analysi s between fea tures o f I that licens e it s Specifier , namel y Cas e (as , e.g. , i n English) vs . [+FO CUS] (a s i n Hungarian) , provides a n elegan t wa y t o captur e th e often-cite d intuition tha t the structura l Focus position i n Hungaria n is i n som e wa y equiva lent to—o r i s a "discourse " counterpar t of—the subjec t positio n i n "configura tional" language s lik e English . I n ou r terms , i t i s neithe r som e notio n o f (non-)configurationality, no r th e (un)availabilit y of th e categor y I/I P tha t i s in volved here, rathe r the variation stems simpl y from th e particular feature-assign ment proces s availabl e t o I t o licens e a SPE C positio n withi n eac h o f th e tw o language-types. It is also wort h noting in this context that the pattern of [+FOCUS ] vs . Nominative Cas e assignmen t motivate d fo r Hungaria n turn s out t o b e th e mirror-im age of the pattern foun d in some of the other designated Focus language s we have considered, suc h as Western Bade (see the discussion of examples (18 ) based o n Tuller (1992)) ; i n th e latter , [SPEC.IP ] i s th e positio n o f Nominativ e Case as signment, whil e the [+FOCUS ] featur e of I gets assigne d under government (t o the right) into th e complement of I. This i n turn substantiates the availabilit y of two distinc t modes/mechanism s o f syntacti c feature-assignment—(a) b y a hea d governing (into ) it s complemen t an d (b ) b y a SPEC-hea d relation , a s wel l a s supports th e postulatio n of [+FOCUS ] a s a tru e syntactic feature. Before summarizin g the parametric variation in the syntax of Focus accounted for i n terms of our feature-based hypothesis (22), w e need to have a look a t how the Focusin g o f V (an d its projections ) could wor k i n ou r framework . The fac t

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 5

1

that th e [+FOCUS ] featur e i s abl e to appea r associate d wit h V at S-structur e i s demonstrated b y Hungarian sentence s suc h as (24) below , a s well a s by the dis tribution o f the Focus-marking particl e i n Kikuyu sentences suc h as (17) vs. (16a) in 3.2 , repeate d her e a s (25a, b) : (24) (Csak ) TISZTELJU K (d e ne m szeretjiik ) a tanart . (only) RESPECT-lp l (bu t no t like-lpl ) th e teacher-ace . 'We (only ) RESPEC T (bu t don't like ) th e teacher.' (25) a . n e KAANAK8 Oral' u a-5n-Tr £ FP SP-seeT 'It's Kanak e (that ) Kama u saw.' b. Kama , t i ne-a-6n-'i'r £ Kaan£k £ FP-SP-see-T 'Kamau sa w Kanake.' Obviously, neither in the Hungarian sentence (24) nor in the Kikuyu sentence (25b) i s th e V (o r an y of it s projections ) in the designate d Focus positio n moti vated abov e fo r these two languages—namely, [SPEC.IP] , and a pre-subject po sition governe d b y an d right-adjacen t t o C , respectively . Ye t our framewor k o f assumptions, unlik e th e parametrize d Focus-Criterion hypothesis , provide s a natural wa y t o accommodat e V(-projection ) Focusing . Takin g firs t th e cas e o f Hungarian, note that in this language V is assumed t o move into I; consequently, it automaticall y pick s u p th e [+FOCUS ] featur e born e b y th e categor y I . Sinc e in our framework Focus interpretatio n for a constituent depends onl y on whether it acquire s th e [+FOCUS ] featur e in th e cours e o f th e derivation , V-to-I move ment obviousl y suffice s to accoun t fo r V Focusing i n Hungarian . This cas e ex hibits an alternative to the acquisition of a feature via "feature-assignment," i.e. , via a process o f feature-transfe r from a head (i n a SPEC-hea d o r head-govern ment configuration); wha t we have here is an instance of the "absorption" o f the [+FOCUS] featur e b y a lexica l head , du e t o hea d movemen t int o th e feature bearing node . Thi s sor t o f proces s agai n seem s t o hav e a n obviou s paralle l in volving Case : th e wa y cliti c pronoun s get affiliate d wit h Case-bearin g heads . Now turnin g to th e issu e o f Kikuy u sentences lik e (25b) , i t appear s tha t th e occurrence o f th e Focu s Particl e o n th e inflecte d V a t S-structur e i s du e t o a variant o f th e proces s postulate d i n relatio n t o V-Focu s i n Hungarian . The rel evant differenc e between th e tw o is that the [+FOCUS]-bearin g head i n Kikuyu is C—as shown by the position o f Focused phrase s i n examples suc h as (25a)— and sinc e V clearly doe s no t move into C, the process by whic h the [+FOCUS ] feature reaches th e V+I complex in Kikuyu must be somewhat different fro m tha t involved in Hungarian. What we may propose her e involve s Grimshaw's (1991 ) "extended projection " theor y (which we sketched alread y in sectio n 3. 3 above) . Given thi s framework , assume that syntactic features , amon g them [+FOCUS] , may freel y spread , i.e., project, from thei r source/assigner category to an y othe r head withi n th e extende d projectio n o f that category. Sinc e th e V+I complex is i n fac t a n "extende d head " o f th e C P (i n th e sense o f Grimsha w (1991)), w e

52

Discourse Configurational Languages

have an account for the appearance o f the Focus Particl e o n the former in (25b) . Note though tha t the feature-spread proces s tentatively suggeste d here should b e limited i n som e wa y t o preven t th e incorrec t consequenc e o f turnin g th e V+ I complex in Kikuyu into a potential assigner of the [+FOCUS ] featur e it received , or similarly, for Nominative Case, t o prevent, e.g. , I or V in West Flemis h fro m acquiring th e abilit y t o assig n Nominativ e by feature-projectio n fro m C . S o i t seems tha t individua l functiona l head s woul d stil l b e designate d a s uniqu e sources/assigners of particular syntactic features (as we argued before), and the "spreading" of a feature to some othe r hea d within the same extende d projectio n would be a process disjoin t fro m th e process o f the assignment of th e featur e (i.e., from it s transfer to a category outside the extended projection o f the source) ; in other words, these processe s woul d represent tw o mutually exclusive way s of associating syntacti c feature s with thei r S-structur e recipients . Assuming thi s necessar y prohibitio n agains t th e assignmen t o f a projecte d feature (i.e. , feature-assignment b y a category other tha n its source category), i t becomes clear why the above feature-spread mechanis m ma y not be attested wit h respect to a feature such as Case. Case, i n contrast to [+FOCUS], is not relevan t for (an d may even be incompatible with) V or other non-nominal heads. Conse quently, i t canno t be born e by suc h heads at S-structure , and sinc e fo r feature s which projected/spread fro m othe r head s alon g th e extended projectio n ther e i s no alternativ e o f getting assigne d t o some othe r category , th e result will necessarily b e ill-formed .

4,2, The Sources of Variation: [+FOCUS] and Nominative Case Below we present a summary of the possible source s of variation i n the S-struc ture syntax of Focus predicte d b y our hypothesis (22) , namel y a summary of the range an d types o f parameters involvin g th e wa y syntactic feature s ge t associ ated wit h th e categorie s whic h bear them at the level o f S-structure . First , how ever, w e nee d t o retur n t o th e cas e o f Focu s i n sit u a s i n th e English-typ e languages. In ou r terms, what distinguishes Focus i n sit u fro m th e phenomenon we referre d t o i n th e abov e discussio n a s designate d Focu s i s tha t th e forme r situation arise s fro m th e optio n o f th e fre e generation/occurrenc e o f th e [+FO CUS] featur e on categories, in contrast t o the latter , whic h involve s th e limita tion of [+FOCUS] to originate in and be assigned by some particular functiona l X° category o f th e clausa l projection. Late r i n thi s subsection w e wil l retur n t o the question o f the level of representation a t which this free association of [+FOCUS] wit h categories migh t tak e place. Fo r now, let us just not e that the abov e conception o f Focus i n situ i s no t unprecedented wit h respect t o other syntacti c features. Thus , eve n though Cas e i s usually thought o f as involving a particula r X° category that assigns it, there have been proposals in the literature under which a Case feature ma y arise on noun phrase s without th e mediation of an assigner. Besides so-calle d "default " Case-marking , the cas e tha t come s t o min d here i s the situatio n with the Case-particl e ga i n Japanese. Base d o n th e stud y of a va riety of asymmetries between the behavior of Nominative/ga-marked phrases an d Accusative/o-marked phrases , Sait o (1985 ) propose s tha t Nominativ e Cas e i n

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 5

3

Japanese is "inherent" in that it is not assigne d b y an y element (unlik e Accusative whic h is assigned by V under government) . The conclusions we have reached regarding the expected range of variation in the syntax o f Focus , derivin g fro m genera l parameter s o f syntacti c feature-as signment affectin g th e featur e [+FOCUS ] (henc e parallel , e.g. , t o th e rang e of variation involvin g Nominative Case), ar e summarized below:

(26) 1. the nature of th e feature: (i) freely occurring, i.e., vs . (ii ) assigne d by a specific X° not transferred from category ; e.g.: Nominativ e another category ; e.g. : Cas e i n English , Welsh , West Nominative Cas e (ga) i n Flemish ; [+FOCUS ] i n Japanese; [+FOCUS ] i n Hungarian , Western Bade , English Kanakur u 2. wha t X° functional category o f the clause i s the assignor , i.e. th e source o f the feature (e.g. I vs. C) 3. whethe 4. th

r the feature-assignin g category need s to be "lexicalized"

e mode/natur e of th e process o f feature-assignment: (i) feature-transfer , subjec t t o the Locality Condition s o f Horvath (1981, 1986) , namel y government and adjacency (ii) SPEC-hea d "agreement'Vrelation (se e discussio n i n 4.3. )

In view of the parallel forma l properties o f the assignment o f [+FQCUS ] an d of (structural ) Cas e feature s establishe d i n thi s study , le t u s retur n no w t o th e parallel yet distinct function o f Case vs. [+FOCUS] in our framework which we remarked o n briefly i n sectio n 1 . There we noted tha t [+FOCUS ] is a counterpart o f Case in the sens e that the functio n o f Case is t o license A-chains and th e function o f [+FOCUS] is to license a (particular kind of) A-bar chain. Notice now that i n th e cas e o f A-chains, their licensing by Case is achieve d via assignment of the Case-featur e to the head o f the A-chain. Thus , if the parallel wit h [-(-FO CUS] is taken seriously, we should hypothesize that the licensing of A-bar chains by th e [+FOCUS ] feature is also done, crucially, by assigning th e feature to th e head of the A-bar chain at S-structure. Remarkably, this hypothesis i n fact turns out to account for two otherwise puzzling generalizations that seem to be involved in the synta x o f Focus: (1) I n designated Focus languages, no phrase seems to receive the [+FOCUS] feature a t S-structur e withou t undergoing (pre-LF) movement . Even if th e [+FOCUS]-assigning hea d governs and is adjacen t to a phrase i n its basegenerated position at S-strueture, the assignment still can take place only if the phrase gets moved, as argued e.g. in relation to post-V Focus languages in Tulle r (1992) ; furthermor e the movemen t must b e t o a n (appropriatel y located) adjoine d o r other A-bar position.

54

Discourse Configurational Languages

(2) Designate d Focu s language s appea r no t t o permi t a phrase t o becom e Fo cus by means of its trace being in a position o f [+FOCUS ] assignment , i.e. , via transmissio n o f [+FOCUS ] withi n it s chain . Thi s i s illustrate d fo r in stance b y th e cas e o f Wh-extraction s i n Hungarian . A s i s commonl y as sumed, interrogativ e Wh-phrase s mus t b e [+FOCUS ] universall y (se e Horvath (1981) , (1986)) . Bu t a n extracte d interrogativ e wh-phras e seem s unable to receive th e necessary [+FOCUS ] featur e based on the position of any o f its traces even whe n the latter satisfies all conditions fo r [+FOCUS ] assignment; that is why the wh-phrase itself must be in a position o f [+FO CUS] assignmen t a t S-structure , bot h i n matri x an d i n embedde d clause s (as argue d i n detai l i n Horvat h (1981) , (1986)) . The above observation s fal l ou t naturally from our claim tha t parallel t o Case in A-chains, the [+FOCUS ] featur e in A-bar chain s i s assigne d a t S-structur e to the hea d o f the chain. This hypothesi s make s th e furthe r predictio n tha t th e as signment o f Cas e an d [+FOCUS ] t o an y particula r phrase i n th e sam e positio n will no t be atteste d i n languages , given that no phrase ca n simultaneousl y hea d both a n A-chai n an d a n A-ba r chain . I n vie w o f th e stric t complementarit y o f positions o f Nominative Case assignmen t by I and of [+FOCUS]-assignmen t b y I within , e.g. , Hungaria n or Western Bade pointed out in section 4.1 , thi s conse quence o f ou r hypothesi s appear s to b e a plausible one. Finally, notice what this conception of the function o f [+FOCUS ] implie s with respect t o the analysi s of Focus i n situ languages (like English). I n (26 ) w e pos ited th e fre e occurrence/generatio n of the [+FOCUS ] featur e on an y constituen t in such languages. But if this free acquisitio n of the [+FOCUS ] featur e by in situ phrases took place at S-structure, this would conflict with the hypothesis according to whic h th e S-structur e functio n o f [+FOCUS]-assignmen t i s th e licensin g o f A-bar chain s via their heads: in this case the [+FOCUS ] featur e would be place d on phrases a t S-structure that are not heads o f A-bar chain s until the level of L F is reached . Thi s conflic t suggests a n alternative view o f in sit u Focus according to whic h in the English-typ e languages constituents are generate d wit h the (op tional) feature [+FOCUS] alread y at th e leve l o f D-structure. Since these phrase s would carry with them the [+FOCUS ] featur e under movement, as they carry all of thei r othe r inherent features , it i s no t surprisin g tha t i n sit u Focu s languages exhibit [+FOCUS ] constituent s not only in their base-position bu t also in derived positions, a s e.g. Englis h interrogativ e wh-phrase s i n th e SPE C o f CP. 4.3. Adjacency, Feature-Transfer,

and SPEC-Head Relations

The las t issu e t o be discusse d her e ha s t o d o with th e notio n o f feature-assign ment unde r SPEC-hea d relation . I n (26 ) abov e w e state d tha t on e o f th e tw o possible alternativ e mode s availabl e for syntacti c feature-assignmen t withi n UG involves SPEC-hea d configurations ; unde r thi s strategy , a constituen t i n th e SPEC positio n o f a particular phrase receive s som e syntacti c feature o f th e X ° head o f th e phrase . Thi s i s th e wa y Nominativ e Case i s commonl y assume d t o be assigne d i n language s like e.g . Englis h (se e e.g . Koopma n an d Sportich e

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 5

5

(1990)) an d thi s i s th e wa y w e hav e argue d [+FOCUS ] t o b e assigned—i n th e SPEC o f IP position—in Hungarian . Now recal l tha t the othe r possibl e mode o f feature-assignment, namel y value (i) of parameter 4 in (26), cruciall y involve s a requirement o f government by and adjacency to the feature-assigning head . Thi s requirement ha s bee n observe d t o hol d wit h respec t t o [+FOCUS ] assignmen t exactly a s with respect t o structura l Case assignmen t affectin g th e complement , or a constituent withi n th e complement, o f the feature-assigning hea d (see , e.g. , Focus i n Western Bade , Kikuyu , and Accusative Cas e in English, o r Nominative Case in Iris h an d Welsh). Give n this , i t i s natural to as k (a ) whethe r an y condi tions of adjacency and/or government hold with respect t o feature assignment i n SPEC-head configuration s (i.e., fo r valu e (ii ) o f paramete r 4) , an d (b ) whethe r the answe r t o (a ) hold s th e sam e wa y fo r Cas e feature s an d fo r th e [+FOCUS ] feature. Th e issu e o f whethe r o r not a head govern s it s specifie r i s a controver sial, highly theory-dependent issue; we will assume here, followin g Koopman and Sportiche (1990) , tha t it does not . The interesting cas e i n relation t o the empiri cal materia l w e hav e analyzed abov e involve s th e issue of adjacency. Notice tha t a t least a t first glance, ther e indee d appear s t o be a curious differ ence between SPEC-hea d relation-base d assignmen t of Case an d SPEC-hea d re lation-based assignmen t o f [+FOCUS] : th e forme r (a s e.g . i n Nominativ e assignment in English) seem s to manifest no adjacency requirement, wherea s th e latter (a s e.g. [+FOCUS ] assignmen t in Hungarian ) does manifes t a n adjacenc y requirement. If this apparent discrepancy in fact turn s out to be real, it obviousl y calls fo r som e elaboratio n o r modificatio n of ou r assumption s abou t th e mode of-assignment paramete r give n in (26) . Belo w I wil l sketc h tw o alternativ e di rections t o resolv e thi s apparentl y problemati c lac k o f parallelis m betwee n th e assignment o f Cas e vs . [+FOCUS ] i n SPEC-hea d configurations . First, not e that the examples tha t seem t o constitute the main type of evidenc e for allege d non-adjacency betv/een the Nominative-assigning head (say I, or AGR) and th e subject-N P occupyin g its SPE C positio n ar e o f th e followin g kind (se e also (8 ) in sectio n 2.1) : (27) a . Joh n probably/unfortunatel y has alread y talke d t o Mary . b. Ther e obviousl y have been som e soldier s here . c. I t unfortunately may see m tha t w e are tryin g to cheat . The elements intervenin g between the Nominative-marked subject-N P and the Case-assigning—and agreement-bearing—head is usually a sentence adverb. Th e question i s whethe r suc h example s indee d exhibi t th e subjec t an d th e Case-as signing hea d i n a SPEC-head configuratio n at S-structure with the adver b inter vening between them , o r there i s a plausible alternative analysis . Belletti (1990 , 2.2) suggests—base d on some comparative English/Italian/French evidence—that subject-NP's tha t precede sentenc e adverb s in English an d Italian ar e in fact in a topicalized position , not in a SPEC position, and the adverbs ar e always adjoine d to the highest functiona l projectio n o f the clause. S o under this analysis, the as signment of Case in a SPEC-head configuratio n woul d take place under adjacency, just like th e assignment of [+FOCUS ] was shown to in Hungarian. Yet when w e

56

Discourse Configumtional Languages

consider dat a suc h a s (27b , c) , involvin g expletiv e subjects , i t become s quit e implausible t o attribut e the possibilit y o f intervenin g adverb s i n thes e case s t o having topicalized subjects. An alternative proposal which would permit th e elimination o f the apparen t non-adjacenc y involved i n example s lik e (27a-c) i s pre sented i n Kayn e (1989) . Accordin g t o thi s analysi s th e auxiliar y exhibitin g agreement—at leas t i n English—doe s no t mov e t o th e highes t functiona l hea d position (contrar y t o Polloc k (1989)) , whil e the subject-N P occupie s th e SPE C of the highest inflectional head; crucially , in Kayne's framework, no adverbs ar e generated betwee n th e highest functiona l head an d its SPEC , sinc e he limits ad verbs t o be adjoine d only t o maximal projections. Thi s proposa l woul d indee d eliminate the apparen t lack o f adjacency for SPEC-head relation-base d Nomina tive assignmen t i n English ; but , a s pointe d ou t b y Bellett i (1990) , thi s analysi s would no t b e plausibl e fo r Italian , a languag e in whic h verba l element s hav e a distribution indicativ e of raisin g t o th e highes t clausa l head , simila r t o Frenc h rather than t o English, an d which stil l exhibit s dat a o f the kin d give n i n (27). 18 At an y rate , i f on e o f th e abov e proposal s turne d ou t t o b e tenable , nothin g further woul d need to be said; the uniformity between SPEC-head relation-base d assignment of Case an d [+FOCUS ] woul d be preserved. Bu t let us consider no w the possibilit y tha t Case , i n contras t t o [+FOCUS] , actuall y ma y be assigne d i n a SPEC-head configuratio n without adjacency holding between th e two element s involved. Thi s i s i n fac t th e standar d vie w regardin g Cas e i n SPEC-hea d con figurations (see , e.g. , Rizz i 1991) , give n that it is conceived of , appropriately, a s a specific instanc e of SPEC-head agreement; since by definition, this agreemen t relation hold s simpl y by virtue of the two elements involve d bein g specifie r an d head o f a particular phrase, respectively, ther e i s n o reason t o expec t adjacenc y to pla y any role . I f so , how ca n w e accoun t for th e distinc t behavior o f the fea ture [+FOCUS ] (a s atteste d in Hungarian) , namely fo r th e fac t tha t [+FOCUSJ assignment require s adjacenc y eve n whe n i t take s plac e withi n a SPEC-hea d configuration? (Notic e tha t thi s questio n woul d hav e t o b e face d als o withi n Brody's (1990 ) Focus - Criterion-base d analysis. ) One approac h tha t w e migh t tr y i s th e following : Contrar y t o th e wa y adja cency appear s i n (26)—a s a conditio n o n valu e (i ) o f th e mode-of-assignmen t parameter—assume that it cuts across the two values of parameter 4 , so that under specifiable conditions , i t i s relevan t no t onl y fo r feature-assignmen t to/int o a complement (unde r government) but also for feature-assignment in a SPEC-hea d configuration. Specifically , suppose tha t an y proces s o f feature-transfe r fro m one category to another—as distinct from agreement—is subject to an adjacenc y condition. No w th e distinctio n wit h respec t t o adjacenc y w e observe d betwee n Case i n SPEC-hea d configuration s vs. [+FOCUS ] i n SPEC-hea d configuration s can b e attribute d to th e presenc e o f agreemen t feature s (i.e. , phi-features , "car rying" Case ) o n th e Case-assignin g hea d i n language s like Englis h vs . th e ab sence o f agreement feature s (involving th e element i n the SPE C position ) o n the [+FOCUS]-assigning head . Th e presenc e o f agreemen t feature s permit s Case assignment unde r agreement, henc e n o feature-transfe r is needed , an d conse quently ther e i s n o adjacency-effect . I n contrast , th e lac k o f agreement-features relevant fo r th e Focu s constituen t (at least i n Hungarian ) leaves onl y the option

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 5

7

of feature-transfer fo r the assignment of [+FOCUS ] i n a SPEC-head configuration, henc e th e necessar y adjacenc y betwee n th e feature-assignin g hea d an d it s specifier. This accoun t presupposes tha t the fact that two elements ar e in a SPEC head relatio n doe s no t impl y tha t the y automaticall y com e t o shar e al l features : thus i n contrast t o e.g. phi-features , th e [+FOCUS ] featur e i s crucially assume d here not to be shared . A case o f another feature, providing independent evidenc e for th e non-automatic nature of "feature-spreading" i n SPEC-head configurations , is th e cas e o f th e +W H feature . Assumin g th e framewor k o f th e Wh-Criterio n developed i n Rizzi (1991) , notice that in English, the presence o f a wh-operato r in th e [SPEC,CP ] positio n i s unable to provid e C wit h the featur e +WH , i.e. , i t manifests n o feature-assignmen t unde r SPEC-hea d agreement . Thi s i s wh y th e matrix I carryin g th e +W H feature need s t o mov e int o C for satisfactio n o f th e Wh-Criterion. I n contrast, exactl y this SPEC-hea d agreemen t process fo r the +WH feature (referre d to by Rizzi as "dynamic agreement" ) doe s exist i n French. Thu s the cas e o f +WH in Englis h matri x CP's demonstrate s tha t feature s d o not nec essarily "spread " automatically withi n SPEC-hea d configurations . As for feature-assignment unde r governmen t (i.e. , to/into a complement), i t can onl y b e a process o f feature-transfe r sinc e n o "head-complement " agree ment mechanis m exist s i n th e theory ; consequentl y thi s typ e o f feature-assign ment configuratio n is correctl y predicted i n our framewor k to alway s exhibit a n adjacency-effect. To summarize now th e implication s of the abov e proposal fo r paramete r 4 in (26), i t actually would spli t into two separat e parameters , call them 4 and 5, respectively: (28) 4 . th e configuratio n of assignment : (i) unde r governmen t (ii) unde r SPEC-hea d relatio n 5. th e mod e o f assignment : (i) feature-transfer , subject t o a n adjacenc y requiremen t (ii) (dynamic ) agreemen t [n o adjacency relevant; availabl e only fo r assignment s under SPEC-head relation ] In thi s framework , [+FOCUS] i n Hungaria n would involv e valu e (ii ) o f th e revised paramete r 4 an d valu e (i ) o f paramete r 5 . Nominativ e Cas e i n Englis h would als o involv e valu e (ii ) o f 4 , bu t i t woul d hav e valu e (ii ) o f paramete r 5 . This differenc e i n terms o f 5 would be the sourc e of the presence vs . absenc e of adjacency-effects. Th e abov e conceptio n o f feature-assignmen t an d th e SPEC head relatio n predict s tha t i n principl e ther e ma y als o b e instance s o f Nomina tive Cas e assignmen t whic h ar e lik e [+FOCUS ] i n Hungaria n wit h respec t t o parameters 4 and 5, namely, which tak e place i n a SPEC-head configuratio n ye t involve n o agreemen t bu t instea d feature-transfe r (see valu e (i ) o f paramete r 5 in (28)) . Such a process o f Nominative assignment is not easy t o come across ; it is unlike the familiar case s of Nominative assigned by SPEC-hea d agreement , as in English , and i t i s als o unlik e e.g. th e cas e o f Standar d Arabic, wher e th e ab sence o f agreemen t o n I automaticall y implies Nominativ e assignmen t under

58

Discourse Configurational Languages

government (i.e . int o th e complemen t o f I) . Ye t there i n fac t i s a n exampl e o f Nominative Cas e assignmen t discusse d i n th e literatur e tha t ha s precisel y th e relevant properties. Koopma n (1983 , Ch . 5) provides a n analysis o f Nominativ e Case assignmen t i n Vata arguing (a ) that Nominativ e i s assigne d b y a (verbal ) tensed I node in a SPEC-head configuration , (b) that I in Vata has no AGR ele ment, and it exhibits n o agreement, an d (c) that no adverb or any other elemen t may intervene between a lexical subjec t and the Case assignin g I node, i.e., stric t adjacency i s required between the two. This case of Nominative assignment pro vides strikin g confirmatio n for th e vie w o f configuratio n an d mod e o f feature assignment proposed in (28) , a s well as for our analysi s of structural Focu s an d its range of variation in terms of a syntactic feature, predicting parallelism s wit h the forma l properties an d rang e of variatio n o f (structural ) Case .

5. Concluding Remark s In the foregoing discussion w e have explored wha t kind of account may be bes t suited t o captur e th e substantia l rang e o f variatio n atteste d i n language s with respect t o the S-structure syntax of identificational Focus. Base d on comparativ e evidence involvin g the location s o f S-structur e focus position s (i.e . th e variou s attested landin g site s fo r "focus-movement" ) withi n th e se t o f language s wit h "designated" Focus positions, it has been argued that a simple two-valued S-structure vs. LF parametrization involving the SPEC position o f a category F P (suc h as e.g. Brody's (1990) parametrize d FOCUS-Criterion proposal ) canno t account for th e observed range of phenomena, at least no t within any reasonably restric tive framework of assumptions. Furthermore, w e have presented evidenc e dem onstrating tha t once w e make the minima l assumption—adopte d als o b y Brod y (1990), a s well as by other previou s accounts , from Horvat h (1981; 1986)—tha t there i s a syntactic feature [+FOCUS], withou t th e presenc e o f whic h n o identificational Focu s interpretatio n i s possible, th e observe d phenomen a o f S structure Focus fal l ou t of independently motivated properties an d parameters of syntactic feature assignment. This claim has been supporte d empirically by demonstrating the existence of a point-by-point parallelism across language s between the formal options/dimensions of variation found wit h respect to the way our hypothesized [+FOCUS ] feature gets associated with constituents, and those known from analyse s o f a "classical," well-establishe d syntacti c featur e suc h a s struc tural Cas e (i n particular, the uncontroversially not lexically-relate d Nominativ e Case). As emphasized at the outset, the claim here involves parallelism onl y with respect to purely formal properties and associated parameters ; the role, interpre tation and range of occurrence of our syntactic [+FOCUS ] featur e vs. structura l Case feature s are radically different . Thi s i s precisely th e typ e o f situatio n on e can expec t withi n a modula r theor y o f grammar , wher e phenomen a aris e fro m the interactio n o f a complex arra y o f autonomou s sets o f principles . The evidenc e presented in thi s study show s that th e reaso n fo r th e existenc e of S-structur e "designated" Focus positions in language s is purely syntactic, in the narro w sens e o f th e term . That is, th e nee d fo r over t movemen t int o a n S -

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 5

9

structure A-bar position specifi c to FOCUS i s not du e to "early" satisfaction o f some fundamentally LF-induced requirement suc h as scope assignment, contrar y to claims t o this effec t i n previous studies . Thi s conclusio n i s implie d firstl y b y discrepancies foun d i n "designated" Focu s language s between th e position whic h the (moved ) Focu s phras e mus t occup y a t S-structure an d the LF-positio n fro m where i t takes scop e (se e sectio n 3.1) . (Thi s type of fact provides motivatio n fo r LF movemen t fro m A-ba r t o A-ba r position. ) Furthermore , th e non-LF-relate d nature of the phenomenon o f designated S-structure Focu s position s i s confirmed by th e significant range of variation in terms of location i n hierarchical structur e exhibited b y suc h position s across , an d eve n within , languages , a s w e demon strated in the foregoing sections. Notice that if one maintained that such S-struc ture Focu s position s reflec t th e locatio n o f Focu s i n L F representations , n o uniform LF-representation coul d be postulated for identificational FOCUS i n UG. This i n turn woul d go agains t the well-motivate d an d widel y accepte d assump tion tha t th e L F componen t is ; not subjec t t o language-particula r variation , du e to th e unavailabilit y of appropriat e evidenc e fo r acquisitio n i n th e primar y lin guistic data. Regarding th e case a t hand, note th e problem tha t a child acquirin g an i n sit u Focu s languag e (lik e English) woul d fac e whe n tryin g to "discover " the LF-representatio n fo r identificationa l Focu s i n his/her languag e withi n thi s non-uniform LF framework. Hence we have good reasons to maintain that S-struc ture designated Focus position s ar e not (necessarily ) reflections o f LF-represen tations, but have independent origins/motivation i n requirements o f overt syntax , involving grammatica l formatives, suc h as the syntactic featur e [+FOCUS] . It is als o wort h pointin g ou t i n thi s contex t tha t no t onl y scop e assignmen t fail s to provide the motivation for overt movement into an S-structure Focus position ; neither ca n suc h movement s b e attribute d to needs o f "clausal typing, " o r satis faction o f selectiona l requirements , a s ha s bee n propose d fo r th e superficiall y similar case of Wh-interrogative movement (see e.g . Chen g (1991)). Clauses con taining identificational Focus vs . those withou t such Focu s d o not play distinc t roles i n selectio n fo r clause-typ e o r i n an y othe r respec t involvin g th e whol e clause, i n contrast t o interrogative vs . declarativ e clauses , whic h do . The present study leaves open a number of issues related to the syntax of Focus, such a s for instance the mechanis m by whic h constituents containe d withi n th e [+FOCUS]-marked phrase occupying the "designated" Focu s positio n may receiv e Focus interpretation . Obviously som e proces s o f percolatio n woul d hav e t o b e invoked, but it s nature—in light of properties motivate d fo r other featur e perco lation processes (e.g . percolation in pied-piped wh-phrases)—an d its consequence s for both the PF and LF components await further investigation . Similarly , we have not discusse d her e th e potentia l existenc e o f multipl e Focu s construction s i n designated Focu s languages , involving all but one Focus constituent i n situ. What the framework of assumptions outlined in this stud y seems t o predict i s that des ignated Focu s language s wil l tur n ou t no t t o hav e tru e identificationa l Focu s interpretation—like a moved Focu s constituent does—for i n situ phrase s i n thei r alleged multipl e Focus constructions. A furthe r issu e regardin g ou r conceptio n o f [+FOCUS ] assignmen t may b e raised i n ligh t o f recen t proposal s involvin g th e reanalysi s of al l instance s of structural Cas e "assignment " a s case s o f Cas e checkin g takin g plac e withi n

60

Discourse Configuratianal Languages

SPEC-head configurations . Give n the formal parallels i n distribution and range of variation between the two syntactic features established i n this study, it is not inconceivable tha t further , deepe r investigatio n o f th e hierarchical arrangemen t and interaction among the full rang e of functional categories an d their domain s of "checking" in the clausal projectio n o f designated Focus languages wil l make such a reductio n empiricall y feasibl e wit h respect t o [+FOCUS ] a s well . This would mean the elimination o f feature-assignment unde r government (Le. , value (i) of our parameter 4 "configuration o f assignment" i n (28) above) , as well a s the elimination of the option o f feature-transfer subject t o adjacency (i.e., value (i) o f ou r "mod e o f assignment " paramete r 5 in (28)) , Yet before an y such re analysis ca n b e considere d seriously , on e mus t recognize th e existenc e o f a n important differenc e between various feature-acquisition/licensin g processes , pointed out in section 4.3 . Som e instances of alleged feature-checkin g processe s within SPEC-head configurations seem to involve a requirement of strict adja cency—as e.g. [+•FOCUS ] in Hungarian, as well as Nominative Case in Vata (se e 4.3), wherea s othe r feature-checkin g processe s d o permi t som e element s (adverbials and/or parentheticals) intervening between the feature-checking head and th e SPEC positio n t o b e checked—as e.g. [+WH] checking in SPE C o f CP in English (as in our example (7)) , as well a s Nominative Case in English (a s in examples (27 ) discusse d i n 4.3). I n the absenc e o f a n independent explanation , this variation with respect t o the requirement of strict adjacency seem s to undermine the plausibility of a full reductio n of all "feature-licensing" processe s to a single (SPEC-head ) checking mechanism. 19 Finally, it is worth noting that in contrast to most account s adopting the ide a of [+FOCUS ] assignment/checking (includin g those i n the present volume) , ou r proposal identifies the source/assigner of the [+FOCUS] feature in UG not as one single X°(= F ) category ; rathe r i t assume s tha t an y functional hea d withi n th e clausal projectio n has the potential t o be affiliated wit h the featur e [+FOCUS]. Which one(s) can actually bear the feature in any particular languag e is a matter of parametric variation (see our parameter 2 in (26)). A t the same time, this "parasitic" affiliation o f the [+FOCUS] feature with a variety of distinct head s raise s some interesting conceptual questions regarding th e role of differen t type s of syntactic features in relation t o the notion "category" which are beyond the scope of the present study. On the other hand, the primary empirical motivation for this assumption, as argued in the study, is quite clear-cut : th e specific cross-linguis tic variation found wit h respect to the hierarchical location of S-structure Focus positions. Thoug h one may attempt to develop som e alternativ e wa y of captur ing this variation so as to avoid the assumption of multiple sources/assigners fo r the [+FOCUSJ feature, one of the "designated" Focus language s studied, namely Hungarian, turns out to provide som e prima facie direct evidence suggestin g the correctness o f the multiple source hypothesis. Consider th e following sets of data: (29) (Csak) JANOS nem AZ (JJSAOOT dobta el. only JOHN-NO M no t TH E NEWSPAPER-AC C thre w awa y ('the (only ) perso n suc h that it's not THE NEWSPAPER that he threw awa y is JOHN" )

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 6

1

(30) a . *(Csak) JANO S A Z UJSAGO T dobt a el . only JOHN-NO M TH E NEWSPAPER-AC C thre w awa y ('the (only ) person suc h that it' s TH E NEWSPAPER that h e threw awa y is JOHN') b. *Ne m JANOS (csak)A Z tJJSAGO T dobt a el . not JOHN-NO M (only) THE NEWSPAPER-ACC thre w away The unacceptability of (30a ) confirms the prediction o f our basic account: th e designated Focu s position , whic h we claime d t o b e th e SPE C o f I P positio n i n Hungarian, ca n accommodat e onl y a singl e phrase , an d n o furthe r (adjunction ) Focus movemen t i s possibl e No w i n ligh t o f this , th e ful l acceptabilit y o f th e "multiple Focus movement" sentence in (29) may seem unexpected. Yet the con trast betwee n (29 ) an d (30a ) fall s i n plac e naturall y within ou r conceptio n o f [+FOCUS] assignment . Notice th e presenc e an d locatio n o f th e negativ e mor pheme new, in (29) . Arguably , this elemen t i s th e hea d o f Neg P i n Hungarian (also observe the ungrammaticality of (30b), whic h indicates that nem is not som e particle o f phrasa l negatio n tha t induce s Focu s interpretation) . Give n this , th e obvious conclusion is that not onl y I but als o Neg is a source/assigner o f [+FO CUS] (fo r it s SPEC ) i n Hungarian . In contrast , theorie s o f Focu s postulatin g a unique categor y F fo r [+FOCUS ] woul d see m t o hav e n o accoun t fo r th e para digm (29 ) vs . (30) .

Notes 1. The typ e of Focus w e are concerned with here is "identificational" i n the sens e tha t it implie s exhaustiv e listing . Instance s o f suc h Focu s ar e manifeste d e.g. b y th e clef t construction o f English, Wh-questions, and their "natural" answer s (see Horvath (1981) , (1986)), a s wel l a s by "ore/>>"-phrases . 2. Lasnik an d Stowell (1991) sugges t tha t what makes Focu s phrase s behav e lik e tru e quantifiers i s tha t "the y contai n a cover t operato r 'only.'" Evidenc e fro m Hungarian "on/;y"-phrases indicates that the presence o f this morpheme itsel f i s well-forme d only if the phras e receive s th e [+FOCUS ] feature we ar e postulating. 3. Brody's (1990 ) discussio n of his condition (b) fails to make clear whethe r he really means FP (as stated), or perhaps [SPEC,FP ] instead , on the analogy of the Wh-Criterion . Which o f thes e tw o possibilitie s i s adopte d makes no differenc e for ou r discussion ; th e choice i s importan t though with respec t to the LF representation assigned t o i n sit u Fo cus phrase s in multiple-Focu s sentences . 4. A relevant issue not addressed by Brody is how phrases such as a moved (interrogative) Wh-phras e bein g i n SPEC ! of C P would receiv e th e [+FOCUS ] featur e in English . He state s that free assignment of this feature is possible onl y i n the "prepositiona l part " of th e sentence, whic h for him i s VP in Hungarian and IP in English. This woul d i n turn necessitate the existence of some special [+FOCUS]-assigne r fo r SPEC of CP in English, which i s a problemati c consequenc e i n hi s framework , especiall y fo r th e cas e o f wh phrases in embedded questions . 5. What we argu e here i s no t tha t there coul d b e n o functiona l hea d F (projectin g an FP), o r that there could be no Focus-Criterion (though it does make such proposals much less motivated) , but rathe r that the rang e and type s of variatio n we observ e canno t and

62

Discourse Configurational Languages

should not be attributed to these, because there is a more adequate account available, based on the independently needed featur e [+FOCUS ] i n conjunction with independently motivated parameter s o f feature-assignment. 6. Evidenc e fo r thi s V-preposin g i s provide d b y th e post- V positio n o f th e otherwis e preverbal incorporate d particles, suc h as e.g. el= 'away ' i n examples (4b ) vs. (4d) . 7. For a discussion of possible alternativ e accounts o f cases of apparent non-adjacency as i n (8) , se e sectio n 4.3 . 8. In Brody' s framework, phrases i n A-positions receiv e th e [+FOCUS ] featur e freel y in Hungarian , as the y d o i n th e English-typ e languages . 9. An are a tha t appear s interestin g an d challengin g fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f th e al leged rol e o f V is Focu s withi n infinitival clauses. W e will no t tak e u p thi s topi c in th e present stud y howeve r sinc e i t woul d lea d u s to o fa r int o a discussio n o f th e synta x of Hungarian. 10. The issu e o f whic h functiona l head(s ) may assig n th e [+FOCUS ] featur e wil l b e discussed i n sectio n 4 . A proposal simila r to ou r "lexicalization" hypothesis, namely , Vraising int o I t o make i t "verbal " i n order to enabl e the latte r t o assig n FOCUS , i s pre sented als o i n Tuller (1992 ) fo r post-V Focu s i n som e Chadi c languages . 11. The reason why we specif y "e x situ " here is that even designate d Focu s language s have in sit u phrases tha t come t o be interpreted a s Focus: these occur i n multiple Focu s sentences, whic h appea r t o b e analogou s t o multipl e Wh-question s i n language s lik e English. W e will no t discus s such constructions i n thi s study . 12. Following Walter s (1979) , P 2 in the glosses mean s a particular Tense marker , an d SM stand s for "subjec t marker. " 13. In the glosses SP= subjec t prefix , PP=pronominal prefix , CP= nomina l clas s prefix , and T= tense/aspec t affix . 14. Neither coul d ne b e claime d t o b e a n F tha t ha s undergon e raisin g int o C (thu s accounting fo r it s pre-Focu s S-structur e position); Clements (1984 ) provide s example s within which ne occurs i n an embedded claus e following an independent, lexically fille d C position . 15. Notice also tha t trying to claim that examples lik e (17 ) involv e the Focusing o f the whole IP would be problematic as well. I f the IP were Focused, ne would be expected t o occur t o th e lef t o f th e whol e IP, i.e., t o the lef t o f th e subject-NP . 16. A similar proposal—involving V-raising to I—is made with respect to Nominativ e Case assignmen t in Vat a as wel l a s i n Dutc h by Koopma n (1983). 17. Confirming evidence tha t th e Focu s positio n in Hungaria n is indee d a n A-bar po sition a t S-structure comes fro m th e fac t tha t phrases in the Focus positio n o f Hungarian license parasiti c gaps , a s demonstrated in Horvath (1987 , sectio n 2.3) . 18. O f course , du e t o th e fac t tha t Italia n ha s nul l expletives , example s lik e (27b , c ) are no t testabl e i n this language . So there stil l i s som e chanc e tha t Belletti's analysi s is tenable fo r Italian. 19. The present paper was completed before Chomsky's (1992) " A Minimalist Progra m for Linguisti c Theory" appeared . The analysi s presented her e i s incompatibl e wit h thi s latter mor e restrictiv e framework in obviou s ways. It is fairl y clea r what the genera l di rection o f a n attemp t t o recas t th e accoun t o f Focu s propose d her e i n term s o f thi s minimalist framework would be; it may involve the postulation o f a "strong" vs. "weak" distinction fo r ou r [+FOCUS ] feature , and motivat e movemen t b y th e nee d fo r feature checking, o n the analogy of Chomsky' s proposa l for Case an d wh-movement (see a suggestion to this effect i n Chomsky (1992, p. 45)). Yet given that the "minimalist program" seems to imply the same account for the syntax of Focus a s for several other A-bar movement constructions, such as wh-interrogatives and topicalization, one would need t o ex -

Structural Focus, Structural Case, and The Notion of Feature-Assignment 6

3

plore how the rather striking difference s observable in the properties an d cross-linguisti c variation of these constructions ca n be derived before such a mechanical extension of the wh-movement accoun t is adopted. This latte r task is undertaken in research i n progress .

References Belletti, A. (1990 ) Generalized Verb Movement, Rosenber g & Sellier, Turin . Borer, H . (1986) "I-Subjects, " Linguistic Inquiry 17 , 375-416. Brody, M. (1990) "Remark s o n the Order o f Elements i n the Hungarian Focus Field, " in I. Kenesei , ed. , Approaches to Hungarian vol . 3. , JATE, Szeged . Burzio, L. (1981 ) Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries, Doctoral dissertation , MIT , Cambridge, Massachusetts . Cheng, L . (1991 ) On the Typology of Wh-Questions, Doctora l dissertation , MIT , Cambridge. Chomsky, N. (1976) "Condition s on Rules of Grammar," Linguistic Analysis 2 , 303-351. Chomsky, N. (1981 ) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris , Dordrecht . Chomsky, N . (1986 ) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts. Chomsky, N. (1992 ) " A Minimalist Program fo r Linguistic Theory," i n MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1 , Cambridge, Massachusetts . Clements, G . N. (1984) "Bindin g Domain s in Kikuyu," Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 14.2. Farkas, D . (1986) "O n the Syntactic Position o f Focus i n Hungarian," Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4 , 77-96. Fassi Fehri , A . (1989 ) "Generalise d I P Structure, Case , an d VS Word Order," i n I. Lak a and A. Mahajan, eds. , Functional Heads and Clause Structure, MI T Working Pa pers i n Linguistics vol . 10 , Cambridge, Massachusetts . Grimshaw, J. (1991 ) "Extende d Projection, " ms. , Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts. Horvath, J. (1981 ) Aspects of Hungarian Syntax and the Theory of Grammar, Doctora l dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles . Horvath, J. (1986) FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian, Foris , Dordrecht. Horvath, J . (1987 ) "O n Model s wit h a VP-less Phras e Structur e an d Two (A)symmetry Phenomena," i n I. Kenesei, ed. , Approaches to Hungarian vol . 2. , JATE, Szeged . Kayne, R. (1989 ) "Note s o n English Agreement," ms. , CUNY , New York. Koopman, H. (1983 ) The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb Movement Rules in the Km Languages to Universal Grammar, Doctoral dissertation, McGill University , Montreal. Koopman, H. , an d D . Sportich e (1990 ) "Th e Positio n o f Subjects, " ms. , UCLA , Lo s Angeles. Kuroda, Y.-S. (1988 ) "Whethe r W e Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English an d Japanese," Lingvisticae Investigationes 12 . Lasnik, H., and T. Stowell (1991 ) "Weakes t Crossover, " Linguistic Inquiry 22 , 687-720. May, R. (1985 ) Logical Form, MI T Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Ortiz de Urbina, J. (1986) Some Parameters in the Grammar of Basque, Doctoral disser tation, Universit y of Illinois , Urbana-Champaign. Pollock, J.-Y . (1989 ) "Ver b Movement , UG an d th e Structur e of IP," Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424 . Rizzi, L. (1991) "Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion," ms., University of Geneva, Geneva.

64

Discourse Configurational Languages

Saito, M . (1985 ) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications, Doctoral dissertation , MIT, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Travis, L. (1984 ) Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation, Doctoral dissertation , MIT, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Tuller, L . (1988 ) "Th e Synta x o f Postverba l Focu s Constructions, " ms. , Universit y o f Leiden, Leiden . Tuller, L . (1992 ) "Th e Synta x of Postverba l Focu s Construction s in Chadic, " Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10 , 303-334. Walters, J. (1979 ) "Focu s in Aghem," in L. Hyman, ed., Aghem Grammatical Structure, Southern Californi a Occasiona l Papers in Linguistics #7, Lo s Angeles.

3 Aspects of Discourse Configurationality in Somali MARCO SVOLACCHIA LUNELLA MEREU ANNARITA PUGLIELL I Dipart. di Linguistica — Terza Universita degli Studi di Roma

1. Introduction1 Focus an d t o som e degre e topi c ar e central t o th e synta x of Somal i a s ther e i s obligatory focu s o f on e element i n every main , declarative clause. Unlike th e focused ver b i n Somal i th e focuse d N P i s syntactically marked i n tha t i t mus t occur i n a specific position . Th e focused elemen t i s also lexically marked by an identifying particle , referre d t o a s focus (indicator) particle i n th e literature . Owing to its obligator y syntactic an d lexical indicatio n o f focus, Somali ca n be called & focus prominent language. I t can als o b e considered a topic prominent language (L i an d Thompson, 1976 ) i n tha t topic i n th e for m o f N P dislocatio n and resumptive pronoun s i s a primary featur e of Somali. The ai m of this pape r is to give an overview of the main aspects o f discours e related phenomena in Somali, investigating some basic relations between their semantics and syntax . The specifi c questions w e will address concern : (1) th e syntacti c categor y an d the structura l position s whic h focu s an d topic constituent s belong to; (2) th e relation betwee n syntacti c focalizatio n an d its semantics ; (3) th e role an d syntactic : properties of different kind s of focus constructions: nominal focu s structure s (containin g baa/ayaa), th e so-calle d verbal focalizatio n (th e type with waa), a s well a s cataphoric focal ization (th e waxaa sentences); (4) th e relation between topic and focus structures and the occurrence of subject resumptive pronouns. 65

66

Discourse Configurational Languages

It wil l b e show n tha t bot h topi c an d focu s nomina l structure s occup y [Spec , CP], thoug h fo r topic s thi s i s a base-generated position . Th e discours e rol e o f topic an d focu s NP s i s associate d wit h th e presenc e o r absenc e o f th e focu s marker i n Comp. Thoug h th e Somal i dat a ar e compatible bot h wit h a n interpre tation o f focu s a s a syntacti c featur e associate d wit h som e categor y (Horvath , 1986, an d this volume) o r as a function featur e within a focus projection (Brody , 1990), w e wil l adop t th e forme r view , locatin g th e focu s particl e i n th e Inf l node fro m whic h i t undergoes movemen t t o Com p i n the case of nominal focal ization (Lecarme , 1991) . We propos e tha t post-verba l waxaa focu s structure s ar e generate d a s righ t adjoined t o IP. Further, we will show that subject resumptive pronouns in Somali occu r when ever a subject is either base generated in A'position, eithe r a s an initial, interna l or post-verbal topic , or moved acros s a CP node. The y ar e ungrammatical when the subjec t is eithe r i n [Spec , IP] , o r moved t o th e C P focus position . An interestin g resul t achieve d b y th e analysi s w e hav e develope d i s tha t i n Somali ther e i s n o nee d t o stipulat e a specifi c orde r betwee n topi c an d focu s constituents. A consequence i s tha t C P in Somal i mus t b e recursiv e sinc e bot h topic an d focu s NP s ar e represented there . This articl e i s organize d a s follows. Section 2 presents basi c fact s abou t So mali syntax . Sectio n 3 , i n whic h som e pas t proposal s ar e briefl y reviewe d an d new one s ar e advanced , deals wit h topic an d focus, an d presents th e theoretica l framework an d the hypotheses leading to ou r analysi s of discours e relate d fact s in Somali . Finally , Sectio n 4 summarize s an d comment s o n th e mai n result s o f the discussio n at thi s stage o f our research .

2. Basics In thi s sectio n w e ar e going to review som e aspect s o f Somal i whic h constitut e the minima l backgroun d fo r the forthcomin g discussion . As mentione d above , Somal i require s tha t i n ever y mai n sentenc e a focu s particle be present. One can differentiate betwee n "nominal " an d "verbal" focalization, dependin g on the for m o f the focu s marker : baa/ayaa an d waxaa2 indi cate nominal focus, whil e waa indicates verbal focus, a s seen in (la, c ) and (Ib): (1) a . naa g *(baa ) libaa x aragta y woman F M lio n sa w 'A WOMAN ha s see n a lion' b. Cal l moo s *(waa)-u u cunay C. banan a FM-h e at e 'Cali HAS EATEN a banana' c. Cal i *(waxaa)-u u cuna y moo s C. FM-h e at e banan a 'Cali ha s eate n a banana' 3

Aspects of Discourse Configurationality in Somali 6

7

Each o f the above sentence s i s ungrammatical without its FM. Baa i s right-adjacent t o th e N P i t marks , waa i s left-adjacen t t o th e Verba l Comple x (se e be low), while th e elemen t focuse d by waxaa i s located afte r th e verb . No F M ca n occur i n embedde d o r untensed clauses (imperative , jussive, potential, etc.) , an d only one focus is license d i n an y one sentence: 4 (2) a . Cal i ba a sheega y i n Muus e (*baa/*waa ) yimi d C. F M sai d tha t Muus e FM s cam e 'CALI said tha t Muuse has come' b. run-t a (*baa/*waa ) sheeg ! truth-the F M F M tel l 'Tell the truth' +WH element s i n Somal i mus t be focused , eithe r b y baa, o r waa o r waxaa (see below , Section 3) ; this entail s tha t multiple WH-questions canno t occu r i n Somali. Clitic resumptive pronouns ar e a majo r featur e i n Somal i syntax . Objec t resumptive pronouns corresponding to argument s must alway s occu r (wit h 3r d pers. pronoun=0) irregardles s of the presence an d position o f the full coindexe d object NPs . Consider th e following examples: (3) a . (aniga ) shala y ba a la- y dila y me yesterda y F M IMP-m e bea t 'Someone beat m e YESTERDAY' b. shala y ba a (aniga ) la- y dila y yesterday F M rn e IMP-m e bea t 'Someone beat me YESTERDAY' c. shala y ba a la- y dila y (aniga ) yesterday F M IMP-m e bea t m e 'Someone beat me YESTERDAY' d. anig a ba a shala y la- y dila y me F M yesterda y IMP-m e bea t 'Someone beat M E yesterday' In (3d) the object N P is focused, whil e in (3a-c) it is not, occupying all possibl e positions i n th e sentence . I n al l cases , th e objec t resumptiv e pronoun s mus t occur. On th e contrary , the condition s tha t rul e th e occurrenc e an d positio n o f th e subject resumptive pronoun ar e fairly complex , depending on the presence, posi tion an d natur e (i.e. lexica l vs . pronominal NP) o f their antecedent : (a) th e subject resumptive pronoun cannot occur when the subject NP either i s focused o r i s la, a n impersonal clitic:

68

Discourse Configurational Languages

(4) a . wiilal-ki i baa/*ba y moo s cunay d boys-the F M FM-the y banan a eatin g 'THE BOY S ar e eating a banana' b. moo s baa/*bu u l a cunaya a banana F M FM-h e IMP eatin g 'Someone i s eatin g A BANANA' Note that the subject resumptive pronoun cliticizes o n the FM, when present, and a contractio n take s plac e (e.g . baa + uu 'he ' yield s buu; baa + ay 'they , she ' becomes bay). (b) th e subjec t resumptiv e pronoun i s optional whe n a nominal subjec t come s after th e F M an d before th e Verba l Complex : (5) moo s baa/bu u wiilki i cunaya a banana F M FM-he boy-th e eatin g 'The boy i s eatin g A BANANA' (c) th e subject resumptive pronoun is, finally, obligatory i n all other cases (not e 6c, i n whic h th e subjec t i s a n independent pronoun) : (6) a . wiilk i moo s *baa/bu u cunaya a boy-the banan a F M FM-h e eatin g The boy , he i s eating A BANANA' b. moo s *baa/bu u cunaya a wiil-k i banana F M FM-h e eatin g boy-th e 'He is eatin g A BANANA, th e boy' c. moo s * baa/ baan anig u cuna y banana F M FM- I I at e 'I ate A BANANA' The distribution of the subject resumptive pronouns will be derived i n §3.4-5. Two main structura l cases ar e recognizable i n Somali: nominative , the case of the subject , an d accusativ e (o r rathe r non nominative), whic h i s th e unmarke d case (bot h morphologically an d syntactically). A third case, genitive, ha s no rel evance t o this paper. Subjec t marking is fairly complex , involvin g both segmen tal and prosodic elements. 5 A striking feature of Somali i s that the subject marke r appears a t the en d o f th e maximal subjec t phrase , e.g. : (7) a . nin-k w man-the(S) 'The man' b. nin-k a iy o gabar-t w man-the an d woman-the(S ) 'The ma n an d the woman '

Aspects of Discourse Configurationality in Somali 6

9

c. [nin-k a imanayaa ] wa a walaal-ka y man-the coming(S ) F M brother-m y "The man who is coming i s m y brother'6 Subject focusin g entail s a numbe r of consequences : First, a focuse d subjec t NP loses it s subjec t mar k (8b) . Secondly , it s resumptiv e pronou n canno t occu r (8c). Thirdly , th e agreeing ver b has a special type of conjugation, th e restricted paradigm (ReP) , characterize d essentiall y by the reductio n o f som e agreemen t features o f the normal ("extended") paradig m (8d). 7 These facts ar e exemplifie d below: (8) a . niman-kaa s ba a hili b cunay d men-those F M mea t eating(ReP ) 'THOSE MEN are eating meat * b. * niman-kaasu ba a hili b cunaya * men-those(S) F M mea t eating(ReP ) c. * niman-kaas ba y hili b cunaya " men-those F M mea t eating(ReP ) d. * niman-kaas ba a hili b cunayaa n men-those F M mea t eatin g The sam e propertie s whic h characteriz e subjec t focusin g als o characteriz e sentences i n whic h a subjec t W H element, either as a n interrogative o r a relative, occurs : (9) a . max-a a dhacay ? what-FM happened(ReP ) 'WHAT'S happened?' b. *mux-H « dhacSy ? what-FM-he happene d c. nin-ka j [0( 0 n a t. dhegeysanaya l baana n aqoo n man-the W H thai : u s listening(ReP ) FM-not- l kno w 'I do not know THE MEN WHO ARE LISTENING T O US' d. * ninka; [0 ; 0 a y ts na dhegeysanaya-a ] baana n aqoo n man-the W H tha t they us listening(ReP)-(S ) FM-not- i kno w e. [Cal i iy o Maxamed j [0i o o jaamacadd a k a shaqeeya]-a] wa a C. an d M. W H tha t university i n work(ReP)-(S ) F M walaalo brothers 'Cali and Maxamed, wh o work a t the university , ar e brothers ' f. *[Cal i iy o Maxamed j [0{ o o a y jaamacadd a k a shaqeeyaan] ] C. an d M . W H tha t the y universit y i n work(3p)(S ) waa walaal o FM brother s

70

Discourse Configurational Languages

As the examples abov e show , the subject resumptive pronoun cannot occu r (9b) ; the subjec t marke r i s droppe d (9d) ; th e ver b ha s a restricted paradigm endin g (9f). Note that in relative clauses (bot h appositive, displaying the complementize r oo (9e) , an d restrictive, withou t an overt on e (9c) ) th e WH operato r (subjec t i n the above examples) i s alway s null . There i s genera l acceptanc e tha t Somal i i s a SOV language. Basi c wor d or der, however, canno t be directly deduce d from th e order o f full NPs , since focalization an d topicalization largel y determin e thei r position an d thus th e apparen t free wor d order. So , a simple two-argumen t sentence meaning roughly "Cali at e a banana " coul d b e translate d in Somali with , at least , th e followin g sentences , all of which are grammatical (in the translation the focused elemen t i s written in capitals, whil e the topic is italicized) : (10) a . Cal i moo s bu u cuna y S C. banan a FM-h e at e 'Cali at e a BANANA' b. Moo s bu u Cal i cuna y O banana FM-h e C . at e 'Cali at e a BANANA' c. Moo s bu u cuna y Cal i O banana FM-h e at e C . 'Cali at e a BANANA' d. Moo s Cal i ba a cuna y O banana C . F M at e 'CALI ate a banana' e. Cal i ba a moo s cuna y S C. F M banan a at e 'CALI ate a banana' f. Cal i ba a cuna y moo s S C. F M at e banan a 'CALI at e a banana'

O (FM-SRP) V (FM-SRP ) S V (FM-SRP)V S S (FM) V (FM ) O V (FM)V O

As one can see, th e element focused by baa is alway s i n preverbal position . One reason fo r saying that Somali is SOV is that the impersonal subjec t cliti c is the leftmost , hence th e highest , element in the Verba l Complex . Th e othe r i s that, a s w e have see n above , th e subjec t resumptiv e pronoun , deal t wit h belo w in more detail, is not incorporated into the Verbal Complex but belongs to a higher node, while object resumptive pronouns are. Both facts, along wit h others we shall discuss later , strongl y sugges t th e subject-object asymmetr y well know n in mor e familiar languages. 8 On the contrary, th e relative order of elements i s strictly determine d insid e the Verbal Complex, a templati c fiel d maximall y constituted fro m righ t t o left , b y (1) the verb (wit h an optional incorporated bar e noun , generally formin g a lexi cal uni t wit h it) ; (2 ) som e adverbial s of plac e (e.g . hor 'i n fron t of, ' ag 'near, ' etc.) and 'manner' (kala 'alone, * wada 'together') ; (3) German hinlher like deicti c particles, indicating, in rough terms, movement toward or away from th e speake r

Aspects of Discourse Configurationality in Somali 7

1

(soo 'her' ; sii 'bin') ; (4 ) a possessive (usuall y 2nd pers , kaa, kiiri), whos e us e will be explained shortly below; (5) some relational elements, traditionally calle d "prepositions" (e.g . ku 'in , by means of, ' la 'with, ' etc.); 9 (6 ) one object clitic ; finally, la, impersonal subjec t clitic . Consider th e following examples : (11) a . wu u [ i far a saaray ] FM-he m e finger s put-o n 'He has beaten me' b. Cal i ba a buuggiis a [i- i ka a siiyay ] C. F M book-hi s me-t o your s gav e 'CALI gave me his book fo r you' c. wa y [i s ho r joogaan ] FM-they sel f fron t stan d 'They stan d on e opposite th e other' d. annag a ba a [ la-yno-o so o ordayay ] us (EMPH ) F M IMP-us-t o DEIC T ra n 'Someone was running towards US ' e. Cal i ba a [ 0 u geeyay ] C, F M (it ) t o brough t 'CALI brought it(7him/her/them ) t o him(/her/them/it)' Note tha t 3r d pers. objec t clitics are not phoneticall y realized, a s see n i n (lie). The templatic nature of the Verbal Complex is clearly shown by (1 Ib), in which kaa, normall y a 2nd pers. possessive, here spell s ou t 'you ' (O) . Th e reaso n fo r this is that only on e overt objec t clitic ca n occur i n the Verbal Complex (n o restrictions hold instead for null clitics). Thus, if two overt pronominals are require d (no matter if selected b y one or more heads) one is realized as a possessive, whic h is assigne d it s ow n position i n the Verbal Complex . I n (lib), fo r example, th e verb siin, 't o give * ha s tw o objects, buuggiisa, 'book-his ' an d i, 'me, ' whil e u 'to, for' (i-i
72

Discourse Configumtional Languages

3. The Syntax and Semantics of Topic and Focus 3.1. Focus Structures 3.1.1. Baa The typ e of sentenc e forme d wit h th e ba a focu s marke r i s traditionall y consid ered basic, as opposed t o the type of sentence containing waxaa, with cataphoric focusing, an d to the sentences wit h waa for verbal focusing, which generally have a mor e limite d use . According t o the traditional view (Andrzejewski, 1975) , baa would be actin g as a focus particle, par t o f the N P whic h it marks . Empirical evidenc e show s tha t thi s vie w canno t be maintaine d sinc e th e F M is strictl y related t o verb. Thi s i s clearly show n by it s behaviour a t deletion under identity an d similar tests, where the FM does no t behave as part of the NP it marks bu t appear s t o depen d on th e verb , a s show n by th e followin g example s (Saeed, 1984:110) : (13) a . m a Maxame d ba a tega y mis e Cabd i ba a tegay ? ?M .F M wen t o r C . F M wen t 'Has MAXAME D gone o r has CALI gone?' b. m a Maxame d ba a tega y mis e Cabdi ? ?M .F M wen t o r C . c. *m a Maxame d ba a tega y mis e Cabd i baa ? ?M .F M wen t o r C . F M As (13c) shows, if the verb of the conjunct i s deleted, the FM cannot remain either, even i f th e N P i t mark s is present. 11 We'll adop t th e followin g hypothese s abou t baa structure s develope d b y Lecarme (1991) : a) baa —along with waa and the other element s related t o the verb, tradition ally called "indicato r particles " (i.e. modal, interrogative an d negative markers)12—is a lexicalization o f Infl . b) baa (an d th e othe r "indicators " whic h tak e a N P i n thei r scope , e.g . th e negative particl e aan) undergoe s head-to-head movemen t t o Comp . c) th e focused NP , which preceds the FM in S-Structure, is located 13 in [Spec , CP] alon g with interrogativ e and relative W H elements . The propose d representatio n o f a baa sentenc e suc h a s Call baa i dilay 'C . FM me beat (= CAL I bea t me)' i s give n in (14) :

Aspects of Discourse Configurationality in Somali 7

3

There seems to be a general correspondence between the syntactic an d the semantic aspect of focus. The element syntactically marked as focus is the one that bears ne w information or that is presented contrastively. To determin e thi s w e performe d th e followin g experiment : w e gav e nativ e speakers a series of questions systematicall y focusing on different elements eac h matched wit h a number o f answer s differin g i n focus . The nativ e speaker s ha d to give judgements on the well-formedness of each couple (questio n + answer). 14 Here ar e som e o f the relevan t data. To a question suc h a s (15), (15) Cal l muxuu 15 sameeyay C. what-FM-h e di d 'What di d Cal i do? '

?

where onl y the subjec t is mentioned , the appropriat e answers ar e onl y (16a , b ) below: (16) a . Cal i Marya n bu u dila y C. M . FM-h e bea t 'Cali bea t MARYAN ' b. Marya n buu dila y Cal i M. FM-h e bea t C . 'Cali bea t MARYAN '

74

Discourse Configurational Languages

c. *Cal i ba a Marya n dila y C. F M M . bea t 'CALI beat Maryan ' d. *Cal i Marya n wu u dila y C. M . FM-hebea t 'Cali BEA T Maryan' In respons e t o (17) , i n whic h only th e objec t i s i n focus , (17) Cal i yu u dilay ? C. whom-FM-h e bea t 'Who di d Cali beat? ' the onl y appropriat e answer s are agai n (16a-b ) above , i n whic h ther e i s a n ob ject NP marked b y baa. Thi s show s tha t focus i s assigned eithe r onl y t o th e N P marked b y baa, a s when the y ar e answer s t o (17) , o r t o th e whol e VP , as whe n they ar e answer s t o (15) . Consequently , a sentence i n whic h th e FM govern s a n object represent s th e unmarked cas e an d can be used i n most environments . Th e inadequacy o f (16c ) show s tha t the F M cannot mar k a NP which i s give n infor mation. If w e as k (18) , (18) maxa a dhacay ? what-FM happene d 'What happened? ' where the whole situation is questioned, (16c) , repeated her e a s (19a), which was inappropriate t o a question (15 ) tha t mentione d th e subject , i s now the most ap propriate answer : (19) a . Cal i ba a Marya n dila y =( 16c ) C. F M M . bea t 'CALI beat Mar y am' b. (?)Marya n ba a Cal i dila y M. F M C . bea t 'Cali beat MARYAM ' c. ? ? Maryan bu u Cal i dila y M. FM-h e C . bea t 'Call bea t MARYAM ' d. *Cal i Marya n bu u dila y C. M . FM-h e bea t 'Cali bea t MARYAM ' e. * Maryan bu u dila y Cal i M. FM-h e bea t C . 'Cali bea t MARYAM'

Aspects of Discourse Configurationality in Somali 7

5

f. *Marya n Cal l ba a dila y M. C . F M bea t 'CALI beat Maryam' g. *Cal i ba a dila y Marya n C. F M bea t M . 'CALI beat Maryam' (19d-g), on the other hand, show that no NP can occur befor e the NP marked by the FM or after the verb. The possible answer s ar e (19a, b) , i n which one NP is focused an d th e othe r i s no t dislocate d and , i f subject , occur s withou t it s resumptive pronoun . Note , however , tha t th e preferre d answe r i s (19a) , whic h focuses o n the subject , rathe r than (19b), which focuses o n the object. 16 If w e as k (20 ) below , (20) ya a Marya n dilay ? who M . bea t 'Who beat Maryam?' where everything except the subject is given, previously inappropriate answers— (19f-g), repeate d belo w a s (21b-c)—are now appropriate, whil e (16c= 19a) , re peated belo w a s (21a) , whic h was appropriat e fo r questio n (18) , i s see n t o b e inappropriate fo r question s suc h a s (20) tha t mention th e object : (21) a . ?Cal i ba a Marya n dila y C. F M M . bea t 'CALI beat Maiyam' b. Marya n Cal i ba a dila y M. C . F M bea t 'CALI beat Maiyam' c. Cal i baa dila y Marya n C. F M bea t M . 'CALI beat Maiyam' 3.1.2. Waxaa A different typ e of nominal focalization is found i n waxaa sentences. 17 This i s a rather peculiar construction tha t has received considerabl e attentio n by scholars . Pragmatically speaking, waxaa sentences identify a "cataphoric predication " wit h "presentative function" (Hetzron, 1971) , i n which the elemen t tha t receive s fo cus is obligatorily located in post verbal position. What follows are some example s of cataphoric focalization, i n whic h th e focuse d elemen t (th e afterfocus) i s a subject N P (a) , an object NP (b), an d a clause (c) : (22) a . waxa a yimi d taree n EXPL cam e trai n 'A TRAIN came'

76

Discourse Configurational Languages

b. wuxu u cuna y hili b EXPL-he at e mea t 'He ate MEAT' c. waxaa n doonaya a inaa n tag o EXPL-I wan t thatIg o 'I wan t TO GO' The waxaa constructio n typicall y focuse s o n "heavy " constituents , i.e . a com plex N P (23a), a series of coordinate NP s (23b ) o r a clausal complemen t (22c) : (23) a . waxaa n so o noqonaya a [ NP kolku u [ cp ninku yimado] EXPL-I DEIC T come-bac k time-h e man-the(S ) com e Til come bac k WHE N THE MAN COMES' b. waxaa n doonaya a shaah , caan o iy o sonko r EXPL-I wan t te a mil k an d suga r 'I wan t TEA, MIL K AND SUGAR'

]

There ar e severa l analyse s o f thi s structur e i n th e literature . Accordin g t o Zholkovski (1971 ) an d Andrzejewski (1975) , waxa(a) shoul d b e a nominal F M like baa, eve n though it requires the focused element to be moved t o the right of the verb . In another proposal, the Cleft Reduction analysi s (Saeed, 1984) , waxa (lit . waxa 'thing-the' ) i s see n a s a full lexica l N P which is the head o f a relative clause , and function s as th e subject . Th e focuse d elemen t (i n pos t verba l position ) i s analysed a s th e predicat e o f th e whol e (cleft ) sentence , relate d t o th e commo n verbless, equativ e "N P waa NP " structur e (discusse d i n §3.1. 3 below), withou t waa, th e verb FM. Under this approac h the waxa(a) constructio n i s formally re lated (b y mean s o f a "Clef t Reductio n Rule" tha t delet s waa) t o th e over t clef t sentences that occur in Somali , suc h as see n i n (24) : (24) wax a yimi d wa a tareen 18 thing-the cam e F M trai n 'The thing that cam e i s a train' (24) corresponds t o (22a), tha t should yield the following representation (Saeed , 1984:44): (25) [n p waxa; [ s 0{ yimi] ] 0 [

NP

tareen]

where 0; is the null relative operator whos e antecedent is waxa and 0 stand s for the delete d waa. Although plausibl e a t first , th e clef t analysi s of waxaa sentence s ca n b e dis counted b y th e dat a o n agreement, case marking an d som e feature s differin g between th e tw o constructions: a) Agreement. I f waxa wer e a full lexica l NP and th e anteceden t of th e null operator of a relative clause it should head th e verb agreement in that

Aspects of Discourse Configurationality in Somali 7

sentence, viz . th e ver b shoul d alway s b e 3r d masc. sin g whe n th e W H operator i s th e subjec t o f it s clause . Recal l (Sec . 1 ) that, sinc e th e ver b has the Restrictiv e Paradig m i n this case , th e potentia l counterexample s left are only three : 3rd fern, sing. , 1st sing, and Istplur . Consider the fol lowing example s fro m Saee d (1984 ) (glosse s ar e his own) : (26) a . waxa a timi d (*yimid ) gaba r thing-the (3f)cam e (3m)cam e gir l 'A GIR L came ' b. waxa a imi d anig a thing-the (l)cam e I 'I came' c. waxa a nimi d annag a thing-the (Ip)cam e w e 'WE came' (26a-c) sho w tha t th e verb agree s wit h th e post verba l N P an d not wit h waxa, i.e . wit h 3r d masc., 11' as Saeed' s hypothesi s woul d predict . b) Case marking. Le t us consider the clef t sentenc e analysi s in relatio n to cas e marking . Recall tha t th e subjec t marke r alway s attache s t o th e end of a phrase. The prediction is that the subject marker of the NP headed by waxa wil l alway s appea r t o th e righ t o f th e verb , i.e. , th e ver b o f th e relative claus e i n Saeed' s analysis . Data sho w tha t thi s predictio n i s in correct: (27) Waxa a hadlay a ni n aana n aqoon EXPL speaking(ReP ) ma n I-no t kno w 'A MA N I DO NOT KNOW is speaking ' In fact , th e ver b ha s a restricte d paradig m endin g (se e not e 7 ) withou t subject marking , whereas th e expecte d for m accordin g t o Saeed' s analy sis shoul d be *hadlayaa. c) Distinguishing features. Ther e ar e a number of mismatches betwee n overt clef t an d waxa(a) sentences . First , a s i s norma l i n copulativ e constructions, i n rea l clef t sentence s th e subjec t an d th e predicat e ca n freely alternate , suc h a s in the followin g examples : (28) a . Waxaa n doonaya a wa a laca g EXPL-I wan t F M mone y 'What I want is MONEY' b. Lacag- i wa a waxaa n doonaya a money-(S) F M thing-th e wan t 'Money i s WHAT I WANT' However the same is not true for waxa(a) sentences , where the NP which is coindexed with waxa must always occur in post verbal position, as seen in (29) :

7

78

Discourse Configurational Languages

(29) a . Waxaa n doonaya a laca g EXPL-I wan t mone y 'What I want is MONEY' b. *Lacag i waxaa n doonaya a money-SM EXPL- I wan t 'Money i s WHAT I WANT' Another distinguishing feature between the two structures concerns semantics . A counte r argumen t for Saeed' s Clef t analysi s i s th e fac t tha t waxa(a) i n thes e focus sentence s has no lexical content. It may be coindexed wit h any NP, regardless o f its features, e.g. [±plural] , [±animate], etc. Depending o n its environment , it migh t b e roughl y translate d i n Englis h a s what, who, o r where. I n addition , consider th e followin g examples : (30) a . wax a keena y Cal l thing-the brough t C . 'CALI brought it' b. ?wax a keena y ayo ? thing-the brough t wh o 'WHO brought it?' While (30a ) i s perfect, (30b) , i n which a variable occur s afte r th e ver b provide s a "proble m o f style " (Saeed , 1984:154) , sinc e i t has a pejorative interpretation . Whatever th e reason , th e generalizatio n i s tha t whe n a W H elemen t occur s a s afterfocus, waxa recover s it s ful l lexica l status , it s [-animate ] featur e specifica tion, i n particular . In orde r t o accoun t fo r th e contras t betwee n (30a ) an d (30b ) the clai m tha t waxa i n focus structure s i s a full N P i s to b e rejected. 20 A final remar k about previous analyses o f cataphoric focu s sentences concern s the analysis of waxaa itself , the common varian t (the only possible in many dia lects) o f waxa in focus structrures, which is made up of waxa and (the contracte d form of ) baa/ayaa. I f waxa wer e a FM i n its ow n ther e woul d be littl e sens e i n stating tha t it i s marke d b y anothe r FM . I n other word s th e co-occurrence wit h baa/ayaa strongl y suggests that waxa i s a NP. 21 Nevertheless w e have see n tha t both the reduce d clef t hypothesi s an d the ful l N P statu s o f waxa hypothesi s ar e untenable. The hypothesis w e are going to develop i s based o n the assumption tha t waxa is a n expletive NP , which i s underspecified a s far as all features associate d wit h anaphoric element s (<)>-features ) ar e concerned , i.e . gender , number , person , animatedness. Bein g categoriall y a NP, it follows in a natural way that waxa ca n be focused, i.e. move d up to [Spec, CP] and governed by baa. This simpl e mov e allows u s to incorporat e th e waxaa constructio n i n the baa analysis . An aspect involved in this proposal concerns the focus effect on the dislocate d element. The situatio n i s clear: o n the one hand there is a NP which is syntactically focused, though not semantically. On the other hand, there is a propositio n which i s semanticall y focuse d even thoug h it i s no t syntactically . What w e ca n

Aspects of Discourse Configurationality in Somali 7

9

reasonably assum e fro m ou r perspectiv e i s that th e NP waxa, althoug h i t i s lo cated i n a position t o whic h focu s i s assigne d (b y virtu e of bad) canno t imple ment i t i n rea l term s becaus e i t ha s n o lexica l content . O n th e other hand , th e dislocated propositio n receive s focu s (alon g wit h cas e an d 6-role ) fro m waxaa by virtue o f coindexation, bein g abl e to implement th e focus effec t becaus e i t is a referential expression . Let us now turn again to the problem o f agreement. Recal l tha t waxaa, whe n subject, agree s wit h th e afterfocu s i n the restricte d paradigm , wher e w e woul d expect the verb always to agree wit h 3rd masc. sing, if waxa were a normal sub ject NP, since wax is s o specifie d i n th e lexicon. Howeve r waxa i s a n expletiv e NP, unspecified with regard to ^-features . As a consequence, i t is not a possibl e candidate for heading agreement. What is reasonable t o suppose then is that waxa receives th e syntacti c feature s from th e afterfocu s vi a coindexation. 22 However, a s you will remember , th e construction wit h waxaa ha s a peculiar ity in relation t o that with baa, in that it requires tha t a proposition (N P or clause ) appear i n post verbal position , i.e . righ t dislocated. Thi s call s fo r an explanation. Note tha t righ t dislocatio n is a commo n devic e in Somal i for aftertopics (se e below) an d fo r heavy constituents (e.g . completives , non-restrictiv e relativ e clauses). On e might speculat e tha t thi s requiremen t i s relate d i n som e sens e t o heavy constituen t righ t dislocatio n since , a s mentioned above , th e waxaa struc ture i s mos t typicall y use d t o focu s heav y elements . Howeve r simpl e NP s ca n occur as "afterfoci" a s well. Thus, an alternative hypothesi s ma y be that the right dislocation requirement i s related t o th e particula r nature of cataphoric, presen tative focalization itself , i n whic h the announce d elemen t i s probabl y i n a n ap positive relatio n wit h it s antecedent. 23 3.1.3. Waa and Verb Focus Somalist scholar s hav e traditionally regarded waa as the "verbal focu s particle," marking an adjacent verb , actually Verbal Complex, a s the focused element. Thi s view is due to two reasons: first , man y sentences i n which waa occurs show focus on the verb, and, second, tha t waa and baa are in a complementary distribution. 24 Consider th e examples belo w displayin g som e question s an d thei r answers : (31) a . shala y Cal i Mar y an m a dilay ? yesterday C. M . ? bea t 'Did Cal i bea t Marya m yesterday?' b. (shala y Cal i Maryan ) wu u dila y yesterday C . M . FM-h e bea t 'Yesterday Cal i BEA T Maryam' c. *shala y Cal i Marya n bu u dila y yesterday C . M . FM-h e bea t 'Yesterday Cal i beat/BEA T MARYAM' 25 (32) a . Cal i Marya n muxu u k u sameeyay ? C. M . what-h e t o di d 'What di d Cal i d o to Maryam?'

80

Discourse Configurational Languages

b. (Cal i Mar y an) wu u dila y C. M . FM-h e bea t 'Cali BEA T Maryam' c. *Cal i Marya n bu u dila y C. M . FM-h e bea t 'Cali beat/BEAT MARYAM' Both th e question s above ar e particular sentences i n whic h every N P i s alread y known. (31b ) an d (32b) , i n whic h waa occurs , ar e appropriate answer s t o (3la ) and (32a) , respectively. The answers with baa (31c ) and (32c), focusin g a NP or the whol e VP, are not adequat e i n this environment . As the translatio n indicate s in the answer s containin g waa the focus is onl y o n the verb . Thi s explain s wh y waa sentence s ar e generall y strongl y marked. Nevertheless th e functio n o f waa i s problematic , sinc e ther e ar e som e com mon case s i n which waa occurs, ye t no evident focus effec t o n the ver b i s to b e observed, a s i n th e following examples : (33) a . Cal i wa a yimi d C. F M cam e 'Cali came ' b. walaalka y wu u wey n yaha y brother-my FM-h e bi g i s 'My brother i s big' c. Cal i wa a macalli n C. F M teache r 'Cali i s a teacher' As one can see, thi s situatio n holds wit h one-argument verbs or in "NP waa NP" copulative sentences. Ther e woul d be little sens e in saying that in the above sen tences th e focu s i s o n th e verb . Tha t i s particularl y eviden t fo r (33c) , i n whic h there i s n o over t ver b a t all . To state the problem i n Saeed's (1984:179 ) words, "There is no doubt [... ] tha t waa sentence s ar e compatibl e wit h verb s bein g introduce d a s ne w information . The problems aris e when waa is seen as a syntactic devic e reflecting this. " What he argue s fo r i s tha t waa i s a "positive, declarativ e sentenc e identifyin g classi fier" an d that "verb focu s does not exist a t the level o f syntacti c structur e i n the way tha t N P focu s does. " Yet, n o explanatio n fo r th e focu s effec t ofte n associ ated t o waa sentence s i s proposed . Let us now turn to some syntacti c properties o f waa sentences. A striking feature is the fact that, contrary to baa, no NPs can occur between waa and the Verbal Complex. This is rather surprisin g if waa (as the other verb indicators ) i s in Infl . In fact, eve n if one assumed the rather strange idea (cf. previous chapter ) tha t no argument could occur in the VP, say by virtue of a peculiar constraint in the grammar o f Somali , n o accoun t would be give n for th e fac t tha t no NP s ca n b e left -

Aspects of Discourse Configuratlonality in Somali 8

1

adjoined t o VP. In fact , ther e is som e reaso n t o believe tha t waa i s incorporate d in th e V P a s well , th e mai n evidenc e comin g fro m copulativ e sentences . Con sider th e followin g examples : (34) a . Cal i wa a macalli n (* yahay) C. F M teache r i s 'Cali is a teacher' b. Cal i macalli n waa*(yahay ) C. teache r I' M i s 'Cali IS a teacher' c. Cal i macalli n wa a aha a C. teache r F M wa s 'Cali wa s a teacher' d. Cal i macalli n m a ah a C. teache r no t i s 'Cali i s not a teacher' (34a) is the common verbless sentence, "NP waa NP." Note two striking features characterizing it : first , th e verb 't o be,' canno t occur ; second , a n argumen t NP, the complement of the implicit verb 't o be' occur s to the right of waa. Reminis cent of the situatio n found i n many other languages , the copula can be null , and usually is, only when the complement is a NP and the inflectional features of the sentence are set in the unmarked case, i.e . present , positive, indicative . Compar e it with (34c-d), which are inflected for past tens e an d for negative, respectively , in whic h the copul a mus t be overt. Th e interesting fac t i s that the post-waa po sition o f th e complemen t i s i n complementar y distributio n wit h th e occurrenc e of the overt copula. When the copula is realized th e complement N P must occur to th e lef t o f waa (34b-d); vice versa , when the copula i s null, the complemen t must occu r t o it s righ t (34a) . Recal l tha t th e firs t cas e (over t copula ) perfectl y corresponds t o a normal waa-verb sentence . One way to accoun t for these asymmetrie s i s to suppos e tha t waa, lik e othe r elements related to the verb, is incorporated into the verbal complex. Thi s seem s to be, a priori, a fairly reasonabl e hypothesis, resting on the uncontroversial idea that waa an d simila r elements ar e strictl y relate d t o th e verb , lexicalization s o f Infl i n ou r analysis . The explanatio n o f the fact s i n (34 ) abov e is now straightforward : waa (etc. ) incorporates int o th e Verba l Complex wheneve r is possible, i.e . whe n a n over t verb occurs . So, the reaso n for the presenc e of a ful l NP to the righ t of waa in the "N P waa NP" typ e of sentences a s in (34a ) i s obviously that this is the onl y environment i n whic h a n (overt ) ver b doe s no t occur , s o that th e incorporatio n of waa into the Verbal Complex cannot take place. (34a) , Cali waa macallin 'C . FM teacher,' vs. (34b), Cali macallin waa yahay 'C. teacher FM is,' constitute a minimal pair. 26

82

Discourse Configurational Languages

3.2. Topic Structures 3.2.1. Left Dislocation One or more NPs can occur left o f the NP marked by baa and ar e interpreted a s topics (i.e . give n information). Let us call the m pretopics. Saee d (1984 ) identi fies thre e subtype s within pretopics, dependin g upo n th e degre e o f relatednes s between the m an d wha t follows . Followin g Cinque' s (1977 , 1990 ) analysi s o f Italian, th e firs t one ca n be considere d a case o f Cliti c Lef t Dislocation, wher e the topic is the antecedent of a coreferential pronoun (i.e. a resumptive pronoun). The othe r tw o types , apar t fro m mino r differences , see m bot h t o b e case s o f Hanging Topic Left Dislocation (Nominativus Pendens), sharing the property that their relatio n t o the followin g sentence i s rather loose. In th e firs t o f thes e tw o types a NP in the core sentence "refer s t o a subpart o f the se t of the topi c NP. " This configuration is typical of partitive constructions. The second typ e of hanging topi c considere d is even less relate d t o the core sentence , in that i t creates a general contex t for wha t follows even though there i s n o syntacti c relationshi p at all between the two. Their relationship seems to be purely (semanto-)pragmatic . Consider th e followin g examples fo r eac h o f th e thre e type s o f topi c construc tions mentioned: (35) a . hooyadaa , wa y k u raadinaysaa . mother-your FM-sh e yo u loo k fo r 'Your mother , sh e is lookin g fo r you.' b. labad a gabdhood , mide e faa n badn-ayd ? two-the girl s one-whic h boas t much-wa s 'The two girls, whic h one boasted a lot?' c. suuqa , hilibk a geel u aa d bu u u qaalisa n yahay market-the meat camel-the(S ) very FM-he t o expensiv e i s 'The market, camel's meat is ver y expensive.'

.

Saeed's hypothesi s is tha t all topic NP s are located outsid e th e sentence , i.e . of the domain where all relevant syntactic relations should hold, S' in his terms . As a result, he obtain s a structur e where th e topi c N P i s lef t adjoine d t o th e S ' node creating a S " node :

(36) [ s. NP [S ' ] ] Notice that the abov e representation hold s for Saee d fo r al l the aforementione d three type s o f topics . Ther e is , therefore , n o wa y o f capturin g th e difference s between topics corresponding to Clitic Left Dislocatio n and those correspondin g to th e Hangin g Topic Lef t Dislocation . That a structura l differenc e betwee n these two type s o f topi c structure s does exist is shown by the fac t tha t while subject markin g is obligatory for Clitic Left Dislocation, i t i s onl y optional and usuall y omitte d for Lef t Dislocation :

Aspects of Discourse Configurationality in Somali 8

3

(37) Shandada-ha , kuw a bir-t a a h ba a k a culu s kuw a suitcases-the(O) those ; metal-th e are F M tha n heavy thos e saan-ta a h leather-the are 'Suitcases, those whic h are metal ar e heavier tha n those whic h are leather' In what follows we are going to propose a n alternative analysis which seem s to offe r som e advantages , mainly fro m a theorical poin t o f view. An alternative analysis for clitic left dislocated pretopics is that they are located in [Spec, CP], in the same position we proposed for the focused NP at S-structure. This proposa l rest s cruciall y o n the assumptio n that th e C P i s allowe d t o b e freely recursive. 27 This is necessary, in the first place, to handle the case in which either on e (o r more ) topic s an d a focus o r simpl y more than on e topi c occu r in the sam e sentence. So , for example, a sentence such as Shalay Call warqad buu qoray 'yesterda y C . letter FM-h e wrote' (='Yesterday, Call wrot e A LETTER'), in whic h two topics an d a focus occur , would yield th e representation below : (38) [ cp shalay [

c

[cp Calij [ c. [CP warqadj [c buu; [ IP tj qoray]]]]]] ]

where shalay and Call, the topics, are in the Spec of the higher CPs, while warqad, the focus , is locate d in th e Spe c o f the lowes t CP.

84

Discourse Configurational Languages

A genera l advantag e of thi s proposa l i s tha t i t limit s th e powe r o f adjunction, which is a mechanism that is not restricted enoug h within current theory. I n ad dition, our hypothesis allow s a unified description for al l cases of topicalizatio n to th e lef t o f th e verb . As w e shal l see later , ther e i s goo d evidenc e fo r a non argument positio n i n th e middlefieldd,28 ie.e.between the FM baa and the Vertaall Complex i n linea r terms , whic h i s likewis e associate d wit h topicalizatio n (se e §3.5 below for some examples). Let us call an NP in this position Internal Topic. Moreover, NPs extracted ou t of an embedded clause, whether argumental or not, are als o t o b e foun d i n thi s positio n an d ar e the n interprete d a s topic s (a s th e translation suggests) : (39) Waxaa n Calai s weyddiinay a cidda uudoonay o inu u 0i dil o EXPL-I C . sel f as k person-tri e he want that-h e hi m beat 'I wonder about Cali WHO WANTS TO BEAT HIM' Lecarme (1992 ) suggest s that these extracted NP s ar e adjuncts to IP. The resul t is that all preverbal NPs which receive a topic interpretatio n ar e eithe r adjuncts to IP or to CP. On the contrary, if we assume the recursiveness o f CP we can ge t rid o f this disjunction. Each topic NP , both pretopi c an d internal topic, ca n thu s occupy a recursion o f the sam e position , i.e . [Spec , CP] . Therefore , a sentenc e such a s Buuggii shalay buu Cali iibsaday 'Th e book, yesterday , Cali bough t it', where thre e differen t NP s occu r ( a pretopic , a focu s an d a n interna l topic , re spectively) woul d be represente d a s follows: (40) [ CP buuggii [c. [ cp shalay; [ c, buu [cp Cali [c [Ip t; iibsaday]]]]]] ]

Aspects of Discourse Configurationality in Somali 8

5

An appealin g consequenc e o f this proposa l i s that it considerably simplifie s th e description o f the fact s a t issue. Not e that there i s no need t o stipulat e th e relative order of the NPs occurring in non-argument (A') positions accordin g t o their discourse role . 3.2.2. The Structure of CP Let us review some of the results of the previous discussion an d som e evidence related t o lef t dislocation . Ou r hypothesis ma y be outline d a s follows: 1) baa, waa (and the other "indicators") are lexicalizations o f a functional head strictly relate d t o the verb, presumably Infl , whic h assign s focus. 29 2) Afte r movement th e focuse d NP is located i n [Spec , CP] . 3) baa undergoes movemen t t o Comp. 30 4) Focu s is a syntactic feature comparable to case, which is assigned at S-structure in a Spec-head configuration, conferring at LF the status of operator t o the NP i n Spe c (cf . Horvath, this volume). 5) CL-dislocated , topic NPs ar e generated in [Spec , CP] . 6) C P ca n b e freel y recursive . We ar e no w goin g t o presen t a n empirica l argumen t in favo r o f th e las t tw o points. I n Somal i a common wa y t o mak e interrogativ e sentence s focuse d o n a -WH NP is to insert ma, the question indicator, immediately to the left o f the NP marked b y baa, a s in (41) : (41) m a moo s bu u cunay ? ? banan a FM-h e at e 'Did h e ea t A BANANA?' Owing t o th e fac t tha t it i s fairl y reasonabl e o n genera l ground s to analyz e th e interrogative particle as a complementizer, the presence of a recursive CP accounts for thi s commo n structure in a natural way, as see n i n (42) : (42) [ cp [ c, ma [ cp mooSj [ c buu; [

Ip

t; [

vp

tj cuna y ]]]]] ]

Interestingly, ma can also occur afte r th e NP it marks, cliticizing on the FM ayaa (miyuu = ma+ayaa+uu): (43) [

CP moos

[ c miyuu [ IP cunay]]] banana ?-FM-h e at e

This variability in the positioning of ma seems is in keeping wit h the hypothesis of a recursive CP. In thi s analysi s ma may occup y either o f two differen t recur sions o f Comp, both adjacent t o th e N P i t marks.

86

Discourse Configurational Languages

3.3. Right Dislocation and Aftertopic As mentione d above , i n Somal i ther e occu r post-verba l NP s whic h receiv e a n interpretation o f afterthought topic, o r aftertopic. The y shar e man y importan t features wit h pretopic s (wit h regard t o th e subjec t resumptive pronoun , fo r ex ample). From a semantic point of view they do not appear to differ fro m pretopic s apart fro m th e fac t tha t the y requir e a mor e ad hoc environmen t an d a mor e marked intonational pattern. Many informants showed some difficulty in accept ing sentences containin g aftertopics in the scant y situation s provided i n the test . Let us consider the problem o f their position . The two most likel y candidate s are adjunctio n to I P or CP . There i s som e evidenc e i n favo r of adjunctio n to IP. Recall tha t in Somal i righ t dislocatio n i s also applied t o heavy elements . Case s in point are afterfoci in the waxaa construction (44/45a, b), discussed above , an d non-restrictive relativ e clauses , introduce d b y oo (44/45c) , whic h ca n b e extraposed an d right dislocated. Th e example s belo w ar e instance s o f both : (44) a . wuxu u tega y Cal i Xama r EXPL-he wen t C . Muqdish o 'Call i s gone t o MUQDISHO' b. wuxu u doonaya a Cal i inu u moo s cun o EXPL-he want s C . that-h e banan a ea t 'Cali want s TO EA T A BANANA' c. ninkaa s ba a l a hadlay a aabbaha y o o aana n aqoo n man-that F M wit h speaking(ReP) father-m y tha t I-no t kno w 'THAT MAN, whom I d o not know, is speakin g t o my father' (45) a . ?Wuxu u tega y Xama r Cal i EXPL-he wen t Muqdish o C . 'Cali i s gon e t o MUQDISHO' b. ?Wuxu u doonaya a inu u moo s cun o Cal i EXPL-he want s that-h e banan a eat C . 'Cali want s TO EA T A BANANA' c. ? Ninkaas ba a l a hadlay a o o aana n aqoo n aabba-ha y man-that F M wit h speaking(ReP ) tha t I-no t kno w father-m y 'THAT MAN, who m I do not know, is speakin g t o my father' The sentence s i n (44) , i n whic h the aftertopi c precede s th e other dislocated ele ment are wholly grammatical, whil e those in (45), i n which the order i s the othe r way roun d yiel d a considerabl y wors e evaluation . An obviou s wa y t o accoun t for thi s i s t o assum e tha t aftertopic s ar e adjoine d t o a lowe r nod e tha n heav y constituents, namely IP, while the latte r are adjoine d to CP.

3.4. Focalization, Topicalization and Subject Resumptive Pronouns In wha t follow s w e wil l tr y t o giv e a n overal l analysi s o f th e basi c aspect s o f Somali syntax (the distribution of resumptive pronouns, in particular) as suggested

Aspects of Discourse Configurationality in Somali 8

7

by variou s facts associate d wit h focalization an d topicalization. Th e asymmetr y between subjec t an d object wil l be o f particular relevance t o our discussion. Let u s summariz e the relevan t facts: A. Topicalization (Clitic : Left Dislocation ) A topic NP, both subject and object, always cooccurs wit h its resumptiv e pronoun. Whe n i t i s subject i t is subject marked . B. Focalization (i) A focuse d SUBJEC T N P canno t co-occu r wit h it s resumptiv e pronoun, i t i s no t subjec t marke d an d select s th e restricte d paradigm, (ii) A focused OBJECT NP, irregardles s o f whether i t is an argumen t or not , alway s co-occurs wit h it s resumptiv e pronou n whic h has a fixed positio n i n th e Verba l Complex . By topicalizatio n we mean here the different position s associate d wit h pretopic s and aftertopics , even i f the sam e generalization s wil l b e als o show n t o hol d fo r the internal topic. By focalization w e refer here to both baa and waxaa nomina l focus structures . It i s eviden t fro m th e abov e generalization s tha t a n adequat e descriptio n o f Somali synta x should, minimally , account fo r th e asymmetr y betwee n th e sub ject an d the othe r NP s with respect t o focalization an d for the contrast betwee n focalization an d topicalization in relation t o the presence o f the subject resumptive pronoun. We will addres s belo w th e las t issue . Our proposa l i s rather simpl e and tries in part t o implement Saeed's idea tha t the subject resumptive pronoun bears the weight of the argument, while topic NPs, subject o r object, ar e "extrasentential," i.e. the y ar e not in relatio n wit h any ar gument position. We are not going to repeat here his arguments (see Saeed , 1984 : Chs. 5 , 7 ) apar t from drawin g attentio n to th e fac t tha t a topi c subjec t N P ca n always be omitted without any consequence bot h fo r the well-formedness o f th e sentence itsel f an d for th e behavio r o f its resumptiv e pronoun : (46) a . Cal i warka n bu u maqla y C. news-thi s FM-h e hear d 'Cali, he heard THI S NEWS ' b. warka n bu u maqla y Cal i news-this FM-h e hear d C . 'He heard THIS NEWS , Cali' c. warka n bu u maqla y news-this FM-h e hear d 'He heard THIS NEWS ' The contrast between a focused subject and a topic subject is handled by Saee d by assumin g that th e forme r bu t no t the latte r i s par t o f the sententia l structur e (i.e. i t i s a n argument) . Although we agre e wit h hi s intuition , his proposa l can not b e maintaine d in thos e term s sinc e th e focu s N P canno t b e i n argumen t position. I n addition , i t i s no t clea r i n wha t precis e sens e a topi c N P i s

88

Discourse Configurational Languages

extrasentential, given the fact that it partakes, a s an adjunct or whatever, i n many structural relations . One way to account for the contrast between focalizatio n an d topicalization i s to sa y that topic element s ar e generate d in situ, wherea s th e focu s i s move d t o the position i t occupies i n S-structure . Thu s a NP forms a movement chai n wit h its trace onl y when it is focused or is an interrogative o r a relative WH operator. Topics do not head movement chains; a topic acts as an antecedent fo r and therefore bind s it s resumptiv e pronoun , fro m whic h i t receives case an d 6-role. No tice that even the subject resumptive pronou n doesn't remain i n argument positio n since it cliticizes on different functiona l heads under given conditions (Com p and Infl, basically) . Th e subjec t resumptiv e pronou n is in a chain wit h it s own trace (left b y head-to-hea d movement ) fro m whic h i t receive s cas e an d 6-role . Th e resumptive pronouns, therefore, mediat e between the antecedent lexica l NP s and their A-positions . Th e resul t i s a comple x chai n o f dependencie s wher e th e resumptive pronoun s ar e i n a chai n wit h and receiv e cas e an d 6-markin g fro m their trac e an d behave a s variables whic h ar e bound b y th e NPs , whil e th e NP s receive th e structura l features necessar y fo r thei r ful l interpretatio n fro m th e resumptive pronoun s they bind vi a coindexation. This hypothesi s heavil y depend s upo n th e ide a tha t focalization , bu t no t topicalization, i s associate d wit h movement . Wit h respec t t o topicalization , th e in situ analysi s ca n b e considere d fairl y established . I n Somali , th e analysi s o f focalization give s rise to conceptual an d empirical problems , a s the evidence fo r the movement analysis is partly contradictory and partly not clearly interpretable . We ar e no t goin g t o discus s th e issue s i n detai l bu t w e wil l conside r th e mos t significant facts . On the basis of negative evidence in relation to weak crossover and subjacency, some scholar s wh o hav e deal t wit h th e proble m (Saeed , 1984 ; Lecarme , 1991 ) reached th e conclusio n tha t focalization i n Somal i doe s not involv e movement . As a matter of fact, th e following example shows that weak crossover effects ar e not foun d i n Somali : (47) ya a hooyadii s jeceshahay ? who mother-hi s love s 'WhOj does his ; mother love?' On th e contrary , th e fact s relate d t o th e allege d violatio n o f th e subjacenc y condition nee d t o b e reconsidered . Conside r th e followin g exampl e (Saeed , 1984:148): (48) gabadhec ; aya y walaalaha y akhristee n buugga . [cp 0. ay ; [ IP t{ girl-which FM-the y brothers-m y rea d book-th e sh e tj keentay?] ] brought 'Which gir l di d m y brothers read the boo k whic h (she ) brought? ' The N P gabadhee tha t is questioned , hence focused , is relate d t o th e argument position o f the subjec t in the embedded clause, in apparent violation to the Com -

Aspects of Discourse Configurationality in Somali 8

9

plex N P Constraint. However , a crucial fac t tha t ha s no t receive d enoug h con sideration i s that whe n the subjec t N P is "extracted" out of an embedded claus e its resumptiv e pronou n become s obligatory , i n strikin g contras t wit h th e situa tion holding in normal cases , i.e. when the focused NP is not extracted ou t of its clause (generalizatio n B) . The abov e sentenc e become s ungrammatica l withou t the appropriat e subjec t resumptiv e pronoun : (49) *gabadhee ; aya y walaalaha y akhristee n buugga j [ cp 0- [ IP t; t girl-which FM-the y brothers-m y rea d book-th e keentay?]] brought 'Which gir l di d my brothers rea d th e boo k whic h brought?' The generalizatio n fo r th e subjec t resumptiv e pronou n i s tha t focalizatio n dis plays th e sam e behavio r a s topicalizatio n i n relatio n t o "lon g movement " (i.e . 'across a clause'). In our analysis the subject resumptive pronoun must be present because th e extracte d N P canno t for m a chai n wit h it s trac e a s a resul t o f th e intervening barrie r node(s). 31 If thi s hypothesi s i s maintained , Somal i woul d b e a languag e tha t severel y constrains movement , in that the subject resumptive pronoun becomes obligatory whenever a NP "crosses" a single C P node, a s shown in (50) : (50) a . Cali ; baa n sheega y [ cp in*(uu; ) [ IP t; buu g qoray ] C. FM- I sai d that-h e boo k wrot e 'CALI I sai d that (he ) wrot e a book'

3.5. Middlefield and Internal Topic Let u s consider now how the facts relate d to the middlefield ca n be integrated i n the hypothesis propose d above . Recal l tha t by middlefield w e refer convention ally t o th e rang e o f categorie s include d betwee n th e F M baa an d th e Verba l Complex, th e last area i n which lexical NP s can occur. I t i s beyond th e scop e of this pape r t o discus s ho w many , which ones , an d i n wha t orde r th e functiona l categories constitutin g th e middlefield are . W e will conventionall y stick her e t o the view that there i s a single functional category belo w CP , i.e. IP , even though there ar e good reason s to think that the situation is much more complex tha n that also in Somali . Another aspec t w e canno t g o into her e i s the analysi s o f VP. This i s a trick y issue sinc e ther e i s goo d evidence , a s you wil l recall, tha t Somal i i s a language with pervasive incorporation o f heads into the verb (prepositions, clitics , adverbs , nouns, etc.) , thu s constitutin g th e comple x categor y Verba l Complex . I f thi s i s correct, w e have to posit a relevant number of empty categories i n the middlefield (for instanc e the PP), mad e up onl y by the traces of moved elements. Moreover , the possibilit y of occurrenc e o f (lexical ) internal argument s in A-positions, i.e . the possibilit y of a canonical VP itself, i s stil l ope n t o discussion. 32 As yo u recall , th e presenc e o f th e subjec t N P i n th e middlefield ha s som e peculiar effect s o n th e distributio n of it s resumptive pronoun:

90

Discourse Configurational Languages

A. I f the subjec t is a lexical N P the resumptive pronou n i s optional. 33 B. I f th e subjec t i s a n independen t pronou n th e resumptiv e pronou n i s obligatory. The specifications expressed abov e ruling the occurrence of the subject resumptiv e pronoun o f a NP in th e middlefield positio n ar e rather bizarre. Wha t w e are go ing t o argu e i s tha t the y follo w fro m ou r hypothesi s o f subjec t resumptiv e pro nouns. The optionality of the subject resumptive pronoun expressed i n (A) derive s from th e assumptio n that ther e i s onl y on e positio n i n th e middlefield i n whic h the subject NP may occur (a non argument position according t o Lecarme (1991)). In fact , i t is quite reasonable t o think that there ar e at least two position s i n th e middlefield i n whic h i t ma y occur : (a) a non-argumen t position ([Spec , CP] , a s w e suggest , o r adjunc t t o IP — Lecarme, 1991 ) (b) th e canonica l position fo r th e subjec t NP , [Spec, IP]. This analysi s allows u s t o accoun t fo r th e od d optionalit y o f th e resumptiv e pronoun whe n there is a lexical subjec t NP in the middlefield. Whe n th e subjec t is in the (or one of the) non argument position(s) in the middlefield th e resumptiv e pronoun i s required sinc e the subjec t N P is base generated , lik e al l other case s of topic NPs, in a non-argument position, thus receiving cas e and 6-role from it s resumptive pronoun. When the subject is in its canonical position th e resumptiv e pronoun doe s no t occur , obviously , because th e N P receive s th e structura l features directl y b y its head. 34 Interestingly, ther e i s som e independent , externa l evidenc e supportin g thi s hypothesis, whic h comes fro m th e data on discourse semantics . Th e presence o f the subject resumptive pronoun attributes to the subject NP in the middlefield th e status o f topi c (cfr . (51b) 35 i n contras t wit h (51c ) i n response to (51a) , a ques tion wher e th e subjec t i s mentioned), wherea s it s absenc e render s th e NP inter preted as new information (cfr. (52b) i n contrast with (52c) in response t o (52a) , a questio n wher e no argument is mentioned): (51) a . Cal i yu u dilay ? C. who-h e bea t 'Who di d Cali beat ' b. (?)Marya n bu u Cal i dila y M. FM-h e C . bea t 'Cali beat MARYAM ' c. *Marya m ba a Cal i dila y M. FM-h e C . bea t 'Cali bea t MARYAM ' (52) a . maxa a dhacay ? what-FM happene d 'What happened? '

Aspects of Discourse Conflgurationality in Somali 9

1

b. Marya n ba a Cal l dila y M. F M C . bea t 'Cali beat MARYAM' c. ?Marya n bu u Cal i dila y M. FM-h e C . bea t 'Cali beat MARYAM ' Clearly, the different effects o n discourse semantic s triggered b y the presenc e vs. absence o f the subject resumptive pronoun call for an explanation, which our analysis furnishes . The contrast between (52b ) an d (52c) woul d be represented a s follows:

92

Discourse Configurational Languages

One mor e piec e o f evidenc e i n favo r o f ou r analysi s o f th e middlefield come s from sentence s o f th e waa type . Traditionally , th e presenc e o f th e subjec t resumptive pronou n i n thes e sentence s ha s bee n considere d optiona l an d th e resumptive pronou n a pleonasti c element . Discours e semantic s show s tha t thi s opinion i s not correct . Th e presenc e vs . absence o f th e resumptive pronou n ha s semantic consequence s i n that when that is present th e subject NP is topicalized, while whe n the resumptive pronoun is not, the subject is basically new, as is see n in th e example s belo w (Geber t 1986:23) : (53) a . Xama r Cal i muxu u k a sameeyay ? Mogadishu C . what-FM-h e i n di d 'What di d Cal i d o in Mogadishu? ' b. Xama r Cal i wuu/??wa a k a shaqeeya y Mogadishu C . FM-heF M i n worke d 'Cali WORKED i n Mogadishu ' Let us tur n no w to condition (B ) above. I n Somal i independen t pronouns ar e used onl y i n two differen t cases : whe n focused o r topicalized, i.e . cases requir ing a tonic NP so that clitics ar e automatically excluded. Naturally, it is possibl e for the m to occu r a s internal topics lik e an y othe r NP . When the y appea r i n th e middlefield the y ca n onl y be interpreted as topics, not a s foci , sinc e n o position receiving focu s i s availabl e there, no r ca n they b e locate d per se i n argumenta l position. Henc e th e obligator y presenc e o f th e subjec t resumptiv e pronoun . The conclusion that can be drawn from th e middlefield fact s i s that the behav ior o f subjec t resumptive pronouns whose anteceden t i s i n thi s field i s straight forwardly handled by the analysis of subject resumptive pronouns proposed above . Let us consider some fina l evidenc e supporting this view of subject resumptive pronouns. A s mentione d above , ther e i s i n Somal i a n impersona l cliti c subjec t pronoun, la, whic h is th e leftmos t elemen t i n th e Verba l Complex . Wha t i s th e prediction o f th e analysi s presente d abov e abou t th e behavio r o f th e subjec t resumptive pronoun i n case o f an impersonal subject? The answe r is straightfor ward. Sinc e la i s a cliti c i t canno t b e topicalize d s o tha t i t form s a movemen t chain wit h it s argumen t position . Ou r analysi s the n predict s tha t th e subjec t resumptive pronoun cannot occur. This i s precisely wha t happens, as (53) shows: (54) innag a baa/*bu u l a ino o so o ordaya we F M FM-h e IM P us-t o DEIC T ra n 'Someone was running towards US '

y

4. Conclusions In thi s sectio n w e are goin g t o revie w th e mos t significan t result s o f thi s wor k and dra w attention to som e o f thei r consequences. We have shown that our proposal can account for the presence vs . absenc e of subject resumptiv e pronouns: The subject resumptive pronoun is excluded whenever a ful l subjec t N P i s i n it s canonical , case-marked position , i.e . [Spec, IP] ,

Aspects of Discourse Conflgumtionality in Somali 9

3

or undergoes movement to a position which can form a chain with it, [Spec, CP] of th e same clause. This situatio n arises eithe r whe n (1) a NP is focused , o r (2) it is a +WH operator (which must be focused), or (3) it is the null operator in a relative clause , o r (4) it is represented b y la, the impersonal subject clitic. The subject resumptiv e pronou n i s obligatory, o n the other hand, when a sub ject NP is neither in [Spec, IP] nor in a position which can form a chain with it. The cases in point are (1) topic NPs (either pre-, after- or internal topics), which are analysed here a s being generated in their S-structure position i n which they are located , (2 ) focu s NP s move d out o f a n embedded claus e u p t o th e [Spec , CP] of an upper clause, an d (3) right dislocated clausa l subjects , whic h requir e the occurrence of an expletive subject resumptive pronoun. The fac t that subject resumptive pronouns are in complementary distribution with argument lexical NPs, strongly suggests that they are not merely "resumptiv e pronouns" but hav e a n argument function . Thus , th e clitic doubling or simila r analyses for subject resumptive pronouns in Somali were rejected. The environment s o f th e subjec t focu s an d subjec t W H elements wer e inte grated i n one simple generalization: the effect s associate d with these structure s (case marking, restricted paradigm, absence of the subject resumptive pronoun) occur whe n a subject operato r i s moved t o [Spec, CP], 36 An analysi s for th e peculia r waxaa constructio n related t o cataphori c focal ization b y means of an expletive NP was proposed, whic h integrated it with the normal baa type of focu s structure . With regard t o topics, three different positions were recognized: pretopic, internal topic and aftertopic. In order to limit the power of adjunction, a differen t hypothesis wa s considered fo r pre - an d internal topics , i.e . tha t the y ar e bot h located in [Spec, CP]. The general result is that no specialized positions for dis course roles ar e held to be part of Somal i grammar. In fact , the specifier s of a recursive C P are taken to be completely neutral . A discourse role is assigned t o the Spec either by a "focus particle" (the head of a functional projectio n that we held conventionally t o be IP), in the case of focus, or by default, i n the case o f topic, whe n an A'-position i s not already assigned a discourse role. As a conse quence, the topic effect i s not linked t o a particular position but i s derivative. If this i s right, we would expect topic NPs to have a large freedom of occurrenc e in languages . This seem s to be i n line with general observation s an d with data from Somal i in particular.

Notes 1. We are greatly indebted t o Guglielmo Cinque, Sara h Kennell y and the colleagues of the National University o f Somalia Axme d CabdullaaM Axmed, Cabdalla Cumar Mansuur, Cabdullaahi Xasan Rooble, Maxamed Macallin Xasan an d Muuse Maxamed Salax , who helped u s in on e way or another. To all of them we wish t o express our gratitude . This research wa s in par t supported b y the CNR . 2. Baa and ayaa ar e held to be wholly equivalen t apar t from some stylisti c differences , ayaa bein g a more formal , slow speech varian t of baa. Waxaa i s a peculiar typ e of focu s marker an d will be deal t with in detai l below in §3.1.2 .

94

Discourse Configurational Languages

3. Note th e followin g abbreviations : DEICT = deictic particl e IM EMPH = emphatic Re EXPL = expletive SR FM = focus marke r

P = impersonal subjec t pronou n P = restricted paradig m P = subject resumptiv e pronou n

4. An intriguing aspec t o f Somali discours e related phenomen a i s constituted b y those sentences i n which, contrary t o normal cases , two foci occu r (cf . Hetzron , 1965) . Owin g to th e fac t tha t thes e tw o foc i structure s ar e severel y restricted , bot h syntacticall y an d pragmatically (th e first focus cannot be an argument, and usually it is a temporal adjunct , for example) , the y are potentially enlightenin g fo r some aspec t o f focalization. We'l l no t pursue thi s issu e here . 5. Generally, subject NPs show low tone where object NPs have high , e.g. nin ' a man' (S) vs . nin (O) . Bar e feminin e noun s and adjective s endin g i n a consonan t ad d -i , e.g . naag-i ' a woman' (S ) vs. naag (O) . NPs of both genders t o which a determiner endin g i n a shor t vowe l is attache d take -u, e.g. nin-ku 'man-the(S) ' vs . nin-ka 'man-the(O). ' 6. When attache d to a verb endin g in a vowel th e subjec t mar k show s up a s a length ening o n th e vowel . 7. Contrast, fo r example, th e normal paradig m (A ) and the restricted paradig m (B ) of the past tens e o f the prefix ver b imaansho 't o come': AB 1 imi d imi d 2 timi d yimi d 3 yimi d yimi d 3f timi d timi d Ip nimi d nimi d 2p timaadee n yimi d 3p yimaadee n yimi d

One might sugges t tha t th e restricted paradig m is derive d fro m th e norma l paradig m by replacing th e features "2n d pers.," "plur." with the default, unmarked features "Srdpers., " "sing." 8. As far a s order parameter s ar e concerned , ther e i s goo d reaso n t o assum e tha t So mali is head-first with regard to functional categorie s (Com p and Infl, in particular), whil e head-final wit h respect t o lexical categories . 9. In Somal i ther e i s nothin g like a PP i n surfac e structure . Governmen t relation s d o not hold a t this level eithe r between "prepositions" (or , rather, postpositions) an d full NPs , or betwee n preposition s an d clitic s i n th e Verbal Complex. I n fact, th e closes t approxi mation t o a PP (whethe r argumental or not ) i s a clitic cluster , forme d b y a n over t cliti c pronoun an d on e o r more preposition s groupe d togethe r o n its right : (11) waa n 0 ka+a+g a qaada y FM-I (it ) you-to-fro m too k 'I took i t fro m yo u fo r him/from him for you ' 10. This conclusion i s in line with previous conceptions (cf . Puglielli 1981) , accordin g to whic h th e Verba l Comple x b e th e cor e ( a micro structure) o f th e whol e sentence , i n which al l "predicative " element s ar e represented.

