Be careful how you use the left periphery

Abstract

The paper evaluates two left-peripheral analyses of gapping: one cartographic analysis, and a second Minimalist analysis, which aligns the left-peripheral movement of gapping with fronting for contrastive effects. It is shown that there are similar problems for both these analyses, in particular the movements postulated for gapping diverge quite strongly from other well-established information structure driven movements. The final section of the paper shows that an analysis according to which the movement for gapping targets a vP related periphery may overcome at least some of the problems that this paper raises. Information structure and the left peripheryThe goal of this paper is restricted: we focus on the left-peripheral analysis of gapping in English according to which gapping is movement of the gapping remnants to the left periphery followed by ellipsis of the TP they have vacated. This approach seems at first sight to align the movement of remnants to that independently observed in relation to the encoding 1 We dedicate this work to Adriana Belletti, whose work throughout the years has been a leading example of empirical wealth combined with theoretical rigour. We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their comments. Liliane Haegeman's research was supported by FWO Odysseus 2009-Odysseus-Haegeman-G091409. 2of Information Structural properties of TP constituents. We will mainly focus on the cartographic implementation of this approach though much of what we say also carries over to a non-cartographic implementation. We will show that in spite of the initial attraction of this approach, it is fraught with problems.Since the publication of Cinque's (1999) and Rizzi's (1997) seminal work in the cartographic tradition a line of work in formal syntax ties information structural notions to precise syntactic positions, in line with the cartographic remit as described by Cinque and Rizzi (2010):The cartographic studies can be seen as an attempt to "syntacticize" as much as possible the interpretive domains, tracing back interpretive algorithms for such properties as argument structure (Hale and Keyser 1993 and much related work), scope, and informational structure (the "criterial" approach defended in Rizzi 1997 and much related work; italics LH/TL]) to the familiar ingredients uncovered and refined in half a century of formal syntax. To the extent to which these efforts are empirically supported, they may shed light not only on syntax proper, but also on the structure and functioning of the cognitive systems at the interface with the syntactic module. (Cinque & Rizzi 2010: 63, our italics) Topic and focus figure most prominently among the information structural concepts taken to be 'syntacticized'. Since a full characterization would lead us too far, let us just adopt Rizzi's own informal definitions from the following two quotations:The topic is a preposed element characteristically set off from the rest of the clause by 'comma intonation' and normally expressing old information, somehow availa...

Phonological Features: Another Crucial Factor in the Labeling Algorithm

“…Therefore, after VP is elided, its empty category should be in a labeled structure projected by the head Focus (see section 2). If one does not approve of Haegeman and Lohndal's (2015) analysis, and suggests that sentences like (26) involve TP deletion rather than VP deletion, as proposed by Kim (1997), then our hypothesis can be better supported because under this approach, after the remaining phrase in ( 26) moves to Spec-FocusP, TP is elided. Being one of the split heads of C (Rizzi, 1997), the head Focus should have phonological features although these features are not phonetically realized in the present context.…”

“…Following Haegeman and Lohndal (2015), who recast Johnson (2014), we can assume that both John and too in the second conjunct of (26) have undergone movement to the clause internal left periphery consisting of Topic and Focus, which is right above vP. Therefore, after VP is elided, its empty category should be in a labeled structure projected by the head Focus (see section 2).…”