Focus at the interface: Evidence from Romance and Bantu

Costa, João; Kula, Nancy C.

doi:10.1075/la.131.16cos

Cited by 77 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These accounts dispense with any focus related projections or focusdriven movement in syntax. On the hasis of evidence from Romance and Bantu languages, Costa and Kula (2008) show that the former language group does not support a specific syntactic focus position, whereas the latter group shows that it is almost impossihle to link one prosodie effect to one designated focus position. If the requirement that a subject occurs in a low syntactic position to receive focus were true, then we would expect the same to hold true in embedded environments.…”

Section: Against Focus Projectionsmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…(25d) *negaramler todos os alunos esselivro denied to read all the students that book 'All the students denied to read that book' (25e) TODOS OS ALUNOS negaram 1er esselivro all the students denied to read that book 'All the students denied to read that book' (Costa and Kula 2008:6) Similar facts have been observed with embedded VOS clauses in Greek (as shown in section 2.,^). Costa and Kula (2008) conclude that if focus was a syntactic primitive, then we would be unable to account for the data above.…”

Section: [C Pu/oti [Topic/focus [Cop Otilanlnalas[neg Den/mi(n) [Cm 9mentioning

confidence: 87%

“…-^** Nevertheless, a number of accounts argue that discourse related properties are not assigned in syntax, hut post-syntactically (cF. Haidou 2000;2012, Sifaki 2003, Costa 2004, Costa and Kula 2008, and Kechagias 2010 with some variations). These accounts dispense with any focus related projections or focusdriven movement in syntax.…”

Section: Against Focus Projectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sifaki (2003) and Costa and Kula (2008) assume that syntax is 'blind' to topic and focus effects. '*^ EF facilitates optional movement in syntax, but SC is really relevant for the assignment of Focus.…”

Section: Epp = Bdf/e Eeaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…If focus cannot mark the same constituents in the main and embedded clausal arcbitecture, then we need to dispense with the generation of fixed Focus Projections. To support this further data is brougbt forward from Romance languages (cf Costa and Kula 2008). Tbe evidence shows that syntax is blind to focus assignment.…”

Section: Introductory Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

VOS in Greek

Sifaki

2013

J Greek Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper looks into the VOS order in Greek and its focusing patterns. Evidence from main and embedded VOS reveals that embedded VOS is more restricted in its focusing possibilities. If the focus effects of main and embedded VOS differ, then we cannot advocate fixed Focus Projections in the syntactic architecture like the cartographic approaches do. Chomsky (2007; divides features in two types; the probe-agreement ones which trigger obligatory movement and the E(dge) F(eature) which facilitates movement and yields information stnicture effects at the Interface. In effect, Greek VOS is viewed as the result of a single derivation in which movement is induced for the satisfaction of an EF. The focus effects that are present in VOS are not assigned in Syntax, but at tbe Interface. The claim here is that Syntax is 'blind' to information structure properties. Yet, in order to explain how one single derivation maps out to two distinct focusing possibilities, we employ the notions of accessibility and salieney, as these are discussed in Slioussar (2007) and developed in Kechagias (2010). Roughly, accessibility corresponds to topics and salieney to foci. In Greek VOS, salieney tends to mark constituents to the right of the verb (i.e. object, or manner adverb).

show abstract

Section: Against Focus Projectionsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: [C Pu/oti [Topic/focus [Cop Otilanlnalas[neg Den/mi(n) [Cm 9mentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Against Focus Projectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Epp = Bdf/e Eeaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductory Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

VOS in Greek

Sifaki

2013

J Greek Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Focus Movement

Szendrői

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A language has a focus construction if a focused constituent (at least optionally) appears in a non‐canonical syntactic position. Jackendoff's (1972) invention, the [focus] feature, and Chomsky's (1976) observation that focus gives rise to weak crossover effects paved the way for an analysis of focus constructions as instances of focus movement. For presentational purposes the analyses can be divided into three groups, which also by‐and‐large correspond to their order of appearance. The first group of analyses, which includes for instance Horvath (1986), regards the often‐attested adjacency requirement between the focus and the V (or other functional head, like I or C) as the crucial characteristic of focus constructions. Characteristics of focus movement in this approach are explained by the notion of government. One of the main advantages of this view is that it is able to accommodate both preverbal and postverbal focus positions with some degree of explanatory adequacy. The second group of analyses, starting from Rizzi's (1997) influential paper on Italian focus, comprises the cartographic approach to focus movement. The approach stems from the close proximity between focus movement and wh ‐movement. Its main tenet is that focus movement is triggered by a syntactic [focus] feature, and it targets a designated unique, pre‐determined syntactic position: the specifier of a functional Focus head. One immediate advantage of such a view is that it easily accounts for the quantificational properties of focus constructions. The third set of analyses can be grouped under the umbrella term, interface approaches. These approaches stem from recognizing the fact that a syntactic [focus] feature is a direct violation of Chomsky's (1995) Inclusiveness Principle, and that if focus movement is triggered by such a feature then the autonomy of syntax cannot be maintained. One set of interface analyses concentrates on the syntax‐prosody interface and seeks to explain focus movement by making reference to the seemingly universal property of focus that if a language has a stress system, focus always bears main stress. The second set of analyses concentrates on the syntax‐semantics/pragmatics interface and either seeks to explain focus movement in terms of mapping principles between syntax and semantics/pragmatics, or gives up the idea of information structurally‐motivated movement altogether.

show abstract

London Oriental and African Language Library

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Focus at the interface: Evidence from Romance and Bantu

Cited by 77 publications

References 18 publications

VOS in Greek

VOS in Greek

Focus Movement

London Oriental and African Language Library

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About