Aspects of Discourse Configurationality in Somali 9

5

11. Saeed's analysis of baa sentences depend s crucially o n his analysis of waxaa sen tences (from which the former ar e claimed to be derived) as cleft constructions , a claim we shal l reject late r in §3.1,2. 12. The "verb negation " ma, i s somewha t problematic a s i t i s locate d i n a differen t position i n S-Structur e (i.e . i n th e Verbal Complex) fro m tha t o f th e remainin g verbal elements. 13. Via movement, accordin g t o the analysi s we'l l develo p later ; base generated, ac cording t o Lecarme (1991) . 14. This test is an extension and a refinement o f Gebert (1986)'s, 15. Muxuu result s fro m th e contraction of ma-wax-aa-uu, in which ma is an interrogative particle, wax is 'thing, ' aa is the contracted for m o f th e FM and «« is 'he. ' 16. Examples (19b ) an d (19c) ar e very interesting an d will be further discusse d i n §3. 5 below. 17. A variant o f waxaa is waxa, apparentl y used onl y (and preferentially , a s on e ca n judge) in northern Somali. Throughout this discussion we'll use waxa instead of the commoner waxaa only when quoting Saeed's (1984 ) examples . 18. Note that in real cleft sentence s as in the example, waxa cannot alternate with waxaa, This follow s straightforwardly from th e fact that waxaa is a contraction of waxa and baa/ ayaa, whic h cannot occur, a s you will remember, wit h waa. 19. Interestingly, data show some variability for the latter cases, apparently depending in some degree on dialectal variation. In fact, some informants als o accept Sramasc. agreement (e.g. Waxaa yimid annaga 'thing-th e (3m)came we'; waxaa yimid aniga 'thing-th e (3m)came F). Saeed (1984 ) refers to this and similar fact s one meets i n overt clef t sen tences a s fuzziness of concord. We'l l no t pursu e thi s proble m here . What i s relevant , however, is that there i s n o fuzziness o f concord i n real clef t sentences , wher e the ver b always agrees with 3rd masc. sing (e.g. waxa yimid/*timid waa gabar 'thing-the (3m)came/ (3f)came girl, ' waxa yimid/*imid aniga 'thing-th e (3m)came/(l)cam e I, ' waxa yimid/ *nimid annaga *thing-th e (3m)came/(lp)came we*). 20. On e migh t speculate tha t thi s intriguing semanti c effec t shoul d b e relate d t o th e presence o f anothe r variable, the WH element which , in som e way , prevents waxa fro m being a variable itself , henc e becomin g lexicall y empty . 21. Note that this fac t i s a problem for both aforementione d approaches. 22. This is not the place for discussing i n detail th e problem of the variability betwee n waxa and waxaa, which has been left open. We'll only hint at some known facts that see m to be related with this issue. The optionality o f baa is not unparalleled in Somali syntax. In fact , thi s i s a propert y o f interrogativ e W H elements , whic h ca n als o freel y occu r without the FM, its effects o n the sentence (verb agreement, cas e marking, etc.) remaining unchanged (cf. Si-d-ee baud tahay? 'way-the-whic h FM-you are * (='How are you?') vs. Si-d-aad tahay? 'way-the-which-you are' (si-d-aad i s contracted for si-d-ee-aad). Thi s both suggest s tha t the optionality of the FM is a rather superficia l phenomenon , perhap s taking place at PF, and tha t it has presumably to do with variables which are required t o be focuse d in Somal i and ar e thu s "intrinsically" foci . 23. This proble m is akin, as far a s we can see, t o that of aftertopic, abou t which there does no t see m much to say apart from the fact that its properties ar e probably relate d t o its pragmatic s itself . 24. Recall tha t only on e FM can occur in a sentence . 25. Recall that sentence s in which baa mark s an object NP ar e ambiguou s between a reading in which focus has scope ove r that NP and a reading in which it has scope over the whol e VP.

96

Discourse Configurational Languages

26. A final remar k concern s waa i n sentence s wit h a n adjectiva l predicate , a s i n th e following example : (i) Cal i wa a fiica n yaha y C. F M goo d i s 'Cali i s good * In (i) waa is incorporated int o the Verbal Complex even thoug h i t i s not adjacent t o the verb. The reason fo r this apparen t oddity is that , as you will remember , th e adjectiv e is likewise incorporated int o the verb, indeed i t is in composition wit h the verb, and no other element o f the Verbal Complex ca n occur t o its right. To confirm it, no (complement) N P can occu r to it s right, a s seen below : (ii) inankan u gabartaa s wu u k a wey n yaha y boy-this(S) girl-tha t FM-hetha n bi g i s 'This bo y i s bigger tha n that girl* (iii) * inankanu wu u gabartaa s k a wey n yaha y boy-this(S) FM-h e girl-tha t tha n bi g i s On the contrary, whe n the complement o f an adjective is a bare noun (hence a head) it is incorporated int o the verb , a s expected : (iv) waa n xoo g badn-aha y FM-i strengt h much-a m 'I am very strong' 27. We owe thi s suggestion t o Guglielm o Cinque . 28. We'll use middlefieid (whic h echoes Mittelfeld, th e word in use in traditional Ger man grammar ) as a conventional, pre-theoretical term to designate th e area include d be tween th e verbal comple x an d the focu s marker . 29. Much more has to be said abou t the relation between th e "focus particles " and the focus effec t itself . I n wha t exact sens e bot h baa an d waa ar e lexicalization s o f Inf l a s Lecarme argues? I f this is to be understood i n a strict sense , what is the semantic differ ence betwee n them ? O n th e contrary , i f the y ar e lexicalization s o f differen t feature s associated wit h Infl, wha t ar e these? In fact , it is no t obvious whic h feature beyon d fo cus itself could be associated wit h baa, whic h does no t seem t o have any of the semanti c elements relate d t o Inflection. N o satisfactory answer s t o these question s ar e still avail able. 30. Recall that (2), consequentely (3), has been assumed as a working hypothesis. Owin g to th e possibilitie s opene d b y th e splittin g o f Inf l i n man y functional categories, othe r hypotheses ar e available. Muc h o n th e line s o f Brod y (1990) , on e coul d conside r th e interesting possibility that baa b e the head o f a functional category distinc t from IP, say F(ocus)P fo r convenience . I f thi s wer e so , th e onl y reaso n lef t t o suppor t a movemen t analysis for baa woul d be the distributional asymmetry between baa and waa, in that, as you wil l recall (se e §3.1.3) , no NPs can occur t o the right of waa. The movement analy sis i s a n attemp t t o accoun t for thi s asymmetry : NP s ca n occur t o th e righ t o f baa be cause, contrar y t o waa, thi s i s move d u p t o Comp. Yet , we've brough t som e evidenc e showing that the movement analysis is neither necessary, no r sufficient t o handle the baa/ waa asymmetry . Our conclusion is that as far as we can see in the current state of affair s

Aspects of Discourse Configurationality in Somali 9

7

in Somal i synta x there i s n o reaso n t o exclud e th e in situ hypothesi s fo r baa. Notice, however, tha t even so , the basic tenet s o f this work would still hold. 31. There ar e different way s to implement this idea, ultimately depending on the interpretation of the Subjacency condition. A conventional way is to sa y that in cases suc h a s (48) the subjec t NP does no t undergo movement but i s base generated i n th e position o f [Spec, CP ] o f th e mai n clause, henc e th e presenc e o f th e subjec t resumptiv e pronoun . Another, les s conventiona l possibilit y o f viewin g thes e fact s involve s th e ide a tha t Subjacency i s not per se a constraint on movement, whatever that exactl y means, bu t on chain formation. 32. According to Lecarme (1991) , basicall y along the lines o f Jelinek (1984) , any NPs are obligatoril y generate d a s adjuncts . Apart from the subjec t NP , for whic h w e ar e go ing to argue that this is not true, we brought some evidence that lexical NPs can occur in a position t o the right of Infl, whic h is reasonable to consider t o be VP. The case in point is, again, the "NP waa NP" type of sentence (see ex. 33c above and §3.1.3, for our analysis). However , we'll drop this problem here for it goes far beyond the scope o f this study. 33. This situation holds in northern and Common Somali, not in southern Somali where the presenc e o f th e subjec t resumptiv e pronoun is obligatory . 34. Fo r a n analysis of the subjec t resumptive pronoun as a lexicalization of th e func tional head of Subjec t Agreement (AGR-S) see Mereu (1992) . 35. The evaluation o f sentences suc h as (51b) has shown some variability, ranging from complete to partial well-formedness. However, what is relevant here is that the co-occur rence o f th e subjec t resumptive pronou n in this environmen t makes th e sentence s muc h more appropriat e tha n the corresponding withou t the subjec t resumptive pronoun . 36. A different proble m i s obviously represented b y the reason itsel f fo r these effects. No accoun t has bee n give n fo r this.

References Andrzejewski, B.W . (1975) "The role o f indicator particles i n Somali, " Afroasiatic Linguistics 1.6 , 1-69 . Baker, M.C. (1988) Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing, Univer sity o f Chicag o Press, Chicago . Brody, M . (1990 ) "Som e remark s o n th e focu s fiel d i n Hungarian, " UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 2, University College London . Cinque, G . (1977 ) "Th e movement natur e o f Lef t Dislocation, " Linguistic Inquiry 8, 397-412. Cinque, G . (1990 ) Types of A' dependencies, MI T Press, Cambridg e Massachusetts . Gebert, L . (1986 ) "Focu s an d wor d orde r i n Somali, " Afrikanistische Arbeitpapiere 5, 42-69. Hetzron, R . (1965) "The particle baa in northern Somali," Journal of African languages 4.2, 118-130 . Hetzron, R . (1971 ) "Presentativ e functio n an d presentative movement," Studies in African linguistics, Suppl . 2 , 79-105. Horvath, J. (1986 ) Focus in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian, Foris , Dordrecht. Horvath, J . "Structura l focus , structura l case, an d th e notio n feature-assignment. " (thi s volume). Jelinek, E. (1984) "Empty categories, case and Configurationality," Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2 , 39-76 .

98

Discourse Configurational Languages

E. Kiss , K . (1981 ) "Topi c an d focus , th e operator s o f th e Hungaria n sentence, " Folia Linguistica 15 , 305-330. Lecarme, J . (1991 ) "Focu s e n Somali : synta x e t interpretation, " Linguistique Africaine, 1. Li, C. , an d S.A . Thompson (1976 ) Subject and topic: a new typology of language, Academic Press , Universit y of California, Sant a Barbara. Mereu, L. (1992) "Sull'accordo nelle lingue ad argomenti pronominali," Paper presented at 'XVII I Incontr o di Grammatic a Generativa,' Universit a d i Ferrara . Mithun, M . (1987 ) "I s basi c wor d orde r universal? " i n Russe l S . Tomli n (ed.) , Coherence and grounding in discourse, Joh n Benjamins, 281-328 . Puglielli, A. (1981) "Fras e dichiarativa semplice," in A. Puglielli (ed.), Sintassi della lingua somala, Studi Somali 2, Roma, MAE, Dipt, per la Cooperazione all o sviluppo. Saeed, J . (1984 ) The syntax of focus and topic in Somali, Helmu t Buske , Hamburg . Zholkovski, A.K. (1971) Syntaxis Somali (Glubini' e i Poverxnostni'e Strukturi) , Moscow , Izdatel'stvo Nauka.

4 Residual Verb Second and Verb First in Basque JON ORTIZ D E URBIN A University of Deusto

This article examines some word order constraints found in Basque sentences with interrogative and focal operators, which must be left adjacen t to the verb. Traditional account s of Basqu e (Altube 1929 ) usuall y claim thi s t o b e mai n (often, the only) restriction on word-order in this language.1 Here, I will follow Brody's (1990) approach an d will try to show that these restrictions are instances o f residual verb-secon d phenomen a prompte d by a well-formednes s conditio n lik e Rizzi's (1991 ) Wh-Criterion, under the hypotheses (a ) that Inf l ca n license affective feature s like [+wh ] and [+Focus], and (b) that the Wh-Criterion ca n b e extended to focal operators and holds at S-structure in Basque. After briefl y introducing th e basi c word-orde r patterns in sectio n 1 , I addres s th e proble m o f achieving the wh-word/inflection adjacenc y in a head-last language like Basque (sections 2 and 3). Section 4 extends th e analysis t o focalization, unde r the assumption that foci move to Spe c of CP. I also examin e other case s o f apparen t verb-initial structure s (yes/n o questions an d emphatic declaratives ) i n sections 5 and 6 , where I claim that these fall unde r the same analysis. Finally , embedde d patterns are discussed in section 7. 1. Basic Word-order Patterns Word order in Basque declarative sentences seems to be rather free, and all permutations of the constituent s in (1) generate grammatical sentences: 2 (1) Jon-e k Mire n ikus i zuen . John Mar y se e au x 'John sa w Mary.' 99

100

Discourse Configurational Languages

a. Mire n ikus i zue n Jonek. b. Jone k ikus i zue n Miren . c. Mire n Jone k ikus i zuen . d. Ikus i zue n Jonek Miren . e. Ikus i zue n Miren Jonek . In spit e o f this , mos t Basqu e linguist s agre e sinc e d e Rij k (1969 ) tha t SO V i s the unmarke d pattern , i n tha t i t i s statisticall y mor e prominen t tha n th e other s and, mor e importantly , pragmaticall y more neutral . I n recen t years , significan t steps hav e been take n to provide principle d accounts of the variatio n i n (1) , as signing differen t pragmati c and syntacti c structures t o departure s fro m th e neu tral order. Thus, it has been observed (Mitxelena 1978 , 1981 ; Euskaltzaindia 1985 ; Ortiz de Urbina 1989a ) that OVS and SVO orders lik e (la) an d (Ib) respectivel y are only likely t o occur if the firs t elemen t is focalized and assigned contrastiv e stress. Similarly , OS V a s i n (Ic ) differ s fro m (1 ) i n tha t whil e th e latte r ma y receive a neutral intonation pattern , the former cannot . I n (Ic) , the objec t mus t be interpreted a s a topic, possibly separate d fro m th e remainder o f the clause by a pause. Moreover, th e subject must be interpreted a s bearing contrastiv e focus. 3 Finally, althoug h less wel l studied , (Id ) an d (le), th e tw o verb-initia l patterns , typically occur in cases where the verb itself i s being focalized . Mor e appropri ately, verb-initial pattern s usuall y indicate a n emphatic affirmation o f the actio n denoted by the verb, with an import similar to the one produced b y emphatic dosupport case s lik e th e on e in (2) : (2) Joh n did see Mary. On th e basis o f th e existence o f marke d vs . neutra l orders, an d mor e theory-in ternal considerations , SO V is usually considered th e underlying base order. 4 While non-operator s lik e the nomina l constituent s in (1 ) enjo y thi s apparen t flexibility (modul o th e focalizatio n /topicalizatio n fact s discusse d above) , wh words ar e more heavil y constrained. N o constituen t may intervene between th e wh-word and the participle+verb element in an interrogative claus e (contras t (3a ) and (4a)) , an d whil e a break typicall y separate s element s t o th e lef t o f th e wh word fro m th e latter (3b) , no pause may occur betwee n wh-wor d and verb (4b) : (3) a . No r ikus i d u Jonek ? who see n ha s Joh n 'Who has John seen? ' b. Jonek , no r ikus i du ? John wh o see n ha s (4) a . *No r Jone k ikus i du Who Joh n see n ha b. *Jone k no r / ikus i du John wh o see n ha

? s ? s

These fact s an d som e relevant dialectal variation are discussed in th e following section, wher e I analyz e (3 ) as a case of residual verb-second phenomenon.

Residual Verb Second and Verb First in Basque 10

1

2. Operator-inflection Adjacency in a Head-last Language The adjacenc y between wh-wor d an d inflecte d verba l for m i n (3 ) differ s fro m well-known verb-secon d phenomen a i n the Germanic language s i n that i t seem s to b e triggere d b y som e specifi c operators , typicall y wh-words . Th e patter n i s far fro m exoti c an d resembles simila r ones i n the languages surroundin g Basque (Spanish, French ) an d others lik e English an d Italian. As for the wh-word, let us assume that interrogative element s mov e to Spec of CP, so that nor in (3b) occu pies tha t position , precede d b y a topic-lik e elemen t perhap s adjoine d t o CP. 5 Turning to the adjacency effect, a n account fo r the English an d Romance facts is provided by Rizzi (1991), wh o posits th e existenc e o f a well-formedness condi tion he label s Wh-Criterion . H e state s it a s in (5) : (5) Th e Wh-Criterion A. A Wh-Operator must be in a Spec-head configuration with an X °

[+wh]

B. An X ° must be in a Spec-head configuration with a Wh-operator l+wnj

This criterio n require s th e existence o f two element s independentl y bearin g th e [+wh] specification, 6 on e of v/hich is obviously th e wh-word itself. Rizzi claim s interrogative clause s mus t hav e a functiona l head independentl y endowe d wit h the WH feature . Unlik e embedde d contexts , where th e presenc e o f tha t featur e may be license d by virtue of being subcategorize d from the matrix, root clause s must have a head position to which a WH specification is independently anchored. Such positio n i s claime d t o b e Inf l (o r an y o f th e head s i t i s ofte n assume d t o comprise). Thi s would explain th e adjacency observed in the English example (6) : (6) Wha t di d Joh n see ? The wh-wor d move s t o Spe c o f CP . Once there , C mus t b e [+wh] , o r els e th e first claus e o f the Wh-criterion (5A ) would be violated . Sinc e C is not indepen dently marked in this way, the head Infl mus t move there t o supply the indepen dently license d [+wh ] specification, producin g the adjacency . Something els e mus t be sai d about Spanis h and Italian, sinc e (7a) , th e word by-word counterpar t of (6) , i s not acceptabl e an d only (7b ) i s grammatical : (7) a . *<,Qu e h a Mari a dicho ? what ha s Mar y sai d b. iQu e h a dich o Maria? (7b) may receive tw o analyse!). Maria could be a postposed subject , in which case dicho 'said ' woul d occup y a hea d positio n lowe r tha n C , a s i n regula r non interrogative clauses, an d onl y Infl-to-C woul d have taken place, a s i n English. In this case, an explanation has to be foun d fo r the need t o postpose th e subject NP. Alternatively, C i n (7b ) migh t be occupie d b y a unit made by th e auxiliar y

102

Discourse Configurational Languages

followed b y th e lexica l verba l hea d (Infl-V) . Rizz i reject s thi s optio n o n th e basis o f th e possibilit y o f certai n adverb s an d floate d quantifier s t o interven e between auxiliar y and participle (se e also Belletti 1990) . If so, the subject in (7b ) has been postposed, perhaps du e to the inability of Infl to assign nominativ e cas e outside of Spec-head configurations . In English, th e auxiliary in C can therefor e assign cas e to the subjec t under government as in (6), bu t not in Spanish, rulin g (7a) out . Returning t o Basque , a s suggeste d above , th e dat a ar e quit e simila r t o th e Spanish and Italian facts, and in some dialects to the English pattern as well. Let us explor e th e possibility tha t this apparen t similarit y i s not the result o f a con spiracy to produce similar results with different processes , bu t actually stems fro m similar requirement s an d movements . Th e basic dat a w e begin fro m ar e repro duced her e fo r convenience : (3a) No r ikus i d u Jonek ? who see n ha s Joh n 'Who has John seen?' (4a) *No r Jone k ikus i du ? Who Joh n see n ha s As in other languages with S-structure wh-movement, nor 'who ' move s to Spe c of CP . By (5A ) its [+wh ] feature mus t match a similar specification i n the hea d C position. If the complementizer head is to the right of IP and Basque proceeds as Italian o r Spanish , the auxiliar y du woul d move t o tha t right-edg e head :

Residual Verb Second and Verb First in Basque

103

Since the subject follows the auxiliary in (3a), it must be adjoined to the right of CP, since ther e i s no other adjunctio n site availabl e tha t would produc e th e se quential order required . But notic e tha t thi s head-las t mirror-imag e analysi s face s seriou s problems . In a head-first language, only the subject element i n the specifier o f IP intervenes between V and the C head t o whic h Infl ha s moved. I f nominativ e cas e canno t be assigned but under spec-head agreement, the subject wil l not be case-marke d once th e case-assignin g hea d Inf l ha s been removed , an d is adjoine d t o a posi tion t o th e right . There, th e subjec t ca n be assigne d cas e under governmen t by the first inflectional head. No other element has to be taken care of. On the other hand, i n a head-las t language , all potentia l argument s and adjunct s ma y inter vene between V and C, so a very powerful an d general reason woul d have to be found t o exclud e them fro m appearin g in thei r regula r positions . Failur e t o re ceive case migh t be worked out for arguments, given the fact tha t Infl i n Basque cross-indexes subjects , direct an d indirect objects. If Infl is responsible fo r caseassignment or checking (see Cheng and Demirdash, forthcoming, and Oyb.arc.abal 1992) adjunct s would still be unaccounted for. 7 Moreover , postpose d argument s would be post-C in a structure like (8), perhaps right-adjoined to CP. In this cas e one would have to assume, along with Rizzi and Roberts (1989), that inflectional heads cannot assign case under government from C to arguments in their canonical position, bu t they can assign cas e under government t o postposed arguments. 8 Assuming, as I will below, that V head-moves to I in Basque, ther e is a n obvious structure which would produce the operator-C strin g in a structure like (8) . This can be easily achieved by removing the whole intervening IP and adjoining it t o CP , as i n (9) :

Assume that we find a n explanation that force s the head-specifier relatio n men tioned in the Wh-criterion to involve linear 'contact. ' Then I P would have to be postposed, solving the problem of the analyses sketched above i n that both arguments and adjuncts, actuall y everything in IP, would be prevented from interven-

104

Discourse Configurational Languages

ing between th e two elements tha t can bear th e [+wh ] feature. Apart from the fa r from trivia l proble m o f determinin g wha t coul d forc e I P ou t o f it s canonica l position, (9 ) presents som e problem s fo r the prope r governmen t requiremen t o f the trace s i n IP. If a subject wh-word has been take n t o Spec o f CP, as in (9) , it s trace i n I P woul d violat e Rizzi' s (1990 ) hea d governmen t conditio n fo r ECP , which require s trace s t o b e hea d governe d b y a hea d X withi n th e immediat e projection o f X, (X 1). C could be the prospective head , but after IP postposing, i t no longer govern s the subject trace withi n C', so an ECP violation woul d result . In vie w o f these problems , I present a n alternative analysi s of the basi c fact s in the following section. Nonetheless, th e analyses in the following sections ar e also compatible wit h the IP postposing hypothesis .

3. Left-headed CP Let's assume now that in Basque, a s in some othe r SO V languages like Germa n or Hungarian (in Maracz's (1991 ) SO V analysis, but, of course, no t in E. Kiss's (1987) non-configurationa l analysis ) the C hea d precede s it s complement . Th e question of the position of the functional head C in Basque can be raised becaus e unlike English , Spanish , Germa n an d Hungarian , ther e i s n o independen t complementizer: inflecte d embedde d verb s includ e a marker prefixe d (bait-) o r suffixed (-n, -la) t o them : (10) a . Badaki t Jo n etorr i d-ela . I know Joh n com e is-/ a 'I know tha t John ha s arrived.' b. E z daki t Jo n etorr i d-en . neg know -en 'I don't know whethe r John ha s come.' (11) Handi a d a e z bait- u buru a hautsi . big i s ne g bait-has hea d broke n 'It i s surprisin g tha t he hasn't broke n hi s head.' These elements ar e always bound to the inflection, and can be analyzed as clitic C head s (a s in Shlonsk y 1988) , inflectiona l element s o r regular C head s whic h happen t o be bound morphemes; 9 in all cases, the y follo w (actually , are part of ) the inflection, wherever the latter appears. The question of their nature and origi nal position i s therefore intertwine d with the analysis of phenomena lik e th e one at hand. Without full y enterin g no w into th e first question , let's assume tha t th e C position , a s claime d above , i s t o th e lef t o f IP . Before presentin g mor e evi dence fo r this claim , le t u s se e how th e basi c patter n (3a ) i s accounte d for . Ex ample (3a ) follow s the Italia n and Spanis h patter n in (7) , i n tha t th e operato r is adjacent t o the participle-auxiliary sequence. Unlike these languages, the pattern in Basqu e may onl y arise in th e manne r Rizzi reject s fo r Italian , via th e forma tion o f a V-Infl uni t which then moves t o C . Actually, this seems t o b e correct ,

Residual Verb Second and Verb First in Basque

105

since, agai n unlike in Italian, nothing can intervene between participl e an d aux iliary.10 This could be related t o the fact that Basque auxiliarie s ar e weak, cliticlike forms . The y ar e certainl y phonologica l clitics , sinc e the y underg o som e phonetic changes which do not apply across word-boundarie s (se e Hualde 1991) . Let u s assum e tha t thi s phonologica l fac t find s a syntacti c reflectio n an d tha t auxiliaries have to be supplie d wit h som e 'lexical ' basis. Thi s woul d promp t Vto-I incorporatio n i n basi c declarativ e sentences. 11 I n (3a) , a furthe r movemen t is force d by (5A) : Inf l plu s the incorporated V head mus t mov e to C to suppl y the independently licensed [+wh ] feature required ther e to match th e [+wh ] fea ture o f the operato r i n Spe c o f CP . The resultin g structur e is the n a s i n (12) :

Arguments and adjuncts not affected b y these processes woul d appear in the same positions in which they can appear in a declarative sentence. Subjec t traces woul d not violat e ECP, sinc e they woul d be governe d by C (I/V) withi n C'. There i s a possibility i n norther n dialects whic h i s importan t i n thi s context . On top of the common interrogative structure exemplified i n (3a), thes e dialect s also admit a more marked varian t which follows the 'Englis h type' wit h respec t to adjacency . Contrast (3a ) wit h (13 ) below : (13) a . Nor k d u Jo n ikusi ? who ha s Joh n see n 'Who has Joh n se:en? '

106

Discourse Configurational Languages

b. No r d u Jone k ikusi ? who ha s Joh n see n 'Who has seen John?' The wh-operato r nor(k) mus t b e lef t adjacen t t o th e inflecte d auxiliar y du, th e latter precede s th e lexica l ver b an d ther e i s n o obligator y adjacenc y betwee n auxiliary an d lexica l verb . Again , nothin g (neithe r argumen t no r adjunct ) ma y intervene between wh-wor d an d inflected auxiliary : (14) a . *Nor k Jo n d u ikusi ? b. *No r Jonek d u ikusi? The difference between northern and southern dialects may not be only that aux iliaries ar e stronge r in th e former , sinc e (3a ) i s mor e commo n tha n (13a ) and , more importantly , in declarativ e clause s th e auxiliar y and lexical ver b see m t o form a unit as close a s the on e formed i n dialect s wher e onl y (3a ) i s possible. Whatever the origi n of the difference , the result can easil y be accounte d for in this analysis : afte r wh-movemen t to Spe c o f CP , (5A) requires th e presence of an independently marke d [+wh] element i n C, and Infl therefor e proceed s to the next head position u p to provide that specification. The verb occupies it s original position . I n a n alternative analysi s wit h a post-IP complementize r position , IP would have to be postposed a s above; sinc e V-to-I has not applied i n this al ternative, the verb would also appea r postposed. Bu t notice that not only would there be a conspiracy t o produce a common structure that resembles th e 'Italia n type,' but also the closely related 'Englis h type.' In the analysis propounded here, on th e othe r hand, the two strategies d o not onl y loo k familiar : they are . Before turnin g to a n examinatio n o f mor e head-movemen t an d word-orde r patterns, let' s complet e th e picture o f basic question s i n Basque wit h a look a t synthetic verbs, that is, verbs which are conjugated without the help of any auxiliary. Thes e form s ar e heavil y restricted i n number . Onl y a handful 12 o f verb s possess stron g form s o f thi s type , an d the n onl y i n th e thre e basi c tense s o f Basque: present, past, and hypothetical. The structure is identical to that of auxiliary verbs , havin g the sam e markers for tense, pluralizers, ergative/absolutive / dative markers, etc. , bu t the slo t occupie d b y the root contain s no t a n auxiliar y root bu t a lexica l one . Compar e th e perfectiv e periphrasti c for m i n (15a ) wit h the syntheti c present for m (15b) , both fro m th e verb ekarri 't o bring": (15) a . ekarr- i n-a-u-z u bring-prf lsg-prs-root-2s g 'you hav e brought me' b. n-a-kar-z u 1 sg-prs-bring-2sg 'you bring me' In (15a) the lexical verb has been attached t o th e perfective marker, an d inflectional morpheme s ar e supplie d with a n auxiliar y root -M- . Wher e n o aspectua l

Residual Verb Second and Verb First in Basque 10

7

marker i s involved , a few verb s see m t o be abl e t o merg e wit h the inflectional roots. I wil l follo w Lak a (1990 , 1991 ) i n assumin g th e presenc e o f a n Aspec t Phrase, heade d b y th e perfectiv e marker -i i n (15a) , s o the structure s involve d would be a s in (16a) an d (16b) fo r the periphrastic an d synthetic forms , respec tively:

The verbal base raises head-to-head, attaching the aspectual head in (16a). A few verbs have paradigms whic h ar e formed by direct merging o f their roots with the inflectional morphemes. Since such synthetic forms do not include any aspectual marker, there is no need t o assume the existence o f any Aspect Phras e intervening between VP and IP in these forms . Thus, the structure corresponding to (15b) would be as in (16b), where V raises directly and merges with I (see Laka (1988 ) for a n analysis of I int o componing heads an d agreement markers) . Synthetic form s have a distributio n which exactl y parallels tha t o f auxiliary forms. Sinc e the I head i s the position t o which the independen t [+wh] specifi cation is anchored, questions containing synthetic verbal forms display an adja cency betwee n the wh-word and the syntheti c for m itself , a s show n in (17) : (17) a . No r daka r Jonek ? who bring s Joh n 'Who does John bring?' b. Jonek , no r dakar? The previou s example s paralle l ou r basic sentence s (3a ) an d (3b) , an d receiv e here the same analysis: the V/I head conglomerate, whether synthetic or periphrastic, mus t move to C to the lef t i n order to supply the [+wh ] feature required by the Wh-Criterion to match the interrogative operator in Spec of CP. Any element preceding th e wh-wor d receives a topi c interpretatio n an d i s usuall y separate d from th e rest of the clause by a pause, as seen i n (17b)-(3b). We turn now t o an examination o f the situatio n in embedded clauses. 4. Focalized Constituents As indicated in section 1 , the apparen t word-order freedom displaye d in (1 ) ca n be correlate d wit h differences in relative emphasis o f the constituent s involved.

108

Discourse Configurational Languages

Foci shar e th e distributiona l constraints mentioned fo r wh-words ; i n particular , they hav e to b e left-adjacen t t o th e inflecte d verba l form. 13 Le t u s explor e th e possibility that foci move to Spec o f CP in the sam e way a s wh-words, perhaps , as claimed in Ortiz de Urbina (1989a), because suc h operators mus t receive scop e at S-structur e in Basque. The Wh-Criterion ca n be extended to a more genera l Affective Operator Cri terion,14 a well-formedness condition that requires operator s t o be in a specifier head relatio n wit h a head independentl y marked fo r the relevant feature . Given Rizzi's (1991 ) functiona l definitio n of Operators, wh-word s an d foci onl y coun t as Operators , an d ar e consequentl y subjec t t o a n Affectiv e Operato r Criterio n applying at S-structure, if they occupy a scope position. Since , a s a consequenc e of level of movement parameters, English foci d o not move to scope position s a t S-structure, no special patter n is present in the syntax , and the Affective Opera tor Criterion does not hold of CPs containing foci. When, as in Basque, foci move to Spec of CP in the syntax, the Affective Operato r Criterio n mus t be met at that level. Let's assume that, in the same way as interrogative clauses licens e a [+wh] Infl, emphati c clause s licens e a [+F ] Infl . Thi s specificatio n i s als o presen t in foci . As expected, give n this scenario one finds exactl y the same patterns observe d above fo r wh-questions . (la') give s the structur e of (la) , th e commo n focaliza tion strategy : (1) a . Mire n ikus i zue n Jonek . Mary see n au x Joh n 'It wa s Mary that John saw.'/'Joh n sa w MARY.' (1) a' . [

CP

Mire n [ c. ikus i zue n [ lp .. Jon ...]]] Mary sa w Joh n [+F] [+F ]

Any elemen t precedin g th e focu s i s interpreted a s a topic , an d correspondingl y separated from th e latter by a pause; in the same way, any element precedin g th e wh-word i n a questio n i s interprete d a s a topi c an d separate d b y a pause (wit h an import similar t o that of 'links ' in Vallduvi's (this volume ) terms ; cf . also th e sentences i n (3)). Since 'French ' dialect s o f Basque permit a s a marked optio n I-to- C without a prior V-to- I movement , one shoul d also fin d i n thes e dialect s foc i left-adjacen t to Infl . Thi s i s certainl y th e case , a s show n i n (18) ; fo r eas e o f reference , th e same patterns in interrogative sentence s ar e repeated here : (13) a . Nor k d u Jo n ikusi ? (18 ) a . MIRENE K d u Jo n ikusi . who ha s Joh n see n Mar y ha s Joh n see n 'Who has seen John? ' 'MAR Y sa w John.' b. No r d u Jone k ikusi ? b . JO N d u Mirene k ikusi . who ha s Joh n see n Joh n ha s Mar y see n 'Who has John seen? ' 'Mar y sa w JOHN.'

Residual Verb Second and Verb First in Basque 10

9

Laka (1990 ) analyze s th e strateg y i n (18 ) i n a differen t way . She propose s th e existence o f a left-headed -phras e immediatel y abov e IP , as in (19) :

The category X would include negation an d emphatic affirmation . Infl (du i n (18)) would the n mov e t o thi s lef t periphera l hea d t o suppl y a base t o th e empt y Aff morpheme. Th e NPs precedin g th e auxiliar y i n (18 ) woul d occup y Spe c o f IP and would derive their focalized interpretation from the relationship wit h the head I. I f Mirenek i n (18a) occupie s Spe c o f a left-headed IP an d I i s occupied by Infl, adjacenc y immediately follows . Implici t i n thi s analysi s i s th e possibilit y of treating the common focalization strategy in a similar fashion, admitting prior V-to-I, perhap s throug h a n intervenin g AspP (se e (16a)). 15 However , ther e ar e some problems . Fo r instance, i f movement o f Infl t o I i s prompted b y the presence o f the covert affi x Aff, i t is not clear why the NPs in (18 ) mus t move t o th e specifier; a s (20 ) shows , tha t position mus t be occupied : (20) *d u Jone k Mire n ikus i aux Joh n Mar y see n 'John HA S see n Mary. ' More importantly , in th e contex t o f th e presen t discussion , th e parallelis m be tween focalizatio n an d wh-formatio n i s lost : Lak a (1990 ) explicitel y posit s a n independent head-fina l CP , an d i f questio n formatio n work s a s i n Uriagerek a (1992) w e would have anothe r conspirac y a t work t o ad d to the on e mentione d above: differen t processe s involvin g differen t phrase s woul d produc e identica l results.

5. VI Structures The analysis above can also accoun t for some apparen t cases o f verb-first struc tures, namely , roo t yes/n o question s an d som e sentence s describe d i n Basqu e grammars a s 'ver b focalization. ' I wil l trea t the m together , sinc e the y displa y parallel dat a configuration s an d ar e give n her e th e sam e analysis . I wil l clai m that a n empt y sententia l operato r occupie s Spe c o f C P i n bot h cases . Thi s sentential operator produces yes/no question interpretations if [+wh], and emphatic affirmatives i f [+F] .

110

Discourse Configurational Languages

Consider a declarativ e sentenc e wit h a periphrastic ver b lik e (21) . Although , as i n Spanish , i t seem s tha t a yes/no questio n ma y be forme d just b y changin g the intonational pattern, there i s a more norma l pattern, illustrate d i n (22) : (21) Jone k liburu a irakurri du . John boo k rea d ha s 'John has read th e book.' (22) Ir a kurr i du Jonek liburua? 'Has Joh n read th e book?' The ver b typicall y occupie s th e initia l positio n i n yes/n o questions , a fac t tha t follows directl y fro m th e Wh-Criterion i f we follow standard assumptions whic h derive thi s interpretatio n fro m th e presenc e o f a n empt y operator . Thi s elemen t is a nul l counterpar t t o over t wh-words , and occupie s th e sam e positio n a s th e latter. Given clause A of the Wh-Criterion, the [+wh] feature of this element mus t also matc h a [+wh ] specificatio n i n th e head positio n o f the phras e i t specifies, provided b y Infl , whic h mus t proceed head-to-hea d t o C . I f th e latte r i s t o th e left, a s i n (12) , th e verb-initia l pattern in (22 ) immediatel y follows. The sam e analysi s extends to sentence s described i n Ortiz d e Urbina (1989b ) as involvin g an 'emphati c positiv e polarity. ' Th e gramma r o f th e Academ y o f the Basque Language (Euskaltzaindia 1985:47) refer s t o these a s 'verba l focal ization' sentences , an d explicitl y state s tha t th e ver b appear s dislocate d t o th e left an d separated by a pause from an y preceding material . Their example is given in (23) : (23) a. Hi l da gur e aita . die au x ou r fathe r 'Our father died.V'Our fathe r did die.' b. Gur e aita , hi l da. 'Our father died.V'Our father did die.' As before, thi s follows from th e presenc e o f a null [+F] operato r i n Spe c o f CP, the rol e o f Inf l a s a hos t fo r independen t affectiv e feature s an d th e Affectiv e Operator Criterion . More interesting, however, is the verb-initial pattern found wit h synthetic verbs. Actually, strictl y speaking , there is no such synthetic verb-initial pattern ; as (24 ) and (25 ) illustrate , yes/n o question s an d emphatic affirmative s with thes e verb s must b e preceded b y th e particle ba: (24) a . Banekie n ni k hori ? ba-knew I tha t 'Did I know that?' b. Nik , banekien hori? 'As fo r me, di d I kno w that? '

Residual Verb Second and Verb First in Basque 11

1

(25) a . Banekie n nik hoii, 'I did know that.' b. Nik , banekie n hori . 'As for me, I did know that.' Laka (1990) treats ba as one of the heads of I (se e (19 ) above) , alon g wit h the abstract affirmative morphem e and the negative element ez. The same objectio n raised i n the previous section applie s here: althoug h this approac h ca n accoun t for th e focalizatio n data in (25) , the exact parallelism wit h interrogative struc tures like (24 ) i s lef t unexplained . Notice that in both examples thi s particle i s obligatory: (26) *Nekie n nik hori(?) Ba could be treated a s a spelled-out form of the sentential operator posite d here , in which case it would occupy th e specifier o f CP. However, on e would have to explain, then, why this spelling o f the operator is not possible wit h periphrastic verbs lik e those of sentence s (22) an d (23) above . There i s anothe r fact which must also be taken into account. Basque is an 'extended' pro-drop language: given a ric h inflectiona l system cross-indexin g subjects , direc t objects , an d indirec t objects, thes e argument s need not be phonologicall y realized . However , some thing seems to prevent pro-dropping, or any other process which will remove all constituents preceding a synthetic verb. Thus, parallel to (27b), the (subject) prodropped version with a periphrastic verbal form, one cannot get the correspond ing syntheti c one (28b), and only (28c) with the particle in question is available : (27) a . N i held u naiz, . I arrive d au x "I have arrived.' b. pr o heldu naiz (28) a . N i nator . I com e 'I am coming.' b. *pr o nator c. Banator . As usual where the choice i s possible, th e over t pronominal is emphatic, but i t cannot be a pragmatically neutral pro if this is going to leave the synthetic for m in a (phonetically initial) position i n the clause , wher e 'clause * refer s t o CP/IP proper. Thus, topics, which I have assumed above to adjoin t o CP,16 do not seem to be visible for this phenomenon; contrast (28a) wit h (29): (29) a . *ni , [e ] nato r I com e 'As for me, I am coming.' b. Ni , banator.

112

Discourse Configurational Languages

I wil l therefore trea t ba a s an expletive particl e tha t shields inflection fro m oc curring in (linearly) initial position, leaving the question of its exact position open . Although i t i s possibl e t o clai m tha t wheneve r thi s particl e appear s th e verba l form ha s been move d t o th e head o f CP , I will no t pursu e thi s proble m here. 17 What is relevant i n the present discussio n i s that one of the main contexts where an inflecte d for m occupies a n initia l positio n emerge s afte r I-to-C i n syntheti c verbal forms : lik e pro i n (28b) , a null operato r i n Spe c o f C P is no t visibl e t o this requirement, leaving the inflected synthetic form in an initial position i n the relevant sense i n (24 ) an d (25) .

6. Marked I-to-C and VI In section 3, 1 claimed that there exists a marked option which involves a shorter movement o f I-to-C , an d whic h does no t involv e the lowe r hea d o f VP . If thi s option exists, one would also expect to find a marked option of this sort in struc tures wher e tha t movement i s prompte d b y th e presence o f th e [+F ] featur e in Infl. Thi s i s actually th e case. Since a bare inflected form coincides i n C with a phonologically empty nul l operator, the situation we find is exactly that o f syn thetic verbal forms with the affective feature s examined in the previous section . Consequently, the particle ba will als o appear , as show n in (30): 18 (30) a . ba-du t .. . ikusi ba-aux .. . see n 'I HAVE see n ... ' b. ba-naiz.. . joan ba-aux .. . g o 'I HAVE gone.' As in the English translation, the sentential operator has the effec t o f emphasiz ing th e positiv e polarit y of th e proposition. Thi s marke d strateg y i s heavil y restricted; moreover, i t seem s t o be availabl e only for th e [+F ] feature , since th e corresponding yes/n o questions seem deviant: (31) a . ??baduz u ... ikusi? 'have you seen...?' b. ??bazar a joan? 'have you gone?'

7. Embedded Questions and Embedded Focalization 7.1. Subordination Particles As mentione d above in sectio n 3, embedded inflected verb s bear either a prefi x bait- o r a suffi x -(e)n o r -(e)la. Befor e showin g their distribution in embedded clauses, i t mus t be pointe d out tha t al l thre e of the m ca n als o appea r i n roo t

Residual Verb Second and Verb First in Basque 11

3

clauses. Thus , fo r instance , firs t an d thir d perso n command s i n 'root ' context s can b e marke d b y attachin g th e suffi x -(e)la t o subjunctiv e forms, a s i n (32) : (32) Eto r dadi-la ! come aux-l a 'Let him come!' In some expressions like (33), th e otherwise subordinate suffix -(e)n ca n also mark this typ e o f comman d i n apparentl y root contexts . A s th e exampl e shows , thi s usage produce s a n inverte d patter n wher e th e auxiliar y move s t o th e lef t periphery o f the clause : (33) a . Dugu- n edan ! (Cf aux-n drin k 'Let's drink! ' b. Goaz-en ! we go- n 'Let's go!'

. edan dugu 'W e have drunk.' )

More interestingly , bait- an d -(e)n als o appea r i n roo t context s i n exclamativ e clauses. I n Norther n dialects , wher e th e firs t morphem e i s most ofte n used , th e exclamative elemen t ala attract s the verb, marke d wit h bait-, to the lef t periph ery o f th e clause : (34) Al a bait- a dol u egingarri a amodioeta n dena ! bait-is wort h o f pity i n lov e i s wh o 'So pitiful i s that wh o is in love!' The mos t genera l exclamativ e pattern, however, involves wh-element s a s in th e neighboring languages. As in Spanish, and unlike English, these wh-exclamatives also promp t ver b movemen t t o C . But i n Basque , th e ver b i s the n marke d wit h the 'subordinating ' suffi x -(e)n; thus , contras t th e interrogativ e (35 ) an d th e exclamative (36) : (35) Zenba t dir u irabaz i d u Jonek ? how muc h mone y earne d au x Joh n 'How muc h mone y has John earned ? (36) Zenba t dir u irabaz i cl u -e n Jonek ! -n 'What a huge amoun t of money Joh n has earned! ' The only difference betwee n these two sentences is that the verb in the interrogative (35) does not contain any of the 'subordinatio n particles,' while a suffi x ha s been attache d to th e ver b in the exclamativ e (36).

114

Discourse Configuration^ Languages

Outside of these affective uses , though , the above mentioned particles usuall y appear i n embedde d contexts . Th e suffi x -(e)n show s u p i n clause s containin g operators: indirec t questions, adverbia l clauses , subjunctiv e completives, nega tive completives, relatives , etc. 19 These particle s ar e bound morphemes attache d to tense d form s an d ma y no t b e affixe d t o an y othe r element . Unlik e wha t w e find i n neighboring languages, where the elements introducing embedded clause s (complementizers) may not co-occur wit h interrogative elements , thes e are com patible wit h wh-words: 20 (37) E z daki t no r etorr i d-en . not kno w wh o com e aux- n 'I don' t kno w who has come.' These elements could be analyzed as inflectional particles o r as complementizers . If inflectiona l particles , Basqu e woul d b e claime d no t t o posses s over t complementizers, an d the correct particl e would be selected b y the normal head to-head relatio n between the empty C position, perhap s marked by selection fro m the upper verb , and the relevant Infl head. This mechanism i s similar t o the one proposed fo r subjunctiv e mood selectio n o n embedde d verb s b y certai n matri x predicates (se e Kempchinsk y 1986) . Give n current interest i n providing syntac tic analyses of inflectional morphology , this approach, although perhaps correct , begs th e questio n of the exac t syntacti c nature of this inflectiona l head. 21 Sinc e this poin t i s not crucia l in this article , I wil l continue to assume , a s in Orti z d e Urbina (1989a) , tha t this is a clitic complementizer: i f independent processe s o f I-to-C movemen t d o no t provid e i t wit h a morphologica l base , i t wil l hav e t o cliticize dow n to the next head. With these assumptions , le t us addres s no w th e problem of embedde d interrogativ e and foca l operators . 7.2. Embedded Patterns Embedded interrogative s presen t a differen t patter n depending o n whethe r they are yes/n o o r wh-questions : th e latte r displa y adjacenc y betwee n th e over t op erator and the inflected verb, while the former are not marked in any special wa y other than by the 'operator ' particle -(e)n. I n particular, unlike root yes/n o ques tions, whic h involv e 'ver b fronting, ' embedde d one s maintai n th e sam e neutra l verb-final orde r a s neutral declaratives (39) : (38) e z daki t [nor k egi n du-e n hori ] neg kno w wh o d o aux-e n tha t 'I don' t kno w wh o ha s done that. ' (39) e z dakit [ Jonek hor i egi n du-en ] 'I don't kno w whether John has done that.' Marked I-to-C patterns also exist for embedded wh-questions in northern dialects:

Residual Verb Second and Verb First in Basque 11

5

(40) e z daki t [nork due- n hor i egin ] who aux- n tha t d o 'I don't know wh o has done that.' The situation is slightly different wit h embedded clauses with focalized constituents: her e bot h constituen t an d sententia l focalizatio n exhibi t 'verb-fronting ' patterns: (41) a . esa n didat e [JO N ikus i due-l a Mikelek ] tell au x Joh n se e aux-l a Mike l 'They tol d m e that Mike l sa w JON.' b. esa n didat e [JO N du-ela Mikele k ikusi ] (42) a . esa n didat e [*(ba)-datorr-el a Jon ] ba-comes-la Jo n 'They tol d me tha t Joh n IS coming.' b. esa n didate [Jon, badatorrela] In (41 ) th e embedde d objec t ha s bee n focalized , using the commo n strateg y i n (a) an d the marke d one in (b) . The subjec t ca n als o b e preposed a s a topic, bu t nothing may intervene between the object and the verbal complex. Th e presenc e of th e fronte d patter n i n (42 ) i s clea r b y th e us e o f the particl e ba an d th e fac t that, i f preverbal a s in (42b), th e subjec t i s interpreted a s a topic . In embedde d questions , th e [+wh ] featur e i s license d b y selectio n fro m th e matrix verb. Since C is already marked [+wh] , one would expect no t to find verb second phenomen a i n suc h contexts . Indeed , thi s i s th e situatio n i n English . However, Romanc e embedde d wh-question s d o trigge r verb-second . Thus , th e Basque pattern in (38 ) and (40 ) i s identical t o tha t of Spanis h (43) : (43) a . n o s e [qu e h a vist o Jon ] not kno w wha t ha s see n Jo n 'I don't kno w what John has seen.' b. *N o se qu6 Jon ha visto . Rizzi (1991 ) hypothesizes tha t the strong AGR of pro-drop language s is abl e t o 'attract' th e [+wh ] specification , s o that the latte r i s eventually license d als o in Infl, a s in unselected, roo t clauses. Verb-secon d the n follows . The lack o f verb-second i n indirect yes/n o questions complicates thi s picture. The Spanish example (44) shows that in this language the situation is again as in Basque (see (39)) : (44) n o s 6 [s i Jua n h a vist o eso ] neg kno w i f Joh: i ha s see n tha t 'I don't kno w whether John has seen that. '

116

Discourse Configurational Languages

Here, the subject Juan intervenes between si 'if an d the periphrastic verb . Spanis h si corresponds mor e to English if than to whether, as for French in Kayne (1991) , and may therefore be considered a complementizer.22 One might try to claim tha t only a [+wh ] featur e realize d o n a n empt y complementize r ca n b e attracte d t o Infl, an d tha t attractio n woul d b e impossible wit h a n inherentl y marke d [+wh ] overt complementize r lik e si. Still , thi s woul d no t accoun t fo r th e Basqu e dat a above: bot h tota l an d partia l indirec t question s ar e marke d wit h th e sam e par ticle -(e)n. Regardles s o f whethe r thi s i s analyze d a s a n inflectiona l particl e o r as a complementizer, i f th e presenc e o f verb-secon d depende d o n th e existenc e of a null or overt complementizer, Basque indirect question s shoul d all work the same way , whether total o r partial. In pro-dro p languages, where [+wh ] could b e lexica l (i f attracte d b y Infl ) o r null (i n the nul l C head), the differenc e seem s t o be related als o to whethe r th e interrogative operato r i n Spe c o f C P is over t o r null . At a descriptive level , th e distribution ca n be state d a s i n (45) : (45) Lexica l operator s requir e lexica l [+wh ] In root clauses, where [+wh] is licensed in Infl but not in C, only I-to-C can supply the feature required by the Wh-Criterion to appear in C, regardless o f the null or lexical natur e of the Operato r in Spec . Therefor e verb-frontin g takes plac e bot h with overt and empty operators. In embedded contexts, th e matrix ver b licenses the [+wh ] specification in the embedded C, which may be attracted by the stron g Infl. I n th e cas e o f lexica l wh-operators , i t ha s t o b e attracted , du e t o (45) . Sentential yes/n o operators , no t being lexical, d o not require a lexica l basi s fo r the feature [+wh] , and attraction does no t take place. Thus , attractio n seem s lik e a last-resor t operatio n (i n the sens e o f Chomsky 1991 ) t o compl y wit h (45) . A fina l aspec t o f embedde d question s i s wort h mentioning befor e w e tur n t o embedded focalization : th e particle ba doe s no t occu r i n suc h context s i n man y dialects:23 (46) galdet u didat e [Jo n gureki n (*ba ) datorren ] ask au x Joh n wit h us comes-e n 'They aske d m e whethe r John i s coming wit h us.' This follows from th e analysis above: being the yes/no operato r null , the embed ded syntheti c ver b doe s no t mov e t o C , an d th e particl e doe s no t therefor e ap pear (se e not e 13) . Turning now to embedded focalization , a crucial aspect differentiatin g it fro m indirect questio n formatio n i s that whil e matrix verb s ma y selec t fo r interroga tive complements , the y d o not subcategoriz e fo r focalization , whethe r constitu ent o r sentential. This means tha t [+F ] i s not licensed i n C, but in Infl , just lik e in roo t clauses , an d verb-frontin g i s therefor e necessary , a s show n i n (41 ) an d (42). I n th e cas e o f th e nul l emphati c operator, (45 ) does no t mak e an y differ -

Residual Verb Second and Verb First in Basque 11

7

ence, sinc e [+F ] canno t be license d directly i n C . This mean s tha t I-to-C must take place, and that the particle ba i s then obligatory with synthetic verbs (42) . The approac h to questio n formatio n an d focalizatio n i n Basque describe d i n the precedin g section s provide s a principled perspectiv e t o understand some of the majo r word-orde r restriction s foun d i n thi s language . There ar e stil l man y areas tha t need consideration , suc h as the presence o f 'inverted ' pattern s i n embedded clause s o f long wh-movement structures, the possibility o f having focal ized constituent s withi n questions, and man y more . The poin t her e is tha t an examination of the word-order restrictions in sentence types like the ones exam ined here is perhaps as revealing with respect to the structure of this language as its apparen t word-order 'freedom, ' i f no t more . Afte r all , onc e focalizatio n i s analyzed i n a fashio n paralle l t o questio n formation, a majo r par t o f tha t free dom i s accounte d for, an d differen t possibilities fo r adjunctio n ma y wel l hel p tackle the res t o f th e phenomenon.

Notes 1. More recently , Basqu e ha s bee n claime d t o b e non-configurationa l o n th e basi s o f these fact s an d som e apparen t iiubject/objec t symmetrie s (see , fo r example , Rebusch i 1989). 2. The verbal for m i n (1) is periphrastic; when it is synthetic, incorporating i n a singl e form th e lexical root plus all of the inflectional elements fo r different persons , tense , etc. , some restriction s ar e operative , I n particular, (synthetic ) verb initia l clause s ar e no t ac ceptable. Contras t synthetic (i) an d periphrastic (ii) : i. *

Dator Miren . comes Mar y 'Mary comes/i s coming.'

ii. Etorr i d a Miren . come au x Mar y 'Mary HA S come.' See sectio n 5 and not e 1 6 below. 3. Th e fac t tha t i n a n OS V sequenc e th e subjec t ma y no t b e interprete d a s a neutra l element follow s from a n independent principle mentione d i n Basque grammars , accord ing to which marked topics requir e th e presence o f a focalized element . Since the objec t has bee n topicalized , som e othe r elemen t (here , th e subject ) mus t b e interprete d a s focus. 4. Basqu e doe s shar e man y of the trait s o f head-fina l O V languages: relativ e clause s and genitive s preced e th e hea d noun , althoug h adjectives , no t atypically , follo w it . Th e standard o f comparison precede s th e comparative particl e an d adjective ; mai n ver b pre cedes the auxiliary; in appositive relations th e standard follows the variable (cf . Ardanza lehendakaria 'Presiden t Ardanza') , etc . 5. Whether the topic is adjoined t o CP by an application of Move-a or is actually basegenerated ther e is immateria l for ou r presen t purposes .

118

Discourse Configurational Languages

6. Except perhaps in the cases of 'dynamic ' agreement Rizzi mentions, where the [+wh] feature o f th e hea d ma y b e acquire d i n th e cours e o f the derivatio n fro m a n elemen t s o specified i n its specifier . 7. A very appealing attempt along differen t line s is found in Uriagereka (1992) , whic h relies o n Fuku i an d Speas' s hypothesi s tha t XP s ar e blockin g categorie s onl y i f speci fied: movemen t of , say , th e objec t ou t o f I P woul d hav e t o b e ove r a n empt y (a t leas t phonetically) subject . Still , i t is unclear ho w adjuncts woul d have t o be dispended with . 8. Thus, Infl i n C does govern , unde r m-command, elements right-adjoine d t o CP; bu t if thi s i s wha t enable s th e argument s t o receiv e case , on e woul d expec t Inf l t o b e als o capable o f assignin g cas e to them under government whil e the y remai n i n their origina l position, losin g th e explanation fo r thei r movement . 9. Thes e element s ar e analyze d a s clitic s i n Orti z d e Urbin a (1989a) . Clea r cliti c complementizers d o exis t in Basque; thus, the Labortan writer Duvoisi n ofte n cliticize s ezen 'since ' t o clause internal elements: (i) xerria k eze n lakhe t d u zikhinpea n pig sinc e lik e ha s dirt y 'since pigs lik e to be in the dirt ' (ii) ikhus i iza n du t eze n nerone k landeta n ezarri a seen hav e au x sinc e I fiel d pu t 'since I have see n i t myself pu t on the field ' (iii) e z d a eze n gauz a ttipi a lu r tza r batetari k o n egite a not i s sinc e thin g smal l soi l ba d fro m on e goo d d o 'since it i s no t a small achievemen t to get somethin g good fro m a poor soil ' It i s also possibl e tha t th e complementize r remains in C , wit h V-I- C movemen t i n (ii ) and (iii ) an d topicalizatio n in (i) . 10. Except for a close set of epistemic particles, analyzed as belonging t o Inf l i n Ortiz de Urbina (1989a). 11. Following Lak a (1990) , ther e i s ye t anothe r head between V and Infl : th e perfec tive morphem e - i i n (3a ) woul d b e th e hea d o f a n aspectua l phras e immediatel y abov e VP, attached to th e verba l root b y head-to-hea d movemen t too . 12. From five t o ten depending o n dialects. The standar d literary dialec t ma y use up to twenty-four verb s in this way, but many are rather defective. Se e Euskaltzaindia (1987) . I wil l no t addres s her e th e thorn y problem o f whethe r the morpheme s i n th e amalgam ated form s correspond t o heads of functional/lexical projections an d whether their orde r may b e derived fro m th e syntactic representation by 'syntactic ' means . Se e Laka (1988 ) for a n attempt. 13. Thus, these 'propose d foci' cruciall y differ fro m thei r apparent counterparts examined by Vallduvi (this volume) in Catalan, which do not show verb-second effects . Basqu e patterns wit h Spanish rather tha n with Catala n in this respect . 14. This extensio n ha s also bee n propose d b y Brod y (1990) . Rizz i (1991 ) discusse s the Wh-Criterion an d the Negative Criterion (se e below), and points ou t that they are instances of the same well-formedness condition on affective operators . I will not deal with negative sentence s i n Basque. Foc i ar e also affectiv e operators . Thus , in Basqu e clausa l negation, interrogation (yes/no questions) and emphasis (positive emphasis similar to the one in [2] ) all sanctio n the appearenc e of polarity items. Polarity items ar e als o licensed in conditiona l clauses, which also involve I-to-C movement s in Englis h and Italian:

Residual Verb Second and Verb First in Basque 11

9

(i) Ha d sh e arrive d earlier.. . (ii) Foss e arrivat o Gianni.. . Perhaps ol d "votive " pattern s lik s (iii ) illustrat e a simila r cas e i n Basque , affectiv e al though no t exactly conditional : (iii) aillekitz a he k .. . geld i if only-au x thes e remai n 'if onl y thes e remaine d fo r him!' 15. Uriagerek a (thi s volume ) posit s th e existenc e o f a left-periphera l hea d t o whic h foci woul d move, bu t he explicitly differentiate s it fro m Laka' s £ head, an d his analysis would no t hav e som e o f th e problem s discusse d below . Still , th e similarit y o f th e (re sidual) VI an d V2 patters with foci and wh-words would remain a surprising coincidence , especially if , a s in Uriagereka (1992 ) th e C hea d is t o the right . 16. In this , they seem t o behave differently fro m topic s i n English, perhaps du e to th e availability of pro fo r argument s in Basque . 17. A unified treatmen t of ba could also be undertaken, if it can be show n that in (27b ) and (28c ) th e verb is, for some reason, emphasized, a s sometimes claimed . The n the verbs would occup y ther e th e C head position , an d ba woul d fal l unde r th e sam e cas e a s i n (24) and (25). I t is not clear, though , why a sentence like (28b), withou t the particle, coul d not be neutral. The situation seem s cleare r in (29), wher e the verb woul d be i n C due to the pragmati c requiremen t tha t clause s wit h topicalize d constituent s mus t als o hav e a focalized element , i n this case the sentential focalization operator. An additional piece of data whic h indicate s thi s unified treatment i s o n the righ t track i s tha t in relative struc tures, which are known to be strictly verb final (unlike most other embedde d structures) , ba doe s no t appea r (see Oyhargaba l 1984) , an d clause/utteranc e initia l syntheti c verb s are th e onl y option : (i) (*ba)datorre n gizon a comes ma n 'the man that is coming' 18. Notice, however , tha t the usag e o f thi s marked strategy is disappearin g an d i s no t necessarily coextensiv e wit h the usag e of I-to- C i n constituen t focalization an d interro gation. 19. However, thi s morphem e doesn' t appea r in embedded clause s wit h foci . 20. Similar pattern s in say, Spanish or Hungarian, usually involve C wh-word sequence s and ar e accounte d fo r b y CP-recursion : (i) Pregunt a qu e quid n h a venid o ask tha t wh o ha s com e 'She ask s (that ) who has come' (ii) Ne m tudo m hog y kive l talalkozot t Jano s neg kno w tha t wh o me t Joh n 'I don' t kno w who John met.' Similarly, i n Gascon , which has bee n th e neighborin g language in th e Norther n area u p to this century, the complementi2er que is present in main declaratives and less frequentl y in yes/n o questions, but no t i n wh-questions:

120

Discourse Configurational Languages (iii) Qu e cantava s hen s l o bosquet ? that yo u sin g i n th e fores t 'You wer e singin g in th e river?' (iv) Qu 6 he s e n est e arriu ? what d o i n thi s rive r 'What ar e you doing in this river? '

21. T o the exten t tha t th e difference s betwee n i f an d whether note d i n Kayn e (1991 ) hold cross-linguistically , th e evidenc e weakl y favor s treatin g -(e)n a s a particle, rathe r than a complementizer. Thus, just like i n English an d French, contro l i s no t possible in indirect tenseles s yes/n o questions : (i) *E z daki t [etxer a joan ] neg kno w hom e g o 'I don't whethe r to go home.' Since -(e)n onl y appear s in tensed contexts, it is missing fro m (i), whic h must then hav e an empty complementizer. This work s like Englis h if i n no t allowin g control. I f Basqu e works like English and French, it would perhaps have the same complementizer i n tensed and tenseless yes/no indirect questions, which would then be the null complementizer of (i). The appearenc e o f -(e)n i s related t o the tensed/tenseles s characte r o f the inflection . (Notice, though , that (i) improves if attache d ala ez 'o r not'—. Goenega , p.c. ) In Romance , English , etc. , th e indirec t questio n complementize r i s identica l t o th e conditional complementizer: cf. Romance si, English if, etc. I n Basque, on the other hand, -(e)n doe s no t appea r i n conditiona l clauses , whic h ar e marke d b y a pre-inflectiona l particle. 22. This is not so evident: althoug h si marks both indirect yes/no questions an d condi tionals ( a characteristic of complementizers), control seems t o be possibl e in Spanish : (i) N o s 6 s i quedarm e if sta y 'I don' t kno w whethe r to stay.' 23. In dialects/idiolects wher e it appears , the traditional explanation refers t o a caique from Spanish : the ba in such dialects is not the emphatic one but the homophonous con ditional particle , parallelin g Spanish , whic h use s si i n bot h o f them . Notic e als o tha t emphatic ba is related t o (and is sometimes substitute d by) bai 'yes, ' an d that Spanish si 'yes' i s used fo r sententia l emphasis: (i) S i qu e ir d yes tha t go-fu t 'He WILL go.'

References Altube, S . (1929 ) Erderismos, Bermeo. Second Edition , Bilbao 1975 . Belletti, A. (1990 ) Generalized Verb Movement, Rosenber g an d Sellier , Turin. Brody, M. (1990) "Remark s on the Order of Elements in the Hungarian Focus Field, " in Approaches to Hungarian, Volume 3, I . Kenesei , ed., JATE , Szeged.

Residual Verb Second and Verb First in Basque 12

1

Cheng, L. and H. Demirdash (forthcoming) "External Arguments in Basque," i n Generative Studies in Basque Linguistics, J . I. Hualde an d J. Ortiz d e Urbina, eds., John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Chomsky, N . (1991 ) "Som e Note s o n Econom y o f Derivatio n an d Representation, " i n Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, R. Freidin, ed., MIT Press , Cambridge, Massachusetts. Euskaltzaindia (Academ y o f th e Basqu e Language ) (1985 ) Euskal Gramatika. Lehen Urratsak-I, Princip e d e Viana , Iruftea . Euskaltzaindia (Academ y o f th e Basqu e Language ) (1987 ) Euskal Gramatika. Lehen Urratsak-II, Princip e d e Viana, Irunea. Hualde, J. I. (1991 ) Basque Phonology, Routledge , London. Kayne, R. S. (1991) "Romance Clitics, Verb Movement and PRO," Linguistic Inquiry 22.4, 647-686. Kempchinsky, P. (1986) Romance Subjunctive Clauses and Logical Form, Doctora l dissertation, UCLA , Los Angeles. E. Kiss , K . (1987 ) Configurationality in Hungarian, Reidel, Dordrecht . Laka, I . (1988 ) "Configurationa l Head s i n Inflectiona l Morphology," ASJU Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology XXII-2 , 343-365. Laka, I. (1990) Negation in Syntax. On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts . Laka, I . (1991 ) "Th e Syntax o f Negation: Constraints and Parameters, " ms. , University of Rochester . Mardcz, L. (1991 ) Asymmetries in Hungarian, ASJU , San Sebastian . Mitxelena, K. (1978) "Misceldnea Filol6gica Vasc a I," Fontes Linguae Vasconum 29 , 205228. Mitxelena, K . (1981 ) "Galdegai a et a Mintzagai a Euskaraz, " i n Euskal Linguistika eta Literatura: Bide Berriak, 57-81 . Universit y of Deusto, Bilbao . Ortiz d e Urbina, J. (1989a ) Parameters in the Grammar of Basque, Foris , Dordrecht . Ortiz de Urbina, J. (1989b) "Dislocacione s verbales e n estructuras de polaridad," ASJUInternational Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology XXIII-2 , 393-410. Oyharfabal, B . (1984) "Ba - baiezkoa aurrizkia, " Euskera XXIX.2 , 351-371 . Oyharcabal, B. (1992) "Ergaccusativity in Basque," i n Syntactic Theory and Basque Syntax, J . Lakarra and J. Orti z de Urbina , eds., ASJU, Donostia . Rebuschi, G. (1989 ) "I s Ther e a VP in Basque? " in Configurationality. The Typology of Asymmetries, L . Mardcz an d P. Muysken, eds., 85-116 . Foris , Dordrecht . de Rijk , R. P . G. (1969 ) "I s Basqu e a n SO V Language?" Fontes Linguae Vasconum 1. Rizzi, L. (1990 ) Relativized Minimality, MI T Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Rizzi, L. (1991) "Residua l Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion," ms., University de Geneve. Rizzi, L . and I. Robert s (1989 ) "Complex Inversio n i n French," Probus 1 . Shlonsky, U . (1988 ) "Complementizer-Cliticizatio n i n Hebrew an d the Empt y Categor y Principle," Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 191-205 . Uriagereka, J . (1992 ) "Th e Syntax o f Movemen t i n Basque, " i n Syntactic Theory and Basque Syntax, J . Lakarra and J. Orti z d e Urbina, eds. , ASJU, Donostia . Uriagereka, J. (thi s volume ) " A Focus Positio n i n Western Romance. " Vallduvi, E. (thi s volume) "Structural Propertie s o f Information Packaging in Catalan. "

5 Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan* ENRIC VALLDUVI University of Edinburgh

I. Introduction Logico-semantic relations , thet a structure , an d cas e requirement s hav e alway s been considere d to be crucial in determining th e syntactic shap e of sentences an d in motivatin g or requirin g th e applicatio n of movemen t operations . Thi s pape r shows, wel l within th e spirit o f this volume , tha t these linguistic modules do not exhaust th e list . Informatio n packaging , a non-truth-conditiona l componen t o f sentence interpretation, a.k.a. topic-focu s articulatio n and functional o r commu nicative structure , i s a major determinan t o f syntacti c shape a s well. Moreover , in view o f the fact that synta x mus t encode information packagin g a s much a s it encodes thet a relation s o r logico-semanti c quantificationa l configurations , th e question arise s of what is the best wa y to describe the interface betwee n surfac e syntax an d informatio n packaging. I n th e Principle s an d Parameter s theor y o f syntax, a multistratal theory , each abstrac t stratu m structurall y an d purely repre sents one of the aforementioned modules. The issue of whether we must deal with information packagin g in a similar fashion is one of the main topics of this study. Information packaging , as an interpretive component, is language independent, i.e., its internal working s shoul d b e constant acros s languages, A comparison o f Catalan and English, however , shows that different languages use different struc tural means t o realize information packaging . I n English-type language s thi s re alization i s mostly prosodic, despit e havin g informationally loaded construction s like topicalization. I n Catalan-type language s this realization i s exclusively syn tactic. At firs t glance , thi s cross-linguistic disparit y in th e structura l realizatio n of informatio n packagin g may sugges t that differen t informationa l interpretiv e rules ar e neede d fo r eac h languag e type. I f so , thes e interpretiv e rule s ar e ren dered highl y language-specific. This paper takes the opposite tack: informationa l 122

Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan 12

3

interpretive rule s ma y remai n constan t across language s i f w e posit a cross-linguistically unifor m abstract leve l o f representation , IS , mediatin g betwee n sur face synta x an d th e informationa l component. Th e interpretiv e rule s tha t blee d IS ar e th e sam e fo r al l languages . The constrast s the y displa y i n th e structura l realization o f informatio n packagin g ar e now locate d exclusivel y i n th e syntax , in th e mappin g betwee n S-structur e an d IS. The leve l o f IS play s a role analo gous t o the one played by LF with respect to logico-semantic interpretation, i.e . an interfac e leve l o f pure disambiguate d representation. The article is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces the dynamic instruction-based approac h t o informatio n packaging (Vallduv i (1992a)) use d i n thi s paper t o describ e informationa l interpretation and its realizatio n i n Catala n an d English. In Section 3 , afte r a brief backgroun d discussion o f some basi c notion s of Catala n syntax , th e structura l realization o f focu s an d groun d i n Catala n i s analyzed. Section 4 looks a t the structural realization of informational notions i n English. Sectio n 5 , takin g th e synta x o f informatio n packaging i n Catala n a s a point o f departure , describe s th e genera l configurationa l requirement s tha t I S representations mus t meet . Sectio n 6 extend s thi s abstrac t I S configuratio n t o English by describing the mapping operations that transform S-structures int o IS structures i n thi s language . Sectio n 7 examine s tw o relate d problem s fo r th e general IS configuratio n posited i n Sectio n 5 (the widel y accepte d abstrac t rul e of focus-raisin g and th e existenc e o f focus-preposin g i n English ) an d counter s them. Finally , Section 8 contains some remark s concernin g th e implication s o f the existenc e of I S fo r th e architectur e of grammar. 2. Information Packaging Information packaging is a pragmatic component of language that has been studied under several traditions of linguistic thought. The general approac h adopte d her e is tha t o f Chaf e (1976 ) an d Princ e (1986) . Informatio n packaging , i n this view , is concerned wit h the structuring of sentences according t o what speakers assum e hearers know and are paying attention to at the time of utterance. In other words, when communicatin g a proposition p, a given speaker ma y encode p i n differen t sentential structures according to his/her beliefs about the hearer's knowledge stat e with respect t o p. Most informational articulations proposed i n the literature agree in dividing the sentence into a part that anchors i t into the hearer's current knowledge stat e an d a n informativ e part tha t makes som e contributio n t o tha t knowl edge state . Vallduvi (1992a) , pursuin g this idea, argue s tha t the role of information packaging i s t o optimiz e entr y of prepositiona l conten t int o ( a salien t subset ) o f th e hearer's knowledge-store . Eac h sentenc e encode s no t onl y a logico-semanti c proposition but also a n information packaging instruction. Each instruction-type is designe d accordin g t o the speaker' s assumption s t o indicat e wha t part o f th e sentence constitute s information an d wher e and ho w tha t information fit s i n th e hearer's knowledge-store . The informatio n o f a give n sentence S (I s) i s defined as the prepositional content o: S (p s) minu s th e knowledge (the speaker assumes )

124

Discourse Configurational Languages

the heare r alread y has an d is attendin g t o (K h), i.e . I s = p s - K h. Two sentence s encoding the same proposition carry different amounts of information if the valu e of K h changes. 1 In order t o see how this instruction-base d informationa l syste m works , some thing mus t b e sai d abou t th e structur e o f th e knowledge-store . Le t u s assum e a file-card vie w o f the knowledge-store, aki n t o the one in File Change Semantic s (cf. Hei m (1983)) . Th e knowledge-stor e i s a collectio n o f entity-denotin g fil e cards. O n each fil e card ther e ar e entries recordin g description s pertainin g t o the relevant entity . File-card management , i.e. th e creation o f new file cards an d th e activation o f alread y existing but dorman t file cards, is the responsibility o f ref erential-status marking (very roughly, indefinites = creation o f new cards, definite s = activatio n of existin g ones; se e Hei m (1983 ) an d Princ e (1992 ) fo r details). 2 The content o f file cards is updated during communication. Informatio n pack aging i s responsible fo r making this updating process more efficien t through the use o f differen t instruction-type s in differen t communicativ e contexts . Thi s in struction-based approac h i s ultimately based o n the traditional topic-comment an d ground-focus articulations , whic h are , however , merge d int o on e singl e system . The system builds on three information-packagin g primitives . One, focus, repre sents the information of the sentence (I s), i.e. what the hearer i s instructed to ente r into his/he r knowledge-store . Th e other two , link an d tail, togethe r mak e u p the ground. Th e role o f the ground is to indicate where and how to enter I s. The link points t o a specifi c fil e car d i n th e hearer' s knowledge-stor e fo r th e entr y o f I s. The tai l further specifie s how I s fits o n a given file card . The presence o f a ground is no t alway s necessary. The groun d performs a n "ushering " rol e fo r I s: it guarantees I s find s it s correc t (fro m th e speaker' s perspective ) plac e i n th e hearer' s knowledge-store. If (th e speake r assumes ) n o usher is needed, a sentence ha s n o ground. These informational primitive s hav e a constant interpretatio n an d combine t o yield th e interpretation associate d wit h each o f the four possible distinc t instruction-types, whic h direct hearers t o enter the information of the sentence int o their knowledge-store i n a specific way . Focus i s interpreted a s being i n th e scop e of an ENTE R operator . A n utteranc e i s minimall y interpreted a s havin g th e infor mational structure ENTER(INFORMATION). This bare informational instruction, an all-focu s instruction, is enriched if any ground material i s present. Th e lin k is reminiscent of Reinhart's (1982 ) topi c and Valimaa-Blum's (1988 ) S-topic . I f an expression denotin g a fil e car d fc i s structurall y realize d a s a link , i t i s informationally interprete d as GOTO(/c), i.e., i t directs th e hearer t o a particular file car d wher e th e oncomin g informatio n mus t b e recorded . So , i f a sentenc e encodes a link-focu s instruction , th e interpretatio n obtaine d fro m i t i s GOTO(/c)(ENTER(INFORMATION)). Sinc e a lin k i s interprete d a s a GOT O operator, i t wil l onl y appea r i f th e heare r i s instructe d t o chang e th e locu s o f information entry . If the information of a given sentenc e S n is to be recorded ont o the sam e file card wher e th e information of S n _j wa s recorded, n o link is needed. The tai l furthe r specifie s the natur e of informatio n entry o n a particula r fil e card b y indicatin g tha t the informatio n i s no t simpl y added bu t mus t substitute

Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan 12

5

for som e elemen t i n a recor d alread y presen t o n tha t file card . A tailful instruc tion direct s th e hearer t o a particular record o n a file car d an d indicates tha t the focus complete s o r alter s thai ; recor d i n som e way . T o reflect this , th e ENTE R operator i s assume d t o hav e tw o types . One , th e ENTER-AD D type , act s a s a default an d i s th e interpretatio n obtaine d i f n o tai l i s present . Th e other , th e ENTER-SUBSTITUTE type , i s triggered b y the presence of a tail. Thus , a link focus instruction i s actually interpreted a s GOTO(/c)(ENTER-ADD (INFORMA TION)), wherea s a link-focus-tai l instructio n i s GOTO(/c)(ENTER SUBSTITUTE(INFORMATION)). These abstrac t instruction s ca n b e examplifie d wit h th e Englis h sentence s (1-3): a link-focus sentence i n (la) , a link-focus-tail sentence in (2a ) an d a n allfocus sentenc e in (3a) ([ L ] delimits th e link, [ F ] delimits th e focus, and capital s signal th e lexica l ite m wit h the foca l pitc h accent) . Sentence s (1-3 ) encod e th e instructions i n (b) , which ma y b e rea d a s in (c) : (1) a . [ L The boss ][ F hates BROCCOLI] . b. GOTO(boss(x))(ENTER-ADD( x hate s broccoli)) c. G o to fc 'th e boss ' i n your knowledge-store an d the n ente r Is by addin g on/c that h e hate s broccoli . (2) a . [ L The boss][ F HATE S ] broccoli . b. GOTO(boss(x))(ENTER-SUBSTITUTE(hates)({ V I x V broccoli})) c. G o to/c 'th e boss' i n you r knowledge-store an d then ente r I s by substituting'hates ' fo r V i n th e record'th e bos s V broccoli' on fc . (3) a . [ F The BOS S called] . b. ENTER-ADD(th e bos s called ) c. Ente r I s by adding to your knowledge-store tha t the boss calle d (on a defaul t situation/c) . All-focus structure s like (3 ) do not designat e a particular file car d o n which th e information mus t be recorded, bu t rather point to a temporary situatio n fil e card . A secon d sor t o f all-focu s instructio n corresponds t o a n ENTER-AD D entr y o f information o n a fil e car d specifie d i n a previou s sentence , renderin g a GOT O operator (i.e . a link ) unnecessary . Th e fourt h possibl e instruction-type , th e fo cus-tail, i s a n ENTER-SUBSTITUT E o n a previousl y specifie d fil e card . Thi s repertoire o f instruction-type s encompasses systematicall y al l th e informational constructions previousl y describe d i n th e literature : fro m theti c an d categorica l judgments t o topic-comment structures , an d fro m new s sentence s o r neutra l de scriptions t o open-proposition s o r narrow-focu s sentences . Th e syste m capture s a rang e o f additiona l semantic an d pragmati c phenomen a a s well . For th e purpos e a t hand, l:hi s overvie w of th e informationa l system assume d in this pape r should suffice. Furthe r motivation for particular proposals an d dis cussion o f the fact s ma y be foun d i n Vallduvi (1992a). Th e followin g ar e central

126

Discourse Configurational Languages

points: (a ) the syste m encompasses th e traditiona l informational notion s argue d for b y severa l earlie r approaches ; (b ) al l sentence s encod e a n informationa l in struction; (c ) th e interpretatio n of eac h instruction-typ e results fro m th e rule governed combinatio n o f th e interpretatio n o f th e informationa l primitive s i t contains; (d ) th e focu s i s th e necessar y basi c buildin g bloc k o f al l instruction s and th e ground , both lin k and tail, appear s onl y if needed i n the sens e explaine d above.3 3. The Overt Syntax of Information Packaging in Catalan 3.1. Basic Word Order Contra th e traditiona l view , th e discussio n in thi s sectio n assume s tha t Catalan, like othe r Romanc e languages , is underlyingl y VOS. Th e VO S wor d orde r i s defended an d independentl y argued fo r i n Rossell o (1986) , Bone t (1990) , Sol a (1992), an d Vallduvi (1993) fo r Catalan and by Adams (1987), Fernandez-Sorian o (1989), an d Contrera s (1991) , inte r alia , for othe r Romanc e languages . Thus, in a sentenc e lik e (4 ) the verba l argument s appear i n thei r underlyin g word order : (4) .. . qua n va n tira r l a bomb a atomic a el s americans . when droppe d th e bom b atomi c th e American s '...when th e Americans droppe d th e A-bomb.' With thi s assumption , the basic linea r orde r in th e Catala n sentenc e i s verb-ob ject-oblique-subject-adjuncts. Thi s linea r order is strict and no permutations within the cor e claus e ar e allowe d (althoug h there i s som e variatio n i n the relativ e or der o f subject s an d som e obliqu e argument s an d heav y NP-shif t exist s a s a n option). I n (5) , fo r example , th e strin g order o f objec t an d locativ e i s fixed : (5) a . Ficare m e l ganive t a l calaix . we wil l pu t th e knif e i n th e drawe r 'We'll pu t th e knife in th e drawer. ' b. *Ficare m a l calai x e l ganivet. Catalan is a null-subject language, so subjects need no t appear overtly . I n fact, null subject s ar e the unmarked pronominal form. In contrast, i f a verbal complement does not appear within the core clause, an appropriate pronominal clitic must be attached to the verb. As a rule, such a clitic must be absent if the verbal comple ment doe s appea r withi n the cor e claus e (well-know n exception s t o thi s gener alization ar e th e optiona l doublin g wit h indirec t object s an d in-sit u stron g pronouns). These fact s ar e illustrate d in (6) . I n (6a) , wit h a complement i n situ , the presenc e o f th e cliti c i s illicit , whil e i n (6b) , wit h a missin g complement , i t is required : (6) a . ( * Hij) vis e a Barcelona] . locative I liv e i n Barcelon a 'I liv e in Barcelona.'

Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan 12

7

b. HyC" ) visce, . locative I liv e 'I liv e there.'

3.2. Detachments One of the mos t well-know n universal structural correlates o f information packaging i s the associatio n o f focu s an d intonationa l prominence. The mos t promi nent poin t o f th e pitc h contou r mus t fal l o n ( a subse t of ) th e focu s o f th e sentence.4 In languages like English, this association is attained by shifting prominence t o differen t position s i n th e claus e whil e th e syntacti c structur e remain s constant. In (7b), for instance, broccoli remain s outsid e the scop e o f prominence and i s therefore interprete d as nonfocal: (7) a . Th e bos s hate s BROCCOLI . b. Th e boss HATE S broccoli . c. Th e BOSS hate s broccoli . Not al l languages , however, use thi s typ e o f prosodi c shif t t o achiev e th e asso ciation o f prominenc e an d informationa l focus. Contrar y t o English , i n Catala n intonational prominenc e i s n;cessaril y associate d wit h th e righthan d boundar y of the cor e clause (cf. Vallduvi (1991)). Any shif t o f prominence to the left yield s an ungrammatical string:5 (8) a . Ficare m e l ganive t a l CALAIX . we will pu t th e knif e i n th e drawe r 'We'll pu t th e knif e i n th e drawer. ' b. *Ficare m e l GANIVE T a l calaix. c. *FICARE M e l ganive t al calaix . To carr y ou t th e informationa l effects tha t Englis h achieve s b y mean s o f prosodic shift , Catala n mus t resort t o a differen t strategy. Th e nonfoca l phrase s that woul d remai n withi n the scop e o f prominenc e i f the y wer e lef t i n sit u un dergo detachment. Left-detachment is a left-adjunction t o IP, while right-detachment i s a right-adjunction t o IP. The locativ e in (8) , al calaix 'i n th e drawer, ' i s interpreted a s foca l unles s i t i s right - o r left-detached , a s i n (9 ) (right-detache d phrases ar e se t off fro m th e cor e claus e by a comma) : (9) a . Hi ! ficare me l GANIVE T t/ a l calaiXj . locative w e wil l pu t th e knif e i n th e drawer 'We'll pu t th e KNIF E i n the drawer. ' b. A l calaixj hi t ficare m el GANIVET tr 'In th e drawe r we'll pu t the knife. ' Detachment leave s a n empt y categor y behind an d trigger s th e appearanc e o f a coindexed clitic attached to the verbal head. In (9) it is the locative clitic hi. The

128

Discourse Configurational Languages

adjunction-to-IP analysi s is proposed for topicalization in English by Baltin (1982 ) and i s extende d t o Romanc e "cliti c left-dislocation, " especificall y Italian , b y Rochemont (1989) . Th e structur e adopted for sentence s lik e (9a ) an d (9b ) i s a s in (10): 6 (10) a. left : [ Ip XPt [ IP ... cl , ... t{ ... ] ] b. right : [ Ip [ IP ... cl, .. . tj .. . ] XPj ] There are three main pieces o f evidence for arguin g that detached phrase s ar e external t o the cor e clause . First , th e mandator y presence o f th e cliti c hi bound by th e detache d phrase s i n th e sentence s i n (9) . A s noticed , clitic s i n Catala n appear onl y if the complemen t slo t the y ar e coindexe d wit h is empt y a t the sur face. Second , the fac t tha t there ma y b e severa l detache d phrase s an d tha t thei r relative linea r order is fre e contrast s with the invariabilit y of linea r order o f th e complements i n situ . Thi s support s th e vie w tha t detachmen t i s a n adjunctio n operation an d that the adjunction sit e is external to the core IP. Detachment may map a canonical sentence like (8a ) into an y o f th e sentence s i n (11) : (11) a . E l ganivet j a l calaix M t j t 2. 2 1 , 'hi 2 FICARE the knif e i n the drawe r object-locativ e w e wil l pu t 'We wil l pu t th e knif e i n th e drawer. ' b. A l calaix 2 e l ganivet j Ij'hi 2 FICARE M t j t 2. c. E l ganivet j Ij'hi 2 FICARE M t j t 2, a l calaix 2. d. A l calaix 2 I'/hij FICAREM t t t 2, el ganivetj . e. L','hi 2 FICAREM t j t 2, e l ganivetj , a l calaix 2. f. L'j'hi 2 FICARE M t , t 2, a l calaix 2, e l ganivetj . The thir d piec e o f evidenc e i s th e lici t placemen t o f clause-periphera l particles like xec 'man ' an d the tag oi 'right? ' between the clause and the detached phrases, as i n (12a) , a left-detachment , an d (12b ) an d (13a) , tw o right-detachments . It shows tha t there i s indee d a clausa l boundar y there. Example s (12c ) an d (13b ) show tha t these particle s canno t occur clause-internally : (12) a . E l ganivet j xec , el j ficare m tj a l CALAIX . the knif e ma n objec t w e wil l put i n th e drawe r 'The knife we wil l put i n th e drawer , man.' b. El j ficare m t j a l CALAIX , xec , e l ganivetj . c. Ficare m (*xec ) e l ganive t (*xec) a l CALAIX , xec . (13) a . El j ficare m t ] a l CALAIX ,o ie l ganivetj object w e wil l put i n th e drawe r righ t th e knif e 'We wil l put th e knif e i n th e drawer , right?' b. Ficare m e l ganive t (*oi) a l CALAIX , oi ?

?

Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan 12

9

3.3. The Structural Realization of Focus and Ground As noted , a phras e tha t remain s unde r prominenc e i s interprete d a s focal . Ex ample (14b) , wit h a locativ e associate d wit h prominenc e i n situ , i s a felicitou s answer to question (14a), whic h requires a focal locativ e i n the answer. But (14c ) and (14d) , wher e th e locativ e i s right- an d left-detached , respectively , ar e infe licitous answer s t o thi s sam e questio n (th e symbo l "# " indicates infelicity) : (14) a . O n 6s, el ganivet' ' 'Where's the knife? ' b. El j vaigficare j a l CALAIX . object I put i n the drawe r 'I put it i n the drawer. ' c. #Lj'hi 2 vai g FICAR C j t 2, a l calaix 2. d. #A 1 calaix 2 Ij'hi j vai g FICA R e t t 2. Sentences (14c-d) are infelicitous because the locative in them, by virtue of being detached, i s interpreted as par; of the ground . Thus , the y canno t answe r a question tha t requires a focal locative i n the answer. Right- an d left-detached phrase s encode th e informationa l groun d o f th e sentence . Th e directionalit y o f th e de tachment depends on the informational status of the elements withi n the ground . If th e phrase i s to be interprete d a s a link, it is detached t o the left . I f it is a tail, it i s detache d t o th e right . Th s differenc e betwee n th e tw o become s eviden t i n contrastive contexts , since , ou t o f the tw o groun d element s onl y link s ar e com patible wit h a contrastive use : (15) a . O n son , el s coberts ? 'Where's th e flatware? ' Les forquille s son a I'armari, per6... 'The fork s ar e in the cupboard , but...' b. ...el s ganivetS j els j vai g fica r t j a l CALAIX . the knive s objec t I put i n the drawe r '...the knives I put in the drawer. ' c. #...els j vai g fica r t j a l CALAIX, el s ganivetSj . In the contrastive context set up by (15a) a sentence wit h a left-detachment, (15b) , is required. Use of the right-detached analo g (15c ) result s i n infelicity (realizin g links in a lefthand position is common in discourse-configurational languages (E. Kiss, thi s volume)) . It is not just the lexica l item tha t falls directl y under intonational prominenc e which is interpreted as focus, bu t every majo r constituent that remains withi n IP. Thus, a sentence lik e (8a ) above , repeate d her e as (16) , i s entirel y focal , i.e. , i t is a VP-focus sentenc e tha t may occu r a s an answe r to th e questio n What house chore will you guys take care of? (unlabele d brackets ( [ ] ) will be used from no w on t o delimi t th e focus) :

130

Discourse Configurational Languages

(16) [Ficare m e l ganive t a l CALAI X ]. we wil l pu t th e knif e i n the drawe r 'We'll put th e knife i n the drawer. ' The object in (16) wil l receive a focal interpretation unless i t is realized a s ground by mean s o f detachment , a s i n (15b-c) . I n othe r words , (16 ) i s no t a felicitou s answer t o a question tha t require s a verb+locative focus , lik e What will you do with the knife?, o r to a question tha t requires a narrow focus o n the locative, lik e Where will you put the knife? No t unles s th e objec t i s removed fro m within IP. 7 The structura l realization o f th e informationa l status o f subject s follow s th e exact sam e pattern. Witness, for example, (17b) , where the subjec t i s in situ and, therefore, focal . (17b ) i s a felicitou s repl y t o (17a) . I n contrast , (17c ) i s no t a felicitous answe r t o (17a) , becaus e th e subjec t appear s i n a right-detachmen t position an d is , therefore , inappropriately interpreted a s a tail : (17) a . Qu e hi h a ca p missatge , pe r a mi ? 'Are ther e an y message s fo r me?' b. Si . [Ha truca t 1 ' AMO ]. yes ha s calle d th e boss 'Yes. The boss called. ' c. Si . # [ Ha TRUCA T t j ] , I'aniOj . Summarizing, th e structura l realization o f informatio n packaging i n Catala n presents th e followin g configuration: (18) [ IP link [, p [ Ip focus ] tail] ] In thi s configuration , th e focu s i s al l and onl y th e overt material in the core I P slot. Focus an d prominence ar e associated becaus e th e latter necessaril y fall s on core-clause-final position . A feature-assignmen t vie w o f th e synta x o f focu s (Horvath (thi s volume) ) would say that in Catalan [+FOCUS ] i s an intrinsic fea ture o f th e cor e IP . However, contrastin g with other language s of thi s type , thi s intrinsic association of [+FOCUS] an d IP does not attract foci towards [+FOCUS]. Rather, it repels nonfoca l phrases: whenever there are ground phrases, the y must all right - o r left-detac h to th e periphery . Le t u s rephras e thes e observation s i n terms o f th e instruction-base d system introduce d in Sectio n 2 . First , element s dominated b y th e lowes t IP (excep t wea k pronominals ) ar e interprete d a s bein g within the scope o f the ENTER operato r (the y are I s). Second, a n XP denotin g a filecard/c, i f left-adjoine d to IP , is interprete d a s GOTO(/c) , i.e. , i t receive s a link interpretation . And third , wheneve r on e o r mor e phrase s ar e right-adjoine d to IP , the natur e o f ENTE R i s altered : i t n o longe r i s th e defaul t ENTER-AD D but th e tail-triggered ENTER-SUBSTITUTE . The discussio n in this section illustrates the fact tha t in Catalan a fairly straight forward mappin g ma y b e establishe d between surfac e syntacti c structur e and informational interpretation.

Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan 13

1

3.4. Focus-preposing There i s on e construction , however , tha t appear s t o violat e th e generalization s established i n Section 3.3 : focus-preposin g or rhematization. In this construction, illustrated i n (19) , prominenc e appear s t o be clause-initia l instea d o f clause final. Also , instea d o f th e ground , i t i s th e focu s tha t appear s t o underg o detachment: (19) A l FUSTE R l a mar e v a donar le s claus . to the carpente r th e mothe r gav e th e key s 'Mother gave th e keys [ to the CARPENTER ]. ' In fact, focus-preposin g i s traditionally analyze d a s involving a fronting o f th e focus phrase vi a wh-movement to CP (cf. Bonet an d Sola (1986 ) for Catalan and Ortiz d e Urbina (this volume) fo r Spanish). The main argument for the wh-move ment analysi s i s th e fac t tha t focus-prepose d phrases , lik e wh-phrase s i n wh questions an d unlike left-detached phrases, cannot bind a clitic i n th e clause . Focus-preposing and right-detachment ar e in complementary distribution qua information-packaging constructions . They bot h encod e th e sam e focus-groun d instruction, but right-detachment is used when the focus is Vn and focus-preposin g when V" is part of the ground. The two constructions are prosodically homophonous, wit h prominenc e o n th e focus , a s expected , an d a n ensuin g low-pitched flatter contou r over th e nonfoca l material. Ye t they ar e see n a s radically differ ent i n stric t syntacti c terms : i n right-detachmen t th e nonfoca l materia l move s rightwards an d in focus-preposing th e focal material move s leftwards . This dis tribution appears natural if it is assumed that there is a fixed undetachable [+TNS ] verbal core: th e [+TNS] element , be it focus or ground, must stay put within the core IP . But i f this assumptio n is abandone d an d the [+TNS ] elemen t i s indee d detachable, a differen t alternativ e materializes. 8 Sentence s lik e (19 ) nee d no t involve a n actual proposing of the focus; the y coul d ver y wel l reflect th e rightdetachment o f al l nonfoca l elements. Thi s secon d alternativ e is defende d i n Vallduvi (1992b) . Th e argumen t is base d on tw o points : (a ) focus-preposing i n Catalan does not show the behavior typical of wh-movement, and (b) the postfocal phrases i n focus-preposin g d o not behave lik e in-sit u phrase s bu t lik e right-de tached phrase s instead . With respec t t o (a) , th e contrast between wh-movemen t an d focus-preposin g in Catala n i s clear . Wh-question s requir e adjacenc y o f the fronte d wh-elemen t and th e verba l string . A sequence wh-word-subject-ver b i s ou t i n th e wh-ques tion i n (20a) , I n contrast , focus-subject-ver b sequence s i n focus-preposin g ar e grammatical (20b) . I n addition , focus-preposing does no t obe y th e islan d con straints eithe r (21) : (20) a . *Qu e e l Jord i s ' h a comprat ? what th e Jord i sel f ha s bough t 'What di d Jord i bu y himself? '

132

Discourse Configurational Languages

b. U n ROLE X e l Jord i s ' h a comprat . a Role x th e Jord i sel f ha s bough t 'A ROLE X Jord i bought himself. ' (21) E l MERCEDE S e l Jord i n o sa p qu i s ' h a comprat . the Mercede s th e Jord i n o know s wh o sel f ha s bough t 'The MERCEDE S Jord i doesn' t kno w wh o bought.' Spanish an d Catala n contrast wit h respec t t o thes e phenomena . Th e Spanis h equivalents o f sentences lik e (20b ) an d (21 ) ar e judged t o be ungrammatica l by many authors . Perhaps in Spanish focus-preposing is indeed wh-movement-like , Ortiz d e Urbina (this volume) argues that thi s is s o not onl y in Spanis h but als o in Basque , an d Uriagerek a (thi s volume) suggest s that foc i appea r i n a lefthand focus slo t i n Wester n Iberia n Romanc e a s wel l (not e tha t Hungarian-typ e languages als o require the adjacency of focus and the verbal string). Italian , in con trast, behaves like Catalan, since focus-subject-verb sequences ar e grammatical, while wh-word-subject-ver b sequence s ar e no t ((22a ) i s fro m Antinucc i an d Cinque (1977 , ex . 17)) : (22) a . Un ' AUTOMOBILE Giorgi o h a comprato . a ca r Giorgi o ha s bough t 'A CA R Giorgi o bought. ' b. *Ch e cos a Giorgi o h a comprato . what thin g Giorgi o ha s bough t 'What di d Giorgio buy? ' As fo r poin t (b) , onc e i t i s observe d tha t th e postfoca l phrase s i n a focus preposing ca n be freely ordered i t becomes apparen t tha t they canno t be phrase s in situ , since , a s note d above , phrase s i n sit u displa y stric t word-orde r require ments. Contras t th e fre e relativ e orde r o f th e postfoca l phrase s i n th e focus preposings i n (24 ) wit h the stric t linea r order i n th e canonica l (23) . (23) a . Portare m e l ne n a Disneyworl d aques t estiu . we will take th e bo y t o Disneyworl d thi s summe r 'We'll tak e th e kid t o Disneyworl d this summer. ' b. *Portare m a Disneyworld e l ne n aques t estiu . c. *E 1 nen portare m a Disneyworld aques t estiu . (24) a . A DISNEYWORL D portare m e l ne n aques t estiu . b. A DISNEYWORLD e l nen portare m aques t estiu . In fact, th e freedom in string order among the postfocal phrases i n focus-preposing is reminiscent of the same freedom that postfocal phrases displa y in right-detachments. This analysi s accounts for th e freedo m o f strin g orde r amon g th e postfoca l phrases: this freedom is typical of sequences of right-detached phrases. Also, that

Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan 13

3

"focus-preposing" doe s no t behav e like wh-movemen t cease s t o b e surprising : subjects ma y appear between the focus phrase an d the verb, a s in (20b), becaus e subject an d verb are individually right-detached phrase s tha t appear in free string order. Finally , w e als o captur e th e fac t tha t focus-prepose d phrases , unlik e left detached phrases , d o no t bin d a cliti c i n th e clause . Sinc e clitic s appea r whe n the argumen t positio n the y are ; coindexed wit h is empt y a t th e surface , ther e i s no reaso n fo r the m t o appea r i n "focus-preposing " becaus e th e so-calle d focus preposed phras e i s actuall y in situ . The cliti c i s simpl y no t licensed . I f Catala n "focus-preposing" i s indeed a nonfocal right-detachment configuration in disguise, the only prima facie exceptio n to the picture presented i n Section 3. 3 disappear s and th e surfac e configuration in (18) i s confirmed. 9

4. Structural Realization of Information Packaging in English Section 3 showed that th e mappin g between surfac e syntacti c configuratio n an d informational interpretatio n i n Catalan is quite straightforward . As noted i n Sec tion 1 , the situatio n i n English i s quite different: the over t positio n o f th e majo r constituents does not reflect th e informational structur e o f the sentence but other structural requirement s instead . The over t structura l realizatio n o f information packaging i s lef t mostl y to prosody . Consider th e followin g se t o f sentences : The (b ) sentence s ar e th e Englis h informational equivalent s of the Catalan (a) sentences. Th e sentences i n (25) and (27) ar e link-focu s structures, those i n (26 ) ar e link-focus-tail , an d i n (28 ) the y are all-focus: (25) a . Uamo j [ odia e l BROQUIL tj ] . b. Th e boss [ hates BROCCOL I ] . (26) a . L'amo , [ 12'ODIA t2 t, ] , el broqui! 2. b. Th e boss [ HATES ] broccoli . (27) a . L'amo ! [ ha TRUCA T t j ] . b. The bos s [ CALLED ]. (28) a . [ Ha truca t 1'AMO ] . b. [ The BOS S calle d ] . In (25) the object, el broquil o r broccoli, i s part of the focus and in (26) i t is part of th e ground . This distinctio n i s syntacticall y reflecte d i n Catala n throug h th e different positio n o f th e objec t i n (25a ) an d (26a) . Englis h (25b ) an d (26b ) ar e syntactically identical , th e onl y differenc e between the m bein g prosodic . Simi larly, i n (27 ) an d (28) : th e subject , I'amo o r the boss, is a link i n (27 ) bu t foca l in (28) . It s over t syntacti c positio n varie s accordingl y i n Catalan , bu t remain s constant i n Englis h (prosody encodes the distinction). The importanc e of prosod y i n th e structura l realization o f informatio n packaging i n Englis h has lon g been observe d an d studied . Steedman (1991), fo r in -

134

Discourse Configurational Languages

stance, is a thorough description of the facts tha t takes as a basis Pierrehumbert' s phonology o f intonation (cf. Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg (1991)) and Halliday' s (1985) binomial theme-rheme informational articulation. According to Steedman, the rheme is associated wit h a H* LL% phrasal tune and the theme i s associate d with a L+H * LH % phrasa l tune . The pitc h accen t i n th e forme r tune , H* , i s a level hig h tone, whil e the latter contains a pitch accent , L+H* , that consists o f a high ton e preceded b y a distinctive low level. Thi s i s illustrated i n (29) (adapte d from Steedma n (1991 , exs . 33-34)) : (29) a . Fre d at e [ the BEAN S ] . L+H* LH% H * LL % b. [ FRED ] ate the beans . H*L L+H*LH % The them e i n Steedman' s descriptio n is equivalen t t o th e focu s i n th e informa tion-packaging terminolog y use d here . Th e them e i s equivalen t t o th e ground , but th e pitch accen t L+H * seem s t o fal l o n the elemen t that , withi n the ground , functions a s a link . English ca n us e syntacti c operation s to o t o represent informatio n packaging . Topicalization, fo r instance , ha s lon g bee n argue d t o b e a syntacti c marke r o f topichood or , in our terms, of linkhood. A sentence like (30a) is a link-focus structure wher e th e left-detache d phrase is interprete d a s a link: (30) a . Broccol i j [ he HATE S t: ] . L+H* LH % H * LL% b. H e [ HATES ] broccoli . H* L L+H * LH % The left-detachment , however , i s not th e onl y structura l realization o f linkhood . Even if a link phrase i s left-detached, it must still display th e tune that is associ ated wit h link s i n English . Thi s render s th e syntacti c operatio n redundant , a s confirmed b y the fact that (30b) , wit h no overt left-detachment but stil l showing the L+H * pitc h accen t o n th e link, is informationall y equivalent t o (30a) . Wha t matters at the surface, then , is prosody. For instance, if the link-associated L+H* pitch accen t wer e absen t in (30b) , broccoli woul d be interprete d a s a tail . Thi s radically contrast s with Catalan, where there i s n o specifi c phrasa l tun e associ ated wit h lin k interpretatio n an d left-detachmen t i s th e onl y mean s t o realiz e linkhood. In sum , in English, the scope o f the ENTER operato r i s not determined b y th e domain o f a phrasal category , lik e in Catalan (th e core IP slot), but b y the scop e of a given pitch accent instead . Similarly, in Catalan lin k interpretation i s assigne d only t o left-detache d XPs, bu t i n English , an y XP s structurall y marked b y th e pitch accen t L+H * i s interprete d by a link , independently of their structura l position (se e Steedma n (1991) fo r furthe r examples) .

Structur roperties of Information Packaging in Catalan 135

1235

5. Abstract Syntactic Representation of Information Packaging Examples (25-28 ) sho w tha t th e sam e informationa l instruction i s structurall y realized i n differen t ways i n Catala n an d English . Th e contras t betwee n thes e languages may sugges t that differen t informationa l interpretive rule s ar e neede d for eac h languag e type: th e surface objects thes e interpretive rule s have to bleed in eac h languag e t o yield on e an d the sam e informationa l instructio n ar e different. Thus , informationa l interpretiv e rule s en d u p being language-specific . An d given tha t ther e ar e man y othe r way s t o realiz e informatio n packagin g a t th e surface (a s shown in the papers i n this volume), many other kinds of interpretiv e rules will need to be posited. Consider , for example, language s like Vute that mark focus morphologicall y (Thwin g and Walters (1987)) , Hungarian-type languages with a syntacti c markin g o f focu s tha t differ s fro m th e Catala n typ e (E . Kis s (1981), Farkas (1986) , Ortiz de Urbina (this volume), Uriagereka (thi s volume)) , or mixed-typ e language s like Germa n (cf. Jacobs (1986)) . This resul t i s strikingl y a t odd s wit h th e standar d vie w o f logico-semanti c interpretation. The syntacti c level of logico-semantic representation , LF , is gen erally viewe d a s cross-linguisticall y uniform . Over t structura l contrast s i n th e encoding of logico-semantic elements, lik e presence versu s absenc e o f overt whmovement i n wh-questio n formation , ar e analyze d a s being locate d i n th e map ping between S-structur e an d LF. In fact , the job o f LF is, under mos t analyses , to ac t a s a n interfac e level tha t feed s universa l an d disambiguate d representa tions to the semantic component, where logico-semantic interpretatio n take s place. The syntacti c mode l allow s u s t o abstrac t awa y fro m over t cross-linguisti c variation i n the realization of logico-semanti c meaning. Wh y ca n w e not d o th e same wit h th e over t cross-linguisti c variation observed i n th e cas e o f informa tion packaging ? This pape r argue s w e can . Logica l semantic s an d informatio n packaging ar e distinct interpretive components: followin g a Gricean divisio n o f labor, th e former lies within the realm o f truth-conditional meaning an d the lat ter withi n the realm o f pragmatics. However , ther e i s n o reason t o suppos e tha t their respective interfaces with syntax are of different natures. If a cross-linguis tically unifor m abstract leve l o f informationa l representation, IS , i s posite d a s an interfac e between over t synta x an d th e informationa l component , th e inter pretive rules tha t bleed I S are th e same fo r all languages an d the contrasts thes e languages displa y i n the over t realizatio n o f informatio n packaging ar e no w lo cated exclusivel y in the mappin g between S-structur e and IS, i.e . i n th e syntax . Informational relation s ar e recoverabl e a t S-structure , a s thet a an d quantificational relations are, to permit a fully interpretabl e interface with PF and the audible (or utterable) surface form of sentences. But, from the perspective o f a multilevel framework like Principles and Parameters Theory, S-structure clearl y cannot be the level that directly feeds informational interpretation (jus t as it can not b e th e leve l tha t feed s logico-semanti c interpretation) . I n th e interpretatio n of informational instructions, S-structure objects ar e mapped ont o "pure " IS rep resentations an d thes e representations are, in turn , translated into an abstrac t instruction i n th e information-packaging component . And, vice versa, instructions

136

Discourse Configurational Languages

generated i n th e information-packaging componen t ar e mapped ont o th e synta x at IS, which , i n turn , map s ont o S-structure . The distinc t linguisti c relation s purel y represente d i n th e differen t abstrac t levels o f representatio n ar e conveye d a t S-structur e i n differen t way s i n differ ent languages . A s show n i n Sectio n 2 , i n Catala n i t i s informationa l relation s that ar e overwhelmingl y reflecte d throug h th e S-structur e positio n o f majo r constituents, while theta structure is conveyed by a combination o f indexed clitic s and nul l categories. Note , fo r example, ho w in (31) th e theta-positions governe d by the theta-assigning predicate ar e empty and how the arguments tha t bind thes e empty position s ar e locate d i n adjunctio n slot s accordin g t o thei r informa tional role : (31) [

El petit ! En , [ IP [ 1P (ja) Vhi a PORTA T I, t 2 t 3], 2h the smal l on e (already ) object-obliqu e ha s take n ma mare 3 ] a l metge 2 ] ]. my mothe r t o the docto r 'The younges t sh e (already ) TOOK t o the doctor , m y mother. ' IP

Given tha t Catala n S-structur e closely reflect s information-packagin g relations , we wil l rel y heavil y o n i t i n tryin g to determin e th e configuratio n o f IS . Th e motivation i s legitimate. Catala n faithfully realize s informatio n packaging a t the surface b y syntacti c means. I t is natura l t o assum e tha t th e configuratio n o f IS , precisely a level mean t to be a pure syntactic representation o f information pack aging, closel y resemble s th e surfac e syntacti c configuratio n o f Catalan . In fact , thi s is what has been argue d for wit h respect t o th e abstrac t represen tation of wh-quantification in languages without overt wh-movement. The infor mation-packaging situatio n i s analogou s t o th e cas e o f wh-quantificatio n i n English-type languages in the following sense: I n a sentence lik e (32) the S-struc ture positio n of the wh-elemen t reflect s logico-semanti c consideration s (th e op erator-variable structure ) an d no t thet a considerations , whic h ar e recoverabl e through th e presenc e o f the trac e boun d by th e wh-phrase . (32) Who , di d Mary se e t,? The L F representation o f sentence (32) , therefore , give n additiona l independent motivation, i s take n t o b e identica l t o it s S-structur e representation . Sinc e wh quantification i s appropriately realize d a t S-structure already, the mapping func tion betwee n (32 ) an d its L F representatio n i s take n t o appl y vacuously . In analogou s fashion, it ma y b e propose d tha t th e mappin g function betwee n S-structure and IS in Catalan applies (almost ) vacuously as well. Give n a Catalan S-structure lik e (31) , al l that has t o be don e t o obtain a "pure" representation o f information packagin g is delet e the pronomina l clitics, whic h perform n o infor mational task . Fro m (31 ) th e I S representatio n in (33 ) i s derived :

Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan 13

(33) [j

7

e l petit ! [ ff [ IP [ rp ha PORTA T ^ t 2 t 3 ] m a mare 3 ] a l the youn g on e ha s take n m y mothe r t o th e rnetge2 ] ] doctor P

Informational interpretatio n proceed s a s describe d above : th e cor e I P nod e i s associated wit h the foca l ENTE R operato r (modifie d b y the presenc e o f a tail or tails) and left-detached phrases denoting a file card/c are interpreted a s GOTO(/c). The I S representatio n i n (33 ) i s thu s interprete d a s GOTO(young-one(x) ) (EN TER-SUBSTITUTE(took)({V I my mothe r V x t o th e doctor})) . Th e informa tional interpretiv e proces s translate s syntacti c representatio n int o th e corresponding informationa l instruction, althoug h the syntacti c level it bleeds i s not S-structur e bu t th e interfacin g IS instead .

