Negative Preposing: Intervention and Parametric Variation in Complement Clauses

Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L.

doi:10.28914/atlantis-2018-40.1.01

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4 The examples provided throughout include embedded HTLDs, as in (7), which directly refutes a common claim made since the work of Cinque (1983) that hanging topics are confined to matrix clauses. Common as this contention is, however, current research on Main Clause Phenomena (MCP) agrees that some embedded clauses have a root-like status (Heycock 2006;Bianchi & Frascarelli 2010;Jiménez-Fernández 2018;inter alia). As noted by an anonymous reviewer, the prediction is that Root Transformations (in the sense of Emonds 1969) or MCP (in the sense of Haegeman 2012) must be available in this type of root-like embedded clause.…”

Section: (9)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recomplementation in English and Spanish: Delineating the CP space

Villa-García

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper aims to provide a characterization of the colloquial phenomenon of recomplementation (i.e., that 1 /que 1 -XP [dislocated] that 2 /que 2 constructions) in both contemporary English and Spanish from a comparative perspective. I draw a systematic comparison between that 2 and que 2 and present a host of similarities in terms of the syntactic behavior and distribution of secondary complementizers in the two languages. Thus, I argue for a unified analysis of recomplementation in English and Spanish within Rizzi's (1997 et seq.) split-CP hypothesis wherein the flanked dislocate occupies the specifier of TopicP, whose head is spelled out as that 2 /que 2 . I therefore show that the structures of the peripheries of English and Spanish are not as different as they may appear to be at first sight. I also note several asymmetries between the two languages in terms of the interaction between recomplementation patterns and other constructions, and submit that these differences can be ascribed to independent factors: they are due to lexico-semantic and syntactic differences displayed by the two languages, but not to a different underlying leftperipheral architecture. The paper also investigates the reason(s) why secondary thats/ques are lexically realized and argues for the polyvalent nature of such iterative complementizers. I further propose that one of their functions is to mark discourse. The findings reported here also have far-reaching consequences for the contentious derivation of preposed topical phrases in the syntax of English and Spanish (including adjunct clauses), as well as ramifications to other existing debates. Glossa general linguistics a journal of Villa-García, Julio. 2019. Recomplementation in English and Spanish: Delineating the CP space. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1): 56. 1-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.845 Villa-García: Recomplementation in English and Spanish Art. 56, page 2 of 44(2) Dicen que por culpa de los recortes presupuestarios, que la Universidad say that for guilt of the cuts budgetary that the University no volverá a abrir sus puertas. not will-return to open its gates 'They told me that because of the budget cuts, that the University won't re-open.'In Romance, several authors have concerned themselves with the phenomenon in different linguistic varieties (mainly in Asturian, Catalan, French, Iberian Spanish, European Portuguese and several Italo-Romance languages) and from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives (

show abstract

Section: (9)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recomplementation in English and Spanish: Delineating the CP space

Villa-García

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a similar vein, Haegeman & Ürögdi (2010), Jiménez‐Fernández & Miyagawa (2014) and Jiménez‐Fernández (2018) propose that non‐root clauses contain an operator which prevents some discourse categories from moving to the C‐domain. For Jiménez‐Fernández & Miyagawa (2014), some types of topics can move in non‐root clauses because movement targets a position within the sentential (IP)‐domain, after inheritance of the discourse feature by T(ense) from C(omp).…”

Section: The Root/non‐root Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…For Jiménez‐Fernández & Miyagawa (2014), some types of topics can move in non‐root clauses because movement targets a position within the sentential (IP)‐domain, after inheritance of the discourse feature by T(ense) from C(omp). Moreover, Jiménez‐Fernández (2018) argues that Negative Preposing (a phenomenon that Emonds (1970) considers as restricted to root contexts) is possible in non‐root sentences in Spanish because it targets TP and not CP, thereby avoiding any intervention effect (see also Jiménez‐Fernández 2020).…”

Section: The Root/non‐root Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Much Room for Discourse in Imperative? The Lens of Interface on English, Italian and Spanish^*

Frascarelli

Jiménez-Fernández

2021

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses root phenomena in imperative clauses, assuming as diagnostics conversational dynamics and the type of discourse categories that are admitted in their C‐domain, through a systematic comparative interface investigation in three languages (English, Italian and Spanish) based on an original experimental work. This novel perspective sheds new light on the syntax‐semantics mapping and the interface (syntax‐prosody) properties of imperative clauses, embedding the relevant proposal in a cartographic framework of analysis. Based on a twofold distinction of root phenomena – those which are widely allowed in Common Ground‐active (Type I) contexts and those which can occur in non‐Common Ground‐active contexts (Type II) – it is proposed that imperatives are non‐Common Ground‐active propositions with no update potential, thus allowing only Type II root phenomena. Syntactically, imperative clauses are dominated by a super‐ordinate Speech Act Phrase, including the Speaker and the Addressee as co‐arguments, which explains the blocking effects identified in imperatives.

show abstract

“…Negative Preposing is a subtype of focus fronting (Radford 2009;Haegeman 2012;Miyagawa 2012;Jiménez-fernández 2018), which exhibits a contrast in terms of polarity. It may be classified with other independently identified fronting types such as Quantifier fronting (Leonetti and Escandell 2009), since the preposed element shows a clear negative polarity.…”

Section: Negative Preposingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information-structure strategies in English/Spanish translation

Jiménez-Fernández

2020

J. engl. stud. (Logroño, internet)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses information structure-based strategies that could be used in translating from English to Spanish. It is widely observed that many problems arise in translation when establishing the theme/topic and providing the focus content in the target language, given the grammatical instruments available in the source language. It is extremely important to use similar discourse mechanisms to present the same message in exactly the same terms from an information-structure point of view. This means that the syntactic configuration may be different in the source and target texts. I focus on three information structure phenomena, namely Passive, Topic Fronting and Negative Preposing in the two languages, to analyse the preservation of the discourse flow in various translations for the optimal use of the relevant constructions.

show abstract

Negative Preposing: Intervention and Parametric Variation in Complement Clauses

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Recomplementation in English and Spanish: Delineating the CP space

Recomplementation in English and Spanish: Delineating the CP space

How Much Room for Discourse in Imperative? The Lens of Interface on English, Italian and Spanish^*

Information-structure strategies in English/Spanish translation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Negative Preposing: Intervention and Parametric Variation in Complement Clauses

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Recomplementation in English and Spanish: Delineating the CP space

Recomplementation in English and Spanish: Delineating the CP space

How Much Room for Discourse in Imperative? The Lens of Interface on English, Italian and Spanish*

Information-structure strategies in English/Spanish translation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

How Much Room for Discourse in Imperative? The Lens of Interface on English, Italian and Spanish^*