CONTRASTIVE FOCUS FRONTING IN EUROPEAN PORTUGUESE
Ana Maria Martins (University of Lisbon – FLUL/CLUL)
Freie Universität Berlin, 22 May 2012
[This talk is based on joint work with João Costa. See Costa, J. and A. M. Martins 2011. “On
Focus Movement in Europena Portuguese”. Probus 23.2: 217-245 ]
Two interrelated questions:
(i) Does European Portuguese (EP) display Contrastive Focus Fronting (CFF)?
(ii) If the answer is positive, what might have motivated the lack of consensus observed in the
literature in this respect?
Two examples of this lack of consensus:
(1)
Isto fazem os
that do-3PL the
(2)
Muito
Much
reis
kings
whisky bebeu
whisky drank
Rouveret 1992: Focus fronting
Ambar 1999: Topic fronting
Duarte 1997: D-linked presentation
o
the
capitão!
captain
Raposo 1995: Focus fronting
Ambar 1999: Evaluative fronting
Costa 2004: Quantified DP fronting
Two possible sources for the lack of consensus on the availability of CFF in EP
(i)
(ii)
There is variation across EP speakers regarding CFF
CFF “intersects” with other fronting constructions with respect to certain features
EP contrasts with other Romance languages in that it has both Clitic Left Dislocation and
(English-type) Topicalization in parallel
(3)
a. El diário,
Pedro lo compró.
the newspaper Pedro it bought
b. *El diário, Pedro compró.
the newspaper Pedro it bought
“The newspaper, Pedro bought (it)”.
Spanish. Zubizarreta 1999
(4)
a. Il
tuo libro, lo ho
comprato.
the your book
it I-have bought
b. *Il tuo libro, ho comprato.
the your book
I-have bought
“Your book, I have bought (it)”.
Italian. Rizzi 1997
(5)
a. O
the
b. O
the
c. O
the
d. O
the
jornal,
o
Pedro já
o.
newspaper the Pedro already it
jornal,
o
Pedro já
newspaper the Pedro already.
teu livro, já
o comprei.
your book already it bought
teu livro, já
comprei.
your book already bought
1
comprou. European Portuguese
bought
comprou.
bought
Goals of this presentation:
(i) give evidence for the existence of CFF in EP by applying (to attested data) a set of tests
that provide a clear distinction between CFF and Topicalization
(ii) investigate whether there is more than one grammar in EP regarding CFF
(iii) distinguish CFF from Evaluative exclamatives like (2) above
(iv) evaluate whether the whole picture makes sense and adds something to our knowledge of
EP grammar, from which avenues for further research may come up
Preview of the results and proposals:
Table 1: Fronted constituents in CFF, Topicalization and Evaluative exclamatives
Structure
Distinctive feature(s) of fronted constituents
Grammar A
Grammar B
Topicalization
[D-linked]
Evaluative exclamatives
[Evaluative]
Contrastive Focus
[D-linked, Evaluative]
[Deictic, Evaluative]
Fronting
Table 2: Three types of fronting in EP: Topicalization, CFF and Evaluative exclamatives
Topicalization
Contrastive
Evaluative
Focus Fronting
exclamatives
Cleft-like interpretation
‒
+
‒
Proclisis
‒
+
+
Fronting of referential expressions
+
+
‒
Fronting of non referential expressions
‒
+
+
Obligatory subject-verb inversion
‒
+
‒
Unrestricted fronting of PP complements
‒
+
‒
Relative clause extraposition
‒
+
+
Licensing of expletive negation
‒
‒
+
Speaker’s attitude marks contrast with
‒
+
‒
assumed expectation state of the hearer
 T-to-C movement in CFF is triggered by the feature [Evaluative]. From this basic
assumption it is possible to derive the particularities of CFF with respect to subject-verb
inversion
 The feature [Evaluative] licenses expletive negation in Evaluative exclamatives and might
lay behind the apparent incompatibility between CFF and ordinary negation. (Cf. González
Rodríguez 2009 on negation in exclamative sentences).
 The relevance of the feature [deictic] in CFF deserves further research as it plays a central
role in other areas of EP grammar as well.
1. A preliminary clarification: contrastive focus vs. narrow information focus
A) Syntactically, preposed contrastive foci and information foci emerge in completely
different sentence locations: preposed foci are clause-initial, whereas information focus is
typically clause-final in European Portuguese. Contrastive focus is either left in situ, bearing
2
prosodic prominence, or moves to the left periphery. If there is movement, prosodic
prominence also obtains. On the contrary, information focus typically remains in the right
periphery, where it is assigned sentence nuclear stress (Zubizarreta 1998, 1999, Costa 1998,
2004).
B) On discourse grounds, information and contrastive foci are licensed in different contexts
(compare (6) with (7), displaying typical licensing contexts for each type of focus). Questionanswer pairs are the typical contexts in which it is possible to identify an information focus.
Contrastive focus is typically not an appropriate answer to wh-questions. The inadequacy of
CFF in these contexts is similar to the inadequacy of clefts of different types:
(6)
(7)
[A] a. Quanto
vais
receber por mês?
how-much go-2SG receive per month?
‘How much will you be paid monthly?
[B] b. Vou
receber por mês
600 euros.
go-1SG
receive per month 600 euros
c. # Vou receber por mês
é 600 euros.
go-1SG receive per month is 600 euros
d. # 600 euros é (o) que vou
receber por
600 euros is (the) that go-1SG receive per
e. # São 600 euros que vou
receber por
are
600 euros that go-1SG receive per
f. # 600 EUROS vou eu receber por mês.
600
euros go-1SG I
receive per month
(Cleft)
mês.
month
mês.
month
(Cleft)
(Cleft)
(CFF)
[A] a. Trabalhas muito mas pagam-te
bem.
work-2SG much but pay-3PL-you well
‘You work a lot, but they pay you well.’
[B] b. SEISCENTOS EUROS recebo eu por mês.
Achas
que me
600
euros receive I
per month. think-2SG that me
pagam bem?!
(CFF)
pay-3PL well
‘600 euro is what I receive per month! Do you think they pay me well?!’
C) Semantically and pragmatically, contrastive foci introduce an opposition value with
respect to an assertion, presupposition or expectation. It is because they always express some
type of disagreement, inducing a notion of contrast, that the sentences with CFF are not
legitimate answers to mere quests for information.
Finally, as the following examples show, in CFF structures the focalized constituent does not
introduce by itself new information and is characteristically D-linked (Duarte 1997).
(8)
[A] Explica-lhe que não vai
poder viver
para sempre em casa
explain-him that not go-2SG be-able to-live for always in
house
dos
pais.
of-the parents
‘Explain to him that he won’t be able to stay forever at his parents’ place.’
3
[B]
(9)
Isso lhe
digo
eu todos os dias mas não lhe entra
that him-DAT tell-1SG I
all
the days but not him enters
na
cabeça.
in-the head
‘That’s what I tell him every day, but it does not get into his head.’