6. Extending IS to English The questio n arise s nex t o f ho w th e I S configuratio n i n (34) , propose d i n Sec tion 5 , (34) [ IP link [ IP [IP focus ] tail ] ] is applicable to other languages . Obviously , in languages that sho w Catalan-lik e structural realization s o f informatio n packagin g thi s extensio n wil l b e unproblematic. Fo r othe r languages , however, th e mapping functio n betwee n S structure an d I S wil l no t b e vacuous , sinc e i t wil l nee d t o tak e S-structure s o f different sort s and turn them int o IS representations satisfying th e configurational requirements o f (34) . Thi s mappin g i s carrie d ou t b y th e move-alph a operatio n that als o map s S-structur e int o L F an d D-structure . Thi s sectio n show s ho w I S can be extende d t o English a s an illustration of the applicabilit y o f configuration (34) t o othe r languages . O f course , th e possibilit y tha t thi s I S configuratio n i s subject t o parameterization, much in the sam e wa y tha t some aspect s o f LF rep resentation ar e (directionalit y o f scop e assignment , fo r instance) , mus t als o b e entertained. In discussin g th e surfac e rsalizatio n o f informatio n packaging i n Englis h i n Section 4 , it was pointed out that ground phrases i n this language ma y remain i n situ. These phrase s receiv e a correct informationa l interpretation thank s t o thei r prosodic characteristics , bu t the y nee d no t underg o th e detachmen t typica l o f nonfocal phrase s overtly . These nonfoca l phrases , however , mus t underg o left and right-detachmen t at IS i f i:h e configuration in (34) i s t o be vali d for English . Positing th e applicatio n o f thi s I S operatio n i s actuall y quit e unproblematic . I n fact, a s noted i n Sectio n 4 , a subset o f the left-detachments i s carried ou t overtl y in th e for m o f topicalization. It ma y b e sai d tha t Catala n is t o Englis h with respec t t o I S nonfoca l move ment what English is to Chinese for LF wh-raising . It is the standar d assumption

138

Discourse Configurational Languages

that Chinese has at LF the wh-movement that English has at S-structure (cf. Huang (1982)). The Englis h vacuou s derivatio n in (35 ) i s parallele d i n Chines e b y th e nonvacuous (36) : (35) a . SS : whO j d o yo u lik e t j b. LF : who j d o yo u lik e t j (36) a . SS : n i xihua n she i you lik e wh o 'Who do you like?' b. LF : shei j [ ni xihua n t j ] Both Chinese an d English posses s the same wh-raising operation. Th e differenc e is tha t in Englis h wh-raisin g i s over t an d i n Chines e i t i s not . I n analog y t o th e Chinese-English example, it is proposed her e tha t the nonfocal detachment s tha t Catalan display s at S-structur e are carrie d ou t a t the leve l o f IS i n English . Th e mapping betwee n S-structur e and I S appear s t o b e fairl y straightforward . Consider a sentenc e lik e (37a) , wher e th e subject , whic h act s a s a link , an d the locative are nonfocal : (37) a . Th e bo y [ kissed EVERYbod y ] at th e party , b. [ the boyj [ tj kisse d everybod y .. . If th e subjec t i s t o b e interprete d a s a link , i t mus t left-adjoi n t o I P a t IS , just like in overt topicalization. Thi s unproblemati c cover t operatio n woul d yiel d th e IS structure in (37b) (cf . Kroch, Santorini and Heycock (1988) , inter alia , for th e view tha t suc h a n operatio n take s plac e alread y a t S-structure) . Similarly , a s a tail, the nonfoca l locative in (37a ) mus t be right-detache d a t IS. Again, thi s op eration i s als o unproblematic . Thus , th e I S representatio n o f (37a ) i s (38), th e result o f tw o adjunction-to-I P operations : (38) [

IP

the boy j [ IP [ IP tj kisse d everybod y l^ ] at party 2 ]

Take (39a) , a sentence wit h a less straightforwar d derivation . Her e the focu s is restricte d t o the locativ e phrase . I n suc h example s th e V constituen t ma y be interpreted a s the tai l an d a s suc h i t mus t underg o right-detachment. Th e corre sponding I S structur e i s (39b) : (39) a . Th e boy kisse d everybod y [ at the PART Y ]. b. [ IP the boyj [ IP [ IP tj t 2 at the PARTY ] [ v, kissed everybod y ]2 ] ] As note d i n Sectio n 3 , operation s involvin g th e detachmen t o f V " are indepen dently neede d t o accoun t fo r Catala n S-structure s wher e V " is overtl y right-de tached. In fact, a most natural Catalan rendition of (39a) is (40), where the Catalan S-structure, as expected, matches one-to-one th e IS representation posited fo r the English equivalent:

Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan 13

9

(40) E l xic j [ IP [ IP t2 tj a l a FEST A ][ v, va petonejar totho m ] 2]. the bo y at ; the part y kisse d everyon e It seems, then , that there is no major obstacle in deriving the appropriate I S struc tures from different kind s of English surface configurations. There i s clearl y n o problem fo r link-focu s an d al]-focu s structures , whic h ar e b y fa r th e mos t fre quent in language, and there is apparently no problem for the case of tailful structures either , a s show n b y (37 ) an d (39) . Therefore , ther e i s no w stronge r motivation t o establis h a crosslinguistically uniform level o f IS . But, beyon d establishin g thi s cross-linguisti c generalization , i s ther e an y specific structura l effec t i n Englis h tha t lend s suppor t t o th e existenc e o f I S operations lik e those just described? Som e suppor t comes fro m th e fact, alread y mentioned, tha t a subse t o f thes e operation s i s carrie d ou t overtl y throug h topicalization. Bu t furthe r independen t evidenc e come s fro m th e dat a i n (41 ) and (42) . I n (41 ) th e focu s i s onl y th e verba l strin g an d i n (42 ) th e focu s is th e whole VP : (41) a . [jpE l Paujjpljpn o 1 2' h a MOR T t 2 tj ] e l jutge 2 ]]. the Pa u n o objec t ha s kille d th e judg e b. [ IP Paul didn' t KIL L the judge ] . (42) a . [

IP E1

Pau j [ IP no h a mor t e l JUTG E t j ]] . the Pa u n o ha s kille d th e judg e b. [ Ip Paul didn' t kil l the JUDGE ] .

These sentence s illustrat e th e phenomenon calle d "associatio n wit h focus " (cf . Jackendoff (1972) , Horn (1989)). In (41), fo r both Catalan and English, the ground object phras e the judge o r el jutge "escapes " negatio n somehow : th e scop e o f negation appear s not to exten d beyond th e ver b kill. In (42), i n contrast, th e entire V P i s foca l an d th e entir e VP i s fel t t o b e negated . I n other words , i n (41 ) there is the understanding that, although Paul di d not kill the judge, som e othe r relation hold s between them . N o suc h understanding arises fro m (42) . The Catala n (a ) sentence s ar e no t structurall y alike . I n (4la ) th e phras e tha t escapes negation , el jutge 'th e judge,' i s right-detached, but in (42a ) el jutge re mains in situ. Thus, th e difference in scope o f negation betwee n (41a ) an d (42a ) has a clear structura l correlate: whe n a phrase is detached awa y from the core I P it escape s negatio n a s well. The Englis h equivalent s o f these sentence s i n (41) , however, whil e contrastin g it s th e sam e wa y regardin g the scopa l effect s o f ne gation, sho w n o over t structura l distinction t o reflec t thi s contrast . Now , i f En glish ha s an abstract right-detachment movement a t IS (lik e the on e Catalan ha s at S-structure ) yielding an IS representation lik e (43 ) fo r sentenc e (41b) , (43) IS : [j p Pau ^ [ Ip tl didn' t KIL L t 2 ] the judge2 ] the scope-of-negation facts ca n be capture d much in the sam e way the y are captured i n Catalan . Examples (41b) an d (42b) , whil e identica l at S-structure , are

140

Discourse Configurational Languages

crucially differen t a t IS , an d th e differenc e i n interpretatio n i s capture d a t tha t level. Thi s constitute s important language-interna l evidenc e fo r positin g a n I S detachment rule . For th e sak e o f exposition , th e relevan t fact s hav e bee n simplified . Fro m th e above discussion the assumption ma y appear to be that negation define s its logico semantic scop e a t IS . This i s no t so . I n fact , th e differen t reading s fo r negatio n stem fro m th e interaction o f a constant logico-semantic L F representation fo r both (41) an d (42) and a variabl e I S structure , differen t fo r eac h sentence . A s differ ent IS configurations interact indirectly with the same logico-semanti c structure , different "association s wit h focus " ar e derived . These fact s ar e analyze d i n de tail i n Vallduv f (1992a ) an d canno t be furthe r discusse d her e withou t goin g to o far afield . However, th e evidenc e the y provid e i s goo d language-interna l moti vation fo r th e existenc e o f a structura l representation lik e th e on e posite d here . An alternativ e approach i s t o clai m tha t (41 ) and (42 ) are differen t i n thei r truth-conditions and, therefore , that their LF representations mus t be different as well. I f thi s wer e so , th e interpretiv e contras t betwee n (41 ) and (42 ) would al ready be reflected at LF and this argument for an IS representation like (43) would fade. Th e vie w tha t (41 ) and (42 ) are truth-conditionall y different , though, ha s been show n t o b e problemati c b y Gazda r (1979 ) an d Hor n (1989) , amon g others. Moreover , i f the direc t objec t i n (41b) lay outsid e the LF scop e o f negation , sentence (44) would be out , but i t i s not: (44) Pau l didn' t KILL anybody , he just threatene d some o f us . At LF th e polarity item anybody mus t lie within the logica l scop e o f negation in order t o b e licensed , eve n i f negatio n i s "associated " onl y wit h th e foca l verb . At IS, however, anybody mus t be outside IP because i t is part of the ground. The conclusion tha t (41) and (42) have a n identical L F representation bu t distinc t I S representations i s confirmed b y thi s fact . Summing up th e contents of this section : i t appears tha t applyin g the IS configuration motivate d b y Catalan S-structur e to English i s a fairly straightforwar d task. The contras t betwee n th e tw o language s i n their realizatio n o f informatio n packaging i s no w confine d to th e syntacti c component. The interfac e wit h th e informational interpretiv e component is now language-invariant. Moreover, ther e is independen t language-interna l evidence fo r suc h a n I S configuratio n fo r English.

7. Focus-raising and English Focus-preposing 7.1. Abstract Focus-raising The nee d fo r a n abstrac t syntacti c representatio n o f informatio n packagin g ha s been pointe d ou t i n th e literatur e before . The mos t well-know n proposa l i s th e process o f focus-interpretation or focus-raising due to Chomsky (1976 ) and pursued i n Chomsk y (1981), Huan g (1982), Culicove r and Rochemon t (1983) , an d Rochemont (1986) , inte r alia. Focu s constituent s ar e treate d a s quantificational .

Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan 14

1

They rais e to an A'-position adjoine d to the root I P node, just lik e quantifiers d o by mean s o f quantifier-raising . Th e outpu t o f focus-raising , Culicove r an d Rochemont's (1983 ) F-structure , is the level a t which focus-ground relations ar e abstractly lai d out , as i n (45) : (45) [ FOCUS! ][ IP .. . t, .. . ] The motivation for this rule is twofold: i t is modeled afte r the overt constructio n of focus-preposing and it accounts for the weak crossover effec t that focus seems to create, parallel t o the effect create d by quantifiers and wh-words (cf. Chomsk y (1976; 1981)) . In th e IS configuratio n proposed i n Section 5 , however, focu s remains in sit u dominated b y th e lowes t I P node (th e scop e o f th e ENTE R operator) . Th e rul e of focus-raisin g yields an output in which focus is outside o f the core IP node. I f the proposa l defende d i n thi s pape r is correct , ther e shoul d b e n o roo m fo r fo cus-raising i n th e grammar . I n thi s section , th e motivatio n fo r a rul e o f focus raising i s countered . First , th e wea k crossove r effec t i s reviewed . Then , th e existence of overt focus-preposing i s reconciled wit h the universal IS configuration propose d i n Sectio n 5 . Weak crossove r fo r focu s i s observabl e i n (46a) . Coreferenc e betwee n th e pronoun and focal John i s disallowed. In (46c), wher e John i s nonfocal the wea k crossover effec t i s no t present an d the sentenc e is , therefore , grammatical : (46) a . *[ IP his j mothe r s.a w JOHN ] yesterda y ] b. JOHN j [ Ip hiSj mothe r saw tl yesterda y ] c. [ IP his, mothe r sa w John, yesterda y ] The unacceptability of (46a) is accounted for if one assumes that the focused John undergoes a wh-like movement at an abstract level o f representation a s in (46b) . Whatever rule s ou t wea k crossove r pattern s i n wh-questions wil l rul e ou t (46a ) as well (see Rooth (1985 , 68 ) for two different accounts) . This argument for focusraising seems , a t first blush , very strong, but a closer loo k a t the facts unveil s a number of problems concernin g the partial statu s of the weak crossove r dat a and the problemati c nature of focus-raisin g as a rule o f grammar . Examples ca n be constructe d where th e wea k crossover effec t i s absent . Th e putatively illici t reading is not only possible but almost unavoidabl e in example s like (47) . The contex t for thi s example i s th e following. A teenage bo y an d gir l are found snortin g coke. Her parents catch them redhanded. The girl's father yells at he r an d the n say s t o th e boy , And what am I supposed to do with you? Take you to the police? The gir l jumps in an d replies , (47) a . Leav e hi m alone . You deal wit h me b. an d his parents will dea l wit h HIM . If th e foca l HIM i n (47b ) i s focus-raise d a t a n abstrac t level , th e configuration obtained wil l b e a typica l we:a k crossover , but th e coreferentia l reading i s stil l

142

Discourse Configurational Languages

grammatical. Onl y on e differenc e exist s betwee n (47b ) an d (46a) : i n th e latte r the focu s i s a nou n an d i n th e forme r i t i s a pronoun . A s Root h (1985 ) point s out, thi s shoul d no t affec t th e wea k crossove r effect . Bu t compar e (47b ) wit h (48b), whic h indee d seem s t o b e ruled ou t by th e wea k crossove r effect : (48) a . Yo u deal wit h m e b. *an d hi s parent s will dea l wit h JOHN . The grammaticalit y contras t betwee n (47 ) an d (48) i s due to a full NP versu s pronoun distinction . Given th e grammaticalit y o f (47) , th e badnes s o f (48 ) can not b e du e t o th e foca l statu s of th e NP John. Rather , i t i s du e t o othe r reason s probably relate d t o the binding of nouns. The unstressed ful l N P in (46c) behave s like a pronou n (bot h unstresse d an d stressed ) an d unlik e a stresse d ful l N P i n allowing th e coreferential readin g i n these wea k crossove r sentences . Th e actua l reason behin d th e badnes s o f (48 ) wil l no t b e pursue d here , bu t i t i s clea r tha t abstract focus-raisin g doe s no t provid e a n answer. 10 Focus-raising i s a problemati c rul e o f gramma r anyway . Koopma n an d Sportiche (1982 ) poin t out the exceptional nature of focus-raising i n tha t it doe s not obey the ECP. Sola n (1984), followin g Chomsky (1981) , remark s tha t focusraising yields representations that violate the Binding Theory. Root h (1985) , fur thermore, points out apparent subjacency violations of some focus-raisin g outputs . A solutio n t o al l thes e problem s i s t o sa y tha t thes e principle s o f gramma r d o not appl y at the level a t which focus-raising yields its output (F-structur e o r IS) . One may wonder , however, wha t sort o f well-formedness condition s d o apply a t this level , give n tha t thre e cor e module s o f grammar d o not . A different typ e of objection t o th e rul e o f focus-raisin g i s o f a conceptual nature . Focus-raisin g i s elegant an d economica l i n cases o f "narrow" focus , i.e. , whe n mos t o f th e sen tence i s ground . However , i n link-focu s an d all-focu s instructions , wher e focu s encompasses mos t or all of the sentence, an entire predicate o r sentence mus t be focus-raised, a s i n (49) , adapte d from Rochemon t (1986 , 34) : (49) [ s t+focus]! [ s et ] ] This operation , even though licit, strikes one as counterintuitive if the fact i s taken into accoun t that link-focus sentences wit h VP focus an d all-focus sentence s ar e the unmarke d case . 7.2. Overt Focus-preposing The other motivation for abstract focus-raising in English is the existence o f overt focus-preposing: i f over t focus-preposing reflects a focus-ground relation a t th e surface, i t is indee d natura l to assum e that it is identical t o it s correspondin g I S structure. The existenc e of overt focus-preposing is , at first blush , hard to recon cile wit h th e abstrac t I S configuratio n give n fo r Englis h i n Sectio n 6 . Focus preposing extracts the focus fro m th e clause, leaving the ground within the lowest

Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan 14

3

IP. To maintai n th e I S configuratio n propose d i n thi s pape r fo r English , focus preposing woul d have to be undone at IS. This, without further motivation, would be quit e unnatural . I n thi s section , th e existenc e o f over t focus-preposin g i n English i s reconciled wit h th e propose d non-existenc e o f covert focus-raising . In English, a sentence wit h a ground 'the y named i t x' an d a focus 'Fido ' ma y be structurall y realize d a s (50a ) o r a s (50b): (50) a . The y name d i t [ FIDO ]. b. FIDO ; the y name d i t tr (50a) i s actuall y the unmarked way to realize thi s informationa l split. (50b ) ha s a more marke d "feeling " tha n (50a) . Is this "feeling " a reflection o f a true infor mational contrast betwee n (50a ) an d (50b) ? Following th e wor k o f Ward (1988 ) on th e pragmatic s o f preposing , i t wil l b e argue d her e tha t th e answe r t o thi s question i s yes . Ward show s tha t i n (50b ) th e phras e Fido ha s a dual referentia l force . I t de notes bot h a set/scal e (th e set/scal e of do g names ) an d a value i n tha t set/scal e (Fido). In (50a), in contrast, the scale-denoting effect i s absent (the set/scal e must be independentl y evoke d i n th e discourse) . Thi s differenc e account s fo r th e marked "feeling " o f (50b) : foeus-prepose d phrase s instantiat e a set/scala r valu e in a set/scale they themselves evoke . The dual referential nature of focus-prepose d phrases allow s the m t o b e partiall y foca l an d partiall y ground . I n (50b) , fo r in stance, th e focus-prepose d N P i s actin g a s a lin k i n it s scale-denotin g rol e (i t points t o the hearer' s fil e car d fo r th e set/scal e o f dog names ) an d it is actin g a s focus i n its value-denoting role (wha t constitutes informatio n i s that 'Fido ' i s in this cas e th e chose n valu e in tha t set/scale) . In term s o f th e I S configuratio n proposed i n Sectio n 6 , thi s mean s tha t Fido in (5Ob) should be simultaneously lef t i n situ within the core IP (to have its valuedenoting sid e b e interprete d a: > focal) an d left-detache d (t o have it s scale-denot ing sid e receive a link interpretation). The S-structur e positio n o f focus-prepose d phrases ca n b e argue d t o be a reflection no t o f their partia l statu s a s foci bu t o f their partial statu s as links. Then , assumin g the IS fo r (50b ) i s identica l t o its S structure, th e lin k force o f Fido i s correctl y reflecte d at IS . It s foca l side , how ever, i s not . Fortunately , there i s a transformationa l device tha t wil l allo w th e value-denoting sid e o f Fido t o b e i n sit u an d th e scale-denotin g sid e t o b e left detached a t the sam e time : reconstructio n (Chomsk y (1977)) . Reconstructio n i s available t o map S-structure s like (51a ) t o LF structure s like (51b) : (51) a . [ whose motherj j di d you see tr b. [ whosej ] did you se e tj mothe r An LF like (51a ) woul d not yield the correct interpretatio n for this question ('fo r which x did you see x's mother') . By reconstructing a part of the wh-phrase back into th e claus e the righ t interpretive resul t is achieved.

144

Discourse Configurational Languages

Reconstruction ca n b e employe d t o reflec t th e dua l informationa l natur e o f focus-preposed phrase s in much the same way . Let us assume th e IS representio n in (52 ) fo r (50b) : (52) [ t[+scale], [[ IP (they ) t 2 (it) FIDO ! ] named 2 ]] The value-denotin g sid e o f the preposed phras e i s reconstructed bac k int o I P t o receive a focal interpretation , but the trace lef t in the left-adjoined slo t preserve s the scale-denotin g sid e o f Fido, an d dul y receive s a lin k interpretation . Give n Ward's arguments for the dual informational force of focus-preposed phrases , th e existence o f thi s constructio n cease s t o b e a vali d stimulu s fo r positin g a n ab stract rule of focus-raising. The leftwar d detachmen t of the focus-preposed phras e is no t a function o f it s partia l statu s as a focus, but rathe r o f it s partia l functio n as a link. What signals its partial status as focus at the surface is, a s expected, it s H* L phrasal tune, not its syntacti c position. Summarizing thi s section , i t appear s tha t th e motivation use d t o marshal l th e existence o f a n abstrac t rule o f focus-raisin g i n Englis h i s no t a s soli d a s i t ap peared. The fact s o n weak crossove r wit h focus ar e not clear cu t an d the rul e o f focus-raising itsel f i s problemati c i n a numbe r o f ways . Th e frontin g o f foca l phrases i n focus-preposin g canno t b e use d a s a stimulu s fo r abstrac t focus-rais ing either . The abstrac t I S configuration propose d i n Sectio n 5 does no t encom pass a rule of focus-raising . Given the issues raise d i n thi s section, this is no t a s undesirable a s it originall y may hav e seemed . 8. The Place of IS in the Model In th e T-model of grammar (Chomsky and Lasnik (1977) , Chomsk y (1981) ) on e single leve l o f representation, LF , is availabl e a s a n interfac e wit h th e interpre tive component s i t presumably feeds . I f this is so, the followin g questio n arises : what is the relationship between LF and IS (or Culicover & Rochemont's F-struc ture) and , mor e generally , wha t is th e plac e o f I S i n the mode l o f grammar ? There have been severa l proposal s i n the literature t o determine wha t th e ex act locu s o f informationa l representation is , especiall y fo r focus . Som e o f thes e proposals assum e informatio n packaging is represente d a t LF (Chomsk y (1976 ; 1981), Huan g (1982) , Horvat h (1986) , an d Rochemon t (1986)) . Other s assum e it is at an abstract level o f representation derived fro m L F called LF ' (cf . Huang (1984)). A third group of works leaves the question open (Koopma n and Sportiche (1982) an d Culicove r an d Rochemon t (1983)) . If focu s an d groun d ar e take n t o be logico-semantic element s o f some sor t it makes sense , conceptually , t o assum e that thei r correc t locu s o f representatio n i s LF . Taking th e approac h adopte d i n this study , however, ther e i s littl e motivatio n t o assum e tha t IS (o r F-structure ) has t o b e identifie d wit h LF. In fact , th e spiri t behin d th e Gricea n divisio n of labo r i s that interpretation i s not a monolithi c process. Instead , ther e ar e a se t o f system s wit h mor e specifi c interpretive tasks. Logical semantic s is one such system; information packaging,

Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan 14

5

implicature computation , and i.llocutio n ar e others . Th e su m o f al l thes e inter pretive processe s result s i n globa l interpretation . If interpretatio n i s no t mono lithic, th e syntacti c interfac e leve l tha t serve s a s inpu t t o interpretatio n canno t be monolithi c either . A singl e leve l i s no t sufficien t t o interfac e th e differen t interpretive system s successfully : th e pur e structura l representation o f logico semantic relation s an d the pure structura l representation o f information packag ing mus t b e carrie d ou t a t differen t level s o f abstraction . There is syntactic evidenc e tha t add s to the conceptual argument s fo r the non identity o f I S an d LF . Consider exampl e (53a) : (53) a . [ Ja va n fe r e l descompt e a algun s CLIENT S ] . already di d th e discoun t t o som e client s '(They) alread y gav e som e client s th e discount. ' b. [ IP a algun s clienlSj [ IP ja va n fe r el descompte t j ] ] At LF, following the traditional analysis of quantifier-raising, the quantifier phrase a alguns clients 't o som e clients ' mus t raise an d left-adjoi n t o IP , as i n (53b) . From this position th e quantifier binds a variable i n A-position an d c-command s its scope. The logical meanin g of the quantified expression i s thus appropriatel y represented a t LF and fed into the logico-semantic componen t fo r interpretation . But sentenc e (53a ) i s a n all-focus instruction. As such , give n the I S configu ration propose d i n Sectio n 5 , it s IS representatio n mus t hav e al l materia l unde r the cor e I P node , i.e. , nothin g shoul d b e left-adjoine d t o IP . This sentenc e re quires a n L F structur e like (53b ) an d a n I S structur e like (54): (54) [ Ip ja va n fe r e l descompt e a algun s clients ] The configuration s of (53b ) an d (54) ar e not an d cannot be the same. Therefore , LF an d IS canno t b e th e same . I f (54 ) wer e bot h th e I S an d the L F representa tions o f (53a) , th e quantificationa l forc e o f alguns clients woul d b e lef t unrepresented a t the relevan t interfac e level . If , alternatively , (53b ) i s propose d for bot h representations, alguns clients, whic h is part o f the focus, i s erroneousl y interpreted as a link because o f its structural position at IS. If alguns clients wer e a link , i t woul d be encode d a n suc h a t S-structure : (55) [ Ip a algun s clients. j [ Ip ja els n fer e l DESCOMPT E t t ] ] 1 va to som e client s alread y object di d th e discount The conclusion is that quantifier-raising and link left-detachment canno t take place at th e sam e leve l o f abstraction . Unles s on e o f th e tw o rule s i s abandoned , I S and L F mus t b e maintaine d a s separat e level s o f representatio n (cf . (44 ) abov e for simila r evidence) . Once th e non-identity of LF and IS is determined, th e possibility indicate d b y Koopman an d Sportich e (1982 ) an d Culicover an d Rochemont (1983 ) tha t IS i s derived fro m L F mus t b e examined . O n thi s hypothesi s S-structur e i s mappe d onto L F an d LF , i n turn , i s mappe d ont o LF ' (= IS) . Th e workin g hypothesi s

146

Discourse Configurational Languages

underlying thi s paper , however , i s tha t I S i s directl y derive d fro m S-structure . This i s evident fro m th e mapping function yieldin g IS , a s was describe d i n Sec tions 5 an d 6 , which i s designed , fo r both Catala n an d English, t o tak e S-struc ture representations as input. It is very hard to gather empirical evidence t o argue that on e hypothesi s i n (56 ) i s better than the other ,

but ther e ar e conceptua l arguments, based o n th e economy-of-derivation condi tion i n Chomsky (1991) , tha t suggest that a direct derivation of IS fro m S-structure i s superio r t o a derivatio n from LF . The spiri t o f Chomsky' s conditio n is t o minimiz e derivation mappings . B y a "least effort " principle, if a give n result ca n b e achieve d b y a simpl e derivatio n and a complex one , onl y th e forme r shoul d b e legitimate . Fo r instance , a give n movement operatio n should not be posited i f it is t o be undone in the nex t deri vation. Chomsky's exampl e is the lowering of inflection to V at S-structure. This is a "costly " operation , sinc e i t i s undon e a t L F whe n V+inf l i s raise d t o th e original INF L position. Th e I S situatio n is analogou s t o th e cas e describe d b y Chomsky. Conside r (53 ) again , repeated a s (57a) , wit h it s L F representatio n i n (57b) an d it s I S representatio n i n (57c) : (57) a . [

ja va n fe r el descompt e a algun s CLIENT S ] already di d th e discoun t t o som e client s '(They) alread y gave som e client s th e discount.' b. [ IP a alguns clientSj [ Ip ja va n fer el descompt e t } ]] c. [ IP ja va n fer e l descompte a alguns clients ] Ip

At S-structur e the quantifie r appears i n situ . At L F i t must raise an d left-adjoin to IP, but a t IS i t mus t appear in sit u again . If LF mediate s betwee n S-structur e and IS , (57a ) mus t b e transforme d ont o (57b ) befor e i t i s mappe d ont o (57c) , despite th e fact tha t (57a) an d (57c) ar e identical. I t is a two-step derivatio n with the secon d ste p reversin g th e outpu t of th e firs t step . This i s precisel y th e typ e of derivation that Chomsky (1991) judges not permissible, al l things being equal . The derivatio n tha t yield s I S directl y fro m S-structure , i n contrast , i s straight forward an d maximall y economical (i n th e cas e o f (57 ) th e derivatio n applie s vacuously). Assuming economy , then, a direc t mappin g betwee n I S an d L F i s a bette r alternative. A s fo r th e derivatio n of L F fro m S-structure , i t proceed s i n th e standard way. The resulting picture is a parallel mapping between S-structure and

Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan 14

7

two autonomou s abstrac t level s o f representation: L F and IS. The inclusio n o f a separate leve l o f IS, derive d directl y fro m S-structure, severel y affect s the stan dard view of what grammar musit consist of . The T-model of grammar, represente d in (58a) , ha s n o roo m fo r suc h a level. A model o f gramma r tha t doe s incorpo rate i t ca n be modele d a s in (58b ) (th e dotte d lin e mean s tha t furthe r strata ar e probably neede d t o represent othe r relations) :

Chomsky (1991) views S-structure as a contact level betwee n several "fundamen tal" level s o f representation. In other words, S-structure is not a fundamental level but just wher e al l fundamenta l level s meet . Th e role o f S-structur e a s a contac t level i s enhanced and becomes eve n mor e plausibl e i n a model lik e (58b) . Eac h level o f pure representation is related to S-structur e by a different spoke , an d S structure is literally the hub, from where or to where all the information is passed . At S-structur e al l informatio n fro m th e pur e level s o f representatio n mus t b e recoverable t o b e passe d o n t o phonolog y an d th e physica l realit y o f th e utter ance, o r vice versa . This sectio n ha s presente d syntacti c evidenc e tha t support s th e conceptua l arguments for the non-identit y of IS and LF an d the direct derivatio n o f IS fro m S-structure. Thi s proposal , o f course , entail s a mode l o f gramma r tha t depart s somewhat fro m the traditiona l T-model .

9. Conclusion The analysi s of th e structura l representation of logico-semantic notion s evolve d hand in hand with the study of their interpretive import in a comprehensive theor y of logica l semantics . I n contrast , th e stud y o f th e structura l representatio n o f informational relation s proceeded, for th e mos t part , without a parallel compre hensive theor y o f informatio n packaging . Once suc h a theor y i s take n int o ac count, expectation s abou t wha t th e syntacti c representation o f informatio n packaging i s ar e likel y t o change. The pape r ha s take n a particula r theory o f informatio n packaging a s a poin t of departur e and looke d int o the structura l realization o f informational relation s as define d i n thi s theory . Immediately , i t become s clea r that , i n Catalan , infor mational relation s are a major determinant of surface syntactic structure . I n En glish-type languages, however, the overt structural representation of information packaging is mostly the responsibility of prosody. One single informational meaning i s realize d by mean s of differen t structura l configurations in differen t Ian -

148

Discourse Configurational Languages

guages. Despit e thi s contrast , thi s pape r suggest s tha t ther e i s a n abstract leve l of pur e informationa l representation , IS , wher e difference s betwee n language s in th e over t realizatio n o f informatio n packagin g ar e neutralized . I S mediate s between surfac e synta x an d th e informationa l component , jus t a s L F mediate s between surfac e synta x an d logica l semantics . Thus , th e interpretiv e rule s tha t bleed IS are the sam e fo r all languages, independen t o f the overt structura l real ization o f information packaging . This work , o f course, focuse s o n only tw o language-types . I n the futur e othe r language-types, severa l o f whic h ar e represente d i n th e paper s i n thi s volume , must be taken int o account so as to check th e validity of the proposal. Consider ation o f othe r language-type s i s likel y t o lea d t o change s i n th e actua l I S con figuration propose d her e o r t o th e establishmen t o f som e kin d o f parametri c variation i n relation t o IS. What is less likely t o change is the conviction tha t th e representation o f informatio n packagin g i s a s importan t a par t o f synta x a s th e representation o f theta structure , case structure , or logico-semantic structure , an d that the syntax/information-packaging interface is analogous t o the syntax/logico semantics interface . This , o f course , ma y entai l a chang e i n ou r standar d con ception o f grammar, but it may just be the price to pay if information packaging , which ha s lon g remaine d evasiv e t o forma l linguistics , i s t o be integrate d int o the genera l theor y o f language.

Notes * A much earlie r version o f thi s wor k wa s presente d a t th e 16t h GLO W Colloquiu m a t Cambridge University in April, 1990 , an d a firs t writte n version o f tha t talk appeared a s part of Chapters 5 and 6 in my dissertation (Vallduvi (1992a)). I am indebted to R. Frank, A. Kroch, C . Heycock, J. Hoeksema, M . Moser, E . Prince, B . Santorini, R. Zanuttini, and audiences a t presentation s o f thi s work fo r a showe r o f comment s an d suggestions , an d to K . E. Kis s fo r he r interes t i n thi s wor k an d he r patienc e a s edito r o f thi s volume . O f course, an y error s an d omission s remai n m y ow n responsibility . Thi s pape r wa s written while I was at the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona o n a postdoctoral researc h fellow ship fro m th e Research an d Technology Divisio n o f the Spanish Ministry o f Science an d Education. 1. Informatio n a s define d here i s differen t fro m th e mor e comprehensiv e notio n of in formation i n Situation Theory, wher e the information conveyed b y an event, linguistic o r nonlinguistic, i s wha t we lear n about a situatio n fro m tha t event . 2. Heim's notio n o f fil e i s actually closer t o a discourse model , see n a s a participant's evolving mode l o f the current dicourse, than to ( a subset of) the knowledge-store, under stood a s a general cognitive construct. Here, onl y the basic file-card metaphor is adopted and extrapolate d t o th e knowledge-stor e wit h th e necessar y changes . N o referenc e wil l be mad e t o othe r aspect s o f Heim' s theor y (metho d o f truth-valu e computation , etc.) . 3. As inferrabl e fro m th e contents of thi s section , informatio n packaging is held t o b e autonomous wit h respect t o logica l semantics . Thi s vie w i s a t odds wit h anothe r family of approache s tha t take precisely th e opposit e tack . In Vallduvi (1992a) som e o f th e ar guments tha t woul d apparentl y favo r th e latte r approaches are discusse d and countered . As for th e notion of "identificational" focu s (Kis s (this volume), Horvath (this volume)), it largel y correspond s to th e tailfu l instruction s i n th e instruction-base d system, bu t i t i s

Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan 14

9

stripped o f it s logico-semanti c exhaustivenes s impor t (cf . Hor n (1991 ) fo r th e vie w that exhaustiveness i n focu s i s a conversational implicature) . 4. Author s wh o believ e wh-word s i n wh-question s ar e narro w foc i (e.g . Rochemon t (1986), Horvath (thi s volume) ) d o not agree wit h the claim tha t prominence i s necessar ily associate d wit h focus , give n tha t in wh-questio n wh-word s ar e no t prominent . Thi s belief, however , i s not unproblematic (cf . Erteschik-Shir (1986)) . 5. Sentences (8b ) and (8c) ar e marginally possible wit h an extreme metalinguisti c flavor a s a correction o f pronunciation or other aspec t o f the utterance. I n Hungarian, which has a fixed foca l prominence a s well, the sam e phenomenon exist s (cf . Horvat h (1986)). 6. A different analysi s of left-detachmen t i s foun d i n Cinqu e (1990) , wh o argue s fo r the base-generated statu s of left-detached phrases. As for the analysis of clitics, th e structural description adopte d here entail s a view o f clitics as base-generated preverball y following Stroze r (1976 ) an d Sune r (1988) , inte r alia . 7. Alternatively , th e objec t ma y b e weakl y pronominalized . Weakl y pro-nominalize d elements (Catala n clitics, English unstressed pronouns) remain within the core IP , but are not "visible " qu a informationa l elements . Thei r presenc e i n th e claus e i s du e t o othe r structural requirements . Wea k pronoun s appear withi n th e focus-delimitin g brackets i n some example s below , but must not be considered par t of the focus . Strong pronouns, in contrast, ma y ente r a n informational instructio n as full-fledge d element s o f th e focu s or the ground . 8. Positing a detachment of the [+TNS ] ver b to a clause-peripheral adjunctio n position may see m an unusual proposal. However , if VO adjoins to IP, the trac e in 1 0 is properl y governed b y the detached [+TNS]-carryin g verb, a necessary conditio n t o licens e verba l empty categories , accordin g to Koopma n (1984). Also , thi s proposa l runs counter t o th e Head Movement Constraint (HMC), but see Torrego (1984 ) an d Kayne (1990) for analyses wher e X ° is adjoine d t o X P a s well . 9. This analysi s of focus-preposing i s able t o generate some string s that are underivable in th e traditiona l analysis , but unfortunatel y i t als o overgenerates . Conside r (i-iii ) «i)=(21)): (i) E

l MERCEDE S e l Jord i n o sa p qu i s ' h a comprat . the Mercedes th e Jord i n o know s wh o sel f ha s bough t 'The MERCEDES Jord i doesn't kno w who bought.' (ii) a . E L MERCEDE S e l Jordi qui s'h a compra t n o sap . b. E L MERCEDE S n o sa p el Jordi qui s'h a comprat . c. E L MERCEDE S r. o sap qu i s'h a compra t e l Jordi . d. E L MERCEDE S qu i s'h a compra t no sa p el Jordi . e. E L MERCEDE S qu i s'h a compra t el Jord i no sap . (iii) a . *E L MERCEDES n o sa p el Jordi s'h a compra t qui . b. *E L MERCEDES qu i no sa p s'ha compra t el Jordi .

(i) an d th e additiona l strings i n (ii) , som e o f whic h th e traditiona l analysi s canno t ac count for , ar e correctl y predicte d b y th e right-detachmen t analysis . Bu t thos e string s i n (iii) ar e also predicted t o be correct, even thoug h they are utterly ungrammatical. Apparently, th e verba l strin g and th e complementize r hav e t o b e right-detache d i n on e singl e group fo r reason s tha t wil l hav e t o remai n unexplaine d fo r th e tim e being . Th e smal l residue i n (iii ) canno t be accounte d for , but, in an y event , mor e case s ar e covere d her e than i n th e traditiona l analysis. Within grammaticality , som e o f th e sentence s i n (ii ) ar e

150

Discourse Configurational Languages

less natura l o r frequen t tha n others. An accoun t of suc h gradation will no t b e attempte d here. 10. Root h (1985) an d Horvat h (1986) dismis s earlie r counterexample s t o focu s wea k crossover (i n e.g . Sola n (1984) ) becaus e the y involv e a "fre e variable " reading , wher e focus i s coreferential with a pronoun to the left b y chance. (47b) , however , is not subjec t to thi s criticis m becaus e i t reflect s a tru e boun d reading . I n (47b ) his parents i s a con trastive link and is therefore realized with an L+H* pitc h accent (cf. Section 4) . This does not affec t th e crossove r effec t i n an y way.

References Adams, M. (1987) "Fro m Old French t o the Theory o f Pro-drop," Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 1-32 . Antinucci, F. and G. Cinque (1977) "Sull'ordin e delle parole in italiano: 1'emar-ginazione," Studi di Grammatica Italiana 6 , 121-146 . Baltin, M . (1982 ) " A Landing Site Theor y o f Movemen t Rules," Linguistic Inquiry 13 , 1-38. Bonet, E. (1990 ) "Subject s i n Catalan, " The MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Papers on Wh-movement) 13 , 1-26 . Bonet, S. , an d J . Sol a (1986 ) Sintaxi generativa catalana, Enciclopedi a Catalana , Barcelona. Chafe, W.L. (1976) "Givenness , Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View, " i n C . Li , ed. , Subject and Topic, Academi c Press , Ne w York . Chomsky, N. (1976 ) "Condition s on Rules of Grammar," Linguistic Analysis 1, 75-109. Chomsky, N . (1977 ) "O n Wh-movement, " i n P . Culicover e t al. , eds. , Formal Syntax, Academic Press , Ne w York. Chomsky, N . (1981 ) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris , Dordrecht . Chomsky, N. (1991 ) "Som e Note s on Economy of Derivation and Representation," i n R . Friedin, ed. , Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MI T Press , Cambridge, Massachusetts. Chomsky, N., and H. Lasnik (1977) "Filter s and Control," Linguistic Inquiry 8 , 425-504. Cinque, G . (1990 ) Types of A'-dependencies, MI T Press , Cambridge , Massachusetts . Contreras, H . (1991 ) "O n th e Positio n o f Subjects," i n S.D . Rothstein , ed., Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing (Syntax and Semantics 25) , Academi c Press, New York. Culicover, P. , and M . Rochemon t (1983 ) "Stres s an d Focu s i n English, " Language 59 , 123-165. Erteschik-Shir, N. (1986) "Wh-question s and Focus," Linguistics and Philosophy 9 , 117 149. Farkas, D . (1986) "O n th e Syntactic Position of Focus i n Hungarian," Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4 , 77-96. Fernandez-Soriano, O. (1989) "Stron g Pronouns in Null-Subject Languages and the Avoid Pronoun Principle," The MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (SOIL I) 11 , 228-239. Gazdar, G. (1979) Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academi c Press, Ne w York. Halliday, M.A.K . (1985 ) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, Arnold, London . Heim, I . (1983) "Fil e Change Semantics an d the Familiarity Theory o f Definiteness," i n R. Bauerle et al. , eds., Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, d e Gruyter, Berlin an d Ne w York.

Structural Properties of Information Packaging in Catalan 15

1

Horn, L. (1981 ) "Exhaustivenes s and the Semantic s o f Clefts, " NELS 11 , 125-142. Horn, L. (1989 ) A Natural History of Negation, Universit y o f Chicago Press , Chicago . Horvath, J. (1986) FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian, Foris, Dordrecht. Huang, C.TJ. (1982) "Move-w h in a Language Without Wh-movement," The Linguistic Review 1 , 369-416. Huang, C.T.J. (1984) "On the Distribution an d Reference o f Empty Pronouns," Linguistic Inquiry 15 , 531-574. Jackendoff, R . (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts . Jacobs, J. (1986 ) "The Syntax of Focus an d Adverbials in German," i n W. Abraham and S. de Meij, eds., Topic, Focus, and Configurationality, Joh n Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Kayne, R. (1990) "Romanc e Clitic s an d PRO," NELS 20.2 , 255-302. IS. Kiss, K . (1981 ) "Structura l Relation s in Hungarian, a 'Free * Word Order Language, " Linguistic Inquiry 12 , 185-213 . Koopman, H. (1984 ) The Syntax of Verbs, Foris , Dordrecht . Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1982 ) "Variable s an d the Bijection Principle," The Linguistic Review 2, 139-160. Kroch, A., B. Santorini and C. Heycock (1988) "Bare Infinitives and External Arguments," NELS 18 , 271-285. Pierrehumbert, J . an d J . Hirschber g (1991 ) "Th e Meaning o f Intonationa l Contour s i n Discourse," i n PR. Cohe n e t al., eds. , Intentions in Communication, MI T Press , Cambridge, Massachusetts. Prince, E.F . (1986) "O n the Syntactic Marking of Presupposed Ope n Propositions," CLS (Parasession) 22 , 208-222. Prince, E.F . (1992) "Th e ZPG Letter: Subjects , Definiteness , an d Information-Status, " in S.A. Thompson and WC, Mann, eds., Discourse Description, Joh n Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Reinhart, T . (1982 ) "Pragmatic s an d Linguistics : A n Analysi s o f Sentenc e Topics, " Philosophica 27 , 53-94. Rochemont, M . (1986) Focus in Generative Grammar, John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Rochemont, M . (1989 ) "Topi c Island s and the Subjacenc y Parameter, " Canadian Journal of Linguistics 34 , 143-170 . Rooth, M. (1985) Association with Focus, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Rossell6, J. (1986 ) Gramatica, configuracions i referenda. Per una teoria alternativa del PRO-drop romanic, E'octoral dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona . Sola, J . (1992 ) Agreement and Subjects, Doctora l dissertation , Universita t Autdnoma de Barcelona. Solan, L. (1984 ) "Focu s and Levels o f Representation," Linguistic Inquiry 15 , 174-178. Steedman, M. (1991) "Structur e an d Intonation," Language 67, 260-296. Strozer, J. (1976 ) Clitics in Spanish, Doctora l dissertation , UCLA , Los Angeles . Suner, M . (1988 ) "Th e Role o f Agreemen t i n Clitic-double d Constructions, " Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6 , 391-434. Thwing, R. , and J. Walter s (1937 ) "Focu s in Vute, " Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 9, 95-121. Torrego, E. (1984) "O n Inversion in Spanish and Some of its Effects," Linguistic Inquiry 15, 103-129.

152

Discourse Configurational Languages

Valimaa-Blum, R . (1988 ) Finnish Existential Clauses: Their Syntax, Pragmatics, and Intonation, Doctora l dissertation, Ohi o State University , Columbus. Vallduvf, E . (1991) "The Rol e of Plasticity in the Association of Focus an d Prominence, " ESCOL 7 , 295-306. Vallduvf, E . (1992a ) The Informational Component, Garland , Ne w York. Vallduvf, E . (1992b ) "Focu s Construction s in Catalan, " in C . Laeufer and T.A. Morgan, eds., Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics, Joh n Benjamins, Amsterda m and Philadelphia. Vallduvf, E. (1993) "Catalan as VOS: Evidence from Informatio n Packaging, " in W. Ashby et al. , eds. , Linguistic Perspectives in the Romance Languages, Joh n Benjamins , Amsterdam an d Phildelphia. Ward, G.L . (1988 ) The Semantics and Pragmatics of Preposing, Garland , New York.

6 An F Position i n Western Romanc e JUAN URIAGEREKA University of Maryland, College Park"

1. Some Background It is has been argue d tha t functional categories other than C, I, and D exist. The Infl skeleton has been "split" into categories tha t include several Agr nodes, Tense, and Aspect ; likewise, the De t skeleto n ha s bee n argue d to presen t variou s Agr nodes, Number, o r a Possessio n node . Splittin g th e Com p skeleto n ha s a lon g tradition, Reinhart's (1979) analysis was based on the premise o f two such node s in certai n languages , th e origi n o f wha t i s no w commonl y referre d t o a s "C P recursion". And again several nodes have been argued to correspond to the Com p skeleton, a matter I want to discus s here . But firs t I want to lay out my ground-rules. One , thi s i s a research program . Surely ther e ar e alternative s i n terms o f features i n single categories , instead o f positing multipl e categorie s eac h correspondin g t o a feature. I wil l no t explor e this alternativ e vie w here . Two, bot h a formal and a substantive issu e aris e th e minute on e posits a new category. The formal on e is proving the existence of the category i n terms of som e empirical evidence. The substantive one is determining what that category is, how it differ s fro m others , etc . Th e secon d issu e i s too ambitious a t this stage , an d I will onl y have som e conjecture s t o offe r abou t the natur e o f th e categor y I a m positing. The first issue itsel f i s non-trivial. It has to be determined whethe r th e hypothesized categor y i s a single category o r an array o f categories, is a head o r a maximal projection, is higher or lower than other categories within the Phras e Marker. The mai n purpose o f thi s pape r i s t o deal wit h thes e sorts of question s for a given category I hypothesize . Three, evidenc e adduced for a given proposal is relative to a framework, and it ma y count only within that framework. I assum e th e essentials o f Chomsky' s (1993) Minimalist program , This means , t o star t with , tha t I canno t assum e 153

154

Discourse Configurational Languages

levels o f representation othe r tha n PF an d LF , operations tha t ar e no t economi cal, parameter s that ar e not trivial , etc. The thir d of m y ground-rule s has consequence s tha t shoul d b e clarified , par ticularly give n th e contex t wher e thi s articl e i s appearing . A t issu e i s whethe r there shoul d be a level o f Information Structure (IS), a s posited by Valduvi (this volume). I wil l no t assum e suc h a level, an d my reason s ar e o f two sorts . A separate level o f IS is supposed t o encode representation s tha t have no con sequence fo r th e trut h condition s o f a sentence . The assumptio n behin d thi s i s that L F i s a leve l whic h is truth-theoretica l i n nature . I disagre e wit h bot h th e proposal an d the assumption . In th e minimalis t framework a s wel l a s on th e work s leadin g t o it s definitio n of LF, it i s not th e cas e that LF ha s anythin g to do with truth, or for tha t matte r notions tha t ente r int o th e calculation s o f truth , suc h a s arguments , predicates , operators, variables, and the like. The primitives of LF are syntactic, and include chains of different sorts , the conditions of their formation, operations o f ellipsis , and littl e else . L F interface s with semanti c level s (cal l thos e Intentional / Con ceptual structure , ICS) wher e perhaps a truth-functional apparatus has it s place , as wel l a s othe r non-syntacti c devices. I n othe r words , i t is perfectl y legitimat e to map LFs to structures encoding matters of focus, background, and so on, without a separate leve l o f IS . In fact , w e could no t ma p suc h discourse matter s otherwis e i n th e minimalis t framework. Th e syste m i s designe d aroun d level s o f competenc e which , i n Chomsky's words , follow from "virtual conceptual necessity". It is far from clea r that conceptual necessity forces the postulation of a level whic h is not even necessarily a competenc e level , bu t seem s mor e lik e a n interfac e wit h th e perfor mance systems that Chomsky places outside of the syntax proper (i.e. , th e optimal mapping o f PF an d LF) . Within th e minimalis t framework , the notio n o f discours e configurationality is coheren t onl y as a metaphor, since discours e is i n essence a matter of perfor mance. O f course , performance-dependen t doe s no t mea n vague , idiosyncratic , or senseless. Fo r instance, for the minimalist program semantic s i s performative , and fe w domain s hav e bee n show n t o b e s o precise , rule-governed , an d ful l o f sense a s semantics . However , thi s systematicit y doe s no t hav e t o b e expresse d configurationally, an d very possibl y i s not expressed thi s way . This i s al l t o sa y that i f an y effect s o f discours e in fact pla y a role i n th e configurationalit y of a sentence, these must be expressed by wa y of a category which is recognizable a t LF, and i s bor n i n th e synta x proper. Apart fro m no t bein g abl e t o accep t a separat e level o f IS , I als o hav e diffi culties wit h th e assumptio n tha t i t expresse s matter s whic h ar e no t truth-func tional. As i s wel l know n from th e literatur e o n focus , a sub-clas s o f sentence s exhibiting this phenomenon have truth-theoretic consequences (se e th e Introduction to this volume) . In turn, it might seem a s if standard topicalizations hav e n o truth-theoretic consequence , bu t thi s may no t b e true—a t leas t fo r non-contrastive topics that create their own categorical judgement (see Raposo and Uriagereka (1993)). This i s al l t o sa y tha t core phenomen a within what we ma y cal l Information Theor y ar e a s truth-functiona l as others .

An F Position in Western Romance 15

5

The poin t just mad e doe s rto t o n itsel f mea n tha t informatio n theoretic phe nomena must be represented at LF, anymore than any other phenomenon that has effects o n th e trut h condition s o f th e sentenc e must . Bu t eve n i f th e minimalist view o f L F wer e give n u p i n favo r o f a leve l o f logica l for m i n th e traditional philosophical sense , matter s o f Informatio n Theory woul d stil l hav e t o b e ex pressed i n that would-be level. That is, information theoretic matter s do not carry enough conceptua l weigh t fo r us to posi t a separate leve l of representation , an d either L F or logica l for m see m perfectl y fi t t o d o the job o f representin g them . However, I d o accep t th e empirica l fac t tha t discours e affect s configurations . Hence, a s a consequence o f the ground-rule s I se t up fo r myself , I a m virtually forced t o posit a syntacti c categor y tha t encode s information-theoreti c issues . I promised a conjecture i n this respect , an d with it comes a disclaimer. I have no t found an y conclusiv e evidenc e tha t ther e ar e separate functiona l categorie s t o express matter s of topic , focus , emphasis , contrast , etc. Al l of thes e hav e a n as pect i n common : the y encode th e point of view o f a speake r or som e othe r sub ject, i n a manner to be clarified immediately. I therefore assume that one category alone serve s a s an all-purpos e devic e t o encod e a point o f view . I will call th e category in question "F" . Uriagerek a (1988 ) borrows th e insight behind thi s categor y fro m Chomsk y (1977) . I explicitly too k F to merely stan d for "functional, " an d in other places I used F as a mnemonic fo r a "further" pro jection, o r "focus" wit h the vague import o f emphasis, contrast , information-encoding device , etc . All I mean i s this: F encodes poin t o f view. The clai m is that all information theoretic operation s nee d t o be mediated throug h a point of view. That is , whe n emphasi s appear s i n a sentence , someon e i s responsibl e fo r tha t emphasis. Ol d or new informatio n is old or new for someone . Eve n th e usag e of a referrin g expression presuppose s a speake r wh o assume s responsibilit y (mis takenly o r otherwise ) for callin g someon e Smith' s murdere r or Jones, an d simi lar issue s aris e fo r deixis , anaphora , etc . The genera l vie w is this: a syntactic theory formally expressing dependencie s goes a s fa r a s establishing vali d chains an d nothin g else. These chain s hav e in dexation mechanisms, bu t the indices carry no semantic value . Value assignment is a matter which i s dependent o n a discourse, whic h i s to sa y the poin t of view of a speake r o r som e othe r subject . Thi s i s wha t pragmatic s i s about . M y pro posal i s that th e synta x has on e designate d nod e whic h enter s int o th e determi nation o f what are vali d valu e assignmen t for forma l indice s (i.e . relations ) tha t the synta x creates. Ther e are syntactic rules determining possibl e point s o f view in a sentence, an d only a sub-class of the logically possible point s of view that a pragmatic theor y allow s satisfie s th e syntacti c derivation. Take th e sentenc e John's mother believes that Mary likes NOTHING WHATSOEVER. I t ha s a n interpretatio n wher e th e emphasi s o n th e objec t o f likes ha s a characteristi c illocutionar y force . Interestingly , the forc e i n questio n ma y b e related t o eithe r th e speake r o f th e sentenc e (say , I) , o r th e subject , John' s mother—but no t to John. That is , I may be reporting a belief tha t John' s mothe r has: "Mar y like s NOTHIN G WHATSOEVER! " Bu t John' s mothe r migh t als o have a n arra y o f beliefs : "Mar y doesn' t lik e peanuts ; sh e doesn' t lik e candy , either; in fact, Mar y doesn't sve n lik e cookies or ice-cream." The n I am entitled

156

Discourse Configurational Languages

to conclude tha t John's mother believes Mary likes NOTHING WHATSOEVER ! John's mothe r neve r had tha t belief , bu t ha d enoug h beliefs abou t Mar y fo r m e to conclud e what I did . Even i f w e recreat e th e scenari o fo r John instea d o f hi s mother, the sentence in point cannot express John's illocutionar y force—only th e speaker's an d th e mother's . This differenc e i n emphasis can be capture d in differen t ways . My proposal is to do it through a syntactic device: the emphasized element move s t o the spec of an F category, which is to be interpreted in the performative components a s ex pressing th e poin t o f vie w o f whicheve r subjec t i s relevan t (th e speake r o r a n embedded subject) . Covert o r over t rule s o f movement allo w certai n chain s in volving F, and not othe r chains . Ideally, thi s alone wil l predic t th e clas s o f deri vations whic h fee d ICS fo r a n appropriat e poin t o f vie w t o b e expressed . Perhaps i t is worth emphasizing that movement of an element to the spe c o f F does no t translate into emphasizing that element at LF. The movement itself i s a (covert o r overt ) operatio n to satisf y som e L F requirement of the sor t discusse d by Chomsk y (1993) . However , onl y element s that are appropriatel y place d i n F will b e visibl e fo r IC S t o b e interprete d as emphasize d b y whicheve r relevan t subject i s responsibl e fo r th e emphasis . T o illustrate this, conside r John thinks that NOTHING does Mary like an d NOTHING does John think that Mary likes. Crucially, in the firs t o f these two sentence s i t is John wh o i s responsible fo r th e emphasis, whil e in the second instance it is I who is responsible fo r it. A way t o express thi s is t o freeze th e displace d NOTHING i n the plac e wher e i t ha s bee n moved—say the specifier of F. While in the sentences seen before, at LF the object of likes coul d mov e t o th e lowe r [spec , FP ] o r th e highe r one, 1 in thi s instanc e the movement has taken place overtly, and minimalist considerations would make it sta y where we see it. This i s presumably mapped into ICS in a trivial manner, with th e element i n th e spe c o f FP expressin g the poin t of vie w of it s closes t c commanding subjec t (John i f NOTHING i s i n th e lowe r spec , myself i f NOTHING i s i n th e highe r spec , assumin g some versio n o f John Ross' s performative analysis.) Th e synta x ha s decide d th e possibl e IC S interpretations , eve n i f th e interpretation prope r happen s a t that level . Examples of this sort can be created wit h focali/ation, topicalization , the mod e of presentation of referential expressions (see Uriagereka (forthcomin g a), Raposo and Uriagereka (1993)). In the present context this means two things. First, when I argu e that an element ha s raise d t o F this a s suc h has n o interpretation; i t i s a formal mechanis m which will have various consequences, dependin g o n the na ture o f th e move d elemen t (whethe r i t i s a n operator , a n argument , a predicate , etc.; se e Uriagereka (forthcoming b)). Second, th e last few paragraphs are intended as a conjectura l motivation on th e substantiv e issue behin d F. Finally, the minimalist program imposes a view on parametric variation. Within the Romance languages explored here it is reasonable t o assume that while over t matters associate d t o F wer e quite productive in the Low Middle Ages an d stil l are in contemporary dialects which I will call "archaic," these matters are residual or non-existen t i n othe r dialects . More generally , example s presente d i n thi s volume sho w that variatio n exist s wit h respec t to discours e configurationality .

An F Position in Western Romance 15

7

The minimalis t framewor k captures intralinguisti c difference s through trivia l morphological specifications. Assumin g a hypothesized category F , we have three logical possibilities. First, F has "strong" feature s which must be checked by PF, or F does no t have them. If it does, som e hea d X must raise t o F to check thes e features, whic h given the strategy of Greed (an element move s only to satisf y it s own requirements) entail s that the head that raises to F must itself contain F features tha t are matched i n association to the F projection. It is then logicall y pos sible tha t the head X that raises to F may or may not bring strong feature s from the lexicon which ar e visible at PF. The second possibility is incompatible with a stron g F : a n X head withou t F features will not b e abl e t o raise t o F without violating Greed, and then the derivation wil l crash a t PF, for F remains visible at that level i n violation of the principle of Full Interpretation. However , a n X head without F feature s i s compatibl e wit h a wea k F . Finally, a n X hea d wit h F features ma y be compatible wit h a weak F. In this instance, associatio n of X to F is not in order to meet the requirements of both F and X, but onl y those o f X. (Whatever X's requirements are. ) The proposa l yield s thre e logicall y possibl e languages , which I wil l sugges t are paradigmatically represented by Galician-Portuguese, French , and Spanish— within Romance . Bu t quit e aside o f th e empirica l adequac y of thi s stat e o f af fairs, th e theory force s u s in this direction. Ther e i s little els e we can do within the system , whic h extend s i n principl e t o parametri c difference s pointe d ou t throughout thi s volume .

2. The Basic Patterns One o f th e fundamenta l difference s amon g Romanc e languages lie s i n wher e pronominal clitic s ar e place d i n eac h language . For instance , withi n Western Romance, th e patterns in (1) occur in tensed clauses : (1) Pattern s of Western Romanc e A: French, (spoken) Brazilian Portuguese(?) B: [+tense] Castillian Spajiish , Aragonese , Catalan , .. . C: <0 , V ,cl> ; [+tns] [+tns ] Portuguese, Galician , Leonese , most "archaic" dialect s I wil l no t explain thes e patter s (see Uriagerek a (forthcomin g a ) for a n analysis and variou s references). Fo r now , let me point out a few other , apparentl y unre lated properties associated to the third pattern: (2) Propertie s apparentl y associate d t o Patter n C : (i) Over t F(ocus ) elements (ii) Over t Focus movement

158

Discourse Configurational Languages

(iii) "Recomplementation " (iv) "Sandwiched " Dislocation s (v) Over t expletive s (vi) Persona l infinitive s withou t Aux-to-Comp (vii) Interpolatio n of element s betwee n clitics an d V Examples of (2i) can be see n in the er element appearin g i n medieval Galicia n texts, a s describe d b y Matto s e Silv a (1989) : (3) a . Quand o chegou.. . e vi o qu e no n podi a passar,.. . na when arrived.Il l an d saw.II I tha t no t could.Il l pas s in-th e segunda vegad a er mete u o mant o e n aquel a agu a second tim e E R inserted.Il l th e rob e i n tha t wate r 'When he arrived and saw that he could not pass, th e second tim e he did inser t the rob e i n tha t water' b. E est o pode s prova r qu e Deu s ouvio a t a ora£o n s e and thi s can.I I prov e tha t Go d heard.Il l th e you r praye r i f me achare s aqu i depoi s qu e aqu i er veere s me found.I I her e afte r tha t her e E R came.I I 'And you can prove that God heard your prayer if you found me her e after her e yo u di d come ' Traditional grammarian s noted tha t thi s for m "expresses contraposition, " "pro vides a pleonastic reinforcement, " o r "reinforce s th e sens e o f th e verb. " Thes e linguists equate er to even, only, an d similar adverbials , which obviously makes this elemen t loo k lik e a focusing marker. Simila r "extra" element s ca n b e see n in severa l contemporary dialects: 2 (4) X a e u sabi a qu e e l fa s cae r n a poza ! already I knew. I tha t i t were.I I fal l in-th e puddl e 'I knew tha t you wer e goin g t o fal l i n the puddle ' This Galicia n xa (lit : 'already') has nothing to do with completion of an event or anything associated t o a time past; all it does is add illocutionary force to a more neutral statement . Whether thi s sort o f elemen t i s adverbia l o r is integrate d int o th e skeleto n o f the sentenc e is a harde r question. Kiparsk y (1986) argue s tha t suc h element s a s Tense ar e grammaticalization s of adverbia l elements, an d th e sam e i s arguabl y true o f othe r functiona l categories . Bu t regardles s o f whethe r thi s i s generall y true, it does no t answer the real question : of the two possibilities tha t UG grants for focusin g elements—adverbial s o r functiona l heads—whic h on e i s a t issu e here? Propert y (iib ) suggests that indeed a hea d i s a t stake . A s i s wel l known, many Romanc e languages show the Focu s movemen t in (5) :

An F Position in Western Romance 15

(5) moita s cousa s li e e u dixera ! (Galician many thing s da t I said.had. I 'I had said MANY THINGS t o him/her'

9

)

The questio n is wher e the focuse d moitas cousas 'man y things ' i s moving . Of course, thi s coul d be a n adjunction—but i t coul d als o be a n instance o f move ment to a spec. If the latter is th e case, the obvious questio n i s what this spec is, and havin g a n F head woul d then clearly b e handy. Notice, incidentally , tha t if mere adjunctio n i s a t issue, we probably should expect the possibility o f several focus movement s (which does, not obtain) , and that the sor t of movemen t in (5 ) be fairl y genera l acros s languages—whic h i s not. Therefore, adjunctio n here i s highly suspect . Note als o th e position of the clitic i n (5) . This is entirely impossibl e i n mos t modern Romanc e dialects, bu t i t i s quit e systemati c in archai c forms—thi s i s property (2vii) . Bein g deliberatel y naiv e abou t th e clitic i n (5), w e can explai n its positio n i f ther e is a n extr a host fo r th e elemen t i n th e relevan t dialects . A question I return to in sectio n 4 is whethe r this could be F. Another archai c trai t tha t i s productiv e i n som e Romanc e language s i s recomplementation, which as Higgins (1988) notes i s associated t o dislocation s we may refer to a s "sandwiched": (6) a . no n o maltratemo s said.III.pl that t o thi s ma n tha t no t hi m badly.treatJ.p l 'they sai d that this man that we should not treat him badly' b. no n ve u re s say.III.pl tha t -;h e wha t i s se e tha t no t saw!! ! nothin g 'they say that what you may call seeing that he did not see anything' c. ban marcha r say.III.pl tha t i f find!I I th e exi t tha t will.II I g o 'they sa y that i f they fin d th e exi t that they shal l go" In embedded clauses, Left Dislocated and peripheral phrases can be followed b y an overt que; of course, the y are also preceded b y a complementizer. Thes e are properties (2iii ) an d (2iv) . Fact s o f thi s sor t follo w if th e highes t que i s "old style" C, and the lowest, F . Here I depart from analyses of "CP recursion," as in latridou an d Kroch (1993)—out only nominally. That is, I accep t their insights, but I would like to sugges t that the secon d element in the recursion is not a recursion o f C a t all , bu t a separat e F hea d wit h properties differen t fro m thos e of C . We may ask, though, how we know that it is the highest element tha t is C, and not vice-versa . Consider (7): (7) (Di n que ) mite s cousa s (*que ) ve u say.III.pl tha t man y thing s tha t saw.II I 'They sa y that many things did he see *

160

Discourse Configurational Languages

Focused phrase s are incompatible with overt que, unlike Left Dislocated phrases . Although que can occupy the head o f an FP, in these language s i t does not hav e the appropriat e feature s t o agre e wit h a focused phras e i n it s spec—muc h lik e that is not compatible with Wh-phrases. 3 This accoun t holds onl y if it is the sec ond que that is relevant for Focus, sinc e the upper one is fine in these instances . Property (2v ) is rather powerful in archaic Romance, an d one would hope als o that it is related t o the patterns above. 4 The distribution o f true over t pleonastic s appears t o be limited t o sentences o f a certain sort : mostly , thos e without a logical subject , o r wher e thi s elemen t doe s no t nee d over t morphologica l Cas e (Raposo an d Uriagereka (1990)) : (8) a . E l chov e (Galician ) it rain s b. Ist o sa o de z hora s j a (Portuguese ) this ar e te n hour s alread y c. e l 6 sabid o que.. . (Galician) it i s know n tha t d. E l er a unh a lantern a d e pape l (Galician ) it(masc.) wa s a.fe m lanter n o f pape r e. ell e h a maroto s muit o grande s n a trop a (Portuguese ) it ha s rascal s ver y grea t in-th e troop s f. e l sabede s cand o chegara n (Galician ) it know.II.p l whe n arrive.will.III.p l 'Do yo u know when they'll arrive? ' These example s contras t with others where the overt expletive is associate d t o a definite specifi c NP , a matte r I retur n to i n sectio n 4 . Over t expletive s ar e als o incompatible with focused phrases (9a) , and in some dialect s ar e used t o expres s clausal emphasi s (9b) : (9) a . * moitos convidado s e l chegaro n (Galician ) many guest s i t arrived.III.p l b. ell o qu e y o l o v i (Archai c Spanish ) it tha t I i t sa w 'Of cours e I sa w it!' (9b) suggest s that the over t expletiv e may occup y th e spec o f F , perhaps risin g from th e spec of IP.5 In section 4 I return to what may prevent phrases fro m bein g focalized t o F ove r the expletiv e (9a) . Another known property o f Western Iberian dialect s i s that the y allo w fo r in flected infinitivals . This woul d see m peculia r t o thes e dialects, 6 bu t followin g Maurer (1978 ) w e ma y nee d t o extend our horizons . Ther e ar e tw o separat e is sues here: whether infinitivals ar e inflected and whether they are personal. Maurer shows tha t personal infinitivals extende d across th e medieva l Romania , and go t

An F Position in Western Romance 16

1

progressively los t i n modern dialect s excep t fo r those I am calling archaic—jus t like over t pleonastics . Thus : (10) a . Senz a vederl a egl i passo.. . (Medieva l Italian ) without see-he r h e went.II I 'Without he seein g her , sh e went...' b. Fo r l e vilai n creve r d'envie , chanterai.. . (Ol d French ) For th e villai n di e of-env y sing.will. I 'For the villai n to die with envy, I wil l sing... ' c. Ma s po r vo s mandarlo , l o hare.. . (Archai c Spanish ) But fo r yo u order-i t i t do.will ! 'But because o f you orderin g it , I wil l do it' Maurer argues that this construction is the basis of the inflected infinitivals. There are two important properties tha t inflected infinitivals exhibit. The infinitival for m agrees wit h th e subject ; an d subject s ar e possibl e her e withou t "Aux (o r mor e generally V ) t o Comp. " The traditiona l ter m "persona l infinitive " make s refer ence to the latter possibility, namely preverbal subjects i n infinitivals. Now , th e examples i n (10) d o not seem to involve ver b raising, and in that sense are stan dard persona l infinitives . As fo r th e matte r o f overt inflectiona l forms , Maure r notes correctly that overt agreement surface s even in non-infinitival clauses. Take for instanc e (lla) o r (lib): (11) a . N u se i cum o tant o devamos , ganhandomo s tant o not know. I ho w so.muc h owe.I.p i earning.I.p i so-muc h dinheiro money 'I don' t kno w hew w e owe so much, earnin g s o much' (Portuguese, Ervedos a d o Douro) b. l a muje r est a muriendas e the woma n i s dying.fem.sel f (Puertorican Spanish , Utuado, Lares) c. N o po r quererse n mucho.. . not fo r love.eachother.p l muc h (Sub-standard Spanish , tur n o f century) (lla) i s commo n i n area s o f Norther n Portuga l an d Galicia . Here , agreemen t shows wit h a gerundia l form. Simila r fact s hav e bee n reporte d (e.g . b y Zamor a Vicente (1966) ) withi n Puert o Rico , a s i n (lib) . Likewise , i n 17t h centur y Napolitan inflecte d non-finit e forms exten d to gerundials . This i s al l to sa y that there i s nothin g obviously peculia r t o the fac t that th e over t agreemen t surface s with infinitivals. What is important is that it surface s where i t can, tha t is, where there i s a n "argument " an d a "predicate " t o agre e an d a syntacti c category en coding th e agreemen t overtly o r covertly . This i s wh y i t i s crucia l that personal

162

Discourse Configurational Languages

forms sho w u p i n a give n dialect : i f the y do , overt , spelled-ou t agreemen t may follow. Not e als o tha t althoug h th e standar d clai m i s tha t inflecte d infinitival s are not seen i n mainland Iberia n dialects , Borao (1908 ) record s form s lik e (lie). In sum , persona l infinitives , wit h o r withou t a stron g spel l ou t o f agreemen t features, ar e anothe r trait o f medieval Romanc e whic h disappeare d i n mos t dia lects, thoug h no t i n all . So far , I hav e note d tha t dialect s wit h persona l infinitival s an d dialect s wit h strong F coincide . Synchroni c argument s ca n als o b e give n fo r th e correlation . As Hernanz (1982) note s fo r Spanish, personal infinitive s typically involv e em phasis o r focu s o f the over t subjec t (12a) . Also , not e th e Galicia n (12b) : (12) a . a l ell a tene r qu e pagar , y n o lo s otros , Mari a grit o on sh e hav e t o pa y an d no t th e other s Mari a shoute d 'Since sh e had t o pay, an d no t the others , Mar y shouted ' b. No s queremo s ( * moitas cousas ) comer(*mos ) We wan t man y thing s eat.I.p l 'We wan t to ea t (man y things)!' In those contexts where personal infinitives ar e impossible, s o are focused phrases : for instance , volitional embedded clauses prevent both. Furthermore , a s Rapos o (1987) notes , i n epistemi c context s th e inflecte d infinitiva l mus t underg o ver b movement, whic h i n hi s theor y follow s fro m th e nee d tha t th e infinitiva l for m has t o receiv e Cas e (Galicia n examples) : (13) a . *X a m e extranab a teu s irman s no n viren a fest a emph. m e surprise d you r brother s no t come.III.p l to-th e part y b. X a m e extranab a no n viren teu s irman s a fest a emph. m e surprise d no t come.ni.p l you r brother s to-th e part y 'Your brothers no t coming t o th e party ha d surprise d m e indeed' But Amba r (1989 ) note s tha t i f th e subjec t betwee n th e epistemi c ver b an d th e embedded ver b i s focalized , ver b movemen t is unnecessary : (14) extranabam e s o o s teu s irman s no n vire n a fest a surprised-me onl y you r brother s no t come.III.p l to-th e part y 'Only YOU R BROTHER S no t coming t o th e party had surprise d me ' Given fact s o f this sort , w e have t o come bac k t o an explicit theoretical vehicl e for th e observed correlations . Wha t shoul d b e clear, though, is that it is desirabl e to fin d a unified accoun t t o al l thes e phenomena , sinc e the y appea r (an d disap pear) simultaneousl y i n a class o f dialects .

An F Position in Western Romance 16

3

3. V-movement to F Consider agai n the clitic patterns in (1), i n particular for tensed clauses . Fo r rea sons tha t d o not concer n m e now , I shal l assum e tha t i n the unmarke d instanc e clitics ar e hoste d i n a positio n outsid e VP . From thi s viewpoint , patter n C i s a nuisance. Traditiona l linguist s have a line fo r it; in th e word s o f Diete r Wanne r (1988): "I n [th e Mussafia-Sorrento-Ulleland ] approach , proclisi s i s see n a s basic,... s o that any enclitic occurrence need s a specific reason for its existence." In fact , th e derivatio n has alway s been clear . Again, in Wanner' s words : [Within Vernacula r Latin, ] on e o f th e reason s fo r th e increas e i n frequenc y [o f th e attachment of clitic s t o verbs ] :. s th e leftwar d appearanc e of th e ver b in certai n em phatic claus e type s characteristi c of spontaneou s speech: imperatives , quotatives , presentatives, verb focus, and emotively marked utterances all have clause initial verbs. The pronoun does not change its place actively in such situations, but it remains stable in the lefthand portio n of the clause, preferably in second position .

In th e example s tha t concern us here, i f the ver b is abl e t o mov e in the relevan t sites pas t th e clitics , the n w e ge t the righ t syntax . With it , though , a fe w ques tions arise: why has the verb moved, where has it moved to, why has it not moved in th e othe r instances ? And sc on . Uriagereka (forthcomin g a) reports o n variou s "Ver b Second " approache s t o these questions. But asid e from th e fact tha t the present paradig m does no t align with V-2, 7 a minimalist account cannot allo w for "free " V2 , prevente d i n som e instances if a more economi c derivatio n exists. V- 2 accounts typically state tha t for unclea r reasons the verb must raise past the clitics i n matrix clauses, an d then argue tha t in embedded clause s th e raising is not necessary an d therefore i s im possible. Th e problem , though , i s th e firs t claim . I n th e minimalis t progra m i f the ver b move s i t mus t b e becaus e i t itsel f ha s a reaso n t o move , otherwis e i t would violate the Greed strategy . Uriagereka (1988 ) proposes tha t the verb move s to F for the sam e reaso n tha t i t moves t o I in languages wit h a stron g I . In cur rent terms , w e must instanciat e thi s idea b y assumin g tha t th e verb ha s stron g I features tha t are checked agains t the features in I, thereby eliminatin g I at PF in satisfaction o f Full Interpretation . Following th e sam e reasoning , I sugges t tha t the archai c Romanc e ver b ha s a stron g F featur e i n it s morphology , whic h i s checked agains t the stron g F position I a m hypothesizing. I take i t that it is this feature tha t show s u p a s the inflectio n i n infinitivals . Upon raising V t o F , F i s made invisibl e for the P F level , an d the derivatio n does not crash . My suggestio n takes Wanner's philologica l observatio n seriously , thu s assuming th e positio n th e ver b i s movin g to , hi s sit e fo r emphatic , focused , o r emo tively marked utterances , i s a strong F head. In as much a s movement to F exist s only i n archai c dialects , w e mus t assum e tha t F i s stron g onl y i n th e latter . I n turn, i n a s muc h a s movemen t t o F in archai c language s i s onl y i n certai n con texts, we must have a reason for V not raising in all other contexts . The contexts themselves ar e th e following , agai n accordin g to Wanner:

164

Discourse Configurational Languages

(15)

Context % of enclisis a. Relativ e marker 0 b. Subordinat e complementizer 0 c. question/exclamatio n word 0 d. mai n ver b focu s 0 e. predicat e focu s 0 f. argumen t focus 0 g. scramblin g 0 h. negativ e elemen t 0 dverb] V cl..... cl... 10 si. [ x [adverb] cl V.. .....> j.. [v 50 K. s[ s[subject] c1 V... K. s[ s[subject] c1 V... 1.topic[xp] s[c] v... topic[xp] c[v c1... 50 m.[conjunction] c1 v [conjuction] v-c1 80 100 n.g[c1 v... s[v-c...

This i s th e genera l archai c pattern , with V movement i n th e instance s of 100 % enclisis, non e in the instances with 0% enclisis, and mixed result s elsewhere. The "elsewhere" case is easy , i f no t t o isolate, at leas t t o idealize . Th e conjunction s where proclisi s i s possibl e ar e instance s o f subordinatio n elements—th e major ity yield enclisis. The rest are elements whic h have either a topic o r a focus read ing, such as subjects an d adverbs; presumably the focused reading yields proclisis , and th e Left-dislocated (or more generally , topic) readin g yield s enclisis . The situatio n just described is simila r (amon g others) t o Zwart's (1993 ) char acterization o f V movemen t t o C i n som e Dutc h variant s o r Cardinalett i an d Robert's (forthcoming ) V movemen t t o a nod e afte r C , whic h the y cal l Agr-1. More generally , w e ma y expec t Rizzi' s (1990 ) treatmen t o f complementizer s agreeing wit h subjects as instances of I to F. The general question is this: why is this phenomeno n restricted t o instances wher e F is ungoverned? In the spiri t of Zwart's minimalis t approac h w e can propose tha t a strong F is eliminated i n variou s way s b y PF : (i ) a n elemen t ca n appea r i n it s spe c i f i t matches i n th e relevan t feature s (i n my terms i t is a point of view element); (ii ) F ca n cliticiz e t o a governin g element , thereb y disappearin g as a n independen t head b y PF ; (iii ) a n elemen t incorporate s t o F , buryin g F insid e th e raise d element's morpholog y (much like argument s raised t o expletives mak e them in visible for LF). Economi c considerations make (i) the most desirable route. How ever, i t i s no t alway s the cas e tha t (i ) can b e taken , give n tha t not al l sentence s involve material associated t o a point of view—a matter I deal with immediately. Then, (ii ) is straightforward, even if it involves one further derivationa l step : th e cliticization o f F . But her e to o w e hav e a limitation : thi s strateg y woul d wor k only if there is a site governing F, not otherwise. The elsewhere cas e is then (iii), which is th e leas t economica l route: th e V must move to support th e stron g F , a rather cumbersom e proces s an d the leas t preferred one . Recall tha t in orde r fo r th e las t mov e no t t o invok e a violatio n of Greed , th e verb itself must have strong F morphology. That it does i s of course not obvious in al l Romance languages (thoug h i t i s i n Western Iberian, wher e thi s morphol -

An F Position in Western Romance 16

5

ogy show s u p a s inflectio n i n infinitivals) . I t shoul d b e note d thoug h tha t th e notions of "strong" and "weak" morphological P F features ar e quite technical i n the minimalist project, and do not correlate directl y with pronounceable morphol ogy. B e tha t a s i t may , a technica l wrinkl e i s lef t b y th e fac t tha t th e "strong " (though abstract ) feature in V is directly checked onl y i n those instance s wher e V raises to F, whereby F replaces th e appropriate feature s if we assume Chomsky' s (1993) specific mechanism—a n issue fo r Zwart's analysi s a s well. I suggest tha t this i s as a result o f the verbal morpholog y i n this instanc e bein g "zero-strong" ; that is , presen t enoug h t o allo w th e ver b t o mov e t o a site wher e th e featur e i s checked agains t a corresponding functiona l head, bu t not stron g enoug h t o forc e the ver b t o alway s mov e b y PF . In othe r words , zer o morpheme s allo w a cat egory t o mov e exactl y t o th e domai n wher e the y ar e checked , bu t d o no t forc e this mov e sinc e they themselves ar e invisible at PF. The reaso n wh y this move ment doe s no t violat e Procrastinat e is tha t i f th e ver b di d no t mov e i n th e rel evant instances the derivation would crash at PF, in those language s where the F category itself is indeed strong . In turn, in instances wher e th e F morphology i s not zero-strong, but full y strong , as in inflected infinitivals , V must raise t o F in the genera l instanc e (cf . (13)). 8 As fo r th e strengt h o f F , I sugges t tha t i t b e relativize d t o invokin g poin t o f view features . Recal l tha t it is clitics that allo w u s t o se e the ver b cruisin g pas t them. I n sentence s withou t these element s o r without an y special focalization , i s there an y reason t o believe tha t the verb has moved upwards ? I strongly suspec t not, fo r norma l declarativ e sentence s involvin g indefinites ca n hav e th e forma t SVO, as in the Galician un home veu unha muller ' a man saw a woman.' Imple menting semanti c ideas of Heim (1982), Diesin g (1991 ) has interpreted th e ide a from the literature on Scrambling that indefinites mark the VP boundaries. If som e version o f thi s ide a i s correct , i t i s doubtfu l tha t the ver b ha s raise d i n thi s in stance, and then the question arises a s to why the derivation does no t crash a t PF because o f F's presence . Th e answe r mus t b e tha t F i s no t active , an d hence i s invisible i n thi s domain . Again , followin g a suggestio n fro m Zwar t (1993 ) w e may tak e it that functional categories ar e activated whe n thei r checking domai n is invoked. That i s to say, the F projection i s activated onl y if an element move s to it s spec o r i f a n elemen t move s to it s head , an d no t otherwise . Substantially, I hav e interprete d movemen t t o the F projectio n a s invoking a point o f view . In a neutra l thetic statemen t lik e th e sentenc e abov e involvin g indefinite argument s an d a n unspecifie d event , it i s no t obviou s tha t a poin t o f view i s crucial , for neithe r the illocutionar y involvement of th e speaker , no r it s categorical judgement , no r eve n it s commitmen t t o a give n referenc e ar e in volved. 9 If the analysi s of cliticizatio n i n Uriagereka (forthcomin g a ) i s correct , sentences wit h clitics ar e different , sinc e the y involv e specifi c informatio n o f a referential sor t (th e clitics themselves ) an d hence a point o f view . My argumen t there i s that , i n a clas s o f languages , clitic s en d u p i n F b y P F (afte r th e ver b moves to F for morphological reasons o f the sor t outline d above ) an d hence that F i s indee d active in thos e instances. One last issue that remains :, s how the verb can move to F over the clitics (prio r to their placement to F) without violating the Head Movement Constraint . Bake r

166

Discourse Configurational Languages

and Hale (1990 ) and Roberts (1991) , among others, are devoted t o answering thi s in variou s ways . It i s not obvious, however , tha t withi n th e minimalis t progra m this is a real problem. Th e Head Movemen t Constrain t wa s taken t o follow fro m the Empty Category Principle , whic h is now seen a s a descriptive generalizatio n following fro m th e wa y i n whic h th e Phras e Marke r i s constructe d i n a cycli c fashion plu s the Shortes t Move s strategy . If so , movement ove r a head per se is not a problem, an d in fact Chomsk y (1993) discusses some such movements. Th e question i s whethe r i n suc h a mov e som e principl e o f econom y i s violated , o r the resulting structur e violates the architecture wher e the checking o f features is feasible. I wil l pu t this issu e asid e now , though se e Uriagereka (forthcomin g a ) for furthe r discussion . 4. Some Consequences of F I want to argue that F heads assign abstrac t Cas e an d allow fo r the realization o f different sort s of morphological an d abstract Cases i n their spec, unde r head-spe c agreement.10 The view that a nominative, citation Case is available in periphera l positions comes fro m Indo-Europeanists , who noted that several languages show either a form with case concor d (th e displaced phrase has the cas e tha t i t would get i f it wer e i n a n argumen t position) o r a form with nominativus pendens. Under thi s view , Ambar' s example s (14 ) d o no t necessaril y constitut e a counterexample t o Raposo's (1987 ) clai m tha t personal infinitive s requir e Case : F may be the Case assigner . A similar sourc e o f Case ca n be at issue i n persona l infinitives mor e generally. 11 I t might be sai d tha t wha t assign s Cas e t o the subject i n instances lik e (10 ) above ar e th e prepositions. Thi s however i s unlikely. A property of Exceptional Cas e assignmen t i n English an d other languages i s that the case-marke d N P show s th e morphologica l cas e th e prepositio n assigns . I n contrast, i n th e Romanc e instances at stak e the cas e surfacin g in th e subjec t o f the infinitiva l i s not the one that the preposition woul d assign, but nominative— even in the absence of the sort of I that, at least in modern dialects, assign s nomi native Case . Instead , assignmen t fro m F woul d provid e a vali d sourc e o f nominative. Note also that if F is generally present i n personal infinitives , we will hav e an explanation fo r cliti c interpolatio n i n thes e contexts , whic h i s possibl e onl y i n archaic dialects : (16) pr a li e (ti ) (enton ) falar(es),.. . to hi m yo u the n talk-I I 'in orde r fo r you t o talk t o him,...' Not onl y i s i t possibl e fo r clitic s t o com e pre-verball y i n Galicia n infinitivals , but the y ca n eve n appea r befor e a subjec t and/o r adverbial. 12 Th e exampl e i s entirely paralle l t o (5 ) above. It i s reasonabl e to conjecture , also , tha t i t i s thi s assignmen t o f Cas e tha t li censes over t expletives. Alvarez (1981) report s example s o f th e followin g sort , from Minh o Portuguese an d Galician , respectively:

An F Position in Western Romance 16

7

(17) a . O tf a Getrudes , el e est a i a minh a aboa ? Hey aun t Getrude s i t i s ther e th e my.fe m grandm a 'Hey, aun t Getrudes, i s my grandma there?' a'. O tia Getrudes , (*ele ) a minha abo a est £ i? b. e i l estari a ist e coch e n a batall a d o Marne ? and i t could.have.bee n thi s carriag e in-th e battl e o f Marn e 'Could thi s carriag e hav e bee n i n th e battl e o f Marne?' b'. (*il ) ist e coche estari a n a batalla d o Marne? Here th e logica l subjec t o f the : sentences i s specific , ye t i s compatibl e wit h th e expletive.13 However, the word-order in (17a') and (17b') is not possible with the overt expletive. That is, the overt expletive is apparently incompatible with subjects i n th e spe c o f IP . This follow s i f th e expletiv e start s ou t i n thi s position , where it ca n ge t Cas e fro m F. That w e need tw o source s o f Cas e her e i s shown by the fact tha t both the expletive and the logical subjec t ar e showing overt nomi native Case . Th e extr a sourc e come s fro m F , by hypothesis . There is an apparently unrelated paradigm that behaves lik e (17) . Thoug h stig matized, the form s in (18a) , wit h nominativus pendens showin g up i n the dislo cated phrase , ar e certainly commo n i n Romanc e dialects: 14 (18) a . me u fill o n' o mat a a fam e my so n not-hi m kil l th e hunge r 'My son , hunge r doesn't kil l him' (cf. ' a me u fill o n' o mat a a fame ' to m y so n not-hi m kill th e hunge r b. * meu fillo a fame n' o mat a (cf. a me u fill o a fame n' o mata ) Interestingly, the nominative Left-dislocated phras e is incompatible wit h an overt subject i n th e spe c o f I P (18b)—fo r tha t wor d order , th e Lef t dislocate d phras e must bear whateve r case i t bears in the A-position i t is associated with. 15 Again, these facts follow if there are tw o sources o f nominative Case in an example like (18a)—for meu fillo 'm y son ' an d a fame 'th e hunger'—quit e independentl y of the accusativ e Case assigne d to th e pronominal clitic o 'him' . Also, (18b ) sug gests tha t th e dislocate d element, lik e th e expletiv e i n (17) , i s a t som e poin t i n the spe c o f IP. 16 This woul d follow give n Raposo an d Uriagereka's (1990 ) defi nition o f governmen t under c-command , an d assumin g Cas e assignmen t onl y under government: the only way a phrase can receive Cas e from F is if this phras e is strictly c-commanded b y F (i n the course of the derivation) . This o f cours e i s the cas e i f the phras e i s i n th e spe c o f IP . Then cas e ca n b e realize d i n th e spe c of a category (e.g . FP , but als o IP , etc.), a s discussed i n Raposo an d Uriagerek a (forthcoming). Recall als o tha t nothing I hav e sai d ye t predicts why th e expletiv e i s incompatible with focused phrases (9a). An account is possible within the proposal about barriers i n Rapos o an d Uriagerek a (1990) : th e expletiv e remains in th e spe c o f

168

Discourse Configurational Languages

IP in those instances, and hence this category is a barrier preventing focus move ment acros s it . This yields (19) : (19) a . *moito s convidado s e l parec e qu e viro n n a fest a many guest s i t seem s tha t saw.III.p l in-th e part y b. este s convidado s e l parec e qu e o s viro n n a fest a these guest s i t seem s tha t the m saw.III.p l in-th e part y 'these guest s i t seem s tha t the y sa w the m i n the party ' c. hu u logar...e n qu e e r podess e chora r a plac e i n whic h E R could. I cr y 'a plac e i n whic h I could cry ' Not jus t an y phras e i n periphera l sit e i s incompatibl e wit h th e over t expletiv e (19b): i t i s exactl y thos e tha t involv e movemen t tha t ar e impossibl e (19a) . Furthermore, Wh-movement is not incompatible with focus heads (19c) . I there fore conclud e that the position of the expletive in these instances is still the spe c of IP , tha t onl y ful l phrase s mov e t o th e spe c o f F , an d tha t thi s movemen t cannot b e acros s I P full y specified , i n suppor t o f th e Raposo/Uriagerek a approach. We have seen a host of properties separating different Romanc e dialect s withi n what we may call the "CP-system." The difference betwee n B and C dialects (of the sor t in (1) ) is arguably trivial: whether F features in V are present (C ) or not (B). This difference ha s important consequences, since movement of V to F would violate Greed an d is thus generally impossible, yielding the clitic pattern in (IB). If w e assum e tha t (i ) (over t F heads ) an d (v ) over t expletive s correspon d t o a strong F morphology, the lack of these in (IB) dialects also follows. Bu t a merely syntactic F may not be stron g enough to host clitic s in isolation, thu s predicting the absenc e o f (vii) (the interpolation of material between clitic s an d V) in (IB ) dialects. In contrast, (ii) overt focus movement , (iii) recomplementation , an d (iv) sandwiched dislocation s ar e still possibl e i n (B) dialects whil e F has a syntacti c realization, assuming these processes all invoke the strength of F once a point of view i s a t stake . Finally, consider (vi) : although personal infinitive s are no t los t in (B ) dialects (eve n if they have a rhetorical flavor), inflected one s remai n only in a few archaic variants. Non-morphological F can still assig n nominative Case, but th e over t realizatio n o f F features in th e ver b is no t present. 17 As for the difference between A dialects and the rest, it may be more dramatic: neither is F strong there, nor is it the case (consequently ) that strong F morphol ogy show s u p i n th e verb . Certainly , it i s difficul t t o attes t th e propertie s i n (2 ) in standar d moder n French , wit h the clea r exceptio n o f (2v) . The n again , I a m not convinced tha t the expletive we see in French is of the same sor t as the exple tive in archaic dialects , the French on e being a consequence o f the impossibilit y of pro-drop. 18

An F Position in Western Romance 16

9

5. Conclusions Accepting "discours e configurationality " a s a n empirica l fac t doe s no t hav e t o entail rethinkin g the gramma r in non-minimalis t ways . The pictur e I hav e pre sented is minimalist in its operations, its assumptions about levels o f representa tion, and its treatment of variation. The key to it is the postulation of an F category which encodes point of view, and which I believe w e need across languages, even Indoeuropean languages where it is not obvious prima facie, o r it has been given other names. In languages with over t focalization strategie s of the sort discusse d in thi s volume, it is hard to see how t o avoid the postulation of suc h a category, which many o f the chapter s in this book do . Apart fro m th e variou s patterns tha t I relat e her e i n term s o f F , in wor k i n progress I develop some ideas discusse d in Uriagereka (1988) t o relate F to the matter of Subjacency parameters, which are clearly non-minimalist. That is , parameters of that sort involve global domains, instead of lexicon item s (se e Rizzi (1989)). The line I pursue, instead, is Reinhart's (1979 ) origina l insight that languages wit h F have a n extra escape-hatch fo r Wh-movement, wit h complex as sociated properties dependin g on whether F is morphological, a s discussed above . I believ e tha t comparativ e grammar is o f hel p i n decidin g thes e matters . Inas much as it is not a single phenomenon, but a class of phenomena that appear and disappear togethe r acros s closel y relate d languages , w e shoul d i n principl e tr y and relat e th e arra y of fact s t o a singl e variable. More generally, all matters of "CP recursion" should be amenable to an F treatment. This mean s that the circumstances under which latridou an d Kroch (1992) propose a recursion of CP should follow fro m deepe r matters . For instance , it i s known that the phenomeno n isi restricted to certain epistemics , declaratives, an d the like , i n a n affirmativ e version . This i s exactl y wha t we expec t i f i n th e rel evant context s w e mus t selec t a categor y expressin g a poin t o f view , whic h i s not expressibl e throug h desiderativ e o r volitiona l verbs , th e complement s o f nominals an d adjectivals , o r eve n th e negativ e version s o f declarative s an d epistemics introducin g a de dicto complemen t clause . Thus , w e ca n kee p th e essential insight s o f latrido u an d Kroch , bu t instea d o f introducin g a peculia r recursion (whic h is no t see n elsewher e fo r I , D , o r an y other category ) w e ca n reinterpret thei r idea s i n term;; of a standard selection.19 I realiz e that positing a new categor y is costly , and the burde n of proof i s o n the hypothesis for it s existence . This wa s true for hypotheses abou t Comp, Infl , Det, Agr, etc., which at the time of their initial discussion me t considerable skep ticism fro m th e field—a s shoul d b e th e case . As usual , th e decidin g facto r i s empirical. I n th e cas e tha t concern s u s here , i f w e accep t tha t informatio n matters affec t configurationality , th e minimalis t system forces u s roughly i n th e direction outline d above . Inasmuc h a s tha t directio n seem s t o fin d empirica l confirmation i n a number of patterns , yielding a variet y of inter - an d intra-lin guistic facts , th e syste m itsel f whic h force s th e hypothesi s i s considerabl y strengthened.

170

Discourse Configurational Languages

Notes * Earl y version s o f thi s pape r wer e presente d a t th e Ne w Jerse y Circl e i n Princeto n and GLO W i n Lisbon. I appreciate comment s from Jose p Mari a Fontana , Charlott e Galves , Elena Herburger , Norbert Hornstein , Katali n Kiss, Davi d Lightfoot , An a Mari a Martins , Jairo Nunes , Eduard o Raposo , Diete r Wanner , an d m y student s an d colleague s a t th e University o f Maryland . 1. Or alternatively , an empty operato r moves i n the overt syntax , as proposed b y som e for Wh-movement , topicalization , toug h and parasiti c constructions , amon g others . 2. For instance , Lati n America n Spanis h dialect s reporte d b y Kan y (1963) : (i) a . com o un o e s sufrido , nadit a que s e quej a [Chile ] since on e i s thick-skinne d nothin g tha t sel f complains.III.s g 'Since on e i s ver y thic k skinned , one doesn' t complai n A T ALL" b. entonce s siempre t e casa s [Bolivia ] then alway s sel f marry.II.s g 'So yo u ARE marrying?' c. es o jay m e tocab a deci r a m i [Bolivia ] that JA Y m e corresponded.III.s g sa y t o m e 'THAT was fo r m e t o say ' d. qu 6 no as ha s traid o [Peru , Ecuador ] what no t mor e have.II.s g brough t 'What THEN hav e yo u brought?' 3. A Left-dislocated phrase is possible, though. This indicate s either tha t no agreemen t requirements hol d fo r Left-dislocation , o r else (les s likely ) tha t a further sit e i s a t issu e in thos e instances. I will not pursue this matter here, but se e Duarte (1987 ) fo r a presen tation of relevant presentential sites—whic h include als o Hanging Topics ("A s For " con structions), whic h I suspec t d o involv e a furthe r site. 4. In (i) we have several Spanis h examples wit h overt expletives. Accordin g t o Henrique z Urefia (1939) , thes e wer e commo n i n severa l dialect s u p t o th e nineteenth century : (i) a . Ell o e s faci l llega r [Sant o Domingo, Mexico , it i s eas y arriv e Colombia , an d Caribbea n 'it i s easy t o arrive ' dialect s i n general ] b. Ell o ha y dulc e d e ajonjoli ? it ha s swee t o f sesame-see d 'Is ther e an y sesame cake? ' c. Ell o dic e qu e n o e s mu y buen a it say s tha t no t i s ver y goo d 'It i s reporte d tha t it i s no t ver y good ' 5. This i s reminiscen t o f a sor t o f expletiv e ofte n see n i n Germanic , whic h ha s occa sionally bee n argue d t o b e i n Comp . Th e natura l ste p t o tak e woul d b e t o tr y t o unif y both i n term s o f a common position , whic h at least for Romanc e woul d have t o b e afte r Comp:

An F Position in Western Romance 17

1

(i) Dizqu e e l habi a moit a xent e n a rti a it.is.said.that i t ha s muc h peopl e in-th e stree t 'It i s sai d tha t ther e wa s a lot of people in th e street ' For Yiddish , Danish , an d relate d Germani c language s i t woul d b e fairl y natura l t o pro pose a post-comp site , particularl y given tha t V- 2 i s possible i n embedde d cause s eve n when Com p i s filled , an d give n othe r "C P recursion " fact s discussed , fo r instance , i n latridou an d Kroc h (1992) . 6. I n particular , Galician , Portuguese , an d th e Mirandes e varian t o f Leonese , withi n Iberian, plu s Sardinian , an d 17t h centur y Napolitan . 7. Germani c an d Romance d o not patter n alike i n standar d V-2 (ia/b): (i) a

. rech t gut/wi e fan d ic h si e (German ) very good/ho w fin d I he r cf. *moit o boa/com o encontro a e u (Galician ) very good/ho w find.I-he r I b. *rec h gut/wi e ic h si e fan d (German ) very good/ho w I he r fin d cf. moito boa/com o a e u encontr o (Galician ) very good/ho w he r I find- I c. (Eles ) dironll e u n libr o a Mari a they gave.III.pl-da t a boo k t o Mari a d. e u coid o qu e a mi n levaronm e todo s algu n garrid o I think. I tha t t o m e took.III.pl-m e al l som e presen t 'I think that they al l carried a present fo r me '

As i n Celti c languages , in archai c Romance w e do no t nee d an y topic in initia l positio n for th e ver b to b e firs t (ic) . A s i n Cyprio t Greek , th e ver b movemen t i n questio n i s als o possible i n embedded clause s when the complementizer i s present (id) (thanks to Arhonto Terzi fo r thi s observation) . Also , conside r (ii) : (ii) a

. (?*moitas / algunhas veces ) a qu6 n fo i ve r Xa n many som e time s t o who m went.II I se e Xa n '(Many/some times ) wh o di d Joh n g o see " b. Pedr o estab a pensand o ( * moitas/algunhas veces ) Pedro was.Il l thinkin g man y som e time s que Xa n no n tuver a raz6 n that Xa n no t had.Il l reaso n 'Pedro wa s thinkin g tha t (many/som e times) Xa n wa s no t right' a', (moitas/algunha s veces ) visiteu-n o e u many som e time s visited.I-hi m I 'Many time s I visited him ' b'. Pedr o estab a pensand o qu e Pedro was.II I thinkin g tha t moitas/ algunhas vece s visiteu-n o e u many som e Ime s visited.I-hi m I 'Pedro wa s thinkin g tha t many/som e times I visited him '

172

Discourse Configurational Languages

Adverbials must follow C. If the adverb marks a post-C position, the verb raise d pas t th e clitic i n (ia') an d (iib') cannot be in C. There ar e a number of complex issues here raise d by th e wor k o f Diesin g (1990 ) an d Santorin i (1991) , amon g others , pertainin g t o inter mediate, "dual" I positions in some Germanic dialects. I believe we should reanalyze their data i n terms o f neither Com p nor Infl, bu t a separate F element—bu t I wil l not g o int o this now . 8. This gives a new rationale fo r Raposo's V movement of the sor t i n (13) , althoug h it still create s a n issu e for Ambar's (14) . 9. As note d above , topicalizations/left-dislocation s trigge r enclisis , whic h mus t mea n that th e presence o f a topic i n the spe c o f FP, while activating F, is no t enoug h t o check it—unlike focalization . This i s plausible i f only the latte r process involves a n LF opera tor an d thu s trigger s a matchin g agreement betwee n th e spe c o f F an d it s head . I f th e agreement is not invoked for topics , V must move to F or the derivation wil l crash at PP. See Rapos o an d Uriagerek a (1993 ) fo r furthe r discussion o f thes e matter s an d relevan t references. 10. I t woul d be interestin g t o tr y an d reconcil e thi s ide a wit h proposal s arguin g fo r nominative being assigned fro m Com p i n Indo-European languages (e.g . Platzac k (1986 ) and man y others afterwards) . Also, not e that what I a m saying is that Cas e ma y b e realized unde r spec-hea d agreement , bu t no t tha t it i s assigned unde r thes e conditions . Se e below fo r a concret e proposa l o n assignment . Fo r extensiv e discussio n o f thes e an d re lated issues , an d traditional sources o f th e general idea , se e Zwart (1989) . H e argues fo r a default assignment of nominative Case, whic h is a different position fro m the one taken in Raposo and Uriagereka (forthcoming), in terms of a default realization. I am a bit scep tical about default assignments in as much as, all other things equal, the y predict no Cas e Filter violations. 11. This add s a twis t t o Raposo' s treatment . For him , it i s crucia l tha t infinitivals ap pear wher e Cas e i s available . If F ca n assig n Case, a furthe r issu e arise s a s t o wher e F can be licensed—i.e., which heads license FP as a complement. This als o has consequences for th e matter of CP recursion, since not all verbs allow it, a matter I come back to. Notic e finally tha t (i) confirms th e idea s introduce d now: (i) Extrafiam e s 6 a min/e l no n convidare s pr a es a fest a surprises-me onl y t o me.ace/hi m no t invite-yo u t o tha t part y 'It surprise s m e tha t you di d not invit e onl y me/hi m t o tha t party' ?* Extrafiame s 6 eu/e l no n convidare s pr a es a fest a surprises-me onl y I.nom/he.no m no t invite-yo u t o tha t part y I sho w below that, i n principle , phrases in th e lef t peripher y can receiv e nominative , or alternatively can carry along the case that corresponds t o them inside the clause (accusa tive, dative, and even some other prepositions). However, the focalized element displace d in front o f the verb in (i) must in this instance receive a Case other than nominative, which is by hypothesi s assigned to th e infinitive . I n othe r words , a Case conflict arise s her e i f the displaced phras e wants nominative, given that the infinitive needs Cas e an d only this extra nominativ e can be assigne d to it . Se e below fo r mor e details . 12. My suggestion , though , create s th e sam e issu e raise d i n n . 8 for Ambar's (14) , i f overt agreemen t i n infinitivals signal s a strong F morphology. Not e also tha t the proces s here is very different fro m wha t happens in French. I believe it is a mistake to relate French and archaic Romance dialects with respect to this matter. The position of clitics in Frenc h infinitivals i s alway s preverbal and alway s proclitic , wit h th e verb a s the host; in archaic

An F Position in Western Romance 17

3

dialects i t i s optionall y preverba l an d interpolatio n is possible , wit h differen t kind s o f hosts bein g a t issue—see Uriagereka (forthcomin g a). 13. This i s a type of example that Raposo and Uriagereka (1990) d o not dea l with . We were unaware of thes e facts , whic h seem fa r fro m perfec t i n th e standar d dialects. 14. Kany (1963 ) report s (a s careless ) th e followin g Spanis h examples : (i) a . e l mu y burr o s e l e di o po r juga r [Argentina ] the ver y as s sel f him.da t gave.III.s g fo r pla y 'The ass , i t occurre d t o hi m to play' b. e l anima ll ed i permis o [Chile ] the anima l him.da t gave.I.s g permi t 'The beast, I allowec , him to' c. e l negr o n o l e hac e nad a l a culebr a [Venezuela ] the blac k no t him.da t mak e nothin g th e serpen t 'the guy , the serpen t doesn't bit e him' 15. This dismisses a general approach to the phenomenon in terms of the "As for" con struction (see Kan y (1963))—restrictions of the sort noted are unexpected i n those terms . The process is somewhat reminiscent of Maling's (1980) Icelandic stylistic fronting. An important difference is in terms o f the elements whic h can front, which in Icelandic seem to be muc h mor e restricted . 16. Perhaps a s in Diesing's (1989 ) analysi s of Yiddish embedded clauses . Notic e also the possibl e correlatio n betwee n thes e instance s an d example s wit h locativ e inversion , as in Bresna n and Kanerv a (1989). 17. While I tak e it tha t overt agreemen t morphology i n a n infinitiva l means stron g F morphology i n V , recall tha t I d o no t impl y by thi s tha t onl y overt morpholog y is inter preted a s strong—fo r i t ca n b e als o "zero-strong" . (Alternatively , we woul d have to al low "Enlightened Sel f Interest" i n the sens e of work in progress b y Howard Lasnik, with V moving overtly to salvag e the derivatio n in th e overt syntax, only because V would in any cas e hav e to mov e covertl y at LF. ) 18. To be fair, I gave just the idealized picture. See Martins (forthcoming), Cardinaletti and Robert s (forthcoming) , an d Fontan a (forthcoming ) fo r a mor e detaile d descriptio n and analyse s o f French, Spanish , an d Portuguese diachroni c facts . 19. For a mor e detaile d presentatio n o f thes e issues , se e Torreg o an d Uriagerek a (i n progress).

References Alvarez, R. (1981), O Pronome Persoal en Galego, University of Santiago de Compostel a doctoral thesis . Ambar, M. (1989) , Para Uma Sintaxe da Inversao Sujeito Verbo em Portugues, University o f Lisbo n doctora l thesis . Baker, M. , an d K . Hal e (1990) , 'Relativize d Minimalit y and Pronou n Incorporation, ' Linguistic Inquiry 21 , 289-298. Borao, J. (1908) , Diccionario de Voces Aragonesas, Diputaci6n Provincial d e Zaragoza. Bresnan, J., an d J. Kanerv a (1989), 'Locativ e Inversion in Chicewa,' Linguistic Inquiry 20, 1-50 .

174

Discourse Configurational Languages

Cardinaletti, A. , an d M.T. Guast i (eds. ) (forthcoming) , Small Clauses, Academi c Press , New York. Cardinaletti, A. , an d I . Robert s (forthcoming) , 'Claus e Structur e an d X-second, ' i n W. Chao an d G . Horrocks (eds.) . Chao, W. and G. Horrocks (eds. ) (forthcoming), Levels of Representation, Foris, Dordrecht . Chomsky, N. (1977) , Essays on Form and Interpretation, Nort h Holland . Chomsky, N. (1989), 'O n The Economy of Derivations,' MIT Working Papers in Linguistics X . Chomsky, M. (1992), ' A Minimalist Program fo r Linguistic Theory,' Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1 , MIT Press , Cambridge , Massachusetts . Diesing, M . (1989) , 'Ver b Second i n Yiddish and th e Nature of Subjec t Position,' Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8 , 41-79. Diesing, M . (1991), The Syntactic Roots of Semantic Partition, Universit y of Massachu setts a t Amherst doctoral thesis. Duarte, I. (1987) , A Construydo de Topicalizacao Na Gramdtica do PortuguSs, Univer sity o f Lisbon doctora l thesis . Fontana, J.M . (forthcoming) , Phrase Structure and The Syntax of Clitics in the History of Spanish, Universit y of Pennsylvania doctoral thesis. Heim, I . (1982) , The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Universit y o f Massachusetts a t Amherst doctora l thesis. Hellan, L. , an d K . Christense n (eds. ) (1986) , Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, Kluwer , Dordrecht. Henriquez Urena , P. (1939), 'Ello, ' Revista de Filologia Hispdnica I . Hernanz, M. L. (1982) , El Infinitivo en Espanol, Universida d Autonoma d e Barcelona . Higgins, R . (1988) , 'Wher e th e Ol d Englis h Sentenc e Begins, ' ms . Universit y o f Massachusetts a t Amherst. latridou, S., and A. Kroch (1992 ) Th e Distributio n and Licensing o f CP Recursion,' ms. University o f Pennsylvania. Kany, Ch . (1963) , American Spanish Syntax, Universit y of Chicago Press . Kiparsky, P. (1968), 'Tens e and Mood in Indoeuropean Syntax, ' Foundations of Language, 4, 30-57. Lapesa, R . (1942) , Historia de la Lengua Espanola, Gredos . Maling, J. (1980) , 'Inversio n i n Embedde d Clauses i n Modern Icelandic, ' Islenskt Mai 1, 175-193 . Martins, A. M. (forthcoming) , Untitled Universit y of Lisbon doctora l thesis. Maurer, T. H. (1978), O Infinito Flexionado Portugues, Compani a Editora Nacional, Sa o Paulo. Mattos e Silva, R . V. (1989), Estruturas Trecentistas, Estudo s Gerais . Platzack, C . (1986) , 'Comp , Infl , an d Germani c Wor d Order, ' i n L . Hella n an d K . Christensen (eds.) . Pollock, J . I . (1989) , 'Ver b Movement , Universa l Grammar , an d Th e Structur e o f IP, ' Linguistic Inquiry 20 , 365—424 . Raposo, E . (1987) , 'Cas e Theory an d Infl-to-Comp,' Linguistic Inquiry 18 , 85-110. Raposo, E. , an d J . Uriagerek a (1990) , 'Long-Distanc e Cas e Assignment, ' Linguistic Inquiry 21 , 505-537. Raposo, E., and J. Uriagereka (1993), 'Tw o Types of Small Clauses,' presented a t GLOW, Lund, t o appea r in Cardinalett i and Guast i (eds.) (forthcoming). Raposo, E. , an d J . Uriagerek a (forthcoming) , 'Indefinit e Se,' t o appea r i n Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.

An F Position in Western Romance 17

5

Reinhart, T. (1979), 'Tw o Com p Positions,' paper presente d a t GLOW , Pisa . Rizzi, L. (1989), 'O n the Format of Parameters," Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12 , 355 356. Rizzi, L. (1990) , Relativized Minimality, MI T Press, Cambridge , Massachusett. Roberts, I . (1991) , 'Excorporatior i an d Minimality,' Linguistic Inquiry 22 , 209-218. Santorini, B . (1991) , 'Th e Histor y of th e Verb Second Constrain t in Yiddish,' ms . Uni versity o f Pennsylvania. Torrego, E. , an d J. Uriagerek a (in progress), 'Indicative Dependents, ' ms . Universit y of Massachusetts a t Amherst an d University of Marylan d at Colleg e Park . Uriagereka, J . (1988) , On Government, Universit y o f Connecticu t doctora l dissertation, distributed b y MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Uriagereka, J . (forthcomin g a) , 'Aspect s o f Cliti c Placemen t i n Wester n Romance, ' t o appear in Linguistic Inquiry. Uriagereka, J. (forthcoming b), 'Minima l Restrictions ori Basque Movements,' t o appear in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Wanner, D . (1987) , The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns, Mouto n de Gruyter. Zamora Vicente , A. (1966) , Dialcctologia Espanola, Credos . Zwart, J.W . (1989 ) The First Case, Universit y of Groninge n MA dissertation. Zwart, J.W . (1993 ) 'Ver b Movemen t and Complementize r Agreement,' MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15 .

7 Focusing in Modern Gree k IANTHI MARI A TSIMPLI University of Newcastle upon Tyne

1. Introduction This pape r discusses th e phenomenon of focusing in Modern Greek (MG) . It has two major aims . The first aim is to distinguish the process o f focusing fro m the processes o f topicalization and wh-movement which are also attested i n the lan guage. The second ai m is to develop a theory of focusing which accounts for the distribution o f focus phrases bot h in the synta x and a t LF. Section 2 discusses some word order properties relatin g to the subject and the objects o f the verb, with the aim of introducing the constructions investigate d i n the subsequent sections . Section 3 incorporate s a relativel y detaile d compariso n o f focusin g an d topicalization whic h i s argue d t o lea d t o th e conclusio n tha t focusin g involve s operator-movement in the syntax whereas topicalization involve s operator-move ment at LF. Section 4 incorporates a n attempt to develop a theory of focusing. It is argued, first, tha t focus phrases mov e to th e Spec positio n o f a Focus Phras e (FP ) pro jection, and secondly, tha t the distribution of focus phrases i s regulated by an Sstructure constrain t calle d th e F-Criterion . Certai n co-occurrenc e restriction s between focus phrases ar e accounted for in terms of the assumption that there is only one sentence-initia l positio n fo r (moved ) focus phrases . This assumptio n is argue d in Sectio n 5 to account also fo r simila r co-occur rence restriction s betwee n focus phrases an d wh-phrases. This sectio n als o pre sents arguments against reducing focus-movement to wh-movement or vice versa . It i s argue d that while both processes ar e instances of operator-movement , the distribution of wh-phrases is regulated by a constraint which is distinct fro m the on e which regulates th e distributio n of focus phrases . 176

Focusing in Modern Greek

177

2. Some Preliminary Remarks on Word Order MG is a head-initial language with a certain degre e o f flexibilit y i n word order. The followin g examples illustrate some o f the possible wor d orde r pattern s : (1) a . Estil e o Yani s to dhema . (VSO ) sent-3s the-no m Yani s the-acc parce l 'Yanis sen t the parcel.' b. O Yani s estil e t o dhema . (SVO ) the-nom Yani s sent-3 s the-ac c parce l 'Yanis sen t th e parcel.' c. Estil e t o dhem a o Yanis . (VOS ) sent-3s the-ac c parce l the-no m Yani s 'Yanis sen t the parcel.' (2) a . T o vivli o to-edhos e i Mari a st o Yani . (OVS ) the-acc boo k it-gave-3 s the-no m Mari a to-the-ac c Yan i 'The book, Mari a gav e it to Yani.' b. T o VIVLI O sdhos e i Mari a st o .Yani . (OVS ) the-acc boo k gave-3 s the-no m Mari a to-the-ac c Yani 'It i s the book tha t Mari a gav e to Yani.' (la-c) illustrat e variability in the order o f the subject , an d (2a&b) variabilit y in the order of the object. I have argued independently (Tsimpl i (1990)) that the basic order in MG is VSO, illustrate d by (la) (se e als o Philippaki-Warburto n (1985)). This is taken to mean tha t only in this wor d order does th e overt subjec t occup y the canonica l subjec t position . I n th e SV O an d VO S order s th e over t subjec t occupies non-subjec t positions t o be identifie d later i n this paper . The VSO natur e o f M G i s argue d t o b e du e t o th e fac t tha t th e languag e instantiates th e structur e in (3) , where TNS i s higher tha n AGR: 1

178

Discourse Conflgurational Languages

In th e VS O orde r th e subjec t occupie s SpecAGRP , th e canonica l subjec t posi tion, whil e the ver b is in TNS. In the SVO order the subjec t occupie s a Top(ic) position whic h i s adjoine d t o TNSP. Th e subjec t i n th e VOS orde r i s argue d t o occupy th e sam e position , th e onl y differenc e bein g i n th e directionalit y o f adjunction t o TNSP. Th e point to retai n about thes e tw o order s is tha t th e over t subject i s no t th e grammatica l subject of th e sentence , but , rather , a topic . Th e grammatical subjec t i n thes e order s i s a pr o whic h occupie s th e canonica l sub ject position (SpecAGRP ) an d is linked t o th e over t subjec t vi a coindexation . The relationshi p betwee n th e over t subjec t an d pro i n th e SV O an d VO S or ders ca n be schematicall y represente d a s in (4a&b) : (4) a . NP ; [....pro;....] b. [....pr 0i .... ] NP ; According t o thi s analysi s the apparen t flexibility in th e orde r o f th e subjec t i s reduced, followin g standar d practice , t o th e abilit y o f AG R t o licens e a pr o subject. (2a) an d (2b) , where the object o f the ver b is preposed, exhibi t certain differ ences whic h will be argued to imply tha t they involve two different processes o f preposing. In (2a) the preposed object , first , doe s not bear heavy/focal stress , and , secondly, is related to an overt resumptive pronoun insid e the sentence. Th e pat tern show n i n (2a ) i s basicall y th e on e outline d i n (4a&b) , th e onl y differenc e being tha t the resumptive pronoun i n (2a ) i s a n overt clitic . In thi s constructio n the object , lik e th e subjec t i n (Ic) , ca n als o appea r in sentence-fina l position : (5) a . To-edhos a st o Yani , t o vivlio . it-gave-Is to-th e Yan i th e boo k 'I gave-i t t o Yani, the book.' b. Ta-eval a st o trapezi , t a vivlia . them-put-ls on-th e table the-ac c book s 'I put them o n the table, the books.' It should be clear that whichever analysis is proposed fo r (2a) an d (5a&b), thes e constructions shoul d be assimilate d t o the one s i n (Ib&c ) o r vic e versa . The constructio n i n (2b) , however , differ s i n significan t ways . First , th e preposed objec t bear s heavy/foca l stress , typica l o f focu s phrase s i n general . Secondly, the prepose d objec t i s no t relate d t o a n overt pronomina l elemen t in side th e sentence , bu t t o a gap. The patter n involved i n this constructio n ca n b e schematically represente d a s i n (6 ) : (6) NP ; [.. . e j ... ] [+f]

where th e [+f ] featur e i s intende d t o conve y th e informatio n tha t th e prepose d noun phras e bears heavy/focal stress . The exac t nature of th e empt y category i n (6) wil l be establishe d below.

