Right-dislocation as deletion

Vries, Mark de; Ott, Dennis

doi:10.1007/s11049-015-9307-7

Cited by 77 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This means that string-final and string-medial foci are in fact in situ. Samek-Lodovici (2006;) reiterated Cardinaletti's (2002 arguments to show that right-dislocated elements in Italian are clause external, in the sense of being higher than the IP node containing the finite verb and the subject, as in (10) (see also Ott & de Vries 2016 for an alternative syntactic analysis).…”

mentioning

confidence: 82%

The syntax of information structure and the PF interface

Szendrői¹

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Focus movement to a left-peripheral position has been posited for both Hungarian and Italian. In this paper I argue against a unified cartographic treatment of focus movement, which analyses both as instances of movement to [Spec, Focus 0 ]. I raise some theoretical issues for cartography, such as the proliferation of focus heads and the difficulties with accounting for optionality. Empirically, I show that a set of properties distinguish Hungarian and Italian left-peripheral focus movement suggesting a different syntactic analysis for the two constructions. Following Hamlaoui & Szendrői's (2015) proposal for the syntax-prosody mapping of clauses, I show that Hungarian focus movement is prosodically motivated in that it is movement targeting the position that main stress is assigned to in the prosody. I show how the same proposal extends to right-peripheral and string-medial focus in Italian and heavy NP shift in English. I discuss the typological predictions of the that it follows from the proposal that left-peripheral focus movement is always accompanied by verb movement, while right-peripheral focus movement will target a position lower than the surface position of the finite verb. Finally, I propose that Italian left-peripheral focus movement is motivated by contrastivity. This accounts for the different characteristics of the two constructions: (i) that Hungarian, but not Italian, focus movement is accompanied by the movement of the finite verb; (ii) that Hungarian left-peripheral focus is prosodically unmarked, while Italian left-peripheral focus comes with marked prosody; and (iii) that Hungarian focus movement is pragmatically unmarked, in the sense that it can answer a wh-question, while Italian focus movement is explicitly contrastive (or perhaps even mirative or corrective).

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 82%

The syntax of information structure and the PF interface

Szendrői¹

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Theoretically, my analysis builds on Ott & de Vries (2012, 2013, a biclausal view of RD, which was presented at last year's Linguistics in the Netherlands conference. A schematic representation is (2), where CP 1 is the matrix clause typically containing a correlate of the dislocated constituent dXP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, Ott & de Vries (2013) argue that this is a knock-down argument against the idea of rightward movement in dislocation constructions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Locality and right-dislocation

Vries

2013

AVT

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Right-dislocation constructions, including backgrounding and specificational afterthoughts, are subject to various limitations. Dislocated phrases themselves are islands for extraction. Moreover, there are proximity effects between dislocated phrases and their correlate in the host clause. The main effect reduces to the regular constraints on A-bar movement. This is explained from the perspective of a biclausal analysis in which the dislocated phrase is fronted within its own, elliptical clause. As a result, right-dislocated phrases related to a deeply embedded correlate are only possible if the embedded clause is sentence-final. Otherwise, a dislocated constituent may surface in an intraposed position, next to the embedded clause. Finally, there is an additional prosodic constraint on backgrounding, which is irrelevant for afterthoughts; consequently, the latter must follow the former if they are combined in one sentence.

show abstract

“…As Ott (2014:283n25) suggests in passing and as Ott and De Vries (2016) argue explicitly, the clausal-juxtaposition-cum-ellipsis analysis can be applied to right-dislocation (RD): for a sentence like (73a), the right-dislocated element can be analyzed as the remnant of clausal ellipsis in a clause juxtaposed (this time on the right-hand side) to the clause containing the correlate pronoun, as shown in (73b). Ott and De Vries point out that RD observes the P-stranding generalization in many languages.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting Contrastive Left-Dislocation Explications

Dikken

Surányi

2017

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Of the three logically possible approaches to contrastive left-dislocation (CLD) (base-generation cum deep anaphora; movement cum surface anaphora; elliptical clausal juxtaposition cum resumption), two are represented prominently in the recent literature. Ott's (2014) account treats CLD uniformly in terms of clausal juxtaposition, the first clause being stripped down to its contrastive topic via an ellipsis operation said to be akin to sluicing. He argues that this analysis is superior to Grohmann's (2003) approach, featuring movement within a single prolific domain and late spell-out of a resumptive element. Using data mainly from Hungarian and Dutch, we reveal problems for Ott's biclausal account that undermine its apparent conceptual appeal and compromise its descriptive accuracy. We show that the ellipsis operation required is sui generis, that the approach fails to assimilate the crosslinguistic variation attested in the availability of multiple CLD to known cases of parametric variation in the left periphery, and that it undergenerates in several empirical domains, including P-stranding and ''floated'' arguments. Grohmann's movement-cumsurface-anaphora analysis as it stands also cannot handle all these data, but it can be fixed to fit the facts. For Ott's analysis, no patches seem available. Some further empirical properties of CLD appear underivable from either of these approaches. For these, the base-generationcum-deep-anaphora analysis can be considered.

show abstract

Right-dislocation as deletion

Cited by 77 publications

References 43 publications

The syntax of information structure and the PF interface

The syntax of information structure and the PF interface

Locality and right-dislocation

Contrasting Contrastive Left-Dislocation Explications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About