[A] Estás cansada. Vai
passar uns dias na
are-2SG tired.
go-2SG spend some days in-the
‘You’re tired! Go spend some days at the beach.’
[B] Isso queria eu.
that wanted I
‘That’s what I wanted.’
praia.
beach
(10) [A] Ele tem muito jeito
pró
negócio.
he has much ability for-the business
‘He has a natural gift for business.’
[B] Com esse jeito pró
negócio
me vendeu ele uma televisão
with that ability for-the business me sold
he a
television
avariada.
broken
‘It’s with that gift for business that he sold me a broken TV.’
 The core property of a contrastive focus is the addition of the speakers’ disagreeing
attitude regarding what he knows or supposes to be the expectations/convictions of the hearer.
This attitude is added to the basic denotation of the sentence. As such, this type of focus
signals the contrast between the information given by the speaker and the information that,
according to the speaker’s beliefs, is previously assumed by the hearer. (Cf. Zimmermann
2007; Onea and Zimmermann 2011).
(11) Zimmermann’s (2007) definition of contrastive focus
[Contrastive focus marking indicates] a contrast between the information conveyed by
the speaker in asserting α and the assumed expectation state of the hearer: the speaker
marks the content of α as – in her view – unlikely to be expected by the hearer, thus
preparing the scene for a swifter update of the common ground.
2. CFF vs. Topicalization
Tests to be used (cf. Hernanz and Brucart 1987, Zubizarreta 1999, Ambar 1992, Rouveret
1992, Duarte 1997, and Cardoso 2010):
A – Cleft-like interpretation;
B – Clitic placement;
C – Sensitivity to referential properties of fronted constituent;
D – Subject-verb inversion;
E – PP-preposing (when the PP is the complement of certain existential and light);
F – Relative clause extraposition.
4
A – Cleft-like interpretation
As shown in Hernanz and Brucart (1987) and Zubizarreta (1999), among others, CFF, unlike
Topicalization (TOP), is interpretively equivalent to clefting.1 This is shown in the sets of
examples in (12) to (15), with the relevant paraphrases. Other paralell examples will be given
throughout the paper. The type of continuation given in the Topicalization example (12b) is
ruled out in the CFF cases. This is a feature shared with clefts.
(12) a. De notícias se
faz
o
nosso mundo. (TV-channel slogan)
(CFF)
of
news
SE
makes the our
world
(‘É de notícias que se
faz
o
nosso mundo.’)
is
of
news
that SE makes the our
world
‘It’s the news that make up our world.’
b. De notícias, estou farta
e
de debates e
concursos também. (TOP)
of
news,
am fed-up and of debates and contests
too
(# ‘É de notícias que estou farta e
de debates e
concursos também’)
is of
news
that am fed-up and of debates and contests
too
‘I’m fed up with news, and with debates and contests too.’
(13) E
neste regime me tenho
and in-this register me have
(‘E é neste
regime que me
and is in-this register that me
‘It’s in this register that I keep myself
mantido. (from the newspaper Expresso) (CFF)
kept
tenho mantido.’)
have
kept
(14) A
grande notícia te
dou agora. (from a novel by F. Namora) (CFF)
the big
news
you-DAT give now
(‘A grande notícia é a
que te
vou
dar agora.’)
the big
news
is the what you-DAT go-1SG give now
‘The big news is what I’m going to tell you now.’
(15) SEISCENTOS EUROS recebo eu por mês.
Achas
que me pagam
six-hundred euros receive I
per month. think-2SG that me pay
bem?!
(CFF)
well
(‘Seiscentos euros é o
que eu recebo por mês.
Achas
que
six-hundred euros is the what I
receive per month. Think-2SG that
me pagam bem?!)
me pay
well
‘Six hundred euro is what I receive per month. Do you think they pay me well?!’
1
We focus here on the exhaustivity feature that clefts share, and not on the subtle differences in information
structure that differentiate different subtypes of cleft structures. In some cases a reverse pseudo-cleft seems to be
a better paraphrase for a CFF sentence than a canonic cleft, as it captures more accurately the relevant
interpretation. It might be the case that different interpretative subtypes of fronted foci can be distinguished, but
this issue is left out of the scope of the current paper.
5
B – Clitic Placement:
Fronted constrastive foci trigger proclisis, unlike topicalized constituents. This contrast
between CFF and Topicalization is shown above in (12) to (14) and below in (16)-(17).
(16) a. De pequenino se
torce o
{pepino/destino}. (proverb and lyrics) (CFF)
of
little
SE
bends the cucumber/destiny
b. *De pequenino torce-se
o
{pepino/destino}.
of
little
bends-SE the cucumber/destiny
‘It is from a very young age that skills are learnt.’ / ‘You make your own destiny
from the very start.’
(17) a. Valores mais altos se
levantam. (from Google)
values more high SE raise
b. *Valores mais altos levantam-se.
values
more high raise-SE
‘Higher values impose themselves.’
(CFF)
C – Sensitivity to referential properties of fronted constituent
As shown in Duarte (1987, 1997), and Martins (1994, 1997), Topicalization is constrained by
the referential properties of the moved constituents. As such, negative words and certain
quantifiers cannot be topicalized. Similar types of constraints do not affect CFF structures.
Negative words and quantifiers like ‘few’ are fronted in constructions that often additionally
display other properties of CFF, namely proclisis and subject-verb inversion.
(18) a. Nada se
saberá.
nothing SE will-know
‘Nothing will be known.’
b. *Nada,
eu (não) gostaria que os
nothing, I
(not)
would-like that the
soubessem. (from Google)
would-know
‘I wouldn’t like my friends to know anything.’
(CFF)
meus
my
amigos (não)
friends (not)
(TOP)
(19) Na
pressa da
crítica,
lançam
para os media um discurso
in-the rush
of-the criticism, throw-3PL to
the media a
discourse
redutor
e
pessimista
que nada
tem contribuído para a
reductive and pessimistic that nothing has contributed to
the
melhoria
do
clima
escolar. (from the newspaper Público) (CFF)
improvement of-the atmosphere scholar
‘In the rush for criticizing, they launch in the media a reductive and pessimistic kind of
speech that does not contribute in anything to an improvement of the schools’
atmosphere.’
6
(20) a. Mas já
a ninguém interessa isso. (from Google)
(CFF)
but already to no-one
matters
that
‘That matters to no one anymore.’
b. Não te
preocupes, essa história fica entre
nós,
not you worry,
that story
stays between us,
{a ninguém/ só ao
João} a
contarei.
(CFF)
to
no-one/
only to-the João
it-ACC will-tell-1SG
‘Don’t you worry, that story stays between us. I will tell it {to no one/only to João}.’
c. *A ninguém, eu (não) vou contar essa história.