Focusing in Modern Greek 17

9

At a preliminary level , thes e superficial differences between th e two constructions i n (2a&b ) ca n b e take n t o impl y tha t they involv e tw o differen t processe s of preposing . Fo r concreteness , I wil l refer t o the process involved i n (2a) , an d by extensio n i n (5a&b ) an d (Ib&c) , a s topicalization . Topicalizatio n i s under stood her e to refe r t o th e proces s whereb y a noun phrase i s place d a t either periphery o f the sentenc e an d is linked to a resumptive pronoun ( a pro o r a n overt pronoun) insid e th e sentence . O n th e othe r hand , th e proces s involve d i n (2b ) will be referred to as focusing. At this stage, focusin g can be defined as the pro cess whereby a n element bearin g focal stres s i s placed a t the left-periphera l po sition an d is relate d t o a gap insid e the sentence. 2

3. Focusing versus Topicalization The first major difference between th e two processes concerns th e presence ver sus absence o f a resumptive clitic pronoun. Topicalization typically involves the presence o f a resumptiv e pronou n i n th e argumen t positio n t o whic h th e topicalized element is linked. Focusin g differs i n that it not only does not involve a resumptive clitic pronoun bu t disallow s it : (7) a . T O YANI ; (*ton i) sinantis a xtes . the-acc Yan i (*him ) met-I s yesterda y 'It i s Yani that I me t yesterday.' b. Ti s MARIAS ; (*tis a t o vivlio . f) edhos the-gen Mari a (*her ) gave-I s the-ac c boo k 'It i s to Maria tha t I gave th e book.' The ungrammaticalit y of thes e example s ca n b e explaine d i n term s o f th e A' disjointness Requiremen t o n th e distributio n of pronomina l elements suggeste d in Aoun an d Li (1990): 3 (8) Th e A'-disjointnes s ^Requiremen t (adapte d from Aoun an d Li (1990)) A pronou n must be fre e i n the smalles t Complet e Functiona l Comple x (CFC) whic h contain:! it. Assuming that the focus phrase is contained inside the CFC (the clause) containing the pronou n (th e Bindin g Domai n or Governin g Category o f th e pronoun ) the binding relation between the focu s phras e an d the pronoun gives ris e t o a violation o f (8) . In othe r words, the occurrenc e o f a resumptive pronoun is exclude d by Bindin g considerations . Th e exac t locatio n o f th e focu s phras e wil l b e dis cussed belo w i n detail. Note, crucially, that this analysi s excludes th e possibility tha t th e empt y cat egory i n (6 ) could be pronominal , for i f it was , a similar violatio n o f (8 ) shoul d arise. I t mus t therefore be conclude d to be a variable trace. If thi s analysi s is on th e righ t track , the apparent implication seems t o be tha t the topicalize d counterpart in (4a ) occupie s a differen t position , presumably a

180

Discourse Configurational Languages

position outside the binding domain of the pronoun. This positio n ca n be assume d to b e th e To p position suggeste d i n Chomsk y (1977) , possibl y locate d outsid e the C P whic h correspond s t o th e smalles t CF C containin g th e resumptiv e pro noun. However, ther e ar e clear reason s t o believe tha t this is not likely t o be th e right explanation . In the followin g examples th e topicalization phras e i s clearly located insid e the embedded C P since i t appear s followin g th e complementizer : (9) a . Ipa n ot i t o vivli o to-edhos e o Yani s st i Maria . said-3p tha t th e boo k it-gav e th e Yani s to-th e Mari a 'They sai d that Yanis gave th e book t o Maria. ' b. Ipa n ot i ti s Maria s tis-edhos e t o vivli o o Yanis . said-3p tha t the-ge n Mari a her-gav e th e boo k th e Yanis 'They sai d that Yanis gave the book t o Maria.' A more plausible explanation is, perhaps, t o say that the topicalized phrase doe s not qualif y a s a n operator , an d therefor e a s a n A'-binder, b y virtu e o f th e posi tion i t occupies , assumin g a configurationa l definition of operator s suc h a s th e one provide d i n Chomsk y (1981) . Accordin g t o thi s analysi s th e To p positio n occupied b y th e topicalize d phras e i s no t amon g th e position s whic h defin e operators.4 Chomsky (1977 ) suggest s furthe r tha t th e categorie s whic h occup y th e To p position, more precisely the dislocated ones, ar e base-generated ther e an d linked to a resumptive pronoun inside the clause . I f thi s suggestio n i s extende d t o th e MG topicalizatio n construction s th e implicatio n i s tha t topicalize d phrase s ar e base-generated i n their surfac e position. In contrast , focus-phrase s ar e probabl y moved t o thei r surfac e position b y mean s o f a proces s o f operator-movemen t which leave s a variable trace behind. 5 The secon d majo r differenc e concerns th e typ e o f Cas e born e b y focu s an d topicalized nou n phrases. Topicalize d nou n phrases ca n either bea r th e Case assigned t o the resumptiv e clitic the y are linke d t o or th e defaul t nominative. Fo cus nou n phrases , however , ca n onl y bea r th e Cas e assigne d t o th e argumen t position the y are linke d to: (10) a . I fitites , ol i i kathigite s tus-ipostirizun . the-nom student s al l th e lecturer s them-support-3 p 'All lecturer s suppor t the students. ' b. Tu s fitites , ol i i kathigite s tus-ipostirizun . the-acc student s al l th e lecturer s them-support-3 p 'All lecturer s suppor t the students. ' (11) a . * I FITITE S ipostirizu n ol i i kathigites . the-nom student s support-3 p al l th e lecturer s 'All lecturer s suppor t th e STUDENTS.' b. Tu s FITITE S ipostirizu n ol i i kathigites . the-acc student s support-3 p al l th e lecturers 'All lecturer s suppor t the STUDENTS. '

Focusing in Modem Greek 18

1

As shown in (lla) a focused direct object canno t appear i n the nominative, con trary t o it s topicalize d counterpar t in (lOa) . Thi s differenc e can b e readil y ex plained i n term s o f th e conditio n in (12 ) belo w i f i t i s assume d tha t th e focu s phrase is in a movement chain relation wit h the coindexed empt y category i n the argument position, whereas th e topicalize d phras e does no t bear a simila r rela tion t o the resumptive clitic : (12) Chain Condition (adapte d from Chomsky (1986a) 6 A chai n i s Case-marke d i f i t contains exactl y on e Case-position . (12) is essentially a well-formedness condition on (A/A')-movement chains which establishes a one-to-one correspondenc e between movement chain s and Case. On the assumptio n tha t prepose d focus-phrase s ar e moved , th e fac t tha t th e focu s phrase in (lla) cannot bear nominative is to be expected sinc e this situation would mean tha t th e chai n which consist s of th e focu s phrase an d th e empt y categor y in the object position has two (conflicting ) Cases , nominativ e an d accusative. On the other hand, if the topicalized phrase in (lOa) is assumed not to be i n a movement chain relation wit h the resumptive pronoun in th e object position , th e fac t that it bears nominative, that is a Case whic h is different fro m th e Case borne by the resumptive pronoun, would be irrelevan t a s far as (12 ) i s concerned . The thir d majo r differenc e concern s th e numbe r o f phrase s whic h ca n b e topicalized an d the number of focus phrases which can be preposed. Whil e mor e than one argument can be topicalized, onl y one focused argument can be preposed: (13) a . Ti s Marias , t a vivlia , tis-ta-estil e o Yanis . the-gen Mari a the-ac c books her-them-sen t th e Yani s 'Yanis sen t the books t o Maria.' b. *TI S MARIA S T A VIVLI A estil e o Yanis . the-gen Mari a the-ac c books sen t the-no m Yani s 'Yanis gav e the BOOK S to MARIA.' In (13a ) both the direct an d the indirect object s ar e topicalized. (13b ) show s tha t preposing o f thei r focuse d counterpart s lead s t o ungrammatically . Th e sever e restriction o n the number of locus phrases whic h can be preposed i s reminiscen t of th e genera l restrictio n o n substitutio n movements , tha t i s movement s t o a unique Spec position. Thi s parallelism indicates that focusing also involves move ment o f th e focu s phras e t o a uniqu e Spe c position. 7 I f thi s i s th e case , topicalization is unlikely also to involve movement to a unique Spec position sinc e more tha n on e argumen t ca n b e topicalized . Rather , th e likelihoo d i s tha t topicalized phrases , as conclude d above , ar e base-generated i n their surfac e po sition unde r the adjoine d To p position . Since , i n principle , ther e i s n o limi t o n the numbe r of adjunction s one ca n hav e ther e i s n o correspondin g limi t o n th e number o f categories whic h can be topicalized . The fourt h differenc e relate s t o the fac t tha t preposing of a focus phrase triggers Subject-AUX/ V Inversion, wherea s topicalization doe s not :

182

Discourse Configurational Languages

(14) a . T o PETR O slnibath i i Maria , the-acc Petro like s the-no m Mari a 'It i s Petro tha t Mari a likes. ' b. *T o PETR O i Mari a simbathi . the-acc Petr o the-no m Mari a like s 'It is Petro that Mari a likes. ' (15) a . Ti n efimeridha , tin-agoras e i Maria . the-acc newspape r her-bought-3 s the-no m Mari a 'The newspaper, Maria bought it.' b. Ti n efimeridha , i Mari a tin-agorase . the-acc newspape r the-no m Mari a her-bough t 'The newspaper, Maria bough t it.' In thi s respec t proposin g o f a focu s phras e pattern s wit h othe r operator-move ment processes suc h as wh-movement (see Sectio n 5 below). I t is not unreasonable to conclude fro m th e fact tha t topicalization doe s not trigger Subject-AUX / V Inversio n that it doe s not involv e movement, at least no t i n th e syntax . The difference s between focusing and topicalization discussed so far all see m to confir m the conclusion tha t focusing involves movemen t o f th e focu s phras e in the syntax whereas topicalization does not involve movement of the topicalize d phrase. However , this otherwis e clearcut distinctio n runs int o difficultie s whe n the two constructions are subjected to the test of the strong island effects. I t turns out tha t both focusing and topicalizatio n obey stron g islands . (16a,b&c ) ar e in stances o f topicalizatio n an d (17a,b&c ) o f focusing : (16) a . *T u Yani , th a su-p o mon o j a t i musik i p u tu the-gen Yan i wil l you-tell-l s onl y fo r th e musi c tha t his aresi pleases 'I will tel l you only abou t th e music tha t pleases Yani.' b. *A n ta lefta , nomizi s ot i t o n a ta-ehi s dhe n if the-ac c mone y think-2s tha t th e sub . them-have-2s no t se voithai , sfalli s you - helps are-wrong-2 s 'If yo u think that having money doe s not help you, you are wrong.' c. *Ti s Marias , o Yani s dhulev i perisoter o ap ' ot i the-gen Maria the-no m Yani s work s mor e fro m wha t tis-fenete her-seems 'Yanis work s more tha n it seem s t o Maria.' (17) a . *T u YAN I tha su-p o mon o ja t i musik i p u ares i the-gen Yani wil l you-tell-l s only fo r th e musi c tha t please s *I wil l tell you onl y about the musi c that pleases YANI.'

Focusing in Modem Greek 18

3

b. *A n t a LEFT A nomizi s ot i t o n a ehi s dhe n se lf the-ac c money think-2 s tha t th e sub.have-2 s no t you voithai, sfalli s helps are-wrorig-2 s 'If yo u thin k thai : having MONEY doe s no t hel p you , you ar e wrong.' c. *Ti s MARIA S o Yani s dhulev i perisoter o ap ' ot i fenete . the Mari a th e Yanis work s mor e fro m wha t seem s 'Yanis works mor e tha n i t seem s t o MARIA. ' (16a) an d (17a) contai n a Complex NP , (16b) an d (17b) a sentential subject , an d (16c) an d (17c) a comparative clause . Under standar d assumptions , w e ar e force d t o conclud e fro m th e fac t tha t topicalization obey s stron g island s tha t i t als o involve s movement . However , Cinque (1990 ) argue s tha t th e apparen t conflictin g properties o f topicalizatio n (CLLD i n hi s terminology ) ca n b e reconcile d i f sensitivit y t o stron g island s i s not taken necessarily t o imply movement. He suggests that it could be interprete d as implying an inability to enter binding-chains, the latter being a relation whic h can aris e eithe r vi a movement or coindexation of base-generated categories . O n this accoun t we could still maintain that topicalization, unlike focusing, does no t involve movement. However, I would like t o propose a different analysis which will als o allo w u s t o reconcil e th e apparentl y conflictin g propertie s o f topicalization. Cinque discusse s a number of other properties o f topicalization whic h ar e argued t o sho w tha t it does no t involv e operator-movement. Among these proper ties found in the MG counterparts of the Italian constructions discussed b y Cinqu e are violations of Subjacency and the apparent unavailability of successive cycli c derivations: (18) Afti , t o vivlio , nomiz o ot i sto n Petr o in e sigur o they-nom the-ac c boo k think-I s tha t to-the-ac c Petro i s certai n oti dhe n th a t o epistrepsu n that no t wil l it-return-3 p 'I thin k tha t i t i s certain they wil l not return th e book t o Petro.' (19) a . *J a aft o t o logo , skeftika n ot i th a figi . for thi s th e reaso n thought-3 p tha t wil l leave-3 s 'For this reason, the y though t that he wil l leave. ' b. J a AFT O T O LOG O skeftika n ot i th a figi . for thi s th e reaso n thought-3 p tha t wil l leave-3 s 'It i s fo r this reaso n tha t they though t tha t h e wil l leave.' (18) involves topicalization of mor e than one category ou t of the embedded clause . On th e assumptio n that top:,calizatio n involve s operator-movement , thes e ex amples ar e expected to sho w a Subjacency effect since , a s Cinque points, move ment acros s a C P whos e Spe c positio n is fille d i s expecte d t o giv e rise t o suc h

184

Discourse Configurational Languages

an effect . (19a&b) sho w tha t a topicalized phras e canno t b e construe d wit h th e embedded clause , wherea s a propose d focu s phras e can , henc e th e ungrammaticality o f (19a ) unde r th e intende d reading . This contrast show s tha t topicalized phrase s see m t o be unabl e t o move successiv e cyclically , wherea s a focus phras e ca n (se e Cinqu e (op.cit. ) fo r details) . It seem s to me tha t whil e th e properties illustrate d i n (18 ) an d (19a ) indicat e the absenc e o f operator-movement in the syntax they do not necessarily indicat e the absenc e o f operator-movement a t LF. In other words , while violations o f th e constraints i n questio n ar e diagnosti c o f th e lac k o f operator-movemen t i n th e syntax, the y ar e no t necessaril y diagnosti c o f lac k o f movemen t a t LF , give n Huang's (1982a ) & (1982b ) contentio n tha t L F movement s d o no t obe y thes e constraints. If , o n th e othe r hand , i t i s tru e tha t LF-movement s obe y stron g is lands, th e combinatio n o f th e propertie s o f topicalizatio n reviewe d her e ca n b e taken t o sugges t tha t i t involve s movemen t a t LF, but no t i n th e Syntax . To b e more precise , th e analysi s whereb y topicalizatio n i s assume d t o involv e move ment at LF yields the same empirical results as the analysis whereby topicalizatio n is said to enter binding chains but not movement chains, assumin g tha t LF-move ments obe y stron g island s (o r the constrain t underlying them) bu t no t necessar ily wea k islands. 8 Given this conclusion one of the questions which need to be answered i s what exactly move s a t LF . Obviously, the move d categor y i n questio n canno t b e th e topicalized phras e itself. The latte r is presumabl y base-generated i n it s S-struc ture positio n an d enter s a predicatio n relationship wit h th e res t o f th e sentenc e at L F o r LF ' (Chomsk y (1982)) . I f thi s relatio n i s assume d t o b e necessaril y mediated b y a n operato r i n SpecCP , i n th e sens e o f Brownin g (1987) , the n w e have furthe r reason s t o believe tha t the LF representation o f topicalization con structions involve s a n operator . Going back to the question concerning the nature of the category whic h moves, there ar e at least two possibilities. One possibility i s that the resumptive pronoun itself moves t o SpecCP, an d consequently acquires the statu s of an operator. Th e other possiblit y i s t o assum e tha t what move s i s a pro whic h doubles th e clitic , or, rather, is doubled by the clitic 9. By being place d i n this positio n th e categor y acquires th e statu s o f an operator , given the configurationa l definition of operators adopte d here . Under th e secon d possibilit y an analysi s can b e outline d fo r th e fac t tha t th e resumptive pronou n i n topicalizatio n construction s canno t b e a toni c pronoun . Cinque (op.cit.) explain s that the reason wh y he chose to call th e construction in question Cliti c Lef t Dislocatio n (CLLD ) i s because th e resumptive pronou n ca n only be a clitic, not a tonic pronoun. This i s shown in the following MG example s which are also ungrammatical due to the fact that the resumptive pronoun is tonic: (20) a . *To n Petro , simbathu n afton . the-acc Petr o like-3 p hi m 'Petro, the y lik e him.'

Focusing in Modem Greek 18

5

b. To n Petr o o Yani s ip e ot i simbathu n afton . the-acc Petr o tiie-no m Yani s sai d tha t like-3 p hi m 'Petro, Yanis said tha t they lik e him.' Obviously, a n adequate analysi s o f topicalizatio n shoul d b e abl e t o explain wh y the occurrence of a resumptive: tonic pronoun gives rise to ungrammaticality. The explanation, I believe, lie s with the fact that tonic pronoun s hav e been observe d in a number of languages to resist a bound variable interpretation, at least i n som e contexts, (se e Montalbetti (1984 ) fo r Spanish , Ouhall a (1988 ) fo r Berber , Aoun and L i (1989 ) fo r Chinese , amon g others) . Thi s i s true of tonic pronoun s in M G as well : (21) a . O Yanis ; ip e ot i i Mari a idh e aftonj . the Yani s sai d tha t th e Maria sa w hi m 'Yanis sai d tha t Mari a sa w him.' b. *Pjos ; ip e ot i i Mari a idh e afton; ? who sai d tha t th e Maria sa w hi m 'Who sai d tha t Maria sa w him?' c. *KathenaS ; ip e ot i i Mari a idh e afton ;. everybody sai d tha t th e Mari a sa w hi m 'Everybody sai d tha t Maria sa w him.' (22) a . O Yanis ; ip e ot i i Mari a ton ;-idhe. the Yani s sai d tha t th e Mari a him-sa w 'Yanis sai d tha t Mari a saw him.' b. PjoS j ip e ot i i Mari a ton ;-idhe? who sai d tha t th e Mari a him-sa w 'Who sai d tha t Maria sa w him?' c. Pjos j ip e ot i pro ; agapa i t i Maria ? who sai d tha t love s th e Mari a 'Who sai d love s Maria? ' d. KathenaS j le i ot i pro ; agapa i t i Maria , everybody say s tha t love s th e Mari a 'Everybody say s that he love s Maria. ' (21a-c) sho w tha t a tonic pronou n ca n only be construe d wit h a noun phrase i f the latte r doe s no t hav e th e statu s o f a n operator . (22a-c ) sho w tha t cliti c pronouns an d pro, unlike tonic pronouns , ar e insensitive t o the operator/non-opera tor statu s o f thei r antecedent . I n vie w o f thi s it is likel y tha t toni c pronoun s ar e excluded i n topicalizatio n construction s fo r th e sam e reason . Thi s implie s tha t these construction s contai n £, n operato r i n thei r L F representations . Notice, however , tha t w e ar e no w lef t wit h a n apparen t problem. Earlier , w e explained th e inability of a resumptive clitic pronou n to occur in focus construc tions o n th e groun d tha t th e latte r contai n a n operator , a situatio n which gives rise to a violation of the A'-disjointness Requirement. If topicalization construc tions als o involv e a n operator , th e questio n i s wh y th e occurrenc e o f th e

186

Discourse Configurational Languages

resumptive cliti c doe s no t giv e rise t o a simila r violation . T o answer thi s ques tion, le t u s firs t assum e tha t th e principle s o f Bindin g theory appl y no t onl y a t LF bu t als o a t S-structur e (Chomsk y (1982)) , perhap s a t al l levels o f analysis . Let us assume further, alon g with McCloskey (1990) , that resumptive cliti c pro nouns ar e transforme d int o variable s a t LF , meaning tha t the y receiv e a bound variable interpretatio n a t LF. These tw o assumptions , togethe r wit h th e distinc tion draw n above concerning the level a t which operator movement applies , ex plain th e contrast between topicalization and focu s construction s concerning th e occurrence o f a resumptive clitic pronoun. In Focu s constructions , where operator-movemen t take s plac e i n th e syntax , the occurrenc e o f a resumptiv e clitic i n th e matri x claus e wil l b e exclude d b y the A'-disjointness Requirement applyin g at S-structure. In topicalization construc tions, however , operator-movemen t doe s no t appl y i n th e syntax , and , conse quently, th e occurrenc e o f a resumptiv e cliti c pronou n wil l no t giv e ris e t o a violation o f the A'-disjointness Requirement a t S-structure, sinc e there is no op erator to bind the pronoun. In the mapping to LF the clitic pronoun is transformed into a variable, an d consequently cease s to be subjec t t o the A'-disjointness Re quirement. Unlik e cliti c pronouns , toni c pronoun s canno t b e transforme d int o variables at LF, and therefore their occurrence will be excluded by whatever reason i s responsibl e fo r thei r inabilit y t o hav e a bound variabl e interpretation . A desirabl e consequence of this analysis is that it provides a n account for th e fact tha t resumptive clitics cannot license parasitic gaps, despite the fact tha t they receive a bound variable interpretation at LF (Chomsky (1982)). This can be see n in th e followin g Italian example cited i n Cinqu e (op.cit.): 10 (23) * Gianni, 1'h o cercat o pe r mesi , senz a trovar e e Gianni hi m have-I s loo k fo r fo r month s withou t find-inf . '*Gianni, I have looked fo r for months, withou t finding. ' Cinque argues that this fact constitutes (additional) indirect evidence showing that topicalization doe s no t involv e (wh ) movement , o n th e assumptio n tha t th e resumptive cliti c i s th e spel l ou t o f th e variabl e trace. However , thi s argumen t goes through only if the putative operator-movement involved is assumed to apply in th e syntax . Give n that the condition s which license parasiti c gap s hold o f S structure representation s (Chomsk y (op.cit.)), 11 th e resumptiv e cliti c i n topicalization construction s is no t expecte d t o licens e a parasitic ga p unde r th e present analysis , where it acquires the variable statu s a t LF; at S-structure i t ha s the statu s o f a fre e pronoun. 12 Thus, th e fac t illustrate d i n (23) , whil e i t show s that topicalizatio n doe s no t involv e operator-movemen t i n th e syntax , does no t necessarily sho w tha t i t does no t involv e operator-movemen t a t LF. Summarizing, th e apparentl y conflictin g propertie s o f topicalizatio n ca n b e reconciled i f i t i s assume d t o involv e operator-movemen t a t L F bu t no t i n th e syntax. If strong islands fall unde r a condition which applies a t both S-structur e and LF , and if Subjacency, successive cyclicity and the licensing of parasitic gaps are conditions which hold of S-structure representations only, then it is likely that

Focusing in Modern Greek 18

7

topicalization involve s operator-movemen t a t LF , thoug h no t i n th e syntax . Focus constructions , however , diffe r i n that the y involv e operator-movement i n the syntax. 4. A Theory of Focusing So far , w e hav e no t specifie d th e positio n t o whic h the prepose d focu s phras e moves. Following Choe (1987 ) an d Brody (1989) I will assume that the position in question is the Spec of a Focus Phrase (FP) which in MG is situated just abov e TNSP, a s shown i n (24) :

F, like AGR , TNS...etc. , i s a functiona l categor y whic h project s it s ow n X-ba r structure. In MG F has an abstract realization, but in other languages, e.g. Berber , it ha s a n overt realizatio n i n term s of a n inflectiona l morphem e whic h surface s as a constituent of the verbal complex, just like the other inflectional morphemes . The Berber example s (25a&b) are from Ouhall a (1990), where the F category i s glossed a s Focus Marker (FM) : (25) a . MOHAN D ay-zii-gh . Mohand FM-:;aw-l s 'I sa w MOHAND.' b. nni-gh-a k q a TIN'ASHI N ay-ushi-g h i Mohand . said-ls-you tha t mone y FM-gave-l s t o Mohan d 'I told yo u that 1 gave Mohand MONEY. ' (26) Su-ip a ot i LEFT A edhos a st i Maria , you-told-ls tha t mone y gave-I s to-the-ac c Mari a 'I told yo u that I gave MONEY t o Maria.' (25b) and its MG counterpart (26) illustrate clearly the need to distinguish F fro m C, an d consequentl y SpecF P fro m SpecCP . I n othe r words , the y sho w tha t preposed focu s phrase s occup y a positio n othe r tha n SpecCP , althoug h lik e SpecCP, SpecF P i s als o a n A'-position . The ide a tha t prepose d focu s phrase s occup y SpecF P ca n b e motivate d o n formal grounds . Brody (1989 ) ha s suggeste d a constraint o n th e representatio n of focu s phrase s which parallels the constraint suggested by May (1985 ) i n relation t o wh-phrases , known a s the Wh-Criterion . This constrain t i s reformulated

188

Discourse Configurational Languages

below alon g th e line s o f Rizzi's (1991 ) reformulatio n of th e Wh-Criterion , an d will be referre d t o a s the F-Criterion : (27) The F-Criterion A. A n F-Operator mus t be i n a Spec-Hea d agreemen t wit h a [+f ] X° . B. A [+f ] X ° must be i n a Spec-Hea d agreemen t wit h a n F-Operator . The F-Criterion , togethe r wit h th e assumptio n tha t F i s specifie d fo r th e [+f ] feature, ca n explai n wh y prepose d focus-phrase s occupy SpecFP . Brody (op.cit. ) points ou t that the F-Criterion, lik e the Wh-Criterion, mus t be parameterized wit h respect t o the level at which it may/must apply . In language s where focu s phrase s ar e prepose d obligatorily , e.g. Hungarian , th e F-Criterio n applies a t S-structure , an d i n language s where focus phrases ca n remai n i n situ , the F-Criterion applie s at LF (o r does not (have to) apply at S-structure, the idea being tha t i t applies at LF universally). MG belongs to the latte r group as shown by th e followin g examples wher e the focu s phrase is i n situ : (28) a . Dhanisa n t o VIVLI O st o Petro . lent-3p the-ac c book to-th e Petr o 'They len t th e BOO K t o Petro.' b. Dhanisa n t o vivli o st o PETRO . lent-3p the-ac c boo k to-th e Petr o 'They len t th e book t o PETRO.' Although thi s analysi s accounts adequately for th e tw o type s o f language s it i s hard t o se e ho w th e paramete r it postulate s fits unde r the theor y o f parameter ization which associates parameters with functional categorie s (Chomsk y (1991)). I wil l therefore suggest an alternative analysis which accounts fo r the difference between th e tw o type s o f languages , the Hungarian-typ e and th e MG-type , i n terms o f a differenc e in th e value s o f th e [f ] featur e associated wit h F. Clause A of the F-Criterion i s intended to perform two functions. The firs t on e is to motivate movemen t of focus phrases t o SpecFP , i f not i n the synta x then a t LF. However, ther e i s a sense i n which as far a s movement i n the synta x is con cerned claus e A overlap s wit h claus e B i n thi s function . Claus e B wil l forc e movement of the focu s phrase t o SpecFP i n the synta x regardless. A s fo r move ment at LF, one could argue that it is motivated independently by scope reasons , along th e line s suggeste d by Chomsk y (1986a) fo r wh-phrases . Thi s mean s that if a focus phras e does no t mov e to SpecF P i n the syntax , it has to mov e ther e a t LF for its scope propertie s t o be determined structurally . The fac t that this posi tion mus t b e SpecF P i s determine d b y th e hierarchical positio n o f F in relatio n to the othe r categories . We will com e back t o this issu e i n Section 5 in the con text o f a discussio n o f th e interactio n betwee n focu s phrase s an d wh-phrases . The secon d function o f clause A is to ensure an agreement in features between the focu s phrase and th e head of the maxima l projection whos e Spe c positio n i t occupies. Her e agai n clause A overlaps in functio n wit h the more genera l Spec -

Focusing in Modem Greek 18

9

Head agreement requirement of the grammar, at least a s far as syntax is concerned . As fo r LF, it is not clear that the Spec-Head agreemen t requiremen t hold s a t thi s level. There are indications that it probably does not. Chomsky (1986a ) ha s sug gested tha t in impersonal constructions a process of expletive replacemen t take s place whereb y the postverbal subjec t moves to the canonical subjec t positio n an d replaces th e expletive element. In some language s the agreement feature s o n the verb agree with the expletive subject, rather than with the postverbal subject . This is show n i n the followin g well-know n Frenc h example : (29) I I est arriv e troi s personnes . has arrive d thre e person s 'Three person s arrived. ' If the postverbal subject indeed moves to the position of the expletive a t LF the n it i s unlikel y that the Spec-Hea d agreemen t requirement hold s a t this level . Assuming this reasoning to b e correct, th e conclusion seem s t o be tha t claus e A of the F-Criterio n ca n be dispensed with altogether , o n the ground tha t i t sim ply duplicate s th e function s o f claus e B an d th e genera l Spec-Hea d agreemen t requirement o f th e grammar . Le t u s therefor e revis e th e F-Criterio n t o includ e the secon d requiremen t only : (30) The F-Criterion (revise d version ) A [+f ] X ° must be i n Spec-Hea d agreemen t wit h a n F-Operator . Given tha t th e primar y function o f (30 ) i s t o motivat e movemen t o f th e focu s phrase in the syntax , it must be regarded as an S-structure condition. Recall tha t movement o f th e focu s phras e a t L F i s motivate d independentl y b y scop e rea sons. Now w e ar e i n a positio n t o accoun t fo r th e parametri c distinctio n betwee n Hungarian-type an d MG-type languages . Let us assume tha t Hungarian and M G differ i n that in the forme r the ; value of the [f ] featur e is invariably se t positively , perhaps th e default option, wherea s in the latter it can be set either positivel y o r negatively. Th e implicatio n tha t this analysi s ha s fo r Hungaria n i s tha t a focu s phrase ha s t o mov e t o SpecF P i n th e synta x for th e F-Criterio n t o b e satisfied . For M G th e implication s are different . More precisely , movemen t o f th e focu s phrase i n th e synta x i s obligator y when th e valu e o f th e [f ] feature is se t posi tively an d not obligatory , in fac t excluded , whe n set negatively. In th e first case , movement is force d by th e F-Criterion and in the secon d cas e i t is prevented b y the genera l Spec-Hea d agreemen t requirement o f th e grammar . Sinc e th e latte r requirement hold s onl y i n the syntax , movement o f the focu s phrase t o SpecFP , at LF , is allowed , eve n thoug h the valu e of th e [f ] feature associate d wit h F i s negatively set . Thi s analysi s reduce s th e optionalit y o f th e movemen t o f focu s phrases i n the synta x in MG t o the availabilit y of both the negativ e and positiv e options o f th e [f ] feature, and it s obligatorines s i n Hungaria n to th e lac k o f th e negative option. 13

190

Discourse Configurational Languages

The F morpheme ca n be thought of as the spell ou t of the [+f ] feature , just a s the Q morphem e suggeste d i n Chomsky (1988 ) ca n b e though t o f a s th e spel l out o f th e [+Q ] feature. Thi s mean s tha t whe n F is specifie d positivel y fo r th e [f] feature an F morpheme appears. The presence o f this morpheme i s instrumental in accounting for the adjacency requirement betwee n a preposed focus phrase an d the verb , whic h underlie s th e proces s o f Subject-AUX/ V Inversio n discusse d earlier. O n the assumption that the F morpheme i s affixal , a property whic h can be clearly see n in the Berber focus constructions, V-movement to F which give s rise to the inversion effect, ca n be motivated in terms of the genera l principle of the grammar which requires affixa l categorie s t o be attached to a suitable host at S-structure (Bake r (1988), amon g others). 14 The analysis outlined here differ s fro m the analysis suggested i n Brody (1989) . The latte r account s for th e adjacenc y requirement betwee n th e prepose d focu s phrase an d the verb i n terms o f the assumption tha t i t is the verb whic h assign s the [+f ] featur e to the focus phrase, an d that this process, lik e Case-assignment , takes plac e unde r the twin conditions of government an d adjacency. However, i t is not clear ho w thi s analysis can accoun t for situations wher e a focus phrase i s neither adjacen t to, no r governe d by , the verb . Her e ar e som e example s whic h illustrate thi s situation: (31) a . O Yani s agoras e t o vivli o j a t i MARIA , the Yani s bough t the-ac c boo k fo r th e Mari a 'Yanis bought the boo k fo r MARIA. ' b. Idh a ti n katastrof i ti s POLIS . saw-Is the-ac c destructio n the-ge n cit y 'I saw the destruction o f the CITY.' In (3la) the focus phrase is separated fro m the verb b y the preposition. The lat ter als o prevent s th e ver b fro m governin g th e focu s phras e unde r Minimalit y (Chomsky (1986b)) . In (31b) ther e i s a similar situatio n whic h involve s a noun instead o f a preposition. 15'16 Thus, whil e Brody's proposa l hold s fo r prepose d focu s phrase s i t i s har d t o see how i t can hold fo r focus phrases whic h remain i n situ, unles s th e latte r ar e assumed to be assigned the [+f j featur e by a different mechanism . However, sinc e the property of focus is the same for both types of focus phrases i t is undesirabl e to pursue such a possibility. Instead, I will assume that the [+f ] feature is assigned to categories in their D-structur e position s by a general mechanis m of the gram mar simila r t o th e on e whic h assign s th e [+wh ] feature . Categorie s whic h ar e assigned thi s featur e are then subject to movement to SpecFP, either in the syn tax o r a t LF , dependin g on th e valu e of th e featur e associated wit h F . A s fo r the adjacency effect, i t arises whe n F is specified positivel y fo r the [f ] feature, a situation which results i n the appearance o f the F morpheme an d the consequen tial movemen t of th e ver b t o F. Among th e advantages of the present analysis is tha t it captures a correlatio n between th e F morpheme and preposed focus phrases , clearly seen i n languages

Focusing in Modern Greek 19

1

like Berber. Interestingly , i n Berber the F morpheme appear s onl y whe n a focus phrase i s preposed. When th e focu s phras e i s in situ , th e F morpheme doe s no t appear, in fact, its appearance i n this situation gives rise to ungrammaticality. The following Berbe r example s ar e also from Ouhalla (1990) : (32) a . ushi-g h tin'ashi n i MOHAND . (cf . (25a&b)) gave-Is mone y t o Mohan d 'I gav e money to MOHAND.' b. *ay-ushi-g h tin'ashi n i MOHAND . FM-gave-ls mone y t o Mohan d 'I gav e money t o MOHAND.' In th e present analysis , wher e the F morpheme i s assume d t o be th e realizatio n of the [+f ] feature, the ungrammaticality of (32b) is readily accounte d fo r in terms of a violation of the F-Criterion. In (32a), wher e the F morpheme i s missing, the [f] featur e associated wit h F is negatively specified. Therefore, movemen t o f the focus phras e i n th e synta x i s no t require d an d consequentl y n o violatio n o f th e F-Criterion arises . Among the other propertie s of focus constructions mentioned in the previous section i s th e on e whic h concern s th e numbe r o f focu s phrase s whic h ca n b e preposed. B y assumin g tha t i'ocu s phrases mov e t o a uniqu e position , namel y SpecFP, w e can account for the fac t tha t only one focus phrase can be preposed . However, this restriction i s part of a more genera l constraint whic h restricts th e number o f possibl e focu s phrase s i n a give n sentenc e t o one , irrespectiv e o f whether the y ar e preposed o r i n situ, and o f whether they ar e i n the sam e claus e or i n separat e clauses : (33) a . * O YANI S pir e t o VIVLI O ap o t i Maria . the-nom Yani s too k the-ac c boo k fro m th e Mari a 'YANIS too k th e BOOK from Maria. ' b. * I MARI A ip e ot i to n PETR O apelisan . the Mari a sai d tha t th e PETR O fired-3 p 'MARIA sai d tha t the y fire d PETRO. ' c. * I MARI A ip e ot i apelisa n to n PETRO . the Mari a sai d tha t fired-3 p th e Petr o 'MARIA sai d tha t the y fire d PETRO.' The ungrammaticality of these examples is due to the fact that they contain more than on e focu s phrase . (33b&c ) sho w clearl y tha t th e restrictio n applie s t o th e whole sentence/propositio n a:i d no t just to individua l clauses . The restrictio n i n questio n can b e explaine d in term s o f th e availabilit y of a unique position a s a landing site for focus phrase s in the following way: In (33a ) both focus phrase s have to move at LF for their scope properties to be determined structurally. However, since there is only one position available, namely SpecFP, one o f th e tw o focu s phrase s will not b e appropriatel y accommodated.

192

Discourse Configurational Languages

The sam e reasonin g applie s t o (33b&c) . Notic e i n thi s respec t tha t althoug h there is a SpecFP positio n i n the embedded claus e whic h can host th e embedde d focus phrase , a s is the case in (28b) , th e latter ha s to mov e t o th e matrix claus e for th e right interpretatio n t o be derived. As is well known , focus phrases , eve n when contained inside embedded domain s such as in (28b&c), ten d to have scope over the whole sentence. Thus, the interpretation of a well-formed sentenc e suc h as (34), where the focus phrase i s located i n the embedded clause , i s a s roughl y paraphrased i n the English gloss : (34) I Mari a ip e ot i o Yani s edhos e t o VIVLI O st o Vasili . the Mari a sai d tha t th e Yani s gav e th e boo k t o Vasil i 'It i s the book tha t Mari a sai d tha t Yanis gave t o Vasili.' In view o f this, th e ungrammaticality of (33b&c) ca n als o b e explained i n term s of a n incompatibility in number between th e focu s phrases an d the uniqu e posi tion availabl e for the m a s a landing site . Movement o f embedde d focu s phrase s t o a position precedin g th e subjec t i n the matri x clause ca n be confirme d on the basi s o f weak crossove r effect s illus trated i n th e followin g examples: (35) a . * I miter a Ui ; ip e ot i o YANIS ; efag e t a fruta . the mothe r hi s sai d tha t th e Yani s at e th e frui t 'His mothe r sai d that YANIS ate the fruit. ' b. * O dhiefthinti s tu ; ip e ot i o PETROS ; paretithike . the manage r hi s sai d tha t th e Petro s resigne d 'His manage r sai d tha t PETROS resigned. ' (35a&b) sho w tha t a n embedded focu s phras e canno t b e construe d wit h a pronoun insid e th e matri x subject , a weak crossover effec t simila r t o th e on e asso ciated wit h moved wh-phrases. 17 Summarizing, focu s phrase s hav e been argue d to mov e t o th e Spe c positio n of a focus phras e if not in the syntax then at LF. Movement in the synta x is made obligatory by the F-Criterion whe n the [f ] featur e associated wit h F is positivel y specified, an d prevented from takin g place when the [f ] feature is specified nega tively. Movement of focus phrases a t LF is motivated by scop e reasons . Th e re striction o n the number of focus phrases i n a given sentenc e t o on e is th e resul t of th e availabilit y o f a unique landing site fo r move d focu s phrases . Additiona l evidence fo r thi s analysi s i s discusse d i n the followin g sections . 5. Focusing and Wh-movement 5.1. On the Interaction between Wh-phrases and Focus Phrases Wh-phrases interac t wit h focu s phrase s i n a numbe r o f significan t ways. Fo r example, singl e clause sentence s canno t contain both a wh-phras e an d a focu s phrase, irrespectiv e of whethe r any o f the m i s propose d o r i n situ :

Focusing in Modern Creek 19

3

(36) a . *T i agoras e i MARIA ? what bough t the-no m Mari a 'What di d MARIA buy?' b. * I MARI A agoras e ti ? the Mari a bough t wha t 'What di d MARIA buy?' c. *T i i MARI A agorase ? what th e Mari a bough t 'What di d MARIA buy?' This fact ca n be taken to indicate that in matrix clauses there is only on e landing site for both wh-phrases and focus phrase s and that wh-phrases and focus phrases move t o the sam e position. Puttin g aside the identity of the position i n question for th e moment , th e L F representation s of (36a-c ) wil l giv e ris e t o a situatio n where th e focus phrase an d the wh-phras e have identica l scop e domains , mean ing tha t they occupy the same position. Ther e is significant evidence suggestin g that, a t leas t descriptively , i t i s thi s situatio n whic h i s responsibl e fo r th e ungrammaticality o f (36a-c). A wh-phrase and a focus phrase can, a s a matter o f fact , co-occu r i n the sam e sentence, bu t under on e significan t condition: th e wh-phrase mus t be containe d inside a n embedded clause . This conditio n ca n b e see n a t work i n tw o separat e contexts. The firs t contex t is illustrate d i n th e followin g examples: (37) a . To n YAN I rotisa n pjo s efige . the-acc Yan i asked-3 p who-no m lef t 'It i s Yani tha t they aske d wh o left. ' b. *Pjo s ip e ot i ti n MARI A sinantise ? who-nom sai d tha t the-ac c Mari a me t 'Who sai d tha t me t MARIA?' In thes e example s th e wh-phras e an d th e focu s phras e ar e situate d i n separat e clauses. Th e ungrammaticalit y of (37b ) i s du e t o th e fac t tha t th e wh-phras e is situated i n th e matri x clause. Becaus e focu s phrase s hav e wid e scop e th e em bedded focu s phrase in (37b) raise s to the matrix clause a t LF. This give s ris e t o a situation where the focus phrase and the matrix wh-phrase have identical scop e domains. In (37a) the scope cf th e wh-phrase is limited to the embedded clause, and give n that the focu s phras e is locate d i n the matri x clause, n o paralle l situ ation arises . The second context is illustrated in (38a&b), wher e the wh-phrase and the focus phrase ar e both locate d i n th e embedde d clause . I n (38a ) th e focu s phras e i s in situ, an d i n (38b ) i t is prepose d togethe r wit h the wh-phrase : (38) a . Dhe n kser o pjo s milis e st i MARIA . not know-I s who-no m talke d to-th e Mari a 'I don' t know wh o talked t o MARIA.'

194

Discourse Configurational Languages

b. Dhe n kser o st i MARI A pjo s milise . not know-I s to-th e Mari a who-no m talke d 'I don' t kno w who talked to MARIA.' These example s ar e grammatica l for th e sam e reaso n tha t (37a ) is . Th e focu s phrase move s t o th e matri x claus e a t LF, and th e wh-phras e remain s i n th e em bedded claus e sinc e it s scope i s limited t o this clause . Thus , in the LF represen tation o f the tw o sentence s th e focu s phrase an d th e wh-phras e wil l b e situate d in differen t positions , i n fac t i n differen t clauses . Whatever th e reason , i t i s clea r fro m th e tw o context s discusse d tha t ungrammaticality arises only when the focus phrase and the wh-phrase have iden tical scop e domains. In the present paper I have tried to explain this fact in terms of th e idea tha t i n the matrix clause ther e is onl y on e positio n fo r focu s phrase s and wh-phrases . When a focus phrase an d a wh-phrase hav e identical scop e do mains, an d therefor e are expecte d to occup y th e sam e position a t LF, an incom patibility i n numbe r arise s betwee n th e numbe r o f operator s an d th e uniqu e position availabl e for them. This analysis , obviously, implies that a focus phrase an d a wh-phrase, o r tw o focus phrases, given the discussion in the previous section, cannot adjoin to each other at LF, in the sens e o f May (1985) . This pattern of adjunctio n at LF, which results i n th e existenc e o f a mutua l c-command relatio n betwee n th e adjoine d operators, is used by May to account for situations where two operators ca n have scope ove r eac h othe r freely , a s a functio n o f thei r structura l position, tha t is , situations o f ambiguit y found i n multipl e quantification sentences an d multipl e wh-questions. Thi s fre e interactio n o f scop e propertie s i s mad e possibl e b y a principle whic h Ma y call s th e Scop e Principle . Th e latte r allows tw o operator s to interact freely in their scope properties , that is to have scop e ove r eac h other , if the y ar e structurall y in a mutual c-command relation. The co-occurrenc e restrictions o n focu s phrases, o n th e on e hand , an d focu s phrases an d wh-phrases, o n the other , ca n plausibl y be made t o follo w from the semantic/scope propertie s o f focus phrases i n combination wit h (a specific inter pretation of ) May' s Scop e Principle . Descriptivel y speaking , th e observe d co occurrence restriction s amount to th e inability o f a focus phrase t o occu r i n th e scope o f anothe r focus phrase o r a wh-phrase. Semantically , this i s far fro m im plausible given that focus phrases invariably have the wider scope. In other words, there seems to be no (ambiguous) situation where a focus phrase o r a wh-phras e can b e sai d t o have scop e ove r anothe r focu s phrase . I f w e woul d lik e t o main tain th e vie w tha t th e scop e o f operator s i s a functio n of thei r structura l positions at LF , then ther e is a plausible sense i n which a focu s phrase canno t b e i n a mutua l c-command relation wit h another focus phrase o r a wh-phrase . Thi s i s because i n thi s situatio n the tw o operator s ar e expected, b y virtu e o f th e Scop e Principle, t o interact freel y i n their scop e properties, contrar y t o fact. 18 There i s anothe r interesting respect i n whic h wh-phrases interac t wit h focu s phrases which has implications for the ECP as a principle which constrains movement at LF. The proposed focus phrase and wh-phrase in the embedded clause o f

Focusing in Modem Greek 19

5

(38b) ar e ordere d i n suc h a way tha t th e focu s phras e precede s th e wh-phrase . Interestingly, th e reverse orde r give s ris e t o ungrammaticality : (39) a . *Dhe n kser o pjo s st i MARI A milise . not know-I s who-no m to-th e Mari a talke d 'I don' t kno w wh o talked to MARIA.' b. *Mu-ipa n t i o YANI S agorase . me-told-3p wha t the-no m Yani s bough t They tol d m e wha t YANIS bought.' c. Mu-ipa n o YANI S t i agorase . me-told-3p the-rio m Yani s wha t bough t 'They tol d m e what YANIS bought.' This i s a surprisin g fact o n th e assumptio n tha t th e underlyin g structur e i s th e one in (40 ) wher e C P is higher than FP:

The well-forme d sequence i n (38b ) an d (39c ) implie s tha t th e focu s phras e oc cupies th e SpecC P an d th e wh-phras e th e SpecFP . W e will se e belo w tha t th e fact tha t a focus phrase can occupy the SpecCP an d the wh-phrase the SpecFP is not surprisin g at all, give n certain properties o f F an d C to be discussed . Pend ing th e discussio n le t us no w see why the sequenc e [wh-X P f-XP] gives rise t o ungrammaticality. Notice that the ill-formed sequenc e implies that the wh-phrase occupies SpecC P and th e focu s phras e SpecFP . I n vie w o f this , i t i s temptin g t o attribut e th e ungrammaticality of (39a&b) to the wh-island violation which results from movement of the focus phrase to the matrix clause a t LF. However, this i s unlikely t o be th e cas e a s LF movemen t of focu s phrases doe s no t necessaril y obe y wh-is lands i n MG . (41) a . Dhe n kser o po s n a episkevas o to n IPOLOGISTI . not know-I s ho w sub . repair-Is th e compute r 'I don' t kno w how to repair the COMPUTER. '

196

Discourse Configurational Languages

b. Dhe n kser o pjo s sinantis e t o YANI . not know-I s who-no m me t th e Yan i 'I don' t kno w who met YANI.' The strong nature of the ungrammatically of (39a&b) suggest s a violation o f the ECP, assumin g tha t wh-island s d o not fal l unde r th e scop e of th e ECP . To account for th e stron g ungrammaticalit y o f (39a&b ) let u s assum e Rizzi' s (1990) definitio n of the ECP whic h reduces prope r governmen t t o prope r head government: (42) The ECP (adapte d fro m Rizzi (1990) ) A non-pronominal empty category must be head-governed i n the singlebar domai n of th e head. Starting with the well-formed sequence where the focus phrase occupie s SpecC P and th e wh-phrase SpecFP, th e (intermediate ) trac e lef t b y movemen t o f th e fo cus phras e a t LF wil l b e properl y head-governed b y th e matri x verb . I n th e ill formed sequence , however, where the wh-phrase occupies SpecC P an d the focus phrase SpecFP, th e trace lef t b y movement of the focus phrase wil l not be prop erly head-governe d o n th e hypothesi s tha t th e hea d o f C i n th e contex t unde r discussion does not govern the Specifier of its complement (Rizz i (op.cit.)). Under Rizzi's hypothesi s a C element ca n be a proper head-governo r i f it incorporate s an Agr element triggere d vi a Spec-Head agreemen t wit h an operator i n SpecCP . In th e constructio n unde r discussion , SpecC P i s fille d b y a categor y whic h i s different fro m th e focu s phrase , an d therefor e th e Ag r optio n does no t hel p i n overcoming th e lac k o f proper head-governmen t for th e trac e o f th e move d fo cus phrase. 19 In (41a&b), however, the trace of the focus phrase satisfies the EC P via prope r head-governmen t b y th e verb . Th e contras t betwee n (41a&b ) an d (39a&b) reflect s th e usua l asymmetr y betwee n complement s an d non-comple ments wit h respect t o th e ECP . Summarizing, th e co-occurrenc e possibilitie s an d restriction s betwee n focu s phrases and wh-phrases show that ungrammaticality arises onl y in contexts where their scope/c-command domain s overlap completely. This was explained in terms of a specific interpretatio n o f the idea tha t there i s onl y on e position i n th e ma trix claus e fo r bot h focu s an d wh-phrases , i n combinatio n wit h May' s Scop e Principle. Focu s phrase s an d wh-phrase s hav e als o been show n t o interac t i n a way whic h shows that the EC P doe s constrai n LF-movement. 5.2. On the Properties of F and C The ide a put forwar d above that there i s onl y one positio n i n th e matri x claus e for both focus phrase s and wh-phrases implies that matrix clauses lack a CP pro jection. This i s becaus e i f th e matri x claus e had th e structur e in (40) , tha t i s a structure which makes available two operator positions in the pre-TNSP domain, the focus phras e and the wh-phrase could occupy separate positions at LF which are are compatible with their respective scope properties. Given that focus phrases

Focusing in Modem Greek 19

7

usually hav e broader scope , th s focu s phrase coul d occup y SpecC P an d the whphrase SpecFP. Consequently , th e possiblity of explaining the co-occurrenc e re strictions discusse d i n th e previou s sectio n i n term s o f th e Scop e Principl e disappears. Thus , onl y i f w e assum e tha t matri x clause s lac k th e C P projectio n can we maintai n thi s explanation . Embedded clauses , however , diffe r i n that they instantiate a CP projection. This can b e clearl y see n i n sentence s suc h a s (38b ) an d (39c ) abov e wher e bot h th e focus phras e an d the wh-phrase are preposed i n the syntax . To maintain a correspondence relatio n betwee n th e numbe r o f phrase s prepose d an d th e position s they occup y i n th e syntax , embedde d clause s mus t b e conclude d t o instantiat e both F P and CP . Moreover, th e explanatio n i n term s o f th e EC P outlined abov e in relatio n t o th e orde r o f th e focu s phras e an d wh-phras e i s possibl e onl y i f embedded clause s ar e assumed to have the structur e i n (40) . Th e distinctio n between matri x and embedde d clause s draw n here i s therefor e a s show n i n (43) : (43) a . Matri x clause s b

. Embedde d clause s

One coul d argu e tha t thi s distinctio n woul d b e independentl y motivate d i f C P were assumed t o be essentially a selected category . Give n that matrix clauses ar e not selecte d the y wil l not be expecte d t o instantiate a CP projection. Embedde d clauses, however , ar e selected. 20'21 The conclusio n tha t wh-phrase s mov e to SpecF P i n the synta x implie s tha t F is specified fo r the [wh ] feature, in addition to the [f ] feature . On the other hand , the conclusion that the focus phras e in (38b) an d (39c) occupie s SpecC P implie s that C i s specifie d fo r th e [+f ] feature . The fac t tha t a focu s phrase ca n occup y the SpecC P positio n ca n b e see n mor e clearl y i n sentence s suc h a s th e following: (44) a . Mu-ip e t o VIVLI O ot i edhos e st i Maria . me-said the-ac e boo k tha t gave-3 s to-the-ac c Mari a 'He sai d to m e tha t he gav e the boo k t o Maria. '

198

Discourse Configurational Languages

b. Me-rotis e t a VIVLI A a n epestrepsa . me-asked-3s th e book s i f returned-l s 'He aske d m e if I returned the BOOKS.' In (44a ) th e focu s phras e i s t o th e lef t o f th e complementize r oti whic h i s th e equivalent of the English that, an d in (44b) it is to the left o f the complementize r an, whic h i s th e equivalen t o f th e Englis h ;/. (44b ) shows , furthermore , tha t C can b e specifie d fo r bot h th e [+f ] an d [+wh ] features . Th e [+wh ] featur e satis fies the selectional propertie s o f the matrix verb, the latter being of the type which select a [+wh ] CP. There are also situation s where th e phrase occupyin g th e SpecCP can be bot h [+wh] and [+f] . (45a ) an d (46a) below contain a focused wh-phrase , that is a whphrase whic h is also marked fo r the [+f ] feature . (45b) an d (46b) sho w that when the wh-phras e doe s no t bea r foca l stres s i t canno t co-occu r wit h a n over t C element: (45) a . Ipa n T I ot i agoras e o Yanis ? said-3p wha t tha t bough t the-no m Yani s 'What di d they sa y tha t Yanis bought?' b. *Ipa n t i ot i agoras e o Yanis ? said-3p wha t tha t bough t the-no m Yanis 'What di d the y sa y tha t Yanis bought?' (46) a . Dhe n kseri s PJO Sa n efige ? not know-2 s who-no m i f left-3 s 'You don' t kno w i f WH O left? ' b. *Dhe n kseri s pjo sa n efige ? not know-2 s who-no m i f left-3 s '*You don' t kno w if wh o left? ' The ungrammaticality of the (b) examples can be attributed to a violation of som e version o f the Doubly Fille d Com p Filter whic h disallows a wh-phrase fro m co occurring wit h a n over t C elemen t unles s i t i s als o focused . Not e tha t th e co occurrence o f focus phrases wit h an overt Comp element i s generally permissibl e in the languages as can be see n i n some o f the examples give n above . Whateve r the exac t natur e o f th e conditio n responsibl e fo r th e ungrammaticalit y o f (45b ) and (46b ) thes e example s sho w clearl y that , at least i n MG , wh-phrase s canno t be assumed t o be invariably marked fo r the [+f ] feature , as has been claime d fo r wh-phrases i n som e othe r languages . Wh-phrase s ma y o r ma y no t b e specifie d for th e [+f ] feature , given that at least som e o f their distributional propertie s ar e determined b y whethe r they ar e focuse d o r not . This conclusio n als o implie s tha t th e distributio n o f wh-phrase s i s regulate d by a principle which is separat e from th e F-Criterion . I will assume , alon g with May (1985 ) and Rizzi (1991), tha t the distribution of wh-phrases is regulated b y the Wh-Criterion . However, I wil l diffe r fro m the m i n assumin g tha t th e Wh -

Focusing in Modem Greek 19

9

Criterion nee d onl y contai n claus e B , fo r th e sam e reason s discusse d earlie r i n relation t o th e F-Criterion : (47) Th e Wh-Criterion A [+wh ] X° must be i n Spec-Hea d agreemen t wit h a wh-operator. Among th e fact s that th e Wh-Criterion account s fo r ar e the following : (48) a . Anarotjem e pjo n sinantis e i Maria . wonder-Is who m met-3 s the-no m Mari a 'I wonder who Maria met.' b. * Anarotjeme ot i i Mari a sinantis e pjon . wonder-Is tha i the-no m Mari a me t who m '*! wonder that Maria met who.' The matrix verb in these example s is of the type which select s a [+wh] C/CP. As such th e embedde d C is require d b y the Wh-Criterion t o hav e its Spe c positio n filled wit h a wh-operator. In (48a ) this requirement is met, wherea s i n (48b) i t is not.22 Note tha t (48b ) show s clearl y tha t the Wh-Criterion, lik e the F-Criterion, must be a n S-structur e condition. With respec t t o matri x clauses , whe n F i s specifie d positivel y fo r th e [wh ] feature the latter is realized i n terms of an abstract morpheme whic h we can call , following Chomsk y (1991), th e Q morpheme. Lik e th e F morpheme th e Q morpheme i s als o affixal , an d consequently , attract s th e ver b obligatoril y t o th e F position, givin g rise to the Subject-Aux/V Inversio n effec t characteristi c o f wh questions: (49) a . Pjo n idh e i Maria ? whom saw-3 s the-no m Mari a 'Who did Maria see? ' b. *Pjo n i Mari a idhe ? whom the-no m Mari a saw-3 s 'Who di d Maria see?' The ungrammaticalit y of (49b ) ca n b e accounte d for , i n paralle l t o it s counter part in focus constructions , in terms of a violation o f whatever principle require s affixal categorie s t o have thei r morphologica l selectiona l propertie s satisfie d a t S-structure. Whether a given sentenc e whic h contains one or more wh-phrase s can be in terpreted as a question seems to depend on whether one of them occupies SpecFP . Thus, whil e (50a ) ca n onl y hav e a n ech o interpretation , (50b ) ha s a question interpretation: (50) a . Ipe s t is e pjon ? said-2s wha t t c who m 'You sai d wha t to whom? '

200

Discourse Configurational Languages

b. T i ipe s s e pjon ? what said-2 s t o who m 'What di d yo u sa y to whom? ' This fac t ca n be explaine d a s follows . I n (50a ) F i s no t specifie d positivel y fo r the [wh ] feature , hence th e fac t tha t i t ha s th e statu s o f a n ech o question . A s a result no phrase is required to move to SpecFP to satisfy th e F-Criterion. In (50b), however, F is specified positively for the [wh ] feature, hence it s status as a question. Consequently , a wh-phrase has t o move to SpecFP for th e Wh-Criterion t o be satisfied . Summarizing, th e accoun t presented in th e previous subsectio n of th e co-oc currence restriction s o n focus phrases an d wh-phrase s seem s to lea d t o the con clusion tha t matri x clause s diffe r fro m embedde d clause s i n tha t the y d o no t instantiate the CP category. In matrix clauses focus phrases an d wh-phrases mov e to th e sam e position , namel y SpecFP . I n embedde d clauses , wher e bot h a focus phrase an d a wh-phrase are proposed th e focus phrase occupie s SpecC P an d th e wh-phrase SpecFP . Thi s considerabl e degre e o f overlap i n functio n betwee n C P and FP , implied b y thi s analysis , wa s explaine d i n term s o f th e assumptio n tha t C an d F ar e bot h specifie d fo r th e [f ] an d th e [wh ] features . Th e tw o feature s have been argue d to be distinct from eac h other. The distribution of focus phrases is regulated by the F-Criterion, whic h makes reference to the [f ] feature, whereas the distributio n of wh-phrase s is regulate d by a separat e condition , the Wh-Cri terion, whic h make s referenc e t o th e [wh ] feature. 6. Conclusion In the course of this paper a number of conclusions have been drawn. Here I will only recal l thre e major ones. First , th e propertie s o f focu s constructions, wher e the focu s phrase i s preposed, see m t o indicate that they involv e operator-move ment in the syntax. On the other hand, the properties of topicalization, while they show tha t topicalizatio n doe s no t involv e operator-movement i n th e syntax , d o not necessaril y rule out the possibility that it involves operator-movemen t a t LF. An analysi s in term s o f operator-movemen t a t L F wa s argue d t o b e compatibl e with th e properties o f topicalization, and was predicated o n the ide a tha t certai n constraints, e.g . EC P an d Bindin g Conditions , hold o f bot h S-structur e an d L F representations, whil e others , e.g . Subjacency , hol d o f S-structur e representa tions only . Secondly, ungrammaticalit y seem s t o aris e wheneve r th e scop e o f a focu s phrase overlap s completel y wit h tha t o f anothe r operator , b e i t anothe r focu s phrase o r a wh-phrase . I t wa s argue d tha t thi s fac t ca n b e explaine d i f matri x clauses ar e assume d t o diffe r fro m embedde d clause s i n instantiatin g only on e functional projection , namel y SpecF P whos e Spe c positio n ca n host/defin e a n operator. Matrix clauses instantiate only FP, whereas embedded clauses intantiate both C P an d FP . The inabilit y o f a focu s phras e to co-occu r wit h another focu s

Focusing in Modem Greek 20

1

phrase or a wh-phrase in the sam e unique position wa s explained i n terms o f th e scope propertie s o f focu s phrases i n combinatio n wit h May's Scop e Principle . Thirdly, certai n marked difference s i n th e behavio r o f focus phrase s an d wh phrases see m t o indicate that their distributio n is regulated by tw o separate con ditions. Th e conditio n whic h regulate s th e distributio n o f focu s phrases , th e F-Criterion, make s reference t o the [f ] feature only, an d the on e which regulate s the distributio n o f wh-phrases , th e Wh-Criterion , make s referenc e t o th e [wh ] feature only . Although it might be possible t o collapse th e Wh-Criterion an d th e F-Criterion int o a single an d more genera l constraint , ther e seem s to be an obvi ous nee d t o kee p th e [f ] and [wh ] features distinc t from eac h other .

Notes *I a m gratefu l t o Mis i Brody , Katali n E. Kiss , Rit a Manzini , Jamal Ouhall a an d Nei l Smith fo r thei r comments on a n earlie r versio n o f thi s paper . I a m also gratefu l t o Ste fanie Anyadi , Anna Rousso u an d Armin e Tamrazia n fo r numerou s excitin g discussion s about focusing . 1. (3) is th e structur e postulated b y Ouhall a (1991 ) fo r VS O languages . 2. The proces s whic h i s referred t o here a s topicalization i s usuall y referre d t o i n th e literature as Dislocation. I t is also the process whic h Cinque (1990 ) call s Cliti c Left Dislocation (CLLD) . O n the othe r hand, the proces s whic h i s referred t o her e a s focussing , more precisel y movemen t o f a focu s phrase, i s usuall y referred to , especiall y i n th e literature o n Germani c languages , as topicalization. I believe tha t th e term s use d her e re flect bette r th e semantic s of th e categorie s involved , and , moreover, hel p avoi d a lo t o f confusion create d b y th e standar d terminology. 3. The analysis outlined here is identica l to the analysis suggested i n a number of studies (see, fo r example , Bore r (1984) } fo r th e well-know n fac t tha t man y language s d o no t tolerate resumptiv e pronouns i n :h e subject an d object-of-the-ver b position s o f th e ma trix clause . 4. Se e McCloske y (1990 ) fo r argument s tha t th e hea d nou n i n Iris h relativ e clause s also doe s no t qualif y a s a binder o f th e resumptiv e pronoun . 5. Th e conclusio n reache d her e i s i n fac t alread y suggeste d b y th e widesprea d belie f that the presence o f a resumptive pronoun, at least i n the object position , implie s lac k of movement, wherea s the absenc e o f suc h a pronoun implie s movement . However , i t wil l be argue d below tha t th e presenc e o f a resumptiv e pronoun doe s no t necessaril y impl y absence o f movemen t at LF. 6. Wha t is referre d t o her e a s Chai n Conditio n i s formulate d in Chomsk y (1986a ) a s part of a more general definition of CHAINS. Its content, however, ca n be understoo d a s a condition on the well-formedness o f chains in general, assuming a notion of chain whic h includes bot h A-chains and A'-chains (cf . Brody (1985)). 7. Th e fac t tha t the sam e restrictio n o n th e numbe r of focu s phrase s hold s eve n whe n the latter remain i n situ , as we wil l see below, doe s no t necessarily undermin e th e argu ment presented. Thi s is because focu s phrase s i n sit u ar e subjec t t o a movement proces s at LF tha t i s identica l t o the movemen t process whic h the y ma y underg o in the syntax . 8. However, there ar e reason s t o believe tha t perhaps th e distinctio n should b e drawn between principles which hold o f movemen t in the synta x only and th e one s whic h hold of movemen t in bot h th e synta x an d a t LF , instea d o f betwee n principles which hold o f

202

Discourse Conflgurational Languages

movement-chains onl y an d ones whic h hold o f both movemen t an d binding chains . Con sider, fo r example , th e behavio r o f focused manne r adverbs : (i) a . *GRIGOR A kser i o Petro s pjo s episkevas e t o aftokinito . quickly know s th e Petro s wh o fixe d th e ca r 'Petros know s wh o fixe d th e car QUICKLY. ' b. O Petro s kser i pjo s episkevas e t o aftokinit o GRIGORA . the Petro s know s wh o fixe d th e ca r quickl y 'Petros know s wh o fixed th e ca r QUICKLY. ' (ia) show s tha t a focuse d manne r adver b construe d wit h th e embedde d ver b canno t b e preposed: tha t is, moved t o the initial position of the sentence i n the syntax. This is to be expected unde r Cinque's analysis since bein g a non-referential expressio n th e adverb can only mov e successiv e cyclically , a proces s whic h i s blocke d b y th e wh-phras e whic h creates a wh-island . (ib ) show s tha t th e resul t i s grammatica l whe n th e focuse d adver b remains i n situ . However , a s w e wil l se e below , embedde d focu s phrase s mov e t o th e matrix claus e a t LF fo r thei r scop e propertie s t o be determine d structurally , (ib ) ha s th e interpretation roughl y paraphrasabl e as "I t i s quickl y tha t Petro s know s wh o fixe d th e car," wher e the adverb modifies the embedded verb . This shows that the adverb can mov e in a non-successive cyclic fashion a t LF, though no t in the syntax, despit e the fact tha t it is a non-referentia l expression . I n othe r words , thi s show s tha t whethe r a categor y ca n violate certai n island s doe s no t depen d o n whethe r i t ca n ente r bindin g chains , tha t i s whether i t i s referential , bu t rathe r o n whic h leve l i t move s at . This i n tur n show s tha t the constraints on chains should perhaps be factored out not in relation to movement chain s versus bindin g chains , bu t i n relation t o syntacti c chains versu s L F chains . 9. This assumption is consistent with existing theories of object clitics as elements whic h identify pr o argument s in th e objec t positio n (cf . Bore r (1984 ) an d Jaeggl i (1984)) . A possible renditio n of thi s theor y i s t o sa y that th e cliti c i s base-generated a s th e hea d o f a DP and the pro occupie s th e head position of the NP complement o f D as shown in (i) :

The cliti c move s in th e synta x an d head-adjoins to th e verbal complex. I n topicalizatio n constructions th e whol e D P moves t o th e SpecC P a t LF. 10. MG lacks parasitic gap constructions of the familiar type, hence the Italian example. 11. This i s show n by, among othe r things, the fac t tha t wh-phrase s in sit u and quanti fier phrase s canno t license parasiti c gaps. The example s i n (ia&b ) ar e cite d i n Chomsk y (1982): (i) a . I forget wh o file d ever y articl e withou t readin g *(it) . b. I forge t wh o file d whic h article without readin g *(it) .

Focusing in Modem Greek 20

3

Viewed fro m a differen t angle , thss e example s sho w tha t L F variables , tha t i s variabl e traces whic h aris e fro m movemen t a t LF, cannot license parasitic gaps . 12. We have thus reached an alternative account to the one provided by Chomsky (1982 ) (for th e inabilit y o f resumptiv e clitic s t o licens e parasiti c gap s i n Spanis h relatives) . Chomsky account s fo r thi s fac t by assumin g that the proces s o f coindexatio n betwee n a base-generated abstrac t operato r (o r th e hea d N) , an d th e resumptiv e clitic , whic h pre sumably lead s to the clitic acquirin g a variable status, applies a t LF, that is subsequent t o S-structure wher e th e condition s o n th e licensin g o f parasiti c gap s apply . Th e analysi s proposed her e achieve s th e sam e resul t with respect t o topicalization b y substitutin g operator-movement a t L F fo r coindexatio n a t LF . The reaso n wh y operator-movemen t i n topicalization applie s a t LF can be attributed to the need t o create a formal environmen t for a bound variabl e interpretatio n of the resumptive clitic , and perhaps also t o create a n appropriate predicatio n lin k betwee n th e topicalized phras e an d the sentenc e vi a th e pro operator i n SpecC P (cf . Brownin g (1987)). 13. Another advantage of this analysis is that it is consistent wit h the genera l assump tion underlying the theory that calegories move onl y whe n they hav e to . Optiona l movements ar e clearl y a t odd s with thi s assumption. 14. This analysi s is simila r t o tie analysi s suggested i n Chomsky (1991 ) for a simila r effect i n wh-questions , i n that it account s for the adjacenc y effect i n terms o f a morpho logical requirement . The parallel adjacenc y effect i n MG wh-questions wil l be discusse d below. 15. Notice that it cannot be claimed tha t the [+f] featur e can als o be assigned by prepo sitions an d nouns since tha t would amount to dissociating th e process of [+f]-assignmen t from th e adjacenc y requiremen t whic h hold s betwee n th e proposed focu s phras e an d th e verb. 16. The parallelism wit h Case-assignment i s hard to maintai n for man y reasons. First , lexical item s ar e specifie d i n th e Lexico n a s t o th e numbe r an d typ e o f Case s the y ca n assign, o r whethe r they ca n assig n Cas e a t all . Ther e is , however , n o paralle l situatio n with respect t o [+f ] assignmen t since the argument s of an y ver b can receive one an d th e same [+f ] feature . Secondly , lexica l items , i n particula r verbs , ar e force d t o assig n th e Cases the y ar e specifie d fo r a s a resul t of a conspiracy betwee n the Projectio n Principl e and th e Theta Criterion . Again, there i s no paralle l situatio n with respect t o [+f ] assign ment because i t is generall y a n oiptiona l process . Thirdly , nou n phrase argument s are re quired b y a genera l principl e o f th e grammar t o b e assigne d Cas e whil e n o paralle l re quirement exist s wit h respec t t o th e [+f ] feature . In additio n t o what has bee n mentione d th e parallelism wit h Case-assignmen t implie s that al l verbs ar e specifie d fo r the [+f ] featur e in their lexica l entries . [+f]-assignmen t i s not a property o f individua l lexical item s but , rather , a general proces s o f th e grammar . The Lexicon i s the component wher e th e individual properties of items, tha t is propertie s which may diffe r fro m on e item 1o another, are specified. What w e ar e dealin g with here is a genera l an d unifor m proces s whic h ma y appl y t o an y argumen t o f an y ver b (se e Horvath (thi s volume) for a simila r conclusion). 17. Perhaps mor e appropriately , the wea k crossove r effec t cause d b y (th e LF-rnove ment of ) focus phrases is simila r to th e one cause d by (th e LF-movement) of th e quanti fier i n example s suc h a s (ia) : (i) a . I miter a t u agapa i kathena; . the mothe r hi s love s everyon e '*HiSj mother love s everyone ;.'

204

Discourse Configurational Languages b. [ kathena; [ i miter a t u agapa i t everyone th e mothe r hi s love s 'His; mother love s everyone;. '

;

]

(ib) i s th e L F representatio n of (ia ) wher e th e quantifie r is locate d t o th e lef t o f th e subject. 18. Wh-phrases diffe r fro m focu s phrases i n tha t they ca n have interactive scop e wit h each other : (i) Pjo s ip e ti ? who-nom sai d what-ac c 'Who sai d what? ' This exampl e ca n hav e both th e distributed an d the non-distribute d readings . 19. The situatio n in question is similar to the situation found i n the following exampl e discussed b y Rizzi : (i) Thi s i s th e studen t tha t I wonde r [what C [ t Inf l bough t t

]] .

The operato r occupyin g SpecC P is differen t fro m th e subject , henc e th e lac k o f proper head-government o f th e subjec t trac e in term s o f th e Agr option . 20. The ide a tha t matrix clauses lack a CP projection provide s a ready explanatio n fo r the well-known fac t tha t they canno t be introduce d by th e complementizer 'that, ' unlik e embedded clauses : (i) a

. *Ot i o Yani s efige . that the-no m Yani s left-3 s "That Yanis left. ' b. * Oti dhiavas e i Mari a t o vivlio . that read-3 s the-no m Mari a the-ac c book . '*That Maria rea d th e book.'

According t o th e present hypothesi s matri x clause s canno t b e introduce d b y 'that ' sim ply becaus e the y lac k a CP projection . Furthermore, Ouhall a (1990) ha s argue d that the structure of the embedded claus e sug gested her e provide s a mor e plausibl e alternativ e t o th e CP-recursio n hypothesi s (cf . Holmberg (1986) ) an d AgrP-recursio n hypothesi s (cf . Cardinalett i & Robert s (1990) ) suggested i n relation t o V2 languages suc h a s Yiddish an d Icelandic whic h allow th e V 2 phenomenon i n embedde d clause s introduce d b y th e complementize r 'that ' (se e Vikne r (1990) for a discussion o f this phenomenon and the recursion hypotheses) . Th e topicalize d phrase in these constructions , renamed focus phras e by Ouhalla , occupie s th e Spe c posi tion o f the F P located belo w CP , and the ver b th e F position. Obligator y V-movemen t t o F (th e secon d position ) i s basicall y the Subject-AUX/ V Inversio n proces s usuall y trig gered b y movemen t o f focu s phrase s i n th e syntax . 21. The conclusio n tha t matrix clauses lac k th e C P projection implie s wit h respect t o the topicalizatio n (CLLD) construction s discussed i n sectio n 3 that the LF-movemen t of the pronomina l i s t o SpecFP , rathe r than SpecCP. Sinc e SpecF P i s a n A'-position i t ca n define th e categor y i t hosts a s a n operator, just a s SpecC P does .

Focusing in Modem Greek 20

5

22. Th e Wh-Criterio n ca n als o b e satisfie d i n thes e example s b y th e comple mentizer an: (i) Anarotjem e a n i Mari a sinantis e t o Yani . wonder-Is i f the-no m Mari a me t the-ac c Yan i 'I wonder if Maria me t Yani.' This show s tha t the Wh-Criterion shoul d perhaps be reformulated i n terms o f the notion of identification . This wil l mean that a [+wh ] C can be identifie d eithe r b y a wh-phrase in SpecC P o r by a n overt [+wh ] Comp element .

References Aoun, J. (1985 ) A Grammar of Anaphora, MI T Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Aoun, J. , an d Li , Y.-H . A. (1990 ) "Thre e Case s o f Logica l Relations : Relativ e Scope , Bound Pronouns , and Anaphoric Relations," ms. , University o f Southern Califor nia. Baker, M. (1988) Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing, Univer sity o f Chicag o Press , Chicago . Borer, H . (1984 ) Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages, Foris Publications , Dordrecht. Brody, M. (1984) "O n Contextual Definitions and the Role of Chains," Linguistic Inquiry 15, 355-380. Brody, M. (1985) "O n the Complementary Distribution o f Empty Categories," Linguistic Inquiry 16 . Brody, M . (1990 ) "Som e Remark s on th e Focu s Fiel d i n Hungarian, " i n UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2,201-225 . University College London . Browning, M . (1987 ) Null Operator Constructions, Doctora l Dissertation , MIT , Cam bridge, Massachusetts . Cardinaletti, A., and Roberts, I. (1990) "Level s of Representation of Agreement," in GLOW Newsletter 24 , 16-17 . Choe, H.-S . (1987 ) "Restructurin g Parameter s an d Scramblin g i n Korea n an d Hungar ian," ms. , MIT, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Chomsky, N. (1977 ) "O n Wh-movement, " in P . Culicover, T . Wasow, and A. Akmajian , eds., Formal Syntax, Academi c Press , Ne w York. Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications , Dordrecht . Chomsky, N. (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MI T Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts. Chomsky, N. (1986a) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger, Ne w York. Chomsky, N. (1986b ) Barriers, MI T Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Chomsky, N . (1991) "Some Notes on Economy o f Derivation an d Representation," i n R. Freidin, ed. , Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MI T Press , Cambridge, Massachusetts . Cinque, G . (1990 ) Types of A'-Dependencies, MI T Press , Cambridge , Massachusetts . Holmberg, A . (1986) Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English, Stockholm , Departmen t o f Genera l Linguistics , Universit y o f Stockholm.

206

Discourse Configurational Languages

Horvath, J. (1994) "Structural Focus, Structural Case, and the Notion of Feature-Assignment," thi s volume. Huang, C.-T . J . (1982a ) "Mov e W H i n a Language without WH-Movement," The Linguistic Review 1 , 369-416. Huang, C.-T. J . (1982b ) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, MI T Doctoral Dissertation , Cambridge, Massachusetts. Jaeggli, O . (1984) "Subjec t Extractio n and the Null Subject Parameter," NELS 14 . Koopman, H., and Sportiche, D. (1991) "Th e Positio n of Subjects" Lingua 85 , 211-258. McCloskey, J. (1990 ) "Resumptiv e Pronouns , A'-Binding, and Levels o f Representation in Irish," in R. Hendrick, ed., Syntax and Semantics 23 , Academic Press. Manzini, R . (1988 ) "Constituen t Structur e an d Locality, " ms. , Universit y Colleg e London. May, R . (1985) Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, MI T Press , Cambridge , Massachusetts. Montalbetti, M. (1984) After Binding, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Ouhalla, J . (1990 ) "Focusin g i n Berbe r and Circassia n an d th e V 2 phenomenon, " Talk presented a t a University College Londo n seminar. Ouhalla, J. (1991) Functional Categories and Parametric Variation, Routledge, London. Philippaki-Warburton, I . (1985 ) "O n th e Theor y o f Empt y Categories : th e Missin g Subject an d th e Cliti c Pronouns in Modern Greek," in Studies in Greek Linguistics 6 , 131-155 . Rizzi, L. (1990 ) Relativized Minimality, MI T Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts. Rizzi, L. (1991 ) "Residua l Verb Second an d the Wh-Criterion," in Technical Reports in Formal and Computational Linguistics 2, University d e Geneve. Tsimpli, I.-M. (1990) "Th e Claus e Structure and Word Order of Modern Greek," in UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 226-255. University College London. Vikner, S . (1990 ) Verb Movement and the Licensing of NP-Positions in the Germanic Languages, Doctora l Dissertation, University d e Geneve.

8 NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian KATALIN E. KISS Linguistic Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

1. Introduction Section 2 of this paper wil l put forth a Hungarian sentence structur e fro m whic h all an d onl y th e grammatica l order s o f th e majo r constituent s o f a sentence , a s well a s th e interpretatio n an d stres s difference s o f th e variou s permutation s ar e deducible. Th e sentenc e structur e argued fo r divides primaril y int o a topic and a VP, which occupy th e specifie r an d complement position s o f a TenseP, respec tively. Th e VP consists o f a fla t V-initia l V component , a preverbal focu s lo cated i n the specifie r position o f VP, and quantifiers left-adjoined t o VP. That is:

207

208

Discourse Configurational Languages

Section 3 o f th e pape r wil l poin t ou t th e difference s between th e propose d sentence structure and alternative analyses of Hungarian (those in Brody (1990) , Horvath (thi s volume) , an d Mardc z (1990)) , an d wil l discus s th e empirica l evi dence supportin g the proposed approach . Section 4 will focus o n the derivation of Hungarian sentence structure. I t will identify th e transformations participating i n the derivation a s WH Movement o r NP Movement. Focusin g an d Q-raising, tha t is, movement int o [Spec , VP] and adjunction t o VP, respectively, wil l be analyzed a s WH- (or, more appropriately , Operator) Movement , resultin g i n a n operator-variabl e chain , wit h th e operato r c-commanding its scope. Th e syntactic and semantic relatio n betwee n the topi c and th e VP will b e show n t o be essentiall y paralle l t o tha t betwee n th e subjec t and th e VP in English (th e differences aris e fro m a difference in nominativ e assignment). Th e paper wil l propose t o establish bot h relation s b y the NP Move ment o f th e topic/subjec t out o f th e VP . N P Movemen t wil l b e redefine d a s a movement transformatio n creating a primar y predicatio n relatio n betwee n th e moved category and the source category. I n English, this definition of NP Movement covers, in addition to Object Preposing, Topicalization and the problemati c case o f Subjec t Movement ou t o f th e VP , as well . Raisin g wil l b e analyze d a s Complex Predicat e Formation . Tough Movement will be argued to involve both Complex Predicat e Formation and NP Movement. N P Movement wil l be claimed to be constrained wit h respect to localit y only by Subjacency , simila r t o Opera tor Movement . Th e stricte r localit y constraint s atteste d i n th e cas e o f Englis h NP Movemen t wil l tur n ou t t o b e constraint s o n nominativ e assignment . Th e apparent difference s between N P Movemen t and Operato r Movemen t concern ing thei r interactio n wit h Weak Crossove r an d Bindin g wil l als o b e show n t o disappear i f Raisin g is analyze d as Comple x Predicat e Formation . The free constituen t order in the postverbal part of the Hungarian sentence will be derive d b y rando m base generation , which wil l be labele d b y th e metapho r Scrambling. 2. Hungarian Sentence Structure As i s argue d i n E . Kis s (1990 ; 1991a) , th e Hungaria n sentence contain s i n th e unmarked cas e a n initial , VP-external argument , XP , to whic h th e V P bear s a predication relatio n bot h syntacticall y (in th e sens e o f William s (1980 ) an d Rothstein (1983)) , an d semanticall y (i n th e Aristotelia n sense , adopte d t o th e generative framework in Rothstein (1983)). Th e case an d the syntactic categor y of th e VP-externa l argument are no t restricted . Cf . (2) a . [ xp £vat] [ vp Janos vart a a moz i elott ] Eve-ACC Joh n waite d th e cinem a in-front-o f 'Eve wa s waite d fo r i n fron t o f th e cinem a by JOHN.'

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 20

9

b. [xp Janos] [ vp Evat vart a a moz i elott ] John Eve-AC C waite d th e cinem a in-front-o f 'John waite d fo r EV E i n fron t o f th e cinema. " c. [xp A mozi elott ] [ vp Janos vart a Evat ] the cinem a in-front-o f Joh n waite d Eve-AC C 'In fron t o f the cinema , JOH N waite d fo r Eve.' In (2a-c) the XP, traditionally called topic, function s a s the notional subject about which the content o f the VP is predicated. Tha t is , (2a) is a statement about Eve, (2b) i s a statemen t abou t John , while (2c ) is a statemen t abou t th e locatio n i n front o f th e cinema . Primary predicatio n i n the structural sense i s generally define d a s a local rela tion (th e relation o f mutual m-command according to Rothstein (1983) ) between a VP, and a constituent external to the VP. A further conditio n of a primary predication relatio n i s tha t th e VP-externa l constituen t be a n argument , bindin g an empty argumen t position i n the VP. Thi s constrain t prevents th e analysis of VPexternal speaker- o r subject-oriente d adverbial s (suc h a s szerencsere 'luckily' ) as topics/subjects o f predication. Referentia l adverbials , fo r instance , the plac e adverbial i n (2c) , may eithe r functio n a s topics/notiona l subjects , abou t whic h the VP predicates something , or may merely carry backgroun d information. Thi s ambiguity can be represented i n the proposed framewor k if we allow referential adverbials t o b e analyze d eithe r a s optiona l arguments , o r a s adjuncts . In vie w of thes e considerations, primar y predication i s define d a s follows : (3) Primary predication (l. o b e revised )

A VP bears a primar y predicatio n relatio n t o a n X P iff i. X P an d VP mutuall y m-comman d each other , an d ii. X P binds a n empty argumen t position i n th e VP.

In earlier wor k I assumed that in the Hungarian sentence th e topic an d the VP are dominated by an S node; i.e., the sentence i s not the projection o f a category but is the instantiation of a predication relatio n (a s suggested i n Williams (1980)) . No empirica l evidenc e ha s bee n presente d agains t thi s view . Nevertheless , i n order t o keep i n line wit h curren t theoretical considerations , I wil l hypothesiz e here tha t th e Hungaria n sentence i s also th e projection o f a functional category : that of tense o r mood. Tha t is , the Hungarian sentence i s a TP or MP. Adaptin g a proposa l o f Antal (1977) , I assume that tense an d mood ar e in complementar y distribution i n the Hungarian sentence; present conditional and past conditional , which hav e been traditionall y regarded a s differen t tense s o f on e an d th e sam e mood, are, in fact, differen t moods . Therefore , i n order t o simplify terminology , I will label the (post-complementize r part of the) Hungarian sentence a s TP, and will attribut e t o T the followin g possibl e values :

210

Discourse Configurational Languages

t [

[+infinitival]/[l] ] [ irrealll

The T hea d o f the Hungaria n sentenc e i s no t th e tens e morphem e appearing on th e V , but i s a n abstrac t head , whic h require s tha t th e feature s o f th e tens e morpheme born e b y th e V correspond t o it s ow n features . I do not assume actual verb-to-tense movement , and (verb+tense)-to-agreemen t movement because the T and AGR morphemes ar e not consecutivel y ordere d i n every case . I n th e cas e o f irrea l conditional the orde r o f morpheme s is : (5) V + T + AGR + T

For example : (6) men-t - e m voln a go -T - ISO T 'I shoul d have gone' The secon d par t of the T morpheme is the remnant of an obsolete auxiliar y (als o demonstrable i n such archaic ver b forms , survivin g in the literatur e o f previou s centuries, a s men-t-em vala ' I wa s going, ' men-t-em volt 'I ha d gone') ; fo r th e intuition of present-day nativ e speakers, an d for the synchronic description , how ever, th e -t- suffix , th e AGR marker , an d the volna morphem e constitut e a n Inf l complex. The clai m tha t th e Hungaria n sentenc e i s th e projection o f tens e ca n als o b e given wea k empirical support . Namely , lon g operato r movemen t i s easie r fro m infinitives an d fro m conditiona l and subjunctive clauses tha n from finit e presen t or pas t clauses , whic h fact ca n b e easil y describe d i f th e V P i s governe d b y T, and a [-independent ] T is a n L-marker, whil e a [+independent ] T is not , turning the VP into a barrier. Compare : (7) ? ? Kire; gondolo d [ cp hog y [ TP+indep [ VP szavazta k tj] ] who-on think-yo u tha t voted-the y 'On who m d o you think the y voted? ' (8) a . Kire j szeretne" d [ cp h a [ Tp.indep [Vp szavaznana k tj]] ] who-on would-like-yo u i f vote-COND-the y 'On who m woul d yo u lik e i f the y voted? ' b. Kire ; akaro d [ CP hogy [ TP.indep [ VP szavazzana k tj] ] who-on want-yo u tha t vote-SUBJ-the y 'On who m do yo u wan t that they vote?'

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 21

1

In vie w o f this, th e followin g Hungarian sentence structur e i s hypothesized :

In th e marke d case , the sentenc e ma y contain mor e tha n on e VP-external argument, functionin g as a topic/subject o f predication. I tentativel y assum e tha t the second , thir d etc . VP-externa l argumen t is adjoine d t o TP. 1 (10) [

JanoS j [ T pEvaval. [vp tavaly ismerkedet t me g t s t. egy John Eve-wit h last-yea r got-acquainte d a konferencian]] conference-on 'With Eve , Joh n go t acquainte d at a conference las t year. ' TP

In such cases the exchanging of the two (or more) VP-external constituent s doe s not caus e an y chang e in th e interpretatio n o f the sentence . Thi s seem s t o indi cate tha t i t i s no t th e cas e tha t Evdval function s a s th e notiona l subjec t o f th e VP, and Jdnos function s as th e notiona l subjec t o f th e T P following it. Rather , the V P bear s a predicatio n relatio n t o bot h VP-externa l constituents—owin g perhaps t o som e absorption-lik e semanti c proces s (se e Higginbotha m an d Ma y (1981)), which creates a single notional subject out of the two. I f this is correct, then th e localit y conditio n of primary predication will have t o be somewha t relaxed, sinc e a n XP adjoined to TP is no t m-commande d b y th e VP. Th e prope r condition seem s t o be tha t XP and VP must not b e separate d b y a maximal cat egory excludin g XP. Tha t is: (11) Primar y Predication (revised ) A VP bears a primary predication relatio n t o a n X P iff i. X P c-commands VP, ii. ther e i s no maxima l category including the VP and excludin g th e XP, an d iii. XP binds a n empty argument position i n th e VP.

212

Discourse Configurational Languages

Another possibilit y fo r the description o f multiple Topicalization woul d be t o assume TP-recursion, thu s multiplying the [Spec , TP] positions . The topic mus t be referential and specific, o r generic. Thi s requiremen t obvi ously follows from it s notional subject role, that is, from it s function to foreground the entit y (an individual or a kind) that a given even t o r state wil l be predicate d about. Operator s an d idiom-chunks are barred fro m VP-external position . Fo r instance: (12) *[

Minden fhi ; [ TP Evatj [ vp a moz i elot t vart a t ; tj]]] every bo y Eve-AC C th e cinem a in-front-o f waited-fo r 'Every bo y waite d fo r Ev e i n fron t o f th e cinema. ' TP

The idiomati c meanin g o f (13a ) i s los t i n (13b) : th e VP-external idiom-chun k must b e attribute d reference: (13) a . [

JanoS j [ vp ki huzt a t ; a gyufa t ] ] John ou t pulle d th e matc h 'John pulle d out th e match [Joh n provoke d misfortune / punishment].' b. [ TP A gyufat ; [ vp kihuzt a Jano s t ;]] the match-AC C pulled-ou t Joh n 'The match wa s pulled ou t by John. ' Tp

As for the interna l structur e of the VP, [Spec, VP], th e immediatel y preverba l position, i s reserved fo r th e focu s of the sentence . A n interrogativ e W H opera tor, o r a negate d constituen t must als o mov e int o [Spec , VP]—presumabl y be cause the y represent sub-types of focus . Th e transformatio n filling [Spec , VP ] from amon g th e constituent s of V i s calle d Focusing . I n th e Englis h transla tions, th e focu s wil l b e rendere d b y a clef t construction , o r b y emphasis , indi cated b y capitalization . (Cleftin g will b e sometime s avoide d becaus e th e focu s it create s ha s th e wides t possibl e scop e i n the sentence . A Hungarian focus, o n the othe r hand , only has scop e ove r V. ) (14) a . [

JanoSj [ vp Evatj [ v, vart a t j t j a moz i elott]] ] John Eve-AC C waite d th e cinema in-front-o f 'John waite d FOR EV E i n fron t o f th e cinema. ' b. [ TP Evat; [ vp JanoSj [ vp varta t; tj a mozi elott]] ] 'Eve wa s waite d for BY JOH N i n fron t o f the cinema. ' c. [ TP Janos; [ vp A MOZI ELOTT j [ v, varta Evat t ; tj]] ] 'John waite d for Ev e IN FRON T O F THE CINEMA. ' TP

The focus operator serve s t o express identification. I t operates o n a set deter mined b y th e discourse , an d identifie s all an d onl y th e member s o f thi s se t o f which th e give n predicat e holds . I n th e cas e o f (14a) , fo r instance , the focu s quantifies ove r a se t o f relevan t persons , possibl y th e se t o f John' s girlfriends,

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 21

3

and identifies Eve, and only Eve, a s the person who m John waited for in front o f the cinema . When the focus operates o n a closed se t of individuals (as in the case of (14a)), the identification of those of which the predicate holds als o produces a complement set: th e subset of the members o f which the predicate doe s not hold. Henc e identification als o goes together wit h exclusion (or, in other words, with contrast). When the focus operates on an open set, or on a set of non-individuals, on th e other hand , no complemen t se t formatio n will tak e place. A s Szabolcs i (1992 ) argues, non-individuals do not constitute unordered sets (their denotations are not necessarily distinct; they can overlap); and the Boolean operatio n o f complemen t formation ca n onl y b e performe d o n unordere d sets . Consequently , th e move ment o f a non-individual-denoting adverbial into [Spec , VP ] expresse s identifi cation withou t also expressin g exclusion . Fo r example : (15) a . [

Jano s [ vp UGYESEN [ v, varrt a fe l a gombot]] ] John skillfull y sewe d u p th e button-AC C 'John sewe d u p th e button SKILFULLY. ' b. [ Tp Janos [ VP RITKAN [ v, kes i l e a vonatot]] ] John seldo m misse s PRE V th e train-AC C 'John SELDO M misse s the train.' TP

[Spec, VP ] is the unmarked surfac e position of a constituent lexically/ seman tically incorporate d int o th e V (a n N , Adj, P , or Adv), a s well . Therefore , th e clearest syntacti c indicator of whether an XP has been focused , landin g in [Spec, VP], o r has been move d befor e [Spec , VP ] (int o topi c o r quantifie r position) i s that a n XP sitting in [Spec , VP ] keeps th e incorporated constituent , for instance , the verbal prefi x (a n Adv), out o f preverbal position . Compare : (16) a . Jano s [ VP EL [ v, ment]] b . [ vp JANO S [ v, merit el] ] John awa y wen t Joh n wen t awa y 'John wen t away.' 'I t wa s John wh o went away. ' A focuse d incorporated constituent, not denotin g a n individual , doe s no t impl y exclusion/contrast. Sinc e the PREV is not independent semantically, th e identi fication operatio n expresse d b y it s Focusin g applie s t o th e whol e incorporate d constituent + V semanti c unit . Th e PREV , a t th e sam e time , als o serve s a s a n aspectual operato r i n [Spec , VP ] (cf . Kiefe r (1992)) . Fo r example : (17) a . Jano s [ vp MEG; [ v, ette a z ebede t t ;]] John u p at e th e lunch-AC C 'John at e up the lunch. ' b. Jano s [ vp LEVELED [ v, irt t ;]] John letter-AC C wrot e 'John wa s letter-writing. '

214

Discourse Configurational Languages

Non-individual-denoting constituents ca n only express identificatio n by exclusion i n [Spec , VP ] when they are individuated by listin g (cf. Szabolcsi (1992)) , as in (18) : (18) Jano s ne m lecket, hane m levele t fr . John no t lesson-AC C but letter-AC C write s 'John i s writin g a LETTER, no t his LESSON. 1 Quantifiers underg o syntactic Q-Raising, as a result of which they are adjoined to VP. E.g. (19) [ TP Janos [ vp minden tanart ; [ vp MEGj [v, kerdezett t ; tj]]] ] John ever y teacher-AC C PRE V aske d 'John aske d ever y teacher.' Q-Raising ca n be performed iteratively : (20) Jano s [ vp minden tanart j [ vp ketsze r iS j [ vp MEG k [v, John ever y teacher-AC C twice eve n PRE V kerdezett t j t . t k ]]] ] asked 'John aske d every teacher twice.' A ver y characteristi c property of Hungaria n is tha t th e Scop e Principle , ac cording to which a quantifier has scope over the syntactic domain it c-commands , is observed a t S-structure already; tha t is, all operators occup y S-structur e posi tions from whic h they c-command their scope. Accordingly , (20) is not ambiguous; the surface orde r o f quantifiers corresponds t o their scop e order . Compar e (20) an d (21) : (21) Jano s [ VP ketsze r iS j [ VP minde n tanar t [ vp MEG k [v, John twic e eve n ever y teacher-AC C PRE V ke"rdezett t.* t.J t*^]]] ] asked 'On tw o occasions, Joh n aske d ever y teacher. ' A universal quantifie r can be moved to scope position onl y by Q-Raising . A non-universal positiv e quantifier , o n th e othe r hand , ca n occup y eithe r o f th e operator position s in VP: i t ca n b e adjoine d to VP via Q-Raising , or i t ca n b e moved int o [Spec.VP ] vi a Focusing : (22) a . Jano s [ vp minden tanar t [ vp ME G [v. kerdezett]] ] John ever y teacher-AC C PRE V aske d 'John aske d every teacher.' b. *Jano s [ vp MINDEN TANART [v, kerdezett meg]]

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 21

5

(23) a . Jano s [ vp sok tanart [ vp ME G [v, kerdezett]] ] John man y teacher-AC C PRE V aske d 'John aske d man y teachers.' b. Jano s [ VP SOK TANART [ v, kerdezett meg] ] Negative quantifier s must lan d i n [Spec , VP]; the y obviousl y hav e a n inher ent focu s featur e because o f th e negatio n implici t i n them. (24) [ TP Janos [ypKEVE S TANART [ v, kerdezet t meg]] ] John fe w teacher-AC C aske d PRE V 'John aske d fe w teaihers. ' A quantifie r in th e scop e o f focu s remains i n it s base-generate d positio n i n V. Suc h a quantifier, c-commanding all the material in V, als o satisfies the Scope Principle. E.g . (25) [

[vp JANOS [ v, kerdezett meg minde n tanart]] ] John aske d PRE V ever y teacher-AC 'It was John who asked every teacher. ' TP

C

Adverbials o f frequency , manner, an d degre e behav e a s quantifie d phrases: they underg o Q-Raising whe n they hav e a universa l meaning (see (26a ) versu s (26b)), they are either Q-raise d o r focused when positive (se e (27a,b)) , and they must be focuse d when negative (see (28b ) versu s (28a)) . (26) a . [

TP

Janos [ VP mindig [ vp MEG [v, mondja a velemenyet]]] ] John alway s PRE V tell s hi s opinion-ACC 'John alway s tells his opinion.' b. *[ TP Janos [ VP MINDIG [ v, mondja me g a velemenyet]]]

(27) a . [

TP

Janos [ vp gyukran [ VPMEG [ v, mondja a velemenyet]]] John ofte n PRE V tell s hi s opinio n 'John ofte n tell s his opinion. ' b. [ TP Janos [ vp GYAKRAN [v, mondja meg a velemenyet]]]]

(28) a . *[

TP

Jano s [ vp ritkan [ vp MEG [v. mondja a velemenyet]]]

John seldo m PRE V tell s hi s opinio n 'John seldo m tell s his opinion. ' b. [ Tp Janos [ VP RITKAN [ v, mondja meg a velemenyet]]] When i n the scop e of focus , they remai n i n V : (29) [

[ VP JANOS [ v, mondj a me g mindig/ gyakran/ ritkan a John tell s PRE V always/ofte n /seldo m hi s velemenyet]]] opinion 'It i s Joh n wh o always/often/seldo m tell s hi s opinion. ' TP

]

]

216

Discourse Configurational Languages

For furthe r detail s of Q-Raising i n Hungarian, see E. Kis s (1987a ) an d (199la) . The orde r o f majo r constituent s in th e postverba l par t o f th e Hungaria n sen tence is free—except tha t unstressed constituent s (amon g them pronouns an d the verbal prefix ) ten d to preced e stressed one s (cf . Varg a (1981)). Fo r instance : (30) a . [ TP [vp [v, Nem [ v, adta od a Jano s a konyve t Marinak]]] ] not gav e PRE V Joh n th e book-ACC Mary-DA T 'John di d no t giv e th e book t o Mary.' b. [ TP [ Vp [y Ne m [ v, adta od a a konyvet Janos Marinak]]] ] c. [ TP [vp [v, Nem [v, adta oda Marinak a konyvet Janos]]]] d. ?[ TP [ VP [y Nem [ v, adta Marinak a konyvet Janos oda]]] ]

but: e. [

fy Ne m f v ac ^ta ne ^ O( ^a a konyve t Janos]]] ] not gav e hi m PRE V th e book-ACC Joh n 'John di d not give hi m the book.' TP [ Vp

I have argued elsewhere, fo r instance, in E. Kis s (1987a) , or most recentl y i n E. Kis s (t o appear) , a t lengt h tha t th e postverba l argument s i n th e Hungaria n sentence ar e al l sister s t o eac h other . Her e le t m e repea t onl y a singl e forcefu l argument for this claim. I n the V par t of the Hungarian sentence, an y pronomi nal argumen t is i n disjoin t reference wit h a lexica l N P i n th e genitiv e specifie r position o f an y o f it s coarguments . Fo r instance : (31) *[ TP [ VP Miert [y.szolftotta k 6k ; me g a fiiik ; anyjat?]] ] why calle d the y PREV th e boys' mother-AC C 'Why di d they call th e boys ' mother? ' *[TP [ VP Mier t [ v, szolftotta 6ket ; me g a fiuk ; anyja?]] ] why calle d the m PRE V th e boys ' mother-NO M 'Why di d the boys' mothe r call them? ' Coreference i s impossibl e whateve r th e relativ e orde r o f th e pronou n an d th e lexical NP : (32) a . *[

[ VP Miert [ v, szolitottak me g a fiuk ; anyja t 6k ;?]]] why calle d PRE V th e boys' mother-AC C the y 'Why di d the y cal l the boys' mother? ' b. *[T P [yp Miert [ v. szolftott a me g a fiuk j anyj a 6ket ;?]]] why calle d PRE V th e boys ' mothe r the m 'Why di d the boys' mothe r cal l them? ' Tp

According t o Bindin g Principle B o f Chomsk y (1981) , a lexical N P an d a pro noun are in disjoint reference if the pronoun c-commands the lexical NP . For th e c-command conditio n to hol d bot h in th e (a ) and (b ) examples i n (31)-(32), th e subject an d the objec t in V mus t mutually c-command each other , a s follows :

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian

217

3. Alternative Approaches In various recent paper s on Hungarian sentence structure , th e focus positio n ha s been identifie d with the specifie r positio n of the functional head o f the sentence . In Brod y (1990) , th e Hungaria n sentenc e i s no t th e projectio n o f Infl , bu t i s the projectio n o f a n abstrac t S?(ocus ) head, a s follows: 2

V+ i s a nod e dominatin g th e V an d th e incorporate d constituen t (calle d ver b modifier by Brody). Th e V OjDtionally carries the feature +f[ocus]. Whe n it raises to F, it ca n assig n it s featur e +f t o th e constituen t i n [Spec , FP]. + f assignmen t by th e V is possibl e unde r governmen t an d adjacency . Universal quantifiers ar e marked + f inherently ; therefore , the y d o no t nee d t o mov e t o [Spec , FP] ; the y are adjoine d t o F P (i n observanc e o f a Focu s Criterion , requirin g tha t al l + f phrases b e i n a n FP) . According t o Horvat h (thi s volume) , the featur e +f originate s i n Infl , an d i s assigned t o th e constituen t in [Spec , IP ] under spec-hea d agreement . Fo r Hun garian, th e followin g configuration is assumed :

218

Discourse Configurational Languages

Maracz (1989, 1990 ) analyse s Hungarian as a V-second language , an d puts the focus/WH-phrase i n [Spec , CP] . H e assumes V-to-I movement, an d in the presence o f a focus/WH-phrase, (V+I)-to- C movement, a s well. Thi s i s the structur e he assign s t o a sentenc e wit h a focuse d subject :

In the theory o f Mardcz, quantified phrases an d topicalized phrase s ar e adjoine d to CP. I n the framework o f Brody, they ar e adjoined to FP. Th e theory of Horvat h (this volume) , dealin g onl y wit h Focusing, doe s not discuss th e pre-focus par t of the Hungaria n sentence . Of these thre e sentence structures , that of Maracz differ s mos t fro m th e structure proposed i n this paper. Marac z assumes a subject positio n ([Spec, IP]), that

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 21

9

is, he predicts sentences containing no focus and no topic to be SVO. In his framework, i t is inexplicable wh y the SV O order i s only grammatical if the subjec t i s specific, tha t is why (37a ) i s vingrammatical . (37) a . ?*Eg y ismeretle n fel-hivott . an unknow n u p called-me 'An unknow n person calle d m e up.' cf. b . FeMvot t eg y ismeretlen. In the framework proposed i n this paper, a preverbal subjec t i s either in topi c or in focus position. I n (37a) . i n which the focus slo t i s occupied b y th e verba l prefix, th e subjec t ca n onl y b e i n topi c position . A topic, however , mus t b e specific—hence th e ungrammaticalit y of (37a) . A shared problematic property of the structures proposed b y Maracz and Brody is that the topic, the quantifiec. phrases, and the focus are all immediate constituents of the sam e projection. I n the cas e of the structur e proposed b y Horvath, i t is unclear whether the quantified phrase s an d the topicalized phrase s ar e also t o be adjoine d t o the IP projection dominatin g the focus, o r some other projectio n is generated for them. Th e assumption that the topic, the quantified phrases, an d the focu s ar e al l immediatel y dominate d by member s o f th e sam e projectio n i s untenable fo r th e followin g reasons: i. Under this assumption , the stres s pattern of the Hungarian sentence canno t b e predicted. I n th e Hungaria n sentence , the preverba l quantified phrases an d th e focus ar e al l obligatoril y stressed , an d the relativ e strengt h o f thei r stresse s de creases fro m lef t t o right. Topicalize d constituents, on the othe r hand, are typi cally unstressed , and whe n they ar e stressed , thei r stres s i s neve r stronge r tha n the stres s of the leftmos t quantifie d phrase , or in lack of a quantified phrase, th e stress o f th e focus . Thi s stres s patter n follow s fro m th e Nuclea r Stres s Rul e i f the topicalized constituent s are external to the projection dominatin g the quantified phrase s an d th e focus ; however , as wil l b e show n below , i t canno t b e de rived i f the y ar e al l immediat e constituents o f th e sam e projection . In Hungarian, similar to such left-branching languages as Japanese or Germa n (cf. McCawle y (1977) , an d Cinque (1991)) , the Nuclear Stress Rule operate s in a "reverse" order: i t puts phrasal stress o n the initial element o f phrases (se e 6. Kiss (1989)) . Observ e ho w wor d stress , an d the phrasa l stres s assigne d t o th e initial elemen t o f each brackete d constituen t accumulat e t o yiel d th e stres s pat tern o f various phras e types : (38) a . [a z [u j kollega] ] 'th e ne w colleague ' xx x b. [ a [kolleg a cikk;]] 'th e colleague' s paper ' xx x

220

Discourse Configurational Languages

c. [a z [[u j kollega ] [else ? cikke]]] 'th e new colleague's first paper' x x x x XX X

Constituents can remain unstressed, except fo r foci (i n accordance wit h Selkir k (1984)), and wide scope quantifier s (see Hunyad i (1981)), the stressin g o f which is obligatory acros s languages . I t is certainly a manifestation o f these constraint s that i n Hungaria n th e focu s an d th e prefocu s quantifier s ar e al l obligatoril y stressed.3 If th e preverba l quantifier s ar e assume d t o b e adjoine d t o th e projectio n th e specifier o f which contain s th e focus, the Nuclear Stres s Rul e correctl y predict s that the more t o the left—and, consequently , the higher i n sentenc e structure— a quantifier/focus stands , the heavie r stres s i t wil l bear. Cf . (39) a . Mindi g minden tandrra l Jano s beszelt . always ever y teacher-wit h Joh n spok e 'On EVERY OCCASION, JOH N spoke with EVERY TEACHER.' b. [ Yp Mindig [ YP [minden tanarral ] [ YP Jdnos [ Y, beszelt]]]] x x xx X

X

X

XX X

(The V is unstresse d becaus e i t obligatoril y cliticizes to th e focus. ) Let us assum e tentatively , followin g Brod y an d Maracz, tha t topicalized con stituents ar e adjoine d t o th e sam e projectio n tha t als o dominate s th e focu s an d the quantified phrases. If suc h a topic i s stresse d (whic h is possible), there i s no way o f preventing it from being assigned an even stronger stress tha n that o f th e leftmost quantifier , a s follows : (40) a . Jano s mindi g minden tanarra l beszelt . John alway s ever y teacher-wit h spok e 'John ALWAY S spoke wit h EVERY TEACHER.' b. *[ YP Janos [ YP mindig [ YP [minden tanarral ] [ YP beszelt]]]] x x x xx x x xx X

XX

XX X

The stressin g o f (40b), however, is ungrammatical: th e topic, i f stressed, canno t bear a stress that is stronger than th e stress o f the leftmos t membe r o f th e (QP* ) (F) V sequence. It s proper stres s can only be derived if the topic is placed unde r a differen t projection ; for instance, if the focus an d the quantifiers ar e dominated

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian

221

by VP , and th e topicalize d constituent s ar e dominate d b y TP , as i n (7) . I n thi s structure, the topi c an d the V P can be analyze d a s separat e domain s fo r the op eration o f the Nuclea r Stres s Rule . ii. If the focus, the quantified phrases , and the topicalized phrase s ar e al l imme diate constituent s o f the sam e projection, th e distributio n o f sentenc e adverbial s and predicat e adverbial s canno t be predicted . Th e surfac e positio n o f sentenc e adverbials i s before, o r after , o r between th e topicalize d constituents—se e (41) . Predicate adverbials , o n the othe r hand, are either i n focus position, whe n negative—see (42) , o r ar e adjoine d i n fron t o f th e focus , when positive—see (43) . (41) a . Szerinte m Evaba n mindenk i me g -bizik . according-to-me Eve-i n everybod y PRE V trust s 'According t o me, everybod y trusts Eve. ' b. Evaba n szerintem mindenk i megbizik. c. *Evaba n mindenk i szerintem megbizik . (42) a . Evaba n mindenk i csa k kiss e bizi k meg . Eve-in everybod y onl y littl e trust s PRE V 'Everybody trust s Eve onl y a little.' b. *Evaba n mindenk i csak kisse meg-bizik. c. *Evaba n csa k kisse mindenki megbizik. d. *Csa k kisse Evaba n mindenki megbizik . (43) a . Evaba n mindenk i teljese n me g -bizik . Eve-in everybod y completel y PRE V trust s 'Everybody completel y trusts Eve.' b. *Evaba n teljese n mindenk i megbizik. c. *TeIjese n Evaba n mindenki megbizik. In th e framewor k proposed i n thi s paper , sentenc e adverbial s ar e immediatel y dominated by a member o f the T(ense) projection , while predicate adverbials are immediately dominate d by a member o f th e V projection , thu s thei r interpreta tion a s sentenc e o r predicate adverbials follow s straightforwardly. I n th e alter native theories under discussion, i n which they are all immediate constituent s of the same projection together with the topicalized constituents and the QPs, ther e is no basis for thei r interpretation as sentence o r predicate adverbial s othe r than their relative order . Thei r interpretation , however, cannot be derive d fro m thei r relative orde r alone . I n (41a ) an d (41b ) th e relativ e position s o f szerintem ar e different; it s interpretation i s nevertheless th e sam e i n both sentences . I n (44a ) and (44b ) below , o n the othe r hand, okosan has th e sam e relativ e position ; stil l in (44a) , wher e i t i s unstresse d (o r ha s a stres s tha t i s weake r tha n tha t o f th e focus) i t is understood as a sentence adverbial, telling the speaker's opinio n about the whol e proposition ; in (44b) , wher e i t bear s th e stronges t stress o f th e sen tence, o n th e other hand, it i s understood as a predicate adverbial describing the manner o f th e action:

222

Discourse Configurational Languages

(44) a . Jano s okosa n me g valaszolt a a kerdest . John cleverl y PRE V answere d th e question-AC C 'Cleverly, John answere d th e question . [I t was cleve r o f John that...]' b. Jano s okosa n me g valaszolt a a kerdest . John cleverl y PRE V answere d th e questio n 'John answere d th e questio n cleverly.' Compare also : (45) a . Jano s biztosa n 'il l a nyeregbe n John surel y sit s th e saddle-i n 'Surely, Joh n i s sittin g in the saddle. ' b. Jano s 'biztosa n ti l a nyeregben . John surel y sit s th e saddle-i n 'John i s sittin g surely in the saddle. ' The interpretation differences between the (a) and (b) sentences i n (44) an d (45) , inexplicable in the frameworks under discussion, fall ou t from the structure proposed i n this paper a s follows: Sinc e th e adverbials i n the (a ) sentences preced e the constituen t bearing th e stronges t stres s o f th e sentence , the y mus t b e exter nal t o the VP (recall tha t the Nuclear Stres s Rule assign s th e stronges t stres s t o the firs t constituen t of th e VP) . Thu s the y mus t be hangin g from a membe r o f the T-projectio n (the y ar e presumabl y adjoine d t o T') . Sinc e the y modif y th e proposition (TP) , the y are sentence adverbials . I n the (b) sentences, o n the othe r hand, the fact tha t the adverbials bear th e strongest stress o f their sentence s indi cates tha t they represent th e initia l element o f th e VP . Modifyin g th e VP , they are predicate adverbials. iii. If both the QPs and the topicalized constituent s are adjoined to the same pro jection, i t is unclear how their proper relative order, wit h the topicalized phrase s preceding th e quantifiers , can b e derived . iv. The theorie s o f Brody , Horvath , an d Mardc z relat e th e alternativ e order s i n (46a) an d (46b) b y assuming (46a) to be basic (o r more basic), an d deriving (46b ) from (46a ) b y V Movement an d Focus Movement . (46) a . Incorporated X V b. Focuse d Y P V

Y P Incorporate

dX

In th e framewor k propose d i n thi s paper , neithe r orde r i s basic ; the y ar e bot h derived fro m a V-initial bas e b y th e movemen t o f th e preverba l constituent . A s for th e relativ e orde r o f the V an d th e incorporate d X , i t i s no t th e [ V Incorpo rated X ] orde r tha t is derive d by V Movement, but i t is th e [Incorporate d X V ] order tha t i s derive d b y th e movemen t o f th e Incorporate d X int o [Spec , VP] . Under th e assumptio n that i t i s no t th e incorporate d constituen t bu t th e V tha t moves, th e generatio n of th e followin g construction is problematic :

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 22

3

(47) a. Jano s el; szeretne , hog y t ; menjiink . John awa y would-lik e that go-w e 'John woul d like tha t w e g o away.' b. Jano s levelet j kell , hog y t ; irjon . John letter-AC C need s tha t writ e 'It i s necessary tha t Joh n letter-write. ' c. Jano s pirosra ; akarja , hog y t ; fesse m a kerftest . John re d want s tha t paintI th e fence-AC C 'John want s that I pain t the fence red. ' d. ? Janos moziba j mondta , hog y t ; megy . John cinema-t o sai d tha t goe s 'John sai d tha t he goe s t o cinema.' In (47a-d) the constituent incorporated semantically/lexically into the embedded V has been moved into the typical position of the incorporated constituen t in the matrix clause, yielding a string similar to the allegedly base-generate d patter n in (46a). Movemen t from a lexically governe d position t o a position governe d b y a different lexica l governor, however , is theoretically problematic . Alternatively , the incorporate d constituen t move d int o th e matri x claus e coul d b e analyze d as having bee n focused . I n tha t case, however , what would preven t us fro m ana lyzing i t a s havin g been focuse d i n (46a) , a s well ? Afte r all , th e stressin g an d interpretation of an incorporated constituen t is the sam e whethe r it occupies the preverbal positio n o f the claus e wher e i t has bee n selecte d b y th e V, or i t occu pies th e preverba l positio n of a higher clause . If (46a ) is derived by the movement of the incorporated constituen t into [Spec, VP], as is proposed in this paper, then the construction illustrated i n (47a-d) can be derive d legitimately b y th e "long " (cyclic ) applicatio n of th e sam e transfor mation.

