Topic Islands and the Subjacency Parameter

IntroductionAs is well-known, topics and foci have dedicated positions in a variety of languages. This paper is concerned with the question of what this fact can tell us about the typology of information-structural notions and their mapping to the syntax. We argue that the data support two conclusions, both of which can be shown to clash with a cartographic outlook on sentence structure (for a general overview of the cartographic framework, see Cinque 2002, Rizzi 2003, and Belletti 2004. The first is that there are no fixed landing sites for topic and focus movement. The second is that there are cross-cutting generalizations over topics, over foci, and over contrastive elements. These jointly motivate the following four-way typology:

show abstract

“…For related discussion, see Rochemont 1989, Culicover 1991, Browning 1996 a. dat Wim van de BONEN meer gegeten heeft dan vorig jaar.…”

Section: Dutch A'-scramblingunclassified

A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast

Neeleman¹,

Titov²,

Koot³

et al. 2009

Alternatives to Cartography

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As English does not have scrambling, an A'-movement, English does not allow for any grammatical remnant movements. Since topicalization independently creates strong islands (Rochemont, 1989), the interaction of topicalization and wh-movement cannot yield grammatical derivations (9a). In (9b), a case of remnant wh-movement across whmovement (Lasnik and Saito, 1992), a violation of subjacency further adds to the UD violation.…”

Section: ) (B)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraining second language word order optionality: scrambling in advanced English-German and Japanese-German interlanguage

Hopp

2005

Second Language Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Authier 1992;Baltin 1982;Bowers 1976;Chomsky 1977;Culicover 1991;Iwakura 1978;Kuwabara 1992;Lasnik and Saito 1992;Muller and Sternefeld 1993;Noji 1993;Rochemont 1989;Toyoshima 1991;Watanabe 1993, among others). Assuming that there is only one CP-type projection above IP, Lasnik & Saito (1992), for example, argue that, since the embedded topic exemplified in (4) occurs between the complementizer and the subject, it must be adjoined to IP, as shown in (5).…”

Section: Topicalization In Englishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax

Koizumi¹

1998

Journal of Japanese Linguistics

163

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This thesis is a study of clause architecture within a theory of generative grammar. It discusses four major syntactic hypotheses that have crucial bearing on the design of phrase structure: the Agreement-based Case theory, the internal subject hypothesis (ISH), the uniform three-level X-bar theory, and a hypothesis about string vacuous head movement.In Chapter 2 through Chapter 4, I discuss object positions in three typologically and genetically different languages, i.e. English, Zarma, and Japanese, and argue that they all possess Object Agreement Phrases (AGRoP). A consideration of learnability suggests that the presence of AGRoP in these languages, particularly in Japanese, is not learnable from the data available to children. Thus, it is highly likely that UG is so construed that every language has AGR (THE UNIVERSAL AGR HYPOTHESIS).In Chapter 5, I turn to subject positions. There is conflicting evidence regarding the base-position of the external argument. Some data indicate that the external argument originates in a position lower than its surface position, as is expected under the internal subject hypothesis. Other data suggest that the base-position of the external argument is outside AGRoP and the VP that dominates the main verb and the internal arguments. If the ISH is correct in that all arguments of a predicate category (e.g. V) originate within the maximal projection of this category, then the apparently contradicting data suggest that there are two verbs, hence two VPs, in a single clause (THE SPLIT VP HYPOTHESIS). One verb is above AGRoP, and the other is below AGRoP. The so-called external argument is an argument of the upper V, and "internal arguments" are arguments of the lower V.Chapter 6 is concerned with X-bar theory. I argue, contrary to the wide held view, that some functional categories allow more than one specifier position within their projections (LAYERED SPECIFIERS), and that the number of specifiers is different across categories. If this is correct, the X-bar schema as such cannot be a part of Universal Grammar, as already suggested in Fukui (1986) and others. Our claim, however, is crucially different from Fukui's (1986) in that the specifiers of functional categories do not necessarily (but sometimes do) "close off" their projections.In Chapter 7, I discuss string vacuous verb raising in head final languages. In particular, I present evidence that verbs in Japanese raise out of the VP in overt syntax. Its consequences are also explored to various aspects of syntactic theory such as the Proper

show abstract

Topic Islands and the Subjacency Parameter

Cited by 59 publications

References 4 publications

A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast

A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast

Constraining second language word order optionality: scrambling in advanced English-German and Japanese-German interlanguage

Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About