(TOP)
to
no-one
I
(not)
go tell
that story
‘I’ll tell that story to no one’
d. Ao João, eu (não) vou contar essa história.
(TOP)
to
João, I
(not)
go tell
that story
‘I’ll tell that story to João.’
(21) a. É uma decisão
minha. Poucos colegas
consultei.
is one decision mine. Few
colleagues consulted
‘It’s a decision on me. I consulted few colleagues.’
b. *Poucos colegas, consulto(-os)2 sempre antes de
few
colleagues, consult-(them) always before of
qualquer decisão.
some
decision
‘I consult few colleagues, before taking some decision.’
(CFF)
tomar
take
(TOP)
D – Subject-verb inversion
Unlike Topicalization, CFF obligatorily induces subject-verb inversion. This is shown in (22)
through (25), where we systematically observe the contrast between the grammaticality of VS
sentences and the ungrammaticality of SV sentences. In order to make clear that we are
dealing with focus fronting, most sentences display other properties of CFF.
(22) a. De notícias se
faz
o
nosso mundo.
of
news
SE
makes the our world
b. *De notícias o
nosso mundo se
faz.
of
news
the our
world SE makes
‘It’s the news that make up our world.’
(CFF)
(23) a. De pequenino se
torce o
{pepino/destino}.
of
little
SE
bends the cucumber/ destiny
b. *De pequenino o
{pepino/destino}
se
torce.
of
little
the cucumber/ destiny SE bends
‘Skills are learnt from a very young age.’
(CFF)
2
With the clitic os (‘them’) present, the sentence would be a case of Clitic Left Dislocation, which would not
change its ungrammatical status.
7
(24) a. Isso queria o
director. (from Google)
(CFF)
that wanted the dean
b. *Isso o
director queria.3
(ungrammatical under the intended interpretation)
that
the dean
wanted
‘That’s (precisely) what the dean wanted.’
(25) a. Uma melancia
inteira me
comeu aquele
a
watermelon entire me-DAT ate
that
b. *Uma melancia
inteira aquele bruto me
a
watermelon entire that
brute me-DAT
‘A whole watermelon, that’s what that beast ate!’
bruto.
brute
comeu.
ate
(CFF)
E – PP preposing
As shown in Hernanz and Brucart (1987), some prepositional verbal complements resist
fronting in Topicalization constructions, although they can undergo CFF. This contrast is
illustrated in the following examples, in which the difference between Topicalization and CFF
is further signaled by the placement of the clitic and/or by the position of the subject. The
relevant PP complements share the property of being selected by predicates of inclusion
(featuring part-whole relations), a fact that is not discussed by Hernanz and Brucart (1987)
and needs further investigation.
(26) a. *De esforço, faz-se
o
sucesso.
of effort, makes-SE the success
b. De esforço se
faz
o
sucesso.
of
effort SE makes the success
‘It’s effort that builds success’
(TOP)
(27) a. *Na
crise financeira, o
problema reside.
in-the crisis financial the problem lies
b. Na
crise financeira reside o
problema. (CFF)
in-the crisis financial lies
the problem
‘It’s in the financial crisis that the problem lies.’
(TOP)
(28) a. *Destas quatro partes, o
relatório consta.
of-these four
parts
the report
consists
b. Destas quatro partes consta o
relatório.
of-these four
parts
consists the report
‘The report consists of these four parts.’
(TOP)
(CFF)
(CFF)
3
The sentence would be acceptable under a topic interpretation of isso (‘that’):
(i)
Isso, o
director queria, mas isto, não sei
se
That, the
director wanted but
this, not
know-1SG whether
‘ That, the director wanted, but this, I am not sure he will.’
8
vai
goes
querer
want
F – Relative Clause Extraposition
Cardoso (2010) shows that only CFF, not Topicalization, licenses relative clause
extraposition. The examples (29) to (31) below illustrate this point: compare the
ungrammaticality of (29b), (30b) and (31b), which exhibit relative clause extraposition
associated with Topicalization, with the grammaticality of (29c), (30a) and (31a), which
display relative clause extraposition associated with CFF. As in the previous examples, CFF
and Topicalization can be differentiated because of clitic placement and subject-verb
inversion, or by the referential properties of the fronted constituent:
(29) a. Crianças que não gostam de chocolate, também
children that not like
of
chocolate also
‘Children that don’t like chocolate, I also know.’
b. *Crianças, também conheço que não gostam de
children, also
know-1SG that not like
of
c. Poucas crianças conheço que não gostam de
few
children know-1PL that not like
of
‘Very few children I know that don’t like chocolate.’
conheço.
know-1SG
(TOP)
chocolate.
chocolate
chocolate.4
chocolate
(TOP)
(CFF)
(30) a. Uma estranha doença lhe diagnosticaram então que lhe retirou toda
a
strange
disease him diagnosed-3PL then
that him took
all
a
alegria.
(CFF)
the joy
‘A strange disease that took away all his joy was diagnosed to him then.’
b. *Uma estranha doença, diagnosticaram-lhe então que lhe retirou toda
a
strange
disease diagnosed-3PL-him then
that him took
all
a
alegria.
(TOP)
the joy
(31) a. Uma notícia te
darei
agora que vai deixar-te
a
news
you-DAT will-give now
that goes leave-you
‘It’s a news that will make you happy that I’ll give you now.’
b. *Uma notícia, dar-te-ei
agora que vai deixar-te
a
news
will-you-DAT-give now
that goes leave-you
feliz. (CFF)
happy
feliz. (TOP)
happy
The six criteria presented above differentiate CFF from Topicalization, and provide clear
evidence for the existence of CFF in the grammar of European Portuguese.5
4
Google offers similar examples with Poucas pessoas conheço que… (literally: few people I-know that…).
Topicalization and CFF are similar with respect to island sensitivity and the ability to license parasitic gaps. Cf.
Hernanz and Brucart (1987), Duarte (1987), Zubizarreta (1999), among others.
(i) a. Dele
{dizem/ garantem}
os
críticos que se sabe
pouca coisa.
(CFF)
of-him
say-3PL/ guarantee-3PL the
critics
that SE knows
little thing
‘It is of him that the critics say that little is known.’
b. *Dele
{conhecemos/ se conhecem} os
críticos que desconfiam.
[relative island]
of-him
know-1PL/
SE know-3PL the
critics that mistrust
‘We know/people knows the critics that mistrust him.’
5
9
3. Two grammars for CFF, in a set-subset relation
The lack of consensus regarding the availability of contrastive focus fronting in contemporary
European Portuguese is a consequence of variation across speakers. EP includes a less
restrictive grammar regarding CFF, which we will be labeled Grammar A, and a more
restrictive grammar, which we be will labeled Grammar B. They are related in the sense that
the latter is a subset of the former. The generalization to emerge from the data is that fronting
in Grammar B is limited to deictic expressions and PPs or AdvPs including deictic
expressions.