4. WH Movement, NP Movement, and Scrambling In th e framewor k put fort h i n Sectio n 2 o f this paper , i t i s assumed—i n accor dance wit h the principles of X' theory—that all the argument s o f a V are gener ated i n the V componen t o f the sentence , an d the focus, the quantified phrases , and th e topi c ar e transformationally preposed. Focusin g an d Q-Raising wil l b e identified a s WH Movemen t type transformations , while Topicalization wil l b e analyzed a s N P Movement. Th e fre e argumen t orde r i n V wil l b e derive d b y random base generation , metaphorically labeled a s Scrambling .

4.1. WH Movement Focusing, carrying a constituent from V int o [Spec , VP] , represent s a clear cas e of a WH Movemen t type transformation: i t move s a constituent from argumen t position into an operator positio n from whic h the moved constituent will c-com-

224

Discourse Configurational Languages

mand its scope. Th e fact tha t Focusing create s scope becomes clear , for instance , from th e compariso n o f th e interpretation s of suc h pair s o f sentence s a s (48) a . [

Janos [ VP MARIVAL; [ V,val6szinu [cp hogy talalkozot t tj]]] ] John Mary-wit h likel y tha t me t 'It i s Mar y tha t John i s likel y t o have met. ' b. [ TP Janos [ vp valdszinu [ cp hogy MARIVAL j [ v,talalkozott t;]]]] John likel y tha t Mary-wit h me t 'John i s likel y t o have me t MARY. ' TP

In (48a ) th e focu s operato r Marival ha s wide r scop e tha n th e moda l valdszinu, while i n (48b) , i t i s i n th e scop e o f valdszinu. Focusing, lik e movemen t rule s i n general , i s subjec t t o Subjacenc y (fo r in stance, t o the Comple x N P Constraint): (49) a . Jano s JULISKAT ; hallotta m [cp hogy elvesz i felesegii l t j John Julie-AC C heard- I tha t take s as-wif e 'It i s Julie wh o I heard tha t Joh n wil l marry. ' b. * Janos JULISKAT ; hallotta m [ Np a hir t [ CP hog y elvesz i John Julie-AC C heard- I th e news-AC C tha t take s felesegiil tj] ] as-wife 'It i s Julie wh o I heard th e news tha t Joh n wil l marry.' At th e sam e time , Focusing, lik e W H Movement typ e transformations , can als o be applie d cyclically , crossin g severa l sentenc e boundaries ste p by step . I t can not b e movemen t fro m Focu s positio n to Focu s positio n (i.e. , fro m [Spec , VP ] to [Spec , VP] ) though , as i t ca n als o cross a fille d Focu s slot : (50) a . [

[ V pKITj [ v, nem tudsz [ cp hogy [ TP [ vp MIKOR [v, whom no t know-yo u that whe n erkezik ti?]]]]]] ] arrives 'Whom don't yo u know whe n wil l arrive? ' b. [ TP Janos [ vp JULISKAT; [ v, akarja [ cp hogy [ Tp [vp John Julie-AC C want s tha t VACSORARA [ v. hivjuk me g tj]]]]]] ] dinner-for invite-w e PRE V 'It i s Juli e wh o John want s that we invite for DINNER. ' Tp

[Spec, CP] , no t used fo r an y other purpose, is a n available intermediat e landin g site for the extracted constituent . Thu s in (50a), the following three-member chai n is formed : (51) [ TP [ VP KIT; [ v. nem tudsz [ cp t;' hog y [ Tp [vp MIKOR [ v, erkezik ti]]]]]]]

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 22

5

The presence o f ts' i n [Spec, CP] can also be supported by case considerations . If th e nominativ e NP o f a n embedde d claus e undergoe s lon g Focusing , i t ca n acquire accusative case in the process. (A s the acceptability of English sentence s like Whom do you think should be president indicates , th e sam e optiona l cas e reassignment can als o take place in English.) Sinc e accusativ e case is assigne d by the matrix V under government, the only possible target of accusative assign ment i n the chain headed b y kit would be a trace in the specifie r positio n o f th e CP governed by th e matri x V. In lac k o f a n adaptatio n of th e Boundin g Theory t o Hungarian , i t i s unclea r whether the chain as represented in (51) satisfie s Subjacency, o r further interme diate chain-link s need t o b e stipulated . I n an y case , th e C P fro m whic h lon g Focusing take s plac e mus t b e governe d b y th e matri x V . (I n Hungarian , th e governed nature of a f/zar-clause o f object function is also formally indicated: a n object claus e require s th e us e o f a verba l agreemen t suffi x indicatin g the pres ence o f a specifi c object . Ar . adjunct thai-clause, on th e othe r hand , doe s no t trigger verba l agreement. ) Th e T P crosse d b y lon g Focusin g i s certainl y als o governed b y th e complementizer , which is obligatorily spelle d out . Quantifier Raisin g differs fro m Focusin g t o th e exten t tha t i t ca n b e iterate d in a claus e (se e (20 ) an d (21 ) above)—whic h follow s i f Quantifie r Raisin g i s analyzed as adjunction, rather than substitution, of the WH Movement type, analogous t o th e Q-Raisin g rul e operatin g i n th e L F componen t o f Universa l Grammar. Apart fro m it s iterativity , Quantifier Raising display s th e sam e propertie s a s Focusing: i t creates scope , an d applied cyclically, i t can circumvent Subjacency. The fac t that a Q-raised quantifie r ha s scop e precisel y ove r th e syntacti c do main that it has com e t o c-comman d as a result o f Q-Raisin g was alread y illustrated by (20) and (21). Compar e also the interpretations of (52a) and (52b). Th e surface orde r of quantifiers i n the English translations is intended to indicate their scope order. (52) a . [

Janos [ vp miinde n diaknak i [ vp tob b konyve t is . John ever y student-DA T severa l book-AC C eve n [vp meg [v, mutatott t; tj]]]] ] PREV shov/e d 'John showe d every studen t several books. ' b. [ TP Janos [ vp tobb konyve t isi [ VP minden diaknak , John severa l book-AC C even ever y student-DA T [ vp meg [ v, mutatott t; tj]]]] ] PREV showe d 'John showe d several books t o ever y student. ' TP

Consider als o an instanc e of long, cyclic Quantifier Raising:

226

Discourse Conflgurational Languages

(53) [

Janos [VP minden diakot{ [ VP szeretn e [ cp tt' h a John ever y student-AC C would-lik e i f [TP meghivna'nk tj]]]] ] invited-we 'John woul d like i f w e invited ever y student. ' TP

Similar t o short Q-Raising , lon g Q-Raising can also be performed iteratively . I n such cases , a s wel l a s i n cases involvin g both lon g Focusing an d lon g Q-Rais ing, [Spec, CP], providin g room only for a single constituent , i s not sufficient as an intermediat e landin g site . Th e intermediat e trace s o f raise d quantifier s ca n presumably also be adjoined to CP. (I f Miiller and Sternefeld (1992 ) are right in claiming that an A'-chain can only contain either elements i n adjoined position s or element s i n specifie r positions , the n lon g Q-Raisin g mus t procee d vi a adjunction t o C P whether or not [Spec , CP] is empty. ) Cf . (54) [ TP Janos [ vp ket konyvet is ; [vp minden tanarnak. [vp John tw o book-ACC even ever y teacher-DA T szeretne" [ cp t; [ CP tj h a [ TP kolcson-adne k t ; tj ]]]]]]] would-like i f lentI 'John woul d like if I lent two books to every teacher. ' Case reassignment , discusse d i n connectio n wit h (51), ca n als o tak e plac e in th e cas e o f Q-raise d constituents . For instance : (55) [ TP Janos [ vp minden baratjat ; [ vp HOLNAP j [ v. szeretne [ cp t; [cp John ever y friend-his-AC C tomorrow would-lik e tj ha[ TP eljonn e t j tj]]]]]] ] if cam e 'John woul d like if every friend of his cam e TOMORROW.' The fact that a long Q-raise d constituen t can be the targe t o f case reassignment is evidence o f the presence o f an intermediate Q-trace i n the government domai n of th e matri x V, that is, i n CP-adjoine d position . Summarizing our analysis of Focusing an d Quantifier Raising: the y share th e properties o f th e majo r transformatio n type o f Universa l Gramma r called W H Movement. (Sinc e Focusin g an d Quantifie r Raising do no t necessaril y involv e WH-phrases, it would perhaps be more appropriate to call the transformation type they represent Operato r Movement.) 4.2. NP Movement Hungarian Topicalization , a s opposed t o Focusin g an d Quantifie r Raising , cannot represent a WH Movement type transformation. I t does no t serv e to creat e scope. I n fact , a topic i s no t a n operato r semantically; it i s typicall y a definite description. Definit e descriptions can b e assume d to involv e wid e scop e exis tential quantification ; thi s possibility , however, is independen t of whethe r the

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 22

7

4

definite description i s in topic positio n or in argument position. Topicalization , instead o f creating scope , serves to create a primary predication relatio n betwee n the move d constituen t an d th e maxima l projection fro m whic h i t ha s bee n ex tracted. As fo r it s localit y properties , Topicalization allow s long , presumabl y cyclic , application, simila r t o WH Movemen t type transformations. Cf. (56) a . Megmondta m [ cphogy nem engede m [ cp hogy [ TP Marivalj said-I tha t no t allow- I tha t Mary-wit h [VP rosszu l banjima k t ;]]]] badly behave-the y 'I have said tha t I do not allow tha t Mary , they treat badly.' b. Megmondta m [ cp hog y [ TP Marivalj [ VP nem engedem [ CP said I tha t Mary-wit h no t allow- I hogy rosszu l banjana k t ;]]]] that badl y behave-the y 'I have said that Mary , I do not allow that they trea t badly.' c. [Tp Marivalj [vp megmondtam [ cp hogy ne m engede m [ cp Mary-with said- I tha t no t allow- I hogy rosszu l banjana k tj]]] ] that badl y behave-the y 'Mary, I have sai d that I do not allow tha t they treat badly, ' At the same time, Topicalizatio n observes Subjacency , the universal property of all syntacti c movemen t rules. Cf . (57) * Hallottam [ cp hogy [ Tp Marit; [vp kozolt e [ NP a z utasftas t [ cp heard-I tha t Mary-AC C announced-h e th e order-AC C hogy ne m enged i [ CP hog y bantsdk tj]]]]] ] that no t allow-h e tha t hurt-the y 'I heard tha t Mary, he announce d th e order tha t he woul d not allo w that the y hurt.' In (57) , Topicalizatio n i s blocked b y th e intervening NP boundary. A constituen t undergoin g lon g Topicalizatio n ca n als o b e th e targe t o f cas e reassignment, simila r to constituents undergoing long Focusing and long Q-Raising. Thi s indicate s tha t lon g Topicalizatio n i s no t direc t movemen t fro m topi c position t o topic position, bu: proceeds throug h substitution into [Spec , CP], o r adjunction t o C P (o r els e ther e woul d b e n o chai n lin k i n th e governmen t domain o f the accusativ e assignin g matrix verb). That is : (58) [

Tp Janost;

[vp nagyon szeretne m [ cp tj'ha [ Tp [vp velunk jonn e John-ACC very-muc h I-would-lik e i f with-u s cam e til]]]] 'John, I would like very much to come wit h us.'

228

Discourse Configurational Languages

Summarizing th e propertie s o f Hungaria n Topicalization: (i ) it serve s t o cre ate a primar y predicatio n relation ; (ii ) i t ca n be applie d cyclically , constraine d by Subjacency . I will propose below tha t propert y (i ) be regarded as the defin ing propert y o f N P Movemen t (wherea s propert y (ii ) i s a universal property o f all movement transformations). NP Movemen t ha s bee n define d a s a transformatio n carryin g materia l fro m an uncasemarke d position int o a case-marke d position . Thi s description , how ever, does not fit the NP Movement o f PRO in controlled passive infinitive s (e.g . in John wants [cp [IP PROi to [vp be known ?,-]]]) . I f subjects are generated i n the VP, a s propose d b y Koopma n an d Sportich e (1985 ) an d others, the n Subjec t Movement out o f the VP must also be categorized a s one o f the majo r transfor mation types. I t is certainly no t Operator Movement . I f it is to be identified a s NP Movement, the n infinitives with a PRO subject i n general displa y N P Movement fro m a n uncasemarked positio n t o a n uncasemarked position . NP Movement has also been defined as a transformation moving material fro m A-position t o A-position. If, however, th e subjec t is generated i n th e VP, the Aposition statu s o f [Spec , IP ] ca n onl y b e maintaine d if th e A-A ' distinctio n i s deprived o f it s intuitivel y transparent empirica l content , an d a n A-positio n i s redefined a s an L-related position: th e specifier or complement position o f a projection realizin g an inherent feature of a lexical head. Th e classification o f specifier position s arisin g fro m thi s definition , wit h th e specifie r o f C countin g a s non-L-related, and th e specifie r o f Infl countin g as L-related, is contrar y t o th e spirit o f X ' theory . I propos e t o defin e NP Movement a s Move Alpha creatin g primar y predica tion (a s oppose d t o Operato r (WH- ) Movement , whic h i s Mov e Alpha creatin g scope). Recal l that primary predication wa s defined for Hungarian in (11) as the syntactic relation tha t holds between an XP and a VP in case (i) XP c-command s the VP, (ii) no maximal projection includin g the VP and excluding th e XP intervenes betwee n them , an d (iii ) X P binds a n empt y argumen t position i n th e VP. In English, and other languages in which the VP is assumed to be dissected int o lexical and functional projections , a modified version o f this definition is needed . Let us assume, following Stowell (1990), that predication hold s not between tw o maximal projections functionin g as the specifier an d the complement o f a head , but betwee n a maxima l projectio n (YP ) functionin g a s th e specifie r o f a head , and its X' sister . Tha t is, in Hungarian, it is not the VP that bears a predicatio n relation t o the topic i n [Spec , TP], bu t it is T' (which happens to be non-distinc t from VP) . I f i n a clause, th e X head o f an X' predicate i s the highest V-relate d head (i.e. , the highest hea d realizing a feature of the V), then X' bears a primary predication relatio n t o YP. That is, I propose the following reformulation of defi nition (11) : (59) a . Predication: X' bears a predication relatio n t o YP iff i. Y P c-command s X', ii. ther e i s n o maximal category includin g X' an d excludin g YP, iii. Y P binds a n empty argument position i n X'.

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 22

9

b. Primary Predication: X' bears a primary predication relatio n t o YP iff i. X ' bears a predication relatio n t o YP, and ii. X is the highest V-related hea d i n the clause . If NP Movement is movement creating primary predication, the n in English, Object Preposing , Raising, and Subjec t Movement & la Koopma n an d Sportich e all qualify a s instances of NP Movement. I n the case of Raising, like in the cas e of Hungaria n long Topicalization, NP Movement establishes a predication rela tion between the raised constituen t and the matrix predicate . In English, NP Movement is intertwine d with nominative assignment: the landing site of NP Movement is ths only position wher e nominative can be assigned, or, in lack o f a nominative assiigner, an ungoverned PRO ca n be placed . Henc e the subject of predication, that is, the target o f NP Movement, must coincide with the target of nominative assignment. (Belo w I will use the term 'target of nominative assignment ' i n a n extende d sense , als o coverin g PRO. ) I n Hungarian, where nominative assignment can take place i n the VP (presumably owing to the presence o f the inflectional morpheme i n the VP), NP Movement is independent of nominativ e assignment; hence th e target of NP Movement is not constraine d with respect to case; i n fact, i t does not even have to be an NP; it can be a PP, as well. In one instance: in the instance of dummy subjects, nominative assignment and NP Movemen t do no t g o togethe r i n English , either . Englis h dumm y subjects , not binding empty argument positions, do not satisfy conditio n (iii) o f a predication relation. Hence , in their case no NP Movement can be assumed; the y must be base generated i n [Spec , IP] . In English, an operator ( a quantifier or a focus) bearin g th e nominativ e case, similar t o a dumm y subject, doe s no t functio n semanticall y a s a notiona l sub ject. Syntactically , however, th e relatio n tha t hold s betwee n i t an d it s I ' siste r satisfies th e criteria o f a primary predication relation ; hence it must be extracte d from I ' b y N P Movement . It s notiona l subjec t interpretatio n i s presumabl y blocked b y th e condition that a notional subject be referential an d specific . A n I'-external constituent not interpretable as a notional subject must be licensed i n some other way , for instance, a s an operator; thu s an I'-external idiom-chun k i s illegitimate. If N P Movement is the extraction of an argument out of I' creating a primary predication relation between the argument and I', then English Topicalization, i.e. , adjunction t o IP , is als o N P Movement (simila r t o repeate d Topicalizatio n b y adjunction t o T P in Hungarian) . Sinc e i n a sentenc e involvin g Topicalization , the requirement s o f nominativ e assignment hav e alread y bee n satisfie d b y N P Movement int o [Spec , IP] , adjunctio n t o I P i s just a s fre e wit h respect t o th e syntactic categor y an d th e cas e o f th e argumen t affecte d a s Hungaria n Topicalization is . NP Movemen t in the traditiona l sens e (including Object Preposing and Raising) ha s bee n know n t o diffe r fro m W H Movemen t i n it s localit y properties . Movement i s uniforml y constraine d b y Subjacenc y in Universa l Grammar; NP

230

Discourse Configurational Languages

Movement i s uniforml y constrained b y Subjacenc y i n Universa l Grammar ; NP Movement, however, unlike WH Movement, cannot use [Spec, CP] as an escape hatch. Cycli c N P Movement ha s been assume d t o be onl y possibl e i n the cas e of matri x predicate s tha t delet e th e C P boundary o f thei r complemen t clause . Compare: (60) a . *Joh n was said [ CP t [ IP t was beaten t] ] b. *Joh n was wanted [cp t [ IP t to be beaten t]] c. Joh n was said [, p t to have been beaten t] d. Joh n seem s [j P t to have been beate n t ] NP Movement fro m [Spec , IP] via [Spec, CP] to [Spec, IP] has been ruled out as improper movement . However , i f the subject is generated insid e the VP, and [Spec, IP] is not a theta-position an y more, ther e is no principled basi s t o con sider specifier-to-specifier movemen t improper . As wa s show n above , Hungaria n Topicalizatio n i s abl e t o circumven t Subjacency b y movemen t throug h [Spec , CP] , o r by adjunctio n to CP. Thi s i s the cas e wit h Englis h Topicalization , a s well . Whil e th e lon g versio n o f N P Movement in the traditional, narrow sense is only possible fro m infinitives governed b y certain designated V's , Hungaria n and English Topicalization ar e als o possible from that-clmses. I f Hungarian and English Topicalization , a s well a s English Object Preposing an d Raising are indeed instances of the same rule, then the locality constrain t on Object Preposin g an d Raising must be linke d t o a fac tor tha t i s specifi c t o thes e constructions , e.g. , t o nominativ e assignment, wit h which they ar e intertwined. In English, th e only cas e in whic h nominative assignment i s no t loca l in th e sense tha t the target o f nominative assignment is no t an argument of the V governed b y th e nominativ e assignor, bu t a n argumen t of a n embedde d V , is Rais ing. Raising is allowed by a group of designated predicates : the y are impersonal, and thei r only argument is a n infinitiva l proposition . Th e property tha t enables these verbs to be involved in Raising is claimed to be CP Deletion: the y are stipulated t o take , instea d o f a CP , an I P complement . C P deletion i s a n accidenta l property tha t an y V i n th e lexico n ca n have ; the propertie s o f deletin g CP , and being impersona l ar e not related . I t als o ha s t o be stipulate d tha t C P deletio n can onl y take plac e i f the head o f the IP dominated by th e C P is [-tense]. Let us assume that the so-called Raising predicates, instea d of performing CP deletion, for m a comple x predicat e wit h th e predicat e o f thei r propositiona l complement—similar to the way predicates selectin g a small clause ar e assumed to incorporat e th e predicat e o f thei r small claus e complemen t e.g. i n Stowel l (1990), Rizzi (1986), or Chomsky (1975). I leave it open what the precise mechanism of Complex Predicate Formation is. Th e intuition to be captured is that the Raising V and th e embedde d V share a single set o f arguments. W e might tentatively hypothesize that the string beginning with the raising V and ending with the embedded V is reanalyzed as a single complex predicate dominated by a single V node , as follows: (61) [ 1P They [ vp [v, [ v seem to each other to like] Mary]]]

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 23

1

The Comple x Predicat e Formatio n analysi s has independen t advantage s ove r the Raisin g analysis . While in the case of CP deletion i t i s an a d hoc conditio n that th e hea d o f th e I P dominate d b y C P be [-tense] , i n th e cas e o f Comple x Predicate Formatio n i t i s a natura l requiremen t tha t a predicate t o b e incorpo rated int o a higher predicate hav e no independent tens e of its own—or else how could it disappear durin g the derivation? I n the proposed framework , the lexica l distribution of the property o f being abl e to incorporate a lower predicat e i s not completely a d hoc, either : i t is predicted t o be associated onl y wit h impersona l predicates takin g onl y a [-tensie ] prepositional complement . Th e differenc e be tween e.g. want and expect follow s fro m th e fact that the former cannot occur a s an impersonal predicate wit h a [-tense] prepositional complement, that is, it cannot be passivize d whe n takin g a proposition (cf . *It is wanted very much for Mary to go home). O f course, it remains an idiosyncratic fac t to be marked i n the lexicon tha t is likely ca n underg o Complex Predicat e Formation , wherea s is probable cannot ; but i t is only the small se t of impersonal predicate s takin g a singl e [-tense] prepositional complement that have to be marked as [+/-comple x predi cate forming] . If there is no Raising, only Complex Predicat e Formation , the n it can be maintained that nominative is assigned by Infl to a designated argumen t of the predicate governed by Infl (eithe r directly , if the designated argument has been moved into the government domain of Infl, o r indirectly, via a dummy pronoun, if it has been lef t i n the VP). Unde r these assumptions, nominative assignment is a local operation i n the sense that Inf l ca n only assign nominative to a designated argu ment o f the predicate tha t i t governs. 5 In thi s framework , (60a) ii ! ungrammatical because first , th e Inf l o f th e em bedded claus e coul d no t assig n it s nominative; and , second, becaus e th e Inf l of the matrix clause assigne d its nominative non-locally, to an argument other than the designate d argumen t of th e predicat e it governs . A s discussed above , (60b ) is out because it s matrix predicate cannot occur a s an impersonal predicat e tak ing a [-tense] prepositional complement; hence it cannot undergo Complex Predi cate Formation . Tha t is , th s stric t localit y condition s associate d wit h N P Movement in the constructions in (60) are, in fact, independent of NP Movement ; they ar e condition s o f nominativ e assignment. They ar e missin g i n th e cas e o f Hungarian an d Englis h Topicalization becaus e thes e processe s ar e no t affecte d by nominativ e assignment. The propose d interpretatio n o f NP Movement als o seem s t o exten d t o tough Movement. Intuitively , a foKg/z-constructio n i s a predication structure , derive d by the externalization of a predicate-internal argument; hence it must be the output of N P Movement. I f [Spec , IP ] i s no t a n argumen t position anymore , the n th e movement o f an object int o [Spec , IP ] via [Spec , CP] , a s represented i n (62) , i s not imprope r movemen t (a s is als o argue d i n Brody (1992)) . (62) John ; is [ VP tough [cp t;' [PR O to please t ;]]] The derivation in (62) is nevertheless problematic because of a case conflict: th e root o f th e chain i s assigne d accusative case, whil e the head o f the chai n i s as -

232

Discourse Configurational Languages

signed nominativ e case. (I n th e know n types o f cas e conflict , i t i s alway s th e more marked case, that is, of a nominative and an accusative, the accusative, that is morphologically realized—cf . E . Kis s (1985-86).) Le t us assume, therefore , that tough i s a predicate that—simila r t o Raisin g predicates—is capabl e o f un dergoing Comple x Predicat e Formation . Comple x Predicat e Formation ma y be represented, again , as the S-structure reanalysis of the string beginning with the tough adjectiv e an d endin g wit h th e embedded V a s a singl e comple x categor y dominated by an A node. Wha t distinguishes the tough class from Raising predi cates i s tha t tough predicate s absor b th e cas e assignin g propert y o f th e V tha t they incorporat e (obviously , the case assignin g property o f the V cannot percolate u p t o a n A node). Simila r t o Raisin g predicates , tough adjective s hav e a single [-tense ] prepositional argument. Adjective s taking a single [-tense ] proposition, nevertheless , hav e t o b e marke d i n th e lexico n whethe r o r no t the y be long to the tough class—s o as to distinguish, for instance, between possible and impossible (cf . John is impossible to please an d *John is possible to please). In arguin g fo r th e N P Movemen t statu s o f Hungaria n (a s wel l a s English ) Topicalization, there are also further criteri a to examine. N P Movement has been claimed t o diffe r fro m W H Movement by Mahaja n (1990) an d other s i n no t re constructing for Binding interpretation, i n not triggering Weak Crossover effects , and i n not allowin g parasiti c gaps . Let us check thes e criteria on e by one. A s for reconstruction fo r Bindin g interpretation, i t is not obvious at all that it is licensed by the type of the transformation involved . I n fact , ever y major transformatio n type i s known t o requir e reconstruction fo r Binding interpretation in som e cases , but not allo w i t i n oth ers. Compar e (63a,b), derived by Raising (analyzed as NP Movement by Mahaja n (1990)): (63) a . They j see m t o each other s t; to like Mary , b. *John ; seem s t o himself t o t; like Mary. The grammaticality of Binding in (63a) is predicted if Raising is not reconstructed, whereas the ungrammaticalit y of (63b ) fall s ou t i f Raising is reconstructed . Similar i s the cas e wit h Topicalization, which is analyzed a s WH Movement by Mahaja n (1990) : (64) a . [HiS i firs t love]j , nobody ; will ever forge t tj. b. [Th e girl John ; met a t the partyjj , he ; will never forge t tj. In (64a) , th e boun d pronomina l interpretatio n o f his ca n onl y b e derive d i f Topicalization i s "undone", i.e., i f his is reconstructed into its D-structure position. I n (64b) , o n the othe r hand, reconstruction woul d result i n disjoin t refer ence between John an d he, the fact tha t they can co-refer indicates that Binding Principle C is interprete d on a non-reconstructed structure. The fact s concernin g tough Movement are just as contradictory:

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 23

3

(65) a . They ; were toug h fo r eac h other ; to argu e wit h t ;. b. They ; were toug h for themselveSj to argu e wit h t ;. Whether or not topicalize d constituent s are reconstructe d for Bindin g inter pretation i n Hungarian i s uncertain for a different reason . Anaphor s an d boun d pronominals ca n occu r i n a lef t periphera l position , no t c-commande d b y thei r antecedents—but i t i s no t obviou s whethe r the y hav e bee n Topicalize d o r the y are i n Left Dislocation . Cf . (66) a . A pro; zak6j£ t [ vp mindenki j levehet i t ;] the jacket-his-AC C everybod y can-take-of f 'His jacket, everybod y can take off. ' b. Onmaga'ban ; [vp nem bizi k JanoS ; t ;] himself-in no t trust s John-NO M 'Himself, Joh n doe s no t trust.' The sentence s i n (66a,b) ar e certainly bette r whe n associated wit h a rising into nation contou r an d a contrastive interpretation, whic h ar e typical o f Lef t Dislo cation, but they appea r to be more or less acceptable with a topic iintonation and interpretation, a s well. Th e topic intonation and interpretation i s easier t o obtain in the case o f an NP with a bound specifier (se e (66a) ) than in the case o f an NP with a bound hea d (cf . (66b)) , I tentativel y assume tha t Topicalization i s to be reconstructed fo r Bindin g interpretation i n Hungarian . Th e markednes s o f sen tences (66a,b ) derive s fro m th e referentiality requirement associate d wit h topics . (66b) sound s more margina l wit h a topi c intonatio n than (66a ) becaus e a n N P containing a bound hea d i s harder t o attribut e reference t o tha n a n NP containing a bound specifier. In th e cas e o f Subjec t Movement , th e allege d criterio n o f reconstructio n fo r Binding i s vacuous: the reconstruction of the subject from [Spec , IP ] into [Spec , VP] doe s no t change it s structura l primacy relatio n t o the rest o f the argument s and adjuncts . E.g . (67) a . Th e men ; will [ v,? t; talk t o each other;' s wives ] b. *HiS ; wife wil l [V P t; talk t o every man; ] (68) *[ lp [ IP [The qualitie s o f his; wife] j wil l [ vp tj play a role]] in the cas e of ever y candidate; ] In (67a), bot h the head and the root o f the subject chain c-command th e elemen t that th e subjec t i s intende d t o bind . I n (67b ) an d ii n (68) , o n th e other hand , neither the head nor the root o f the subject chai n is c-commanded b y the intende d binder o f its pronominal element ; therefore, i t is immaterial in each cas e whethe r or not th e move d subjec t i s reconstructed . Similar i s the case wit h Objec t Preposing . Cf . (69) a . Th e men; will [ vp be pointed ou t t ; to each other' s wives ] b. *[His ; wife]j wil l [ vp be pointe d out t j to ever y man ;]

234

Discourse Configurational Languages

(70) *[ IP [j p [Th e qualitie s o f his ; wife] , wil l [ VP be considere d t= ] ] i n th e case o f ever y candidate ^ As the structure s i n (69a,b) an d (70 ) demonstrate , th e primacy relatio n betwee n the bound element an d its binder it is the same whethe r th e subject i s interprete d in situ , o r is reconstructe d int o th e VP. Apparently, th e clai m o f Mahaja n (1990 ) tha t N P Movemen t i s no t recon structed for Binding is based solely on certain Raising constructions, fo r instanc e (63a). If , however, Raising constructions have the S-structure represented i n (61) , then w e might as well allow LF-reconstructio n prio r to Binding interpretatio n i n such cases , too . Sinc e th e subjec t woul d be reconstructed int o th e specifie r po sition precedin g th e Raisin g V , reconstruction woul d no t chang e th e primac y relation betwee n th e subjec t an d th e anaphor : (71) t ; [ VP They; [ v. seem to each other ; to like Mary]] In thi s framework , the ungrammaticalit y o f (63b ) ha s a non-structural (presum ably thematic ) reason . In sum : reconstructio n fo r Bindin g is no t restricted t o Operato r Movement; hence it canno t be used a s a test o f Operato r Movemen t versu s NP Movement . NP Movement, unlike WH Movement, is claimed not t o display Wea k Cross over effects (or , in another terminology, operator reconstruction). Compar e (72a) , involving W H Movement , wit h (72b) , containin g an operato r whic h undergoe s NP Movement prio r t o WH Movemen t unde r th e standar d analysis : (72) a . *WhO ; does hiS j mother admir e tj ? b. Who ; t;' seem s t o his; mother t ; to b e a genius ? A reasonable explanatio n o f why the WH operator doe s no t bind th e pronoun i n (72a) i s that, whe n reconstructed int o its sourc e position , th e WH operator doe s not c-comman d th e pronoun . Th e pronou n is no t c-commande d b y t ; in (72b) , either; bindin g is nevertheless possible , whic h is attributed to the fac t tha t t; is a trace o f N P Movement , which does no t require operato r reconstruction . In fact , i n ou r analysis , the NP-moved operato r i n (72b ) i s reconstructed int o the [Spec, VP] of the predicate resulting from Comple x Predicat e Formation , fro m where it also c-commands his, hence the context for a Weak Crossover effec t doe s not eve n arise : (73) t ; [vp who; [ v, seems t o hiSj mothe r t o be a genius]] Actually, al l th e cor e type s o f N P Movemen t ar e vacuou s fro m th e poin t o f view of Weak Crossover, a s the movement o f the NP cannot cros s an y interven ing pronominal: (74) a . Wh o t; was [ vp pointed ou t t ; to his ; mother] b. Wh o t ; [ vp t; loves his ; mother]

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 23

5

Interestingly, the transformatio n that can establish a context for Weak Crossover but doe s no t trigger the Weak Crossover effec t i s Topicalization, th e trans formation fo r whos e recategorizatio n a s NP Movement I a m arguing here: (75) John; , I believe hiS j mother admire s t;. (See Lasni k an d Stowel l (1990)) . A s they showed , tough Movement , whic h i s also categorized as WH Movement in the standard analysis, does not display any Weak Crossove r effect , eithe r (76) John ; is eas y fo r his ; wif e t o convinc e tj . Interestingly, judgements become somewhat more uncertain if the target of tough Movement is a WH-phrase: (77) ?WhO ; t; is eas y fo r his ; wif e t o convinc e t (? The hesitation i n the judgement of (77 ) ma y reflect a hesitation i n the interpre tation o f th e Wea k Crossove r constrain t a s t o ho w fa r th e reconstructio n of a n operator, propose d b y W H movement , mus t proceede alon g a chain . (Th e dif ference betwee n th e bindin g potentia l o f a raise d W H operato r (se e (73)) , an d that o f a tough-mov&d W H operato r (se e (77) ) ma y arise from th e differenc e in the roo t position s o f a Raising chai n an d a tough chain : a raised W H operato r can only be reconstructed as far back a s the [Spec , VP] position o f the comple x predicate, from wher e it c-commands all the material in the VP, whereas a toughmoved operato r ca n b e reconstructe d into th e objec t positio n o f th e comple x predicate.) In an y case , th e complet e lac k o f Wea k Crossove r effect s i n (75 ) an d (76 ) proves that the targets of Topicalization and tough Movemen t do not hav e a covert operato r feature . Th e fact tha t Topicalization an d tough Movemen t do no t trigger Wea k Crossove r effect s i s incompatibl e wit h thei r analysi s a s Operato r Movement, an d is clear evidenc e of their N P Movement status . The clai m tha t N P Movemen t does no t licens e parasiti c gap s wa s base d o n the impossibilit y o f constructions like (78) *Whic h paper ; was file d t ; without PRO readin g t;? However, a s wa s show n i n E . Kis s (1985-86) , (78 ) woul d als o b e rule d ou t i f NP traces di d license parasitic gaps, because th e parasitic ga p and licensing op erator hav e differen t cases , an d thus violate the following condition o f parasiti c chain formation: (79) I n a parasitic ga p construction , the syntacti c feature s o f both th e rea l gap and the parasitic gap are properly transmitted to the phonologically realized operator .

236

Discourse Configurational Languages

Principle (79 ) presuppose s tha t i n a parasiti c ga p constructio n th e over t op erator head s tw o chains : th e "real" chai n an d a parasitic chain , an d i t require s both chain s t o observ e principle s affectin g chai n formation , amon g the m prin ciples o f Cas e Theory. Thu s it prevents a head i n case positio n fro m licensing a case-marked parasiti c gap , becaus e the n th e cas e assigne d t o th e parasiti c ga p could not be transmitted to the head, whic h is assigned it s own case. Therefore , an Englis h subjec t assigne d nominativ e case could , i n principle , onl y licens e a caseless parasitic gap, whic h woul d be indistinguishabl e from PRO . Tha t is : (80) a . John ; t; filed th e pape r withou t t j readin g it . b. Th e paper ; was filed t ; without t; being read . c. John ; t; seems t o hav e filed th e pape r withou t t; reading it . The sentence s in (80) can be legitimately analyzed as parasitic gap constructions. This naturall y does no t mea n tha t all instance s of PR O ar e parasiti c gaps ; thu s an uncontrolled PROarb obviously cannot be analyze d as such. If a parasitic ga p cannot be c-commanded by the real gap, as claimed e.g . i n Chomsky (1982 ) (fo r counterexamples to this claim, see Engdahl (1983), an d E. Kiss (1985-86)), then cases o f obligatory contro l an d man y case s o f non-obligatory contro l canno t b e interpreted a s parasitic ga p constructions , either . In the case of a parasitic gap construction with a topicalized antecedent , whic h is no t assigne d cas e bu t inherit s it s cas e fro m th e roo t o f th e chain , conditio n (79) require s tha t th e parasiti c ga p hav e th e cas e born e b y th e antecedent . That is : (81) a . Th e paper ;, w e file d t ; before w e coul d read t ;. b. Eg y iratot ; elvesztettiin k t ;, mielott elolvastunk-voln a t ;. a paper-AC C we-los t befor e we-had-rea d 'A paper, w e lost befor e w e ha d read. ' In th e proposed framework , (82 ) contain s tw o parasiti c ga p constructions : (82) Th e paper;, we = t file d t ; without t readin g t; . Summarizing sectio n 4.2. : i t ha s bee n argue d tha t Hungaria n Topicalizatio n is a case of NP Movement. N P Movement has been define d a s Move Alpha cre ating a primary predication relation between the moved constituent and the sourc e constituent. I t has been show n that this definition eliminates certain long-standing problem s o f th e categorizatio n o f transformations . Th e definitio n cover s Subject Movement, Object Preposing, Topicalization, as well as Raising and tough Movement, which als o involv e Comple x Predicat e Formation . The criteri a traditionall y claime d t o distinguis h between W H Movemen t an d NP Movemen t eithe r hav e turne d ou t t o b e irrelevant , o r hav e confirme d th e proposed categorizatio n of transformations. Thu s the criterion of reconstruction for Bindin g interpretation has been show n to be bot h unreliable, and vacuou s in

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 23

7

all case s o f N P Movemen t excep t Raising . I f Raisin g i s analyze d a s Comple x Predicate Formation , the n the reconstruction criterio n lose s it s force completely . The criterion o f licensing parasiti c gaps has als o prove d t o be irrelevant : i t has been argue d that a parasitic ga p licensed b y an NP-moved subjec t woul d b e in distinguishable fro m a PRO. Th e Weak Crossover criterion , o n th e other hand , has show n Topicalization and tough Movemen t to b e NP Movement typ e trans formations.

4.3. Scrambling Having identified the transformations carrying material int o [Spec , VP] and VPadjoined positio n a s Operator Movement , an d the transformation carrying mate rial into [Spec, TP ] and TP-adjoined positio n a s NP Movement, we shall examin e the natur e of the variatio n in postverbal argumen t order. In E. Kis s (to appear), I argued that the free order o f postverbal argument s in the Hungaria n sentence i s to be derive d no t in the transformationa l component , but i n the base, b y generatin g the argument s in a n arbitrar y order. I labele d th e process o f base-generation in an arbitrary order Scrambling. Th e argumentation consisted i n demonstratin g that th e V componen t of the Hungaria n sentence is flat. I n the case o f a fla t V , th e null hypothesis i s that th e arguments in V ar e generated in an arbitrary order; constraints on surface order are normally reflec tions o f constituenc y requirements (th e adjacenc y requirements o n cas e assign ment and focus assigmen t hypothesized e.g. by Stowell (1981) an d Horvath (1986 ) have turned out to be questionable—see Horvath (this volume)). Here I will only point out that Scrambling does not share either the properties o f Operator Move ment, o r th e properties o f NP Movement . While Operato r Movemen t serve s t o creat e scope , an d NP Movement serve s to creat e a predicatio n structure , Scramblin g ha s n o semanti c interpretation ; i t does no t affec t th e meanin g of a sentence . Thi s fac t support s it s analysi s a s a non-transformation—although i t woul d als o b e compatibl e wit h th e vie w tha t Scrambling i s a stylisti c movement rule operatin g i n th e Phonologica l Compo nent, whic h doe s no t fee d semanti c interpretation . Scrambling does no t even affec t scop e interpretation: the relative scop e orde r of quantifier s that are in the scop e o f focus, an d have, therefore, bee n lef t i n V , is undetermined. E.g. (83) [ vp Hoi [ v, beszel minde n embe r ke t nyelvet?] ] where speak s ever y perso n tw o language s a. 'Wher e does everybody speak two (potentially different) languages? ' b. 'Wher e ar e two (particular ) languages spoken b y everybody? ' (84) [ VP Ho i [ v,beszel ks t nyelve t minde n ember?] ] where speak s tw o language s every ma n a. 'Wher e ar e two (particular ) language s spoken b y everybody? ' b. 'Wher e does everybody speak two (potentially different) languages? '

238

Discourse Configurational Languages

Notice tha t th e ambiguity of (83) an d (84) als o serve s a s evidence fo r the clai m that the postverbal majo r constituents of the Hungarian sentence mutually c-command eac h other—give n tha t in Hungaria n a quantifier has scop e ove r th e syn tactic domai n i t c-command s a t S-structur e (se e E . Kis s (1987a) , (1991a) , an d the discussio n o f (20 ) an d (21 ) above) . Scrambling, tha t is, the changing of postverbal argumen t order, doe s not change the c-comman d relatio n o f arguments ; henc e i t i s no t expecte d t o chang e th e interpretation o f anaphora, an d pronominal variabl e bindin g (i.e. , to use the ter minology o f section s 4.1 . an d 4.2., Scramblin g i s expecte d t o "reconstruct " fo r binding interpretation) . This predictio n i s borne ou t to a large extent : (85) a . Tulsagosa n bizi k JanoS ; 6nmag^ban ;. too-much trust s Joh n himself-i n 'John trust s himself to o much.' b. Tulsagosa n bizik onmagaban ; JanoS;. (86) a . M a bemutatta m minde n diakot j a pro ; today introduced- I ever y student-AC C th e hi s temavezetdjenek. advisor-DAT 'Today I introduced ever y student to his advisor.' b. M a bemutatta m a pro; temavezetoje'nek minde n didkotj . Surface order , however , does play a secondary role i n the interpretation o f binding. As I argued in E. Kiss (1991b) , the primacy condition of anaphora and pro nominal bindin g require s acros s language s tha t th e binde r c-commandin g th e bound elemen t als o preced e th e boun d elemen t eithe r i n th e lexica l argumen t hierarchy, o r at S-structure. Precedenc e i n the lexica l argumen t hierarch y i s de fined a s follows : (87) a precedes ft in the lexical argumen t hierarchy if f a is ordered prio r t o P or to the constituent containing 0 in a theta-grid . Since agent s preced e patient s i n a theta-grid , th e conditio n o f themati c promi nence i s satisfie d i n (88) ; consequently , the surfac e order o f th e binde r an d th e bound elemen t play s n o role . I n (89) , o n the othe r hand , th e conditio n o f the matic precedence i s violated, therefore, the condition of surface precedence mus t be satisfied : (88) a . Elhozt a minde n anya ; a pro ; gyereket . brought ever y mother-NO M th e he r child-AC C 'Every mothe r brought her child.' b. Elhozt a a pro ; gyereket minde n anya ;.

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 23

(89) a . Elhozot t minde n gyereket i a z pro ; anyja . brought ever y child-AC C th e it s mother~NO 'Its mother brough t every child.' b. *Elhozot t a z pro ; anyj a minde n gyereketj.

9

M

Consider als o the effec t o f word orde r chang e o n the binding relations betwee n an instrumenta l an d a thematically les s prominent locative : (90) a . Elbeszelgette m Jiinossa l e s Marival ; egymas; . talked-I John-wit h an d Mary-wit h each-other' s szuleirol. parents-about 'I talked wit h John and Mary about eac h other' s parents.' b. Elbeszelgette m e.gyma'S j szuleiro l Janossa le s talked-I each-other' s parents-abou t John-wit h an d Marivalj. Mary-with '*! talked abou t each other' s parents wit h John an d Mary.' (91) a . ? Elbeszelgettem Janosro l e s Marir61 ; egymaS j talked-I John-abou t an d Mary-abou t each-other' s sziileivel. parents 'I talked abou t John an d Mary with each other' s parents. ' b. *Elbeszelgette m egymas; sziileivel Janosro l e s Marir61 ;. In (90) , i n which the binder is thematically more prominent than the bound ele ment, th e binder nee d no t preced e th e bound element . (Th e Englis h varian t of (90b) i s ou t becaus e o f violatin g the c-comman d conditio n o f binding. ) I f th e condition o f the thematic prominenc e o f the binder is not satisfied , surfac e precedence must hold—see (91a,b) . Since Weak Crossover effect s are associated with movement transformations, and presuppose th e existence o f traces, th e limited rol e tha t surfac e order play s in blocking pronomina l variable binding (indicated by (89 ) an d (9 1 above) can not b e reformulate d in term s o f Weak Crossover . Scrambling, no t being a movement transformation, naturally, does no t licens e parasitic gaps . Cf. (92) a . *Gyakra n rak e l iratokat ; Jcino s ugy , hogy pro ne m olvas often put s awa y paper s Joh n s o tha t no t read s el t , PREV 'John ofte n put s away papers without reading.' b. *Gyakra n rak e l Jano s iratokat ; ugy, hogy pro ne m olva s el tj .

240

Discourse Conflgurational Languages

cf. c . Gyakra n ra k e l iratoka t Jdno s ugy , hog y ne m olvass a e l often put s awa y paper s Joh n s o tha t no t read s PRE V 6'ket. them 'John ofte n put s awa y papers withou t reading them. ' If Scramblin g is the base-generatio n o f th e argument s o f a V in a random or der unde r the V projectio n o f the V, then X ' theor y requires i t t o be local . Thi s requirement i s observed; a constituent of V canno t be scrambled unde r a higher V node . Cf. (93) a . Szeretne" k a lanyok , habemutatna m Jancsi t Juliskdnak . would-like the girl s i f introduced- I Johnny-AC C Julie-DA T 'The girls woul d like i f I introduced Johnny to Julie.' b. *Szeretne k Jancsit , a lanyo k [ CP ha bemutatna m would-like Johnny-AC C the girl s i f introduced- I Juliskanak t ;] Julie-DAT Summarizing th e mai n claim s o f sectio n 4 : th e flexibl e wor d orde r o f th e Hungarian sentence is brought about by three differen t processes . The topicalize d constituent(s), immediatel y dominate d b y TP , are prepose d b y N P Movement . The quantifier s and th e focu s a t th e hea d o f th e VP ar e fronte d b y W H Move ment typ e transformations , whic h hav e bee n referre d t o b y th e genera l ter m "Operator Movement. " Postverba l word order is the result of base generation in a rando m order, whic h has bee n calle d Scrambling . Scrambling , unlik e Opera tor Movemen t and NP Movement, does no t display th e properties o f movemen t transformations; fo r instance , it is strictly local , no t being applicabl e cyclically . Since anaphor a an d pronomina l variabl e bindin g ar e sensitiv e t o surfac e orde r under certain circumstances, Scrambling can affect th e interpretations o f anaphors and bound variables .

Notes 1. We ofte n fin d numerou s sentenc e adverbial s i n fron t o f th e VP , whic h ar e no t ana lyzed a s subjects of predication. Referentia l adverbials, fo r instance , adverbials o f plac e and time , ar e usuall y onl y understoo d a s th e subject s o f th e predicatio n i f ther e i s n o argument i n VP-external position. Consider : (i) Eszak-AmerikSba n taval y nag y vol t a sza'razsa'g . North-America-in last-yea r great wa s th e drough t 'In Nort h America, las t yea r ther e wa s a great drought. ' (i) ca n b e understoo d as a statemen t about North America, o r a s a statemen t about las t year, o r a s a statemen t about both.

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 24

1

2. Fo r argument s for a hierarchical V P in Hungaria n see e.g. Horvath (1986) , Brody (1990a), Marac z (1990) ; fo r argument s agains t it se e E . Kis s (1987a) , (1990) , an d (t o appear). 3. The constraint observed b y Hunyad i (1981 ) i s realized i n Hungarian in suc h a way that quantifier s must be stresse d unles s they hav e narrower scope tha n the focu s and/o r negation. 4. An indefinite can onl y functio n a s a topic i f i t i s specific , denotin g a member o f a previously identifie d set . Genetics, unlik e universa l quantifiers , als o seem t o b e topicalizable acros s languages . This fact seem s t o argu e for thei r analysi s as referentia l expressions, denotin g name s of kinds—as in Carlson (1978) , or Heyer (1985) . 5. If nominative case i s a local relation, then accusative i s also expected t o be one: i t is expected to be a relation betwee n a V and one of its arguments. Construction s like (i ) and (ii ) seem t o contradict this : (i) I expect [ IP John to come ] (ii) Who m do you suggest [ cp tj' [ tj shal l b e the chairman]] In thes e case s i t can be assume d that accusative is assigne d t o th e matri x arguments IP and CP , respectively, but , since I P an d C P cannot tak e i t up , i t i s allowe d t o percolat e down ont o th e NP o r NP-trace in their specifie r position .

References Alberti, G. (1991) Argument Structures and Semantic Roles, Doctoral dissertation , Hungarian Academy of Sciences , Budapest. Antal, L. (1977 ) Egy uj magyar nyelvtan fele, MagvetS , Budapest. Brody, M. (1990) "Remark s on the Order of Elements in the Hungarian Focus Field," in I. Kenesei , ed. , Approaches to Hungarian III , J6zsef Attil a Tudoma'nyegyetem , Szeged. Brody, M. (1992) "Theta-Theor y an d Arguments," Linguistic Inquiry 24, 1-24 . Carlson, G . (1978 ) Reference to Kinds in English, Garland , New York. Chomsky, N. (1975 ) The Logical. Structure of Linguistic Theory, Plenum, New York. Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht. Chomsky, N. (1982 ) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MI T Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, Praeger, Ne w York. Chomsky, N., and H. Lasnik (1991 ) "Principle s and Parameters Theory, " i n J. Jacobs, A . von Sternefeld , an d T . Vcnnemann, eds. , Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. Cinque, G. (1991) "A Null Theoiy of Phrase and Compound Stress," University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics CLI-91.1.1 . Engdahl, E. (1983 ) "Parasiti c Gaps, " Linquistics and Philosophy 6 , 5-34 . Heyer, G. (1985) "Generic Descriptions, Defaul t Reasoning, and Typicality," Theoretical Linquistics 12 , 33-72. Higginbotham, J. , an d R . Ma y (1981 ) "Questions , Quantifier s and Crossing, " The Linguistic Review 1 , 41-81.

242

Discourse Configurational Languages

Horvath, J. (1986 ) Focus in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian, Foris , Dordrecht. Horvath, J. (thi s volume) "Structural Focus, Structura l Case, and the Theory o f Feature Assignment." Hunyadi, L . (1981 ) A nyelvi polaritds kifejezese a magyarban, Doctora l dissertation , Kossuth Lajo s University , Debrecen . Kiefer, F . (1992) "Aspektu s 6 s mondatszerkezet," in F . Kiefer, ed. , Strukturdlis magyar grammatika I. Mondattan, Akad6mia i Kiad6, Budapest . E. Kiss , K . (1985-86) "Parasiti c Chains, " Linguistic Review 5 , 41-74. E. Kiss , K . (1987a ) Configurationality in Hungarian, Studie s i n Natura l Languag e an d Linguistic Theory , Reidel , Dordrecht . E. Kiss, K . (1987b) "I s the VP Universal?" in I. Kenesei, ed. , Approaches to Hungarian II, J6zse f Attil a TudomSnyegyetem, Szeged . E. Kiss , K . (1989 ) "Me' g egyszer a magyar mondat hangsrilyoza'sa'r61 6s intona'cioja'rdl, " Nyelvtudomdnyi Kozlemenyek 94 , 1-52 . E. Kiss, K. (1990) "Agains t Treating Hungarian as a V-Second Language, " in I. Kenesei , ed., Approaches to Hungarian III , J6zsef Attil a Tudomdnyegyetem, Szeged . E. Kiss , K . (1991a ) "Logica l Structur e in Syntacti c Structure : The Cas e o f Hungarian, " in J. Huang and R. May, eds., Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure, Kluwer , Dordrecht. E. Kiss , K . (1991b ) "O n th e Primac y Conditio n o f Anaphora an d Pronomina l Variabl e Binding," in J. Koster an d E. Reuland, eds., Long-Distance Anaphora, Cambridg e University Press , Cambridge . E. Kiss , K . (1991c ) "A n Argumen t for Movement, " i n H . Haide r an d K . Netter , eds. , Representation and Derivation in the Theory of Grammar, Kluwer , Dordrecht . E. Kiss , K . (t o appear ) "Scramblin g a s th e Base-Generatio n o f Rando m Complemen t Order," i n N. Corve r an d H. va n Riemsdijk , eds., Scrambling. Koopman, H., and D. Sportiche (1985) "Theta-Theor y an d Extraction," GLOW Newsletter 14 , 57-58. Lasnik, H., and T. Stowell (1990) "Weakes t Crossover, " Linguistic Inquiry 22 , 687-720 . Mahajan, A . (1990 ) The A/A-bar Distinction and Movement Theory, Doctoral disserta tion, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts . Mardcz, L . (1989 ) Asymmetries in Hungarian, Doctora l dissertation , Universit y o f Groningen. Mardcz, L . (1990 ) " V Movemen t i n Hungarian : A Case o f Minimality, " i n I . Kenesei , ed., Approaches to Hungarian III , J6zsef Attil a Tudomdnyegyetem, Szeged . McCawley, J. (1977 ) "Accen t i n Japanese", i n L. Hyman , ed., Studies in Stress and Accent, Souther n California Occasional Paper s i n Linguistics 4 , USC. Miiller, G., an d W. Sternefeld (1992) "A-ba r Movement Asymmetries," GLOW Newsletter 28 , 36-37. Rizzi, L. (1986) "O n Chain Formation," i n H. Borer, ed., The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Syntax an d Semantic s 19 , Academic Press, Ne w York. Rothstein, S. (1983) The Syntactic Form of Predication, Doctoral dissertation , MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts . Selkirk, E . (1984 ) Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Stowell, T . (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, Doctora l dissertation , MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Stowell, T . (1990) "Smal l Claus e Restructuring," unpublished manuscript, UCLA.

NP Movement, Operator Movement, and Scrambling in Hungarian 24

3

Szabolcsi, A. (1981 ) "The Semantics o f Topic-Focus Articulation," i n J . Goenendij k et al., eds. , Formal Methods in the Study of Language 2, Matematisc h Centrum, Amsterdam. Szabolcsi, A. (1984) "The Possessor That Ran Away from Home, " The Linguistic Review 3, 216-289. Varga, L. (1981 ) " A topicrdl 6 s a f6kusz ut£n i eleme k sorrendjeidl, " Magyar Nyelv 27 , 198-200. Williams, E. (1980) "Predication, " Linguistic Inquiry 11 , 203-238 .

9 Discourse Configurationality in Finnish MARIA VILKUN A The Academy of Finland and University of Helsinki

1. Introduction Although clearl y SV O bot h statisticall y an d i n term s o f intuition s abou t markedness, Finnish i s a language where clause-level constituen t orde r variatio n has extremely few restrictions that could be called grammatical. Explanations for the various orders have always been sough t in discourse-pragmatic factors. Thi s was als o th e approach in Vilkuna (1989), wher e the concept o f configurationally defined grammatica l functions wa s applied to a configurational definition of (par tially) discourse-based functions . I n terms of the resulting "discours e configura tion," o r d-configuration, Finnis h constituen t orde r coul d b e see n t o b e fairl y fixed. Th e fe w grammatica l restriction s o n wor d order , suc h a s th e initia l position of "WH" phrases, were incorporated i n the d-configuration, which thus turns out to be a result of simultaneous syntactic and discourse-based motivations . The approach wa s inspire d b y tha t o f E. Kis s (1981 , 1987) , bu t differ s fro m her s i n that the d-configuration in Finnish was not claimed t o play a particularly impor tant role in syntacti c processes proper . The latter were assumed to be handled at the leve l o f a n LFG-type functiona l structure ; no movemen t o r scramblin g op erations wer e used. I now take what I called "discourse functions " to be positions, each fo r a single constituent, rathe r tha n functions . This i s illustrate d by th e partia l hierarchica l structure i n (1 ) below. The siste r positio n fo r S[-K,+T ] i s calle d th e K position , an d th e siste r o f S[-K,-T], th e T position. Th e materia l dominated b y the lowest S can b e calle d V-field. Th e name s T an d K ar e intende d to b e mnemoni c fo r suc h discourse related concept s a s Contrast and Topic, bu t not t o stan d for thes e concepts . The reason wil l b e apparen t in wha t follows: the position s d o no t encod e pur e dis course functions bu t are in part syntactically motivated. The name V-field should 244

Discourse Configurationality in Finnish 24

5

not be taken quite literally, either. The field nee d not contain any verbal material (or an y materia l a t al l i n th e extrem e case) , a s th e onl y ver b ma y happe n to b e located i n K . The V-fiel d i s not d-configurationa l i n th e sens e that the structure preceding i t is , fo r i t doe s no t encod e positionall y identifiabl e discours e inter pretations. Th e unmarke d orde r insid e V-fiel d i s head-initial , o r V X (ver b be fore complement(s)), but the reverse order XV is allowed under certain conditions.

All permutation s of a simpl e transitive sentence ar e grammatica l i n Finnish . For concreteness , conside r th e followin g table , whic h illustrate s mos t o f th e interpretations o f th e orderin g variants i n term s o f (1) . Wheneve r a positio n i s empty, th e orde r wil l remai n goo d i f a suitabl e constituent (say , Mikolta 'fro m Mikko') i s placed i n it. (2)

K SVO Ann

T

a sa Anna go SOV Ann a kukki a sa OSV Kukki a Ann a sa OVS Kukki a sa VSO Sa i Ann a kukki VOS Sa i kukki a Anna

V-field i kukkia t flowers-PA R i i i Anna a 1

The cor e o f m y suggestio n fo r a LFG-base d treatmen t o f a simpl e sentenc e like (3a ) i s th e followin g (see Bresna n 198 2 fo r th e notation) . The hierarchica l c-structure o f (3a ) i s mappe d t o a n f-structur e roughly lik e (3b) , suc h tha t th e positions abbreviate d K an d T project th e d(iscourse)-role equation s int o th e f structure, a s indicated by the arrows in (3b). All other information in the f-struc ture (case, tense, argument structure etc.) is projected from th e lexical entries and morphological form s o f th e word s in question.

246

Discourse Configurational Languages

(3) a . [

Mikolta ] [ T Anna ] [ v.fleld sa i kukkia ] Mikko-ABL Ann a go t flowers-PA 'From Mikko , Anna got flowers.' 2 K

b. PRE D 'saad a <SUB J OB J OBL>' TENSE PAS T SUBJ PRE D 'Anna ' CASE NOM D-ROLE TOPICAL < OBJ PRED 'kukka ' CASE PAR OBL PRE D 'Mikko ' CASE ABL D-ROLE CONTRASTIV E 4

R

-T

-K

It probabl y seems obviou s to a GB-trained eye tha t the structur e in (1 ) bear s a close similarit y to the structure commonly used in current GB , suc h as (4 ) (cf. Vainikka 1989) . Th e highest S could be CP , with the K in Com p i f a finite verb, or in Spec(CP) , i f a nominal. The secon d highes t S could b e identifie d wit h IP, and m y T position, wit h its specifier . The lowest S , or V-field, woul d then be I', starting—in it s unmarked order—with th e finit e verb (mai n or auxiliary ) in I .

I would now like to take a fresh look a t the basic assumption s of my approach and mak e it s relation t o current GB-typ e approache s mor e explicit . Before that, however, a background will be se t in section 2 , which is an overview o f the dis course notion s that essentially motivate the d-configurational patter n in (1). Sec tion 3 is organized as follows: The basic requirements of the suggested approac h will b e sketche d in 3.1 . Section s 3.2. an d 3. 3 discuss the T and K positions, re spectively, an d 3.3 has to do with the interaction between the K position and th e

Discourse Configurationality in Finnish 24

7

order i n V-field . Th e V-fiel d raise s som e o f th e mos t intriguin g questions o f Finnish wor d order syntax , that is, th e condition s and th e prope r descriptio n of XV order, but a discussion o f these question s is unfortunately beyond th e scop e of thi s paper . I personally remai n quit e happy with the spirit (i f not the degree o f precisio n or each detail ) of my original analysis . I t should therefore be kept in mind that I offer m y suggestions i n section 3 as tentative sketches, i n which role they migh t provide a ground fo r thos e willing to pursue a more stric t G B analysis an d ac count for all its implications in a principled manner . Needless t o say, the accoun t below i s necessarily simplifie d and overlook s man y finer detail s i n th e data .

2. Motivating the Analysis: On Information Structure My theory of information structure—or informatics according to Vallduvi 1992 — is that of Dialogue Game s (DO; Carlson 1983) . Within this theory, a fairly intri cate syste m o f discours e interpretatio n usin g extremel y simpl e underlyin g principles i s mad e possibl e b y a rich theor y o f discours e structure . A dialogu e game i s a mode l o f a n idealize d co-operativ e information-seekin g discourse , monologue o r dialogue. I n this game, players mak e explicit o r implicit dialogu e moves according to general pragmatic principles and, on the other hand, specific dialogue gam e rules . A s a n exampl e o f suc h a rule , a playe r i s entitle d t o pu t forward a questio n wheneve r the presuppositio n o f th e questio n ha s bee n pu t forward o r activated; here the presupposition of a WH question is the correspond ing existentia l statement. Dialogue move s ar e addresse d t o topica l questions , o r topic s i n th e D G vocabulary. D G includes a theory of question s complete wit h definitions o f no tions such as "presupposition o f a question" an d "completeness of answerhood." When discours e structur e i s modele d a s a n implici t networ k o f question s an d answers, th e time-honore d question-answe r tes t use d fo r testin g ol d an d ne w information (o r focusing) gains force. An important part of the system is that questions may, in order to be answerable , open up new questions, a s we shall shortl y see. I n thi s way , old an d ne w become relational, layere d concepts : wha t i s ol d with respect t o one premise may be new with respect to another. This ambivalen t notion o f informatio n structure is capitalize d o n i n th e simplifie d account tha t now follows .

2.1. Old, New and Focus The basi c distinction in th e theor y is between Ol d an d Ne w (focused ) material . These ar e define d ove r pair s o f sentence s S I an d S2 , S I bein g th e discours e premise fo r S2, that is, the move S 2 is addressed to . Thus, we can define Old as that par t o f S 2 that repeat s materia l fro m S I an d Ne w (o r focus ) a s th e par t o f S2 that substitutes for materia l in S1. It will suffic e fo r our purpose s to think of the premise as a question; however, other kinds of discourse premises are allowed as well , suc h a s th e presuppositio n of a question as a premise for th e question .

248

Discourse Configurational Languages

Thus, i n the following, (5a)—perhaps an inference from a physical situation—i s the premis e fo r (5b ) an d who i n (5b ) i s define d a s New ; (b ) i s th e premis e fo r (c), definin g Anna a s New . The part lives here i s Ol d i n (b ) an d (c) . (5) a . Someon e live s here . b. Wh o lives here ? c. ANN A lives here . Finnish i s simila r t o many other language s in it s basic tendenc y t o introduc e New element s lat e i n th e sentenc e (withi n limits se t by th e grammar) . Th e an swer t o a question lik e (5b ) ca n thu s be both (6a ) an d (b) : (6) a . ANN A asuu taa'lla . Anna live s her e b. Taa'll a asuu ANNA. Of these , th e OV S i n (6b ) i s a marke d orde r i n Finnish , conveyin g a n activ e application o f the optional rule "news last" . Using this order, the speaker explic itly direct s th e heare r t o constru e he r sentenc e a s a n answe r t o a questio n lik e (5b), whereas the more unmarked order in (6a) is more vague as to what is New and coul d well be use d i n a n all-ne w sentence . Let us now turn to case s wher e one sentenc e i s addressed t o differen t topical questions at the same time. One such situation is what we could call Contrastiv e Topicalization (cf . Gunde l 1977) , o r TO P interpretatio n fro m no w on . Fo r ex ample, i t may be tru e Anna lives "here, " but the dialogu e situatio n may includ e an interes t in a group of people—say, Anna, Kati and Mikko—whos e livin g ar rangements ar e under discussion. This situatio n can be modeled wit h a multiple question like Who lives where? Answering this requires unpacking it into subques tions like Where does Anna live? Where does Kati live? A contrast!vely accente d Anna i n a sentenc e lik e (6a) , then , woul d b e Ne w wit h respec t t o th e mor e comprehensive multipl e question, but Ol d with respect t o th e immediate simpl e question abou t Anna; that is, i t would be New-old . How abou t the converse: could the answer to a question b e Old but stil l New with respect to an immediate premise? Thi s i s exactly what Carlson suggest s fo r Gundel's (1977 ) Focu s Topicalization , hencefort h FOCTO P (als o sometime s called "contrastiv e focus") . Thi s patter n can b e roughl y defined a repetitio n of an answer , the answe r being Old-new . The typical situation s to do this are thos e of confirmin g an d contradictin g someone' s (includin g one's own ) answer . Ex amples ar e show n in (7 ) an d (8), respectively . (7) a . Ann a ka i asu u ta'alla . Anna PR T live s her e 'I suppos e Anna lives here ' b. Niin , TAALL A Ann a asuu. yes her e Ann a live s 'Yes, thi s is wher e Anna lives.'

Discourse Configurationality in Finnish 24

9

(8) a . Ann a asu u taalla , b. KAT I taall a asuu . Kati her e live: ? 'It's Kat i who lives here ' In summary , there ar e tw o pattern s that ca n be calle d contrastive : New-old , paraphrasable as "a; I'm no t sayin g anything about b, c..." an d Old-new, o r "a ; not b, c...". These ar e the main interpretations of the constituent placed i n the K position i n Finnish; henc e th e characterization o f th e K position a s contrastive . (Placement o f contrastiv e element s i n K i s no t obligatory , however. ) Th e sim plest statement of these relations i s "A constituent i n K is New," i f taken together with th e rul e that place s Ne w informatio n late . Initia l Ne w informatio n i s the n predicted t o be informationally mixe d o r ambivalent, an d it is this informationa l ambivalence tha t ties th e two contrastiv e reading s together. Some furthe r definition s are in order a t this point. First , to appreciate th e dis tinction betwee n New-ol d an d Old-ne w K , th e concep t o f Mai n New s wil l b e helpful. Thi s i s New with respect to the immediate premise o f the sentence . Th e two contrastiv e patterns diffe r here : the TOP pattern, as illustrate d in (9a) , con veys tha t th e Main New s of the sentenc e is no t i n K but elsewhere , typicall y a t the end of the sentence , whil e the FOCTOP pattern i n (9b) places Main News— albeit Ol d main news—in K. 3 (9) a . ANNALL E Mikfc o anto i KUKKIA . Anna-ADE Mikk o gav e flowers-PA R 'To Anna, Mikko gav e flowers. ' b. ANNALL E Mikko anto i kukkia ~ kukkia antoi . 'It's to Anna that Mikk o gav e flowers. ' Note th e differenc e in th e V-fiel d orde r here . I t wil l b e o f som e importanc e i n what follows that V-field orde r must be verb-initia l i n the even t that th e V-field contains the Main News, but need not if the Main News are in K. It may thu s be concluded tha t th e verb-final , X V ordere d V-fiel d doe s no t contai n th e Mai n News. An essential par t of the description that follows i s that verb s als o tak e par t in the above informational distinctions. Finite verbs, however, require a further, intuitively obviou s distinctio n betwee n Conten t an d Polarit y Ne w an d Old . Whil e nominal constituents are only capable of being Content-new/old, finite verbs also carry th e polarit y o f th e sentenc e an d ar e consequentl y eithe r Polarity-ne w o r Polarity-old. Polarity-newnes s is here construed a s an answer to a Yes/No question. Conside r th e verb-focusin g variant s of (9 ) give n in (10) . (10) a . Mikk o ANTOI Annalle kukkia. 'Mikko di d giv e ~ GAV E Anna flowers. ' b. ANNALL E Milck o ANTOI kukkia. 'To Anna, Mikk o DID giv e ~ GAV E flowers.'

250

Discourse Configurational Languages

c. ANTO I Mikko Annalle kukkia. '(Oh yes, ) Mikko di d giv e Anna flowers. ' The ver b i s accente d an d therefore Ne w in som e way ; here , probabl y th e Mai n News. I n (lOa ) and (b), it could stil l be either Content o r Polarity-new, althoug h the latte r sound s somewha t mor e natural . Content-newnes s ha s t o d o wit h th e manner—say, givin g versu s selling—i n whic h the flower s wen t fro m Mikk o t o Anna, rathe r tha n whethe r thi s happene d a t all. In (lOc) , onl y th e Polarity-ne w interpretation o f the finite ver b is discernible. Suc h Finite-K sentence s ar e construed i n a wa y analogou s t o th e FOCTO P reading ; tha t is , (lOc ) might b e a confirmation o f the speaker' s convictio n that Mikko's actio n indee d too k place , or a reply to someon e wh o has sai d o r implied th e contrary . This arrangemen t i s extremel y commo n i n negations , whic h i n Finnis h ar e expressed b y a n auxiliar y (ei, displaying subject agreemen t i n numbe r an d person). Looking a t the following examples, not e how adding ei now affords u s two verbs, an d the V-field orde r i s free t o take a verb-final form just lik e it did in th e FOCTOP sentence i n (9b): (11) a . E i Mikk o antanu t Annall e kukkia . not-3SG Mikk o give-PT C Anna-AL L flowers-PA R b. E i Mikko Annalle kukkia antanut. '(Oh no, ) Mikk o did NOT give flower s t o Anna.' As clearly implied in this section, Finnish, unlike Hungarian, does no t have a particular focu s position . Rather , foci ar e place d eithe r firs t (i n th e K position ) or lat e i n th e sentenc e accordin g to thei r discourse-base d status . I n th e cas e o f multiple foci , on e i s place d i n K an d th e other , typically , las t i n th e sentence . The reader wil l also have observed that my definition of focus is quite wide, just "new information. " Finnish does not seem t o grammaticalize th e literal "exhaus tive listing" interpretation of focu s that is so typical of Hungarian (see E. Kiss , this volume) . Fo r example , focuse d phrase s wit h the cliti c -kin (approximately 'too') can occur in K, T, or later. Still, due to their discourse functio n —confirming or disputin g the "correc t answer"—FOCTO P readings ar e ofte n interprete d ex haustively. Not e also tha t Finnish woul d lack a single focu s position eve n i f w e wanted to give a stricter definition of focus excluding the TOP reading (of (9a)). The Main News can still be placed initially, in K, or finally, a s in (12a) and (12b) (= 6b), respectively: (12) a . [

ANNA] [ T taalla] [ v.field asuu] Anna her e live s b. [ T Taalla] [ v.field asu u ANNA] 'It's Anna who lives here. ' K

The difference betwee n (12a) and (b) would have to do with their discourse func tion; (b), unlike (a), does not give the feeling of a repeated answer, for Anna would be construe d as merel y New (New-new!) .

Discourse Configurationality in Finnish 25

1

2.2. Topic and Aboutness Old an d Ne w wer e define d c m parts o f sentence s (o r perhap s thei r semanti c interpretations). Ther e i s ye t anothe r classica l informationa l notio n t o b e dis cussed: th e aboutness-based concep t of topic, or topic a s subject o f predication. 4 This ha s a n intimat e conceptua l connectio n wit h Ol d informatio n but mus t b e defined i n suc h a wa y tha t i t applie s t o discours e referents rathe r tha n phrase s (parts o f sentences) . Topic i n thi s sens e ha s a less central , bu t stil l interesting , role i n m y interpretatio n o f Finnis h wor d orde r variation . Topichoo d i s a ver y abstract notion ; i t ha s undeniabl e intuitiv e force, bu t operationa l test s ar e har d to fin d (apar t fro m th e requiremen t o f loosel y define d referentiality , i.e. , capa bility o f being construed a s a n entity that can be talke d about) . The genera l ide a o f topi c her e i s comparabl e t o tha t o f Reinhar t (1982 ) an d Vallduvf (1992) . Above, we treated Old/New marking as an essentially meaning conveying device ; explici t indication s of Old/Ne w statu s (tha t is , accentuatio n and position ) are directions for the hearer t o construe the messag e as a countermove (answer ) to a particular type of dialogue premise (question) . Analogously, an indicatio n o f topichoo d i s a n invitatio n for th e heare r t o ad d th e new s con veyed b y th e sentenc e t o he r menta l "file card " representing th e referen t o f th e topic. Topichoo d thu s ha s t o d o wit h th e indexin g of knowledg e in th e menta l representation th e participant s for m durin g th e discourse , an d perhap s wit h verification strategie s (Reinhar t 1982) . The other sid e of the matter—something we canno t g o int o now—i s th e degre e o f salienc e o r "topic-worthiness " of dif ferent type s of entities, that is, the degree to which they are interesting items fo r people t o talk about . It i s important to realiz e tha t topic s hav e a n indirec t relationship to th e Old / New distinction. It is obvious that a phrase referring to a topic in a sentence canno t be the Main News of the sentence; this would be incompatible with the file-car d metaphor. (O f course, th e occurrence of a phrase referring to a topic in one sen tence does no t prevent it from occurrin g as the Main News of another. ) But top ics ca n be contrastiv e (recal l th e scenari o o f Anna's, Kati' s an d Mikko' s livin g arrangements): a set of discourse referents may be salient at a point in a discourse, and each of them may then occur in subquestions, being New-old when they occu r as Contrastive Topics o f TO P sentences. M y model thu s allow s contrastiv e top ics i n bot h K an d T position . However , th e placemen t o f contrastiv e an d non contrastive topic s i s not free . I would like to use th e term Continuou s Topic fo r a discourse referen t that is the topic of a longer stretch o f discourse. Suc h topic s will alway s occup y th e T position , whil e additiona l materia l ma y occu r i n K depending on the point of view. When multiple topics ar e present (on e in K, on e in T, as in (3a)), the firs t o f these i s contrastive an d the second , continuous. Th e contrastive topic is then marked by a strong accent, the continuous topic and other Old material ar e destressed, an d the sentenc e end s with a strong terminal accen t indicating Mai n News . The distinction between continuous and contrastive topics helps us understand a frequen t terminologica l problem: subject s ar e sai d t o b e topics , bu t th e sam e term, a s well a s the term Topicalization, is used fo r NP s i n pre-subject position.

252

Discourse Configurational Languages

In addition , topichoo d i n som e language s may b e tie d t o dislocation , i.e. , sen tence-external position co-occurrin g with a sentence-internal resumptive pronoun (Vallduvf 1992). 5 We saw that a referential element in the K position ma y indeed b e a (contras tive) topic. But: not all K fillers in TOP sentences ar e topics. Although finite verbs would hardl y coun t a s topics , Finite- K sentence s ar e no t a cas e i n poin t i f w e accept tha t th e ver b is alway s (Polarity) Main New s i n them. Instead , goo d ex amples o f non-topiclik e K element s ar e offere d b y non-finit e verb s an d idio m parts in K : (13) Mikk o onhyv a ruoanlaitoss a mutta LEIPOA ha n e i OSAA Mikko i s goo d cooking-IN E bu t bake-IN F h e not-3S G can . 'Mikko is a good cook , bu t he can' t bake. '

.

(14) Melkei n kaikk i kannattiva t Mikkoa. 'Almost everybod y supported Mikko.' VASTAAN handl e pan i vai n ANNA . Against he-AL L put-PAS T onl y Anna . 'The only person wh o PROTESTED agains t him i s ANNA.' In (13) , th e ver b leipoa 't o bake' is contrasted with Mikko's othe r domesti c ac tivities, an d in (14) , th e content of the idiom panna vastaan 't o protest' i s con trasted with the obedience displayed by the others. Both sentence s contai n Mai n News last—'cannot' in (13) an d 'only Anna' in (14)—so both are TOP sentences rather tha n FOCTO P ones . One thing t o notice abou t topics i s tha t they ar e not obligatory , whil e Ol d or New statu s is probably a conceptual necessit y concernin g phrase s i n discourse . We shall come acros s example s o f topicless sentence s i n section 3.2 ; le t me now spell ou t briefly what I think about th e relationship o f topic an d the T position . A fruitfu l wa y t o thin k abou t th e questio n i s t o se e topi c indicatio n a s a n op tional strateg y an d th e T position , a s mean s o f fulfillin g thi s strategy . Tha t is , whenever one wants to indicate a topic, a good way to do so is to place the phrase in question in T. From the hearer's point of view, the presence o f a potential topic in T means a permission t o take it as a topic. Bearin g in mind that K fillers may also be topics, w e can summarize : topics ca n be indicate d by K and T constitu ents, bu t th e T constituen t must be a n older topi c tha n the on e in K .

3. Towards a Structural Description

3.1. Preliminaries Looking a t the unmarked Finnish constituent orde r (Comp)SVO , on e may see in it one' s favorit e versio n o f th e [Com p [N P [INFL [VP]]] ] structur e commonl y postulated i n present-da y GB theory . The othe r orderin g variant s could the n b e derived b y scrambling-lik e movemen t (adjunction) operations . The centra l ide a

Discourse Configurationality in Finnish 25

3

behind th e d-configurationa l representatio n i s to mak e explici t certai n essentia l insights that woul d remain hidden by thi s mor e conventiona l approach . Finnish doe s no t require th e presence o f a n overt grammatica l subjec t t o th e degree familia r fro m man y Wester n Europea n languages . Thus , a n impersona l construction ma y well loo k simpl y like OV , as in (15). 6 O n the othe r hand, free postponement o f th e grammatica l subject i s possible , bu t seldo m withou t con comitant preposing of another complement, the result being, say , OVS as in (16) . (15) a . Anna a kehuttiin . Anna-PAR praise-PASS-PAST 'Anna wa s praised.' b. Anna n huoma a helposti . Anna-ACC MP-notice s easil y 'It is easy t o notice Anna.' (16) Anna a kehu i porno . Anna-PAR praise d bos s 'Anna wa s praised by the boss' In both these structures, the object occupie s the T position. This i s shown by the fact tha t i t ma y i n tur n be precede d b y on e (bu t onl y one ) additiona l comple ment o r adjunct 7 i n K : (17) a . Artikkelist a Anna a kehuttiin . article-ELA Anna-PA R praise-PASS-PAS T 'The paper, Anna was praised for. ' ~ 'I t wa s the pape r Anna was praised for. ' b. Annast a se n huomaa . Anna-ELA it-AC C MP-notice s 'From Anna, you can se e it.' ~ 'Th e one you ca n se e it fro m is Anna.' (18) Artikkelist a Anna a kehu i porno . article-ELA Anna-PA R praise d bos s 'For th e article , Anna was praised b y the boss' It would of course be reasonable t o include a n empty subject position i n bot h patterns: appropriat e empty categorie s wit h the impersonals , a trace i n th e case of subjec t postponement. Th e object could then be proposed by adjunction to IP. This way, however, the essential intuitio n of exactly two slots preceding the verb would be lost , and one would have to invent a restriction agains t preposing to o many constituents , which might prove ad hoc give n the otherwis e fre e orde r of clausal constituents . Th e bes t wa y t o kee p th e descriptio n tru e t o th e origina l intuition i s to sa y that the objec t in both types, (15) an d (16), occupie s th e very same slo t a s th e subjec t does i n unmarke d SVO sentences , tha t is , th e T posi tion. Thi s vie w wa s apparentl y share d by Vainikk a (1989), wh o suggeste d late

254

Discourse Configurational Languages

movement int o the Spec(IP ) position i f the position ha d bee n vacated . Unfortunately, thi s suggestio n required a deliberate weakenin g o f the trac e theory . In my view, a preferable solutio n for a derivational approach woul d be to identify th e K and T positions as unique, once-and-for-all landin g sites for movemen t irrespective o f th e grammatica l functio n o f th e move d phrases . Therefore , m y point of departure is a structure where the nominal participants get Case and Theta marking withi n the VP, the grammatica l subject being th e specifie r or , perhaps, adjunct, o f the VP. Subject-verb agreement shoul d not require subject movemen t to spec(IP ) (cf . Vainikka 1989). I t i s th e VP subtree tha t i s responsibl e fo r subject-object asymmetrie s suc h a s bindin g properties o r th e distributio n of Parti tive case . Suc h asymmetrie s ar e clearl y displaye d b y Finnis h transitives , eve n though ther e i s n o rea l evidenc e fo r a surface VP constituent. The verb could then raise to I (the equivalent of the V-field initia l position) to get it s "finiteness " feature s accordin g t o th e standar d assumptions, 8 an d on e of the NP s woul d rais e t o spec(IP) , th e equivalen t o f T . I wil l refe r t o th e latte r movement as T-movement for convenience. Some central features of T-movement will b e discusse d i n sectio n 3.2 . The K position woul d be fille d b y on e o f tw o movements: furthe r hea d movement o f the finite verb to the head positio n of the relevant projection , o r X P movemen t t o it s specifie r position . Bu t wha t would the "relevan t projection " be—CP , som e othe r category , o r perhap s both ? Thi s question will be taken up in section 3.3, which also discusses structurall y motivated K-movement . As indicated above, both T-movemen t and K-movemen t mus t be see n a s comprising bot h structura l and discourse-relate d factors . 3.2. Movement to T Position This sectio n presents a n informal account of the conditions of T movement. Th e movement itself is fairly trivial as soon a s we have established a vacant positio n to b e licensed , bu t a precise formulatio n o f th e case s i n whic h T ma y b e phonetically empt y ar e less clear . I shal l firs t discus s neutra l sentences , wher e th e "K" projectio n is not activated , and then make som e remark s o n the statu s of T in contrastiv e sentences. Unmarked T-movemen t is a resul t o f promotin g wha t I hav e calle d Defaul t Topic, o r DT for short, to the T or spec(IP) position. 9 The essential SV O charac ter o f Finnish is partly captured by assignin g DT statu s to th e grammatical subject (an d partly by th e unmarkednes s of VO, a s oppose d t o OV , in th e V-field) . By "grammatica l subject, " I mean the nominative externa l argumen t that agree s with th e finit e ver b in perso n an d number . Thi s definitio n exclude s nominativ e objects a s wel l a s a subset o f th e traditional Finnis h notiona l subjects , th e nonDT "existentia l subjects " illustrate d i n (19 ) below. Give n thei r object-lik e behavior—such as Partitive marking under certain conditions—th e NPs in question woul d be generate d a s sisters of V under current assumption s (se e Vilkuna 1989: 15 5 ff.). Another class tha t the definitio n o f grammatical subject excludes is those non-nominative, non-agentive NPs that nevertheless are clear DTs, such as th e Genitiv e in (20a) , th e Adessiv e in (20b) , th e Elativ e i n (20c) , an d th e Partitive i n (20d) .

Discourse Conflgurationality in Finnish 25

5

(19) Puutarhass a kasva a ruusuja . garden-INE grow-3S G roses-PA R 'Roses grow i n the garden.' (20) a . Anna n o n sa'a'l i Mikkoa . Anna-GEN be-3S G pit y Mikko-PA R 'Anna pitie s Mikko. ' b. Annall a o n kukkia . Anna-ADE be-3S G flowers-PA R 'Anna has flowers. ' c. Annast a tule e kuuluisa . Anna-ELA come-3S G famous . 'Anna wil l be(come) famous. ' d. Anna a itkettaa . Anna-PAR cry-CAU-3S G 'Anna feel s lik e crying. ' I hav e assume d tha t thes e an ; non-subjec t DTs an d no t quirk y subject s o f th e Icelandic type (se e e.g. , Andrew s 1982, Zaene n et al . 1984) , but i t is not necessary t o dwel l o n th e questio n i n th e presen t context ; fo r som e arguments , se e Vilkuna (1989 : 14 9 ff.). It i s obviou s that they represen t inheren t case , though ; they ar e lexicall y specified , th e phenomeno n bein g lexicall y quit e restricted . Somewhat les s clear i s the statu s of the near-obligatory locative T in existential sentences suc h a s (19) , bu t i t migh t mak e sense t o tak e i t a s a n argument-lik e adjunct. We have no w mad e a distinction between DT s and grammatical subjects , let ting th e forme r subsume the latter . A third type of the unmarke d TV(X) patter n is produced when no lexically specified DT appears overtly. This time, unmarked T-movement i s regulate d b y factor s suc h a s referentialit y an d discours e appro priateness. When more than one candidate is present, the decision ma y be totall y context-dependent, althoug h some unmarkednes s intuitions may be sensed . Ex amples o f thes e ar e th e sentence s i n (21) , wher e th e orde r given—Locativ e o r Recipient in T—is more neutra l tha n the revers e orde r woul d be. (21) a . Taall a puhutaa n suomea . here speak-PAS S Finnish-PA R 'Finnish i s spoke n here. ' b. Jokaisell e annetaa n jotakin . everybody-ALL give-PAS S something-PA R 'Everybody get s something.' And finally , w e must allow some genuinely T-less patterns. This happens with impersonal construction s that onl y take infinitiva l o r sententia l arguments : (22) a . Ol i kiv a ett a tulit . was nic e tha t came-2S G 'It wa s nice tha t you came. '

256

Discourse Configurational Languages

b. Ol i kiv a tull a tanne . was nic e come-IN F here-t o 'It was nice t o come here. ' Clauses an d infinitive s ar e no t suitabl e fo r T-movement. Thi s coul d b e formu lated a s a categorial requiremen t ( T fillers mus t be NPs or PPs), bu t th e deepe r sense o f th e phenomeno n i s T' s discours e rol e a s a topic , whic h presuppose s referentiality. Note , o n th e othe r hand , th e extremel y fre e extractio n fro m non finite complemen t constructions . T-movemen t woul d simpl y appl y t o th e infinitive's complemen t i f this wa s contextuall y motivated : (23) Tann e ol i kiv a tulla . here-to wa s nic e come-IN F T-movement is practically obligator y in sentences withou t K material (neutral sentences). Thi s ca n be see n a s a featur e motivated b y th e canonica l SV O sen tence structur e (Hakulinen 1976). In (22), there wa s nothing to move, but as soon as there is a DT or even a T-worthy element , leaving T empty lead s to an odd or ungrammatical result.10 I t must be taken into account tha t pro—or whatever rep resents th e subject of pro-drop sentences—move s as well, or at least reserves th e T position . Conside r th e following verb-initial strings : (24) a . Annoi n Annall e kukkia . gave-lSG Anna-AL L flowers-PA R b. Sa i Ann a kukkia . got-3SG Ann a flowers-PA R c. Annetti n Annall e kukkia . gave-PASS Anna-AL L flowers-PA R (24a) is a fine neutral pro-drop sentence meaning 'I gave Anna flowers', bu t (24b ) as suc h ca n only be read a s a confirming or contradictin g Finite- K pattern , tha t is, th e ver b i n K an d th e subject , i n T . (24c ) i s ambiguou s betwee n thes e tw o interpretations. The pro-dro p reading is natural in colloquial Finnish , wher e th e passive form i s almost exclusively used instead of the official 1P L form; what is "omitted," therefore , is me 'we.' 11 The sentences in (25) are alternative orderings of thos e i n (24) . Tha t pro doe s reserv e th e T position ca n b e see n fro m (25c) . Although th e variant s in (25b ) an d (c ) ar e neutra l wit h th e firs t N P in T (note , though, that the latter loses its pro-drop reading), (25a) forces a contrastive reading on th e initia l phrase , indicatin g that th e phras e i s i n K . I n other words , kukkia could stil l b e place d i n fron t i n (25b) , bu t no t i n (25a) . (25) a . Annall e annoin kukkia. b. Ann a sai kukkia. c. Annall e annettiin kukkia.

Discourse Configurationality in Finnish 25

7

Note that occupation o f T by pro, o r any phonetically nul l element referrin g to a contextually salient individual or group, is natural from a functional point of view as well ; afte r all , suc h referent s are th e mos t obviou s continuou s topic s i n hu man discourse . A s a contrastive topic, a personal pronou n canno t b e dropped . Recalling tha t th e OV S varian t o f a transitiv e claus e i s possibl e an d tha t it s object ca n b e i n T , a s show n b y th e possibilit y o f anothe r constituen t i n fron t (see (18)) , we can now informally summariz e th e conditions o f T-movement: In a neutra l sentence , T mus t b e fille d i f ther e i s a potentia l T fille r available . A potential T fille r i s a n NP, a F'P, or pro. After havin g take n a loo k a t unmarke d T-movement o f variou s case-marke d NPs, let us observe anothe r face t o f the Default Topic idea . This i s the behavio r of non-topicworthy phrases lik e quantifiers. Most conspicuously, the quantifiers kukaan 'anybody ' and mitaan 'anything ' may occur in the T position i n unmarked orders: (26) a . Kukaa n e i valit a minusta . anybody not-3S G car e I-EL A 'Nobody care s fo r me.' b. Kenellakaa n e i ol e rahaa . anybody-ADE not-3S G i s money-PA R 'Nobody ha s money. ' c. Kenellekaa n e d annet a rahaa . anybody-ALL not-3S G give-PAS S money-PAR 'Nobody i s give n money.' However, the unmarked order in (27a) below cannot be inverted as in (27b) eve n if w e wanted to focu s the DT , My interpretation is , as suggeste d above , tha t th e unmarked order s i n (26 ) hav e purely structura l T fillers, tha t is , no topics i n the contentful sens e o f th e word , whil e th e marke d orde r woul d involv e a n activ e indication o f topic , a function that th e quantifie r in question coul d no t serve . (27) a . Mikk o e i tehny t mitaan . Mikko not-3S G di d anything-PA 'Mikko did nothing.' b. ?Mitaa n e i tehny t MIKKO.

R

Taken i n isolation , (27b ) raise s a stron g feeling o f ungrammaticality. However , it i s no t supplie d wit h an asteris k a s i t ca n be mad e a t leas t marginall y accept able by imagining a context wher e th e domain of the quantifie r is appropriatel y restricted; thi s would involve reading mitaan as mitaan niistd 'an y of them,' wher e "they" are the contextuall y give n set . What happen s t o quantifie r DTs like kukaan an d mikddn whe n ther e i s a K present? I t is hardly surprisin g that they ma y either b e promote d t o T or—if w e take th e positio n o f th e negativ e auxiliary a s a n unambiguou s indication of th e beginning o f th e V-field—lef t i n sit u i n th e V-field . Th e type s illustrated by th e following atteste d examples both occur:

258

Discourse Configurational Languages

(28) a . Liikunna n myonteist a vaikutust a kukaan ei ole . exercise-GEN positive-PA R effect-PA R anybod y not-3S G ha s kieltanyt denied The positiv e effect o f exercise ha s not been denied (b y anybody).' b. Taxelli n henkilokohtaisi a ominaisuuksi a ei Taxell-GEN personal-PA R characteristics-PA R not-3S G kukaan epaile . anybody doubt s 'Taxell's personal qualification s ar e not questione d (b y anybody).' My assumption concernin g the alternation in (28) is that the difference depend s on whether kukaan ha s been promote d b y T-movement or the T position ha s bee n left empty . One might still wan t to question the location o f kukaan i n (28a). The discourse valu e of (28a) and (b ) seems equivalent out o f context an d in th e con texts they were taken from, but my conclusion is supported by the fact that ther e is a sligh t bu t discernibl e differenc e i n th e interpretatio n o f th e followin g variants: (29) a . Mie s ol i roisto , man wa s croo k mutta hant a ei kukaan epaillyt . but he-PA R not-3S G anybod y suspecte d The ma n was a crook, bu t nobody suspecte d him. ' b. Mie s ol i roisto, mutt a hant a kukaan ei epaillyt . It seem s to me that (29a) ca n be given a neutral reading wit h the pronoun in th e second sentenc e representing a continuous topic ("th e man") . (29b) , i n contrast , has a discontinuous flavor, whic h I interpret as resulting from a need t o read th e pronoun a s a contrastiv e topi c (tha t is, althoug h the pronou n refer s t o th e ma n acting a s the topi c o f the previous sentence , there i s a t least on e additiona l sus pect i n the context , t o whom he is contrasted.) I f this i s true, kukaan i n (29b ) i s indeed i n T, and the sentenc e is a TOP sentence, wherea s i n the secon d sentenc e of (29a) , hanta i s i n T an d th e sentenc e lack s (th e structura l equivalen t of ) K . The sam e applie s t o (28) . It is fairly uncontroversia l tha t Finnish ha s two positions i n fron t o f the finit e verb, assumin g th e unmarke d V-initia l orde r o f th e V-field . A s (28b ) alread y indicates, things are slightly mor e indeterminat e i n sentences wher e onl y on e of these position s i s fille d bu t th e arrangemen t i s fel t t o b e contrastiv e (i.e. , th e sentence i s no t neutral) . Shoul d th e singl e initia l elemen t alway s b e take n t o occupy K ? I t i s clea r tha t w e mus t allo w empt y T wit h contrastiv e sentences . The evidence is that the discourse meaning is preserved i f a suitable expletive o r pronoun i s adde d i n T . Fo r example , (30a ) i s possibl e wit h th e confirmin g o r contradicting interpretation , focusing hyvin: it s valu e i s ver y muc h th e sam e a s that of either one o f (30b). Sitd i s a particle acting as a T expletive (se e Vilkun a 1989: 14 0 ff.).

Discourse Configurationality in Finnish 25

9

(30) a . HYVI N parjattiin , well manage-FASS-PAS T b. HYVI N m e ~ siti i parjattiin . well w e ~ PRT manage-PASS-PAS T 'We ~ people wer e doin g ALL RIGHT.' (confirmatio n or contradiction) How abou t SO V order—or, mor e generally , DT-X- V order ? I s the initia l D T in T or K ? Consider th e following : (31) a . ANN A kukki a sai . Anna flowers-PA R go t 'It's Anna who got flowers. ' b. ANN A Mikolt a kukki a sai . Anna Mikko-AB L flowers-PA R got 'It's Anna who got flowers fro m Mikko. ' Recall ho w it was concluded i n section 2 that a topic may be contrastive. There fore, moving a DT to K is really motivated only with the FOCTOP reading, which makes th e DT (repeated) Mai n News. I t must then b e initial , s o K is its natura l position. (Bot h sentence s (31 ) ca n i n fac t onl y b e FOCTOP , a fac t we shal l re turn to in sectio n 3.3. ) A s for the locatio n o f the object i n (31a) , obligator y fill ing of T when the DT is in K would be the most satisfactory answer, but lookin g at (31b) we notice that the object (in fact, an y number of elements) ma y preced e the ver b eve n i n th e presenc e o f anothe r potential T filler . In thi s case , a t least kukkia i s include d in th e X o f X V order. Sinc e w e just sa w tha t T-movement i s not strictl y obligatory in contrastive sentences, th e most I can do at the momen t is t o allo w structura l ambiguity . Th e complemen t (kukkia i n (3la) , Mikolta i n (3lb)) is in T when it is a genuine topic, but it need no t be a topic an d may con sequently remai n insid e V P eve n i f prepose d t o th e verb . I n th e cas e o f (31) , Mikolta woul d o f course b e more likel y t o be a topic tha n the indefinit e kukkia. 3,3. Movement to K and the Categorial Status of K Deriving clause s wit h a fille d K positio n entail s a spli t o f m y origina l unique "K". Unde r current assumptions , "K" woul d have t o b e a projectio n complet e with a hea d positio n fo r a contrastiv e finit e ver b t o mov e to , an d a specifie r position fo r contrastiv e XPs. Not e th e asymmetr y of "K " an d "T" : whil e verb s cannot b e topic s i n m y treatment , the y ca n b e contrastiv e i n roughl y th e sam e sense a s XPs wit h the FOCTOP interpretation. Bu t only on e initially contraste d element i s allowed; tha t is, heads and XPs are complementary i n the K position . A method mus t therefor e be devised to prevent simultaneou s fillin g of the hea d and th e specifie r positions . As to the categorial identity of the projection in question, there ar e two com peting analyses . Vainikka (1989) take s it to b e a CP, in conformit y with several

260

Discourse Configurational Languages

analyses of other languages. Kenesei (1992) proposes tha t this is not enough; ther e should b e anothe r projectio n level , calle d FP, 12 betwee n C P and IP . In orde r t o avoid proliferatio n of functiona l projections , I shal l star t b y stickin g t o C P an d try t o se e how fa r thi s ca n take us . Movement t o C is a typical head movement . I n (32) , th e single finit e verb has just jumpe d on e ste p furthe r fro m I , no w complet e wit h it s finitenes s features . The natur e o f the operation ca n mos t easil y b e appreciate d whe n auxiliarie s ar e present. Onl y th e finit e ver b (th e auxiliar y i f ther e i s one ) ca n move , a s illus trated i n (33 ) an d (34) . (32) a. [

K Sai] [ T Anna] [ v.field kukkia] 'Anna go t flowers. ' b. [ cp [c sai; [ Ip Anna [ Ip t; [vp t; kukkia]]]]]

(33) a . [

Oli] [ T Anna] [ v.fieid saanu t kukkia ] be-PAST Ann a get-PT C flowers-PA R '(Oh yes) , Ann a HA D go t flowers. ' b. [ cp [c olij [ Ip Anna [ t t; [V P saanut kukkia]]]] K

(34) a. ? Ol i saanu t Anna kukkia. 13 b.* [ cp olij saanu t [ Ip Anna [ j t; [vp tj kukkia]]]] In contrast, a non-finite verb can be preposed t o spec(CP) jus t lik e an y other XP. Observe th e followin g contrast : (35) a . [ cp e [c Olen; [ Ip mina [ t t; [ vp puhunut]]]]] be-lSG I speak-PT C '(Oh yes, ) I HAV E spoken.' b. [ CP Puhunut; [c e [ Ip mina [ t olen [ vp t;]]]]] 'Spoken I have.' Again, not both verbs ca n be in K simultaneously. A sentence lik e (36a ) ca n onl y be interprete d a s a subject-focusin g varian t o f (36b) ; i.e. , 'a s fo r speaking , th e one who has spoke n is me.' (36) a . Puhunu t olen mina . b. [ CP puhunut; [ Ip e [ t olen t ; mina]]] c.* [ cp puhunut; olenj [ lp mina tj t;]] K-movement has its "defaults" a s well: not all phrases in CP are in fact contras tively interpreted. C P is the landing site of "WH" items—questioned phrases and phrases wit h relative pronouns—an d there i s at least som e reaso n t o assume tha t complementizers an d other subordinator s might occupy thi s position. Also , Finn ish has a handful o f sentential particles tha t manifest as "second position " clitics : -kO, -hAn, -pA. Phrases hosting these clitics can but need not be contrastive, while they are necessarily clause-initia l just lik e "WH " phrases . Th e sentence s i n (37 )

Discourse Configurationality in Finnish 26

1

are example s o f non-contrastiv e sentences wit h clitics, an d (38 ) illustrate s con trastive patterns. (37) a . Onk o Ann a saanu t kukkia ? be-3SG-Q Ann a get-PT C flowers-PA R 'Has Anna go t fbwers? ' b. Annaha n sa i kukkia . Anna-CL go t flowers-PA R 'Anna go t flowers.' (implying , e.g. , tha t th e fac t shoul d b e familiar t o the hearer ) (38) a . Annak o kukki a sai ? Anna-Q flowers-PA R go t 'Is it (indeed ) Anna who got flowers?' b. Mikkoha n niit a sai . Mikko-CL they-PA R go t 'It's Mikk o wh o got them.' (implicatio n as in (37b) ) The obvious way to account for this positional requiremen t of the sentential cliti c particles i s to base-generat e the m in C, where they wil l onl y b e license d b y th e presence o f a host phras e (Vainikk a 1989). Thus , the K position, just lik e T, can be be fille d b y mer e structura l necessity . There ar e variou s way s to formulat e a n explicit restrictio n t o exclud e fillin g of bot h position s CP , the mos t unambitiou s being som e varian t o f th e Doubl y Filled Com p Filter. As far a s I can see , al l the availabl e solutions woul d amount to statin g what we know already : that a Finnish sentenc e offer s onl y on e initia l position fo r a contrastiv e topic o r focus , a WH phrase , o r a cliti c host . A prin cipled explanatio n woul d o f cours e b e welcome . Th e C P i n question s i s fille d either b y th e questio n particlj -kO with its hos t ver b o r XP, or a "WH " phrase , but no t both, 14 an d not by both a questioned phras e an d a contrastive focus . N o element wit h one o f the othe r second-positio n clitic s ca n co-occur wit h a ques tioned phras e o r a contrast!ve focus . However, interestin g speculation s ca n b e mad e concernin g conjunction s (complementizers an d adverbial subordinators) i n relatio n t o other potentia l C P elements. Ther e are tw o set s o f potentially conflictin g facts . First , clauses wit h conjunctions tolerat e K-movement , although to different degrees . The prototypi cal complementize r ettd 'that ' eve n precede s W H an d Yes/N o question s i n col loquial Finnish (see (41) below). In general, other subordinator s (suc h asjos 'i f and kun 'when' ) seem to exclude contrasted phrases i n their properly subordinative uses , fo r example , whe n th e claus e i s itsel f prepose d i n th e mai n clause . Compare (39a) wit h the unlikely (39b ) an d the perfectly commo n varian t in (c) : (39) a . Vaikk a [ T han ] [ v.fieidsai Mikolt a kukkia] , ha n itki . although sh e go t Mikko-AB L flowers-PA R sh e crie d 'Although sh e got flower s fro m Mikko , sh e cried.' b.*?Vaikka [ K Mikolta] [ T han] sai kukkia, han itki .

262

Discourse Configurational Languages

c. Ann a e i saanut lahjoja—vaikk a [ K Mikolta] [ban ] sa i kukki a 'Anna didn' t ge t presents—from Mikko , sh e got flowers , though. ' An admittedly vagu e but plausible wa y to characterize th e presence o f K follow ing a subordinator is to call it a main claus e phenomenon ; suc h a clause ha s th e function o f a n independen t assertio n o r a quotation , rathe r tha n subordinatio n proper. To describ e th e differenc e formally , assum e a diacriti c featur e SU B tha t i s optionally assigne d wit h a positiv e valu e t o al l subordinators . A conjunctio n marked +SU B woul d require a n IP complement, excludin g C P because i t woul d itself b e generated i n C. Conjunctions marke d -SU B woul d tolerat e CP complements, whic h entail s tha t the y b e place d outsid e CP , like coordinator s woul d presumably be . Naturally , th e adverbia l subordinator s rul e ou t interrogativ e complements fo r semanti c reasons . Etta accept s the m an d wil l thu s be outsid e CP—adjoined t o it?—mor e ofte n tha n th e others . The secon d interestin g featur e o f Finnis h conjunction s i s tha t th e adverbia l subordinators jos an d kun allo w proposing of an NP or a PP out of their domain . Since thi s XP seems t o have the function o f a contrastive topic, a natural assump tion is that the subordinator is in C and the topicalized item , in Spec(CP) (Vainikka 1989: 84-90) . (40) a . Se n jo s (sina ) tee t nii n e i hyv a seuraa . it-ACC i f (you ) do-2S G s o not-3S G goo d follow s 'If yo u d o THAT, bewar e o f th e consequences. ' b. [ CP sen; [c jos [ IP sina tee t t s]]]... So the relevant conjunctions , when specifie d +SUB , would someho w b e exemp t from th e constraint that precludes double fillin g o f CP. According t o my sugges tion, then, th e difference betwee n th e standar d an d the colloquia l us e o f jos an d kun is thei r differen t reactio n t o contrastive topicalization ; th e colloquia l usag e keeps the conjunction in CP, relaxing the ban against double filling , wherea s stan dard usage onl y seem s t o allow contrastive topicalization a t the price o f treatin g the claus e linkin g as non-subordinative. 15 Let us now tur n t o Kenesei's (1992 ) suggestio n tha t C P and IP in Finnis h b e separated b y anothe r functiona l projection, FP . The complementize r etta is gen erated i n C , and FP is be heade d b y one o f the clitic particles o r a diacritic fea ture +F (analogous to +WH). Thi s suggestio n does provid e a natural account for conjunction-headed CP s that allow contrastive preposing, but it seems to me that it turns out to be practically equivalen t with my CP analysis.16 To see this, not e that th e complemen t claus e o f (41a ) ha s th e structur e (41b ) i n m y analysi s an d (41c) in Kenesei's. O n the other hand , my analysis would be (42 ) i n the absence of a filled K ; it is presumably identical to Kenesei's excep t fo r th e featur e speci fication.

Discourse Configurationality in Finnish 26

3

(41) a . Mikk o kysy i ett a mit a Ann e sai . Mikko aske d tha t what-PA R Ann a go t 'Mikko asked wha t Anna (had ) got. ' b. [ CP etta[-SUB] [c? mita'; [c e [ IP Anna sai t;]]]] c. [ CP [c etta [ FP mita'i [ F e [ IP Anna sai t;]]]]] (42) [

cp [c etta[+SUB] [ IP Anna sai kukkia]]] 'that Anna go t flowers '

Kenesei does not analyze the phenomenon in (40), bu t a solution along the above lines doe s no t soun d unnatural ; i.e., jos an d kun migh t optionall y b e generate d in F instea d o f i n C , an d th e restrictio n agains t doubl e fillin g o f F P coul d b e relaxed. However, I have not yet found sufficien t motivation fo r postulating two functional projection s abov e IF' and will therefore prefer the simpler analysi s with one suc h projection . I leav e th e fina l choic e t o the reader .

3.4. Interactions In this final section, I shall briefly address the intriguing interaction between the presence o f K and the possibility of XV or complement-verb orde r in the V-field . It is an old observation abou t Finnish word order that XV order a t the end of the sentence someho w focuse s th e sentence-initia l member , whethe r th e latte r i s a DT, a complement o r a focusable adverbial ; se e the example s i n (31) . Bu t not e that th e focusin g effec t onl y pertain s t o X V orderin g i n wha t I hav e calle d th e V-field, tha t is , I'. I f a complemen t i s i n T , the resul t ma y b e a simpl e OV(S ) sentence wit h no CP , as we have see n (recal l (15 ) an d (16)) . Another importan t feature o f th e focusin g effec t i s tha t i t i s a main claus e phenomenon ; tha t is , i t may be neutralize d i n subordinat e clauses . In th e presen t terms , thi s entail s a restriction wit h th e followin g preliminary formulation: a n I' wit h the interna l order [...X P ...V] , wher e X P i s complemen t of V, is ruled out unless CP is filled. (The complement "X" ma y be preposed no t only t o it s ow n verb, bu t t o an y o f the auxiliarie s i n th e sentence , a s illustrated in not e 8. ) The question, o f course, i s why this should be the case. We can think of simultaneou s accounts i n tw o domains , discours e interpretatio n an d syntax . The former , a s explaine d i n Vilkun a (1989) , attribute s certai n discourse-relate d properties t o th e mutua l orde r o f th e ver b an d it s complement(s ) i n th e V-field and let s the m forc e th e correc t interpretatio n o n th e initia l field . I n short , X i n XV order canno t be Main News. Sinc e a sentence presumably needs Main News, and sinc e th e othe r positio n fo r Mai n New s i s K , K mus t the n b e Mai n News . Note tha t the implication work s in this direction only ; there does not seem to be any reaso n t o assum e tha t V X orde r mus t indicat e Newness o f th e object . A s mentioned, V X is the unmarke d order . In syntax , I assum e that th e informatio n abou t th e verb-complemen t orde r i s percolated alon g the spin e of the sentenc e and mediate d between th e K position and the lowest verb. A feature; conveying "my orde r is XV" mus t somehow forc e open th e CP , which would then no t be license d unless it wa s filled . Le t u s pro -

264

Discourse Configurational Languages

ceed fro m th e roo t t o the leaves . Assum e tha t there i s a feature +X, share d b y a head an d its projections . C requires it s complemen t I P to bea r thi s feature , and each verba l complement tha t has the feature requires tha t its own verbal comple ment, if any, bear i t as well (recall the set of functional projections suggeste d b y the "spli t INFL " analysi s o f Holmber g e t al.) . I n thi s way , eve n th e lowes t V P will come t o share the +X feature. The functio n o f +X is, simply , to license (but not require) XV order in the VP(s). A tentative refinement o f the restriction con cerning X V orde r i s give n in (43) . (43) *[ r ...X P ...V] , wher e XP is complemen t o f V, unless eac h verba l head i n T i s +X . As mentioned , I wil l no t attemp t t o answe r th e fundamenta l question tha t no w arises, tha t is: exactl y ho w i s XV/VX alternatio n generated ? Consider no w (44a) , a neutra l sentenc e wit h a n over t CP , and it s explicitl y contrastive varian t (44b) : (44) a . [

cp Annaj [ c han [, p[+X] t j [ r[+X] sai ; [ VP[+X] tj t ; Mikolta kukkia]]]] ] = Annahan sa i Mikolta kukkia . 'Anna go t flower s fro m Mikk o (a s you shoul d know). ' b. [ cp Annaj [ c han [ IP[+X] Mikolta; [ r[+X] [ VP[+x] lj kukki a sai

t;]]]]]

'It wa s Anna who got flower s fro m Mikk o (a s you shoul d know).'

In this case, it is the presence o f the -hAn phrase that formally licenses (bu t does not necessitate) th e XV order kukkia sai; th e focusing effect i s an instance of the discourse implicatio n a s discussed above . Bu t w e also assume d tha t subordinat ing conjunction s are (i n their basi c use ) i n C . This lead s t o th e following : (45) [ CP [c etta[+SUB] ~ jos[+SUB] [ Ip[+X] Annaj [ r[+X] e [ vp(+X] tj Mikolta kukkia sai]]]] ] 'that ~ i f Anna got flower s fro m Mikko ' As mentioned, Finnish subordinate clauses do allow XV order. This optio n is ofte n used unde r discourse condition s tha t w e canno t g o int o here . Accordin g t o th e general hypothesis , suc h subordinat e clauses lac k focus , o r Mai n News , whic h is exclude d bot h fro m th e V-field (whic h is X V ordered ) an d fro m K (whic h i s occupied b y a conjunction) . Th e Mai n News , then , i s t o b e foun d i n th e mai n clause, an d th e subordinat e claus e i s completel y backgrounded . 4. Summary To su m up , I hav e presente d in thi s pape r a genera l overvie w o f th e sentence level constituen t orde r variation in Finnis h and its descriptio n in term s o f information structure . Lookin g a t grammatica l categorie s o r function s only , th e

Discourse Configurationality in Finnish 26

5

variation may seem chaotic, but a description in terms of discourse-based func tions such as New and Old information, contrast and topic reveals a fairly simple and constrained structure, which I have called d(iscourse)-configurational. I have here adopted an informally GB-spirite d approach and made some tentative suggestions fo r a derivational description o f th e orderin g variation, relying fairl y liberally o n my earlier treatment in a non-derivational framework . The paper has concentrated on the tw o initia l positions in a Finnish clause. These serv e both discourse-based and more directly structural functions. The T position, whic h wa s identified wit h Spec(IP) , is open for a topic phrase, but i t may b e fille d b y a lexicall y specifie d Defaul t Topi c or sometime s even by a n expletive. The K position, tentatively identified a s CP, is optional for contrasted elements, but i t ma y be occupie d b y a complementize r and ac t a s th e landin g site of obligatory WH movement and movement to clitic heads. There is an in terdependence between an overt CP and head-final order in the latter part of the sentence, for which I proposed a feature description and a discourse-based interpretation. Notes I woul d like t o expres s m y gratitud e t o Katalin E. Kiss fo r th e the inspiratio n provide d by he r a t th e ver y beginning of m y wor k on wor d orde r and, more recently , fo r he r en couragement an d patienc e durin g the tim e this paper wa s in progress. 1. This orde r i s improve d i f th u object i s replace d b y a definite pronoun . 2. Th e followin g abbreviation s ar e used: S O = singular, P L = plural, 1- 3 fo r person ; PASS = impersonal passive, IN F = = 1s t infinitive, PTC = participle, M P = impersonal 3S G form, CON D = conditional mood ; cases (nominativ e i s not marked) : ACC = accusativ e (morphologically, Genitive) , PA R = partitive, GEN = genitive, IN E = inessive, EL A = elative, IL L = illative, ADE = aclessive , ABL = ablative , AL L = allative ; Q = questio n clitic, CL — other clitic particle, PRT = particle. As usual, capita l letter s in the example s indicate focu s accent ; thi s i s indicated wher e relevan t fo r th e discussion . 3. Primus (1991 ) show s how , in severa l languages , includin g Finnish , initia l o r earl y foci ar e typically narrow an d therefore short , wherea s late , or neutral foci ma y be broa d and ar e typicall y longer . 4. Recall tha t Carlson (1983) and Vilkuna (1989) use the term topi c for topica l ques tions. I n thi s paper , th e ter m topi c wil l be use d i n th e "aboutness" sens e an d have dis course referents i n its extensio n 5. Colloquial Finnis h i s quite ric h i n dislocations, whic h ma y indeed hav e suc h a use (see Vilkun a 198 9 for some preliminar y observations) , but their treatment is beyond th e scope o f this paper . 6. The sentences in (15) represen t the two main types of impersonalization in Finnish. The so-called Passive in (15a) i s formed by a verbal inflectio n tha t has the effect of making the (human ) firs t argumen t implicit . The construction i n (15b), known a s "Missing Per son" an d here abbreviated MP , is a simple 3S G verb form, whose omitted (human) sub ject ha s a n arbitrary reading. For more detail , see e.g. Vainikk a (1989), Vilkun a (1989) , or an y reference grammar .