3.1. The restrictive Grammar B: data supporting the generalization on deictics
The following set of data illustrate the generalization that fronting in Grammar B is restricted
to expressions containing a deictic element. In all the sentences judged grammatical by
speakers of grammar B the focalized constituent includes either a deictic adverb (manner,
temporal or locative), a personal pronoun or a demonstrative. It must be noted that
pronominal direct objects are necessarily accusative clitics in EP and clitics do not undergo
CFF. This is why in Grammar B there is no fronting of bare personal pronouns. Only PP
verbal complements containing strong pronouns can be focused under CFF.
a) Fronting of deictic adverbs: manner, temporal, locative adverbs:
(32) Assim
se
vê a
força do
PC. (political slogan)
like.that one sees the strength of-the PC
‘That’s how you see the strength of the Communist Party.’
(33) Transpúnhamos o portão, a
pergunta desalinhou-lhe
o
passo,
crossed-1PL
the gate, the question unaligned-him-DAT the step,
mas logo o rectificou, acertando-o pelo
meu. (from a novel by F. Namora)
but then it rectified setting-it
by-the mine
‘We were crossing the gate, the question made him lose his pace, but it was immediately
that he corrected it, following mine.’
(34) Por aqui se
vê que um mesmo constituinte pode desempenhar
by
here one sees that one single constituent
may play
diferentes funções
sintácticas. (e-mail message by undergraduate student)
different
functions syntactic
‘It is in this way that one can see that one single constituent may play different syntactic
roles.’
(ii) a. MAÇÃS RISCADINHAS (me) disse a
Maria que temos
para o
lanche. (CFF)
apples
striped
(me) told the
Maria that have-1PL for
the
snack
‘It’s striped apples that Maria told me we’re having as a snack.’
b. *MAÇÃS RISCADINHAS surpreendeu toda a
gente que o
Pedro tenha
comprado
apples
striped
surprised
all the people that the Pedro would-have bought
‘That Pedro would have bought striped apples surprised everybody.’
[subject island]
(iii) ESSES
LIVROS TODOS trouxe
a
Maria da
biblioteca sem
requisitar. (CFF)
those
books
all
brought the
Maria from-the library without asking
‘It was all those books what Maria brought from the library without asking.’
[parasitic gap in adjunct island]
10
b) Fronting of PPs containing personal pronouns:
(35) A
retórica é a
maior arma dos
políticos. Com ela se
the rhetoric is the biggest weapon of-the politicians. with it
themselves
elevam,
com ela se
desgraçam. (from the newspaper Expresso/Única)
raise-3PL with it
temselves disgrace-3PL
‘Rhetoric is the politicians’ greatest weapon. It is with it they elevate themselves, it is
with it they fall in disgrace.’
(36) {A ele/ ao
João}
se
deve
o
sucesso da
to him/ to-the João-ADRESS FORM one owes
the success of-the
‘It’s {to him/to João} one owes the success of the initiative.’
iniciativa.
initiative
c) Fronting of demonstratives or PPs containing them:
(37) Digo-te
que isso queria eu. (from Google)
say-1SG-you-DAT that that wanted I
‘I tell you: that’s what I wanted.’
(38) A este facto se
deve o
envio do
meu teste formativo hoje,
to this fact SE owes the sending of-the my test formative today
quarta-feira. (e-mail message)
Wednesday
‘It’s because of this fact that I’m only sending my assignment today, Wednesday.’
The data above attest that all cases of fronting accepted in Grammar B must contain a deictic
expression – be it a pronoun referring to a salient discourse participant, a deictic adverb, or a
demonstrative. The only case that does not contain one of these expressions is the proper
name in (36), a case that is considered nevertheless deictic, since it is the polite way of
addressing the hearer in a formal context (i.e. addressing the other by his/her own name). It
functions, thus, as a vocative.
3.2. Deictic Fronting is a restrictive type of Contrastive Focus Fronting
Deictic fronting behaves just like CFF and differs from Topicalization with respect to the
grammatical tests introduced in section 2. None of the relevant tests places deictic fronting
together with Topicalization.6 Instead deictic fronting systematically patterns with CFF.
(Tests A – Cleft-like interpretation)
(39) Se o
livro
saiu
bem, a si
se
deve.
if
the book
came-out well, to you SE owes
(‘Se o
livro saiu
bem é a si
que se
deve’)
if the book came-out well is to you that SE owes
‘If the book came out fine, it’s to you that we owe it.’
6
It is not the case that deictic fronting patterns with Topicalization with respect to test C because Topicalization
is not restricted to a subtype of referential expressions.
11
(40) Contra esta ingratidão e
injustiça se
escreve
este livro.
against this ingratitude and injustice SE write-3SG this book
(‘É contra esta ingratidão e
injustiça que se
escreve
este livro’)
is against this ingratitude and injustice that SE write-3SG this book
‘This book was written to repair such ingratitude and injustice [against the Nobel Prize
Egas Moniz].’
(from the newspaper Expresso/Actual)
(Tests B – Clitic placement)
(41) a. {Deste estofo/ assim}
se
fazem
os grandes homens.
of-this stuff / like-this SE make-3PL the great
men
b. *{Deste estofo / assim}
fazem-se
os grandes homens.
of-this stuff / like-this make-3PL-SE
the great
men
‘This is how great men are forged.’ (from Said Ali 1966 [1908] / from Google)
(Tests D – Subject-verb inversion)
(42) a. Assim
o
olhou o
pessoal do
posto Shell.
like-that him looked the staff
of-the station Shell (from a novel by J.
‘That’s how the staff of the Shell gas station looked at him.’
Cardoso Pires)
b. *Assim
o
pessoal do
posto Shell o
olhou.
like-that the staff
of-the station Shell him looked
(Tests E – PP preposing)
(43) a. Nesta crise financeira que atravessamos reside o
problema.
in-the crisis financial that face-1PL
lies
the problem
‘It’s in this financial crisis we are currently facing that the problem lies.’
b. *Nesta crise
financeira que atravessamos, o
problema reside.
in-this crisis financial that face-1PL
the problem lies
(Test G – Relative clause extraposition)
(44) Poucas dessas
crianças autistas conheci
(ao
longo da
vida)
few
of-those children autistic knew-1PL in-the course of-the life
que não estabelecem nenhum tipo de interacção.
that not establish-3PL any
kind of
interaction
‘During my life I came across few autistic children that would not establish any kind of
interaction.’
3.3. Deictic fronting is not Topicalization
One further argument against the idea that deictic fronting might be some kind of
Topicalization associated with a particular type of prosodic marking comes from data like
those in (45) to (48).
Sentences (45)-(46) show that in EP the subject can be contrastively focused in situ:
12
(45) O
GATO comeu a
tarte (não o
the cat
ate
the pie (not the
‘It was the cat that ate the pie, not the dog.’
cão)
dog)
(46) DOCUMENTOS E
PROVAS INDESMENTÍVEIS demonstram que esta
Documents
and proofs
undeniable
demonstrate that this
missão foi dirigida do
exterior.
mission was directed from-the abroad.