266

Discourse Configurational Languages

1.1 also count adjuncts as potential K fillers, bu t in that case i t is not always clear that K prohibit s multipl e filling . Whethe r o r no t adjunct s hav e th e discours e interpretatio n typical o f th e K positio n depend s o n thei r meaning : so-calle d adverbial s o f settin g ar e fine Ks ; som e adverbial s hav e a n optiona l contrastiv e reading ; an d som e ar e just iner t with respec t t o discourse interpretation . The favorit e neutra l positio n o f most adverbial s is afte r th e V-fiel d initia l verb—th e firs t ver b i n cas e ther e ar e more , a s i n compoun d tenses. 8. IP an d I her e ca n b e see n a s equivalen t t o th e functiona l categor y F(inite ) an d it s projection F P in the detaile d "spli t INFL" analysis propose d b y Holmber g e t al . (1993) . The mai n thin g to know is that i t contains the subject-ver b agreement elemen t and , con sequently, hosts th e finite main verb, th e auxiliary olla, or the negative auxiliar y ei (unless these have moved further ) a t S-structure. Although we cannot go into the derivatio n of th e variou s V-fiel d o r F interna l orderings here , le t m e mentio n tha t wha t I cal l X V order cover s al l the order s resultin g from placemen t o f complement(s) i n fron t o f any of the verbal projections as well as also in front o f an infinitival head. Of the examples below , the one s i n (i ) ar e mutuall y equivalent , and s o ar e thos e i n (ii) . (i) a . Mikolt a Ann a e i ol e sit a saanut . Mikko-ABL Ann a not-3S G b e it-PA R get-PT C b. Mikolt a Ann a e i sit a ol e saanut . 'Anna hasn' t go t it fro m MIKKO. ' (ii) a . Mikolt a Ann a o n voinu t se n saada . Mikko-ABL Ann a be-3S G can-PT C it-PA R get-IN F b. Mikolt a Anna o n se n voinu t saada c. Mikolt a Anna sen on voinut saada. 'Anna ma y hav e go t i t fro m MIKKO. ' 9. "Default topic" comes originall y from Karttune n and Kay 1985 . Th e term now seem s to me slightl y infelicitous, a s it might easil y b e read t o imply tha t th e phras e is a topic, instead o f the argumen t most eligibl e t o be move d t o T. Perhaps "Topic-Default " woul d be preferable . However , I shal l continue usin g m y origina l terms . 10. A DT postponed o r no t move d t o T is generall y New . Subject-focusin g sentence s such a s th e followin g see m t o entai l tha t leavin g th e subjec t in sit u doe s no t suffic e t o generate al l variants. Assuming that the subject is base-generated a s the sister o f the ver b voinut, som e kin d o f subjec t postposing (adjunctio n t o IP? ) mus t be allowed : [T Sen;] olis i t ; voinu t tehd a t ; ANNAj . it-ACC be-COND-3S G can-PT C do-IN F Ann a 'It coul d hav e bee n don e b y ANNA.' 11. A third possibility wit h the passive i n (24c), related t o the pro-drop pattern but mor e vague, is that the topic i s the understood but unmentioned subject referent . Thi s implica tion i s ofte n actualize d i n a context wher e its identit y i s pragmatically obvious . 12. Shor t fo r "FocusP " instea d o f Holmber g e t al.' s "F(inite)P." . A Focus projectio n was originall y suggested fo r Hungaria n b y Brod y 1990 . 13. This string might be foun d i n colloquial speech wher e it has a function tha t I interpret a s simila r to (33 ) bu t wit h right dislocatio n o f th e tw o (Old ) NPs.

Discourse Configurationality in Finnish 26

7

14. Interestingly, colloquial Finnish makes fairl y commo n use o f a type of W H ques tion initiate d by th e finit e ver b an d -kO, and with the WH phras e i n situ : Maksaako s e kuink a paljon ? cost-Q i t ho w muc h 'How muc h doe s i t cost? ' 15. When thinking about subordinate d clauses , I have greatl y benefited fro m wor k i n progress b y Riitt a Korhonen . I t s.houl d b e mentione d tha t my speculation s o n K-move ment across jos an d kun are yet to be substantiated by an investigation of other syntacti c phenomena i n th e relevant dialects , mainl y Eastern Finnish. 16. Kenesei's F(ocus) P proposa l woul d be mor e natura l if th e cliti c particles , whic h are th e onl y non-abstract heads he proposes fo r FP, were indee d focusin g particles . Bu t this i s no t th e case ; the y are sententia l particle s tha t just happe n t o attac h to th e initia l element, whic h may o r ma y no t be focused.

References Andrews, A. (1982 ) "Th e representatio n o f cas e i n Moder n Icelandic," J. Bresnan , ed. , 427-503. Bresnan, J. , ed . (1982 ) The mental representation of grammatical relations, MI T Press , Cambridge, Massachusetts . Brody, M . (1990 ) "Remark s o n th e orde r o f element s in th e Hungaria n focus field, " i n Approaches to Hungarian 3: Structures and arguments, I . Kenesei , ed. , JATE , Szeged. Carlson, L . (1983 ) Dialogue Games, Reidel , Dordrecht. Gundel, J. K. (1977) The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory, Doctora l disser tation, Ohi o Stat e University . Hakulinen, A. (1976) "Suomen sanajarjestyksen kieliopillisist a ja temaattisist a tehtavista," in Reports on text linguistics: Suomen kielen generatiivista lauseoppia 2. Meddelanden fra n Stiftelsien s fo r Ab o Akadem i Forskningsinstitut, Nr 7 . Abo . Holmberg, A., U. Nikanne, I. Oraviita, H. Reime, and T. Trosterud (i n press) "Th e struc ture o f INFL an d th e finit e claus e i n Finnish, " i n Case and other functional categories in Finnish, A . Holmber g an d U. Nikanne, eds., Mouton . Karttunen L. , an d M . Kay . (1985) "Parsin g i n a fre e wor d orde r language, " i n Natural language parsing, D . Dowty , L. Karttune n an d A. Zwicky, eds., Cambridge Uni versity Press , Cambridg e Kenesei, I . (1992 ) "Functiona l Categories in Finno-Ugric, " i n Functional categories in complementation, K . Borars and N. Vincent, eds., EUROTYP Working Paper III , 3, Manchester. E. Kiss , K . (1981 ) "Structura l relation s in Hungarian , a "free " wor d orde r language, " Linguistic Inquiry 12 , 185-213. E. Kiss , K . (1987 ) Configurationality in Hungarian, Reidel , Dordrech t an d Akademia i Kiado, Budapest . Maling, J. , H . Thrainsson , an d A. Zaene n (1985 ) "Cas e an d grammatica l functions : the Icelandic Passive, " Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3 , 441-483. Primus, B . (1991 ) " A performanc e base d accoun t of topic position an d focus positions, " in Performance principles of word order, J . A . Hawkin s and A. Siewierska , eds., EUROTYP Working Paper II , 2 , Amsterdam.

268

Discourse Configurational Languages

Reinhart, T . (1981 ) "Pragmatic s an d linguistics : a n analysi s of sentenc e topics, " Philosophica 27 , 53-94. Vainikka, A. (1989) Deriving syntactic representations in Finnish, Doctora l dissertation , University o f Massachusetts at Amherst. Vallduvi, E. (1992 ) The informational component, Garland , New York. Vilkuna, M . (1989 ) Free word order in Finnish, Suomalaise n Kirjallisuude n Seura, Helsinki.

10 Focus and Topic Movement in Korea n and Licensing * HYON SOOK CHOE Yeungnam University, Korea

1, Introduction This paper propose s t o discus s propertie s o f focus an d topic i n Korea n an d argue that Korean , whic h is head-final and known as a free word order language , employs syntacti c focu s movemen t an d null (topic) operator movement t o mee t relevant licensin g condition s on focu s an d topi c (cf . Chomsk y (1986a , 93 ) fo r the notion o f licensing). Th e processes of focus movement unde r consideratio n are wh-movement (cf. Section 3.1.1,). movement of information focus, and movement o f so-calle d contrastiv e focu s (cf . Kuno' s (1973 ) contrastiv e w a i n Japa nese). Here , I cal l foc i tha t ar e phonetically manifeste d information foci (cf . Holliday (1967) ) to differentiat e the m from contrastiv e foc i i n Korean. Focus an d topic, which ma y be understoo d a s pragmati c function s (cf . Di k (1980)) or as discoursal function s (cf. Holliday (1967)), can be defined as som e nongrammatical functions adde d t o grammatical functions . I f so, one can won der how thes e functions and thei r interpretations ar e obtained. Unde r a frame work assumin g the Principle of Full Interpretation an d Licensing (cf . Chomsk y (1986a)), it can be suggested , given tha t they undergo syntactic (cf . topic/focu s movement i n Hungarian) or LF movement (cf . focu s movemen t i n English (cf . Chomsky (1976; 1981)) ) cross-linguistically, obeying certain syntacti c principles and having certain interpretation/scope, that these functions are interpreted as such only when they are licensed i n certain ways . Here , i t is, in fact, proposed, base d on syntacti c properties o f Korea n focus and topi c examine d here , tha t foc i an d topics shoul d move to certain position s eithe r at S-structure or in LF to be properly license d an d interpreted i n LF. In this pape r under the unfolded IP structure of Pollock (1989 ) and Chomsky (1989), th e orde r betwee n topic s an d foc i i n L F is proposed , a s i n (la) , wher e foci mov e to a focus position, i.e. , a position lower tha n that of the topic that is

269

270

Discourse Configurational Languages

base-generated an d therefore triggers null operator movement . I t is proposed tha t in Korean , all the element s i n (la ) appea r withi n the c-comman d domai n o f C , like Hungarian, as discussed in Horvat h (1986) , Kiss (1987 ) and Brody (1990) , but outsid e th e domai n wher e grammatica l function s ar e base-generated . I t i s proposed, give n the function s associated wit h their fixe d positions , a s i n (la) , that Korea n employs at leas t tw o functiona l categorie s wit h feature s [+t(opic) ] and [+f(ocus)J, respectively ( = T[+t] an d F[+f]), which project thei r ow n projec tions (cf . Choe (1988 ) fo r a similar proposal) , a s shown in (Ib).

where focuS j ma y b e a n informatio n o r a contrastiv e focu s o r a wh-focus ; and where a = TnsP (Tense Phrase) (cf . Pollock (1989)) or MP (Mood Phrase) (cf. Whitma n (1989) ) an d t i s a category representin g th e topic-commen t relation i n the clause ( 0 = null topic operator ) The analysi s i n (1) suggest s tha t Korea n employ s tw o semanticall y differen t non-wh-foci, informatio n and contrastive foci, and that they behave i n the sam e way i n that they mov e i n order t o be licensed throug h a (Spec-head) agreemen t relation wit h F[+fj, whil e wh-foe i mov e to Spec-F P t o b e license d b y govern ment o f a category bearing [+wh] , which is to be identifie d as F. 1 I n the analy sis in (1), the scope of foci is obtained through Focus Movemen t to Spec-FP where foci ar e properl y license d just a s th e scop e o f wh-phrase s i s obtaine d throug h Wh-movement to a position where wh-phrases are properly licensed. Fro m thi s view, fre e wor d orde r i n Korea n i s derive d partl y b y Focu s Movement , which

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 27

1

also account s for long-distanci ; 'scrambling, ' an d apparen t 'scrambling ' o f wh phrases is , i n fact , derive d b y syntacti c Wh-movement . Finally , i t i s propose d that ther e i s onl y on e topi c i n a sentenc e an d tha t th e topi c i s base-generated , like th e hea d o f a relative clause, an d triggers movement of null topic operato r that i s [+pronominal] , in order t o be properly licensed . The organizatio n of thi s pape r is: Information/Contrastiv e Focus Movemen t is discusse d i n Sectio n 2 ; Wh-movement i n Sectio n 3 ; an d Topic Movemen t i n Section 4 . Finally , th e conclusio n is give n i n the fina l section , whic h als o dis cusses som e issues relate d to the present analysis .

2. Focus Movement in Korean 2.1. Clause-internal PF-scrambling vs. Focus Movement Korean allows clause-internal free wor d order: Any order among major maxima l categories (subjects , complements (CPs , PPs o r NPs), adjuncts , an d adverbials ) except verba l predicates i s allowed. 2 Thus , whe n there ar e thre e majo r catego ries i n a clause, there are 6 possible variant s of the clause: 3 (2) a . Swuni-k a (1) hakkyo-eys e (2 ) Chelswu-lu l (3 ) manna-ss-ta . Swuni-sub school-a t Chelswu-ob j meet-pastM 'Swuni me t Chelswu a t the school. ' b. 1 - 3 - 2 c. 2 - 1 - 3 d. 2 - 3 - 1 e. 3 - 1 - 2 f. 3 - 2 - 1 Virtually an y elemen t ma y be ; stressed o r focuse d to be interprete d a s a n information focu s bu t ther e see m t o be tendencies : Immediately-preverbal element s may be easily focused; and sentence-initial elements ma y also be easily focuse d especially whe n the claus e exhibit s non-D-structur e word order , whic h ma y b e assumed to be derived by a process, which I will theory-neutrally cal l proposing. 4 The preposin g phenomeno n i t seem s ma y b e examine d wit h referenc e t o a question: Wha t effects ma y preposing have besides muc h discussed but compli cated effect s relate d to change in binding? I n fact, I observe thre e effects : Firs t sentence-initial elements ma} ' be easily focuse d althoug h they ar e not necessar ily focuse d an d no t ever y sentence-initia l elemen t i s focused . A n elemen t i n sentence-initial positio n closely linked with V (verbal adverbials or complements ) or th e subjec t ma y hav e a stronge r tendenc y to trigge r a focu s readin g (3a-c ) than an element in sentence-initial position not closely linke d with V (3d). (Not e that in (3) capital letters are used for focused or stressed element s unde r consid eration.) I n th e cas e o f th e contrastiv e focu s XP-nwn , -nun rathe r tha n X P i s stressed o r focused . Thus, the contrastiv e focus marker is specifie d as -NUN to differentiate i t fro m th e topi c marke r -nun, sinc e the topi c marke r -nun is mor phologically th e sam e a s the contrastiv e focus marker in Korean.

272

Discourse Configurational Languages

(3) a . PPALLI Chelswu-{NUN/*nun} ket-nun-ta . fast Chelswu-CON/To p walk-presM 'Chelswu walk s FAST. ' b. KUSI-LUL Yenghi-{NUN/*nun} ss-ess-ta . the poem-ob j Yenghi-CON/To p write-pastM 'Yenghi wrot e THE POEM.' c. CHELSWU-KA w-ass-ta . Chelswu-sub come-past- M 'CHELSWU came. ' d. ca-ki-cene y Chelswu-fnun/NUN} i-lu l takk-nun-ta . sleep-N-before Chelswu-Top/CO N teeth-ob j brush-pres- M 'Chelswu brushe s hi s teet h before goin g t o bed.' The second interestin g effect tha t one can observe fro m proposin g data has t o do wit h the semantic s o f -NUN. Th e semantic s o f a sentence wit h an XP-NUN can b e characterize d a s follows : A sentenc e A containin g a n XP-NUN (wher e the heare r i s not necessaril y suppose d to know (of) XP) shoul d b e implicitl y o r explicitly followe d by a sentence B whose proposition contrast s wit h the proposition o f a sentence A with respect t o the phrase XP-NUN (an d to the res t o f th e sentence), an d whic h usuall y contains an YP-NUN wher e X P ^ XP. 5 Conside r (3) now . Whe n th e sentence-initia l elemen t i s focused , th e subsequen t NP-nun should b e interprete d a s a contrastiv e focu s bu t no t a s a topic , a s show n i n (3a-b). O n the othe r hand , when the sentence-initia l element i s not focused, as shown i n (3d) , NP-nun ma y b e interprete d eithe r a s a topi c o r a contrastiv e focus. Thus , (3a) with a preposed focus , for example, ca n be conjoined wit h (4a) , but not wit h (4b) wher e Chelswu-nun i s understood a s a topic, whereas (5a ) an d (5b) both ar e possible conjunct s of (3d), which suggests tha t NP-nun i n (3d) can be interprete d eithe r a s a contrastive focu s o r a s a topic . (4) a . kulen a Yenghi-NUN nulike y ket-nun-ta . but Yenghi-CO N slowl y walk-pres- M 'But Yenghi walk s slowly. ' b. # kulena nulike y il-u l ha-n-ta . but slowl y work-ob j do-pres- M 'But (he ) does thing s slowly.' (5) a . kulen a Yenghi-NUN chayk-u l po-n-ta . but Yenghi-CO N book-ob j see-pres- M 'But Yenghi read s a book (befor e going t o bed).' b. kulen a achim-ey(-NUN ) i-lu l an-takk-nun-ta . but morning-at-CO N teeth-ob j not-brush-pres- M 'But (he) doe s no t brush his teeth i n th e morning.' In cases of long-distance preposing, where as in cases o f preposing withi n the clause, an y majo r categor y can als o b e prepose d acros s a claus e boundary , as shown i n (6) , th e abov e tw o effect s appea r in a n interestin g way .

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 27

3

(6) a . KU SI-LUL Yenghi-{NUN/*nun} [Swuni-k a ss-ess-ta-ko ] the poem-ob j Yenghi-CON/To p Swuni-su b write-past-M- C mit-nun-ta. believe-pres-M 'Yenghi believes tha t Swun i wrot e THE POEM.' b. SWUNI-KA Yenghi-(NUN/*nun} [k u si-lu l ss-ess-ta-ko ] Swuni-sub Yenghi-CON/To p th e poem-ob j write-past-M- C mit-nun-ta. believe-pres-M 'Yenghi believes tha t SWUNI wrot e the poem.' c. CHELSWU-EYKE Y Yenghi-{NUN/*mm } [nay-k a k u chayk-u l Chelswu-to Yenghi-CON/To p I-su b th e book-ob j cwu-ess-ta-ko] mit-nun-ta . give-past-M-C believe-pres- M 'Yenghi believe s tha t I gave the boo k T O CHELSWU. ' d. ILEN IYWU-LO Yenghi-{NUN/*nun} [ku-k a k u il-u l this reason-fo r Yenghi-CON/To p he-su b th e thing-ob j ha-yss-ta-ko] mit-nun-ta. do-past-M-C believe-pres- M 'Yenghi believes tha t h e did it FOR THIS REASON. ' First, the elements preposed across a clause boundary are unambiguously stressed or focused.6 Second , the subsequent NP-nim's in (6a-d) can only be understoo d as contrastiv e foci . Not e als o that thes e tw o effects ar e observed i n (3a-b) bu t not in (3d) with no preposed focus . Give n this parallelism betwee n (6) and (3a b), one may sugges t tha t (3a-c ) (wit h prepose d foci ) and (6) are derive d by a process o f movement , whic h canno t cros s th e topi c o f th e sentenc e o r whos e landing site is lower than topic position. A s the preposed element s i n (3a-c) and (6) are all foci, on e may further sugges t that the process involve d is, in fact, focus movement.7 The thir d effec t o f preposing has t o d o with a case-drop phenomenon , whic h may also differentiate clause-interna l preposing fro m long-distanc e preposing: I n Korean, NP' s ma y appea r withou t case marker s especiall y whe n they appea r i n their D-structure positions (7a) . I n cases o f clause-internal preposin g whic h doe s not necessaril y trigge r a focu s reading , th e droppin g o f a case marke r i s pos sible (7b-c) : (7) a . Chelswu-k a i cohu n si- 0 ss-ess-ta . Chelswu-sub this ; goo d poem-ob j write-past- M 'Chelswu wrot e this good poem. ' b. i cohu n si- 0 {nay-ka/Chelswu-ka } ss-ess-ta . this goo d poem-ob j I-sub / Chelswu-su b write-past- M ' {I/Chelswu } wrot e this goo d poem.' c. {ike(s)/ i chayk}- 0 {ne-0 / Chelswu-0 } sa-ss-ni ? this/this book-obj you-sub / Chelswu-sub buy-past- Q 'Did {you/Chelswu } buy thi s (book)? '

274

Discourse Configurational Languages

However, long-distance proposing , which alway s triggers a focus reading, rarel y allows case-drop: 8 (8) a . * I COHU N SI- 0 Yenghi-NU N [Chelswu-k a this goo d poem-ob j Yenghi-CO N Chelswu-su b ss-ess-ta-ko sayngkakha-n-ta . write-past-M-C think-pres- M 'Yenghi think s that Chelswu wrot e THIS GOOD POEM. ' b. ? * {IKE(S)/I CHAYKJ-0 Yenghi-NUN [Chelswu-ka sa-ss-ta-ko ] this/this book-ob j Yenghi-CO N Chelswu-su b buy-past-M- C sayngkakha-n-ta. think-pres-M 'Yenghi think s that Chelswu bought {THIS/THI S BOOK}.' To explain the contrast between (7 ) and (8), I propose that (7b-c) are derived by PF-scrambling,9 while (8a-b) are derived by Focus Movemen t and Focus Move ment moves a focus to a position wher e case-drop i s no t allowed. A s foc i ma y be i n sit u i n Korea n (cf . (10 ) below) , (3a-b) ar e ambiguous : They ar e derive d either by Focus Movemen t or by PF-scrambling. Thus, clause-internal proposing is analyzed either a s Focus Movemen t (3a-b ) or a s PF-scrambling (3 d & 7b-c ) whereas long-distance proposing is always analyzed as Focus Movemen t but not as PF-scrambling. Becaus e focus movemen t is usually analyzed as A-bar move ment (cf. Chomsky (1976; 1981)) , which will, in fact, be argued for Korean Focus Movement below, I suggest the following Case-drop Condition unde r the present analysis t o explai n case-drop i n (7) : (9) (I n Korean ) case-dro p i s possible unles s NP' s ar e i n A-bar positio n a t S-structure o r they undergo A-bar movement a t S-structure . To summarize , i n Korean , proposing ma y exhibi t thre e effects : (a ) prepose d elements may be focused; (b ) focused preposed elements cannot precede th e topic of the sentence; an d (c) they may not allow case-drop. I n cases of long-distance proposing, all three effects appea r whereas in cases of clause-internal proposing, (a) effec t optionall y appear s bu t whe n it does , ( b an d c ) follow . Thus , I hav e suggested tha t clause-interna l proposin g i s derive d eithe r b y PF-scramblin g o r by Focu s Movemen t tha t trigger s th e thre e effects , wherea s long-distanc e proposing is derived by Focus Movement, but not by PF-scrambling, and that foci move t o the righ t side o f the topi c o f the clause and case-drop respects (9) .

2.2. Focus Movement as A-bar Movement Information foc i i n Korea n may b e i n situ , as show n in (10) . A s in English , th e interpretations o f (lOa-b ) ar e (12a-b) , whic h suggests that Korea n employs L F Focus Movement (cf. Chomsky (1981)) . A s discusse d in Sectio n 2.1. , foci ca n be preposed , as i n (11) , an d (11 ) als o have the sam e interpretations as thos e of (10) i n (12) .

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 27

5

(10) a. Swuni-k a K U SI-LU L ss-ess-ta . Swuni-sub th e poem-ob j write-past- M 'Swuni wrot e THE POEM.' b. Yenghi-k a [Swuni-ka K U SI-LUL ss-ess-ta-ko ] Yenghi-sub Swuni-sub the poem-ob j write-past-M- C sayngkakha-n-ta. think-pres-M 'Yenghi thinks that Swun i wrote THE POEM.' (11) a . K U SI-LUL Sv/uni-k a ss-ess-ta . the poem-ob j Swuni-su b write-past- M b. K U SI-LUL Yenghi-k a [ Swuni-ka ss-ess-ta-ko ] the poem-ob j Yeaghi-su b Swuni-su b write-past-M- C sayngkakha-n-ta. think-pres-M (12) a . fo r x = the poem , Swun i wrote x b. fo r x = the poem , Yengh i thinks that Swun i wrote x The interpretation s in (12 ) sugges t that a movement process involve d i n (11 ) i s A-bar movement , lik e L F Focus Movement . Thu s I suggest foc i mov e to a certain A-ba r focu s positio n eithe r i n L F (10 ) o r a t S-structur e (11 ) fo r a certai n reason (whic h I will discus s later). 10 In fact , stron g cross-ove r (SCO ) an d wea k cross-ove r (WCO ) effect s appea r whether foc i syntacticall y mov e o r not . A s show n in (13) , SC O effect s appea r whether a focus moves (13b ) o r not (13a) . (13) a . *ku-{ka/mm} i [Swuni-k a CHELSWU-LUL ; cohaha-n~ta-ko ] he-sub/Top Swuni-su b Chelswu-ob j like-pres-MC sayngkakha-n-ta. think-pres-M *'He; thinks Swuni like s CHELSWU;. ' b. *CHELSWU-LUL j ku-{ka/NUN} ; [Swuni-k a i{ cohaha-n-ta-ko ] Chelswu-obj he-sub/CO N Swuni-su b like-pres-M- C sayngkakha-n-ta. think-pres-M In (14 ) belo w whic h i s a 'funn y binding " environmen t wher e th e objec t bind s the subject at D-structure but the subject binds the object at S-structure (cf . Choe (1988) an d references therein) , when Chelswu-lul i s not focuse d (14a) , the sen tence is grammatical , whether th e element coindexe d wit h it is a pronominal or an anaphor . O n th e othe r hand , whe n Chelswu-lul i s focused , i t show s WC O effects whethe r it moves (14c) or not (14b). I n (14c) whe n a focus moves clauseinternally, WCO effect s ar e not clear. However , when the object crosses a clause boundary, i t i s necessaril y focused and WCO effect s ar e easil y observed.

276

Discourse Configurational Languages

(14) a . [{?ku/caki}-ka ; k u il-u l haynay-ess-ta-nu n sasil-i ] he/self-sub th e thing-ob j finish-past-M- C fact-su b Chelswu-lul{ kippu-key-ha-yss-ta . Chelswu-obj happy-[+caus]-do-past- M The fac t tha t {?he/self} [ finishe d i t made Chelswu{ happy. ' b. [{*u/??(?)caki}-ka i k u il-u l haynay-ess-ta-nu n sasil-i ] he/self-sub th e thing-ob j finish-past-M- C fact-su b CHELSWU-LUL{ kippu-key-ha-yss-ta . Chelswu-obj happy-[+caus]-do-pastM 'The fac t tha t {*he/??(?)self} i finished it made CHELSWU^ happy. ' c. CHELSWU-LULi (Sv/um-WJN) [{*ku/??(?)caki}-ka i ku il-u l Chelswu-obj Swuni-CO N he/self-su b th e thing-ob j haynay-ess-ta-nun sasil-i ] kippu-key-ha-yss-ta(-k o finish-past-M-C fact-su b happy-[+caus]-do-past-M- C sayngkakha-n-ta). think-pres-M '(Swuni think s that) the fac t tha t {*he/??(?)self} i finishe d i t mad e CHELSWU{ happy. '

Note also that in (14b-c), with caki WCO effects ar e weak, whereas with ku they are strong. 11 I t is , however, worth noting tha t in Korea n pronominal s resis t be ing coreferentia l wit h variable s (cf . Hon g (1985) ; Cho e (1988)) . Thus , th e ungrammaticality o f (13 ) an d stron g WC O effect s o f (14b-c ) wit h ku (he) fur ther confir m that information foci undergo A-bar movemen t (eithe r a t S- S o r in LF) leavin g variable s an d therefor e tha t they ar e operator s i n LF , which canno t be coreferentia l wit h pronominals .

2.3. Successive-cylic Focus Movement At thi s point , on e ma y as k ho w foc i syntacticall y move i n Korean . T o answe r the question , conside r th e following : (15) YENGHI-EYKE Y Chelswu-NU N [K U SI-LU L Swuni-k a Yenghi-to Chelswu-CO N th e poem-ob j Swuni-su b ss-ess-ta-ko] malha-yss-ta . write-past-M-C say-past- M 'Chelswu sai d T O YENGHI tha t Swun i wrote TH E POEM. ' (i) fo r x = Yenghi, Chelsw u sai d t o x that fo r y = the poem, Swun i wrote y As shown in (15) both the embedded claus e and the matrix clause can allow Focus Movement at the same tim e with a certain meaning shown i n (15i). 12 Thi s sug gests that both clauses hav e positions for Focus Movement, and that Focus Movement ma y b e successive-cyclic . I n fact , Subjacenc y effect s (a s discusse d i n Chomsky (1986b) ) ar e observed : First , Focu s Movemen t seem s t o obe y th e Complex-NP Constraint (CNPC): 13

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 27

7

(16) a . K U SI-LUL Yenghi-NU N [ NP sasil Chelswu-k a the poem-ob j Yenghi-CO N i n fac t Chelswu-su b ss-ess-ta-nu {*ku/??0 } somwun-ul ] tul-ess-ta . write-past-M-C the/ a rumor-ob j hear-past- M 'Yenghi hear d o f {the/a } rumor that Chelswu i n fac t wrote TH E POEM.' b. YENGHI-EYKE Y Swuni-NU N [NP Chelswu-ka sacwu- n Yenghi-to Swuni-CO N Chelswu-su b buy- C {*ku/??0} chayk-ul ] ilk- e po-ass-ta . the/a book-ob j read- T attempt-past- M 'Swuni rea d {the/a } book tha t Chelswu bough t FO R YENGHI.' CNPC effects ar e weak but the more 'specific ' th e head o f a complex N P is, th e more ungrammatica l th e sentenc e is (cf . the Specificit y Conditio n i n Fieng o and Higginbotha m (1981)). Second , Focu s Movemen t als o obey s th e Adjunct Condition:14 (17) ??K U CHAYK-U L Yenghi-NU N [Chelswu-ka tolyecwu-c i the book-ob j Yenghi-CO N Chelswu-su b return-t o an-h-ass-ki-ttaymuney] wha-k a na-ss-ta . not-do-past-N-because anger-su b occur-past- M 'Yenghi go t angry because Chelswu di d not return THE BOOK.' Thus, I conclude Focu s Movement is successive-cyclic, obeying Subjacency. One more aspect o f Focus Movement in Korean which is worth mentioning is that Focus Movement exhibits ECP effects, whic h also suggests that Focus Move ment should not be a PF-process: Extractio n of an adjunct ou t of islands induces stronger ungrammaticalit y than extractio n o f a n argumen t ou t o f island s (cf. Chomsky (1986b» . Compar e (18-19 ) wit h (16-17) . (18) a . *ILE N IYWU-L O Yenghi-NU N [NPChelswu-ka o-n-ta-nu n this reason-fo r Yenghi-CO N Chelswu-su b come-pres-M- C {ku/0} somun-ul ] tul-ess-ta . the/a rumor-ob j hear-past- M 'Yenghi heard {the/a } rumor tha t Chelsw u come s FOR THI S REASON.' b. *ILE N IYWU-L O Yenghi-NU N [NPChelswu-ka Swuni-eyke y this reason-i'o r Yenghi-CO N Chelswu-su b Swuni-t o sacwu-n {ku/0 } chayk-u l ilk- e po-ass-ta . buy-C, the/ a book-ob j read-t o attempt-past- M 'Yenghi read {the/a } book tha t Chelswu bought fo r Yenghi FOR THIS REASON ' (19) * ILEN IWYU-L O Yenghi-NU N [Chelswu-ka this reason-fo r Yenghi-CO N Chelswu-su b ttena-ss-ki-ttaymunsy] wha-k a na-ss-ta . leave-past-N-because anger-su b occur-past- M 'Yenghi go t angr y becaus e Chelsw u lef t FO R THIS REASON. '

278

Discourse Configurational Languages

It is very difficul t t o check whethe r LF Focus Movemen t obey s onl y the ECP, an L F condition o n traces, withou t obeying Subjacenc y whic h i s assume d t o be a conditio n on movement. Th e intuitions on the relevant dat a ar e very delicate , but it seems tha t there ar e tendencies: Argumen t foci whic h are in situ may have wide scop e (16'-17'i ) whe n they appea r withi n a n island, wherea s adjunc t foc i which are in situ hardly have wide scope whe n they appear withi n an island (18'19'ii) (cf. (18'-19'i)). (16') a . Yenghi-NU N [ Np KU SI-LUL sasi l Chelswu-k a Yenghi-CON th e poem-ob j i n fac t Chelswu-su b ss-ess-ta-nun somun-ul ] tul-ess-ta . write-past-M-C rumor-ob j hear-past- M (i) 'fo r x = the poem , Yengh i heard o f a rumor tha t Chelswu , i n fact, wrot e x ' b. Swuni-NU N [NP Chelswu-ka YENGHI-EYKE Y sacwu- n Swuni-CON Chelswu-su b Yenghi-t o buyC chayk-ul] ilk- e po-ass-ta . book-obj read-t o attempt-past- M (i) 'fo r x - Yenghi , Swuni read a book tha t Chelsw u bough t for x ' (17') Yenghi-NU N [Chelswu-ka K U CHAYK-U L tolyecwu-c i Yenghi-CON Chelswu-su b th e book-ob j return-t o an-h-ass-ki-ttaymuney] wha-k a na-ss-t a not-do-past-N-because anger-su b occur-past- M (i) 'fo r x = the book, Yengh i got angr y because Chelsw u di d no t return x' (18') a . Yenghi-NU N [ NP Chelswu-ka ILE N IYWU-LO o-n-ta-nu n Yenghi-CON Chelswu-su b thi s reason-fo r come-pres-M- C {ku/0} somun-ul ] tul-ess-ta . the/a rumor-ob j hear-past- M (i) *'fo r x = this reason , Yengh i heard {the/a } rumor tha t Chelswu come s fo r x' (ii) 'Yengh i hear d {the/a } rumor tha t fo r x = this reason , Chelswu come s fo r x' b. Yenghi-NU N [ NP Chelswu-ka ILE N IYWU-L O Swuni-eyke y Yenghi-CON Chelswu-su b thi s reason-fo r Swuni-t o sacwu-n {ku/0 } chayk-u l ilk- e po-ass-ta . buy-C the/ a book-ob j read-t o attempt-past- M (i) *'fo r x = this reason , Yengh i rea d {the/a } book tha t Chelsw u bought fo r Swun i for x' (ii) 'Yengh i rea d {the/a } book tha t fo r x = this reason, Chelsw u bought fo r Swun i for x'

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 27

9

(19') Yenghi-NU N [Chelswu-ka ILE N IYWU-L O Yenghi-CON Chelswu-su b thi s reason-fo r ttena-ss-ki-ttaymun<;y] wha-k a na-ss-ta . leave-past-N-becauue anger-su b occur-past- M (i) *'fo r x = this reason , Yenghi go t angry because Chelsw u lef t forx' (ii)'Yenghi got angr y because fo r x = this reason , Chelsw u lef t forx' I conclude , give n these facts, tha t information foc i i n Korea n ma y undergo suc cessive-cyclic A-ba r movemen t i n syntax , obeyin g Subjacenc y an d th e ECP , o r move i n LF, obeying th e ECP, 2.4. The Landing Site of Focus Movement and Licensing The two important question s on e can raise a t this point ar e where a focus move s and ho w its scope interpretatio n i s obtained. To answer the questions, I propose , as Brody (1990 ) ha s proposed fo r Hungarian, and a s Choe (1988 ) ha s propose d for othe r languages , that Korea n employs a Functional categor y F wit h the fea ture [+f(ocus) ] tha t selects the: category a , whic h does no t include topi c positio n but include s al l th e grammatica l functions o f th e clause , an d project s it s ow n projection, a s in (20a) .

(where [+if ] mean s [+informatio n focus] ) As foc i underg o preposing eithe r i n Syntax (Focu s Movement ) o r i n PF (PF scrambling), I furthe r propos e tha t lik e wh-phrases , informatio n foc i ar e base generated a t D-structur e wit h the featur e [+if] , whic h i s rea d a s 'stressed ' o r 'focused,' an d that an element with [+if ] move s t o Spec-FP eithe r a t S-structur e or in L F to be properl y license d an d interpreted . The ide a the n i s tha t whe: i XP[+if ] ha s a Spec-hea d relatio n wit h F[+f] , th e feature [+f ] i s assigne d (or discharged) to XP[+if] (probabl y unde r a certain ad jacency condition ; cf. Horvath' s (1986 ) focu s assignment ) so that XP[+if ] i s li censed a s a focus. I n short , 1 propose the following Licensin g Condition on foc i

280

Discourse Configurational Languages

(cf. Brod y (1990 , 100-01 ) fo r a similar suggestion) , i n additio n t o the licensin g condition o n operator s discusse d i n Chomsk y (1986a) : An operato r i s license d by bindin g a variable, whic h is strongl y bound by i t (cf . Sectio n 2.2.) . (21) Th e Licensin g Conditio n o n Foci (preliminary) : a. [+if ] phrase s shoul d be i n th e Spe c o f F[+f] i n orde r t o b e assigned [+f] . b. [+if ] phrase s ar e license d an d interpreted a s foc i i n L F if f they are assigne d [+f] . (21) say s th e following : I n LF, XP[+if] i s interpreted a s a focu s with certai n scope whe n it is licensed b y being i n a focus positio n whic h is assigned [+f] . I n Korean, a s foc i ma y b e i n sit u o r syntacticall y proposed , on e ma y suggest , as suming a sor t o f focus-criterio n (cf . Brody (1990)) , tha t [+f ] i s assigne d a t S structure o r i n LF . One ma y als o sugges t tha t [+f ] i s assigne d i n L F whil e foc i are allowe d t o mov e eithe r a t S-structur e o r in L F obeyin g relevan t conditions . There i s n o clea r evidenc e i n favo r o f on e fro m th e other , bu t fo r expositor y purposes, I wil l assum e that [+f ] i s assigne d a t S- S o r in LF, assuming ther e i s no A-bar-to-A-bar LF movement in Korean (cf. Lasnik an d Saito (1984)) . Fro m this view, an element does not become a focus b y being assigned th e feature [+f ] or Focus , unlik e Horvat h (1986 ; thi s volume ) but foc i ar e base-generate d an d should be license d b y being assigne d [+f] . I n addition, th e present analysi s im plies that operators ma y have independent licensing conditions that differ depend ing o n thei r kinds . I n fact , I wil l als o suggest , emphasizin g th e parallelis m between Focus Movemen t an d Wh-movement, that a wh-phrase is interpreted a s a wh-operato r wit h certain scop e when it is licensed b y being i n a wh-position . Although Focu s Movemen t i s successive-cycli c A-bar movement , lik e Wh movement, there i s one differenc e betwee n Wh-movement (i n English ) an d Fo cus Movement: I t is possible t o have multiple focu s in the clause : (22) a . na-nu n ECE Y K U CHAYK-U L sa-ss-ta . I-Top yesterda y th e book-ob j buy-pastM 'I bought THE BOOK YESTERDAY.' b. na-nu n K U CHAYK-UL YENGHI-EYKE Y cwu-ess-ta . I-Top th e book-ob j Yenghi-t o give-pastM 'I gave THE BOOK TO YENGHI. ' In addition, multiple Focus Movement acros s a clause boundary is also possible , probably obeyin g som e condition s t o avoi d ambiguity: 15 (23) a . {YENGHI-EYKEY ; K U CHAYK-UL/KU CHAYK-UL j Yenghi-to th e book-ob j th e book-ob j YENGHI-EYKEY;} Chelswu-NU N [Swuntol- i t { t j Yenghi-to Chelswu-CO N Swuntol-su b pillyecwu-ess-ta-ko] sayngkakha-n-ta. lend-past-M-C think-presM 'Chelswu think s that Swuntol lent THE BOO K TO YENGHI.'

Focus and Topi: Movement in Korean and Licensing 28

1

b. {SWUNTOL-I i K U CHAYK-UL/K U CHAYK-UL j Swuntol-sub th e book-ob j th e book-ob j SWUNTOL-IJ Chelswu-NU N [t j Yenghi-eyke y t j Swuntol-sub Chelswu-CO N Yenghi-t o pillyecwu-ess-ta-ko] sayngkakha-n-ta . lend-past-M-C think-presM 'Chelswu think s that SWUNTOL lent THE BOOK t o Yenghi.' Under the analysis in (20-21), one can ask why multiple Focus Movemen t is possible, a s in (23) . Ther e ma y b e thre e possibl e answers : Th e firs t on e i s t o suggest tha t ther e ca n b e actuall y mor e tha n on e focu s positio n i n th e clause : Either a clause employ s mor e tha n on e F node o r FP may allow mor e tha n one Spec. However , this woul d be simpl y t o describe th e fac t through stipulations. The secon d i s t o sugges t that Focu s Movemen t may b e a n adjunctio n proces s either a t S-structur e (23) o r i n LF (22) , a s i n (24) .

Under (24) , on e shoul d assume that unlike wh-phrases, foc i i n Spec-F P d o no t trigger an indexing process between Spec-FP and F, which is analogous to 'Comp indexing a t S-structure ' i n Lasni k an d Saito' s (1984 ) sens e (cf . als o Aoun , Hornstein and Sportiche (1982)) , and which I will call Spec-head indexing fro m now on . Thi s approac h would also be stipulatory as it does not explain why foci do not trigger Spec-hea d indexin g while wh-phrases do . Th e third is to suggest that Focu s Movemen t may b e adjunction , as in (24 ) bu t [+f ] i s assigne d unde r agreement: [+f ] i s assigne d to Spec throug h Spec-head agreement . Thus , a focus moves to Spec-FP t o be assigned [+f] under a Spec-head agreemen t relation . As agreement features may spread , a feature assignmen t process woul d not trigger Spec-head indexing, and therefor e multipl e preposing, that is, adjunction, is allowed, sinc e adjoine d elements coul d b e properl y license d unde r agreement . In addition, because the scope of foci in (23) are the same, on e may als o assume Absorption i n Higginbotham an d May' s (1981 , 49 ) sense . There seem s t o b e a piece ; o f evidenc e i n favo r o f th e thir d approach . Consider th e following:

282

Discourse Configurational Languages

(25) Chelswu-nu n CA-N-TA/CHAKHA-TA . Chelswu-Top sleep-pres-M/good- M 'Chelswu SLEEPS/I S GOOD. ' The example in (25) suggests that V can be base-generated a s [+if] and that V[+if] is assigne d [+f ] t o b e license d a s a focus : A s a verbal focu s seem s difficul t t o go wit h XP foci i n a clause i n Korean, on e may sugges t tha t th e featur e o f [+f ] is assigne d t o V, which is combined wit h F through a sort o f head-head relatio n (cf. Cho e (1988 ; 1991)). 16 I f thi s i s correct , the n th e verba l focu s i n (25 ) i s li censed no t through a Spec-head relation , bu t through a head-head relation . Be cause agreement ma y also be known to be obtained throug h a sort o f head-hea d relation, I sugges t tha t informatio n foc i ar e assigne d [+f ] unde r agreemen t (ei ther Spec-hea d agreemen t o r head-head agreement) . Unde r thi s approach , foc i should mov e to Spec-F P or have a head-head relation wit h F[+f] t o be assigne d [+f] s o tha t the y ma y b e properl y interprete d in LF . Thu s I propos e tha t (21 ) should b e replace d wit h th e following: (26) Th e Licensin g Conditio n o n Foci (final) : a. (I n Korean ) [+if ] phrase s ar e assigne d [+f ] throug h a (Spec-hea d or head-head ) agreemen t relation . b. [+if ] phrase s ar e license d an d interprete d a s foci i n LF if f the y are assigne d [+f] . Finally, as F[+f ] shoul d license either XP[+if] i n FP-Spec or V[+if], I also sug gest th e following: 17 (27) Th e featur e [+f j o f F shoul d be assigned/discharged ; F is license d when it s featur e is assigned/discharged. The present analysi s implies that as languages exhibit eithe r L F Focus Move ment (English) or syntactic Focus Movemen t (Hungarian), the category F is universal, althoug h th e positio n o f F may diffe r fro m languag e t o languag e (cf . n . 1). Thus , th e presen t analysi s suggest s tha t Englis h Focu s Movemen t ca n b e analyzed i n the following way: I n English, th e category F is also employe d an d a focu s move s t o Spec-F P i n LF . I n fact , thi s positio n ma y provid e plausibl e ways t o accoun t fo r th e tw o aspect s o f focu s sentence s i n English . First , th e contrast between Focus Movement an d Wh-movement wit h respect t o RES (NIC) (cf. Chomsk y (1981)) or with respect t o the ECP coul d be accounte d for: Con sider (28 ) wher e only Wh-movement exhibit s ECP effects (cf. (28a-b) vs. (28c d)). Althoug h the derivations of Wh-movement an d Focus Movemen t ar e th e same i n LF, as shown in (29). Th e focus sentences i n (28a-b) that ar e suppose d to violat e the ECP, like (28c-d) , are grammatical. (28) a . I wonde r how JOHN solve d th e problem , (fro m Chomsk y (1981 , 238)) b. I don' t thin k that JOHN wil l win.

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 28

3

c. *Wh o do you wonder how solve d th e problem ? d. *Wh o do you think that wil l win? (29) a . fo b. fo c. fo d. fo

r x = John, I wonde r how x solve d th e proble m r x = John, I don't thin k that x will win r which person x, you wonde r how x solve d th e proble m r whic h person x , yo u thin k that x will win.

However, if in English, FP is selected by C, like Korea n FP, whose position will be discussed below, and if LF Focus Movement can apply successive- cyclically , independent o f Wh-movement, a s show n i n (30) , th e sentence s i n (28a-b ) tha t would otherwis e violat e th e EC P should be considered a s grammatica l wit h re spect t o the ECP (cf . Chomsky (1986b)) . (30) a . [ FP JOHN; [ IP I wonder [cp how [ FP t;2 [lf t ;l solve d the problem]]]]] b. [p p JOHN; [ IP I don't thin k [cp that [ FP t;2 [ IP t;l wil l win]]]] ] In (30 ) th e focuse d NP move s to the embedde d focu s positio n whic h probabl y lies i n a higher position than subject position and then to the matri x focus position. Th e trace t;l, which is not 0-governed, is antecedent-governed b y tj2 i n the embedded Spec-FP and therefore i t does not violate the ECP. I n the case of Whmovement, th e trace withi n IP woul d not be properl y governe d because o f that or now in the embedded CP, which induce thai-trace effects (cf. Chomsky (1986b ) and Rizz i (1990a ) fo r th e discussion o n that-lrace effects) . From this view, where English employs two functional categories C and F, one has to say that both foci and wh-phrases are independently licensed. Wh-phrase s may no t mov e t o a focus position an d focuse d phrases may no t mov e t o a wh position. Thi s requirement may be interpreted in terms of Licensing Condition s on foci/wh-phrase s and th e notio n o f antecedent-governmen t unde r a mor e re fined versio n o f Rizzi' s (1990a ) Relativize d Minimality (not e tha t A vs. A-bar distinction woul d no t suffic e here) : Focus/wh-trace s ar e (antecedent-)governe d by their antecedents in focus/wh-positions where focus/wh-phrases may be properly licensed , and wh-traces do not block (antecedent-)governmen t relations between foc i an d their traces an d vice versa. 18 Second, th e present analysi s could als o give an account for certai n restricte d syntactic Focus Movemen t i n English. Conside r (3la) , whic h is du e to Katalin E. Kiss (p.c.) . (31) a . NEVE R have I see n such a good film. In English, certain negative phrases or only phrases bearin g stres s ma y syntacti cally mov e triggerin g Subject-Aux Inversion , a s i n (3la) . A s NEVER i s no t a wh-phrase, it would not need move to Spec-CP. Unde r the present approach, the derivation o f (3la ) coul d be analyzed , as in (31b). 19

284

Discourse Configurational Languages

(31) b . [ CP Spec [ c, C [p p NEVER, [ F, [ F have(] [ Ip 1t; t. seen suc h a good film]]]]] . In addition , th e followin g data fro m Culicove r (1991 ) ma y be nicel y explaine d under the present approach: embedde d preposing and Subject-Aux Inversion ar e analyzed as (focus) movement of XP to Spec-FP and head-movement t o F which is base-generated belo w that (C): 20 (32) a . Le e sai d tha t at no time woul d sh e agree to visi t Robin . b. I t i s apparen t tha t only on Fridays wil l th e traffi c b e to o heavy to ge t there i n time . (cf . (8) i n Culicover (1991) ) In short , I suggest , based o n the abov e tw o facts, that Englis h ma y als o emplo y F, an d tha t i n Englis h certai n focu s phrase s ma y mov e a t S-S , triggerin g Sub ject-Aux Inversio n whil e most foc i underg o LF Focus Movement . At this point, given th e grammaticalit y of (28a), one may as k if Focus Move ment in Korean does no t obey the Wh-island Conditio n which blocks movemen t out of a wh-clause (cf. Chomsky (1964)). A s in English, the answer seems t o be no. Althoug h Subjacency effect s ar e observed, wh-islan d effects ar e not observe d in th e cas e o f Focu s Movement : ( I argu e below tha t Korea n als o employ s syn tactic Wh-movement s o that embedded wh-phrase s or more precisely embedde d question marker s ma y induc e wh-island effect s i n th e cas e o f Wh-movement. ) (33) a . [

CHELSWU-KA; [ a Yenghi-NU N [FP I; [ccence y t ; ku Chelswu-sub Yenghi-CO N whe n th e muncey-lul phul-ess-nunci] ] kwungkumha-ta] ] problem-obj solve-past- Q wonderM 'Yenghi wonder s when CHELSWU solve d th e problem.' b. [ FP CHELSWU-LUL; [ a Yenghi-NUN [FP t; [anwukwu-k a t ; Chelswu-obj Yenghi-CO N who-su b po-ass-nunci]] kwungkumha-ta]] . see-past-Q wonderM 'Yenghi wonder s who sa w CHELSWU.' FP

In addition, severe ECP effects ar e not observed in wh-island environments: (34a b) ar e certainl y bette r tha n Subjacency violations i n (16-17). (34) a . (?)[

FPI

PANGPEP-ULO ; [ a Yenghi-NUN [ FP t; [aence y ku-ka this way-i n Yenghi-CO N whe n he-su b tj k u muncey-lu l phul-ess-nunci] ] kwungkumha-ta]] . the problem-ob j solve-past- Q wonderM 'Yenghi wonder s when Chelswu solved th e proble m I N THI S WAY.'

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 28

b. (?)[

5

KULE N lYWU-LO j [a Yenghi-NU N [ FP t; [anwukwu-ka that mason-fo r Yenghi-CO N who-su b t; ku-lu l manna-ss-nunc i ] ] kwungkumha-ta]] . he-obj meet-past- Q wonderM 'Yenghi wonder s wh o met hi m FO R THAT REASON.' c. th e S-structur e representatio n o f (34b) : [PP FOR THAT REASON; . . . [ FP t;2 [a .. . t ;l ]]] d. Why ; do you think [ cp t;2 [ IP Mary lef t tjl]] . FP

Under th e presen t analysis , th e derivatio n o f (34b) a s schematized i n (34c) , for example , ca n be analyze d lik e th e derivatio n i n (34d) . I n fact , th e presen t analysis correctl y predict s tha t derivatio n (34c ) shoul d b e grammatica l jus t a s derivation (34d ) shoul d b e grammatical: I n (34c), t;2 should gover n t; l across a and th e preposed adjunc t should gover n t ;2 across F P (and probably CP) , a s the sentences i n (33 ) sho w n o Subjacenc y effect s (not e tha t th e notio n o f govern ment is defined in terms of the. notion of Subjacency (cf . Kayne (1983); Chomsk y (1986b)).21 Thus , in both (34c ) and (34d), th e original trac e i s properly governe d through th e antecedent-governmen t of t ;2 i n a n embedde d F P o r i n a n embed ded CP.

2.5. Contrastive Focus Movement There i s on e mor e kin d o f focu s i n Korean : contrastiv e focu s which i s marke d with the contrastive focus marker -NUN (cf. Section 2.1 . fo r its semantics). Thus , one ca n as k whethe r contrastiv e foc i behav e lik e informatio n foci , bein g foci . In fact , contrastiv e foc i ar e ver y simila r t o informatio n foc i i n man y respects . First, lik e informatio n foci, XP-NUN's ar e stresse d o r focuse d althoug h onl y NUN bu t not XP is focused. Second , ther e i s a restriction o n the orde r betwee n topics an d contrastive foci : (35) a . Chelswu-{nun/NUN } (ejey ) ku chayk-{UN/*un} (ejey ) Chelswu-Top/CON yesterda y th e book-CON/To p yesterda sa-ss-ta. buy-past-M 'Chelswu bough t the book (yesterday). ' b. ku chayk-{un/UN) (ejey ) Chelswu-{NUN/*nun } (ejey ) the book-Top/CON yesterda y Chelswu-CON/To p yesterda sa-ss-ta. buy-past-M 'Chelswu bough t the book (yesterday). '

y

y

As i n (35a-b) above , whe n mor e tha n on e NP-nun appea r i n a clause, an y NP nun phrase ca n be understood a s a contrastive focus whil e onl y the sentence-ini tial NP-nwn is interpreted as a topic (cf. Kuno (1973) fo r the same fact i n Japanese; cf. als o Lee (1989)) . I n short , like information foci, contrastiv e foci cannot pre cede topic s and mor e tha n on e contrastiv e focus ca n appea r i n a clause .

286

Discourse Configurational Languages

Third, lik e informatio n focus , virtuall y an y majo r elemen t i n th e claus e is a candidate fo r a contrastiv e focus . (36a-f ) sho w tha t predicates , adverbials , o r clausal complement s o r adjunct s ca n appear wit h -NUN. (36) a . Chelswu-nu n talli-ki-NUN ca l ha-n-ta . (verba l Chelswu-Top run-N-CO N wel l do-pres-M predicate ) 'Chelswu runs well. ' b. pitan- i kop-ki-NUN {ha/kop}-ta . (adjectiva l silk-sub fine-N-CO N do/fine- M predicate ) 'Silk i s (really ) fine.' c. ku-k a ppalukey-NUN ttwi-n-ta . (adverb ) he-sub fast-CO N run-presM 'He runs fast.' d. ku-k a (ku-ka) ka-n-ta-ko-NUN (mal)ha-yss-ta . (clausa l he-sub he-su b go-pres-M-C-CO N say-past- M complement ) 'He sai d he would go.' e. na-nu n Hen iywu-lo-NUN mos-ha-kess-ta . (adjunct ) I-Top thi s reason-for-CO N not-do-will- M 'I won't d o it for this reason.' f. nay-k a etwup-ki-cen-NUN o-kess-ta . (clausa l I-sub dark-N-before-CO N come-will- M adjunct ) 'I will be bac k before it's dark.' Fourth, long-distanc e proposin g is possible. Compar e th e topic readin g wit h the focus readin g i n (37). (37) k u si-{nun/NUN } Swuni-k a [Chelswu-k a ss-ess-ta-ko ] the poem-Top/CO N Swuni-su b Chelswu-su b write-past-M- C mit-nun-ta. believe-pres-M 'Swuni believe s tha t Chelsw u wrot e the poem.' In fact , al l th e underline d element s wit h th e contrastiv e marke r i n (36 ) can b e preposed withi n a clause o r acros s a clause boundary. Finally, contrastiv e focus behave s lik e information focus in that movement of contrastive focus show s SCO and WCO effects (cf . (13-14)), Subjacency and ECP effects (cf . (16-19)). In addition, no wh-island effect s ar e observed (cf . (33-34)). Here, I d o no t provid e th e relevan t data . I simpl y shoul d not e tha t whe n th e preposed element s i n (13-14), (16-19) , an d (33-34) hav e th e for m o f XP-NUN (and preferabl y whe n th e matri x subjects i n (16-19) an d (33-34) bea r th e subjective cas e marker) , th e outpu t sentence s have almos t th e sam e grammaticalit y as thos e in (13-14), (16-19) an d (33-34) unless other factor s intervene . I conclude, based on the above similarities, tha t contrastive foc i undergo successive-cyclic A-bar Focus Movemen t either at S-structur e or in LF , lik e infor mation foci. However , where do they move? A n occurrence restrictio n betwee n the topi c and foci show n in (35) leads to a n assumptio n that their landing site i s

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 28

7

the sam e a s that o f informatio n foci , an d i t seem s tha t thi s is , i n fact , th e case . Consider (38) , wher e the order between preposed information and contrastive foc i does not affec t grammaticalit y an d meaning. (38) a . {K U CHAYK- I Chelswu-NUN/Chelswu-NU N K U CHAYK-I ) the book-su b Chelswu-CON/Chelswu-CO N th e book-su b [ caymiiss-ta-ko] sayngkakha-n-ta . interesting-M-C think-pres- M 'Chelswu think s cha t THE BOO K is interesting. ' b. {YENGHI-EYKEY j k u chayk-UNj/k u chayk-UN j Yenghi-to th e book-CONth e book-CO N YENGHI-EYKEYj} Chelswu-k a [Swuntol- i t t \..} Yenghi-to Chelswu-su b Swuntol-su b pillyecwu-ess-ta-ko] sayngkakha-n-ta. lend-past-M-C think-presM 'Chelswu think s that Swuntol lent the book TO YENGHI.' The dat a i n (38 ) sugges t tha t the landin g site o f Informatio n Focus Movemen t and that of Contrastive Focus Movemen t are the same , and contrastive foci may also undergo adjunction as th e claus e allow s more tha n one focus , as show n in (35 and 38) . Because the syntax of contrastive foci and that of information foci are the same, I propose that just a s information foc i are base-generated a s stressed, contrastiv e foci ar e base-generated i n the for m of XP-NUN bearin g th e featur e [+cf] , a s i n (39a),22 which suggests tha t bot h [+if ] foc i an d [+cf ] foc i ar e tw o semanticall y different type s o f foci whose syntacti c properties ar e the same . I n short , I sug gest that contrastive foci are subject to a Licensing Condition, as shown in (40) . As multiple contrastive focus is possible, a contrastive focus should be assigned [+f] unde r agreement (40a ) an d therefore it may undergo adjunction to FP-Spe c in synta x or in LF to b e license d an d interpreted in LF (40b) :

(where [+cf ] means ; [+contrastiv e focus])

288

Discourse Configurational Languages

(40) th e Licensing Conditio n o n Contrastive Foci : a. [+cf ] phrase s ar e assigned [+f ] unde r a (Spec-head ) agreemen t relation wit h F[+fj; [+f ] i s assigne d unde r agreement . b. [+cf ] phrase s ar e licensed an d interpreted a s (contrastive ) foc i in LF if f the y ar e assigne d [+f] . Like a n information focus, V can also be marked with -NUN (cf. (25) an d (36a b)), bu t unlik e an information focus, V-NUN ca n be proposed (eithe r clause-in ternally o r across a clause boundary), which might suggest tha t (XP)* V-NUN is assigned [+f ] onl y under Spec-head agreement : (41) tali-ki-NU N (ku - {NUN/*nun}) Chelswu-k a calha-n-ta(-k o run-N-CON he-CON/To p Chelswu-su b well-do-pres-M- C sayngkakha-n-ta). think-pres-M '(He thinks that) Chelswu runs a race well' To conclude, Korean employs at least two semantically different types of foci which hav e th e same syntax: informatio n focu s an d contrastive focus. Eithe r at S-S or in LF, they undergo a certain process (a n adjunction proces s or a head-to head process), whic h allows them to be assigned F[+f ] under agreement eithe r at S-S o r in L F s o that they can b e licensed / interprete d a s foci i n LF. 3. Wh-movement in Korean In this Section , I discuss whethe r wh-phrases may behave lik e th e two semanti cally differen t type s o f foc i discusse d i n Sectio n 1 , a s the y ar e understoo d a s having emphati c prominenc e (cf . Chan g (1973) ; J . Cho e (1985)) . Befor e I ex amine wh-sentences in Korean, three issues are in order: th e nature of wh-phrases, the natur e of question markers , and the position o f question markers. Thes e is sues ar e discusse d i n Sectio n 3.1 . I n Sectio n 3.2. , I examin e Korea n wh-sen tences an d argu e fo r th e existenc e o f syntacti c Wh-movemen t i n Korea n an d propose th e Licensin g Condition on wh-phrases . 3.1. Wh-phrases and Question Markers in Korean 3.1.1. Nature of Wh-phrases As for the statu s of wh-phrases, i t has been pointe d ou t sinc e Chang (1973 ) that nwu(kwu) i n (42a ) i s ambiguous. (42) a . nwu(kwu)-k a pakke y w-ass-ni ? who/someone-sub outsid e come-past- Q 'Who is at the door?' o r 'I s ther e someon e a t the door?' b. nwu(kwu)-k a pakke y w-ass-ta . someone-sub outsid e come-past- M 'Someone is at the door.'

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 28

9

In (42a), with a sentence-final raising intonation and without stress o n nwu(kwu), nwu(kwu) ma y mean assertive someone o r somebody, an d therefore i t can appea r in a noninterrogativ e clause , a s show n i n (42b) . O n th e other hand , i n (42a) , with a sentence-final fallin g intonation an d with emphatic stress , nwu(kwu) onl y means who. Fo r all the Korea n counterparts o f English wh-phrase s excep t why, this apparen t lexical ambiguity , which is disambiguated b y stress , i s observed . As C.-S. Su h (1989) als o notices, in reality Korea n wh-phrases are , however , lexically different from thei r non-wh counterparts: Whe n -nka is added to a whphrase, th e outpu t is not understoo d a s a wh-phrase, a s see n i n (43) . (43) nwukwu-rcfc a pakke y w-ass-ni ? someone outsid e come-past- Q 'Is someon e a t the door?' / *'Who is at the door?' Thus, suffic e i t t o sa y tha t th e lexico n ha s tw o lexicall y differen t item s whic h are different with respect t o features that may differentiate wh-phrases from thei r non-wh counterparts . Th e ful l paradig m i s a s follows: 23 nwukwu ( = who) nwukwu(nka ) (= someone) mues ( = what) mue(nka ) (= something) eti(ey) ( = where) eti(nka(ey) ) ( = someplace) encey ( = when) encey(nka ) (= sometime) ettehkey ( = how) ettehke y ( = in {a certain/?some) way) wey ( = why) 0 However, as -nka is optionally deleted , fro m no w on, I use capital letters fo r whphrases to distinguish wh-phrase s (cf. NWUKWU (who)) from their non-w h counterparts (cf . nwukwu (someone)) . 3.7.2. Nature of Question Markers As Grimshaw (1979 ) suggest s for English, a question clause i n Korean, whethe r it is a wh-question clause o r a yes-no question clause , i s selecte d i n accordanc e with the semantic s of a matrix predicate. O n the other hand , matri x clauses ar e optionally interrogative. I t has been assume d that Korean employs man y differ ent question marker s such as -((n)u)nka, -(n)u)nci, -((n)u)nya, -((u)pni)kka, -nayo, and -ni, which basically behav e as scope markers . Conside r (44) , wher e the matrix verb know select s eithe r a n interrogative claus e o r a noninterrogative clause . (44) a . {nay/*NWU}-k: a [Swuni-k a NWUKWU-lu l cohaha-nunci ] I/who-sub Swuni-su b who-ob j likeQ a-n-ta. know-pres-M 'I kno w who Swuni likes.' ((i) *'Wh o d o I know Swuni likes?' (ii) *'Wh o know s who Swuni likes?')

290

Discourse Configurational Languages

b. ne-nu n [Swuni-k a NWKWU-lu l cohaha-n-ta-ko ] a-ni ? you-Top Swuni-su b who-ob j like-pres-MC know- Q 'Who do you know tha t Swun i likes?' ((i) *'D o yo u know wh o Swuni likes?') c. ne-nu n [Swuni-k a NWUKWU-lu l cohaha-nunci ] a-ni ? you-Top Swuni-su b who-ob j likeQ knowQ 'Do you know wh o Swuni likes?' ((i) *'Wh o d o you know whether Swuni likes?') What on e ca n observ e fro m (44 ) i s that the scop e of a wh-phrase i s determine d by th e positio n o f a questio n marker : Whe n th e questio n marke r Q appear s i n the embedded claus e (44a) , a wh-phrase can have only narrow scop e (cf. ai) and therefore it cannot appear in the matrix clause (aii). Whe n Q appears in the matrix clause (44b) , a wh-phrase cannot have narrow scope (bi). Whe n both the matrix and the embedded clauses have Q, a wh-phrase in the embedded clause can have narrow scope but not wide scope across Q (ci). I n short, th e data in (44) sugges t that Q behaves a s a scope marke r an d also induce s wh-island effects. 24 One mor e clea r piec e o f evidenc e in favo r o f th e positio n tha t Q i s a scop e marker can be found fro m Kyengsan g dialects, which are spoken in the southern part of Kyengsang province in Korea. As Kim (1982) notice s (cf . also C.M . Su h (1989)), som e Kyengsan g dialects emplo y differen t questio n marker s fo r wh questions (e.g. , -no) an d yes-no question s (e.g. , -no). Fo r example, conside r th e following sentence s i n Kimha y dialect, 25 whic h also exhibit s th e apparen t lexi cal ambiguit y whic h i s disambiguate d b y stress , a s i n Standar d Korean : Sen tence (45a ) wit h a wh-question marker cannot be a yes-no question (i) ; sentenc e (45b) wit h a yes-no questio n marke r cannot be a wh-question (i) . (45) a . Swuni-k a {NWU-lul/*nwu-lul} cohaha-no ? Swuni-sub who-obj / someone-ob j like-Q(wh) 'Who doe s Swun i like?' (i) *'Doe s Swun i like someone? ' b. ni(-ka ) (nwu(-lul ) /*NWU-lul } cohaha-na ? you-sub someone-obj / who-ob j like-Q(Yes-no) 'Do you like someone?' (i) *'Wh o do you like?' In short , onl y i n a clause containin g a wh-question marke r ca n a wh-phrase ap pear. Thus , a featur e syste m i s needed t o differentiate one from th e other an d I suggest that question markers can be differentiated b y the features [+/-Q, +/-wh]: A questio n marke r for a wh-question is [+Q,+wh] ; a question marke r fo r a yes no question, [+Q,-wh] ; and if a marker is not a question marker, i t bears the feature [-QJ . Unde r thi s featur e system, th e feature s [+/-Q ] ar e equivalen t t o th e features [+/-wh ] i n Chomsk y (1981 , 23 ) (cf . als o Bresna n (1970) ; Chomsk y (1973)) an d [+Q ] has tw o instantiations: [+Q,+wh ] and [+Q,-wh]. 26 Fro m no w on, I tentatively assume that Q is a functional categor y bearin g [+QJ .

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 29

1

Given th e abov e featur e sysitem, conside r furthe r the relatio n betwee n a wh phrase an d a question marke r in Kimhay dialect. I n (46) wher e Q appears i n the embedded clause , whe n th e claus e doe s no t contai n a wh-phrase, Q canno t b e [+wh] (46a) wherea s whe n th e claus e contain s a wh-phrase, Q should b e [+wh ] and the wh-phras e ha s narro w scop e (46b) . (46) a . nay-nu n [Swuni-k a Chelswu-lu l cohaha-{na/*nunkong} ] I-Top Swuni-su b Chelswu-ob j like-Q[-wh]/Q[+wh] kwungkumha-ta. wonder-M 'I wonde r whethe r Swuni likes Chelswu. ' b. nay-nu n [Swuni-k a NWU-lu l cohaha-{nunkong/*na} ] I-Top Swuni-isu b who-ob j likK-Q[+wh]/Q[~wh], kwungkumha-ta. wonder-M 'I wonde r who Swuni likes.' In (47 ) below , wher e Q appear s i n th e matri x clause , but no t i n th e embedde d clause, whe n Q bears [+wh] , a . wh-phrase has wid e scope, bu t whe n Q is [-wh] , it canno t have wide scop e an d the sentenc e i s unacceptable . (47) ni-nu n [Swuni-k a NWU-lu l cohaha-n-ta-kko] sayngkakha-{no/*na} ? you-Top Swuni-su b who-obj like-pres-M- C lhink-Q[+wh]/Q[-wh] 'Who do you thin k Swun i likes?' Consider case s i n (48) , when : Q appear s i n bot h th e matri x an d th e embedde d clauses. (48) a . ni-nu n [Swuni-k a NWU-lu l cohaha-{nunkong/*na} ] you-Top Swuni-su b who-ob j like-Q[+wh]/Q[-wh] mul-ess-na? ask-past-Q[-wh] 'Did yo u as k who Swun i likes?' b. * ni-nun [Swuni-k a NWU-lu l cohaha-{na/nunki} ] you-Top Swuni-su b who-ob j like-Q[-wh]/Q[+wh] mul-ess-no? ask-past-<2/'+w/ij (i) 'Wh o did you as k whether Swun i likes?' (ii) *'Wh o did you ask Swun i likes?' c. {NWU-ka/*ni-ka } [Swuni-k a NWU-lu l cohaha-nunki ] who-sub/you-sub Swuni-su b who-ob j like.-Q[+wh] mul-ess-no? ask-pasl-Q[+whj 'Who aske d who Swun i likes? ' / *'Di d yo u as k who Swuni likes?'

292

Discourse Configurational Languages

When Q[+wh ] appears i n the embedded claus e (but not when Q[-wh]) appears) , a wh-phras e ha s narro w scop e (48a) ; bu t whe n Q[+wh ] appear s i n th e matri x predicate, the wh-phrase in the embedded claus e cannot hav e wide scope across Q (48b) . Whe n Q[+wh ] appear s i n bot h clauses , unles s bot h clause s contai n a wh-phrase, a s in (48c) , th e sentenc e i s no t acceptable . Th e abov e fact s sugges t that onl y [+wh ] questio n marker s i n Kimha y dialec t ar e scop e marker s o f wh phrases whil e both Q[+wh ] and Q[-wh] induc e wh-islan d effects . To summarize, in Standard Korean, the following holds: a wh-phrase require s a question marker (Q) , but not vice versa . However , in Kimhay dialect, th e fol lowing holds: a wh-phrase require s a wh-question marke r ( = Q[+wh]), and vic e versa. Base d o n the Kimhay dialect, I suggest tha t question marker s shoul d b e specified a s either [+wh] or [-wh] although both [+wh ] and [-wh] question-mark ers in Standard Korean are morphologically identical, and that only [+wh] markers are scope markers of wh-phrases while any Q marker induces wh-island effects . 3.1.3. Position of Question Markers Unlike English , Q seem s t o appea r within th e c-comman d domai n o f C i n Ko rean. The reason why this may be so is partly due to the pattern give n in (49) . The rightmos t morpheme s i n matri x clause s o r th e morpheme s t o th e immedi ate-right side of tense morphemes represent sentenc e types; and morphemes rep resenting sentence types and question markers are in complementary distribution . (I specify sentenc e typ e markers a s M, following Whitman (1989). ) (49) a . Chelswu-k a ka-ss-(upni)ta . Chelswu-sub go-past-dec(M ) 'Chelswu has gone.' (declarative b. {ney-ka/tangsin-i } ka-{la/si-psiyo} . you-sub/youH-sub go-imp(M ) 'You, go! ' (imperative c. Chelswu-k a ka-ss-{ni/upnikka} ? Chelswu-sub go-past-Q[-wh ] 'Has Chelswu gone? ' (interrogative d. (wuli-ka ) ka-{ca/psita} . we-sub go-prop(M ) 'Let's go.' (prepositive (from Ha n (1987 , 205) wit h some modifications )

) ) ) )

Thus, on e ma y sugges t that [+Q ] is a featur e o f M(ood). 27 There is, i n fact, on e more reason why [+Q ] is not on C. When the sentence s in (49 ) ar e embedded , -ko, whic h i s widel y assume d a s a complementize r i n Korean, may be attached to a verbal complex in (49). Consider th e cases of (49 a and c ) fo r example: (50) a . Swuni-nu n [Chelswu-k a ka-ss-ta-fco ] malha-yss-ta . Swuni-Top Chelswu-su b go-past-M(dec)- C say-past-M/de c

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 29

'Swuni sai d that Chelsw u went. ' b. Swuni-nu n [Cheluwu-k a ka-ss-nunya-£o ] mul-ess-ta . Swuni-Top Chelswu-su b go-past-Q- C ask-past-M/de 'Swuni aske d whethe r Chelsw u went.'

3

c

In addition , -ko seem s t o serv e a s a syntacti c formative , a s th e verba l elemen t {-la/ha}-2* ma y intervene betwee n -ho (C ) an d M/Q (cf . (51a-b)) , and , a rightward inverte d element ca n appear between a sentence typ e marker an d f-la/ha}C a s shown in (51c) . (51) a . Swuni-nu n [[aChelswu-ka ka-ss-ta]{-la/h a }-ko] malha-yss-ta . Swuni-Top Chelswu-su b go-past-M{-[+V]/do}-Csay-past- M 'Swuni sai d tha t Chelswu had gone.' O r ' 'Chelsw u ha s gone,' sai d Swuni. ' b. Swuni-nu n [[aChelswu-ka ka-ss-nunya]{-la/ha}-ko ] mul-ess-ta . Swuni-Top Chelswu-su b go-past-Q{-[+V]/do}- C ask-past- M 'Swuni aske d whethe r Chelswu ha d gone. ' O r ' 'Ha s Chelsw u gone?' aske d Swuni. ' c. Swuni-nu n [[a ka-ss-nunya, Chelswu-ka ] {-la/ha}-ko] mul-ess-ta . Swuni-Top go-past- Q Chelswu-sub {-[+V]/do}-C ask-past- M ' 'Ha s Chelswu gone?' aske d Swuni. ' Thus I conclud e that [+Q ] i s no t o n C , bu t i t ma y b e o n M o r o n a functiona l category whic h is i n th e c-comman d domain of C . I n th e nex t subsection , i t i s discussed tha t [+Q ] i s on a functiona l categor y F. 29

3.2. Syntactic Wh-movement in Korean and Licensing 3.2.1. Focus Movement or Wh-movement? Given the conclusion i n the: previous subsection that wh-phrases ar e foci, one may examin e wh-sentences i n Korean in orde r t o se e whether the y behav e lik e foci. I n fact , a s are foci , focuse d wh-phrases i n wh-sentence s ca n b e i n sit u or preposed within a clause or across a clause boundary, as shown in (52) an d (53) . (52) a . Yenghi-{nun/NUN } ecey NWUKWU-lul manna-ss-nayo ? Yenghi-Top/CON yesterda y who-ob j meet-pastQ 'Who did Yenghi meet yesterday? ' b. Yenghi-{nun/NUN } ENCEY Chelswu-lu l manna-ss-nayo ? Yenghi-Top/CON whe n Chelswu-ob j meet-past- Q 'When did Yenghi meet Chelswu? ' c. Yenghi-{nun/NUN } [Swuni-k a NWUKWU-lul cohaha-n-ta-ko ] Yenghi-Top/CON Swuni-su b who-ob j like-pres-MC sayngkakha-nayo? think-Q 'Who doe s Yenghi think tha t Swun i likes? '

294

Discourse Configurational Languages

(53) a . NWUKWU-lul Yenghi-{NUN/*nun } ece y manna-ss-nayo ? who-obj Yenghi-CON/To p yesterda y meet-past- Q b. ENCEY Yenghi-{NUN/*nun } Chelswu-lu l manna-ss-nayo ? when Yenghi-CON/To p Chelswu-ob j meet-past- Q c. NWUKWU-lul Yenghi-{NUN/*nun } [Swuni-k a cohaha-n-ta-ko ] who-obj Yenghi-CON/To p Swuni-su b like-pres-M- C sayngkakha-nayo? think-Q As clause-internal focu s preposing may be considered a s PF-scrambling, so (53 a and b ) ma y als o b e considere d a s PF-scrambled. I n fact , a s show n in (54) , th e wh-subject (54a ) an d th e prepose d wh-objec t (54b ) ca n appea r withou t cas e markers, like FP-scrambled foci (cf. (7)), unlike Japanese wher e Saito (1985, 208 9) notes wh-phrases can appear without case-markers onl y when they are in thei r D-structure positions. Thus , if the Case-drop Conditio n i n (9) is correct, th e whphrases i n (54) ma y not be in A-bar positions a t least a t S-structure but the y ar e PF-scrambled. (54) a . pakke y NWUKWU-{0/ka } w-ass-ni? outside who-su b come-pastQ 'Who is a t the door?' b. MUE-{0/lul } ne-{0/ka } ha-k o iss-ni ? what-obj you-su b do-an d exist- Q 'What ar e you doing? ' As is predicte d unde r th e fac t tha t wh-phrases ar e foci, whe n wh-phrase s mov e long-distance, case-dro p i s not possible, as in cases o f long-distance Focu s Move ment (cf . (8)) : (55) NWUKWU*(-lul ) Yenghi-NU N [Swuni-k a cohaha-n-ta-ko ] who-obj Yenghi-CO N Swuni-su b like-pres-M- C sayngkakha-nayo? think-Q 'Who doe s Yengh i thin k that Swun i likes?' Under (9) , th e exampl e i n (55 ) suggest s tha t preposin g o f wh-phrase s acros s a clause boundar y should als o b e analyze d as A-bar movement . Thus, on e can as k whethe r the dat a in (53 ) ar e als o derive d b y Focus Move ment. Ther e seem to be many pieces o f evidence tha t this may be the case: First , as shown in (52) , th e sentence-initial NP-nun ca n be eithe r a topic o r a contras tive focus ; but whe n a wh-phrase is preposed withi n a clause o r across a claus e boundary, a s in (53) , th e (matrix ) subjec t NP-nwn can hardly be interpreted a s a topic, a s in cases o f Focus Movement . This suggest s tha t wh-preposin g ma y b e the sam e process a s Focus Movement in that the landing sit e o f wh-preposing is not higher than topic position, like Focus Movement. Second, like focus sentences ,

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 29

5

SCO effect s (56 ) and WC O effect s (57 ) appear i n wh-sentences , whethe r wh phrases ar e prepose d o r not , which suggest s tha t wh-phrase s underg o A-ba r movement eithe r a t S- S or in LF: (56) a . *NWUKWU-lul i ku-ka { [Swuni-ka t } cohaha-n-ta-ko ] who-obj he-su b Swuni-su b like-pres-M- C sayngkakha-nayo? think-Q *'Whom; does he ; think Swuni likes t;? ' b. *ku-ka j [Swuni-k a NWUKWU-lul ; cohaha-n-ta-ko ] he-sub Swuni-su b who-ob j like-pres-MC sayngkakha-nayo? think-Q (57) a . NWUKWU-lul ; Swuni-NU N [{*ku/??(?)caki}-kai kuli- n who-obj Swuni-CO N he/self-su b drawC kulim-i] ywumyenghake y mantul-ess-ta-k o sayngkakha-nayo ? picture-sub famou s make-past-MC think- Q 'Whoj does Swuni think a picture that he; painted made t; famous?' b. Swuni-nun[(*ku/??(?)caki}-k a kuli-n kulim-i ] NWUKWU-lul ; Swuni-Top he/self-su b drawC picture-sub who-ob j ywumyenghakey mantul-ess-ta-k o sayngkakha-nayo ? famous make-past-MC think- Q Like focus sentences i n (13-14), with pronominals, sentences (56-57 ) are totally ungrammatical, but wit h caki, (57 ) show wea k WCO effects. 30 T o conclude, i t seems that lik e focu s phrases , wh-phrase s i n Korean behave lik e foci an d undergo A-bar movemen t in syntax or in LF whose landing sit e cannot precede th e topic.31 Although wh-phrase s behave like foc i undergoin g A-bar movement , there i s one differenc e betwee n them: Th e scop e o f a wh-phrase should b e linke d wit h the positio n o f it s scop e marker . Thus , on e shoul d as k whic h of th e followin g approaches is right. (58) a . A wh-phrase undergoes A-bar movemen t t o be licensed a s a focus, independent o f th e relatio n betwee n a wh-phras e an d it s scop e marker. b. A wh-phrase undergoe s A-bar movemen t to be license d b y a scope marker in accordance wit h the relation between a wh-phrase and its scope marker . There ar e some empirica l reasons to adopt (58b): First , empirically speaking , the data in (59) below suggest that (58b) is the case. Whether a wh-phrase is basegenerated i n the embedded clause (59a) or in the matrix clause (59b) , i t may be preposed to sentence-initial position when Q appears in the matrix clause (cf. 59ab) but i t cannot be prepose d when Q appears in the embedded claus e but no t in the matri x clause, a s i n (59c) .

296

Discourse Configurational Languages

(59) a . NWUKWU-eykey ; Chelswu-NU N [Swuni-k a t ; cwu-ess-ta-ko ] who-to Chelswu-CO N Swuni-su b give-past-M- C sayngkakha-nayo? think-Q 'To whoiri j doe s Chelsw u thin k that Swuni gav e (it ) t;?' b. NWUKWU-eykey ; Chelswu-NU N t; [Swuni-ka ka-ss-ta-ko ] who-to Chelswu-CO N Swuni-su b go-past-M- C malha-yss-nayo? say-past-Q 'To whoni j di d Chelsw u sa y t ; that Swun i had gone? ' c. ???NWUKWU-lu l Chelswu-NUN [Swuni-k a cohaha-nunci ] who-obj Chelswu-CO N Swuni-su b like- Q kwungkumha-ta. wonder-M 'Chelswu wonder s wh o Swuni likes.' The ungrammatically of (59c) reminds me of Lasnik and Saito's (1984, 252) filter in (60a) , whic h can be rea d a s i n (60b) unde r the present analysis . (60) a . *Comp[-wh] , i f i t contain s a [+wh ] element . b. Wh-preposin g is no t possible i n the claus e wit h n o wh-questio n marker. In addition , i t cannot b e preposed acros s a wh-clause, as show n in (59d), unlik e Focus Movement , whic h does no t obey th e Wh-island Condition (cf . (33-34)).32 (59) d . ???NWUKWU-lu l Chelswu-NU N [Swuni-ka cohaha-nunci who-obj Chelswu-CO N Swuni-su b like- Q mul-ess-nayo? ask-past-Q (i) 'Di d Chelsw u as k who Swun i likes?' (ii) *'Wh o did Chelsw u as k whether Swun i likes?'

]

The dat a i n (59 ) thus sho w tha t (58a) is no t tenable. Kimhay dialect, whic h employs tw o different Q markers, a s discussed above , exhibits th e same phenomenon . Conside r th e following : (61) a . *NWU-lu l nay-NU N [Swuni-k a cohaha-{na/nunkong} ] who-obj I-CO N Swuni-su b like-Q[-wh]/Q[+wh] kwungkumha-ta. wonder-M 'I wonde r who Swun i likes. ' (cf . 59c )

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 29

7

b. NWU-lu l ni-NU N [Swuni-k a cohaha-n-ta-kko ] who-obj you-CO N Swuni-su b like-pres-M- C sayngkakha- {no/* la} ? tturk-Q[+wh]/Q[-wh] 'Who do you think : Swuni likes?' (cf . 59a ) c. * NWU-lul ni-NU N [Swuni-k a cohaha-{mmkong/nunki/na} ] who-obj you-CO N Swuni-sub like-Q[+wh]/Q[+wh/Q[-wh] mul-ess-{na/no}? ask-past-Q[-wh]/Q[+wh] 'Did yo u as k who Swun i likes?' (cf . 59d ) The contras t betwee n (61a ) an d (61b ) show s tha t M o r Q[-wh ] i n th e matri x clause, whic h ar e no t wh-scop e markers , d o not trigge r wh-preposin g an d only when a matri x claus e contain s a wh-questio n marke r (wit h [+wh]) , whic h i s a wh-scope marker , wh-preposin g i s possible . I n addition , wh-preposin g i s no t possible whe n a wh-phrase cresses a clause boundar y which include s eithe r Q[wh] o r Q[+wh] (61c), which suggests that the Wh-island Condition i s respected, like Standard Korean . In short, th e data in (61) sho w that wh-preposin g i s moti vated only by a Q[+wh] marker but no t by an y Q marker, whic h strongl y sup ports (58b) . Second, wh-preposin g i n Korea n seem s t o b e ver y simila r t o Wh-movemen t in English with respect to wh-i:sland effects. Chomsk y (1986b) note s that whether ([-wh]) i n C induce s weake r Subjacenc y effects tha n wh-phrase s i n Spec-C P ([+wh]), becaus e (62a ) i s won; e tha n (62b) . (62) a . h e i s the ma n t o whom ; I wonde r [who John tol d [whic h book t o give tj] ] b. h e is the man to whom; I wonder [whether John tol d u s [whic h book to giv e tj] ] (fro m Chomsk y (1986b , 50)) Interestingly, lik e English, when an embedded Q marker i s [+wh], as in (63), th e sentence show s strong wh-islan d effects : Th e sentence s i n (63) ar e undoubtedly more ungrammatica l than (59d) , wher e a n embedded Q marker i s [-wh] . (63) a . ?*MUES-u l Yenghi-NU N [ENCE Y Chelswu-k a sa-ss-nunci ] what-obj Yenghi-CO N whe n Chelswu-su b buy-past- Q kwungkumhayha-n-ta wonder-pres-M ?*'What doe s Yengh i wonde r when Chelswu bought?' b. ?*NWUKWU-lu l Yenghi-NU N [NWUKWU-ka po-ass-nunci ] who-obj Yenghi-CO N who-su b see-pastQ kwungkumhayha -nayo? wonder-Q ?*'Whom does Yenghi wonder who saw?' Thus, i t seem s tha t wh-phrase s in Korea n may b e prepose d i n th e sam e wa y a s those in English, i.e., the y move to a certain position for scopal reasons an d wh island effect s diffe r dependin g on whethe r an embedde d Q i s [-wh ] o r [+wh] .

298

Discourse Configurational Languages

Third, multipl e Focus Movement is possible but multiple wh-preposing is not, which suggest s tha t wh-preposin g differ s fro m Focu s Movement: 33'34 (64) a . K U CHAYK-U L SWUNI-EYKE Y Chelswu-NU N [Yenghi-k a the book-ob j Swuni-t o Chelswu-CO N Yenghi-su b cwu-ess-ta-ko] sayngkakha-n-ta . give-past-M-C think-pres- M 'Chelswu think s tha t Yenghi gave THE BOOK T O SWUNI.' b. ?*MUE-lu l NWUKWU-eyke y Chelswu-NU N [Yenghi-k a what-obj who-t o Chelswu-CO N Yenghi-su b cwu-ess-ta-ko] sayngkakha-nayo ? give-past-M-C think- Q * 'What t o whom does Chelsw u thin k that Yenghi gave?' In short, the ungrammaticality of (59c) and (61a) (cf. the filter in (60)), the weak and stron g wh-island effect s o f wh-preposin g ((59d) vs . (63)) , an d th e impossi bility of multiple wh-preposing (64b) suggest that wh-preposing differs fro m Fo cus Movement: Wh-preposin g shoul d be analyzed as a movement process whose operation is to move wh-phrases to positions licensed by Q[+wh] in certain ways , which I will cal l (syntactic ) Wh-movement, fro m no w on. Suppose, however, that wh-phrases are preposed b y syntactic Focus Movemen t and i n L F the y underg o A-bar-to-A-bar Wh-movemen t fo r scopa l reason s (lik e Polish case s discusse d i n Lasni k an d Sait o (1984 , 218)) . Then , (59c ) or (61a) would be correctly ruled out because LF wh-movement in (59c) or in (6la) would be a lowering process. (Note that UG may not allow a lowering A-bar movemen t process, whic h coul d violat e Stric t Cyclicit y (cf . Chomsky (1973)) . I t would , however, be difficult t o explain wh-island violations (cf. (59d & 63) or (61c) with the matrix [+wh] marker ) since their derivations schematized i n (65), where Focus Movement (2) applies and then Wh-movement (1) applies, woul d be possibl e because Focu s Movemen t (2 ) would no t obe y th e Wh-islan d Conditio n an d be cause Q[+wh] appears in the matrix clause, whic h would trigger Wh-movemen t (1). As exemplified in (66) (cf. also (33-34)), Focus Movemen t applies irrespec tive of the position of wh-scope markers and does not show strong and weak whisland effect s (cf . (59d) vs. (63) ; (66a) vs. (66b)) . (65) *NWUKWU-lu l [pptj .. . [ (NWUKWU-ka) t j Q ] .. . F[+f] Q[+wh ] I (1 )1 1 (2 )1 (66) a . K U SI-LUL Chelswu-NU N [Swuni-ka cohaha-nunci ] the poem-ob j Chelswu-CO N Swuni-su b like- Q [-wh] mul-ess-nayo? ask-past-Q[-wh] 'Did Chelsw u ask whether Swuni like s TH E POEM?'

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 29

9

b. K U SI-LU L Chelswu-NU N [NWUKWU-k a cohah a nunci] the poem-ob j Chelswu-CO N who-su b likeQ [+wh ] kwungkumhayha-nayo? wonder-Q[-wh] 'Does Chelswu wonde r who likes THE POEM?' In addition , a s multipl e Focu s Movemen t i s possibl e (cf . (23)) , on e canno t ex plain th e ungrammaticalit y o f th e followin g derivation , wher e multipl e Focu s Movement (2 ) applies an d then Wh-movement (1 ) applies : (67) *MUES-ul i [ FP t i NWUKWU-eykey j [ F [ a ...t i ...t j ...]F[+f]] Q[+wh ] [+wh] [+f ] I (1 ) I T (2)—1 = (2)=LJ To conclude, wh-preposin g i n Korean is not simply due to 'syntacti c scrambling' or to Focus Movement . I t must be understood as Wh-movement, whic h is trig gered by a wh-question marker. Thus , I suggest that although it has been widely assumed tha t Wh-movement applie s i n LF i n Korea n sinc e Huan g (1982) , Ko rean employ s Wh-movement a t S-structur e or in LF. 35 3.2.2. Successive-cyclic Wh-movement and Licensing

If Wh-movemen t differ s fro m Focu s Movement , on e ca n as k ho w wh-phrase s move. Lik e Focu s Movement , Wh-movemen t seem s t o mov e successive-cycli cally. Consider (68) , wher e both the matrix and the embedded clause s ma y have a landin g site o f Wh-movement. Th e sentenc e i n (68) suggest s tha t Wh-move ment ma y be successive-cyclic . (68) NWUKWU-EYKE Y Swuni-NU N [MUES-UL Yenghi-k a who-to Swuni-CO N what-ob j Yenghi-su b po-ass-nunci] mul-ess-nayo ? see-past-Q ask-past- Q 'To whoni j did Swun i ask t; what Yengh i saw t?' In fact , Subjacenc y effect s includin g wh-islan d effect s (cf . 59 d an d 63 ) ar e observed: (69) th e Complex-N P Contraint (an d the Specificit y Condition ) a. MUES-u l ne-NU N [ NP Chelswu-ka ha-yss-ta-nu n {*ku/???0 } what-obj you-GO N Chelswu-su b do-past-M- C the/ a somun-ul] tul-ess-ni ? rumor-obj hear-past- Q 'What di d you hea r o f {*the/???a } rumor that Chelsw u did? ' b. NWUKWU-eyke y ne-NU N [ Np Chelswu-ka sacwu- n {*ku/???0 } who-to you-CO N Chelswu-su b buy- C the/ a chayk-ul] ilk- e po-ass-ni ? book-obj read- T attempt-past- Q 'To who m did you read {*the/???a } book tha t Chelswu bought?'

300

Discourse Configurational Languages

(70) th e Adjunct Conditio n ???MUSUN nonmun-u l Yenghi-NU N [Chelswu-ka t a what article-ob j Yenghi-CO N Chelswu-su b u p ss-ess-ki-ttaymuney] sewul-u l ttena-ss-nayo ? write-past-N-because Seoul-ob j leave-past- Q ???'What articl e di d Yenghi leave Seou l becaus e Chelswu finished? ' ECP effects , whic h ar e suppose d t o b e severe r tha n Subjacenc y effects , ar e also observed. As shown in (71-73), where why or how are linked with position s within islands , ECP violation s ar e mor e unacceptabl e tha n Subjacenc y viola tions.36 (71) a . *WE Y ne-NU N [ NP Chelswu-ka o-n-ta-nu n {ku/0 } why you-CO N Chelswu-su b come-pres-M- C the/ a somun-ul] tul-ess-ni ? (cf . (69) ) rumor-obj hear-past- Q *'Whyj di d you hear (of ) {the/a } rumor tha t Chelsw u come s t;? ' b. * WE Y ne-NU N [ NP Chelswu-ka Yenghi-eyke y sa c wu-n {ku/0 } why you-CO N Chelswu-su b Yenghi-t o buyC the/ a chayk-ul] ilk- e po-ass-ni ? book-obj read-t o see-past- Q *'Why; di d you rea d {the/a } book tha t Chelswu bough t fo r Yenghi t ;?' (72) * WEY Yenghi-NU N [Chelswu-ka ttena-ss-ki-ttaymuney ] wha-k a why Yenghi-CO N Chelswu-su b leave-past-N-because anger-su b na-ss-nayo? (cf . (70) ) occur-past-Q *'Whyj did Yenghi get angr y because Chelsw u lef t t ;?' (73) a . *ETTEKE Y Yenghi-NU N [ku-ka k u muncey-lu l how Yenghi-CO N he-su b th e problem-ob j [ phul-ess-nunci] kwungkumhayha-nayo ? (cf . (59d) ) solve-past-Q wonderQ *'How; doe s Yenghi wonder whether Chelswu solve d th e proble m ti?' b. *WE Y Yenghi-NU N [NWUKWU-ka ku-lu l manna-ss-nunci ] why Yenghi-CO N who-su b he-ob j meet-past- Q kwungkumhayha-nayo? (cf . (63) ) wonder-Q *'Why; does Yengh i wonder wh o met him t;?' Given these Subjacency and ECP effects, Wh-movemen t is a 'Comp-to - Comp ' movement process. Thus, based on the discussion on the position of scope markers (cf. Sectio n 3.1.3.) , I sugges t th e following : Korea n employ s a functiona l cat egory other than C that bears the feature [+/-wh] , which I tentatively call Q here;

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 30

1

a wh-phras e i s base-generate d a s bearin g [+Q ] ( = [+wh ] i n Chomsk y (1981)) ; and XP[+Q] move s to the Spec o f Q[+wh] i n order t o be assigned [+wh ] so that they ca n b e licensed an d inteqjreted a s wh-operators i n LF.

Under (74) , I propose th e Licensin g Conditio n i n (75) , an d give n th e fac t i n Kimhay dialec t tha t a [+wh ] marke r alway s require s th e appearanc e o f a wh phrase i n the claus e (cf . (45)), I suggest (75c ) here . (75) a . A wh-phras e (wit h [+Q] ) shoul d b e i n th e Spe c o f Q[+wh ] t o b e assigned [+wh] . b. Wh-phrase s (wit h [+Q]) ar e licensed an d interpreted a s wh-oper a tors i n L F if f the y ar e assigne d [+wh] , c. [+wh ] should be assigned/discharged; Q is licensed whe n its feature is assigned/discharged . We've see n that Wh-movement does not allow multiple movement and obeys the Wh-island Condition , whic h say s tha t ther e i s a one-to-on e relation betwee n a wh-phrase and its scop e marke r at leas t in syntax. Thus, suppos e tha t syntacti c Wh-movement is a substitution process triggering Spec-head indexin g and [+wh ] is assigne d under governmenl : in term s o f m-comman d (cf. Chomsk y (1986b)) , which implies a one-to-one relatio n between a wh-phrase and it s scope marker. Then (75a ) ca n be replaced wit h (76 ) (cf . (26)). 37 (76) A wh-phras e shoul d b e governe d b y Q[+wh ] t o b e assigne d [+wh] ; [+wh] is assigned unde r government. Finally, a s a wh-phrase optionall y move s in syntax, I also sugges t that [+wh ] is assigned at S-S or in LF, like [+f] , assumin g that there is no A-bar-to-A-bar wh movement i n Korean . At thi s point , on e ma y as k wher e Q appears i n Korea n o r wher e wh-phrase s move. As wh-phrases cannot be preposed acros s th e topic (cf. (53)), QP may not dominate th e topic . I n addition , I hav e show n tha t a question marke r appear s within th e c-comman d domai n o f C . I n th e nex t Section , I wil l sho w tha t th e topic als o appear s in the c-comman d domai n of C. Therefor e QP is not CP at

302

Discourse Configurational Languages

least. Given the morpheme orde r in inflectional morphology i n Korean (V-A-Tns M/Q-C; cf . n . 3) , on e ca n als o sugges t tha t Q P is highe r tha n TnsP. 38 Thus , i t seems tha t QP comes somewher e between CP and TnsP. However , i s QP highe r than FP? There i s reason t o suggest that the landing sites of foci and wh-phrase s in Korean may be identical. First , a s discussed abov e an d in Sectio n 2 , both foc i (6 & 35) and wh-phrases (53 ) ma y not appea r on the lef t sid e o f th e topic. Sec ond, conside r th e following : (77) a . {KUCHAYK-u ] NWUKWU-eykey/NWUKWU-eyke y K U the book-ob j who-t o who-t o th e CHAYK-ul} Chelswu-NU N [Yenghi-k a cwu-ess-ta-ko ] book-obj Chelswu-CO N Yenghi-su b give-past-M- C sayngkakha-nayo? think-Q 'To who m doe s Chelsw u think that Yenghi gave TH E BOOK? ' b. ?{k u chayk-U N NWUKWU-eykey/NWUKWU-eyke y k u the book-CO N who-t o who-t o th e chayk-UN} Chelswu-NUN [Yenghi-ka cwu-ess-ta-ko ] book-CON Chelswu-CO N Yenghi-su b give-past-M- C sayngkakha-nayo? think-Q 'To whom doe s Chelsw u thin k that Yenghi gave the bookT A focused phrase and a wh-phrase may be preposed at the same time but the order between them is immaterial a s far as the grammaticality and meaning of (77) ar e concerned. In order to suggest tha t [+Q ] i s a feature of M while [+f ] i s a feature of F, one should explai n wh y th e orde r betwee n wh-phrase s an d foc i doe s no t affec t th e grammaticality o r meaning of (77). I f QP is not FP , one should sugges t tha t PFscrambling applies among elements in Specs (Spec-Q P an d Spec-FP), which does not soun d plausible. Thus , I suggest tha t QP in (74 ) is , in fact, FP and therefor e the landin g sites o f foci an d wh-phrases ar e Spec-FP at least i n Korean. In othe r words, both [+f ] an d [+Q,+/-wh ] ar e features of F, and F can licens e bot h infor mation/contrastive focu s an d wh-focu s i n Korea n i n th e followin g way : F ma y bear [+f ] an d [+/-wh ] t o assig n [+f ] t o foc i unde r agreemen t an d [+wh ] t o wh phrases unde r governmen t (bu t cf. als o n. 34) . This suggestio n seem s reasonabl e sinc e a wh-phras e i s itsel f focuse d i n Ko rean, an d sinc e [+wh ] an d [+f ] d o not see m t o be i n conflict wit h each other : A wh-phrase can also be accompanied with the contrastive marker -NUN, a s shown in (78 ) wher e th e phrase NWUKWU-NUN i s both [+Q ] an d [+cf]. 39 (78) (NWUKWU-NU N ka-ko ) NWUKWU-NU N an-ka-nayo ? who-CON go-an d who-CO N not-goQ '(Who goes and ) wh o does no t go?'

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 30

3

As for the derivation o f (78), suppos e that QP = FP, then NWUKWU-NUN move s to Spec-FP , wher e i t is assigne d [+f ] unde r agreemen t an d [+wh ] unde r govern ment, whic h trigger s Spec-hea d indexing , a s i n (79a) . O n the othe r hand , sup pose that QP * FP, then being a focus, NWUKWU-NUN moves to Spec-FP, wher e it i s assigne d [+f] , an d then moves t o Spec-QP , wher e i t i s assigne d [+wh] , be ing a wh-phrase, a s in (79b) .

where 8 is a [+cf,+Q ] elemen t However, i n the case of (79b) , i n LF, NWUKWU-NUN woul d no t be license d a s a focus because i t is not in an agreement relation wit h F in LF unless on e moti vates a notio n o f featur e transmissio n throug h chain links . Not e als o tha t I'v e rejected a possibility o f LF A-bar-to-A-bar movement in Korean in Section 3.2.1. , which woul d requir e a notio n o f featur e transmission . I n fact , i f on e assume s feature transmission , th e fina l landin g sit e o f syntacti c Focus/Wh-movemen t would not necessarily indicate ; the scope of foci or wh-phrases, and therefore one cannot accoun t fo r the ungramaticailit y o f (59c ) sinc e unde r (79b ) an d a notio n of feature transmission, wh-preposin g in (59c) woul d be wrongly allowed: I n the first cycle , a wh-phras e i s assigne d [+wh ] b y th e governmen t o f th e embedde d Q[+wh], afte r it moves t o the embedded Spec-QP , an d in the secon d cycle , eve n when th e wh-phrase furthe r undergoes Focu s Movemen t t o th e matri x Spec-F P where [+f] , bu t not [+wh] , is assigned, i t would be licensed sinc e [+wh ] may b e transmitted. Given th e abov e discussion , I conclud e tha t Korea n employ s onl y on e func tional categor y t o licens e thre e differen t foci : informatio n focus, wh-focus , an d contrastive focus . Sinc e nothin g tell s u s whethe r th e categor y i s M o r F , I as sume tha t a t leas t i n Korea n th e functiona l categor y wit h th e feature s [+f , +/ wh] i s F , which ma y als o b e identifie d as M(ood), 40 an d propos e th e followin g with th e Licensing Conditions in (26) , (40 ) an d (75-76):

304

Discourse Configurational Languages

where [+8 ] ma y be [+if] , [+Q] , o r [+cf ] an d a i s eithe r M P or TnsP

4. Topic Movement in Korean Topics i n Korean, whic h ar e accompanie d wit h th e marke r -nun,*1 I assume , have the following properties : The topic (in general) comes first i n the clause; it is what is being talke d abou t (cf . Holliday's (1967 , 212) 'theme' ; the aboutnes s condition); an d i t ha s th e topic-commen t relatio n wit h th e res t o f th e clause , (cf. Di k (1980)) and is not focused o r stressed (cf . Blok (1991), but cf . also Atlas (1991)). In this section , I discuss wha t can be topics (Sectio n 4.1.) , whethe r movement is involved in topic sentences (Sectio n 4.2.), what the structure of topic sentences i s an d what licenses topic s (Sections 4.3 . an d 4.4.).

4.1. What Can Be Topics? First, le t me examine wha t can or cannot be topics in Korean. It seems tha t [+wh ] phrases ma y not be topics, a s Bach (1971 ) notes. 42 In fact, give n tha t topic s ar e not focused , wh-phrases , whic h ar e foci , ma y no t be topics : (81) * NWUKWU-nun mayi l hakkyo-e y ka-nayo ? who-Top everyda y school-t o go- Q *'Speaking o f who, doe s h e go to schoo l everyday? ' Nonspecific NP' s that may appear in a f/iere-construction ma y not be topic s (cf . Enc (1991)) : (82) *{ha n sonyen/nwukwunka}-(n)u n cayen-u l cohaha-n-ta . a boy/someone-To p nature-ob j like-pres- M *'Speaking o f { a boy/someone} , he like s nature. ' In addition, anyone i n indicative or negative clauses (nwukwuna o r amund) (cf . (83a) and (83bi)) and polarity anyone that goes with not (amuto) (cf . (83bii)) may not b e topics:

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 30

5

(83) a . * { nwukwuna/amuna}-nun ol-sw u iss-ta . anybody-Top come-ca n be- M ""Speaking o f anyone , he can come.' b. * { amuna/amuto}-mm ol-sw u eps-ta . anyone/anyone(neg)-Top come-ca n not.exist- M (i) * ' Speaking of anyone , he cannot come (bu t only qualified men can).' (ii) *'Speakin g o f nobody, he can come.' Almost an y NP's excep t th e NP's discussed i n (81-83) may be topic s althoug h stage-level predicate s (cf . Krazte r (1989) ; Diesin g (1988) ) ma y allow a smalle r set of NP's a s their topics tha n individual leve l predicates . Unmarked topic s ar e definite , as Lee (1989 ) notes , o r generic i n Korea n (cf. Kuno (1973 ) fo r Japanese topic sentences): (84) a . {k u sonyen/Chelswu/ku}-(n)u n mayw u ttokttokha-ta . the boy / Chelswu/he-To p ver y smartM 'Speaking of {th e boy/Chelswu/him}, he is very smart. ' b. sonamu-nu n hangsan g phulu-ta . pine tree-Top alway s green- M 'Speaking o f pine trees , the y are always green.' NP's wit h stron g determiner s i n th e sens e o f Barwis e an d Coope r (1981 ) (o r specific NP's ) ma y be topics : (85) taypupun-u y salamtul-u n cayen-u l salangha-n-ta . most-of persons-To p nature-ob j love-pres- M 'Speaking o f most people , the y lov e nature. ' Finally, nominalized predicates whic h end with the nominalizer -ki in sentenceinitial position may also be topics (or contrastive foci) (cf. Choe (1985)), as shown in (86) . (I n (86) , [ 0 } i indicate s th e D-structur e positio n o f th e prepose d -ki phrase;.) (86) [kulim-ul cal kuli-ki-{nun/NUN}\ Chelswu-k a {0} ; kacan g picture-obj wel l draw-N-Top/CO N Chelswu-su b mos t cal ha-n-ta . well do-pres- M 'Speaking o f painting picture s well, Chelsw u does (it ) best.' As shown above, a (XP)* V-M phras e where XP may be either a verbal adverbial or a complement may be preposed, leavin g the pro-verb do i n its origina l posi tion, an d may be interprete d a s the topic. Give n that -ki can be considere d a s a nominalizer, th e -ki phras e i s arguabl y NP in Korea n an d i n fac t i t woul d bear the objectiv e cas e marke r -lul whe n i t appear s in th e {0 } positio n (87a ) o r i n

306

Discourse Configurational Languages

sentence-initial positio n (87b) . Thus , I assume tha t (86) ar e cases o f NP topics . Like any other -nun phrases, when the preposed -ki phrases appear in their origi nal positions , the y ma y b e interprete d a s contrastive foci , bu t no t a s topics , a s shown in (87a). On the other hand , when the y are preposed , the y ar e ambiguous, a s shown in (86) . (87) a . Chelswu-k a [kulim-ul kuli-ki-flul/NUN/*nun}] kacan g ca l Chelswu-sub picture-ob j draw-N-obj/CON/To p mos t wel l ha-n-ta. do-pres-M 'Chelswu paint s pictures best. ' b. [ kulim-ul kuli-ki-lul]{ Chelswu-k a {0} ; kacang ca l ha-n-ta . picture-obj draw-N-ob j Chelswu-sub mos t wel l do-pres- M 'Chelswu paint s pictures best.' 4.2. Base-generated Topics or Topic Movement? As discussed in Sectio n 4.1., the -ki phrases i n (86) ma y be considered a s bein g preposed, whethe r they ar e foc i o r topics . Wha t the n i s th e correc t D-structur e for (86-87) ? As show n i n (88a) , th e morpheme s -lonun o r -(LO)NUN (whic h roughly mean s 'a s for') ma y be added t o the preposed phrase s an d the outpu t lonun/(LO)NUN phrase s may also appear on the (preferably) immediate-left sid e of th e subject , as show n in (88b ) (cf . 86-87). (88) a . [kulim-lul kuli-ki-{lonun/LONUN}] Chelswu-k a kacan g ca l picture-obj draw-N-a s for/as fo r Chelswu-su b mos t wel l ha-n-ta. do-pres-M b. Chelswu-k a [kulim-ul kuli-ki-{lonun/LONUN}] kacan g ca l Chelswu-sub picture-ob j draw-N-a s for/a s fo r mos t wel l ha-n-ta. do-pres-M (88a) may be considered a s derived fro m (88b ) eithe r b y Focus Movemen t o r by PF-scrambling. Given (88), however, the data in (86) with -NUN can be analyzed as bein g derive d b y Focu s Movemen t out o f -LONUN phrase s wit h nul l P' s ( LONUN) strande d behind . By the sam e token, th e -ki topic s i n (86 ) ca n als o be considered a s base-generated a s -lonun phrases, and then V-ki phrases mov e ou t of th e -lonun phrases to topic positions wit h null P's strande d behind. 43 I n fact, it is not unreasonable to suggest that (86) is derived from (88b) , give n (87), wher e the -ki phrase i s accompanied wit h the objective cas e marker -lul, since in gen eral whe n a PP can appear in the form of NP with a relevant (case) marker i n its original position , NP extraction ou t of th e PP i s possible i n Korean . Consider (89a) , wher e a (XP)* V-ki phrase i s preposed , bu t n o pro-ver b ap pears, unlike (86). Although the data has been considered a s having a 'base-gen -

Focus and Topic Movement In Korean and Licensing 30

7

crated topic, ' i t seem s tha t i t behave s lik e (86) : Th e preposed phras e ma y als o appear o n th e righ t sid e o f th e subjec t (89b) ; an d i t ma y appea r i n th e for m of PP whos e hea d i s -lonun, whether i t i s prepose d o r not , a s show n i n (89c-d) . This fac t suggest s that (89a ) i s derive d from (89d) . ( t lon g long live-N-Top/CO N turtle-su b mos sa-n-ta. live-pres-M 'Speak' b turtle-sub lon g live-N-CON/To p mos t lon g live-pres- M 'Turtles live longest.' c long live-N-a s for/as for turtles-su b mos t lon g sa-n-ta. live-pres-M d. kepuki-k a [olay sal-ki-{lonun/LONUN}] kacan g ola y sa-n-ta . turtle-sub lon g live-N-a s for/as for mos t lon g live-pres- M The presen t analysi s o f the topi c sentence s i n (8 6 & 89a ) ca n als o b e appli cable t o th e followin g so-called 'base-generate d topic ' sentences , wher e apparently no movement is involved. As specified in (90), the italicized tw o nominals in (90 ) ar e usually supposed to hav e certain relations . ( 9 ele 'Speaking o f elephants, noses ar e long.' (whole-par t relation ) b. sea'Speaking o f seas, the East Sea i s good.' (subse t relation ) i

fragrance-Top/CON rose-su b bestM 'Speaking o f the fragrance (o f flowers), roses are best.' (apparently th e revers e o f (90a) ) d fishing-Top/CON thi s place-su b best- M 'Speaking of fishing, this place i s best (fo r it).' (apparentl y no relation betwee n two nominals) In the case of (90a), i t has often been propose d tha t (90a) shoul d b e analyzed as being derived by a process which may be dubbed 'possesso r raising." Thus , (90a ) can be analyzed as follows: After a possessor is 'raised' from the {0 } position,44 it is 'topicalized. ' O n the other hand, movemen t or 'raising ' ar e apparently not involved in the rest. However, there is one piece of evidence that (90b-d) are, in

308

Discourse Configurational Languages

fact, derived by a movement process: I n (90b-d), XP-nwn's can appear in the {0} positions, an d when they do , they have only contrastive focu s readings. In addi tion, an NP-nun i n (90b-d) may appear on the right sid e o f the subjec t either i n the form of NP-ka o r in the form of NP-lonun. Thus , I also sugges t that in (90b d), NP s ma y mov e ou t o f NP-lonun phrase s t o topi c position s wit h nul l P' s ( lonuri) strande d behind (and by the same token, XP-(LO-)NUN ma y also undergo Focus Movement) . The present analysis implies that apparent base-generated N P topics ma y be possible whe n the NP's can be base-generated i n the for m of NPlonun and this, i n fact , seem s t o be th e cas e i n Korean . To conclude , i n Korea n ther e see m t o b e n o base-generate d topi c sentence s where no movement is involved. Thus, I suggest tha t every sentence-initia l -nun phrase ma y be analyzed as being propose d by a movement process, which I cal l Topic Movement. 45 4.3. Differences between Topic Movement and Focus Movement I hav e argue d in Sectio n 4.2. that propose d NP-{nun/NUN}'s i n (86) or in (89 90) ar e derive d b y Topic Movement/Focu s Movement . Topi c Movement , however, seem s t o b e differen t fro m Wh/Focu s Movemen t i n man y respects . First , topics ma y no t appea r i n sit u an d ma y no t underg o PF-scrambling , give n tha t topics shoul d appea r i n sentence-initia l position , a s discusse d i n previou s sec tions. Second , long-distanc e Topi c Movemen t i s possible, a s shown i n (91a-b) , but unlike Focus/Wh-movement, the gap position ma y be filled wit h a resumptive pronoun especiall y whe n a topic i s definite, as in (91c) . (91) a . kkos-u n ku-k a [cangmi-k a choeko-t a (ha)-ko ] malha-yss-t a flower-Top he-su b rose-su b best- M doC say-past- M 'Speaking o f flowers , he sai d tha t roses ar e best. " b. talli-ki-nu n Chelswu-NU N [Swuni-k a ca l ha-n-t a (ha)-ko ] run-N-Top Chelswu-CO N Swuni-su b wel l do-pres- M do- C sayngkakha-n-ta. think-pres-M 'Speaking o f running, Chelswu think s that Swun i does (it ) well.' c. k u sonyen-u n motwu-k a [(ku-ka ) ttokttokha-t a (ha)-ko ] the boy-To p everybody-su b he-su b smart- M doC chingchanha-n-ta. praise-pres-M 'Speaking o f the boy; , everyon e praises (himj ) fo r hi s brightness. ' When th e phras e NP-nun i n (91c ) i s interprete d a s a contrastiv e focus , a resumptive pronoun may not appear. In fact, in the cases o f Focus/Wh-movement, resumptive pronoun s are not possible (92a-b) an d worsen the grammaticality of Subjacency violation s (92c-d) (cf . (16-17) an d (69-70)).