‘It’s documents and unmistakable proofs what demonstrates that this mission was
directed from abroad.’
(from the newspaper Público; capital letters added)
The above sentences show that a subject can be focalized in its original position, when
associated to a specific intonational pattern. The sentences given below show, on the other
hand, that in situ focalized subjects are not proclisis triggers, otherwise the attested sentences
(47)-(48) would not be judged ungrammatical in Grammar B, which permits sentences (45)(46). Therefore, it is a legitimate conclusion that the sentences with proclisis given in sections
3.1 and 3.2 correspond to a syntactic strategy for focusing and not just to a mere prosodic
strategy applied to topicalized constituents.7
(47) O
porta-voz
de Ismail Hanniyed o
disse.
the spokesperson of
Ismail Hanniyed it-ACC said
‘The spokesperson of Ismail Hanniyed said so.’
(sentence from the newspaper Expresso, which João Costa judges ungrammatical)
(48) Ele o
disse, quinta-feira, na
breve declaração à
imprensa
he it-ACC said
Thursday
in-the brief
declaration to-the press
‘He said it himself, last Thursday, in his brief declaration to the press.’
(sentence from the newspaper Expresso, which João Costa judges ungrammatical)
4. CFF vs Evaluative exclamatives
Raposo (1995, 2000) discussed sentences like (49), which have been characterized in Ambar
(1999) as Evaluative structures, and not as Focus structures. I will refer to them as Evaluative
exclamatives, using this term in a narrow sense that excludes wh- exclamatives. Constituents
fronted in Evaluative exclamatives are restricted to a subset of degree-like expressions, like
the DPs including the quantifier muito (‘much’) or the adjective grande (‘big’). See (49)-(50):
(49) Muito whisky bebeu o
capitão!
much whisky drank the captain
‘Much whisky the captain drank!’
7
The ungrammaticality of sentence (48) seems to indicate that in Grammar B the subject cannot undergo CFF,
even if it is a deictic. This further difference between Grammar A and Grammar B is not explored in the current
paper.
13
4.1. Similarities between CFF and Evaluative exclamatives
a) Like CFF, Evaluative exclamatives induce proclisis:
(50) a. Muito whisky lhe deu o
capitão!
Much whisky him gave the captain
‘Much whisky the captain gave him!’
b. Grande sarilho me
arranjaste!
big
trouble me-DAT brought
‘In such a big trouble you put me!’
b) Like CFF, Evaluative exclamatives allow fronting of non referential expressions:
(51) a. Nem um beijo me
deste!
not a
kiss me-DAT gave
‘You didn’t even give me a kiss!’
c) Like CFF, Evaluative exclamatives are compatible with relative clause extraposition:
(52) Muito whisky o
João bebeu que estava fora do
prazo!
much whisky the João drank that was
out of-the expiry-date
‘João drank a lot of whisky that was expired!’ (from Cardoso 2010)
4.2. Differences between CFF and Evaluative exclamatives
a) Evaluative exclamatives are not interpretively equivalent to cleft sentences. So they
smoothly admit the type of continuation that is incompatible with the exhaustive meaning of
clefts:
(53) Muito whisky bebeu o
capitão, e
muita cerveja também!
much whisky drank the captain and much beer
too
‘Much whisky the captain drank, and much beer as well!’
b) Subject-verb inversion is optional in Evaluative exclamatives:
(54) a. Muito whisky o
capitão bebeu.
much whisky the captain drank
b. Muito whisky bebeu o
capitão.
much whisky drank the captain
‘Much whisky the captain drank!’
c) In contrast to CFF, no preceding discourse setting is required for Evaluative
exclamatives. They typically appear in out-of-the blue contexts. In (55b), the lack of a
previous discourse context blocks the availability of CFF as a grammatically adequate option,
while the Evaluative exclamative in (55a) is perfectly fine:
14
(55) Situation: Peter and Mary are having breakfast in silence. Thinking about the party they
attended together the previous evening, Mary utters out-of-the blue:
a. Muita cerveja a
gente bebeu ontem!
(Evaluative exclamative)
Much beer
the people drank yesterday
‘So much beer we drank yesterday!’
b. # Com cerveja se
embebedou o
João.
(CFF)
with beer
himself got-drunk
the John
‘It was with beer that John got drunk.’
d) Evaluative exclamatives do not express disagreement or contrast; instead, they are
evaluations of facts or situations known both to speaker and hearer. In other words, a sentence
like (56-B-a) below (‘Much wine John drank!’) can only be used in a context in which it is
known to both speaker and hearer who João is, and that a wine-drinking situation took place.
Evaluative exclamatives typically ‘comment’ on given information. The paradigm in (56)
illustrates the oddity of Evaluative exclamatives when set against a disagreeing/contrastive
discourse context, while in the same context sentences displaying CFF are perfectly fine:
(56) [A] O
João ontem
não bebeu.
the João yesterday not drank
‘John didn’t drink yesterday.’
[B] a. # Muita cerveja (o
João) bebeu (o
João)! (Evaluative exclamative)
much beer
(the João) drank (the Joao)
‘Much beer John drank!’
b. Toneladas de cerveja bebeu o
João! (Não me digas que
tons
of
beer
drank the João! (not me tell
that
não viste?!)
(CFF)
not saw-2SG)
‘John drank TONS OF BEER. How could you possibly not see?’
e) Evaluative exclamatives in contrast to CFF are compatible with expletive negation. See
how in (57a) negation does not induce a negative reading:
(57) a. Muito não bebe
aquele rapaz!
much not drinks that
boy
b. Muito bebe
aquele rapaz!
much drinks that
boy
‘So much he drinks!’
5. The information structure status of sentences with CFF
The examples in (58) to (61) below are clear cases of CFF sentences displaying broad
information focus. Sentence (58) is the slogan of a TV channel specialized in information
news. (59) below is the title and subtitle of a newspaper review of a new TV documentary
series. (60) is also the title and subtitle of a newspaper piece: although the title sets the theme
(i.e. the relation between rhetoric and politics), the subtitle displaying the CFF structure is not
trivially deducible from it and introduces in fact all new information. A similar pattern is
15
exhibited in (61) and (62) below, where deictic expressions (locative and demonstrative,
respectively) anchor the CFF clauses to the immediate discourse context without preventing
them to display broad information focus. Moreover, examples (58) and (60) show that the
context licensing CFF is to be understood in a broad sense, and might not be linguistically
expressed. The general knowledge of TV channels and the history of the United States,
respectively, is what allows the authors of the TV slogan and the newspaper title to play with
the supposed expectations of the public. On the other hand, examples (60), (61) and (62)
demonstrate that when, more commonly, there is an openly expressed discourse context, it
does not constrain the availability of broad information focus CFF sentences.
(58) a. De notícias se
faz
o
nosso mundo. (TV-channel slogan)
of
news
SE
makes the our
world
(‘É de notícias que se
faz
o
nosso mundo.’)
is
of
news
that SE makes the our
world
‘It’s the news that make up our world.’
(CFF)
(59) América, modo de usar: Em 12 fatias se
conta a
história dos
America, how
to
use: in
12 slices SE tells
the history of -the
‘states’ num hino
à
reencenação dos
arquivos. Obama recomenda.
States in-a hymn to-the recreation
of-the archives. Obama recommends
‘… The history of the United States is told in 12 episodes…’
(from newspaper Expresso/Actual)
(60) A
retórica é a
maior arma dos
políticos. Com ela se
the rhetoric is the biggest weapon of-the politicians. with it
themselves
elevam,
com ela se
desgraçam. (from the newspaper Expresso/Única)
raise-3PL with it
temselves disgrace-3PL
‘Rhetoric is the politicians’ greatest weapon. It is with it they elevate themselves, it is
with it they fall in disgrace.’
(61) Embarcou para Cuba com um contrato tentador, e
aí
o
atacou
embarked to
Cuba with a
contract
tempting and there him attacked
uma terrível doença das
Antilhas. (from the newspaper A Capital. In CRPC)
a
terrible disease of-the Antilles
‘He embarked to Cuba with an inviting contract, and it was there that he contracted a
terrible disease from the Antilles.’
(62) A
carta já
vai longa de.mais, e
disso me penitencio.
the letter already goes long
too.much and of-this me impose-penance
‘This letter is getting too long, and that is what I apologize for.’
(from a preface by João Lobo Antunes)
Sentences with CFF involve broad focus both in Grammar A and in Grammar B (which
further confirms that the two grammars do not differ in the properties associated to this
construction). The fronted constituent establishes a connection with the discourse background,
but the sentence as a whole conveys new information, patterning in this respect like
presentational sentences as shown by (Duarte 1997) who coins CFF sentences as D-linked
16
presentations). CFF sentences differ from standard presentational sentences (that is, sentences
expressing thetic judgements, in the terms of Kuroda [2005] and previous work) in being
Discourse-linked and necessarily involving the transmission of the speaker’s (disagreeing)
attitude. This makes CFF sentences ‘marked’ in contrast to ‘unmarked’
presentational/descriptive sentences (cf. Kuroda 2005).
Crucially, CFF and narrow information focus are dissociated. As such, it is expected that CFF
sentences are not appropriate answers to wh-questions (see section 1. above).
6. Summary and further facts
A) THREE TYPES OF FRONTED CONSTITUENTS. The fronted constituents in Topicalization, in
Contrastive Focus Fronting, and in Evaluative exclamatives are different, and it is possible to
tease them apart on the basis of syntactic and interpretational criteria:
Table 2: Three types of fronting in EP: Topicalization, CFF and Evaluative exclamatives
Topicalization
Contrastive
Evaluative
Focus Fronting
exclamatives
Cleft-like interpretation
‒
+
‒
Proclisis
‒
+
+
Fronting of referential expressions
+
+
‒
Fronting of non referential expressions
‒
+
+
Obligatory subject-verb inversion
‒
+
‒
Unrestricted fronting of PP complements
‒
+
‒
Relative clause extraposition
‒
+
+
Licensing of expletive negation
‒
‒
+
Speaker’s attitude marks contrast with
‒
+
‒
assumed expectation state of the hearer
B) TWO GRAMMARS FOR CFF. Contemporary European Portuguese includes two grammars
with Contrastive Focus Fronting. One grammar is less restrictive regarding the array of
constituents that can be fronted. The other grammar constrains this operation, which can only
affect deictic expressions. In this more restrictive variant, CFF structures are comparable to
other grammatical structures of European Portuguese, which have in common the fact that
word order alternations may be limited to constituents containing deictic expressions:
a) Magro (2007) shows that clitic interpolation in contemporary European Portuguese dialects
is restricted to deictic expressions intervening in between the clitic pronoun and the verb.
b) Costa and Martins (2009, 2010) show that middle distance scrambling exists in European
Portuguese, but it is restricted to deictic locative expressions.
c) Martins (2010) shows that European Portuguese syntactically expresses metalinguistic
negation (MN) through unambiguous MN markers, but while a wide range of clause
peripheral MN markers is available, clause internal MN markers are limited to cá and lá
(literally here and there), endowed with deixis-related features. While peripheral MN markers
directly merge in Spec,CP, internal MN markers reach Spec,CP by movement.
17
What is common to all these domains is that, in all cases, the processes leading to word order
changes are restricted to deictic expressions. A deixis-related feature appears to be relevant
for triggering syntactic and post-syntactic (in the case of interpolation) displacement
operations. The deicitic feature appears to be relevant for the C-T system.
7. A feature-based analysis for the three-way distinction between topic, focus and
evaluative fronted constituents in European Portuguese
A) PROPOSAL
The relevant features for characterizing the three types of fronted constituents in European
Portuguese are [D-linked]/[deictic] and [evaluative]. These features codify basic semantic
distinctions and possibly determine how such distinctions interact with syntax. (Cf.
Remberger 2010, Menshing and Remberger 2010, and references therein).
Table 1: Fronted constituents in CFF, Topicalization and Evaluative exclamatives
Structure
Distinctive feature(s) of fronted constituents
Grammar A
Grammar B
Topicalization
[D-linked]
Evaluative exclamatives
[Evaluative]
Contrastive Focus
[D-linked, Evaluative]
[Deictic, Evaluative]
Fronting
It follows from this proposal that D-linked is involved both in Topicalization and in CFF
(Duarte 1997), in Grammars A and B, since deictic implies D-linked, a one-side implication.
This explains why these two constructions have often been hard to tease apart. Another
consequence of this proposal is that there is no need to argue for the syntactic relevance of
focus features, which is coherent with the findings of Costa (2010) and Kratzer and Selkirk
(2009), as it is shown in these works that the focalization effects obtain when the
interpretations generated via movement are read off at the interfaces.
B) CONSEQUENCES:
a) Subject-verb inversion is determined by the [Evaluative] feature
The last aspect involved in CFF we would like to emphasize is the obligatoriness of subjectverb inversion. It is legitimate to take this as an indication of T-to-C movement, as argued in
Ambar (1992). Since no T-to-C is involved in Topicalization (cf. Duarte 1987), it is possible
to contend that T-to-C is related to the evaluative feature, but not to the D-linked feature.
Inserting so-called focus adverbs, like até ‘even’ or só ‘only’ may be an alternative strategy
for licensing [evaluative] features, which would explain the fact that inversion is not
obligatory in the presence of such adverbs. Also negative words and the limited set of
quantificational and high-degree expressions required by Evaluative exclamatives might well
be alternative licensers, thus dispensing with V-to-C and making subject-verb inversion
optional (see footnote 8 and section 2.2.1).