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 30

9

(92) a . *K U CHAYK-UL ; Yenghi-NU N [Swuni-ka kukes-ul{ the book-ob j Yenghi-CO N Swuni-su b it-ob j ss-ess-ta-ko] mit-nun-ta . write-past-M-C believe-pres- M 'Yenghi believes tha t Swuni wrote THE BOOK.' b. *NWUKWU-lul i ne-NU N [Swuni-k a ku-lul{ cohaha-n-ta-ko ] who-obj you-CO N Swuni-su b he-ob j like-pres-M- C sayngkakha-ni? think-Q *'WhOi do you think tha t Swun i likes him;? ' c. *K U CHAYK-UL ; Yenghi-NU N [Chelswu-ka kukes-ul{ the book-ob j Yenghi-CO N Chelswu-su b it-ob j tollyecwu-ci an-h-ass-ki-ttaymuney ] wha-k a na-ss-ta . return-to not-do-past-N-becaus e anger-su b occur-past- M 'Yenghi go t angry because Chelsw u did not return THE BOOK. ' d. *NWUKWU-eykey j ne-NU N [NP Chelswu-k a ku-eykey^ who-to you-CO N Chelswu-su b he-t o sacwu-n chayh-al ] ilk- e po-ass-ni ? buy-C book-ob j read-t o see-past- Q *'To whoni j did yo u read a book tha t Chelswu bough t (to ) hinij? ' Third, topic s ma y no t mov e successive-cyclically , whic h implie s tha t Topi c Movement ma y no t obe y Subjacency . Conside r apparen t evidenc e i n favo r o f successive-cyclic Topi c Movemen t i n (93) : Bot h th e embedde d claus e an d th e matrix clause ma y contain a topic. (93) Chelswu-nu n [[ T kkos-u n cangmi-k a choeko-ta ] ( ha)-ko] Chelswu-Top flower-To p rose-su b bestM doC malha-yss-ta. say-past-M 'Speaking o f Chelswu , he said , 'Speakin g o f flowers , rose s ar e best.'.' Given (93) , on e migh t suggest tha t ever y clause may have a topic positio n an d topics mov e successive-cyclically , lik e foci . However , i t seem s tha t no t ever y clause can hav e a topic. Whitma n (1989), fo r example , observe s tha t ther e ar e co-occurrence relation s betwee n topics an d sentenc e typ e marker s ( = M's ) i n Korean: topics may no t appea r in clause s whic h have no M. The followin g examples ar e fro m Whitma n (1989) whos e embedde d clause s (nou n complemen t clause (94a); factive claus e (94b); and if clause (94c)) are not supposed to allo w M's an d therefore have no topics accordin g to Whitman: (94) a . [kaul-i/-*u n o-nu n soli-ka] NP tul-li-n-ta . Autumn-NOM/Top come- C sound-NO M hear-PAST-INDI C 'The soun d of autum n comin g can be heard.'

310

Discourse Configurational Languages

b. [ ney cwucang-i/-*u n olh-ass-um-ul] NP nacwung-ey-y a your claim-NOM/To p right-PAST-C-AC C end-in-onl y kkaytal-ass-ta. realize-PAST-INDIC 'Only i n the en d di d we realize th e Tightness of your claim. ' c. [ kyewul-i/-*un o-myen] i anh-ta . cp pom- i mel-c Winter-NOMATop come-i f spring-NO M far- C NEG-INDI C 'When winte r comes, sprin g isn't fa r off. ' ((19 ) i n Whitman (1989)) However, strictl y speaking , i t seem s tha t the observatio n ma y no t b e correc t because eac h o f the sentence s i n (94) may have M, but may not have a topic, a s shown i n (95) . (95) a . [

NP [ T

ku-{ka/*nun } o-n-ta](-ha)-nun sosik-ul ] ally-ess-ta . he-sub/Top come-pres-M-do- C news-ob j inform-past- M '(I) le t (them ) kno w the news that he comes.' b. [ Np [^ ku-{ka/*nun } olh-ta]-nu n kes-ul ] he-sub/Top right-M- C a thing-obj {kkay tal/palkyenha} -ess-ta. realize/discover-past-M '(I) realized/discovered ( a fact) tha t he is right.' c. [ cp Chelswu-k a [ T ku-{ka/*nun } iki-n-ta]-myen] cohaha-lke-ta . Chelswu-sub he-sub/To p win-pres-M-i f happy-will- M 'If he wins, Chelswu wil l b e happy.'

The underlined he's ar e hardly understood as topics althoug h they appea r i n th e clauses wit h a n M. The above dat a sugges t tha t ther e ma y be n o real co-occur rence relations betwee n M' s an d topics. Thus, on e might sugges t that embedde d topics ar e marked in general , a s many have observed fo r English. However , th e suggestion canno t explain th e contrast between (93) an d (95) . There seem s t o be a difference betwee n (93) and (95) : Th e phrase T specified in (93 ) an d (95 ) can b e interprete d as a direct quotation in (93 ) bu t no t i n (95) . When matrix verbs are verbs of saying and preferably when {-la/ha}- appea r (cf . n. 28) , th e embedde d clause s ca n hav e a quotatio n reading , a s show n i n (96) , where th e coindexin g between / i n T and the matri x he i s possible: (96) a . ku-nutt ; [[ T { ku/nay}-ka; ka-yama n ha-nunya]{-la/ha}-k o he-Top he/I-su b go-shoul d do-Q{-[+V]/do}- C mul-ess-ta. ask-past-M 'He aske d if he should go.' / 'Shoul d I go?' he asked.' b. ku-nu n [[ T { ku/nayj-ka olh-ta]{-la/ha}-ko ] malha-yss-ta . he-Top he/I-su b right-M{-[+V]/do}C say-past- M 'He sai d he was right.' / " I a m right,' he said.'

F0CH5 and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 31

1

On th e othe r hand , withi n a n if clause , wher e neithe r topi c no r {-la/ha}- ca n appear, as given in (97), the phrase T is never understood as a quotation, as shown in the followin g binding fact s (cf . (95c)) . (97) *[ cp Chelswu-ka; [ T nay-{ka/nun} ; iki-n-ta]-myen ] cohaha-lke-ta . Chelswu-sub I-sub/To p win-pres-M-i f happy-will- M *'If I j win , ChelswUj will be happy. ' Thus, d o {-la/ha}- trigge r a quotation readin g or ar e they related t o th e appear ance of th e topic? The y do not seem to be, since not every {-la/ha}- phras e can allow a quotation reading. In the environments where topics canno t appear, {-la/ ha}- ca n appear , bu t the y ma y not trigger a quotation reading, a s show n below, where / withi n t ca n rarely be coindexed with the matrix he (cf. (95a-b)): (98) a . *Chelswu-ka j [ NI. [ T nay-ka ; o-n-ta ] (ha)-nu n sosik-ul ] Chelswu-sub I-su b come-pres-M-do- C news-ob j ally-ess-ta. inform-past-M *'(ChelswUj) le t (them ) know the news that /; come.' b. ku r nun [[ t { ku/*nayj-ka sok-ass-ta ] ha-nun ] kes-u l he-Top he/I-su b cheat-pastM do-C thing-ob j kkaytal-ass-ta. realize-past-M 'He; realized th e fact that {he/*I} ; was cheated.' To conclude, it seems that in the structures where no quotation readings are possible, topic s ma y no t appea r an d tha t whe n the embedde d claus e i s understoo d as a quotation , a n apparen t embedde d topi c ca n appear. 46 Thus , I sugges t tha t topics shoul d appea r i n roo t sentence s (i n Emonds (1976 ) sense). 47 Give n tha t only on e sentence-initia l NP-nun ca n be interprete d a s a topic (cf . (35)) , I als o conclude tha t ever y root sentenc e can have only one topic . If th e abov e conclusion is correct, then there may be n o intermediate landing sites o f Topi c Movemen t between topics an d thei r original positions. I n fact , i t seems that a locality condition does not hold in the relation between a topic and its gap . As Sait o notes fo r Japanes e topic sentence s (cf . als o Kun o (1973)) , al though Topic Movement i n Korea n can be long-distance, lik e Focus/Wh-move ment (cf . (91)) , bu t i t doe s no t sho w Subjacenc y effect s whethe r a resumptive pronoun appear s or not: 48 (99) a . k u kakkyo-nu n Chelswu-k a (kekise); kongpwuha-yss-ta-nu n the school-To p Chelswu-su b there study-past-MC somun-i allyecy-ess-ta . rumor-sub become.known-past- M (CNPC ) 'Speaking o f th e school , a rumor tha t Chelsw u studied (there) became known (to all).'

312

Discourse Configurational Languages

b. k u kulim-nun ; nay-k a (kukes-ul) j kuli- n salam-u l the picture-To p I-su b it-ob j drawC th e person-ob j al-ko iss-ta . know-and exist- M (CNPC ) 'Speaking o f the picture, I know a person wh o painted (it). ' c. Chelswu-nun ; na-NU N (ku-ka); ttena-n-ta-mye n sulphu-kyess-ta . Chelswu-Top I-CO N he-su b leave-pres-M-i f sad-will- M 'Speaking o f Chelswu , I woul d be sa d i f (he ) left. ' (th e Adjunct Condition) d. k u kulim-un ; motwu-k a ENCE Y (kukes-i) ; kuli- e the picture-To p everyone-su b whe n it-su b draw-t o cy-ess-nunci kwungkumhayha-n-ta . become-past-Q wonder-pres- M (th e Wh-island Condition ) 'Speaking o f the picture , everybod y wonder s whe n (it ) wa s painted.' The fourt h difference between topic s an d foci i s that onl y NP' s ca n be topic s while an y major category ca n be focused . As for possibl e categorie s fo r topics , one might, however, suggest that PPs can be topics in Korean . Sait o (1985) , fo r example, observes tha t Japanese allows a sentence-initial PP-wa ( = PP-nwn ) bu t it is different fro m a n NP-topic: It does not allow resumptive pronouns and move ment o f PP-wa obey s Subjacency . I n fact , th e sam e i s tru e i n Korean : (100) a . phekhing-ey-{NUN/*nun} j con- i (? * kekiey); tany-e w-ass-ta . Peking-to-CON/Top John-su b ther e go-t o come-past- M 'John ha s been t o Peking.' b. ?phekhing-un i con- i (kekiey) ; tany- e w-ass-ta . Peking-Top John-su b ther e go-t o come-past- M 'Speaking o f Peking, Joh n ha s been (there). ' (101) a . Inchen-ey-{NUN/*nun} ; nay-k a ??(*kekiey) ; sa-nu n salam-u l Incheon-in-CON/Top I-su b ther e liveC person-ob j manhi a-n-ta . many know-pres- M 'I know many persons wh o live i n Incheon. ' b. Inchen-un j nay-k a (kekiey) ; sa-nu n salam-u l manh i Incheon-in-Top I-su b ther e liveC person-ob j man y a-n-ta. know-pres-M 'Speaking o f Incheon, I know many persons wh o live there. ' (As fo r (100-lOla), se e Saito (1985 , 331-333).) As show n i n (100-lOla) , a resumptiv e pronou n canno t appea r whe n a P P i s preposed an d the appearance of a resumptive pronoun renders a Subjacency vio lation more unacceptable (cf. (lOla)). On the other hand, an NP can move to topi c position ou t of a PP, as shown in (100-lOlb) and in this case, Subjacenc y is no t

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 31

3

respected an d resumptive pronouns may be used. This suggest s that the sentence initial PP-nun i s obtained b y a , process differen t fro m Topi c Movement while an NP ca n mov e t o topi c positio n ou t o f a PP . In fact , semanticall y speaking , ac cording t o my intuitions, a PP-nun is never understood a s a topic bu t a s a contrastive focu s i n (100-lOla). 49 Thus, I conclude that onl y NP's ca n be topics in Korean.

4.4. The Structure of Topic Sentences and Licensing The differences between topi c an d focus sentence s discusse d abov e suggest tha t Topic Movement is different fro m Focu s Movement. In addition, I've show n that topics shoul d appea r o n th e lef t sid e o f foc i o r i n a higher positio n tha n focu s positions. Based on the properties of topics discusse d in the previous subsections , I propose the following: The structure of topic sentences has the form of relative clauses, whic h may explai n wh y onl y NP' s ma y b e topic s i n Korea n an d wh y topics canno t be PF-scramblc d bu t fixe d i n sentence-initia l position . Jus t a s I propose the category F, I also propose the category T, which mediates th e topic comment relation in the clause, and I suggest th e following structure similar t o Chomsky's (1977 ) topi c structure 50 (cf. als o Kun o (1973)) or to the structur e of relative clauses , employin g null operator movement: 51

The hea d T , I suggest , i s phoneticall y realized a s -nun, whic h is affixe d t o th e head o f the base-generated topi c (NP ;), an d assigns [+t ] t o th e topic s o that th e topic i s properly licensed t o b e interpreted a s a topic. 52 T represents a categor y which contain s th e elements responsibl e fo r the topic-comment relation , an d |i is FP or MP as the topi c appear s i n a higher positio n tha n foci . NP-nun an d TP have th e topic-commen t relatio n (o r psychologica l subject-predicat e relation ) under th e coindexin g betwee n N P an d th e nul l operato r 0 , whic h i s probabl y motivated b y strong binding (cf . Chomsky (1986a)) or by predication; and ; becomes j or vice versa probably through a Spec-head relatio n (between 0 ; in Spe c and T (t.) ) o r Spec-hea d indexing .

314

Discourse Configurational Languages

Given tha t Subjacenc y doe s no t hold i n topic sentences , I sugges t tha t a null operator move s in LF and the topic-comment relatio n is obtained i n LF. Note that if NP topics move in syntax, then one has to explain why topic sentence s d o not exhibit Subjacenc y effects (cf . n . 48) . Thus , i t seem s tha t th e nul l operato r ap proach t o topi c sentence s i s well-motivated . I n addition , th e structur e i n (102 ) also explains wh y wh-phrases canno t appea r i n topi c position , a s in (103) . (103) *NWUKWU-nu n ne-NU N Chelswu-k a cohaha-n-ta-k o who-top you-CO N Chelswu-su b like-pres-M- C sayngkakha-ni? think-Q 'Speaking o f who , do you thin k Chelswu like s him?' As T[+t ] i s highe r tha n F[+f,+wh] , a wh-phras e i n topi c positio n woul d not b e properly license d i n LF, since F[+wh ] canno t govern it . Since a resumptiv e pronoun ca n b e employe d i n topi c sentences , i t ca n b e suggested tha t th e nul l operato r i n a topi c sentenc e i s [+pronominal ] (a s Browning (1987 ) ha s suggeste d tha t a null operato r i s pro) , whic h ma y b e op tionally phoneticall y realized . Thi s pronomina l natur e of th e nul l operato r ma y provide a n answer to the question o f why no WCO effect s ar e observed i n topi c sentences: (104) a . (? ) Chelswu-nun-t [ caki-ka{ k u il-u l haynay-ss-ta-nu n Chelswu-Top self-su b th e thing-ob j do-past-M- C sasil-i] [ku-lul/t}{ mops i kippukeyha-yss-ta . fact-sub he-ob j ver y please-past- M 'Speaking o f Chelswu ;, th e fac t tha t he ; di d i t pleased {him/t};. ' In a 'funn y binding ' environmen t as in (104a), whe n the embedded subjec t i s an anaphora (caki-ka), whic h canno t b e inteprete d a s a resumptiv e pronoun , onl y the matrix ku may be interprete d a s a resumptive pronoun , an d WCO effect s d o not appear. Katali n E. Kiss (p.c.) has pointed ou t to me, SCO effects may not be tested becaus e i n a topic structur e in (104b) , wher e ku ma y appea r i n bot h em bedded an d matrix clauses , eithe r th e matrix ku or the embedded ku can be con sidered a s a resumptive pronoun . (104) b . Chelswu-nun ; {ku-ka/t}j[Yenghi-k a {ku-lul/*t} ; cohaha-n-ta-ko ] Chelswu-Top he-su b Yenghi-su b he-ob j like-pres-MC sayngkakha-n-ta. think-pres-M 'Speaking of Chelswu; {he/t} ; thinks that Yengh i likes {him/*!};.' I, however, suppose that th e sentenc e is ungrammatica l when a resumptive pro noun is in the embedded clause, as shown in (104b) , assumin g that A-bar move ment, i n general , exhibit s SC O effects .

Focus and Top Ic Movement in Korean and Licensing 31

5

One question one can raise at this point is why WCO effects d o not appear in topic sentences . To answer this question, assumin g that variable bindin g applie s in LF , I suppos e tha t variable s left b y movemen t of pronomina l null-operator s are also pronominal , unlik e variables left b y Focus/Wh-movement , an d that th e basic natur e of pronominal s is a s follows : Pronominal s ar e A-fre e i n a certai n binding domain . Then on e can as k whethe r pronominal variable s hav e a differ ent bindin g domain fro m on e fo r pronominals . To explai n th e fac t i n (104) , I suggest that the binding domain for pronominal variables i s the c-command do main of null operators in A-bar position (cf . Chomsky (1986a)). Then, conditio n B has tw o instantiations : the 'usua l conditio n B in (105a ) (cf . Chomsky (1981) ) and (105b ) fo r pronomina l variables . O n th e othe r hand , conditio n C i s (106) , which applie s onl y t o name s an d nonpronomina l variables lef t b y Focus/Wh movement, which may not b e coreferentia l wit h a pronominal i n Korean . (105) a . A pronominal is, A-free i n it s governin g category. b. A pronomial variabl e is A-free in the c-comman d domai n o f it s operator. (106) R-expression s ar e A-free. Under thi s binding theory, in (104a) , a variable, which is pronominal, would not be bound in the domain of its operator satisfying the condition in (105b). In fact, on e need have an assumption that there are two types of variables that obey different bindin g conditions, i n order t o explai n the ungrammaticalit y of (107) , where he bind s t, an d th e grammaticalit y of (104a) , wher e Chelswu-nun bind s f 53 wtien a variabl e i s no t pronominal , i t shoul d b e A-free i n accordanc e wit h (106); an d (106 ) rule s ou t (107) . (107) *He j wonder s whoni ; John likes t;. The situation in (104) reminds me of the anti-c-command requirement o f parasitic ga p construction s under th e theor y wher e parasiti c gap s ar e explaine d i n terms o f nul l operato r movement . (108a), i n whic h a variabl e doe s no t c-com mand a parasiti c gap , i s grammatica l whereas (108b) , i n whic h a a variabl e c commands a parasiti c gap , i s ungrammatica l (cf. Chomsk y (1982 ; 1986b ) an d references therein) . (108) a . What ; did yo u fil e t ; before you rea d C ; b. *Who i t ; me t yo u befor e yo u recognize d 6 j (cf. Chomsk y (1986b , 54) )

If on e ignore s Oj's i n th e S-structur e representatio n of (108a-b ) schematize d in (108c), (108c ) i s exactl y paralle l t o th e L F representatio n of (104 ) show n in

316

Discourse Configurational Languages

(108d): I n (108c), whe n the variable t;l bind s t;2 the sentence i s supposed t o be ungrammatical (108b ) bu t i t i s grammatica l otherwis e (108a) . I n (108d) , whe n he bind s t; 2 th e sentenc e i s ungrammatica l (104b ) an d i t i s grammatica l other wise (104a). To explain the parallelism betwee n (104a-b) and (108a-b), one may modify (105b ) under an assumption that the variable lef t b y null operator move ment in parasitic ga p construction is also pronominal. Not e further tha t the strong binder of t;2, which determines the value of a variable in (108c), is the wh-phras e but not the null operator. The contrast in (108a-b) can thus be accounted fo r under the modificatio n o f (105b ) shown in (109) . (109) A pronominal variable is A-free in the c-command domain of its strong binder (wit h a phonetic matrix) . Given (109) , (108b ) i s ruled ou t sinc e t ;2 is not fre e i n th e domai n o f its stron g binder (who). (Bu t see Chomsky (1986b , 63) fo r a different accoun t of th e con trast in (108a-b).) By the same token, in (108d), th e topic but not [0 ] is a strong binder (cf . Chomsky (1986a, 109)) . Thus, in (104a) , t j is fre e i n th e c-comman d domain of its stron g binder, the topic;, and therefore (104a ) is ruled in by (109). On th e othe r hand , (104b) i s rule d ou t becaus e t( i s boun d by he i n th e c-com mand domai n o f it s stron g binder . T o conclude , i t seem s tha t th e parallelis m between (104a-b ) an d (108a-b) furthe r suggest s tha t th e presen t nul l operato r movement analysi s of topi c sentence s is well-motivated. The fina l questio n whic h ca n b e raise d i s wha t P i n (102 ) is . Accordin g t o Whitman, a topic move s t o Spec-MP . I n fact , i t seem s tha t topi c positio n i s not higher tha n Spec-CP . Conside r (110) . A topic ca n b e rightwar d inverte d t o ap pear betwee n M and ha-ko (do-C ) (HOa ) but no t to th e right side o f C (llOb) . (110) a . [cangmi-k a choeko-ta , kkos-u n ha-ko ] ku-nu n malha-yss-ta . rose-sub best- M flower-Top do-C he-To p say-past- M 'He said , 'Speakin g o f flowers, roses ar e best." b. * [ cangmi-ka choeko-ta , ha-ko ] kkos-u n ku-nu n malha-yss-ta . rose-sub best- M do-C flower-Top he-To p say-past- M The contras t suggest s tha t a topi c shoul d appea r a t leas t i n th e c-comman d do main of C. There is one more reason why topics appea r IP-internally. As discussed in Sectio n 1 , when a n adjunc t no t closel y linke d t o V i s preposed , th e subjec t NP-nun ma y be easil y understoo d as a topic. The followin g data sho w that cer tain adverbial s ma y precede topics : (111) a . {hyangki-k a coh-a-se/solcikh i malha-myen } kkos-un fragrance-sub good-to-as/frankl y speak-i f flower-To p cangmi-ka choeko-ta . rose-sub best- M '{As thei r fragrance i s good/Frankly speaking}, speakin g of flowers, rose s ar e best.'

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 31

7

b. pakk- i chwuwu-ltta y khephi-nu n hangsan g mom-u l outside-sub colcl-whe n coffee-To p alway s body-ob j noky-e cwu-n-ta . warm-to make-pres- M 'When th e outsid e i s cold, speakin g o f coffee, (it ) alway s makes us warm. ' c. ile n taycayen-isok-eys e tongmultul-u n cayen-u y pepchik-e y this bi g nature-in-a t animals-To p nature-ge n law-t o ttala sala ka-n-ta . in.line.with live-t o go-pres- M 'In this might y nature, speakin g o f animals , (they ) liv e in accordance wit h th e law o f nature.' Thus, on e can suggest tha t they ar e syntactically in the same statu s as sententia l adverbials i n that topics li e within IP but not outside I P or CP as adverbials may not appea r outsid e IP/CP . To summarize, I have arrived at the following: Only NPs can be topics; topic s can appea r onl y in roo t sentence s i n the sens e o f Emond s (1976 ) an d appea r i n the c-comman d domai n o f C but outsid e FP ; th e claus e ma y no t contai n mor e than one topic; the structure of topic sentences i s similar to that of relative clause s in that a topic i s base-generated as the sister node of TP whose head i s T, which assigns [+t ] t o th e topi c t o properl y licens e it ; an d a topi c sentenc e contain s a base-generated pronomina l null operator, which moves to Spec-TP t o license th e topic-comment relatio n i n LF , triggerin g th e topic-commen t interpretatio n o f a topic sentence . Finally , a pronomina l variabl e obey s a BT(B ) give n i n (109) , unlike a nonpronominal variable .

5. Conclusion and Related Issues So far, I have discussed three differen t instantiation s of syntactic/LF A-bar move ment and a n LF process o f null topic operator movement in Korean . As for syntactic A-ba r movement , I discusse d thre e differen t instantiation s o f A-ba r movement. First , I showe d that information foci ma y syntactically move i n Korean, like Hungaria n foci, and they also move in LF, like English foci. On e wel come aspec t o f the presen t analysi s i s tha t som e aspect s o f free wor d orde r ar e not analyze d a s bein g derive d b y language-particula r processes . I n fact , I'v e showed tha t apparent long-disitance 'scrambling ' is, in reality, derived by the rule of focus , whic h shoul d b e employe d i n languages wit h informatio n foci . B y in troducing th e functiona l category F , I suggeste d tha t Focu s Movemen t i s moti vated i n th e sam e wa y a s Wh-movement : Foc i mov e i n orde r t o b e properl y licensed b y the feature [+f] ari d wh-phrases move in order to be properly license d by th e featur e [+wh] . Base d o n th e fact s tha t multipl e Focu s Movemen t i s al lowed an d tha t n o wh-islan d effect s appear , I sugges t that foc i mov e t o b e as signed [+f ] unde r agreement with F[+f ] t o b e properl y licensed . I als o showe d that contrastiv e foci, whic h ere marked with -NUN ma y als o mov e i n synta x o r

318

Discourse Configurational Languages

in LF , like informatio n foci, an d they ar e license d i n th e sam e wa y a s informa tion foci . Given two semanticall y differen t type s of foci that have the sam e syn tax in Korean , it would be difficul t t o suggest tha t focus is assigned i n a certai n position (cf . Horvat h (1986 ; thi s volume)) , unles s on e assume s tha t a position may b e assigne d differen t type s o f foci. Her e I sugges t tha t bot h foc i ar e basegenerated a s such and that they should meet the Licensing Condition s sayin g that information/contrastive foc i shoul d b e assigne d [+f ] b y a functional categor y F to be properly licensed . I n this regard, the present analysi s assume s tha t there i s a parallelism between foci an d wh-phrases in that they both ar e properly license d to be interpreted as foci an d wh-phrases wit h scope b y undergoing A-bar move ment t o a certain position. Thi s approac h thu s differ s fro m Horvath' s approac h (this volume) where th e parallelism betwee n Case assignment an d focus assign ment i s emphasized . It has been widel y assumed that wh-phrases i n Korean are in situ and move i n LF, although the y ma y b e 'scrambled. ' I have , however , show n tha t apparen t 'scrambling' of wh-phrases i s in fac t derive d b y Wh-movement in synta x whic h obeys Subjacenc y an d th e EC P an d tha t wh-phrase s mee t a certai n Licensin g Condition, whic h say s tha t a wh-phras e shoul d b e assigne d [+wh ] throug h th e government o f its scop e marke r whic h triggers Spec-hea d indexing , whic h cor rectly implie s tha t multipl e Wh-movemen t i n synta x i s no t possibl e an d Wh movement obey s th e Wh-island Condition . I hav e als o show n tha t th e landin g site o f Wh-movement in Korea n lies i n th e c-comman d domai n o f C an d i s th e same a s that of Focu s Movement , in reality. I f I a m right i n tha t Korea n allow s syntactic Wh-movement , Baker' s (1970 , 207 ) hypothesi s tha t onl y language s which position thei r particle s fo r yes-no questions i n clause-initial positio n per mit a movemen t rul e fo r questione d constituent s ma y no t b e correc t (cf . als o Koopman's (1984 ) discussion on Vata, where CP is head-final and Wh-movement is leftward) . I n addition , Korea n syntacti c Wh-movemen t als o provide s direc t counterevidence agains t Bach's (1971, 164 ) generalization tha t (syntactic ) Question Movemen t neve r occur s i n (deep ) SO V languages . As fo r topic sentences , I adapte d som e widel y accepted assumptions : Move ment i s involved in topic sentence s (cf . Kuroda (1967)) an d XP topics ar e basegenerated. Ther e ar e som e ne w aspect s o f topic s discusse d here : Onl y NP's , including nominalized -ki phrases, can be topics; topics appear i n root sentence s and ar e license d i n a highe r positio n tha n foc i includin g wh-phrases ; an d L F movement of pronominal null operators i s involved in topic sentences . Finally , I suggest tha t in LF, the sentenc e structur e shoul d be a s shown i n (112). As illus trated i n (113) , in fact, both a wh-phrase an d a focus appea r o n the righ t sid e of the topi c tha t may be coindexe d wit h a resumptive pronoun . (112) [ T topic; [ Tp O s [ Fp focuSj [ a . . . t

;

. . . ^ . . . ] F[+f] ] T[+t]] ]

(113) a . Chelswu-nun ; NWU-ka j t j (ku-ka) ; ttokttokha-ta-k o mit-nayo ? Chelswu-Top who-su b he-su b smart-M- C believeQ 'Speaking o f Chelswu ;, who : t believe s {t/he} j is intelligent?'

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 31

9

b. Chelswu-nun j {SWUNTOL-I/Swuntol-UNJ j ^ (ku-ka) j Chelswu-Top Swuntol-sub/Swuntol-CO N he-su b ttokttokha-ta-ko sayngkakha-n-ta . smart-M-C think-presM 'Speaking o f Chelswul;, SWUNTOL j t j think s {t/he} ; i s intelligent.' Under th e presen t analysi s o f topi c an d focu s sentence s i n Korean , on e ca n raise som e theoretical o r empirical questions. First, sinc e tw o functional categories between CP and TnsP/MP (i.e., TP and FP) are introduced withi n the clause , one might wonder abou t their barrierhood give n that they ar e not L-marked (cf . Chomsky (1986b)). As for the lack of the barrierhood o f FP with respect to Wh/ Focus Movement , one can motivate a version of Rizzi's Relativize d Minimalit y and als o a notion o f Restructuring discussed i n Cho e (1988) . I leav e thi s issu e open fo r furthe r researches . Second , i f wh-phrase s move to th e insid e o f IP bu t not to Spec-CP, one may also wonder how the scope of wh-phrases interacts with the scop e of quantifiers, which are widely assumed to move to IP. 54 Since quantifiers i n Korea n are not wel l understood, it seems tha t the natur e of quantifiers in Korean has to be clarified first . I also leave this issue open. Third, i t has been suggested i n J . Cho e (1987 ) tha t Pied Pipin g account s for th e reaso n wh y LF movement does not obey Subjacency. However, it seems that syntactic Pied Pip ing i s more restricte d tha n LF Pied Pipin g (cf . (114-115a ) vs. (114-115b)) : An NP containing a wh-phrase in its possessor positio n (whos e extraction ma y vio late the Left Branc h Condition) ma y undergo Pied Pipin g in synta x (114a) bu t a complex N P containing a clause wit h a wh-phrase may not undergo Pie d Pipin g in synta x (115a). 55 I n addition , th e sam e contras t hold s o f Englis h (cf . (114ai ) vs. (115ai) ; cf. als o Fiengo , e t al. (1988)). (114) a . [NWUKWU-u y chayk-ul ] Swuni-NU N [Chelswu-ka who book-ob j Swuni-CO N Chelswu-su b ilk-ess-ta-ko] sayngkakha-nayo ? read-past-M-C think- Q (i) 'Whos e book does Swun i think that Chelswu read?' b. Swuni-NU N [Chelswu-ka [NWUKWU-u y chayk-ul] Swuni-CON Chelswu-su b wh o book-ob j ilk-ess-ta-ko] sayngkakha-nayo ? read-past-M-C think- Q *'Swuni thinks ; that Chelswu read whos e book?' (nonecho question) (115) a . *[Yenghi-k a NWUKWU-eyke y sacwu-n chayk-ul ] Swuni-NUN Yenghi-sub who-t o buyC book-ob j Swuni-CO N [ Chelswu-ka ilk-ess-ta-ko ] sayngkakha-nayo ? Chelswu-sub read-past-M- C think- Q (i) *' A book tha t Yenghi bought for whom does Swun i think that Chelswu read T

320

Discourse Configurational Languages b. Swuni-NU N Chelswu-k a [ Yenghi-ka NWUKWU-eyke y Swuni-CON Chelswu-su b Yenghi-su b who-t o sacwu-n chayk-ul ] ilk-ess-ta-ko ] sayngkakha-nayo ? buy-C book-ob j read-past-M- C think- Q *'Swuni think s tha t Chelsw u rea d a book tha t Yenghi bough t fo r whom?'

In fact , man y reseacher s hav e pointed ou t that Pied Pipin g does no t accoun t fo r all th e difference s o f LF-movemen t an d syntacti c movement . Thus, i t woul d b e interesting t o examin e ho w the y diffe r i n Korea n a s Korea n employ s bot h L F and syntacti c A-bar movement .

Notes * I' d lik e t o than k Katali n E . Kis s fo r invitin g m e t o contribut e t o thi s volum e an d calling scholarl y attentio n to topic an d focus in Korean . I am also gratefu l to her for he r helpful comment s o n th e previou s versio n (1991) . I than k Richar d Kayne , Ji m Higginbotham, an d Ale c Marant z fo r thei r helpful/encouragin g comment s an d Takash i Imai, Joo-Wo n Kim , and Hyeonji n Lee fo r sharin g wit h m e thei r intuition s and/or con firming m y judgements on the data, with which I sometimes ha d a hard time. I also thank for their comments participants of a monthly workshop organized by the Generative Gram mar Circl e i n Kore a (May , 1992 ) an d thos e o f th e 8t h ICK L conference a t th e Georg e Washington Universit y (Aug , 1992 ) wher e I presente d th e firs t tw o section s o f thi s pa per. Finally , I especially than k Kang-Ok Lee fo r helping me understand his Kimha y dia lect, whic h provides interestin g data from the perspective o f my approach to wh-sentence s in Korean . 1. The parallelism betwee n Focu s Movemen t an d Wh-movement is discussed i n Brody (1990), wh o suggest s tha t Hungaria n employ s F P whose hea d select s V P and tha t wh phrases an d foc i mov e t o Spec-F P i n Hungarian . (Se e also Horvat h (thi s volume ) fo r criticisms o n Brod y (1990)). Given Brody' s (1990 ) discussio n o n Hungarian focus, (ia ) can b e suggested , an d i n Sectio n 1 , (ib) i s suggeste d fo r English . (i) a . I n Hungarian , F[+fj license s wh-phrase s an d (information ) foci a t S- S and a = VP. b. I n English, F[+f ] license s (information ) foc i (i n LF) wherea s C[+wh ] licenses wh-phrase s (a t S-S) an d a = IP (or AgrP in Chomsky (1989)) . In fact , i t seem s tha t th e relativ e orde r amon g functiona l categories ma y diffe r fro m language t o languag e (cf . also Polloc k (1989) , Chomsky (1989) , Laka (1989) , Whitma n (1989), Bellett i (1990) , Mitchel l (1991) , etc.) . 2. Jo (1986) observe s fre e word orde r amon g pre-N element s withi n NP. I do not dis cuss i t here. 3. In Korean glosses, the Yale Romanization system is followed, which reflects the Korean spellin g syste m withou t reflectin g pronunciation . The followin g abbreviation s ar e used: sub—subjectiv e cas e marker ; obj—objectiv e cas e marker ; gen—genitiv e cas e marker; Top—topic marker; CON—contrastiv e focus marker; C—complementizer ; M— sentence typ e marker or moo d marker ; Q—question marker ; N—nominalizer ; H—hon orific marker ; past—pas t tens e marker ; pres—present tens e marker . Topi c an d contras -

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 32

1

live focu s markers , th e subjective cas e marker , an d the objective cas e marke r hav e mor phological variants in accordance wit h their phonetic environments : -nun/(u)n (Top/CON) , -ka/i (sub) , & -lul/ul (obj) . The subjective/ objectiv e cas e markers in Korean do not nec essarily reflec t abstrac t Cas e i n Chomsky' s (1981 ) sense . As for tens e (Tns ) an d agree ment (A ) marker s an d sentenc e typ e marker s (M) , I ma y specif y the m onl y whe n the y are phoneticall y realize d assumin g the followin g orde r o f inflectiona l morpholog y i n Korean: V—A—Tns—M—C (cf . Whitma n (1989); Cho e (1991)) . 4. This fac t ma y suggest tha t in Korean , ther e ma y be a t least tw o focu s positions i n the clause : pre-V positio n an d sentence-initial position. In fact, Kim (1985) and Jo (1986; this volume) both sugges t tha t a pre-V position i s the focus positio n i n Korean . J o (thi s volume) also suggests some restri cted verbs with certain subcategorization properties hav e a focu s position o n thei r immediate-lef t side. I wil l no t discus s ho w t o incorporat e th e facts i n Jo under the analysis i n (1), bu t leav e i t ope n fo r furthe r researc h (cf . also data in Horvath (thi s volume)) . 5. (i a an d b) sho w som e relevan t data : (i) a . ku-lu l manna-ki-NUN ha-yss-t a (kulen a mal-u l mos-kenney-ss-ta) . he-obj meet-to-CO N do-past- M bu t word-ob j not-pass-past- M '(I) met him (bu t I was not abl e t o sa y a word (t o him)).' b. ku-nu n Yenghi-NUN manna-ss-t a (kulen a Chelswu-NUN he-Top Yenghi-CO N meet-past- M bu t Chelswu-CO N mos-manna-ss-ta). not-meet-past-M 'He met Yenghi (bu t he did no t mee t Chelswu).' Contrastive foci , bein g foci , d o no t hav e certai n typica l propertie s o f topic s (cf . Section 3) . 6. Hai g (1976 , 369-370 ) observe s tha t i n Japanes e NP' s ar e fronte d acros s a claus e boundary through a process calle d emphatic fronting. Saito (1985) call s th e fronting pro cess acros s a claus e boundar y i n Japanes e long-distanc e scramblin g bu t a s h e also as sumes that 'scrambled elements' ar e focused (cf. Saito (1985, 158)) , his 'scrambling ' may be considered a s a process o f focu s movement. 7. As expected unde r a movement approach, Ross's (1967 ) Coordinat e Structure Constraint, which prevents movement out of a coordinate structure, is respected (ia ) an d th e 'across-the-board' applicatio n (cf. Williams (1978)) is possibl e (ib) : (i) a . *YENGHI-LU L [na-NUN Swuni-lu l po-ass-k o Chelswu-NU N Yenghi-obj I-CO N Swuni-ob j see-past-conj Chelswu-CO N o-ass-ta], see-past-M 'I sa w Swuni and Chelswu saw YENGHI.' b. YENGHI-LUL [ na-NUN po-ass-ko Chelswu-NU N po-c i Yenghi-obj I-CO N see-past-con j Chelswu-CO N see- T mos-ha-yss-ta]. not-do-past-M 'I sa w YENGHI and Chelsw u was not abl e to se e YENGHI.' 8. Attributing th e observatio n t o Susum u Kuno, Sait o (1985, 207 ) note s tha t the sub ject without a case marker has a. topic meaning. In fact , i n (7b-c), the objects withou t the

322

Discourse Configurational Languages

case marke r ma y b e understoo d a s topic s (cf . Section 3 ) o r a s PF-scramble d (cf . n. 9 and (54)) . 9. By PF-scrambling, I mean a process that doe s no t affec t th e syntactic structur e o f a sentence, and therefore doe s not affec t its LF interpretation. PF-scramblin g may be constrained i n certain ways : For example, focuse d elements ma y not be PF-scrambled across the topi c o f th e sentenc e (cf . (3a-b) an d (6)) . However , th e exac t formulatio n o f th e contraints o n PP-scrambling is beyon d th e scop e of this paper . 10. The sentence-initia l NP-ka i n Korea n tend s t o b e focuse d an d ma y als o hav e a n exhaustive focu s reading , a s i n Japanese (cf . Kuno (1973)) . I thu s sugges t tha t whe n i t has an exhaustive reading, it undergoes Focu s Movemen t in LF or at S-structure. In short , I sugges t a n exhaustiv e readin g ma y b e par t o f th e semantic s o f informatio n focu s i n Korean. One more propert y o f information foci may be that they tend t o be nonquantificational : There hav e bee n man y observation s wher e 'scrambling ' affect s quantifie r readings . HJ . Lee (1990) , fo r example, observe s tha t in (i-ii) th e sentence-initia l a man tend s t o hav e wide scop e ove r every woman whethe r i t i s a n object o r a subject . (i) HA N NAMCA-K A modu n yeca-lu l salangha-n-ta . a man-su b ever y woman-ob j love-pres- M 'A MA N loves ever y woman. ' (ii) HA N NAMCA-LUL modu n yeca-k a salangha-n-ta . a man-ob j ever y woman-su b love-pres- M 'Every woma n loves A MAN.' Because th e sentence-initia l elemen t tend s t o b e focused , a s specifie d i n (i-ii), Lee' s observation woul d b e accounte d fo r unde r th e followin g thre e assumptions : (a ) a man may b e eithe r referentia l o r quantificationa l (cf. Fodor an d Sa g (1982)) ; (b ) whe n i t i s focused, i t tend s t o be referentia l bu t ma y no t b e quantificational ; (c ) focu s positio n i s hierarchically highe r tha n quantifie r positio n i n LF . Interestingly enough , especiall y i n the cas e o f (ii ) even whe n th e focuse d objec t A MAN i s i n situ , i t ha s wid e scop e ove r every woman bu t wit h n o stres s o n a man, every woman ma y hav e scop e ove r a man, whether a man is proposed or not, although it is easy fo r a man t o be focused , whe n i t is preposed. 11. It seems tha t when the null anaphora [0] in Korean appears in WCO environments , WCO effect s ar e not easil y observe d whe n a focused elemen t move s (ia) , bu t whe n i t is in situ , wea k WC O effect s ar e observe d (ib): (i) a . I(SWUNI-LUL) Chelswu-NU N (SWUNI-LUL) [Yenghi-k a [0] ; Swuni-obj Chelswu-CO N Swuni-ob j Yenghi-su b manna-ki-cencey] t j manna-ss-t a meet-N-before meet-pastM 'Chelswu ha d met SWUNI; , befor e Yengh i met [0] ;.' b. ??(?)Chelswu-NU N [Yenghi-k a [0] ; manna-ki-cencey ] SWUNI-LUL^ Chelswu-CON Yenghi-su b meet-N-befor e Swuni-ob j manna-ss-ta. meet-past-M 'Chelswu ha d me t SWUNI.,, befor e Yengh i me t [0]j. '

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 32

3

The contras t show n i n (ia ) an d (ib) , I suggest , i s du e t o a possibility tha t (ia) , bu t no t (ib), ca n be analyze d a s (ii) : (ii) ?(?)SWUNI-LUL

S

.. . t; ... [0] ;

Derivation (ia ) i s supposed t o be ungrammatical because o f weak WCO effects show n in (ib ) (cf . als o Chomsk y (1976) ; Higginbotha m (1980)) ; the Leftnes s Condition . How ever, i f (la) i s analyze d as (ii), i t would be O.K. a t least wit h respect t o WCO, althoug h (ii) ma y b e a ver y wea k Subjacenc y violation . Not e als o tha t proposin g ou t o f a before clause (i ) render s th e sentenc e mor e acceptable than proposin g ou t o f a because claus e (cf. (17)) . 12. As Katali n E. Kiss has pointe d out to me (p.c.), it is logically possibl e t o have th e following reading , give n th e assumptio n that PF-scramblin g is possible withi n a clause : (i) fo r x = Yenghi, for y = th e poem , Chelsw u sai d t o x tha t Swuni wrote y. Here I assum e tha t (15 ) is , i n fact , ambiguous . B y th e sam e token , (lOb ) ma y als o b e ambiguous. 13. CNPC, whic h is due to Ross (1967) , roughl y say s that a rule cannot mov e a n ele ment out of a complex N P where a complex N P is either a noun complement claus e (16a ) or a relative claus e (16b) . 14. The Adjunct Conditio n roughl y says that a rule cannot move a n element out o f an adjunct (cf . Huang' s (1982) Conditio n on Extraction Domain; Chomsk y (1986b)) . 15. Some Korea n speakers wh o think that (23a-b) are unacceptable agre e that the sentences improv e when there is a lon g pause between th e propose d element s an d th e ma trix subject. One may thus suggest that with a pause, the proposed elements com e to have special pragmati c function s of 'tiieme ' i n th e sens e o f Di k (1980) , wh o suggest s tha t a 'theme' ha s the functio n o f 'scene-setting ' an d is syntactically represented a s a 'left-dis located' elemen t tha t is outside c f th e central predication . Note also that in (23) if the proposed elements ar e interpreted a s left-dislocated 'scene setters,' the matrix subject NP-nun i s easily interprete d a s a topic whil e if they ar e inter preted a s informatio n foci, th e matri x subjec t NP-nw n i s interprete d no t a s a topi c bu t rather as a contrastive focus. This i s interesting from th e present perspective. A s Dik (1980, 134) notes , De Groot (1980) suggests that the functional pattern in (i) would accoun t for Hungarian constituen t order . (i) (left-dislocated ) Theme , Topi c Focus V X, (right-dislocated) tai l (ii) i s the constituen t order i n Korea n I wan t t o sugges t here . (ii) left-dislocate d element , Topic {Informatio n Focus/Contrastiv e Focus/Wh-Focus} ... V, (right-dislocate d element) (cf . a s for rightward dislocation o r inversion i n Korean , se e Choe (1988) ) Given the order amon g the elements boldfaced i n (i-ii), where topic s ar e clause-interna l elements, on e ca n se e th e reaso n wh y th e matri x subjec t wit h th e marke r -nun i n (23 ) can b e interprete d as a topic whe n ther e is a long pause between th e propose d element s and th e matri x subject. This observatio n suggests that Hungaria n an d Korea n both have the sam e order of norigrammatica l function s i n the claus e at a certain level o f represen-

324

Discourse Configurational Languages

tation althoug h the wa y the y ar e syntacticall y represented i n th e claus e ma y diffe r de pending on language-specific selectional properties of functional categories, whic h may be attribute d ultimately to th e parameterization related t o licensin g o r to selection . 16. In Choe (1988; 1991) , a head-head relation which is not morphologically motivated is propose d i n term s o f head-to-hea d Restructuring . Here , I assum e tha t F, which ma y also be indentifie d as M, a s will b e discusse d below , i s restructure d wit h V in a certai n way. 17. This ma y b e a typica l aspec t o f (functional ) categories: Som e feature s of (func tional) categories ar e assigned/discharged in order fo r them to be licensed (cf . Chomsky (1986a); cf . also (75c)) . 18. As will be discusse d below, if a wh-phrase in Spec-XP i s licensed b y government of X[+wh], then it may also be reasonable to suggest for Korean that the links in a chain whose hea d is license d unde r government and thos e i n a chai n whos e hea d i s license d under agreemen t behave differently wit h respect t o anteceden t government . 19. In (32) , becaus e Spec-C P i s open , wh-movemen t shoul d b e allowed , whic h i s no t correct, a s Hak Sun g Han (p.c. ) ha s pointed ou t t o me: (i) a . *Wha t have NEVER I seen ? b. *Wha t NEVER have I seen ? If both wh-phrases or certain foci should be licensed by being governed by an overt lexi cal item in English, a wh-phrase and a focus syntactically cannot move a t the same time, since the sentence woul d be blocked a s either a focus or a wh-phrase would not be prop erly licensed . In fact , th e dat a in (i ) remind me o f 'th e frozen character ' o f Directional/Locative In version o r o f Preposin g aroun d 'be ' i n Rochemon t an d Culicove r (1990) , wh o discus s that sentences wit h preposed element s in (ii), whic h are considered a s foci, d o not allow Subject-Aux Inversion. (ii) a . INT O THE ROOM walked John. b. STANDIN G IN FRONT OF HER wa s Mary. (iii) a . *Di d INTO TH E ROO M walk John? b. *Wa s STANDING IN FRONT OF HER Mary? (cf . (2-3 ) an d (6 ) in Rochemont and Culicover (1990 , 1-2) . Under the present framework, (ii-iii) are explained rather nicely with the assumption one needs for (i): The focus is lexically licensed i n LF in (ii) but not in (iii). In addition, th e postulation o f F i n English woul d also explai n the followin g two constructions : (iv) a . MA Y she liv e long ! b. DON' T yo u ever d o it again. As may an d don't ten d to be focused, I may suggest tha t it is an overt instantiation of an F-I agreement relation obtaine d through I-to-F head movement. In addition, in (v), long, not may, may be focused, which suggests that may moves t o license the preposed focus , as i n (31) . (v) LON G may sh e live!

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 32

5

20. To explain (8), Culicover als o postulates the functional category Pol , which 'range s over Wh, Neg, So,' etc.., and concludes tha t Pol may be Focus. Culicove r provide s mor e extended data , whic h ma y als o b e explaine d unde r th e presen t analysi s wit h F. Here, I will no t attemp t to examin e al l the dat a in Culicover unde r th e presen t analysis . 21. One might expect that Hungaria n show wh-island effects, a s it is known that Hungarian employ s on e immediately-preverbal foci/wh-position , bu t in Hungarian, bot h Fo cus an d Wh-movement sho w n o wh-islan d effects , a s Horvath (1986 ) notes : (i) a

. [ s Jfinos [ vp melyik fiunak ; kfirdezt e [ s, t s hog y [ s [vp ki. tudj a which boy-t o aske d tha t wh o know s [,, t j hog y [ s a hdzigazd a [ vp kit k mutatot t b e t k tj?]]]]]]] ] that th e hos t who-ac c showe d i n 'To whic h boy; did John as k whO j kne w whom k the host had introduced?' b. [ s Jdnos [ vp ATTILANAK; ke"rdezt e [ s, 1 ; hogy [ s [ vp ki j tudj a Attila-to aske d tha t wh o know s [s, t ; hogy [ s a hlzigazd a [ vp kit k mutatot t b e tk t ; ]]]]]]]] that th e hos t who-ac c showe d i n 'It's ATTILAj to whom John aske d who , knew whom k the host had introduced.' (fro m Horvat h (1986 , 225 ) wit h modifications )

As fo r the grammaticalit y o f (i) , Horvath , however, suggest s tha t whil e foci/wh-phrase s move to a VP-internal focus/wh-position, whe n wh-phrases/foci mov e long-distance, they move throug h a 'Comp-to-Comp ' movemen t proces s obeyin g Subjacency , a s specifie d above (cf . als o MarSc z (1989 ) fo r a simila r discussion) . Thi s suggest s tha t i n thi s lan guage, bot h CP - an d VP-interna l position s ar e ope n fo r Focus/Wh-movemen t althoug h only VP-internal positions ar e final landin g sites, whic h should be licensing position s fo r foci i n Hungarian. 22. Under a weak lexicalist hypothesi s assume d here, on e can ask how and when V-kiNUN o r XP-NUN ar e morphologically derived o r whether -NUN is a functional categor y at D-structure. I would leav e thes e issue s ope n fo r furthe r research . 23. When wh-phrase s ar e used attributively , the ambiguity whic h is disambiguated b y stress i s observed , but th e lexical difference i s not observed: (i) a . musu n chay k ( = what book o r some book) b. ette n chay k ( = -which book o r a certain book) 24. Kim (1982, 110 ) ha s been th e firs t t o observe wh-islan d effect s i n Korean : Unde r an assumptio n that wh-words d o no t move syntactically , sh e notes : (i) [+wh ] Comp mus t bind a t least on e wh-word , whic h mus t be i n the simple x sentence closes t t o it. (wh-islan d effects ) 25. The data given in (45) is a Kyengsang dialect spoken in Kimha y City in the sout h of th e Kyengsan g province. Th e sentence s i n Kimha y dialec t an d thei r grammaticalit y judgments ar e due to Kang-O k Lee (p.c.) . 26. The ide a behin d th e feature s [+/-Q ] i s basically du e t o Ki m (1982) , wh o uses th e features [+/-interro] . Se e also Cho i (1989) .

326

Discourse Configurational Languages

Note tha t thi s featur e syste m i s required anywa y to differentiat e betwee n th e follow ing tw o differen t embedde d C[+Q]' s i n modern English : (i) whether/if—[+Q,-wh] ; 0 — [+Q,+wh] 27. I n fact, Ha n (1987) , Kim (1989) an d Moon (1989 ) have noted tha t [+Q ] i s on Inf l in Korean . Rizzi (1990b ) als o discusse s a possibility tha t [+wh ] ([+Q] here) appear s o n Infl. 28. Whe n {-la/ha}- com e wit h -ko, they ca n b e bes t characterize d a s proverbs whos e antecedents ar e IP's (o r MP's). ha- is widely known as the counterpart o f the English do. The statu s of -la-, however, i s not clear: H.B . Cho e (1935 , 631 ) call s i t a quotative par ticle; it is morphologicall y th e same a s the imperative marke r -la; according t o Joo Won Kim (p.c.) , it i s considered as historically derive d fro m -ta (a declarative marker) . Here , I assume i t i s verbal whe n it appear s wit h the complementizer, s o I specify i t as [+V ] in the glosses . 29. Korean echo-question sentence s d o not employ questio n markers, but instead, they end wit h th e combination of th e indicative marker -ta- (M ) and the complementizer -ko, having a raising intonation , as show n in (ib) . (i) a . Chelswu-k a Yenghi-lu l chy-ess-eyo . Chelswu-sub Yenyhi-ob j hit-past- M 'Chelswu hi t Yenghi.' b. NWU-k a NWUKWU-lu l chy-ess-W-t o (ney-k a malha-yss-ni) who-sub who-ob j hit-past-MC you-su b say-past- Q '(Did yo u say ) who hit who? '

?

This migh t imply tha t [+Q ] is , i n reality , on C . However , echo-questions i n Korea n ar e basically embedde d a s on e ma y ad d th e matri x claus e (ney-ka malha-yss-ni ( = did you say)) wit h a raising intonation, as i n (ib) . Thus , ech o question s do no t see m t o provid e counterevidence agains t the assumptio n that [+Q ] i s no t o n C . 30. Conside r the following: (i) ?(NWUKWU-tuli)Ch who-obj Chelswu-To p who-ob j Yenghi-su b manna-ki-ceney] f ; manna-ss-nayo ? meet-N-before meet-pastQ 'Who; did Chelsw u mee t t ; before Yengh i met [0] ;.' b. ???Chelswu-nu n [Yenghi-k a [0] ; manna-ki-ceney ] NWUKWU-lul^ Chelswu-Top Yenghi-su b meet-N-befor e who-ob j manna-ss-nayo? meet-past-Q c. ?(? ) NWUKWU-lul j .. . t ; ... [0] j As i n the case o f (14) , wit h the null anapho r [0], whe n a wh-phrase i s preposed , appar ently n o WCO effect s see m t o appear . Whe n it is i n situ , on th e othe r hand , weak WC O effects appea r (ib) . Onc e again , i t seem s lik e Focu s Movemen t (ia ) seem s t o b e O.K . because (ia ) can b e analyze d as i n (ic ) (cf . n. 11)) .

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 32

7

31. Lik e focu s sentences , th e Coordinat e Structur e Constrain t i s respected , an d th e 'across-the-board' applicatio n i s possible in wh-sentence s (cf . n . 7). 32. The ungrammatically o f (59c-d) is somewha t exaggerated . Som e think tha t (59c ) is wors e tha n (59d ) an d other s thin k tha t (59d ) i s wors e tha n (59c) . However , Korea n speakers see m t o agre e tha t (59c--d ) ar e unacceptable. I n addition , man y Koreans agre e that when the matrix subject is / or you in (59c-d), the sentences improve . I do not, however, provid e a n answe r to th e questio n o f why thi s i s so . 33. As in th e case s i n (59c-d), whe n the matri x subjec t i n (64b ) i s you, th e sentenc e improves. According to Kang-Ok Lee, i n his Kimhay dialect, (64b ) i s also hardly acceptable. However, som e Standar d Korean speakers thin k tha t multiple wh-preposin g sound s unnatural bu t acceptable . Her e I simpl y acknowledg e tha t there may be idiolects wher e multiple wh-preposin g i s possible, and I conjecture that these idiolects may not exhibit s wh-island effects . 34. Based o n the fac t in (64b) , I assum e tha t even whe n wh-phrases ar e in situ , ther e is a one-to-one relatio n betwee n a wh-phrase an d a scope marke r a t least a t S-structure . However, multipl e wh-phras e i n Spec-X P is possible i n LF : (i) Chelswu-k a MUES-u l NWUKWU-eyke y cwu-ess-nayo ? Che 'What did Chelswu giv e to whom?' (i) i s a good sentenc e whe n then; is a context wher e th e heare r ha s certai n (implici t o r explicit) choice s o f what-who pairs. I assume that a question marker should be coindexe d with one of the two wh-phrases under Spec-hea d indexin g an d the other wh-phrase s un dergo adjunctio n t o Spec-Q P i n LF . This approac h shoul d therefor e assum e tha t i n L F wh-phrases ar e assigne d [+wh ] unde r agreemen t wit h X[+wh ] i n L F allowin g wh adjunction, unlike syntacti c Wh-movement. I would not further discus s L F Wh-movement here (bu t se e Chomsky (1981) ; Aoun , Hornstein an d Sportiche (1982) ; May (1985)) . 35. Note that I a m suggestin g tha t wh-phrase s in Korean mov e i n synta x or i n LF. In fact, Korea n is not the only language which has optional syntacti c Wh-movement: Gold smith (1981 ) attest s tha t Igbo has optiona l Wh-movement, a s show n below : (i) a . Gmikdililu ? b . I lil u ginf ? 'What that you ate? ' 'Yo u at e what?' In addition , Frenc h also ha s optiona l wh-movement, a s Aoun, Hornstei n an d Sportich e (1982, 71 ) discuss : (ii) a . Jea n a vu qu i b

. Qu i Jean a vu

3 (MUSUN IYU-LO/MUSUN PANGPEP-ULO) th e sentence s slightl y improv e (cf . Huang (1982); Lasni k an d Saito (1984)) . I leave ope n th e reason wh y this is th e cas e (cf . als o (18-19), whic h are slightly better than (71-72)) . 37. (76 ) ma y explain wh y there ar e no V P wh-phrases in Korean . Note tha t ther e ar e at least more than one head (Tn s or Agr or Mood) between V and Q, which woul d bloc k a governmen t relatio n between Q an d V. 38. In fact, wh-phrase s in some languages move t o some place inside IP or a t least not to Spec-CP . Fo r example , i n Hind i and Duala , wh-phrase s move t o th e righ t sid e o f th e complementizer in indirect questions :

328

Discourse Configurational Languages (i) [

kyaa Billne puucha a [k i kisk o tur n samjhte l h o [ ki John caahta a haii]]] ? QP Bill as k tha t wh o yo u thin k b e tha t like s b e 'Did Bill as k who you think that Joh n likes? ' (Hindi ) (ii) [ na bai s m o [n a njik a bun a a timb a no]]. (Duala ) I as k hi m tha t WH - da y h e retur n 'I asked him when he would return.' (fro m Ki m (1982, 115-116) ) 39. As Hang-Jin Yoon (p.c.) ha s pointed out to me, NWUKWU-NUN ca n appear i n con joined structure s shown in (78) more easily tha n in nonconjoined structure s (cf . als o Ha n (1987)). 40. If F = M, then only when the embedded clause employs M , long-distance Wh-move ment shoul d b e possibl e sinc e th e sentenc e woul d otherwis e violat e Subjacenc y i n on e way or another . In fact , it woul d be interestin g to ask wha t kinds of clause s emplo y M (cf. Whitma n (1989) an d Section 4) . 41. I n Cho e (1985) , I translat e -nun a s as for. I t i s know n tha t th e phras e as for i n English has some (contrastive ) focu s reading . Here, I differentiate the topic readin g fro m the contrastiv e focus reading an d I ma y translat e the topi c marke r -nun a s speaking of, following Kun o (1973). Th e semantic s of -nun ma y b e represente d a s follows : (i) XP-nu n ... = I f I were t o speak abou t XP which I an d you ar e suppose d t o know (of) , ... . 42. Bac h (1971 , 165 ) observe s tha t i f a languag e mark s th e theme s o f a sentenc e ( = the topic s o f a sentence, here) , questio n word s wil l neve r occu r a s theme. H e gives th e following Japanes e sentence : *Dar e w a Mary o mita ka? ( = *As for who, he sa w Mary?) Fiengo, e t al. (1988, 91 ) also note s that in English, focuse d NPs with 'weak ' determiner s in th e sens e o f Barwise and Cooper (1981 ) (e.g. , wh-phrases ) may no t appea r a s topics . 43. Postal (1971 , 136 ) ha s suggeste d tha t (i) type sentences i n English are actually reductions o f sentence s a s i n (ii) . (i) a . Charley; , hc;' s ou t o f his ; mind. b. Thor; , Ton y thinks he; was a good god . (ii) a . A s for Charleyj , he ;'s ou t of his ; mind. b. A s fo r Thor i; Ton y thinks he ; was a good god . Because in Korean, a stranded P is not phonetically realized, Postal' s suggestio n woul d better b e applicable t o Korean topic/contrastive focus sentences suc h a s (86). I n Korean , NP extractio n ou t o f PP is possibl e bu t a strande d P becomes phoneticall y null : (iii) a . k u hakkyo-nun ; Chelswu-k a tj( * -ey ) tany-ess-ta . the school-To p Chelswu-su b -t o go-past- M 'Speaking o f the school; , Chelsw u went (to it;).' (lit. ) b. k u tangsi-nun j salamtul- i t;(*-ey ) swunswuha-yss-ta . the period-To p people-su b -i n pure-past- M 'Speaking o f tha t period; , people wer e pure (i n it;). ' (lit. ) 44. A proces s o f 'possesso r raising ' i s suppose d t o b e responsibl e fo r th e following multiple subjec t sentence (cf . Choe (1987)) :

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 32

9

(i) khokkili-ka ; [t ; kho-ka ] kil-ta . elephant-sub nose-su b long- M 45. Movement seem s t o be involved in topic sentence s a s the Coordinate Structur e Con straint i s respected an d the 'across-the-board ' applicatio n i s possible (cf . n . 7). 46. Whitma n (1989, 346 ) note s tha t i n a factiv e environmen t whic h contain s M, th e embedded topic i s possible, a s show n in (i) . However , accordin g to my intuition, it is a contrastive focus , but no t a topic . (i) Chelswu-nu n [sayngsen-u n taykwu-k a coh-ta-nun-kes-ul ] -Top fish-To p cod-NO M good-IND-AT-C-AC C palkyenhay-ss-ta discover-PAST-INDIC 'Chelswu discovere d th e fac t tha t as for fish , cod i s the best.' However, I predic t tha t to a speake r wh o accepts (98 ) eve n marginally , (i) wit h an embedded topi c readin g shoul d b e acceptable . 47. Accordin g t o Emond s (1976) , roo t sentence s ar e clausa l conjuncts , direc t quota tions, an d matri x sentences. Topi c sentence s ma y b e conjoine d althoug h topics i n con joined sentence s may be easil y interprete d as contrastive foci . 48. According to Chomsky (1977 91-93) , in English, embedded topic s ar e possible (i), topics mov e long-distance, an d Topic Movemen t obeys Subjacenc y (ii) : (i) I believe tha t this book , yo u shoul d read . (ii) a . thi s book, I aske d Bill to get his student s to read b. *thi s book I accep t th e argument that John shoul d rea d (CNPC ) c. *thi s book, I wonde r wh o read (th e Wh-island Condition ) This differenc e between Englis h an d Korea n may sugges t tha t Topic Movemen t applie s at S- S in Englis h but i n LF i n Korean , as will be discusse d below . 49. Thus, (ia), for example, is a possible conjunct o f (lOOa) , but (ib) , where to Peking is interprete d a s th e topic , i s no t a possible conjunc t of (lOOa) : (i) a . kulen a phali-ey-NU N Swuni-h a tanybut Paris-to-CO N Swuin-su b go-t 'But, Swun i has been t o Paris.' b. #kulen a Swuni-NU N (kekiey ) mos-kabut Swuni-CO N ther e not-go-t 'But, Swun i hasn't bee n there. '

e w-ass-ta . o come-past- M 0 po-ass-ta . o attemp-past- M

50. According t o Chomsk y (1977) , topi c sentence s ar e obtaine d fro m th e rule s i n (i) , which suggest s tha t topics appea r in a higher positio n tha n wh-phrases, lik e Korean and Hungarian. (i) S " >

To p - S'; S ' >

Com p - S.

51. Topi c sentence s an d relativ e clause s ar e simila r i n tha t the y d o no t exhibi t Subjacency effect s an d emplo y resumptive pronouns (cf. Kuno (1973)). However, there

330

Discourse Conflgurational Languages

are stil l man y differences between them : A -ki phras e ma y appea r i n th e topi c positio n but canno t be the head o f a relative clause; th e aboutness relatio n betwee n th e topic an d the res t o f th e sentenc e i s no t observe d i n a relative clause , an d therefore , som e unac ceptable topic s ma y be heads o f relative clauses , a s show n in (i) . (i) a . * i iywu-nun i kos-i muli coh-ta . this reason-To p thi s place-sub water-su b good- M 'Speaking of thi s reason, th e wate r of this place i s goo d (fo r it).' (lit. ) b. i kos-i muli coh-u n k u iyw u this place-su b water-su b good- C th e reaso n 'the reaso n wh y wate r is good here ' 52. The topic marker is also morphologically the same as the complementizer o f a relative claus e (cf . (ib ) i n n . 51) . Here , I sugges t tha t -nun a s th e topi c marker i s a n affi x which is morphologically subcategorize d for [+N ] whereas the complementizer o f a rela tive claus e i s morphologicall y subcategorize d fo r [+V] . 53. Not e tha t th e followin g sentenc e wit h a relativ e claus e i s grammatica l wher e a varaiable is A-bound, as in (107). Thi s suggest s that a variable in (i ) is als o pronominal and subjec t to (105b ) o r (109 ) below . (i) He ; is th e mant whO j John me t tj . 54. Ki m (1989 ) has , in fact , suggeste d that wh-phrases ar e quantifiers in Korean , bu t given th e observation that wh-phrases move to certain designate d position s governe d b y a [+wh ] questio n marke r an d give n thei r semantic s tha t differ s fro m th e semantic s o f quantifiers, i t seems that they are basically differen t fro m quantifiers . Note also that given the discussion i n n. 10 , one ma y sugges t tha t in LF the orde r amon g th e topic, foc i an d quantifiers i s this : th e topic—foci—quantifiers . I f thi s orde r i s correct , quantifier s may not be topic s i n Korean just a s foci may not, whic h is tru e (cf. th e discussion o n (103)). 55. Fiengo e t al. (1988, 87 ) also observes that syntactic Pied Pipin g o f complex N P is restricted i n English. Fieng o e t al. (1988), Le e (1987) an d Choe (1988, 97-98) also not e some problem s wit h th e ide a tha t Pie d Pipin g explain s why Subjacenc y doe s no t hol d inLF.

References Aoun, J., N . Hornstein, and D. Sportich e (1982 ) "Som e Aspects o f Wide Scop e Quanti fication," Journal of Linguistic Research 1 , 69-95. Atlas, J.D . (1991 ) "Topic/comment , presupposition , logica l for m an d focu s stres s implicatures: th e case o f focal particles only an d also," Journal of Semantics 8-1 / 2, 127-147 . Bach, E . (1970) "Questions, " Linguistic Inquiry 2, 153-166 . Baker, C . L . (1970 ) "Note s o n th e Descriptio n o f Englis h Questions : Th e Rol e o f a n Abstract Questio n Morpheme, " Foundations of Language 6, 197-219 . Barwise, J. , an d R . Coope r (1981 ) "Generalize d Quantifier s an d Natura l Language, " Linguisitics and Philosophy 4 , 159-219 . Belletti, A. (1990 ) "O n th e morpholosyntacti c nature of th e sequenc e 'Aux+Pas t participle' i n Italian, " i n J . Mascar 6 an d M . Nespor , eds. , Grammar in Progress, 25-32.

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 33

1

Blok, P . I. (1991 ) "Focu s and presupposition," Journal of Semantics 8-1/2 , 149-165 . Bresnan, J . (1970 ) "O n Complementizers : Toward s a Syntacti c Theory o f Complemen t Types," Foundations of Language 6 , 297-321 . Brody, M. (1990) "Remark s o n tfc. e Orde r of Elements i n the Hungarian Focus Field, " in I. Kenesei, ed., Approches to Hungarian. Vol. 3: Structures and Arguments, JATE , Szeged, 95-121 . Browning, M. (1987) Null Operator Constructions, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge , Massachusetts. Chang, S.-J. (1973) A Generative Study of Discourse: Pragmatic Aspects of Korean with Reference to English, Languag e Research 9.2. (Supplement), Seou l National University, Korea . Chang, S.-J. (1990) "Discourse contex t and grammar," in Ene (Language) 15 , Linguistic Society o f Korea , Seoul , Korea, 499-538. Choe, H.-B. (1928/35) Wuli Malpon (The Grammar of the Korean Language), Chengumsa, Seoul, Kore a (the eighth versio n (1980)). Choe, H.-S. (1985) "Remark s o n Configurationality Parameters," i n S. Kuno et al., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics I, Hanshin Publishing Company , Korea, 14 — 29. Choe, H.-S. (1987) "Syntactic Adjunction, A-chain and the ECP—Multiple Identical Cas e Construction i n Korean," NELS 17, University of Massachusetts, Amherst . Choe, H.-S . (1988) Restructuring Parameters and Complex Predicates—A Transformational Approach, Doctoral dissertation , MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts . Choe, H.-S. (199I/i n prep.) "Restructuring , Head-movement and IP structure," paper presented a t Seoul Internationa l Workshop on Generative Grammar , Seoul, Korea . Choe, J.-W . (1985 ) "Pitch-Accen t an d q/wh Words in Korean, " i n S . Kuno , et al., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics I, Hanshi n Publishin g Company , Korea , 113-123. Choe, J.-W . (1987) "L F and Pied Piping, " Linguistic Inquiry 18.2. , 348-353. Choi, K . Y. (1989) "L F Movement : the Wh-island Constraint, " i n S . Kuno , e t al. , eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III, Hanshi n Publishing Company, Korea , 213-234. Chomsky, N. (1964 ) Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Mouton , The Hague . Chomsky, N. (1970) "Remark s o n Nominalization," in R. Jacobs an d P. Rosenbaum, eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Waltham. Chomsky, N. (1971 ) "Dee p structure , surfac e structure, and semantic interpretation, " i n D. D. Steinberg an d L. A. Jakobovits, eds., Semantics, Cambridge University Press , Cambridge, 183-231 . Chomsky, N. (1973 ) "Conditions ; o n Transformation," i n S . Anderson, an d P . Kiparsky, eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 232286. Chomsky, N. (1976) "Condition s o n Rules of Grammar," Linguistic Analysis 2, 303-351. Chomsky, N. (1977 ) "O n WH Movement," in P . Culicover, T . Wasow, and A. Akmajian, eds., Formal Syntax, Academi c Press , Ne w York, 71-132. Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris , Dordrecht . Chomsky, N. (1982 ) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MI T Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts. Chomsky, N. (1986a) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger, New York. Chomsky, N. (1986b) Barriers, Linguisti c Inquiry Monograph Thirteen, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

332

Discourse Configurational Languages

Chomsky, N. (1989 ) "Som e Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation," i n I. Laka an d A. Mahajan, eds., Functional Heads and Clause Structure, MI T Working Paper s i n Linguistic s Vol. 10, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Culicover, P . W. (1991) "Topicalization, Inversion, an d Complementizer s in English," in D. Delfitto, et al., eds., Going Romance and Beyond, OT S Working Papers, University o f Utrecht , Utrecht. Diesing, M . (1988 ) "Bar e Plura l Subject s and the Stage/Individua l Contrast, " ms. , University o f Massachusetts at Amherst. Dik, S . C. (1980 ) Studies in Functional Grammar, Academic Press , Ne w York. Emonds, J. (1976) A Transformational Approach to English Syntax, Academic Press, New York. En$, M . (1991 ) "Th e Semantics of Specificity, " Linguistic Inquiry 22 , 1-25 . Fiengo, R., and J. Higginbotham (1981) "Opacity i n NP," Linguistic Analysis 7 , 395^22. Fiengo, R., C.-T.J. Huang, H. Lasnik, and T. Reinhart (1988) "The Syntax of Wh-in-Situ," in H . Borer , ed., Proceedings of the Seventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 81-98 . Fodor, J. , an d I . Sa g (1982 ) "Referentia l an d Quantificationa l Indefinites," Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355-398. Goldsmith, J . (1981 ) "The Structure of wh-Questions in Igbo, " Linguistic Analysis 1, 367-393. Grimshaw, J. (1979) "Complement Selection and the Lexicon," Linguistic Inquiry 10 , 279326. Haig, J . H . (1976 ) "Shado w Pronou n Deletion i n Japanese," Linguistic Inquiry 1, 363 371. Han, H.-S . (1987) The Configurational Structure of the Korean Language, Doctora l dissertation, The Universit y of Texas at Austin. Higginbotham, J . (1980 ) "Pronoun s an d Boun d variables," Linguistic Inquiry 11 , 679 708. Higginbotham, J., an d R. May (1981 ) "Questions , Quantifier s and Crossing," Linguistic Review 1 , 41-80. Holliday, M.A.K. (1967) "Note s on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2," Journal of Linguistics 3 , 177-274 . Hong, S.-S. (1985) A and A-bar Binding in Korean and English: Government and Binding Parameters, Doctora l dissertation , UConn . Hooper, J . B. , an d S . A. Thompso n (1973 ) "O n th e Applicability of Roo t Transformations," Linguistic Inquiry 4 , 465-497. Horvath, J. (1986) FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian, Foris , Dordrecht. Huang, C.-T. J. (1982 ) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Doctoral dissertation , MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Jackendoff, R . (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Jo, M.-J . (1986) Fixed Word Order and the Theory of the Pre-verbal Focus Position in Korean, Doctora l dissertation, Universit y of Washington. Kayne.R. (1983 ) "Connectedness, " Linguistic Inquiry 14 , 223-249. Kim, A . H.-O. (1982) " A Universal of WH-Questions and its Parametric Variants, " in R. Schneider, K . Tuite , an d R . Chametzky , eds., Papers from the Parasession on Nondeclaratives, Chicag o Linguistic Society, 107-118 .

Focus and Topic Movement in Korean and Licensing 33

3

Kim, A. H.-O . (1985 ) The Grammar of Focus in Korean Syntax and Its Typological Implications, Doctoral dissertation , University o f Souther n California . Kim, S.-W. (1989 ) "Th e Q P Status of Wh-Phrases in Korean and Japanese," in E. J. Fe e and K . Hunt , eds., Proceedings of the Eighth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 358-372 . E. Kiss , K . (1987) Configurationality in Hungarian, Reidel , Dordrecht . Kratzer, A. (1989) "Stage-leve l and Individual-level Predicates, " ms., University of Massachusetts a t Amherst. Koopman, H . (1984 ) The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru languages to Universal Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht . Kuno, S . (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language, MI T Press, Cambridge , Mas sachusetts. Kuno, S . (1978) "Japanese : A Characteristic OV Language," in W. P. Lehmann, ed., Syntactic Typology, 57-138 . Kuroda, S.-Y . (1965) Generative Grammatical studies in the Japanese Language, Doc toral dissertation , MIT , Cambridge , Massachusetts . Laka, I. (1989 ) "Constraint s on Sentence Negation," MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 199-216 . Lasnik, H. , an d M . Sait o (1984 ) "O n th e Natur e o f Proper Government, " Linguistic Inquiry 15 , 235-289. Lee, C.-M . (1989 ) "(In)definites , Cas e Markers , Classifiers an d Quantifiers i n Korean, " in S . Kun o et al. , eds. , Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics HI, Hanshi n Pub lishing Company , Korea, 469-488 . Lee, E.-J . (1987) "EC P and Subjacency in LF and Hierarchical Orde r o f WH- Adjuncts," in S . Kun o et al. , eds. , Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics II, Hanshi n Pub lishing Company , Korea, 93-103. Lee, H.-J . (1990 ) Logical Relations in the Child's Grammar: Relative Scope, Bound Variables, and Long Distance Binding in Korean, Doctoral dissertaion , U C Irvine . Mardcz, L . K . (1989 ) Asymmetries in Hungarian, Doctora l dissertation , Universit y o f Groningen. May, R . (1985 ) Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, MIT press , Cambridge , Massachusetts. Mitchell, E . (1991 ) "Evidenc e fro m Finnis h fo r Pollock's Theor y o f IP, " Linguistic Inquiry 22 , 373-379. Moon, G.-S . (1989 ) "O n Wh-Movemen t an d the Distribution o f Null Arguments," i n S . Kuno e t al. , eds. , Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III, Hanshi n Publishin g Company, Korea , 309-318 . Pollock, J.-Y . (1989 ) "Ver b Movement , Universa l Grammar , an d th e Structur e o f IP, " Linguistic Inquiry 20 , 365-424. Reuland, E.J., an d A.G.B. ter Meulen, eds., (1987) The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts. Rizzi, L. (1990 ) Relativized Minimality, MI T Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Rochemont, M. S., and P. W. Culicover (1990) English focus constructions and the theory of grammar, Cambridg e University Press, Cambridge . Ross, J . R. (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Doctora l dissertation . MIT , Cam bridge, Massachusetts . Saito, M . (1985 ) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications, Doctoral dissertation , MIT, Cambridge , Massachusetts.

334

Discourse Configurational Languages

Suh, C.-M. (1989) "Wh-construction s in Korean," in S. Kuno et al., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics /// » Hanshin Publishing Company , Korea, 517-526 . Suh, C.-S . (1989) "Interrogative s an d Indefinit e Words i n Korean : Wit h Referenc e t o Japanese," i n S . Kun o e t al. , eds. , Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics HI, Hanshin Publishin g Company, Korea, 431-456. Whitman, J. (1989) "Topic , Modality, and IP structure," in S . Kuno et al., eds., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III, Hanshin Publishing Company, Korea, 341-356 . Whitman, J. (1991 ) "String vacuou s V to COMP," ms., Cornell University . Williams, E. (1978) "Across-The-Boar d Rule Application," Linguistic Inquiry 9 , 31-43.

11 The Theory of Syntactic Focalization Based on a Subcategorization Feature of Verbs MI-JEUNG JO Pusan Susan University, Korea

1. Introduction A phenomenon suc h as scrambling is a diagnostic o f nonconfigurationality. It i s implied tha t scramblin g i s re:sponsible for som e degre e o f 'flat ' structur e (Hale , 1982). Language s wit h scramblin g suc h a s Korea n an d Hungaria n als o exhibi t movement t o configurationall y arranged A'-position s suc h a s Topi c an d Focu s positions. Sinc e syntactic Focusing uniformly requires immediate adjacency to a verb, the former precedes an d is hierarchically higher than the latter (cf . Horvath (1981), E. Kis s (1981 ) an d Jo (1986)) . This configurationa l phenomenon i n the so-called 'nonconfigurational ' language s has invite d various accounts . Two competing theories o n syntactic Focus movemen t have been propose d in Hungarian. Horvath (1981, 1986 ) argues that a verb assigns the feature [+focus] to a constituen t moved t o th e pre- V position ; assignment of Focu s unde r government an d adjacenc y is treated lik e assignmen t of abstrac t Cas e b y a verb . I t is adopted fo r Basque in Azkarate et al. (1982) an d Ortiz de Urbina (1983) , and for Korea n i n J o (1986) . E . Kis s (1987a ) propose s a n alternativ e analysi s of Hungarian Focus; the Focus position i s immediately dominated by S', and a constituent of S can be Focused by upwar d movement, whil e Topic is immediatel y dominated by S". 1 Followin g Ki m A.H-O (1985), 2 we will refer to this analysis as th e Multi-Leve l Hypothesi s an d t o Horvath' s proposa l a s th e Verb-Inheren t Hypothesis. Orti z d e Urbin a (1989) , alterin g his previou s position , propose s a similar analysi s in Basque; a Focused elemen t (an d an interrogative Wh-phrase) is moved to the specifie r po s ition of CP, which is a typical position for a n operator. In these analyses, the pre-verbal (henceforth, pre-V) Focus position has nothing t o d o wit h th e ver b itself ; th e adjacenc y to a ver b i s a resul t o f othe r 335

336

Discourse Configurational Languages

phenomena—i.e. the verb-initial basi c wor d order i n Hungarian and verb-move ment in Basque (i.e., the V-second phenomenon) triggered by an operator whic h is move d t o the specifier positio n o f CP. Th e Verb-Inheren t Hypothesi s ha s several advantage s tha t the Multi-Level Hypothesi s canno t offer . First , the con figurational relatio n betwee n Topi c an d Focu s position s i s naturall y accounte d for unde r the Verb-Inheren t Hypothesis; a Focused elemen t ha s t o ge t assigne d the Focus featur e from th e pre-V position, while a Topic constituent is interprete d by virtu e o f bein g in a n A'-position outside a n S . However, i n th e analysi s tha t both Topic and Focus are in sentence-external operato r positions, th e precedenc e and structura l superiority o f Topic ove r Focu s positio n i s virtuall y stipulated . Secondly, th e Verb-Inheren t Hypothesis ca n provid e a n explanatio n wit h ty pological relevance , s o that not only pre-verbal Focusin g i n language s like Ko rean, Hungarian , Basque, Armenia n an d Turkish but als o post-verba l Focusin g in Aghem can be regarded as two variants of one "verb-adjacent, verb-governed " Focus-assignment rul e (Horvat h 1981) . I n contrast, th e Multi-Leve l Hypothesi s cannnot sugges t a principle d accoun t fo r language s whos e syntacti c Focusin g commonly exhibit s th e immediat e adjacenc y t o a verb . Unde r thi s theory , eac h language is subjec t t o a language-specific account. Fo r example , w e cannot ex pect tha t a proposal made for the pre-verbal syntacti c Focusing i n Hungarian o r Basque sheds light on that in Korean, which has neither V-initial basic orde r no r V-movement triggere d b y a n operator i n the specifie r position . Given thes e advantages , w e wil l carefull y examin e a majo r proble m o f th e Verb-Inherent Hypothesi s pointe d ou t b y proponent s o f th e alternativ e hypoth esis—the questio n o f whethe r th e inheren t feature o f verbs , [+focus] , i s base d on thei r subcategorizatio n property . W e will attemp t t o renovate th e hypothesi s by proposin g a solutio n fo r the questio n an d other problem s o f th e Verb-Inher ent Hypothesis relate d t o it. In contrast t o languages like English , w e will sho w that languages with syntactic Focus suc h as Korean have an A'-position governe d by and adjacent to V. Armenian (Comrie 1984 ) an d Turkish (Underhill 1976) dat a (cf. note s 1 3 and 14 ) also suppor t this assumption; a Focused constituen t (o r an interrogative Wh-word ) in th e pre- V positio n i s i n complementar y distributio n with a nonargument such as a predicate constituent . Therefore, thoug h its existence has no t been widel y accepte d i n th e literatur e th e A'-position governe d b y and adjacen t t o V is th e essential characteristi c o f languages wit h syntactic Fo cus. The notio n o f VP-internal A'-position justified throug h Korea n Focu s con structions wil l be empiricall y teste d i n its Hungarian counterparts .

2. Focus Movement and the Two Configurational A'-Positions in Korean The ai m of this section i s to sho w how syntacti c Focus constructions i n Korea n are derive d b y movement s t o th e tw o A'-positions, Topi c an d th e pre- V Focu s positions. Thi s topi c require s understandin g tha t constituent s i n a Korea n sen tence are clearly divided into "scramblable" versus "nonscramblable" ones. Sec tion 2. 1 concern s th e former ; Cho e H.-S . (1988 , 1989)' s characterization s o f

The Theory of Syntactic Focaliiation 33

7

scrambling in Korean based o n its configurationality will be introduced. Sectio n 2.2 discusses nonscramblabl e constructions i n Korean. Finally, sectio n 2. 3 introduces derivatio n o f the Focu s construction s i n Korean . In Hale (1978)'s early characterization of nonconfigurational V-final languages such a s Japanese an d Korean, onl y the position o f a verb is fixed. 3 Furthermore , the category V in Korean does not undergo an y syntactic movemen t rule, excep t perhaps for movement like the string vacuous movement of V to COMP proposed by Whitma n (1991). Sinc e th e positio n o f a ver b i s fixed , w e will sho w tha t a verb an d a predicat e complemen t immediatel y precedin g i t als o constitut e a n unscramblable syntactic unit. We will furthe r sho w that Focus formation in Ko rean relie s o n th e configurationalit y sustained betwee n th e tw o constituent s u p to the PF component. This relation will be contrasted wit h the configurationality existing betwee n a verb an d argument s which ma y be dissolve d b y scramblin g in a later grammatica l level.

2.1. Scrambling of Arguments and the Configurational VP in Korean First, w e introduce Cho e H.-5J . (1988 , 1989)' s argument s fo r th e existenc e o f a configurational V P i n Korean . Despit e th e fre e wor d orde r phenomenon , sh e provides various syntactic motivations for postulating a VP node in Korean. First, Korean ca n hav e a VP topic whic h preposes th e constituen t mad e u p o f a n ob ject an d a verb, leavin g th e tense marker s (i.e. , the present tens e -0 o r -n ) with the pro-verb ha 'do' : (1) [ton-u l pel-ki]-nu n apeci-k a ha-si-0-k o [ton-u l money-Ace earn-i n g-Top father-Nor n do-Hon-Pres-an d money-Ac e ssu-ki]-nun emeni-k a ha-si-n-t a spend-ing-Top mother-Nor n do-Hon-Pres-De c 'As for making money, (my ) father does , an d a s for spendin g money , (my) mother does. ' Second, V P idioms ar e eas y t o fin d i n Korean , whic h consist o f a bar e objec t noun an d a verb. 4 This als o indicate s VP constituency. (2) Suil- i miyekkuk-u l mek-ess-t a Nom seawee d soup-Ac e eat-Past-De c 'Suil faile d i n an exam.' In addition to the straightforward evidence fo r a syntactic VP,5 Korean exhib its a subject-objec t asymmetr y wit h respec t t o bindin g conditio n C . Th e coreference possibilit y o f th e objec t pronou n i n (3a ) suggest s th e structura l su periority o f the subjec t NP : (3) a . Suilj-u y emem-k a ku a ;-lul salangha-n-t Gen mother-Nor n he-Ace love-Pres-De c 'Suil's mothe r love s him.'

338

Discourse Configurational Languages

b. * kurka Suilj - u y emeni-lu l salangha-n-t a he-Nom Ge n mother-Ac e love-Pres-De c 'He loves Suil' s mother. ' Korean als o show s cross-over effects . A sentence lik e (4b ) i s ungrammatical , given tha t a Korea n Wh-phras e in-sit u i s move d a t L F (cf . Huan g (1982) ) an d leaves a variable whic h canno t be th e anteceden t o f a pronoun t o it s left : (4) a . nookoo-k a pro/cak i (uy ) emeni-lu l salangha-0-pnikk a who-Nom h e Ge n mother-Ac e love-Pres- Q 'Who loves hi s mother?' b. * pro/caki (uy ) emeni-k a nookoo-lu l salangha-0-pnikk he Ge n mother-Ac e who-No m love-Pres- Q 'Who doe s hi s mother love? '

a

Choe furthe r show s tha t scramblin g i n Korea n i s clause-bounde d an d tha t i t does not affec t bindin g and variable binding; the scramble d sentence s i n (5 ) and (6) maintain th e sam e grammaticalit y a s the correspondin g non-scramble d ver sions i n (3 ) and (4) . (5) a . ku-lu l Suil-u y emeni-k a salangha-n-t a he-Ace Ge n mother-Nor n love-Pres-De c b. *Suil-u y emeni-lu l ku-k a salangha-n-t a Gen mother-Ac e he-No m love-Pres-De c (6) a . pro/caki j emeni-lu l nookoo ;-ka salangha-0-pnikk a he mother-Ac e who-Nom love-Pres- Q b. * nookoo-lul pro/caki j emeni-k a salangha-0-pnikk who-Acc h e mother-Nor n love-Pres- Q

a

Based o n the abov e test , Cho e conclude s tha t scramblin g i n Korean , i n contras t to tha t i n Japanese, 6 is a non-syntactic phenomenon. Since th e structur e of a sentence i n Korea n needs a configurational VP, Choe H.-S. assume s tha t scrambling is a nonconfigurational phenomenon occurrin g at the leve l o f the PF component wher e the Projection Principl e n o longer nee d b e observed. Accepting Hale (1982)' s positio n that languages with scrambling sho w some degre e o f fla t structure , she argue s that scramblin g i n Korea n i s triggere d by th e applicatio n o f a Restructurin g Rul e whic h categoricall y an d morpho logically amalgamate s th e thre e categorie s V , INFL and COM P (i.e. , sentenc e endings)7 an d 'flattens ' th e structur e of a sentence; fo r her , C and INF L i n Ko rean hav e th e feature s [ + CD] (i.e. , categoria l dependency ) an d [ + MD ] (i.e. , morphological dependency ) i n th e lexicon , an d the y trigge r over t restructuring illustrated i n th e followin g phrase-structur e markers (Choe H.S . 1989:282) .

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 33

9

After th e amalgamatio n o f INF L an d C wit h a verb , subjec t an d objec t NP' s become sister s a s in (7b) , an d scrambling is possible i n th e altere d structur e i n PR 2.2. Non-Scramblable Pre-Verbal Constituents in Korean Despite th e amalgamatio n of V-INFL-COMP in al l finit e sentence s i n Korean , pre-V constituents strictly subcategorized by verbs are not subject to scrambling. They include nonarguments such as predicate NPs, PPs and APs; they are strictly subcategorized, but they have no theta-role. The italicized constituent s i n the following sentence s canno t b e altere d b y scrambling , an d n o constituen t ca n b e moved i n between a verb an d a predicate complemen t (th e parenthese s i n eac h sentence mar k the possible positio n fo r a n adverb): (8) a . Suil - i ( ) hoecang-i ( * mancangilchilo) toe-ess-t a Nom chairman-Part unanimousl y become-Past-De c 'Suil became chairma n unanimously.' b. Suil - i ( ) sinsa-lo ( * encena) poi-n-t a Nom gentleman-a s alway s seem-Pres-De c 'Suil alway s seems t o be a gentleman.' c. Suil - i ( ) phikonha-e ( * onul) poi-n-t a Nom tired-In f toda y seem-Pres-De c 'Suil seem s t o be tire d today. ' d. Sunae-k a Suil- ul ( ) chinku-lo (* hangsang) yeki-n-t a Nom Ac e friend-a s alway s consider-Pres-De 'Sunae alway s considers Sui l a friend. '

c

In contrast , an adver b can freel y interven e between a subjec t N P an d th e ver b (with a predicate complemen t immediately preceding it ) (8a)-(8c ) an d between

340

Discourse Configurational Languages

an objec t N P an d the ver b (8d) , a s the possible positions for th e adverb s i n th e above indicate. The data in (8) show that scramblin g in Korea n i s limited t o arguments; a verb and an immediately preceding predicate complement ar e immune from nonconfigurationa l phenomena. In the Government-Bindin g (GB) framework, deletion i s another typ e of rul e occurring between S-structur e and the PF component. Both arguments and a verb selecting a n argumen t i n Korea n ca n underg o deletio n unde r identity . Forwar d deletion i s applie d t o the identica l objec t N P in th e sentence s i n (9) , whil e th e backward gappin g i s applied t o the verb -ilk 'read ' i n the sentence s i n (10) : (9) a . Suil - i k u cip-u l sa-ss-k o Sunae - ka k u cip-u l Nom th e house-Ac e buy-past-an d N M th e house-O M cangsikha-ess-ta decorate-past-dec 'Suil bought the house, an d Sunae decorated th e house.' b. Suil- i k u cip-ul sa-ss-k o Sunae-ka 0 cangsikha-ess-t a 'Suil bought, and Sunae decorated th e house.' (10) a . Suil- i sinmun-u l ilk-0-k o Sunae-k a chaek-u l Nom newspaper-Ac e read-Pres-an d No m book-Ac e ilk-nun-ta read-Pres-Dec 'Suil reads a newspaper, an d Sunae reads a book.' b. Suil- i sinmun-u l 0 Sunae-k a chaek-ul ilk-nun-t a 'Suil read s a newspaper, an d Sunae , a book.' However, a predicate NP selected by an intransitive verb is not subject to forward deletio n under identity, a s shown in (11) . No r ca n verbs selectin g a predi cate N P underg o backwar d gapping , an d s o th e ver b shoul d b e repeated , a s in (12): (11) a . Sunae-u i apeci-nu n uisa-i-ess-k o Sunae-nu n machimna e Gen father-To p doctor-is-past-an d To p finall y uisa-ka toe-ess-t a doctor-Norn become-past-dec 'Sunae's fathe r wa s a doctor, an d Suna e finally ha s become a doctor.' b. *Sunae-u i apeci-nu n uisa-i-ess-ko Sunae-nu n machimnae 0 toe-ess-ta (12) a . Suil- i hoecangi toe-ess-k o Sunae-k a Nom chairman-Par t become-Past-an d No m pu-hoecang-i toe-ess-t a vice-chairman-Part become-past-Dec 'Suil became chairman , and Sunae became vice-chairman. ' b. *Suil- i hoecang-i 0 Sunae-ka pu-hoecang- i toe-ess-t a

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 34

1

A predicate NP and a verb selecting such a complement behave differently fro m an argumen t and a ver b selectin g i t wit h respec t t o deletion , a s th e contras t between (9 ) an d (11 ) an d that between (10 ) and (12) demonstrate . Both the pre-V predicate complement and a verb selecting i t are excluded fro m the two PF phenomena, scramblin g and deletion. Following Horvat h (1981, 1985) , Jo (1986) attributes the resistance of the pre-V predicate complement and the verb to scramblin g an d deletion t o their constituenthood ; as in Hungarian, this combination constitutes a n intermediate projection, V (i.e. , "a small VP"). Therefore, we assume that a Korean sentence like (8d) has the structure (13) in D-structure, which ha s th e tw o projection s o f V (i.e., th e intermediat e V an d th e maxima l VP):

As far a s the two constituents are concerned, Korean seems to be qualified a s in a configurational language, as defined i n terms of the Projection Principle by Hale (1983:26): (14) Th e Configuratioriality Paramete r a. I n configurationa l languages, the Projection Principl e hold s o f th e pair ( LS (lexica l structure), PS (phonologica l structure)) . b. I n non-configurational languages , the Projectio n Principle holds of L S alone .

342

Discourse Configurational Languages

2.3. Movements To Topic and Focus Positions No predicate complement s i n the pre-V position i n (8) can be scrambled. Amon g them, however, the predicate NP in the sentence (8a) can be proposed to the Topic node, which is an A'-position locate d in the leftmost position o f a sentence, a s in (15a). Th e Topi c positio n i n Korea n i s a landin g sit e fo r a n N P o r a PP , bu t a predicate PP in a sentence lik e (8b ) cannot be topicalized becaus e of its proper ties simila r t o a n AP (cf. Jo (1986 ; Ch . 4)), a s show n in (15b) . (15) a. [

hoecang]-un [c Suil-i (mancangilchilo ) t toe-ess-ta ] chairman-Top No m unanimously become-past-De 'As fo r chairman, Sui l becam e one. ' b. *[ ppsinsa-lo]-nun [ c, Suil-i (enceyna ) t poi-n-ta ] gentleman-as-Top No m alway s seem-Pres-De c Np

c

Sentence (15a) shows that movement to the Topic nod e is qualitatively differen t from scramblin g i n Korean. 8 Topicalizatio n o f a nonargumen t suc h a s a predi cate complement is predicted by the Theta Criterion; an A'-position ma y provide a landin g sit e fo r eithe r a n argument or a nonargument. The Topi c positio n i n Korea n ha s bee n know n a s a base-generate d A'-posi tion, sinc e a Topic whic h ha s a wider semanti c scop e tha n the subjec t NP , as in the followin g sentence , ha s n o original position withi n the clause : (16) kkoc-u n [ c cangmi-ka yeppu-0-ta ] flower-Top rose-Nor n pretty-Pres-De c 'As fo r flowers, rose s ar e pretty.' The exac t structura l location o f th e Topi c nod e depend s o n ho w w e defin e a finite clause i n Korean. In Choe H.-S. (1988) , root clauses i n Korean are defined as a n endocentric categor y headed b y COMP , as illustrate d i n th e phrase-struc ture marke r in (la). Sh e argues tha t post-tense verba l suffixe s whic h determin e the typ e o f sentence s ar e COMP ; the y ar e obligator y i n roo t clauses , an d the y are i n complementar y distributio n wit h a n embedde d claus e nominalizer complementizer suc h as -ki. Although Wh-Q phrase s i n Korea n d o not underg o Wh-movement, the y have to be in the scope of the interrogative sentenc e marke r -ni I -upnikka; otherwise , the y are interpreted a s quantified phrases, a s shown i n (17). The interrogative Wh-phras e in (17a) can be freely scramble d withi n a clause as in (18a), but it cannot be preposed t o the position o f Topic, a s in the sentenc e (18b). (17) a . Suil- i muess-u l sa-ss-n i (SO V order ) Nom what-Ac c buy-Past- Q 'What di d Suil buy? ' b. Suil- i muess-u l sa-ss-upnit a Nom what-Ac c buy-Past-De c 'Suil bough t something.'

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 34

3

(18) a . muess-u l Suil - i sa-ss-n i (OS V order ) what-Acc Nor n buy-Past- Q 'What did Suil buy?' b. *[ cp muessi-un [ c, Suil-i t ; sa-ss-ni ] what-Top No m buy-Past- Q The impossibilit y o f structur e (18b ) i s attribute d by Cho e H.-S . (1988 ) t o th e structural position of Topic whic h i s outside the scope of the interrogativ e sen tence marke r (i.e., COMP); the Wh-phrase in (18b) , muess 'what ' is not within the scope o f the interrogative ending -ni. Therefore, the logical position fo r Topic constituents mus t be higher tha n COMP—the Spec positio n immediatel y domi nated by CP (cf. (7a)); it is an A'-position optionall y license d b y COMP, the head of a finite clause. 9 In conjunctio n wit h preposin g a pre- V constituen t (i.e. , a predicat e NP ) t o Topic, a subjec t N P i n (15a) , Suil ca n b e furthe r move d t o th e empt y pre- V position t o ge t Focused. Wit h th e subjec t move d t o th e pre- V position , phono logical primac y falls o n it, an d th e Topic interpretatio n fo r th e prepose d predi cate NP in (15a ) disappears , even if th e Topic nod e is filled : (19) [

hoecang-u n [c, [!p t; ( ) [ vp [v, SUILri ( * mancangilchilo) chairman-Top No m unanimousl y toe]]- ess]-ta]] become-Past-Dec 'It is SUI L who became chairma n (unanimously). ' CP

In surfac e structur e a Topi c constituen t may b e linearl y adjacen t t o a Focuse d constituent, as suggested in the Focus construction (19) . However , no evidence establishes tha t the pre-verba l Focu s positio n i s locate d outsid e th e clause . O n the contrary , th e impossibl e positio n o f adverb s marke d i n (19 ) provide s com pelling evidence that the pre-verbal Focus position i n Korean coincides wit h that of th e pre- V predicat e constituent s given i n (8)—th e positio n governe d b y an d immediately adjacen t to a verb. 10 Focus constructio n formation in Korean, as shown in (15a) an d (19), i s a substitution whic h involve s movement s to th e two A'-positions, th e Topic nod e li censed b y COMP and the pre-V Focus positio n license d by a verb which select s a predicat e N P complement. I t i s extremely restricted , becaus e dislocatio n o f a predicate complemen t t o the Topic positio n i s limited t o a predicate N P (cf. the Topic sentence s i n (15)) . A constituent which can get Focused i n Korean seem s to be reduce d t o the subjec t NP in a sentence lik e (8a ) (cf . it s Focuse d versio n (19)). But ther e i s a way out fro m thi s limitatio n in Korean; a n object NP , a PP and a subject N P i n a sentence whos e mai n predicat e doe s no t subcategoriz e a pre-V constituen t can ge t Focused i n clef t sentence s a s in (20). Th e structur e of the cleft Focu s sentenc e is analogous to the Focus construction (19) :

344

Discourse Configurational Languages

(20) a . [Suil- i san kes]-u n [ c, tj k u CHAEK ri-0-ta] Norn buy-Pas t thing-To p th e book-is-pres-De c 'It is the BOOK tha t Sui l bought.' b. [Suil- i kan kos]-u n [c t; DUBROVNIK r i-0-ta ] Nom go-Pas t place-To p is-Pres-De 'It i s DUBROVNIK wher e Suil went.' c. [ ku chaek-u l sa- n salam]-u n [c t; SUIL-i-0-ta] the book-Ac e buy-Pas t person-To p is-Pres-De 'It is SUI L wh o bought th e book.'

c c

The un-Focused versio n of the sentences abov e are assumed to be similar t o (8a) . For example, (20a ) is derived fro m a sentence lik e the following, where the pre V position i s occupie d b y th e NP which is appositiv e to the subjec t NP: (21) [ c. [jp ku chaek- i [ v, [NP Suil-i san kes ] -i]-0]-ta ] the book-Nor n No m buy-Past thin g -is-Pres-De c 'The book i s what Sui l bought. ' The copul a -i 'is ' i s on e o f the verb s whic h select s a predicate N P withou t th e Case particl e -ka (cf.(8a)) , an d thus the Focused constituent s of the sentence s i n (20) ar e unambiguously in the pre- V position . I n other words , th e derivatio n of the cleft Focu s sentence s appear s t o be subject to the identical limitatio n a s that of (19) ; onl y th e N P i n th e subjec t positio n ca n b e move d t o th e pre- V Focu s position b y substitution . To summarize, Focus formation in Korean, though extremely restricted, clearl y exhibits th e tw o propertie s significan t for th e theor y o f syntacti c Focusing : (1 ) the pre-verba l Focu s positio n coincide s wit h th e positio n o f predicat e comple ments, whic h i s governe d b y an d immediatel y precede s a verb ; (2 ) th e pre- V position is a n A'-position i n which subcategorized nonarguments occur. At leas t in th e case of Korean , the tw o propertie s ar e inseparably related ; th e latte r fol lows fro m th e former . Th e firs t propert y lead s u s t o adop t th e Verb-Inheren t Hypothesis, rather tha n the Multi-Level Hypothesis; namely, a Focused elemen t is move d t o th e pre- V positio n fo r th e assignmen t o f th e featur e [+focus ] b y a verb. Thi s positio n furthe r ha s t o the n admi t th e existenc e o f a VP-internal A' position.

3. The Critiqu e o n the Verb-Inherent Hypothesis Reexamine d 3.1. Subcategorization and Assignment of Focus The first questio n that the Verb-Inherent Hypothesis encounters i s whether ther e is any ground for assuming the feature [+focus] as an inherent property of verbs , analogous t o Cas e o r theta-role features . Ortiz d e Urbin a (1989 ) take s u p thi s questio n i n hi s criticis m o f Horvath' s (1981, 1985 ) analysis of Focus (an d WH-Q phrases) in Hungarian. He points out

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 34

5

that he r analysis , whic h considers [+focus ] t o b e a featur e assigne d b y V o n a par wit h othe r feature s assigne d b y V, is essentially a stipulation, sinc e ther e is no selectiona l restrictio n betwee n verb s an d foci ; althoug h a syntacti c featur e [+focus] woul d be simila r t o a Cas e featur e i n th e structura l restrictio n o n it s assignment (i.e., governmen t and adjacency), this does not explain why it shoul d be the verbs tha t assig n the focu s feature. His criticism explicitly indicate s tha t the stipulativ e natur e o f Focus-assignmen t b y V wil l b e remove d i f i t ca n b e related t o a subcategorizatio n propert y characterizin g th e categor y V. Curiously enough , Horvat h herself , wh o originall y propose d th e Verb-Inheren t Hypothesis, actuall y agree s wit h Ortiz de Urbina's statemen t o f the problem b y making th e followin g remark : (22) Cas e i s intimatel y tie d t o subcategorization , wherea s th e notio n "FOCUS" has nothin g to do with it. (Horvat h 1985:128 ) The above statement exactly echoes Ortiz de Urbina's criticis m o f her own analysis. Althoug h sh e treat s bot h Focu s an d Cas e a s syntacti c feature s assigne d b y the categor y V , she admit s tha t there i s a fundamental difference between the m with respect to subcategorization . Horvath's characterization o f the pre-V position (i.e . th e landin g site for FO CUS/WH-Q), however , counter s the intuitio n stated i n (22) ; sh e establishe s th e pre-V node as a base-generated position in which a significant class of verbs take s a subcategorized complement (Horvath 1985: Ch . 1) . She therefore concludes that this positon i s an A-position (i.e., a potential theta-position) an d thus, the rule of FOCUS/WH-Q movement in Hungarian is movement into an A-position, although a trace lef t by such a movement is not an anaphor, but a variable. I n other words , there is a discrepancy in her description o f the nature of the feature [+focus] and that o f th e pre- V Focu s position ; whil e th e forme r supposedl y ha s n o relatio n with the subcategorizatio n propert y of a verb, the latte r is licensed by it. The conflicting properties o f the syntactic feature [+focus] an d the pre-V Fo cus position i n Horvath's analysi s contribute to undermining the gist of the VerbInherent Hypothesis she advocates, o n the one hand, and it invites further criticis m of th e hypothesis , o n the othe r hand : (1) if th e syntacti c featur e has nothin g t o do with subcategorization, why does a Focused constituen t i n Hungarian hav e t o be moved into the pre-V A-position where a subcategorized complement occur s (i.e., i n the case of substitution)? (2) how can a Focused constituen t wit h a thetarole b e move d int o th e pre- V A-positio n withou t violatin g th e Theta-Criterio n (E. Kis s 1987a , Ki m A.H-O 1985 , J o 1986) ? Contrary to the identical observations mad e by the proponents o f the two com peting theorie s o f syntacti c Focu s (i.e. , th e Verb-Inheren t vs . th e Multi-Leve l Hypotheses), we will argu e that assignmen t o f the feature [+focus ] i s intimatel y related t o a subcategorizatio n propert y o f V. Unlike a Case feature , however, i t is not directl y recognizable from the verb itsel f (i.e. , its lexical feature). There fore, th e featur e itsel f is not a subcategorizational feature of V, but thi s does no t necessarily mean that it has nothing to do with subcategorization. The version of the Verb-Inheren t Hypothesis we propos e her e wil l eliminat e th e discrepanc y

346

Discourse Configurational Languages

between th e featur e [+focus ] an d th e pre- V positio n wit h respec t t o subcategorization an d thu s wil l sho w tha t Orti z d e Urbina's criticis m i s no t a n authentic proble m fo r the hypothesis . In sectio n 3.1.1 , w e wil l conceptualiz e a potentia l A'-positio n license d b y a subcategorizational featur e characterizin g th e categor y V (i.e. , a n A'-positio n within a VP). Th e syntacti c Focu s position , whethe r i t be pre-verbal o r a postverbal, i s such a n A'-position whic h is governed by and adjacent to a verb. Con sequently, unlik e Horvath , w e analyz e Focu s movemen t a s movemen t t o a n A'-position. This characterizatio n o f the pre-V (o r post-V) A'-position i s crucia l for approachin g othe r relate d problem s o f the Verb-Inheren t Hypothesi s fro m a new perspective . I t dispenses wit h the problems concernin g th e Theta-Criterio n and Cas e conflict . In addition, we will also solv e the inconsistency i n predictin g the directionalit y o f governmen t fo r Focu s an d Cas e assignmen t i n Hungarian, from whic h Horvath' s versio n o f th e Verb-Inheren t Hypothesis suffers . Sectio n 3.1.2 discusse s a conflict between the Projection Principl e an d th e Theta Crite rion occurrin g i n the syntacti c Focus construction s i n Korean . 3.1.1. Predicate Complements and a Potential A'-Position in VP It is well known that the categor y V has th e richest complemen t syste m amon g lexical categories . I n the Government-Binding theory, each position satisfyin g the subcategorization feature s o f the lexica l hea d o f a construction i s considered a s a theta-positio n excep t fo r idiom chunk s (Chomsky 1981:35) . Therefore, a con cept suc h a s ' a subcategorize d nonargument ' doe s no t exis t i n thi s theory . I n contrast t o thi s assumption , we wil l sho w tha t V doe s subcategoriz e a comple ment to which it assigns neither Case nor a theta-role. Predicate nominals , predi cate adjective s an d predicate PP's ar e such constituents. Since th e selectio n o f predicate complement s i s a subcategorization propert y characterizing V, Emonds (1985:43) attribute s the asymmetry in the noun and verb complement system , no t onl y to a verb' s abilit y t o Case-mar k (Chomsk y 1981 , Stowell 1981) , bu t t o it s abilit y t o selec t predicat e complements . Fo r instance , we find tha t verbs which take predicate nominals either do not have correspond ing derive d nominals , o r their derive d for m cannot tak e a predicate nou n with out a n introductory as (Emond s 1985:43) : (23) * I was disappointed b y John's unexpecte d remaining a cook . The becomin g {of/as } a n adult entails responsibility. Her appearanc e {as / * 0 } the unwelcom e guest wa s embarrassing . Since th e so-calle d 'linkin g verbs ' suc h a s remain, become an d appear i n (23 ) do no t assig n Case , th e asymmetri c Case-markin g abilit y o f N an d V canno t account for why derived nominal s never tolerat e predicat e nouns . The example s in (23 ) indicat e tha t th e abilit y t o selec t predicat e complement s i s a more gen eral propert y o f V than it s abilit y to assig n Case . We also find tha t AP sisters to V are tolerated, whil e those to N are not, eve n though predicat e adjective s ar e no t Case-marke d b y V . This als o suggest s tha t

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 34

7

the ability to select predicate complement s i s a source o f the asymmetry between N an d V (Emonds 1985:43) : (24) Joh n appeare d reluctan t to leave . *We were surprise d b y John's appearanc e reluctan t t o leave . That desser t taste d sweete r tha n candy. That dessert's taste sweete r tha n candy overwhelmed us. Some verb s als o tak e predicat e nominal s an d adjective s attribute d t o a n ob ject NP, as in (25). Theses constructions have been known as small clauses sinc e Stowell (1981) . The corresponding derive d nominal s also canno t select a predicate complement : (25) a . Joh n consider s Mary ( a fool/rich} . b. *John' s consideratio n o f Mary { a fool/rich} . c. Bil l prefer s hi s stea k rare . d. *Bill' s preference o f his stea k rar e e. W e elected John secretar y f. *0u r electio n o f John secretar y The predicate nominal s and adjectives in (23), (24) and (25) neither receive Cas e nor a theta-role fro m a verb , thoug h the y ar e subcategorize d b y V ; the y rathe r assign themselve s a theta-role t o a subjec t o r a n object NP. 11 The verb' s abilit y to selec t predicat e complement s i s a universal propert y o f V. The base-generated Pre- V constituent s i n Korea n presented i n sectio n 2. 2 at test to this property of verbs. It suggests that V in fact ca n license an A'-position which i s immun e fro m bein g assigne d Cas e an d theta-role . Althoug h thi s position is normally occupied by predicate complements, we expect i t to be a candidate for a potential A'-position whic h an operator suc h a s a Focused constituen t and a WH-Q phrase can move into without violating the Theta-Criterion o r caus ing Cas e conflict . I t resemble;; an A'-position outside a n S, although i t is located within a VP of an S. Therefore, w e can say that V has a n ability t o license a n A'position b y virtu e o f a subcategorizatio n propert y whic h select s predicat e complements. Obviously, th e positio n o f predicat e complement s doe s no t automaticall y qualify a s a potential landin g site o f Focus i n all languages. Sinc e the structura l conditions fo r Focus assignment , adjacency an d government, must be observe d as in the cas e o f abstrac t Case-marking, languages whose positio n fo r predicat e complements canno t satisf y the m ar e rule d out . Fo r instance , th e positio n fo r predicate nominal s and adjective s i n Englis h is not alway s adjacent to V, as th e sentences i n (25 ) show , and syntactic Focusing (i.e., the pre - o r post-verbal Fo cus by movement ) is not possible in thi s language. Similary, th e abstrac t Case assignment rule canno t work in a language such a s Korea n wher e the position s of th e subjec t o r th e objec t ar e no t alway s adjacen t t o th e Case-assigners . The syntactic Focu s mechanis m onl y work s i n language s wher e th e potentia l A' -

348

Discourse Configurational Languages

position (i.e . th e predicate complemen t position) i s adjacen t to V. Since Korea n has the predicate complement s i n the pre-V position , a s shown in sectio n 2.2 , i t has a potential A'-position adjacent t o V, where Focus assignment can take place.12 We assume tha t othe r languages with syntacti c Focu s als o hav e suc h a A'-position governed by and adjacent t o V. For instance, Armenian (Comrie 1984) 13 and Turkish (Underhil l 1976) 14 dat a sugges t tha t th e pre- V Focu s positio n i n thes e languages correspond s t o th e positio n o f predicat e complements . W e wil l tes t whether thi s prediction is borne ou t i n Hungaria n pre-V constituent s in sectio n 3.2.1. Given the analysis of the A'-position license d b y V as a potential landin g site for Focus , w e need n o stipulation to predict a language-specific directionality of Focus assignment . I t accord s wit h th e positio n wher e a subcategorize d non argument occur s i n a language . I f suc h a constituen t occur s i n th e pre- V posi tion, Focus assignmen t is leftward (a s in Korean), whereas i t would be rightward (presumably in Aghem), i f it occupies the post- V position. Thus , in ou r versio n of th e Verb-Inheren t Hypothesis , th e directionalit y o f Focu s assignmen t i s no t subordinated to the directionality of government for Case-marking and theta-marking. Th e direction of Focus assignment ca n be opposite to the Case-marking, as we se e i n Hungarian. We hav e mentione d tha t Horvath' s Verb-Inheren t Hypothesi s ha s th e majo r advantage ove r th e Multi-Leve l Hypothesi s i n tha t i t ca n provid e a typologica l explanation fo r bot h pre-verba l an d post-verba l syntacti c Focu s i n variou s lan guages, as two variants of one "verb-adjacent, verb-governed " Focu s rule . How ever, a s pointe d ou t b y Ki m A.H- O (1985:333-34) , he r predictio n o f th e directionality o f Focu s assignmen t suffers fro m a theory-interna l inconsistenc y in the analysis of Hungarian, on which her theory of Focus ha s been established . She says that the particular Focus positio n in a given languag e is determine d by a "directionality parameter," a s a property of the notion of government in Universal Grammar. In her theory, the directionality parameter is language-specific , and it should comply with a universal principle referred to as "Head Peripheralit y Condition" (26) : (26) Hea d Peripheralit y Conditio n (Horvat h 1985:60) : Given th e general P S rule schem a o f th e for m H» - (^...(9 - H-1 -(C j+1)...(Ck), in an y given instantiation of the rul e schema , either (C t ) ...(C p or (C j+1)...(Ck) mus t be 0. According t o th e Hea d Peripheralit y Condition , (a ) complements mus t b e gov erned b y thei r heads , an d (b ) th e governmen t relatio n i s unidirectional—i.e. , complements to any particular head-of phrase occur on one side of the head, rather than o n both sides . Thus , sh e predicts tha t Focus assignmen t i n Hungaria n i s in unidirectional with Case assignment. Recall that the pre-V position is an A-position i n he r analysis , and thu s bot h Focus an d Cas e assignmen t are predicte d t o be leftward . Contrar y to her prediction , in the followin g structure of Hungarian

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 34

9

sentences give n by her the object NP occurs on the right side of V (i.e. , a pre-V constituent plu s a verb) :

Therefore, Hungaria n is the clea r example tha t directionalit y o f government fo r Focus assignmen t i s independen t from tha t fo r Case assignment . To su m up , thi s sectio n show s tha t th e syntacti c Focu s positio n adjacen t t o verbs i s grounded in a subcatagorization property o f verbs. Unlike other catego ries, verb s ca n selec t predicat e complement s to which neither Cas e no r a thetarole is assigned, and thus they can in additio n license a VP-internal A'-position . Although thi s attribut e of verb s is universal, onl y language s wit h syntacti c Focus are assumed to have the A'-position immediately adjacent to V, so as to meet the adjacency conditio n fo r Focus assignment. Then, movement t o the pre-V (o r post-V) Focus positio n shoul d be movement to an A'-position, rather than movement to an A-position a s proposed b y Horvath. This analysi s o f the pre-V Focus position ca n dispens e wit h th e problem s tha t he r proposa l ha s concernin g th e Theta-Criterion and Case conflict. Our prediction about the directionality of Focus assignment depend s o n the position wher e nonarguments are selected by a verb in a language . 3.1,2. Focus Assignment: A Conflict between the Projection Principle and the Theta-Criterion Both the subcategorization feature [+pre d comp ] and the syntactic feature [+focus] are inherent properties of the category V involving the constituent governe d by an d adjacent to it . Therefore, correlatin g th e tw o feature s inevitably poses a problem o f violating the Projection Principl e i n (28), more specificall y violatin g the subcategorization feature [+pre d comp ] , though such a violation is allowed by the Theta Criterion in (29) (i.e., an argument can be moved into the preverbal nonargument position) .