18
(63) a. A NINGUÉM contarei eu essa história.
to no-one
will-tell
I
that story
b. A NINGUÉM eu contarei essa história.
to no-one
I
will-tell
that story
‘I won’t tell anybody what happened.’
(64) a. A
LISTA TELEFÓNICA leu o João
de
ponta
the list
telephonic
read the João from
end
b. *A LISTA TELEFÓNICA o
João leu de ponta a
the list
telephonic
the João read from end
to
‘John read THE PHONE LIST from end to end.’
c. {Até/ só}
a
lista telefónica o
João leu de
{even/ only} the list telephonic the João read from
‘Even/only the phone list John read from end to end.’
a ponta.
to end
ponta.
end
ponta a ponta.
end to end
b) The feature [evaluative] feeds while the feature [D-linked] blocks expletive negation.
c) The incompatibility of Evaluative exclamatives and possibly CFF constructions with
standard negation is also related to [evaluative], as Topicalization freely allows standard
negation. (Cf. González Rodríguez 2009 on negation in exclamative sentences)
d) The grammatical significance of the feature [deictic] in EP grammar is empirically well
established but rests poorly understood.
References
Ambar, Manuela 1992. Para Uma Sintaxe da Inversão Sujeito-Verbo em Português. Lisboa: Colibri.
Ambar, Manuela 1999. Aspects of the Syntax of Focus in Portuguese. In G. Rebuschi & L. Tuller
(eds.), The Grammar of Focus, 23-53. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Avesani, Cinzia and Mario Vayra 2003. Broad, narrow and contrastive focus in Florentine Italian.
Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS). 1803-1806,
Barcelona: UAB.
Barbosa, Pilar 1995. Null Subjects. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT dissertation.
Batllori, Montserrat & Mª. Lluïsa Hernanz (forthcoming). Weak Focus and Polarity: Asymmetries
between Spanish and Catalan. In Theresa Biberauer & George Walkden (eds), Syntax over Time:
Lexical, Morphological and Information Structural Interactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cardoso, Adriana 2010. Variation and Change in the Syntax of Relative Clauses. New Evidence from
Portuguese. Lisboa: Universty of Lisbon (FLUL) dissertation.
Cinque, Guglielmo 1990. Types of Ā-Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Costa, João 1998. Word Order Variation: A constraint-based approach. Leiden: HIL/Leiden
University dissertation.
Costa, João 2004. Subject Positions and the Interfaces: The Case of European Portuguese. Berlin &
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Costa, João. 2010. Prosodic prominence: a syntactic matter? In N. Erteschik-Shir & L. Rochman
(eds.), The Sound Patterns of Syntax, 93-109. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Costa, João & Ana Maria Martins 2009. Scrambling de média distância com advérbios locativos no
português contemporâneo. In A. Fiéis & M. A. Coutinho (eds.), Actas do XXIV Encontro Nacional
da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 225-237. Lisboa: APL. 225-237.
Costa, João & Ana Maria Martins 2010. Middle Scrambling with Deictic Locatives in European
Portuguese. In R. Bok-Bennema, B. Kampers-Manhe & B. Hollebrandse (eds.), Romance
Languages and Linguistic Theory 2008, 59-76. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
19
Culicover, Peter. 1991. Polarity, Inversion, and Focus in English. In G. Westphal, B. Ao, & H.-R.
Chae (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 1991),
46-68. Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.
Duarte, Inês 1987. A Construção de Topicalização na Gramática do Português. Lisboa: University of
Lisbon (FLUL) dissertation.
Duarte, Inês 1997. Ordem de palavras: sintaxe e estrutura discursiva. In A. M. Brito, F. Oliveira, I.
Pires de Lima & R. M. Martelo (eds.), Sentido que a Vida Faz. Estudos para Óscar Lopes, 581592. Porto: Campo das Letras.
Frota, Sónia 2000. Prosody and Focus in European Portuguese. Phonological Phrasing and
Intonation. New York: Garland.
Hernanz, Maria Lluïsa & José Maria Brucart 1987. La Sintaxis: Principios teóricos. La oración
simple. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica.
Kratzer, Angelika and Lisa Selkirk. 2009. Distinguishing contrastive, new and given information.
Paper presented at the Workshop on Prosody and Meaning. Barcelona: UAB.
http://prosodia.upf.edu/activitats/prosodyandmeaning/arxiu/kratzer_selkirk.pdf
Kuroda, S.-Y. 2005. Focusing on the matter of Topic: a study on wa and ga in Japanese. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 14.1-58.
Lasnik, Howard & Mamoru Saito 1992. Move α: Conditions on Its Application and Output.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Magro, Catarina. 2007. Clíticos: variações sobre o tema. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Lisbon.
Martins, Ana Maria 1994. Enclisis, VP-Ellipsis and the Nature of Sigma. Probus 6.173-205.
Martins, Ana Maria 1994. Clíticos na História do Português. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Lisbon.
Martins, Ana Maria 2010. Negação metalinguística (lá, lá e agora). In A. M. Brito, F. Silva, J. Veloso
& A. Fiéis (eds.), Actas do XXV Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 567587. Lisboa: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística.
Martins, Ana Maria (forthcoming). Deictic locatives, emphasis and metalinguistic negation. In
Charlotte Galves et al. (eds.), Diachronic Syntax: Parameter Theory and Dynamics of Change.
Oxford University Press.
Mascarenhas, Isabel. 2006. Evidências sintácticas e prosódicas para o estatutos do sujeitos pré-verbais
em PE. In Fátima Oliveira & Joaquim Barbosa (eds.), XXVI Encontro Nacional da Associação
Portuguesa de Linguística, 525-538. Lisboa: APL.
Mensching, Guido and Eva-Maria Remberger 2010. “The left periphery of Sardinian”. Syntactic
Variation. The Dialects of Italy, ed. by. Roberta D’Alessadro, Ian Roberts and Adam Ledgeway.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 261-276.
Prieto Vives, Pilar 2002. Entonació’. In J. Solà, M.ª R. Lloret, J. Mascaró & M. Pérez Saldanya (eds.),
Gramática del Català Contemporani. Volum 1: Introducció, Fonètica i Fonologia, Morfologia,
393-462. Barcelona: Empúries.
Raposo, Eduardo 1995. Próclise, ênclise e posição do verbo em português europeu. In J. Camilo dos
Santos and F. G. Williams (eds.), O Amor das Letras e das Gentes: In honor of Maria de Lourdes
Belchior Pontes, 455-481. Santa Barbara, California: Center for Portuguese Studies. UCSB.
Raposo, Eduardo 2000. Clitic Positions and Verb Movement. In J. Costa (ed.), Portuguese Syntax.
New Comparative Studies, 266-297. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Remberger, Eva-Maria 2010. “Left Peripheral Interactions in Romance”. Paper delivered at:
Workshop on “Focus, Contrast and Givenness in Interaction with Extraction and Deletion”.