350

Discourse Configurational Languages

(28) Th e Projectio n Principl e (Chomsk y 1981:29 ) Representation a t each syntacti c level (i.e., LF, and D - and S-structure) ar e projected fro m th e lexicon , i n tha t they observ e th e subcategorization propertie s of lexica l items . (29) Th e Theta-Criterio n (Chomsk y 1981:36 ) Each argumen t bears on e an d onl y one theta-role, an d eac h theta-rol e is assigne d to on e and only on e argument. The analysi s o f Focu s assignmen t in th e presen t pape r bring s ou t a theoretica l tension existin g between the two principles o f UG, which has not been reveale d before b y other phenomena. We have shown in section 2. 2 that nonarguments in Korean observ e th e Projectio n Principl e i n a manner differen t fro m arguments , and w e will furthe r revis e th e principle t o accommodate th e violatio n occurrin g in th e preverbal Focu s assignmen t of Korea n (cf . (19)) . Although w e defined th e pre-V Focus position as an A'-position licensed by a verb in the preceding section, the gap between the subcategorization property of V and the featur e [+focus ] ha s not been bridged yet. The featur e [+focus ] is different fro m th e othe r syntactic features of V such a s Case an d theta-role, which are als o based on it s subcategorization properties, i n that the two latte r features are directly relate d t o the lexical properties of a verb. Therefore, the y are represented a t D-structure , thoug h Cas e assignmen t i s formall y checke d a t S-struc ture. I n contrast, the featur e [+focus ] is not detectable fro m th e ver b itself . I t i s the featur e of a ver b availabl e onl y a t S-structur e (i.e. , afte r Focu s movement ) as the inpu t to th e representations o f PF an d LF. The ga p betwee n th e subcategorizatio n propert y characterizin g th e categor y V and the feature [+focus] requires a conceptual reconciliatio n unde r our analysis. Given the fact tha t the featur e [+focus] is a feature of V available onl y a t Sstructure, w e sugges t tha t th e subcategorizatio n featur e [+pred.com p ] obligatorily "turns into it," whe n a moved argument occupies this position originally allowe d fo r predicat e complements . Unde r thi s vie w o f th e syntacti c fo cusing mechanism , bein g i n a nonargumen t positio n make s a n argumen t syntactically prominent, and the Focused constituen t finally acquire s phonologi cal an d semanti c prominenc e a t th e level s o f P F an d LF , respectively. I n othe r words, th e featur e [+focus ] i s th e othe r sid e o f th e subcategorizatio n featur e [+pred.comp ] , whic h i s assigne d t o a non-base-generate d pre- V constituen t under adjacenc y and government . In ou r analysi s o f Focu s assignment , w e no w se e ho w th e relatio n betwee n the subcategorizatio n propert y o f V an d th e featur e [+focus ] create s a tensio n between the two principles of UG, the Projection Principle an d the Theta-Criterion. If a verb licenses a VP-internal A'-position by virtue of a subcategorizatio n property, thi s means that it ca n b e a landing site for a n argument , provided tha t it is empty. In other words, the subcategorization feature [+pred comp ] (or [+ pred comp]) can be 'properly ' violate d in a certain context such as Focus assignment. Eve n thoug h it is VP-internal, an A'-position, by definition , is a potentia l landing site of an argument and thus, the feature [+pred. comp ] is opened t o a

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 35

1

licit violation in the grammatical component where 'move alpha' is applied. Sinc e the Thet a Criterio n allow s th e violation , Focu s assignmen t present s a cas e i n which it is directly in conflict with the Projection Principle. I n fact, an y versio n of th e Verb-Inheren t Hypothesi s for Focu s assignmen t encounter s a dilemm a between th e tw o principle s of UG (e.g . Horvath' s analysis). 15 In the Government-Binding (GB) framework, however, the two principles hav e been assume d to be completely in accord. The Projection Principl e (28 ) mus t be observed o n ever y leve l o f th e gramma r except fo r th e P F component . Idiom s aside, eac h argumen t is assigned a theta-role by virtue of the theta-position tha t it o r its trac e occupie s i n LF a s to satisf y th e Theta-Criterion (29) . Sinc e ever y syntactic representatio n shoul d b e a projectio n o f themati c structur e (i.e . al l subcategorized position s mus t b e theta-marked ) i n G B theory , an y subcatego rization entail s theta-marking . I n other words , a VP-internal nonargument posi tion an d movemen t t o thi s positio n ar e no t theoreticall y allowed ; th e theor y predicts tha t a n A'-position must be a t leas t outsid e a n S . Therefore, a conflic t between the two principles has never arise n in this framework. The Multi-Leve l Hypothesis o n Focus-assignmen t (e.g . £ . Kis s 1981 , Orti z d e Urbin a 1989 ) i s compatible with the implications of the Projection Principle (28) proposed in GB theory, and thus it does not have the problem that th e Verb-Inherent Hypothesi s has to deal with . Now tha t a subcategorized. A'-position an d Focus assignmen t t o a constituent moved t o thi s positio n i n language s lik e Korea n empiricall y demonstrate s th e conflict betwee n the Theta Criterio n and the Projection Principle,16 a revision of the latter i s required; it i s reformulated a s holding only for arguments : (30) Th e Projectio n Principl e (Revised ) Representation a t each syntactic level (i.e. , LF , and D - an d S-structure) ar e projected fro m th e lexicon , i n that they observ e th e argument structure s of lexica l items . Idiomatic constructions will provide empirical support to our claim that a verb selecting a nonargumen t in Korea n license s th e pre-verba l A'-positio n i n orde r to assign th e feature [+focus ] to an argument moved to it. I t is well know n that an objec t N P i n a n idio m ha s n o themati c role , an d i t i s a n exceptio n t o a requirement o f th e Projection Principl e (28 ) (i.e. , non-revise d version) , namel y 'subcategorization entail s theta-marking ' (Chomsk y 1981:37) . In this sense , the object N P in an idiom is similar to a predicate complement subcategorized b y a verb. Conside r the idio m presented i n (2) , repeate d i n (31a) : (31) a . Suil- i miyekkuk-u l mek-ess-t a Nom seawee d soup-Ac e eat-past-de c 'Suil failed in the exam.' b. miyekkuk-u l Suil-i mek-ess-ta 'Suil at e seawee d soup. '

352

Discourse Configurational Languages

c. Suil- i miyekkuk-u l elma-cen-e y mek-ess-t a Nom seawee d soup-Ac e sometime-ago-i n eat-past-de c 'Suil ate seaweed sou p sometim e ago. ' The object N P in (3la) miyekkuk a s a nonargument cannot hav e its literal mean ing 'seawee d soup' ; nor does th e verb hav e its lexical meanin g 'eat ' i n the idi omatic expression ; the y constitute a complex predicat e phrase . However , a s soo n as th e objec t N P i s scramble d a s i n (31b) , i t i s immediatel y interprete d a s a n argument (i.e. , 'seawee d soup' ) a s the glos s shows . I t i s als o interprete d a s a n argument whe n the adverbial phrase in (31c), elma-cen-e 'sometim e ago,' inter venes betwee n th e ver b an d th e objec t NP . The dat a abov e indicat e tha t a nonargument objec t N P in an idiom i s like a predicate N P adjacent t o a verb in the sentenc e (8a) ; i t is interpreted a s a nonargument only if it is adjacent to and governed b y a verb selectin g it . The nonargumen t i n a n idio m exhibit s a furthe r similarit y t o a predicat e complement i n Topicalization an d syntactic Focusing, a s well. Whe n th e objec t NP without a thematic role in (3la) is proposed to the Topic position , th e idiom atic reading ca n be maintained, as in (32a), while scrambling i n (31b) forces th e same NP to be interpreted as an argument. More significantly, the verb mek- 'eat ' as a verb selectin g a nonargument object N P in the idio m can licens e th e pre- V Focus positio n and assigns the feature [+focus] to the subject N P moved int o it, as in (32b) : (32) a . miyek-kuk-u n [ c. Suil-i [ v, t mek]-ess-ta ] seaweed-soup-Top No m eat-past-de c 'As fo r failin g in a n exam, Sui l did.' b. miyek-kuk-u n [ c, t; [ v, SUILri mek]-ess-ta ] seaweed-soup-Top No m eat-past-de c 'It i s SUIL wh o failed i n a n exam.' Based on the behavior of the object NPs in an idiom a s in (31 ) and (32) , w e can treat the m a s a subclas s o f nonargument s occurring i n th e pre- V positio n (i.e. , predicate complement s selecte d b y a verb). 17 I f w e admi t th e existenc e o f a subcategorized nonargument, the object NP in idiomatic expression s i s no longe r an isolated exception to the Projection Principle. The verb mek- in the idiom (3 la), therefore, has the subcategorization feature [+pre d comp ] just like the verb toe 'become' in (8a) , despit e th e differen t Cas e realize d o n the surface . To summa rize, b y examinin g th e ver b in an idiom selectin g a nonargument object N P we have empirically supporte d ou r claim that the inherent feature of a verb [+focus ] is th e othe r sid e o f th e subcategorizatio n featur e [+pre d com p ] . Th e assign ment o f th e forme r i s triggere d b y th e violatio n o f th e latte r i n S-structur e a s predicted b y th e Theta Criterio n (29) and the revise d Projectio n Principl e (30) .

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 35

3

3.2. Empirical Justifications for the Preverbal Nonargument Position in Hungarian A considerable numbe r o f languages have pre-V (o r post-V) syntacti c Focusing . The two competin g theories o n syntactic Focusin g hav e entirel y differen t posi tions on this quite prevalent phenomenon. As we have emphasized, th e most sig nificant advantag e of the Verb-Inherent Hypothesi s i s tha t it ha s th e possibilit y to generalize ove r the pre-verbal and post-verbal Focu s beyond language-specifi c differences, whil e th e Multi-Leve l Hypothesi s ha s t o rel y o n language-specifi c aspects o f each languag e to account for the pre-verbal syntactic Focusing i n languages like Korean, Hungarian, Armenian, Turkish and Basque. In this sense, th e Verb-Inherent Hypothesi s intend s t o b e universa l i n it s essentia l claim . There fore, i t i s crucia l t o tes t whethe r th e specifi c versio n o f th e Verb-Inheren t Hy pothesis w e have described i s borne out in other languages with a syntactic Focu s mechanism. In th e following , w e wil l empiricall y tes t th e versio n o f th e Verb-Inheren t Hypothesis we advocate in Hungarian, which has Focus movement as well as WhQ movemen t t o th e pre- V position . Mor e specifically , w e wil l inquire whethe r the notion of A'-position licensed by V and the process of assigning the featur e [+focus] based on subcategorization is also valid for the Hungarian counterparts. Section 3.3. 1 examine s non-Focuse d pre- V constituent s i n Hungarian . Though they are more heterogenous than the pre-V constituents in Korean, we will show that al l o f the m involve a predicate complemen t o r a par t o f a comple x predi cate. The pre-V node in Hungarian also functions as an aspect marke r of a verb. We wil l attemp t t o integrat e thi s language-specifi c propert y int o th e cross-lin guistic characterization o f the pre-V node as the A'-position governed b y a verb . 3.2.1. Non-Focused Pre-Verbal Constituents in Hungarian Since th e propert y o f th e bass-generated pre- V constituent s i n Korea n (cf . sec tion 2.2 ) i s the basi s fo r our theor y of Focus assignment , i t ha s primar y impor tance whether o r not i t also holds in a language like Hungarian. The two point s in questio n concernin g non-focuse d pre- V constituent s i n Hungaria n are : (1 ) whether they ar e constituents which are not directly theta-marked by a verb (a s opposed to Horvath); (2) whether they are base-generated constituents in the preV positio n selecte d b y a verb (as opposed t o E. Kiss). 18 As ha s alread y bee n discussed , Horvat h (1981, 1986 ) argue s tha t th e pre- V node i n Hungaria n is a n A-position, wher e a subcategorize d argumen t occurs . However, w e fin d predicat e complement s appearin g in this positio n amon g th e data give n by her. A predicate adjectiv e may appea r i n th e pre-V position , a s in the followin g example fro m Horvat h (1986:54): (33) a . A gyereke k nagyo n biiszk6 k volta k a dijr a the childre n ver y proud-pi , wer e th e prize-ont o 'The childre n were ver y prou d of the prize.' b. * A gyereke k volta k nagyo n btiszke k a dijr a the childre n wer e ver y proud-pi , th e prize-ont o

354

Discourse Configurational Languages

The ungrammaticalit y of th e sentenc e i n (33b ) show s tha t th e positio n o f thi s predicate constituent cannot be altered i n a non-Focused sentence . Sinc e th e preV constituent above (i.e., a predicate adjective) , though selected by the verb, ha s nothing t o d o wit h theta-marking, it doe s no t suppor t Horvath' s clai m tha t th e pre-V nod e i s a n A-position. A subcategorize d P P by a ver b lik e tesz 'put ' i s claimed t o be one of the non-Focuse d pre- V constituents , whic h constitutes th e most important basis for her characterization of the pre-V position. However , th e data involvin g such a pre-V constituen t (Horvath 1985:54 ) appea r t o be contro versial.19 Within the analysis of E. Kiss (1987a:44), al l constituents appearing in the preV position are moved there from a n S, including the Focus an d interrogative wh phrases, as the diagram in (34) show s (cf. note 1) . Therefore, non-Focuse d pre- V constituents ar e not base-generated .

Despite the different analysi s for defining the structure of the pre-V position, he r observations about these constituents are strikingly reminiscent o f the propertie s of th e base-generate d pre- V constituent s in Korean , as i n th e followin g remar k (E. Kis s 1987a:76) : (35) "Positio n F of the Hungarian sentence, i.e., the peripheral position mini mally c-commandin g S , immediatel y dominate d b y S 1, has turne d ou t to b e a multi-purpos e operato r position , ope n t o variou s type s o f operators taking scope ove r S : a focus, a focus also functioning as an interrogative operator, th e nominal/adverbia l par t o f a complex predi cate, o r th e adverbia l par t o f a comple x predicat e als o functionin g as an aspectua l operator. " Notice that except for a Focus operato r (an d a Focus functionin g as an interroga tive operator), al l pre-V constituents are nonarguments involving a complex predi cate. The complementar y distribution relation betwee n th e variou s non-Focuse d constituents an d a Focu s operato r i n th e pre- V position i s th e weakes t poin t of the Multi-Leve l analysis of the Hungaria n Focus . These non-Focu s constituent s

The Theory of Syntactic Focallzation 35

5

are strictl y subcategorize d b y a verb. However , thei r positio n withi n a sentenc e is no t fixed , a s X" * in th e phras e structur e (34 ) indicates . Th e complementar y distribution relation between the Focus an d a non-Focused constituen t in the preV nod e raise s tw o questions : (1 ) wh y i s a par t o f a comple x predicat e no t di rectly inserted i n the pre-V position in D-structure?; (2) what motivates movemen t of suc h constituent s to the pre- V nod e withou t getting Focused ? Bearin g thes e two questions in mind, we will examine the sentences involving non-Focused pre V constituent s give n by E. Kiss . In line with her observation in (35), E. Kiss provides ample examples involv ing pre-verba l predicate complements or a part of a complex predicat e (E . Kis s 1987a:62):20 (36) a . [ s,, Mno s [ s. 'orvos [ s lesz ]] ] ('= [ 1 stress] ) John docto r become s 'John becomes a doctor.' b. [ s ,, Jano s [ s , 'iigye s [ s volt]]] John skillfu l wa s 'John wa s skillful. ' c. [ s,, Jano s [ s. 'levelet [ s i r ]]] John lett;r-Ac c write s 'John i s letter-writing. ' d. [ s,, Ja"no s [ s. 'moziba [ s ment]] ] John cinema-t o wen t 'John wen t to the cinema.' e. [ s. Janos [ s,' fel [ smen t a le"pcson]] ] John u p wen t th e stair s 'John wen t upstairs.' The non-Focuse d pre- V constituent s in (36a ) an d (36b ) ar e prototypica l predi cate complements , namel y a predicat e N P and AP, while thos e i n (36c) , (36d ) and (36e ) ca n b e terme d 'incorporate d constituents ' o f a comple x predicate , though E. Kiss treats both types equally as the nominal/adverbial parts of a complex predicate, a s stated i n (35) . In addition to the predicate complements in (36a) and (36b), th e sentence (36c ) also provide s interestin g evidenc e for definin g th e pre-V nod e a s a VP-internal A'-position. The determinerless noun in the pre-V position, level-et 'letter-Ace ' is marked with the accusative ; Case, but accordin g to E. Kiss's observation , it is interpreted a s an nonargument—i.e., a nominal part of the complex predicat e 't o letter-write.' I t is very simila r to the object N P without a theta-role in a n idio m in Korean, as given in (31a); thoug h phrasal, levelet-ir 'letter-write' is interprete d as a singl e verb. 21 O n th e othe r hand , whe n a full-fledge d objec t N P (e.g . a n argument N P wit h a determine r suc h a s a level-et 'th e letter-Ace.' ) appear s i n the pre- V position , i t mus t bi s Focused; suc h a n argument normall y occur s i n a post-verbal position in a non-Focused sentence.22 E. Kiss' s movemen t analysis, however, counters her own observation ; if th e phrasa l construction trul y consti tutes a complex predicate, it simpl y shoul d be inserte d in th e pre- V positio n a t

356

Discourse Configurational Languages

D-structure, an d the pre-verbal bar e objec t N shoul d b e a VP-internal constitu ent.23 The nonargument object NPs in (3la) an d (36c) demonstrate tha t th e preV nod e bot h i n Korea n an d Hungaria n i s no t onl y reserve d fo r predicat e complements, bu t als o serve s a s a n 'extended ' nod e fo r th e categor y V (i.e., a part o f a complex verb) . Hungarian has a set of verb-particles, know n as 'verbal prefixes' i n traditional grh function a s directional adverbials. 24 Th e particle occurrin g i n the pre-V positio n of (36c) i s an instance of this construction. Like the predicate complements, thes e particl *be-van 't o be-in'), among others. Horvat h (1978b, 1985:55 ) emphasizes tha t a characteristic of Hungarian phrase structure is that particular verbs must be strictly subcategorized t o tak e (o r no t t o take ) on e o f thei r complemen t phrase s i n th e pre-V node, even though she claims that it is a regular argument position. E . Kiss's proposal (i.e. , movement to the pre-verbal A'-position outside an S) is an implausible solutio n because i t doe s no t try t o capture th e relation betwee n a non-Fo cused pre-V constituen t and a verb, whethe r the former is a phrase o r a part of a complex predicate ; i f strictl y subcategorized , a constituent shoul d b e base-gen erated an d governed b y a verb. Ou r proposal tha t th e pre- V nod e is a n A'-posi tion license d b y a verb , however , i s compatibl e wit h th e occurrenc e o f language-specific subcategorize d nonargument s in the pre-V position, such as the verbal particle s i n Hungarian. The pre-V nod e in Hungarian also plays a role in aspectual interpretation , a s observed by Horvath (1981, 1985) , Kiefer (1982 ) an d E. Kiss in (35). Th e gram mar of Hungarian has no systematic an d productive morpholog y fo r marking th e distinction between progressive an d perfective aspect, a s languages lik e Englis h do. Typically Hungarian sentences ar e vague with respect t o progressive vs . per fective aspect, and the actual interpretation depends on context. Though the views of thes e linguist s var y abou t th e rol e o f non-Focuse d pre- V constituents, 25 th e general agreemen t i s that the y ar e involve d in som e wa y o r other i n expressin g aspect. For E. Kis s (1987a:69-76) , Focus an d aspect markin g are in complementar y distribution i n th e A'-position dominate d b y S' (whic h is adjacent to V). Fo r in stance, sh e observe s tha t th e adverbia l par t o f a comple x predicat e suc h a s fel 'up', o r le 'down ' appearin g in thi s positio n ca n onl y functio n a s a n aspectua l marker whe n a Focuse d constituen t doe s no t exist . A sentenc e containin g a n adverbial fel 'up ' i n th e pre- V positio n (b y movemen t t o th e Focu s slo t i n he r analysis) wil l b e interprete d a s perfective , a s i n (37a) . I f i t i s lef t behin d i n S , and th e Focus positio n i s empty, the aspec t o f the sentenc e i s either progressiv e (37b), o r 'existential, ' expressin g tha t the action ha s at least onc e taken place i n the pas t o r wil l tak e plac e a t leas t onc e i n th e futur e (37c ) (E . Kis s 1987a:69 70): (37) a . [ s,, Janos [ s, ' fel [ s men t a lepcstfn]] John u p wen t th e stair s 'John went/ha s gon e upstairs.'

] ('= [ 1 stress])

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 35

7

b. [, . Hno s [,.[,'ment'fe l a '16pcs6n]] ] John we:n t u p th e stair s 'John wa s going upstairs. ' c. [ s,. Jdno s [ s ,[ s ' ment fe l a 16pcs6n]] ] John we;n t u p th e stair s 'John has alread y gone u p the stairs. " In othe r words , i f a Hungaria n sentenc e i s syntacticall y marke d fo r aspect , i t cannot contain a Focus; i f it contains a Focus, it cannot be syntactically marke d for aspect . I f two elements ar e mutually exclusive, i t usually indicate s tha t the y share some common grammatical property. However, it is difficult t o detect suc h a propert y (o r properties) relatin g a Focused constituen t an d aspect markin g i n E. Kiss' s analysis . The complementar y distributio n betwee n Focu s an d th e as pect markin g in Hungarian, therefore, is purely accidenta l i n her analysis . While fo r E . Kis s only a n adverbia l par t i n a comple x predicat e suc h a s fel 'up' i n (37) involves aspect markin g in Hungarian , as explicitly state d i n (35), the surfac e position o f an y base-generated pre- V constituen t determine s aspec t marking i n Horvath's (1985:77-79) analysis; depending o n whether i t is locally postposed o r not, aspect o f a ver b i s eithe r progressiv e o r perfective . Sh e thu s provides thre e interpretiv e template s fo r aspec t base d o n this observation: 26 (38) Interpretive Template for ASPECT (Horvat h 1985:78 ) a. [ v. Xmax V ] > PERFECTIV E b. [ v. V Xmax ] > PROGRESSIVE c. Elsewher e > VAGUE She assumes, however, the pre-V node i s a regular A-position. Fo r suc h analy sis, i t i s a myster y why thi s particula r A-position (i.e. , th e pre- V node) , rathe r than a post-verbal A-position, is employed to express aspect. Futhermore , aspec t marking i s no t generall y directl y relate d t o a n argumen t o f a verb , bu t i t i s a specification o f a ver b itself . I n brief, Horvath fail s to full y integrat e th e func tion o f the pre- V nod e i n aspec t markin g into her characterizatio n o f th e pre- V node, an d thus it remains a n accidental phenomenon. 27 Although the role o f the pre-V node in determining Hungarian aspect i s indi rect (i.e. , th e nod e filled wit h a base-generated pre- V constituen t vs. th e empt y node), w e assum e that thi s functio n i s nontrivial and tha t it mus t be a relevan t structural propert y o f th e pre- V position . Neither doe s E . Kis s no r Horvat h at tempt to relate suc h a function t o each's structura l characterization o f the pre- V node (i.e., an A'-position immediately dominated by S' for the former, and an Aposition governed by V for the latter). We will attempt to integrate this function of the pre-V node into our characterization o f it, namely its being a n A'-positio n licensed b y a subcategorization propert y o f a verb. In orde r to defin e a proper structura l locus fo r a n aspectua l device , i t seem s to be a prerequisite to examine the category INFL (or AUX), since this categor y is closel y relate d t o aspect-marking . The categor y INF L has bee n mor e o r less

358

Discourse Configurational Languages

established i n Universa l Gramma r eve r sinc e Chomsky' s (1957 ) proposa l fo r English. It is distinct in its syntactic behavior fro m othe r syntactic categories such as a categor y V—i t label s a constituen t that include s element s expressin g th e notational categorie s o f Tense, Modalit y an d Agreement. Althoug h certai n fea tures of INFL may vary from languag e to language, possible variation s ar e sup posedly restrictivel y parameterize d (i.e. , th e presenc e o r nonpresenc e o f agreement). What i s significan t fo r ou r discussio n i s tha t in recen t studie s o f INFL , fea tures involvin g the aspec t o f a ver b suc h a s Progressive an d Perfectiv e ar e no t included amon g th e possibl e categorie s postulate d unde r th e INF L nod e a t D structure. This suggest s tha t elements expressin g aspec t ar e generated unde r the VP node, i f a language has a n overt aspec t system . English has an explicit and productive aspec t system , and its interaction wit h INFL (AUX ) has been wel l studie d fro m th e earliest stage s o f generative gram mar. Chomsk y (1957 ) propose s tha t th e auxiliar y verbs expressin g aspec t i n English, have an d be, are generated by the phrase structure rule fo r AUX, as i n (39): (39) AU X >

Tense (Modal ) (have+en) (be+ing)

Although the rule (39 ) adequatel y captures the ordering constraint s among auxiliaries i n English , variou s subsequen t work s o n Englis h AU X (o r INFL ) (Jackendoff 1972 , Emond s 1976 , 1985 , Culicove r 1976 , Akmajian , Steel an d Wasow 1979 ) sho w that the two auxiliary verbs fo r aspect, have and be, behav e like verbs through their regular inflection with respect to Tense and VP-deletion.28 The structure of predicates in a sentence like Bill could have been studying Spanish i s give n as follows (Akmajian, Stee l an d Wasow 1979) :

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 35

9

In either Culicover (1976)' s or Akmajian, Stee l an d Wasow (1979)'s representa tion o f aspect, the two important structural features of aspectual verbs i n English for ou r discussio n are : (1 ) the y ar e generate d b y th e bas e rul e fo r VP ; (2 ) th e position o f the aspectual auxiliar y verbs i n VP is adjacent to INFL on the oppo site sid e o f branchin g fo r arguments , sinc e aspec t shoul d furthe r interac t wit h tense. W e assum e tha t thes e tw o propertie s concernin g aspec t markin g ar e universal, despite language-specifi c differences at work in the actua l expressio n of aspect . Returning to aspect marking in Hungarian, the indirect role of the pre-V node seems t o be cruciall y related t o its structura l position i n a sentence (i.e. , its po sition wit h respec t t o th e VP node an d INFL). Thoug h Hungaria n has n o over t aspectual auxiliar y generated unde r VP, whether the pre-V node in a VP is empty or not can express aspec t by virtue of its structural properties. Horvat h (1985:64) explictly locate s INFL preceding th e VP as shown in phrase marke r (27). 29 The pre-V nod e in (27) is compatible with the two structural properties extracte d fro m the analyse s o f th e aspectua l auxiliar y verbs i n English, thoug h th e nod e is di rectly governe d by th e hea d V; the pre-V nod e is dominated by VP and is adja cent to INFL on the side where no argument appears. 30 Therefore, it seems to be no acciden t tha t the pre- V nod e in Hungaria n functions a s a n aspec t marker , if we postulat e it a s an A'-position adjacen t to a verb. Summarizing, thoug h th e rol e o f th e pre- V nod e functionin g as a n aspec t marker i n Hungarian seems t o be a highly language-specifi c phenomenon , i t i s unlikely tha t thi s languag e resort s t o a totall y ad hoc mean s o f expressin g as pect, such as making use o f an operator positio n dominate d by S ' (E. Kiss) or of a regular A-position wher e an argument may occur (Horvath) . There is of cours e no compellin g a prior i argumen t tha t a n A'-position subcategorize d b y a ver b should functio n a s a n aspec t marke r a s well . However , ou r characterizatio n o f the pre- V nod e i n Hungaria n (i.e. , a n A'-position license d b y th e categor y V ) seems t o be a plausible account for it s indirec t role in expressin g aspect , give n that there is an independently postulated INFL node in Hungarian which precedes the VP , as i n th e phras e marke r propose d by Horvat h (27) , an d tha t th e pre- V node is no t o n th e "argumen t side" of the V. To reca p thi s section , th e examinatio n o f th e non-Focuse d pre-verba l con stituents in Hungarian has show n that they ar e selecte d nonargument s such a s a predicate complement , a detenninerless object NP or a verbal particle forming a part of a complex predicate . Th e various non-Focused pre-verba l constituent s in Hungarian confir m our characterizatio n o f th e pre- V nod e a s a n A'-position li censed b y a verb , whic h has been previousl y establishe d throug h analyzin g the Korean counterpart s whic h have les s variety . Our examinatio n o f non-Focuse d pre-verbal constituent s is limite d to onl y Korean and Hungarian . However, th e Armenian (Comri e 1984 ) an d Turkis h (Underbil l 1976 ) dat a (cf . note s 13 , 14 ) suggest that our theory is in the right direction. Further research o n the nature of constituents occurrin g in th e pre- V (o r Post-V ) positio n i s necessar y i n other languages wit h syntacti c focalization .

360

Discourse Configurational Languages

3.2.2. Extended Focus Assignment: The Abstract Pre-Verbal Node for Focused Constituents and Wh-Q Phrases in Hungarian This section examines whether the process o f assigning the feature [+focus] base d on subcategorization is valid in Hungarian. It will also address the different prop erties o f the pre-verbal Focus nod e in Korean and Hungarian; in the former onl y verbs which select a predicate complement license the pre-verbal Focu s position , while i n th e latte r an y verb , includin g of cours e verb s selectin g a pre-verba l constituent, ca n licens e th e syntacti c Focu s positio n int o whic h both Focuse d constituents an d interrogative Wh-phrases ar e moved . Our analysi s of syntacti c Focusin g i n Korea n vi a assignmen t o f a n inheren t feature by a verb has the following implications for other languages with similar phenomena. Th e notio n o f assignin g th e featur e [+focus ] o n th e basi s o f th e subcategorization featur e [+pre d com p ] severely restrict s th e possible deriva tions o f syntacti c Focu s constructions . Sinc e th e featur e [+focus ] i s dependen t on the subcategorization featur e [+pred com p ] , its assignment is possible only when a verb select s a pre-verbal nonargument . Accordingly, Focus movemen t i s essentially limited to a substitution process; a Focused constituent replaces a basegenerated pre-V constituent. It means that the potential Focus positio n (pre- V o r post-V position ) must b e fille d b y a lexica l ite m i n D-structur e an d tha t th e nonarguments base-generated in thi s position canno t get focused . Under Horvath's Verb-Inherent Hypothesis, Focus movement in Hungarian also exhibits substitution ; base-generated pre- V phrase s mus t b e postpose d i n orde r that a Focused phras e can be moved int o the pre-V position. 31 The effec t o f Focusing a n argumen t in a sentenc e wit h a base-generate d pre- V complemen t i s demonstrated i n the followin g constructions (Horvath , 1985:101): 32 (41) Substitutio n Proces s fo r Derivin g Hungaria n Focus Construction s a. Mar i asztalra tett e a z edenyeke t (Unmarke d fo r Focus ) table-onto pu t th e dishes-Ace . 'Mary pu t the dishe s o n a table.' b. Mar i AZEDENYEKET ; tett e asztalra l{ (th e Object N P Focused ) the dishes-Ace pu t table-ont o 'It i s THE DISHES tha t Mary put on a table.' The assignmen t o f th e featur e [+focus ] i s consisten t wit h a subcategorizatio n property o f the ver b in th e above constructio n an d thus the restrictio n o n deriv ing Focu s construction s i s satisfied. Focu s movemen t i n Hungarian, however, i s still allowed , eve n i f the ver b i n a sentence doe s not select a pre-V constituent . This indicates tha t the pre-verbal Focu s positio n i n this language is licensed no t only b y th e subcategorizatio n featur e o f a specifi c verb , bu t i s a n abstrac t A' position license d b y al l verbs ; th e potentia l feature [+focus ] i s a n inheren t fea ture o f th e categor y V . As a result , th e derivatio n o f Focu s construction s i n Hungarian i s muc h more productiv e than i n Korean. The abstrac t pre- V Focu s positio n i n Hungaria n now seem s t o counte r ou r analysis o f th e pre-verba l A'-positio n a s license d b y a ver b an d it s

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 36

1

subcategorization property . This aspect of syntactic Focusing i n Hungarian, however, shoul d b e examine d in the ligh t of other related phenomen a whic h distin guish i t fro m Korean . Hungaria n and the othe r language s known with syntacti c Focusing suc h a s Basque, Armenian , Turkish an d Aghem, unlike Korean , hav e obligatory Wh-Q Movement to a landing site identical to that of a Focused con stituent (i.e. , the pre-V position o r the post-V position) . We assume tha t a n abstract pre-V node, licensed no t by a specific class of verb but by the category V, is someho w due t o this fact . In Hungarian, like syntacti c Focusing, a Wh-Question als o involve s substitution (cf . Horvath 1985 : sectio n 1.7) . Whe n the object NP in (41a) i s questioned, the base-generate d pre- V constituen t must b e postposed , s o tha t th e interroga tive Wh-phrase can be move d to its place, a s shown below: (42) Mit j tet t asztalra t ; Mar i ? what-acc. pu t table-ont o Mar y 'What di d Mary put o n a table?' The natural answer to the requested question (42) should be a Focused sentenc e like (41b) , wher e the requested information occupie s th e pre-V Focu s position ; an unfocuse d sentenc e like (4la ) canno t be a well-formed response to questio n (42).33 Furthermore, i n Hungaria n a Wh-Question formation occurs, whethe r a ver b in a sentenc e select s a pre-V constituen t or not ; a n interrogativ e Wh-phras e i s obligatorily move d int o th e abstrac t pre- V A'-position a s i n (43b) , eve n wher e the verb select s no pre-V constituent. The correct respons e t o this questio n i s a Focus sentence (43c ) (th e sentenc e (43a ) i s its non-Focused version) : (43) a . Mar i olvast a a z ujsdgo t Mary read-def . th e newspaper-Ace . 'Mary rea d the newspaper.' b. Mit ; olvasot t t ; Mari ? What-Acc. read-indef. Mar y 'What did Mary read?' c. Mar i A Z OlSAGOT j olvast atj Mary th e newspaper-Ac e read-def. 'It is THE NEWSPAPER that Mary read.' Due to the obligatory Wh- Q phrase movement t o the pre-V positio n i n an interrogative sentenc e and its matching response, Hungaria n has t o have a n abstract and general pre-V A'-position int o which both interrogative Wh-phrases an d foci are moved. There ha s bee n a long-standin g and informal observation o n similaritie s be tween Wh-question s an d Focu s construction s in th e linguisti c literature . Th e parallelism i s base d o n syntactic , distributiona l similarities betwee n interroga tive Wh-phrases and Focus constituents in various languages such as Hungarian

362

Discourse Configurational Languages

and Basque , a s wel l a s o n th e intuitio n tha t i n discourse , th e Wh-phras e o f a question is replaced b y a Focus constituen t in the response, while the presuppo sition of the question an d of its natural response remai n constant. To make thes e observations explicit , Horvat h (1986:118 ) has propose d th e followin g principl e holding i n UG : (44) Th e FOCUS Constrain t on the Wh-Q Operato r A non-echo questio n interpretatio n can b e derive d onl y i f th e Wh- Q operator bears th e featur e FOCUS a t LF. Given that Focus assignment in languages like Hungarian is limited to apply only to th e pre- V node , a s Horvath' s Verb-Inheren t Hypothesis proposes , i t follow s that a well-forme d non-ech o Wh-questio n interpretatio n i s obtaine d onl y i f th e Wh-phrase occupie s th e pre-V positio n a t the level o f S-structure . Notice, however, tha t the Focus constrain t on the Wh-Q operator (44) i s inapplicable t o Korean , whic h ha s in-sit u Wh-Q phrase s lik e Chinese . Korea n fur ther constitute s a counterexampl e t o a cross-linguisti c predictio n tha t Horvat h makes regarding the distribution of interrogative Wh-phrases in the surface structure (Horvath 1985:122) : (45) Th e syntactic position(s) in which non-echo interrogativ e Wh- phrase s can appear in a language L will be identical t o or be a proper subset of the positions i n whic h FOCUS-constituents can appea r i n languag e L . Korean furnishe s a n exampl e wher e th e distributio n o f Wh- Q phrase s doe s no t coincide wit h Focused constituents , though th e distributio n o f the latte r i s syn tactically limited to the pre-V position as in Hungarian. It constitutes the reversed counterpart o f English whic h has a n in-sit u Focu s constituent but a structurally restricted distributio n of Wh-Q phrases. I n these tw o languages, the identit y between Wh- Q an d Focu s operator s i s no t syntacticall y expressed i n S-structure , though the y will occup y th e sam e operator positio n i n LF. Finally, Focu s assignmen t in Korean , which i s restricte d t o substitution , ex cludes base-generate d pre-V constituent s from gettin g Focused . I n contrast, th e Hungarian counterpart is not subject to such a restriction. According t o Horvath , Focus assignment to them is optional, while the constituents move d into the pre V positio n ar e obligatoril y Focuse d (cf . not e 22) . Sh e account s fo r th e latte r phenomenon i n term s o f th e Bindin g theory concernin g variable s (i.e. , bindin g condition C ; an R-expression i s free) an d a constraint on well-formedness a t L F (i.e., a variable must be A'-bound by an appropriate operato r i n LF) proposed i n the Government-Bindin g theor y (Chomsk y 1981) . He r accoun t ca n captur e obligatoriness o f Focu s Assignmen t i n sentence s (41b) , (42) , (43b ) an d (43c ) including the Korea n Focus construction in (19) , where a variable is lef t b y Fo cus/Wh-Q movement. Nevertheless, this accoun t is independen t of th e question of why the base-generated pre-V constituent in Hungarian (i.e., in a construction

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 36

3

without a variabl e lef t b y Focu s movement ) ca n b e optionall y Focused , i n constrast to the Korea n counterpart. The optiona l Focu s assignmen t fo r the m i s also related t o the fact that a n interrogative Wh-phras e an d a Focused constitu ent occup y a n identical syntacti c position i n Hungaria n (i.e. , Focu s assignmen t applies t o bot h constituents) . A s the base-generate d pre- V constituent s ar e op tionally questione d (no t b y obligator y Wh-movement , bu t b y a n in-sit u Wh phrase), they also can be Focused. Otherwise, it is impossible t o provide a natural response to a question i n which one of the base-generated pre- V constituent s i s questioned. Now, i t seem s tha t substitutio n in th e formatio n o f Korea n Focu s construc tions represent s a n archetyp e of the syntacti c Focus mechanism , wherea s Hun garian and Basque represent an extended version of syntactic Focusing, whic h is not limited to substitution due to the obligatory Wh-movement to the pre-V po sition. Wha t i s commo n t o al l thes e language s is tha t the pre- V Focu s positio n coincides structurall y with the position o f a subcategorized constituent whic h i s not directl y theta-marke d by a verb .

3.3. Downgrading Movement and Focus Raising in LF Allowing downward movement to the pre-V position and Focus raising (and WhQ raisin g in Hungaria n and Basque) for bindin g in L F i s anothe r seriou s prob lem fo r Th e Verb-Inherent Hypothesis pointed ou t by th e competin g theory (E . Kiss 1987a , Orti z de Urbin a 1989) . The pre- V positio n governe d by an d adja cent t o V i s a n innermos t position o f V P in a sentence , an d movemen t i n thi s position i s inevitabl y downward, as show n in (19 ) an d (41) . Sinc e th e variabl e left b y th e movemen t canno t b e boun d a t S-structure , Focus/Wh- Q operator s should eventuall y undergo LF raising in order to be in a higher position t o bind variables. Though the necessity of LF-raising has been accepted i n literature, thi s criticism suggest s that postulating downgradin g movement is undesirable, sinc e it requires raisin g the operator s i n LF rather than in S-structure . This section attempts to discuss the question of downgrading Focus movemen t and Focu s raisin g i n L F base d o n ou r characterizatio n o f th e pre- V positio n i n section 3.1.1. The following tw o points are crucial for our discussion i n this sec tion: (1 ) th e pre- V nod e i s a n A'-position; (2 ) i t i s th e positio n wher e a base generated predicat e complement or a part of a complex predicat e occurs . Downgrading movemen t leaves a variable which is no t properly boun d i n S structure. Horvath argues that th e binding theory i n th e GB-framewor k actuall y allows suc h a syntacti c movement; th e binding conditio n concernin g variable s simply require s tha t 'a n R-expressio n i s free. ' Sinc e w e hav e argue d a t lengt h that th e pre-V nod e i s a n A'-position, no w th e question is ; wh y must the Focu s operator tha t ha s alread y undergon e syntacti c A'-movemen t b e raise d i n LF ? Although raising of Focu s (an d of a n interrogative Wh-phrase i n Hungarian ) i n LF is necessary t o meet th e vyell-formednes s conditio n whic h prevent s a n ope n sentence containing an unbound variable, this does not provide an authentic explanation fo r th e obligator y movement in LF.

364

Discourse Configurational Languages

Under our analysis, the obligatory L F movement i s not motivated b y binding of th e variable, bu t by reconstruction o f a predicate o f an S. The pre-V positio n is an A'-position licensed b y verbs whic h select a nonargument, an d thus i t pro vides a landing site fo r a Focus or an interrogative Wh-phrase whic h i s an argu ment i n Korea n an d Hungarian . However , i n contras t t o a n A'-position outsid e an S , the pre-verbal A'-position canno t be maintaine d i n L F due to th e requirement tha t th e base-generate d predicat e constituent s i n th e VP-interna l A'-position shoul d b e reconstructed .

4. Conclusion We hav e argue d tha t ther e i s a correlatio n betwee n a verb' s abilit y t o selec t a predicate complemen t (i.e. , subcategorization ) an d syntacti c Focu s assignmen t at length. In our analysis, the feature [+focus ] appear s t o be much mor e simila r to Case than Horvath has previously observed (cf . the statement i n (22)). A consequence o f ou r theor y i s tha t Focu s assignmen t i s predicte d t o b e possibl e b y an infinitiv e verb a s accusativ e Case assignment . Indeed , formatio n of a Focus construction i n a n infinitiv e context i s possibl e i n Hungarian , presumabl y b y movement t o the abstract pre- V nod e a s in (46 ) (E . Kiss , 1987a , 231-32): 34 (46) a . [ s,, Jano s [ s .[ s ' szeretne[s., [ s. a 'lenyegro l [ beszelni vegre]]]]] ] John woul d lik e th e essence-about to-spea k 'John woul d like t o spea k ABOUT THE ESSENCE a t last.' b. [ s,,[s,[s Ne m tudtun k [ s,,[s,mirol [ s beszelni ]]]]]] not know-w e about-wha t to-spea k 'We don't kno w wha t to spea k about. ' Nevertheless, th e parallelism of a finite an d an infinite verb in assigning Focus 35 is not always maintained. In some contexts, a Focused constituen t must be moved into the node preceding a finite verb , rather than that preceding a n infinite verb: (47) a . akaro m olvasn i a jelent6seke t I want-Pres-Def . t o read th e reports-Ac e 'I want to read th e reports.' b. A JELENTESEKET; akarom olvasni t ; 'It is THE REPORTS tha t I want to read.' c. *akaro m A JELENTESEKET; olvasni t ; The example s abov e indicat e tha t ther e i s a significan t interaction betwee n th e feature [+focus ] and tense. I n this sense, a verb's abilit y to select a nonargument (i.e., Focus-marking ) differ s fro m it s abilit y t o selec t a n argumen t (i.e. , Case marking). Our theory of syntactic Focusing based on subcategorization, however, has not provided a n account of why onl y th e categor y V can selec t a predicate complement an d thu s ca n assig n Focus—mor e generally , wh y onl y a lexica l categor y

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 36

5

which ca n directl y combin e wit h tens e suffixe s (e.g . both verb s an d adjectives in Korea n (cf. note 12) ) exhibits suc h an ability. We will leave this question for further research .

Notes *I wish t o expres s m y gratitud e to th e Korea n Researc h Foundatio n fo r givin g me a n opportunity t o work i n Budapest (1990-2), and the Research Fun d fo r Junior Scholars . I am grateful to Katalin E. Kiss for encouraging m e to present a n early versio n o f this pa per in the summer school workshop held i n Dubrovnik and inviting me to contribute it to this volume. I also appreciate a valuable comment from Jo e Emonds. I would like to thank to Pd l Nyiri , Yong-Gu k Ki m an d a n anonymou s Hungaria n compute r technicia n wh o helped m e ou t whe n I ha d bafflin g problem s wit h my ne w compute r syste m during my settling-down perio d i n Budapest . I a m also gratefu l t o Gret e Dalm i fo r discussion s o n Hungarian an d her friendship . O f course al l errors an d shortcomings o f this paper ar e on my shoulders . 1. In her recent paper (in this volume), E. Kiss assumes that the Focus i n Hungarian is in Spec VP (i.e., Spec of the VP which includes the base-generated subject ) and that Topic is immediatel y dominate d by S . This proposa l i s anothe r variant o f th e Multi-leve l Hy pothesis. 2. Kim Alan H.-O (1985 ) propose s a functional approach t o pre-verbal Focusing (i.e. , Immediate Preverba l Focu s i n hi s term ) an d ver b Focusin g (i.e. , Focusin g o f th e finit e verb itself); h e attributes thes e t o three majo r principles o n the discourse level , an information flo w principl e (i.e. , new information occurs immediatel y o n the right o f the sen tence), a verb-fina l constraint in th e wor d orde r i n Korean , an d a preemption conditio n of the sentence domai n (i.e., pragmatically salient material may not follow the finite verb). Although pre-verbal Focusing i s preponderant in verb-final languages such as Korean and Turkish, hi s approac h cannot accoun t for Hungarian, whose wor d order i s not subjec t t o the verb-fina l constrain t (th e V-initia l orde r i n E. Kiss' s analysi s an d the SV O orde r i n Horvath's analysis) . 3.The V-firs t orde r o f Hungarian proposed b y E . Kis s als o reflect s th e fixe d positio n of th e verb . Th e V-fina l orde r o f Korea n ca n b e violate d onl y i n a roo t sentenc e fo r a stylistic purpos e (i.e., a literary style) (cf. Jo 1985 : Ch.l) . However, it is not clear whether such orde r i s a resul t o f V-movement ; i t ca n b e postposin g o f othe r constituent s fo r Focusing. 4. The objec t nou n i n a n idiom lose s it s idiomati c sense , i f i t i s expande d (e.g . modi fied b y a prenominal adjective) , o r if it is separate d fro m a verb by scrambling . I t has n o thematic rol e a s in English idioms . W e will sho w tha t such a n objec t nou n behaves lik e a predicate NP in the pre-V nod e in Topicalization an d Focus formatio n in sectio n 3.1.2 . 5. Choe H.-S. claim s that the existence of syntactic passives i n Korean also support s a configurational VP . However, i t i s no t clea r whethe r they ar e derive d b y NP-movemen t as i n English . NP-movemen t i n a passive no t onl y presuppose s a syntacti c V P but als o Case assignmen t by adjacency . I n Korean , th e subjec t positio n i s b y n o mean s adjacen t to the Case-assigne r INFL , an d :hu s NP-movement in a passive woul d be unmotivated . 6. Saito and Hoji (1983) argu e that scrambling in Japanese does affec t bindin g as shown in (1 ) an d thu s that it i s a n instanc e of 'mov e alpha. '

366

Discourse Configurational Languages (i) a . *karei-g a mada [Mary-ga Johnpni okutt a tegami]- o yond e ina i (koto ) he-Nom yet Nor n -t o sen t letter-Ac e rea d have-no t fac t '*He; has not read th e letter Mar y sent t o John/ b. [Mary-g a Johnj-ni okkut a tegami]-o karej-g a mad a yonde ina i (koto )

Choe H.-S . (1985 ) shows , however, tha t the Korea n sentenc e (2 ) corresponding t o (Ib ) is ambiguous; the coreferential reading is possible wit h stres s on the pronoun ku 'he ' bu t not wit h a neutral intonation : (ii) */O.K . [Mary-ka John;-eke y ponae-0- n phyenci]-lu l kUj-k a ilk-c i Nom -t o send-Pres-Mo d letter-Ac e he-No m read-t o ani-ha-ess-ta not-do-Past-Dec Therefore, sh e concludes that scrambling in Korean is a nonsyntactic phenomenon which may no t chang e binding. 7. Korea n doe s requir e a n independent INFL node . Even thoug h INFL element s usu ally amalgamate in the verbal morphology, V can be separated from the m in various con structions, as shown by the VP Topicalization in sentence (1) . 8. In Japanese both Topicalization and scramblin g have been argue d t o be adjunction; the former , adjunction t o S ' and th e latter , adjunctio n t o S (Saito 1985 , Hoj i 1985) . 9. Th e complementizer-nominalize r fo r a n embedde d claus e -ki, which i s i n comple mentary distributio n with a sentenc e ending , therefore , ca n als o licens e the Topi c posi tion, a s in the following sentence wher e the Topic constructio n (12a ) occurs withou t the declarative sentenc e marke r -to : (i) ( na-nun) [ NP [CP hoecang-un [ c, Suil-i t toe-ess-ki]]]-lu l I-Top chairman-To p No m become-Past-Comp-Ac c pala-n-ta wish-Pres-Dec 'I wish tha t a s for chairman, Suil ha s become one. ' 10. For Choe H.-S. (i n this volume), there are two possible Focu s position s i n Korean: the pre-V position an d the sentence-initial position whic h is in the right side o f the Topic of th e clause. He r proposa l onl y deal s wit h Focus appearin g i n the latter . 11. Emonds (1985 : Ch. 1 ) captures th e asymmetr y existing between N an d V in term s of direc t an d indirect theta-rol e assignment . In his theory , onl y V and P can directl y as sign a theta-role t o their complements; indirect theta-role assignmen t involves theta-rol e assignment usin g P , and thi s mechanis m permit s noun s an d adjective s hav e a comple ment system . Direct theta-rol e assignmen t mark s a theta-rol e t o onl y on e sister . Whe n V i s subcategorized for tw o sisters , a s in the sentence s o f (25), on e i s th e externa l argumen t of th e othe r (i.e., the subjec t is a n external argument). That is , V assigns a theta-role t o one o f the two sisters , an d the theta-role o f the secon d i s assigne d b y th e first, a s illus trated belo w (Emonds 1985:36) :

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 36 11) V assigns theta-rol e directly t o Y

7 K

(2) Y assigns theta-role t o th e externa l argumen t NP. (3) Y

K

= PP,NP,AP,VP

We d o no t agre e wit h Emonds in tha t a predicat e complemen t i s directl y theta-marke d by th e verb . Th e presenc e o f a predicate complement supplement s th e predicatio n o f a main verb , whic h i s expresse d b y (Hi ) above . Thi s hypothesi s i s strange , becaus e th e argument theta-marked by the verb (i.e., the predicate complement Y K) in turn theta-marks another argument. 12. In a language like Korean, however, adjectives can also appea r in the main predicate positio n o f a sentence , an d the y ma y selec t a predicat e complemen t i n th e pre- A position similar to the intransitve verb toe 'become' in sentence (8a) ; the pre-A constituent i s usuall y a part of a complex adjective . Consequently, such a n adjective has abilit y to assig n Focus t o a consituent moved to the pre- A position. A sentence wit h an adjective occurrin g wit h a pre- A consituen t and it s correspondin g Focu s sentenc e ar e give n below (parenthese s mark position for the adverbia l phrase): (i) a . Sunae-k a (elilttae-puthe ) meli-k a ( * ) coh-0-t a Nom childhood-fro m head-Par t good-Pres-De 'Sunae has been smar t from he r childhood.' b. meli-nu n [ CP t; (__) SUNAE r ka (*_) coh-0-ta ] Top No m good-Pres-De c 'It is SUNAE who is smart.'

c

Therefore, ho w to incorporate th e V's (an d A's) ability t o select a predicate complemen t into th e theory o f verbal inflection appears to be a major issue to pursue . 13. Comrie (1984:7-8) observes that the preverbal position of the copula (i.e., the verb "be" i n th e presen t an d imperfect indicative) in Armenian must alway s be fille d wit h a predicate adjectiv e or a lexical verb (i.e., a part of a complex predicate), a s in th e sen tences i n (1)) , unless a Focused N P moves int o here. The sentence-fina l positio n o f th e verb "be" i n a nonfocused sentence like those in (1) must be reversed in an interrogativ e question (2a) (presumably by the postposing of the verb in the pre-copula position), wher e a Wh-word occupie s th e pre-V position: (i) a . Yerkink'—kapuy t e sky-DEF blu e i s 'The sky is blue.' b. Kapuy t e 'It i s blue.' c. * E kapuyt (ii) a . Petros- n INC ' e utum Peter-DEF wha t be-PRES-3S 'What is Peter eating?' b. *Petros- n INC' utu m e?

? G eat-PRES P

368

Discourse Configurational Languages

14. According t o Underbill (1976), Turkish has no need o f a linking verb 't o be' in the present tense , bu t i t i s needed i n othe r tense , fo r example , th e futur e tense ; thi s ver b i s olmak. At th e same tim e olmak als o mean s 'become * an d in this meanin g it may b e used an y tense. Th e use s o f th e ver b i n th e followin g sho w tha t th e pre- V positio n i n Turkish i s also occupie d b y a predicate constituen t (Underbil l 1976:149) : (i) a . Arkadasi m mekteb e gitti , dokto r old u friend-my school-t o go-pas t docto r become-Pas t 'My frien d wen t to school an d becam e a doctor.' b. Gocugu n eller i siya h oluyor child-poss han d blac k become-Pre s 'The child' s hand s are becoming black." Underbill (1976:72 ) describe s th e pre-verbal Focu s i n Turkish a s following: (ii) "Th e positio n of emphasis in Turkish is the position immediately before the verb; thus plac e i n tha t position an y wor d that you wis h t o emphasize . I n conversa tion, emphasis is also indicated by increased stress on the emphasized word (as in English). " An interrogativ e Wh-word or a phrase containing it i s considere d t o b e "emphasized, " and i t mus t be place d i n th e pre- V position in Turkish : (iii) a . B u film- i ki m gor-dii ? this film-Ac e wh o see-Pas t 'Who sa w this movie? ' b. Bun u hang i kati p yazdi ? this whic h cler k write-Pas t 'Which clerk wrote this? ' 15. I n Horvath' s version , th e requiremen t o f th e Projectio n Principl e i s accepted ; subcategorization entail s theta-marking . Th e pre- V constituent s in Hungaria n ar e subcategorized b y verbs , an d therefore , th e pre- V positio n i s considere d a s a n A-posi tion. Making use of new notions of th e Projection Principle an d the Theta Criterion , sh e (Horvath 1985 : Ch . 3) argues that a base-generated pre-V constituent in Hungarian which is locall y postpose d b y substitutio n observes th e tw o principle s (cf . not e 6) . However , the Focuse d constituent , which is move d fro m a n argumen t position t o the pre- V Focu s position, inevitably violates th e Theta Criterion (29) . Horvath's analysi s evidently shows that any version o f the Verb-Inherent Hypothesis canno t satisfy bot h the Projection Prin ciple and the Theta Criterion . Whil e her analysis meets th e requirement of the former, it violates th e latter . In contrast, ou r analysi s observes th e latter, but violate s th e former . 16. The possible violatio n of the Projection Principl e i n Focus assignment i s twofold: (1) one is a violation by the dislocated pre- V constituent ; (2) the other i s a violation b y a Focused constituen t moved to pre-V position, which is motivated by Focus assignment . As fo r th e former , neithe r does i t reall y violat e th e Projectio n Principl e no r th e Thet a Criterion. The dislocated predicate NP in the Korean Focus construction (19) violates the Projection Principl e because its trace in the Pre-V position is erased by the Focused con -

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 36

9

stituent move d int o it . Althoug h G B theor y doe s no t predic t th e existenc e o f a subcategorized nonargument , it doe s no t preven t th e possibilit y tha t suc h a constituen t may leav e a trace i n an English sentenc e lik e what did John become t. The majo r moti vation fo r trace s i n G B theor y lie s i n th e transmissio n o f a theta-rol e (an d Case ) o f a subcategorized argumen t which h:is undergone movement, in order t o maintain the struc ture of arguments at every grammatical level. Horvath (1986: Ch. 3) argues that the ThetaCriterion, which is a general conditio n o n the well-formedness o f LF representation, ca n render th e stipulatio n o f th e Trace Erasur e Prohibitio n (Freidi n 1978:524 ) unnecessary . Since the trace o f the dislocated predicat e N P in the Focus constructio n (19 ) ha s no the matic role, it s erasur e causes n o violatio n of th e Theta Criterio n (J o 1986 : Ch . 4) . 17. Therefore, th e existenc e o f idiom s consistin g o f a bar e objec t N an d a ver b ap pears t o support for the constituen t V'(i.e., ' a smal l VP") , rather tha n VP in Korean (cf . Choe H.-S . 1988) . 18. We do not commit ourselves with respect to the different basi c word orders o f Hungarian propose d b y the tw o authors . Ou r argument s for th e pre-V nod e a s a VP-internal A'-position coul d b e compatibl e wit h th e bot h orders , a s fa r a s i t i s postulate d a s th e position governe d b y an d adjacen t to V. 19. Horvath (1985:54 ) analyze s th e preverba l constituent s i n th e sentence s belo w as PP's : (1) a . Mar i a z asztalr a tett e a z eddnyeke t the table-o n to pu t th e dishes-ac e 'Mary pu t th e dishes on the table. ' b. A boszorkdn y eg y csu f be'ka'va ' valtoztatt a a kirSlyfi t the witc h a n ugl y frog-translat . cas e change d th e prince-ace . 'The witch changed the prince int o a n ugly frog. ' Whether suffixe s -ra '-onto ' and -va (the translative Case ) ar e P or Case markers, som e native speakers—includin g E . Kis s (persona l communication)—d o no t agre e wit h he r judgement tha t the constituents i n the pre-V position o f these sentence s ar e non-Focused ; the NP wit h a determine r and the one wit h a modifie r are interprete d as Focuse d con stituents (i.e. , they ar e referential NP's wit h a theta-role). Onl y a determinerless N o r a bare N ca n be interprete d a s a non-Focused pre-V constituen t (i.e., a nonargument) , a s moziba (movie house-into) in E. Kiss's example (36d). For example, if a bare noun bek&vA (frog-translat. case ) occurs in the pre-V position of (Ib) it would be qualified a s a basegenerated pre- V constituen t (i.e., a par t o f a comple x predicate) . Therefore , neithe r d o these sentence s suppor t Horvath's characterization of th e pre-V nod e a s an A-position . Moreover, even i f th e pre- V constituents in the abov e sentence s ar e PP's, a s Horvath claims, th e pre- V positio n a s ar i A-positio n canno t stand . The N P complement s i n th e pre-V position of the above sentences apparently have a theta-role, namely Goal. Although some verbs strictl y subcategorizi; a PP it is not the verbs whic h directly assig n Case and a theta-rol e t o th e N P complement ; i t i s P whic h Case-mark s an d theta-mark s it s N P complement. Th e ver b doe s no t directl y involv e theta-rol e assignmen t o f the PP ; it s in volvement t o theta-markin g in a subcategorized P P i s indirect lik e the theta-markin g of the subject NP . Likewise, th e pre;-verbal NP in the sentences o f (1) are also Case-marke d and theta-marked , not by the verbs, but by the postpositional suffixes , -ra 'onto ' and -ba 'to.' Therefore, i t appear s tha t th e abov e sentences containing the pre-verba l P P d o no t pose a seriou s problem for th e generalizatio n o f th e pre-V Focus position as a n A'-posi tion license d b y V.

370

Discourse Configurational Languages

20. In addition to the examples give n i n (36), we find tha t the behavior o f the follow ing italicized pre- V predicate constituent s in the Hungarian is similar to the Korean coun terparts i n (8) ; the y mus t b e adjacen t to th e verbs , an d thei r positio n i s fixed , unles s a Focused constituen t occupie s th e pre-V position : (i) a . Ja"no s uriembernek ( * mindig) Idtszi k John gentleman-t o alway s seem s 'John (always ) seems t o be a gentleman.' b. Jdno s fdradtnak (*ma ) IStszi k John tired-t o toda y seem s 'John seem s t o be tire d (today). ' c. Edi t butdnak ( * mindig) tekin t enge m foolish-to alway s consider s m e 'Edit (always ) considers m e foolish. ' d. JSnos t beteggg (* sajnos) tett e so k munkaj a John-Ace sick-trans.Cas e unfortunatel y pu t muc h work-hi s '(Unfortunately,) to o much wor k mad e John sick. ' 21. In E. Kiss's analysis, the word order in post-verbal positions is not fixed (cf. phras e structure (34)). Therefore, ther e is no guarantee for a subcategorized constituent by a verb is adjacen t t o a ver b withi n a n S (i.e. , befor e it s movemen t t o th e pre-verba l Focu s position). 22. Horvat h (1985 : Ch . 3 ) account s for thi s fact a s follows: Since sh e postulate d th e base position of the object NP as post-verbal, the preposed objec t NP leaves a trace (i.e. , a variable) in its original position, which should be A'-bound in LF. If Focus Assignment fails t o apply to the object NP in the pre-V position , n o operator i s available t o bind th e variable lef t b y downgradin g movemen t (i.e. , movemen t t o th e positio n governe d b y and adjacen t t o th e verb ) i n th e L F representatio n o f th e sentenc e containin g suc h a n object NP. 23. A nonargument bar e N suc h a s tha t in (36c ) appearin g i n a post-verba l positio n can be independently accounted fo r i n terms o f aspect marking , which will be discusse d later i n thi s section . 24. Horvath analyzes these verba l particles as intransitive PP's , [p p [p ]]. Sinc e th e P without an NP complement i s not theta-marked by V, this analysis of the verba l particle s is compatible with the chracterization of the pre-V node as a subcategorized nonargumen t that w e have pu t forwar d here. 25. Horvath (1985:77), fo r example, points out that the only kinds of sentences i n Hungarian tha t are unambiguous with respect t o aspect ar e clauses wit h a non-Focused pre V constituent . However, E . Kis s (i n personal communication ) doe s no t agre e wit h this; progressive an d existentia l reading s requir e a n empt y Focu s slot , whethe r o r no t a n S contains a base-generated pre- V constituent. 26. The three interpretive templates in (38) invok e disagreements. The predictions tha t they mak e are no t identica l t o E. Kiss' s analysi s of Hungarian aspect (cf . not e 1 1 i n E . Kiss (1987a:74)) . For example, (38b ) doe s no t predict th e so-calle d existentia l interpre tation presente d i n E . Kiss' s exampl e (37c) . Furthermore , E . Kis s provide s counterexamples for each of them (in personal communication). The differences between the tw o analyse s on Hungaria n aspect , however, are no t ou r majo r concern . What is im portant fo r ou r analysi s is th e genera l agreement about th e rol e o f th e pre- V nod e i n expressing aspec t in Hungaria n (e.g . th e prefi x clearl y makes a sentenc e perfective).

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 37

1

27. Horvat h (1985:58 ) notice s tha t th e pre-V constituent s exhibi t a significan t property indicating that they appear in a nonargument position; the y do not permit fre e right branching recursion like English adjective phrases i n prenominal position (i.e. , they cannot selec t posthea d complements;) , a s discusse d i n Emond s (1976) . Fo r instance , a P P selected b y a ver b lik e test 't o put ' i s a pre- V phrase , a s i n (la) ; a n N P i n th e pre- V phrase, however , canno t contai n a relativ e clause , a s th e ungrammatica l sentenc e (Ib ) shows: (i) a . Mar i a z asztalr a tett e a z ed£nyeke t Mary th e table-ont o pu t th e dishes-ace . 'Mary pu t the dishe: ; on the table.' b. * Mari a z asztalra , am i a z erkelye n dll t tett e a z Mary th e table-ont o whic h th e balcony-o n stoo d pu t th e ed6nyeket dishes-ace. 'Mary pu t th e dishe s o n the tabl e tha t stoo d o n the balcony.' 28. VP-deletio n i n Englis h can involv e each ver b phras e superscripte d i n the phrase marker (40) , an d th e rul e o f VP-deletion i s formalize d a s follow s (Akmajian , Steel an d Wasow 1979) : (i) V n Deletion Delete Vn , n 1 , optional 29. E. Kiss (1987a:45, 49 ) does not take up a definite positio n concerning the question of th e positio n an d statu s of INF L in Hungarian ; she say s tha t it i s no t pertinen t t o th e issues o f Hungarian syntax she deals with and that INFL in Hungarian is always realized on a main verb. However , a langaage in which INFL is realized on verbs such as Korean has syntactic motivations to postulate an independent INFL node (cf. Choe H.-S. (1988)) . 30. Horvath' s clai m tha t th e pre- V nod e i s a n A-position, however , i s no t onl y intu itively incompatibl e wit h its function i n aspect marking, it formally contradicts the Head Peripherality Conditio n (26) sh e has proposed a s a restriction o n the base rul e schema in UG. The restrictio n claim s tha t an y hea d o f phras e occupies a peripheral position a t it s own leve l o f projection . Whic h particula r sid e o f th e hea d i s non-nul l wil l constitut e a parameter o f UG , suc h a s 'V-in;.tial ' versu s 'V-final ' languages . Although the structur e of VP in Hungarian seems t o violate the Head Peripherality Condition in (26 ) b y allow ing certai n constituent s in th e pre- V position, a s th e phras e marker i n (27 ) shows , sh e argues that not onl y V but also V a s a lexical categor y may theta-mar k it s right sisters . Therefore, sh e says that Hungarian is basically a 'V-initial' language like English (i.e., it has right branching phrases). Sh e furthermore points out that an NP (with a postposition) appearing in pre-V position i s prohibited from fre e right-branching (cf. note 26). In othe r words, her argumen t can hold, onl y if the pre-V node is a nonargument position. Otherwise, Hungaria n would be a counterexample to th e Head Pheripherality Conditio n (26) , which allow s argument s in both side s o f a verb. 31. The process o f postposing the base-generated pre- V constituents to express the progressive aspec t is independentl y justified, as show n in the Interpretive Template fo r Aspect (38 ) tha t sh e has proposed. 32. In orde r to make the sentenc e in (41) noncontroversial, we have changed the nonFocused preverba l NP int o a bare N asztalra 'table-onto ' (cf . note 18) .

372

Discourse Configuration^ Languages

33. According to Comrie (1984:3) , Armenia n exhibits the preverbal Focus , and an interrogative pronoun in a question must be i n thi s position lik e Hungarian . However, h e reports that in the answer to a question, the constituent giving the requested informatio n (i.e., Focus) may not strictly observe th e preverbal rule ; the pre-V i s a possible position , but not a necessary position i n this language. Both (Ib) and (Ic) are to be understood a s answers t o the question o f (la) : (i) a . Petros- n IN C kerav ? ( = the marker fo r stress ) Peter-DEF wha t eat-AOR-3S G "What di d Peter eat? " b. Petros- s M I X9NJO R kera v DBF a n appl e eat-AOR-3S G "Peter at e an apple. " c. Petros- 3 kerav MI X9NJOR "Peter at e a n apple. " Therefore, th e preverba l rul e o f Focu s i n Armenian i s les s stric t tha n a languag e lik e Hungarian, a t leas t i n a n answe r t o a n interrogativ e question. 34. In Korean, in order to obtain syntactic Focus, a pre-V constituent is required t o be dislocated int o Topic position , as shown in (15a) an d (19); sinc e thi s position i s license d only by a finite claus e in Korean (cf. note 9) the derivation of a Focus constructio n i n an infinitive i s blocked, a s below : (i) a . Sunae-k a Suil- ul [ vp hoecang- i toe]-ke y ha-ess-t a Nom Ac e chairman-No m become-in f do-past-de c b. *Sunae-k a t j [ vp hoecang-u n SUIL ;-ul toe]-k e ha-ess-t a Nom chairman-To p Ac e become-in f do-past-de c Focus movement in Korean, nonetheless, is valid in an embedded nominalized finite clause as i n (2a ) and in a finite clausa l complement a s in (2b) , whic h both may hav e the Topi c node: (ii) a . Sunae-k a [ NP [IP hoecang-un t ; SUIL ri toe-ess]-um]-u l Nom chairman-To p No m become-past-ing-Ac c alli-ess-ta inform-past-dec 'Sunae informed that it i s SUIL wh o became chairman. ' b. Sunae-k a [ cp hoecang-un t ; SUILj-i toe-ss-ta-ko ] Nom chairman-To p No m become-past-dec-comp alli-ess-ta inform-past-dec 'Sunae informe d that it i s JOHN who became chairman. ' The impossibilit y o f derivin g a Focu s constructio n fro m a Korea n infinitiv e a s i n th e sentence (Ib) , therefore , doe s no t undermine the Verb-Inherent Hypothesis. 35. Furthermore , a Focused elemen t / a Wh-Q phrase in a n embedded claus e ca n ap pear i n th e pre- V Focu s positio n o f uppe r clauses ; lik e COMP-to-COM P movement , a Focus-to-Focus rul e (an instanc e of 'Mov e alpha' ) ma y appl y leaving a trace i n th e in -

The Theory of Syntactic Focalization 37

3

tervening pre-V Focus positio n (Horvat h 1986 , for Hungaria n and Azkarate et al . 1982 for Basque) . Of course, we cannot expect that the pre-V position of an infinitive verb is exactly lik e a full-fledge d A'-position fo r tha t of a finite verb into whic h an interrogative wh-phras e can b e successivel y move d (i.e . Focus-to-Focus movement ) i n Hungaria n (cf . Horvath 1981 an d E. Kis s 1987a) .

References Akmajian, K. , S . Steel , an d T. V/asow (1979 ) "Th e Category AUX i n Universa l Gram mar," Linguistic Inquiry 10 , 1-64 . Choe, H.-S. (1988) Restructuring Parameters and Complex Predicates, Doctora l disser tation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Choe, H.-S . (1989) "Restructurin g i n Korea n an d Hungarian, " i n L . Marac z an d P . Muysken , eds., Configurationality, Foris , Dordrecht . Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structure, Th e Hague : Mouton. Chomsky, N. (1981 ) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris , Dordrecht . Comrie, B . (1984 ) "Som e Forma l Propertie s o f Focu s i n Moder n Easter n Armenian, " Annual of Armenian Linguistics 5 , Clevelan d Stat e University , Cleveland, Ohio , 1-21. Emonds, J. (1976) A Transformational Approach to English Syntax, Academic Press, New York. Emonds, J.(1985 ) A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories, Foris , Dordrecht. Fukui, N . (1986 ) A Theory of Category and Its Application, Doctora l dissertion , MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hale, K . (1982 ) "Preliminar y Remark s on Configurationality," NELS 12 , 86-96. Hale, K. (1983) "Warlpiri and ths Grammar of Non-configurational Languages, " Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 5-47. Hoji, H . (1986) Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structure, Doctora l dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Horvath, J. (1981 ) Aspects of Hungarian Syntax and the Theory of Grammar, Doctora l dissertation, UCLA , Los Angeles, California. Horvath, J. (1986) Focus in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian, Foris , Dordrecht. Huang, C.-T.J . (1982 ) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Doctoral dissertation , MIT , Cambridge, Massachusetts . Jo, M.-J . (1986) Fixed Word Order and the Theory of the Pre-Verbal Focus Position in Korean, Doctoral dissertation , Universit y of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Katada, F. (1991) "The LF Representation of Anaphors," Linguistic Inquiry 22, 287-313. Kim, A. H.-O. (1985) The Grammar of Focus in Korean Syntax and its Typological Implication, Doctoral dissertation , USC , Los Angeles, California . E. Kiss, K. (1981) "Structura l Relations in Hungarian, a "Free" Word Order Language, " Linguistic Inquiry 12 , 185-213 . E. Kiss , K . (1987a) Configurationality in Hungarian, Akademia i Kiado , Budapest . E. Kiss, K . (1987b) "I s VP Universal?" in I Kenesei, eds. , Approaches to Hungarian v.2, Szeged, Hungary. Ortiz d e Urbina, J. (1989 ) Parameters in the Grammar of Basque, Foris , Dordrecht . Saito, M . (1985 ) Subject-Object Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications. Doctora l dissertation . MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

374

Discourse Configurational Languages

Saito, M. , an d Hoji, H.(1983 ) "Wea k Crossove r an d Move Alpha in Japanese," Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1 , 245-259. Stowell, T. (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, Doctoral dissertation , MIT , Cambridge, Massachusetts. Underbill, R . (1976 ) Turkish Grammar, MI T Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Whitman, J. (1991 ) "Strin g Vacuous V to COMP, " ms.,the paper presented i n GLOW . Williams, E . (1980 ) "Predication, " Linguistic Inquiry 11 , 203-238. Willams, E . (1983 ) "Agains t Smal l Clauses," Linguistic Inquiry 14 , 287-308. Yoon, J.-Y. (1990 ) Korean Syntax and Generalized X-Bar Theory, Doctora l dissertation , University o f Texas, Austin, Texas.

12 Focus in Quechua PIETER MUYSKE N Universiteit van Amsterdam

1. Introduction This stud y is a firs t attemp t to analyz e what is know n about focu s in Quechu a within the perspective of recent views of clause structure as a layered se t of func tional projections. The primary data will be drawn from the varieties of Quechua spoken i n south-centra l Peru , suc h a s Ayacucho an d Cuzco , althoug h I refer t o studies o f other varietie s suc h a s Huanuco Quechu a (Webe r (1989) ) a s well. It i s necessar y t o relat e th e stud y of focu s i n Quechu a t o a numbe r of othe r aspects o f its grammar. First of all, the relation o f focus markers to various other particles involved in structuring the information flow i n the utterance. These ar e often referre d to as 'independen t suffixes ' and are discusse d in sectio n 2. Cru cial her e i s that focus markers double a s evidential particles . Second, the types of clauses; (in terms of tense features, syntactic independence, etc.) tha t focus can occur in, and their relation to tense, agreemen t markers , and complementizers. Thi s is the subjec t of the main analytical section o f this paper , 3. Particularly importan t her e i s the relatio n betwee n focu s an d what i s terme d 'Main Tense.' Third, th e relatio n betwee n focus, sententia l an d contrastiv e negation , an d question particles , tha t I dea l wit h in sectio n 4 . Finally , i n 5 a brie f summar y with som e points of further rssearch and som e unanswered questions .

2. Independent Suffixes Quechua suffixe s (whic h constitute the majo r pattern o f th e morpholog y o f th e language) are ofte n classifie d a s nominal, verbal, and independen t or class-free. Leaving the first tw o types for exemplification in the sentences cited below, here I will be concerne d with the las t group, which derives its label fro m bein g abl e 375

376

Discourse Configurational Languages

to attach to any constituent in the sentence. In addition t o describing th e genera l features of thi s group, I wil l briefly discus s thei r possibl e morphological statu s as clitics.

2.1. Preliminary Classification and Features The element s tha t wil l concer n u s primaril y here ar e thos e i n (1) , whic h mar k the evidentia l status of th e informatio n in th e utteranc e (i n additio n t o markin g focus, a s w e wil l se e in sectio n 2) : (1) evidential s -mi/-n direc t experienc e (glos s DE ) -si/-s hearsa y (glos s HS ) -cha/-ch dubitativ e (gloss Dub ) This clas s i s sometime s labele d validators , a ter m referrin g t o th e fac t tha t th e speaker indicates his willingness to validate what is being communicated. In this perspective -mi is labeled 'affirmative, ' sinc e the speaker can stand for information which is based on direct experience. I adopt Weber's (1989) argumentation, however, that the term evidential is more appropriate. The evidentials have a long and a shor t form , depending on whethe r the y follo w a consonan t o r a vowel , respectively. A second element o r pair of homophonous elements i s the question an d negation particle -chu. While i n northern Peruvian Quechua thi s se t is formall y differentiated, i n the varieties we are concerned wit h there is no immediate reaso n not to treat them as a single element, expressing something like 'questio n of truth suspended.' I t i s a comple x matter , t o whic h I tr y t o giv e onl y a preliminar y answer below in section 4, whether in fact i t is a single element. Fo r the sak e of clarity, I will gloss the m a s separate particles . A third class, listed in (2), can appropriately be labeled validators , expressing the commitmen t of the speake r t o the informatio n presented: (2) validator s -lla delimitative , 'just ' -puni definitive , 'certainly ' -ya emphatic , 'indeed ' In (3) I give a few examples of the elements presented s o far. In (3a) the validator -puni i s combined with the evidentia l -mi/-n, an d in (3b ) th e questio n particle chu i s combined wit h the evidentia l -cha/-ch. (3) a . wasi-puni- n house-Def-DE 'It definitel y i s a house.' b. nuqa-chu-ch ? I-Q-Dub 'Perhaps me? '

Focus in Quechua 37

7

A further, highly frequen t an d important set of independen t suffixe s doe s no t mark the factual status of the information presented, but rather its relation to other bits o f informatio n presented I n th e discourse . (4) discourse markers -qa topi c marke r -taq contras t -raq continative , 'still ' -na inceptive , 'already ' -pas 'an d also, ' indefinit e In (5 ) i t i s show n ho w thes e element s ca n b e used , ofte n i n combinatio n with evidentials an d validators : (5) a . tusu-ru-man-ku-pas-ch a dance- Asp-Pot-pl-Ind-Dub 'They coul d eve n danc e (emphati c conjecture). ' b. wallpa-q a wacha-n-raq-ch u chicken-To lay= egg-3-still-Ne g 'The chicken ha s not layed a n egg yet.' c. warmi-yki-na-ta q maqa-ru-su-nk i wife-2-already-Cont hit-Asp-3- 2 'And the n your wif e hi t you.' In (5a ) th e discours e marke r -pas i s combine d wit h the validato r -cha, i n (5b ) continuative -raq with the negation element -chu, and in (5c) inceptiv e -na with contrastive -taq, Readers familia r with studie s o n sententia l particle s i n othe r languag e fami lies will be aware that often th e precise interpretation of the elements I have been describing i s highly specific t o a discourse context. In (6 ) th e combinator y an d orderin g possibilities o f th e element s mentione d so far ar e schematically presented . I t is clear tha t the evidentials ar e alway s the final element s i n th e phonologica l word , an d tha t th e evidential s canno t b e combined wit h th e topi c marker . For th e rest , man y combinations ar e possible , though i t ca n be imagine d tha t mor e tha n thre e independen t suffixe s woul d b e exceptional. (6) Order (base d o n Parker, 1965; slightl y simplified)

378

Discourse Configurational Languages

Although other particles ca n contribute t o focus, the evidentials ar e most directl y involved i n markin g focus, an d I wil l limi t myself t o thi s se t in wha t follows .

2.2. Morphological Properties In earlie r work , e.g . Muyske n (1981) , I have tried t o argue tha t th e se t of inde pendent suffixes i s really clitic-like , no t generated throug h word formation rules , but throug h phrase structur e rule s an d onl y attache d t o thei r host constituen t i n phonology. Three type s o f argument s were given . 2.2.1. Headedness Derivational affixe s potentiall y determin e th e category , an d hence th e distribu tion, o f th e constituen t the y ar e attache d to : nomina l affixe s creat e (o r 'head' ; cf. Williams, 1981 ) nouns , verbal affixe s creat e verbs , etc. The independent suffixes d o no t creat e element s o f a particular category : a noun wit h a n evidentia l marker remain s a noun, etc . 2.2.2. Selectivity Derivational affixe s ar e selectiv e i n tw o ways : the y obe y th e Majo r Categor y Restriction, cf . (7) , an d they ten d to obe y th e Unitary Base Hypothesis , cf . (8) . Both principle s ar e develope d i n the wor k o f Aronoff (1976) . In (7a) it is shown that the evidential -mi/-n ca n attach to the negation marke r mana, and in (7c) that the accusative case marker -ta cannot, even though i n (7b ) it i s show n t o b e abl e t o attac h t o adverb s suc h a s paqarin 'tomorrow. ' Th e latter form , bu t no t mana, is a majo r category , i t coul d b e argued ; henc e th e contrast. (7) a . mana- n hamu-n-chu . not-DE come-3-Ne g 'He/she does no t come.' b. paqarin-ta- n hamu-nqa . tomorrow-Ac-DE come-3F u 'He will come tomorrow. ' c. * mana-ta-n hamu-n-chu . not-Ac-DE come-3-Ne g A similar se t of examples ca n be taken to show that affixes, bu t not evidentia l markers, ar e constraine d b y the Unitary Bas e Hypothesis . I n (8a-c) it i s show n that cas e marker s (a s wel l a s evidentials ) ca n attac h t o nouns , adjectives , an d nominalized verbs , th e clas s o f [+N ] elements . Evidentials , bu t no t cas e mark ers, ca n attac h t o verbs, however , whic h are [-N] . (8) a . wasi-t a a. house-Ac house-3-D

' wasi-n-m i

E

Focus in Quechua 37

9

b. allin-t a b. ' allin-m i good-Ac good-D E 'the goo d one , well ' 'i t is good' c. hamu-sqa-n-t a c. ' hamu-sqa-n-m i come-Nom-3-Ac come-Nom-3-D E 'that he came Ac ' 'tha t he came DE ' d. *hamu-n-t a d. ' hamu-n-m i come-3-Ac come-3-D E Both criteri a distinguis h betwee n case marker s an d evidential s an d other inde pendent suffixes . 2.2.3. Vowel Deletion A third argumen t derives from th e phonological propertie s o f the evidentials. As can be seen in (9a,b), the evidentials have a long and a short form , depending on whether the base word ends irk a vowel or a consonant. As shown in (9a',b'), case markers suc h a s accusativ e ~ta and locativ e -pi ar e invariant . This contras t ca n be plausibl y relate d t o stres s patterns : cas e marker s ar e attache d befor e stres s assignment, evidential s after . (9) Evidential s Cas e markers a. wasi- n / wasi-n-m i a. ' * wasi-t / wasi-n-t house-DE house-3-D E house-A c house-3-A 'the/his house indeed ' 'hi s house-Ac' b. wasi- s / wasi-n-s i b. ' * wasi-p / wasi-n-p house-HS house-3-H S house-L o house-3-L 'the/his house, the y say ' 'i n his house'

a c i

o

Clearly, thi s contrast in phonological behavior accord s wel l wit h a difference in morphological status : we do not expect clitic s to influence word stress . 2.3. Problems Although the differences between the evidential suffixes an d classbound suffixe s such a s case marker s ar e well-established, i t i s less clear how to interpret the m in contemporary theoretical frameworks , fo r two reasons. First , th e introduction of th e theor y o f functiona l heads , particularly i n conjunction with the theor y o f incorporation propose d b y Baker (1988), makes the original distinctio n betwee n syntactic elements suc h as particles and morphological element s suc h a s derivational affixe s meaningless . Particle s may well be syntacti c heads, a s well a s affixes, befor e incorporation o f the base wor d takes place. Second, th e developmen t o f th e theor y o f level-ordere d Lexica l Phonolog y (Kiparsky, 1982 ) allow s fo r th e possibilit y o f different affi x classe s with differ ent properties . Thu s a global characterizatio n of affixes , wit h the possibilit y o f excluding element s no t conformin g to thi s characterization, ha s disappeared . I t

380

Discourse Configurational Languages

may thus be possible t o classify potential clitics simply as affixes undergoin g only post-lexical phonologica l rules . Therefore I wil l no t distinguis h between th e independen t suffixes , includin g the evidentials, an d elements such as the case markers fro m th e point of view of the syntax, in what follows. Their differen t morphological behavio r follows fro m the lexica l stratu m in whic h the y ar e attache d an d fro m th e typ e o f constituent they select. 1

3. The Syntax of Evidentials and Their Position in the Clause After thes e preliminar y remarks introducin g the evidential s an d explorin g thei r morphological statu s I now list some of the syntactic properties of the evidentials , before attemptin g a specifi c structura l analysis.

3.1. Constituent-external Evidentials are always constituent-external (where constituent is NP, AP, PP, but not necessaril y V P etc., a t least o n the surface) : (10) a . [ chay wasi-ta-n ] riku-nki-ch u that house-Ac-D E see-2- Q 'Do you see that house?' b. *[chay-m i wasi-ta ] riku-nki-ch u that-DE house-A c see-2- Q

3.2. Position in the Clause Evidentials occu r either o n the focused or rhematized, a s in (lla), or on the firs t constituent, a s in (lib): (11) a . cha y runa-q a Ayakuchu-ta- n ri- n that man-T o Ayacucho-Ac-D E go- 3 'That ma n is going to Ayacucho.' b. huk-s i ka-sq a hu k machucha-piwa n payach a once-HS be-S D on e ol d man-wit h ol d woman 'Once there were a n old man an d an ol d woman. ' (lla) show s tha t evidentials ma y also b e foun d o n anothe r constituen t tha n th e first one in a clause. These cases constitute marked positions for evidentials, which trigger focu s interpretatio n for the constituent to which the evidential is attached. Consider th e following examples, wher e the evidential fall s on a constituent different fro m th e firs t one : (12) a . Pidr u wasi-ta- n ruwa-n . Pedro house-Ac-D E make- 3 'It i s a house tha t Pedro builds. '

Focus in Quechua 38

1

b. Pidr u kunan-m i wasi-t a ruwa-sha-n . Pedro now-D E house-A c make-Pr- 3 'It is now that Pedr o is building th e house.' When th e evidentia l appear s o n the firs t constituent , th e sentenc e i s ambiguou s between focu s on the firs t constituent , (a) , an d no contrastive focus , (b) : (13) Pidru- n wasi-t a ruwa-n . Pedro-DE house-A c make- 3 (a) 'I t is Pedro tha t build s a house.' (b) 'Pedr o builds a house.'

3.3. Restriction to One per Clause Examples suc h a s (14) sho w tha t there ca n onl y b e one evidential pe r clause : (14) a . Mariya- s t'anta-t a ruwa-rqa- n Maria-HS bread-A c make-Pa- 3 'Maria, the y sa y mad e the bread.' b. Mariy a t'anta-ta- n ruwa-rqan Maria bread-Ac-D E make-Pa- 3 'Maria mad e th e BREAD.' c. *Mariya- s t'anta-ta- n ruwa-rqan Maria-HS bread-Ac-D E make-Pa- 3 'Maria, they say , made th e BREAD.' While bot h Mariya i n (14a ) an d t'anta-ta i n (14b ) ca n b e marke d wit h a n evi dential independently , th e tw o instance s o f markin g canno t occu r i n th e sam e clause, as in (14c) .

3.4. Restricted to Main Clauses Evidentials occu r onl y in main clauses, i.e. onl y in the scope of Main Tense (a s opposed bot h t o infinitival tense and to the 'dependent ' tense w e fin d i n adver bial subordinate d clauses an d nominalizations). Thu s 'mai n tense ' (15 ) i s fine : (15) a . Xwan-m i hamu-nqa . Juan-DE come-3F u 'Juan wil l come.' b. Hamu-nqa-chu ? come-3Fu-Q 'Will he come?' In adverbia l (cf. 16 ) and nominalize d (cf . 17 ) clauses, evidential s ca n occu r o n the final constituent , the verb, in the (a) examples, but arguabl y there they are in the domain of the main clause tensed verb. However, the (b) examples, in which

382

Discourse Configurational Languages

the evidential woul d b e on the firs t constituent , interna l t o the adverbial clause , are ungrammatical. (16) a . Qaynuncha w wiqchuku-spa-m i nana-chi-ku-ni . yesterday slip-Sub-D E hurt-Cau-Re1 'Since I slippe d yesterda y I have pain. ' b. * Qaynunchaw-mi wiqchuku-sp a nana-chi-ku-ni . yesterday-DE slip-Su b hurt-Cau-Re1 (17) a . Xwan-p a hamu-sqa-n-ta- n yacha-n i Juan-Ge come-Nom-3-Ac-D E know- 1 'I know that Juan has come.' b. *Xwan-pa- n hamu-sqa-n-t a yacha-n i Juan-Ge-DE come-Nom-3-A c kno w 1 The situation in non-matrix main tense clauses is rather complex. There is a class of formally coordinated clauses i n which the first claus e o f the pair is interprete d as restricting the referential domain of the subject of the second clause . Her e th e evidential i s possible o n both clauses, a s in (18) : (18) [Paqarin-m i chaya-mu-nqan chay-qa ] Xwan-mi . tomorrow-DE arrive-Cis-3Fu-D E that-T o Juan-D E 'The person tha t will come tomorro w i s Juan.' In thos e rar e cases , however , i n which th e main tens e claus e i s interpreted a s a complement (an d has a complementizer chay), th e evidential i s no t possible: (19) Mana-(*n ) ka-n-ch u chay-t a yacha-ni . not-DE be-3-Ne g that-A c know- 1 'I know that there is none.' The possibilit y o f -chu in (19) , an d the absenc e of -mi/-n, wil l be accounte d fo r in sectio n 4 below.

3.5. Not in Imperatives As show n in (20 ) an d (21), respectively , imperativ e an d exhortative expression s cannot contai n evidentials : (20) a . Mikhu-y . eat-Im 'Eat!' b. *Mikhu-y-mi . eat-Im-DE

Focus in Quechua 38

3

(21) a . Mikhu-sun . eat-lpl,Im 'Let's eat.' b. *Mikhu-sun-mi . eat-lpl,Im-DE 3.6. Gapping Evidentials canno t occur in a clause wher e the tensed ver b has been deleted , as shown i n (22) : (22) a . Mama-y-q a Qusqu-ta- n ri-ra-n ; tata-y-ta q chakra-ta . mother-1-To Cuzco-Ac-D E go-Pa- 3 father-1-Em p field-A c 'My mothe r wen t to Cuzco; m y father to the field. ' b. *...chakra-ta- n .. . field-Ac-DE This ma y be interprete d a s implying tha t evidentials nee d t o b e supporte d b y a tensed ver b also in S-structure. 3.7. Not on Post-verbal Constituents Evidentials d o not occur on elements t o the right of the main verb. Thus all fou r constituents in (23) ma y carry the evidential: (23) a . Mariy a Xwana-ma n libru-t a qu-n-m i Maria Juana-t o book-A c give-3-D E 'Maria gives the. book t o Juana. ' b. Mariya- n Xwana-ma n libru-t a qu- n Maria-DE Juan,a-t o book-A c give- 3 c. Mariy a Xwana-man-m i libru-t a qu- n Maria Juana-l:o-D E book-A c give- 3 d. Mariy a Xwana-ma n libru-ta- n qun Maria Juana-t o book-Ac-D E give- 3 However, the ungrammatically of (24b) shows that post-verbal constituents may not, even thoug h it is possible to have a post-verbal constituent , a s in (24a) : (24) a . Mariy a Xwana-ma n qu- n libru-t a Maria Juana-t o give3 book-A c b. * Mariya Xwana-ma n qu- n libru-ta- n Maria Juana-t o give3 book-Ac-D E We ca n se e i n (25 ) tha t i t i s th e mai n tens e ver b whic h form s th e limi t fo r evidentials, no t the lexica l content verb:

384

Discourse Configurational Languages

(25) a . llank'a-q-m i ka-rqa-n i work-Ag-DE be-Pa- 1 'I wa s a worker.' / * 'I used t o work.' b. llank'a- q ka-rqa-ni- n work-Ag be-Pa-1-D E * ' I was a worker.' / ' I used t o work.' In fact , i n pas t habitua l structure s suc h a s (25b) , i n whic h th e ver b ka- 'be ' i s used a s an auxiliary in a raising context, th e validator has t o occur o n the auxil iary to the right of the main verb. Otherwise the sentence has a predicate + copula interpretation. 3.8. Evidentiality and Case Evidentials cannot occur on certain elements that are unmarked for case. In Cuzco Quechua, three type s of adverbial expressions ca n be distinguished : (a ) manne r adverbs that need accusative case, suc h as allin-ta good-A c 'well' ; (b ) tempora l expressions tha t may occur wit h and without case marker s i n all positions, suc h aspaqarin 'tomorrow' ; (c) temporal nouns that only can occur withou t case in a clause-initial topic-lik e position , suc h a s dumingu 'Sunday ' i n (26a) . Conside r the followin g examples : (26) a . duming u feri a ka-nq a Sunday marke t be-3F u 'Sunday there wil l be a market.' b. dumingu-t a feri a ka-nq a Sunday-Ac marke t be-3F u c. dumingu-ta- n feri a ka-nq a Sunday-Ac-DE marke t be-3F u d. *dumingu- n feri a ka-nq a Sunday-DE marke t be-3F u The contrast between (26c ) an d (26d) suggest s that evidentials canno t appear on elements i n suc h a topic position . 3.9 Interaction between Evidentials and Topic Marking In th e majorit y o f Quechu a sentence s i n whic h both evidential s an d th e topi c marker appear , ther e i s a clear division o f the sentenc e betwee n th e topicalize d and th e rhematize d constituents , whic h ma y be expresse d i n a formul a adapte d from th e on e give n i n Weber (1989) :

Focus in Quechua 38

(27)

fv\ {X-qag} -EV

(XPJ

5

I .. . {Z-qa-* }

where only on e evidential ma y occur . Between nul l an d tw o -qa phrases ma y occu r a t th e beginnin g o f th e sentence , followed b y a constituent o r the ver b marked wit h a n evidential, eventuall y fol lowed b y between nul l an d three other -qa phrases . The example s i n (28) illustrat e typical Quechu a theme/rheme structures : (28) a . cha y runa-q a Ayakuchu-ta- n ri- n ( = 1 1 a) that man-T o Ayacucho-Ac-D E go- 3 'That ma n is going to Ayacucho.' b. Mama-y-q a Qusqu-ta- n ri-ran mother-1-To Cuzco-Ac-D E go-Pa- 3 'My mothe r wen t to Cuzco. ' Both Wolc k (1968 ) an d Leviasohn (1976 ) remark o n th e pre-verbal positio n a s the preferre d on e fo r th e constituen t with the evidential , a s i n thes e examples , but I hav e faile d t o discove r anythin g mor e tha n a frequenc y patter n i n thi s respect.

3.70. Intermediary Summing up and First Analysis Let me begin by summarizing; what we have learned so far about the evidentials . In 3.1. through 3.6 . i t transpires that evidentials tak e a constituent in their scop e in indicativ e main tens e contexts , but ar e a t th e sam e tim e a kin d o f clausa l operator: 1. Evidential s are always constituent-external (wher e constituent i s NP, AP, PP, but no t necessaril y V P etc., a t least o n the surface ) 2. Evidential s occu r either o n the focuse d or rhematized, or o n the firs t con stituent 3. Ther e ca n only b e one evidential pe r claus e 4. Evidential s occur only in main clauses, i.e. onl y in the scope o f Main Tense 5. Imperativ e an d exhortative expression s canno t contain evidential s 6. Evidential s cannot occur in a clause where the tensed verb has been deleted. On th e basis o f this w e can conclud e tha t evidential s have : (a) scop e a t S-structure either over the clause or over a n individual constituent (NP, VP ) (b) scop e a t LF over the clause for the evidential force, an d over a constituent for th e focu s

386

Discourse Configurational Languages

Their interpretatio n is roughly as in (29) : (29) I

have witnesse d / heard i t told / surmis e tha t there i s an X (where X is an event , a predicate o r an argument ) such that propositio n (.. . X ... )

Let us assume tha t there i s a functional projectio n Ev P with roughly the follow ing structure :

Now tak e a n ordinar y cas e i n whic h th e firs t constituen t carrie s th e evidentia l marker, a s in (13) , repeate d her e a s (31) : (31) Pidru- n wasi-t a ruwa-n . Pedro-DE house-A c make- 3 (a) 'I t i s Pedro tha t builds a house.' (b) 'Pedr o builds a house.' I will assume that the (a) reading, with focus, corresponds t o a structure in which Pedro ha s bee n raise d t o th e Spe c positio n o f EvP, whil e i n th e (b ) reading th e validator syntacticall y remain s external to IP (and has the whole IP in its scope), but phonologicall y encliticize s ont o th e firs t majo r constituen t o f IP , through something lik e (32) : (32) evidentia l X P = > 2 + 1 12

Notice tha t th e resultin g structure s ca n b e directl y interprete d i n term s o f (29 ) with th e differenc e tha t ther e i s eithe r a n even t o r a n individua l o f whic h th e evidential statu s is predicated . It is clear that evidentials wil l be constituent-external unde r the present analysi s and wh y the y wil l occu r eithe r o n a focused o r rhematized , o r on th e firs t con stituent. Sinc e th e evidentia l wil l hav e a n I P a s it s complement , ther e ca n onl y be one evidential pe r clause. We can explain that evidential s occur onl y in main clauses, tha t imperativ e expression s canno t contai n evidentials , an d tha t

Focus in Quechua 38

7

evidentials canno t occu r i n a claus e wher e th e tense d ver b ha s bee n delete d through th e assumptio n that Ev P selects a n IP headed b y a n elemen t wit h par ticular features, such as main tense (analyzed in Lefebvre and Muysken 198 7 a s containing a reference t o the momen t of speech) . Consider no w th e mor e comple x cases , allude d t o i n 3.7 . throug h 3.9. , an d exemplified i n a sentence suc h as (33) (= 28b) : (33) Mama-y-q a Qusqu-ta- n ri-ran mother-1-To Cuzco-Ac-D E go-PA- 3 'My mothe r wen t to Cuzco.' 7. Evidential s d o not occur on elements t o th e righ t o f V 8. Evidential s cannot occur on certain elements that are unmarked for Case. 9. Evidential s occur on constituents that are often precede d b y topicalize d constituents. I will assume that elements can be scramble d and adjoined left - o r right o f EvP, often wit h a topic or theme interpretation (marked by -qa or not). On the surfac e left-adjoined element s wil l occu r t o the lef t o f Spe c o f EvP. I have no clear analysi s of the precise natur e o f this left - o r right-adjunction , yet, and hence no explanation for the fact that the adjunction canno t be to IP itself (unless we assume tha t topicalized element s mus t be outside o f the scope of the evidential a s such) .

4. Interaction between Evidentials, Negation, and Questions In Quechu a there is a close link between the evidentials an d the non-factual particle -chu which mark s both question s and negation.2 The present study o f focu s in Quechua cannot pretend to provide a definitive analysis, but some remarks ar e called for . I will begin by briefl y analyzin g negation.

4.1. Negation Negation is generally marke d by an initial element mana and an enclitic particl e -chu, mentione d before . As see n in (34b) , we get ama in prohibitiv e (negativ e imperative) contexts . (34) a . Mana- n ri-n-chu . not-DE go-3-Ne g 'He does not go.' b. Am a ri-y~chu . not go-Im-Ne g 'Don't go. '

388

Discourse Configurational Languages

In (34a ) but not (34b ) th e evidential occurs , attache d t o the negation element . (35) t o (37) sho w that -chu is limited t o main tense contexts. In (35) w e have noun phrase-interna l negation . (35) cha y man a alli n run a that no t goo d ma n 'that bad man' In (36a ) negatio n -chu is marke d interna l t o a nominalized clause , an d i n (37a ) internal to a n adverbial clause . (36) a . *Man a ri-sqa-n-ta-ch u yacha-ni . not go-Nom-3-Ac-Ne g know- 1 'I know that (s)he does not go.' b. Man a ri-sqa-n-t a yacha-ni . not go-Nom-3-A c know- 1 (37) a . *Man a ri-sqti-n-ch u ri-saq-mi . not go-Sub-3-Ne g go-lFu-D E 'If (s)h e doe s not go I'll go. ' b. Man a ri-qti- n ri-saq-mi . not go-Sub- 3 go-lFu-D E Notice tha t the (b ) examples, withou t -chu, ar e fine . In contras t wit h th e evidential , -chu ca n occu r i n mai n tens e complemen t clauses suc h as (39). It s matrix equivalent, with the evidential , is given i n (40) : (38) Mana- n ka-n-chu . be-3-Neg not-D E 'There is none.' (39) [Mana-(*n ) ka-n-ch u chay-ta ] yacha-ni . not-DE be-3-Ne g that-A c know- 1 'I know that there i s none.' Like evidentials , negatio n ma y b e place d contrastively . Whil e i n (40a ) th e whole clause o r at least th e predicate i s negated , i n (40b ) i t i s an adverbial : (41) a . Mana- n Qusqu-ma n ri-ni-chu . not-DE Cuzco-t o go-l-Ne g 'I do not go to Cuzco. ' b. Mana- n Qusqu-man-ch u ri-ni . not-DE Cuzco-to-Ne g go1 'It i s not to Cuzco that I go (but somewhere else).' The analysi s I tentativel y propose assumes that three functiona l projection s ar e involved: th e Ev(idential)P , a Neg(ation)P , headed b y mana o r ama, an d a

Focus in Quechua 38

9

N(on)F(actual)P, headed by -chu.3 The NFP selects mai n tense IPs , just lik e th e EvP, bu t thes e nee d no t b e indicative , henc e th e possibilit y o f -chu wit h prohibitives. Th e NegP selects eithe r an NFP, yielding negation with -chu or any XP, yielding constituen t internal o r subordinat e clause-internal negation . I wil l illustrate these assumption s with the proposed D-structur e analysi s for (41b):

At S-structur e Qusqu-man 't o Cuzco ' i s move d int o the Spe c o f NFP , yielding Qusqu-man-chu, an d I wil l assum e withou t argumen t tha t evidentia l -mi/-n encliticizes ont o mana 'not ' i n the phonological representation .

4.2 Interaction between Evidential and the Question Marker Now tha t w e hav e a n analysi s of -chu a s headin g a non-factua l phrase (NFP) , the analysis of questions becomes straightforward . Yes-No questions ar e simply NFPs withou t a dominating negation phrase. A typical cas e woul d be (43) : (43) Hamu-nqa-chu . come-3Fu-Q 'Will he come?'

390

Discourse Configurational Languages

In m y analysis , th e tense d ver b hamu-nqa wil l mov e int o th e Spe c o f NFP , o r alternatively -chu wil l encliticize ont o th e verb, withou t there bein g movement . The fact tha t a question like (44) is ambiguous in the same wa y as was sketche d above fo r the evidential s supports thi s dua l analysis : (44) Qusqu-man-ch u ri-nk i Cuzco-to-Q go2 (a) 'I s i t to Cuzc o that yo u are going?' (b) 'Ar e you goin g to Cuzco? ' In th e (a ) cas e ther e ha s bee n movement , i n th e (b ) cas e encliticization . Whe n there i s onl y on e word , a s in (43) , yo u simpl y canno t tell. While normall y question s occu r withou t evidentials, the y ca n b e combined , as in (45 ) (= 3b) : (45) nuqa-chu-c h I-Q-Dub 'Perhaps me?' I have to assume tha t first nuqa is raised int o SpecAFP an d then the whole AFP is raised int o SpecEvP . Negative question s hav e the for m o f (46) : (46) mana-ch u hamu-nk i not-Neg come2 'Won't yo u come?' I will simply assume that -chu encliticizes ont o the head preceding it . In fact the limitation t o on e -chu i n negative questions i s on e o f th e argument s for assum ing tha t th e questio n an d the negation elemen t ar e identical. In Wh-questions , ther e i s n o -chu, a s ca n b e expected . (47 ) show s tha t th e question wor d i s moved int o th e SpecEv P position , an d is hence focused . (47) Pi- n chay-p i puri-n ? who-DE that-L o walk- 3 'Who walks there?' In earlier accounts, the fact that question words moved to the left althoug h Com p is o n the righ t i n Quechu a was alway s a bit o f a mystery .

Focus in Quechua 39

1

5. Conclusion I hope to have given an initial account of the complex interaction betwee n focu s and evidentiality, with some insight into their relation t o questions an d negation. A number of issues remain for further exploration , (a ) To what extent is the preverbal positio n privilege d a s th e positio n fo r th e constituen t marke d wit h th e evidential, and how does this affect my analysis? (b) Levinsohn (1975) notes that post-verbal position s i n Colombia n Quechu a ca n als o b e rhematized . Ho w gen eral i s this , an d wha t woul d b e th e implication s fo r m y analysis ? (c ) Quechu a varieties diffe r i n the extent to which -chu an d the evidentials ca n be combined ; how is this difference t o be represented? (d ) Are there arguments to force a choice between a movement t o SpecAFP/Ev P and a n encliticization i n P F analysis ?

Notes * I a m gratefu l t o al l researchers whos e earlier wor k on focu s an d evidential markin g I could rely on , and particularly Parker (1965) , Wolck (1968), an d Weber (1987). Many of the observations reported wit h respect to the relation between evidentials an d 'main tense' appear in Lefebvre an d Muysken (1988). I wish to thank the participants i n the HIL Spring 1992 semina r on Quechua syntax , and especiall y An a Alvarez an d Simon va n d e Kerke , for thei r comments . 1. In addition to these theoretical problems wit h the analysis in Muysken (1981), ther e is an empirical problem : th e status of genitive case . As shown in (i) and (ii), the genitiv e also has a short (i ) and a long (ii) form i n Quechua, under th e sam e phonologica l condi tions a s the evidentials . (i) wasi- q punkunhouse-Ge door- 3 'the doo r o f th e house* (ii) wasi-n-p a punkun -p house-3-Ge door- 3 'the door o f his house'

q/V

a/C

Originally th e short for m was -p, and the present -pa/-q alternatio n i s irregular. I n Cuzc o Quechua i t has bee n regularize d onc e agai n in that th e complete form tha t appears wit h the onl y monosyllabi c C V noun in the language, pi 'who' , is -qpa, as in (iii): (iii) pi-qp a ususin who-Ge daughter- 3 'whose daughter ' From this form both -q and -pa, in the appropriate contexts, ca n be derived throug h fairly regular phonologica l rules . It is clear fro m th e contras t in grammaticality betwee n (iv ) and (v), however, tha t th e genitive i s no t 'clas s free ' i n th e sam e wa y a s the evidentials .

392

Discourse Configurational Languages (iv) wasi-n-p a house-3-Ge (v) * hamu-n-pa come-3-Ge

One might object that it may be ungrammatical to case-mark a verb for independent rea sons, suc h a s the Case Resistanc e Principl e (Stowell , 1981) . Notice , however , tha t many verbs are case-marked i n Quechua, but only in a nominalized form. Thus, there is no strict correspondence betwee n phonologica l properties an d being class-free . That genitiv e cas e coul d b e analyze d as a syntacticall y independent elemen t i s clea r from it s interactio n wit h delimitative -lla. As can be see n i n (viii) , th e genitiv e pattern s with th e encliti c o r non-encliti c postposition s i n (vii ) i n bein g followe d b y -lla, rathe r than wit h th e cor e cas e marker s i n (vi), whic h are preceded b y -lla. (vi) *-man-ll a -lla-ma *-ta-lla -lla-t *-pi-lla -lla-p

n 'to a 'objective i 'locative

' ' '

(vii) -kama-ll a *-lla-kam a 'until ' -pura-lla *-lla-pur a 'among ' -hina-lla *-lla-hin a 'as , like' ladu-lla-pi *-lla-ladu-p i 't o the side o f (viii) -pa/-q-ll a *-lla-pa/-

q 'genitive

'

The patter n i n (vi-viii ) ca n b e explaine d b y assumin g that -lla attache s t o bar e nouns , and tha t postpositions , includin g th e genitiv e cas e particle , ar e i n fac t bar e nouns , subcategorized fo r a nou n phrase . Thi s woul d explai n wh y genitiv e i s th e onl y 'cas e marker' that may be followed by another case marker in Quechua, a long-standing puzzle , at least i n th e work reporte d o n in Lefebvre an d Muysken (1988) . 2. This sectio n owe s muc h to discussions wit h Ana Alvarez, who is pursuing researc h into th e statu s of functiona l categorie s i n Bolivia n Quechu a i n he r doctora l thesi s t o b e defended a t the Universida d Aut6noma d e Madrid . 3. Th e assumptio n that manalama hea d a phras e give s a natura l explanatio n fo r th e fact tha t the negation elemen t ha s moda l forc e itself .

References Aronoff, M . (1976 ) Word Formation in Generative Grammar, MI T Press , Cambridge , Massachsetts. Klavans, J. (1985 ) "Th e Independenc e o f Phonology an d Synta x in Cliticization," Language 61 , 95-120. Lefebvre, C. , an d P . Muysken (1987 ) Mixed Categories. Nominalizations in Ouechua, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht . Levinsohn, S.H . (1975 ) "Functiona l Sentenc e Perspectiv e in Inga, " Journal of Linguistics 11 , 13-37. Muysken, P . (1981) "Quechu a Wor d Structure," i n F . Heny, ed., Binding and Filtering, Croom Helm , London , 279-327.

Focus in Quechua 39

3

Parker, G. (1965) Ayacucho Quechua Grammar, Mouton, The Hague. Weber, D . (1989 ) Hudnuco (Huallaga) Quechua Grammar. UCL A Publications i n Amerindian Languages, Lo s Angeles. Williams, E. (1981) "On the notions 'lexicall y related' and 'hea d of a word'," Linguistic Inquiry 12 , 245-274. Wolck, W. (1968 ) Foco y especificacion en quechua. CILA, Lima , Peru.

Abbreviations in the Glosses Ac accusativ e case Ag agentiv e nominalizer Asp (intensive ) aspect Cau causativ e Cis cislocativ e Cont contrastiv e DE direc t experience Def definitiv e Dub dubitativ e Emp emphati c Fu futur e tens e Ge genitiv e case: HS hearsa y Im imperativ e Ind indefinit e Lo locativ e cas e Neg negatio n Nom nominalize r Pa pas t tense pi plura l Pot potentia l mood Pr progressiv e aspec t Q questio n particle SD sudde n discovery tens e Sub adverbia l sutaordinato r To topi c marke r