Tübingen, SFB 833-A7, 26-27 March 2010.
Rouveret, A. 1999. Clitics, Subjects and Tense in European Portuguese. In Clitics in the Languages of
Europe, ed. H. van Riemsdijk, 639-677. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rizzi, Luigi 1997. The fine structure of the left-periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of
Grammar: Handobook of Generative Syntax, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rouveret, Alain. 1992. Clitic Placement, Focus and the Wackernagel Position in European Portuguese,
Eurotyp Working Papers [Theme Group 8: Clitics], Volume 3, 103-139.
Said Ali, Manuel 1966 [1908]. Dificuldades da Língua Portuguesa. Rio de Janeiro: Livr. Acadêmica.
Selkirk, E. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS vs. Presentational Focus: Prosodic evidence from right node
raising in English. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Speech Prosody, 643-646.
Aix-en-Provence.
20
Torrego, E. 1984. “On Inversion in Spanish and Some of its Effects”. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 103-127.
Viana, Céu 1987. Para a Síntese da Entoação do Português. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Lisbon.
Zimmermann, Malte 2007. Contrastive Focus, In C. G. Fanselow & M. Krifka (eds.), The Notion of
Information Structure = Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6.147-159.
Zimmermann, Malte and Edgar Onea 2011. “Focus marking and focus interpretation”. Lingua 2011:
1651-1670.
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa 1999. Las funciones informativas: Tema y foco. In Ignacio Bosque &
Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, Vol. 3, 4215-4244.
Madrid: Espasa.
ANNEX 1: The term ‘Topicalization’: some quotations
It is not entirely clear that (24a) [Un viaje a las Canarias hizo Antonio este verano] and (25a) [Un
edificio de dos pisos derrumbaron los albañiles] are the Spanish equivalent of a Topicalization
construction. (...) In Torrego (1980), I claimed that the data presented by Rivero as illustrative of
Spanish Topicalization do not constitute a unified phenomenon. I based this conclusion primarily on
the facts of inversion (although in that paper I did not establish a correlation between Wh Movement
and obligatory inversion). The interaction between Wh Movement and V-Preposing shown to hold for
Spanish confirms that my observation was correct. Frontings such as (24a) and (25a) might be
considered Wh-focus constructions. (Torrego 1984:110)
As mentioned in chapter 1, topicalization could more appropriately be termed Focus Movement in
Italian, since its left-peripheral phrase obligatorily bears heavy stress, its pragmatic function being to
contrast the “topicalized” constituent with some other constituent. I nonetheless retain the term
topicalization here to emphasize its syntactic identity to the English construction (though the
pragmatics of the latter is indeed closer to that of CLLD in Italian...) For the sake of clarity, I will
continue to capitalize topicalized constituents. (Cinque 1990:180-181)
…the presence of an empty operator in topicalization is tied to the quantificational force of the
construction, which involves the “fronting” of a focused element, in Italian. (Cinque 1990:81)
A traditional articulation of the clause that typically involves the left periphery is the articulation in
topic and comment, as expressed by the English construction referred to as Topicalization [Your book,
you should give t to Paul (not to Bill)] (…). Formally similar but interpretatively very different is the
focus-presupposition articulation [YOUR BOOK you should give t to Paul (not mine)] (…). In Italian
and more generally in Romance, the topic-comment articulation is typically expressed by the
construction that Cinque (1990) has called Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD), involving a resumptive
clitic coreferential to the topic (…). The focus-presupposition articulation can be expressed in Italian
by preposing the focal element (focalization) and assigning it special focal stress (…). In Italian this
option is restricted to contrastive focus (…). [IL TUO LIBRO ho letto (, non il suo)] could not be
felicitously uttered as conveying non-contrastive new information, i.e. as an answer to the question
“What did you read?”. Other languages use the clause-initial position for non-contrastive focus as well
(Hungarian …; Albanian …; Greek …). Some other languages (e.g. French) do not seem to use a
structural focus position, at least in the overt syntax (Spanish seems to have a focus construction
similar to the Italian one). (Rizzi 1997:285-286.
It should be noted here that my terminology is slighty diferente from Cinque’s: he follows the
traditional terminology in using the term “Topicalization” to refer to the English constructions (1)
[Your book, you should give to Paul (not to Bill)] and (2) [YOUR BOOK you should give to Paul (not
mine)]; he then extends this term to cover the Italian construction (4) [IL TUO LIBRO ho letto (, non
ilsuo)]. I try to avoid the term Topicalization, and refer to (1) and (3) [Il tuo libro, lo ho letto] as Topic
(Comment) structures and to (2) and (4) as Focus (Presupposition) structures. (Rizzi 1997:328)
21
ANNEX 2: Middle scrambling with deictic locatives in European Portuguese (Costa & Martins
While lá-type locatives can become left-adjacent to the verb by moving to Spec,TP, this position is not
accessible to other locative constituents:
(1)
a. O
Pedro já
para lá
vai.
the Pedro already/soon to
there goes
‘Peter is ready to go there.’
b. *O Pedro já
para Lisboa vai.
the Pedro already/soon to
Lisbon goes
‘Peter is ready to go to Lisbon.’
c. *O Pedro já
longe vai.
the Pedro already far
goes
“Peter is far away already.”
(2)
a. O
Pedro já
lá
vai a casa.
the Pedro already/soon there goes to house
“Peter is ready to go to his/her/their/our house.”
b. *O Pedro já
lá
a casa
vai.
the Pedro already/soon there to house goes
Lá-type locatives denote a location identified with respect to the speaker’s location at the utterance
time (see (3)). The special link between Tense and lá-type locatives is rooted in their similar nature as
speaker-anchored and utterance-anchored deictics.
(3)
Ontem
Yesterday
ele esteve lá
comigo.
he was
there with.me
Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (2000) analyse Tense and Aspect as dyadic predicates projecting a
maximal projection in the syntax and establishing an ordering relation between its two time-denoting
arguments. The external argument of Tense (T0) is a reference time, the utterance-time (UT-T); its
internal argument is the assertion time (AST-T). The utterance time (UT-T) plays a central role in the
interpretation of lá-type locatives. The syntactic locus of the UT-T argument is Spec,TP. It now seems
less enigmatic that Spec,TP might be the target of movement of this very particular type of
speaker/utterance-anchored deictic locatives. Seemingly, temporal and spatial anchoring can work
together as far as the right kind of deictic locatives is available.
(4)
* [P (Subjwithout polarity features) [[+aff] [TP loc [(cl) [ V+T]] ...
(5)
a. Ele telefonou
he
called
b. *Ele para lá
he to
there
‘He called there.’
para lá.
to
there
telefonou.
called
c. Ele já
para lá
telefonou. (optional scrambling)
he
already to
there called
‘He has already called there.’
(6)
a. Ele telefonou-me.
he
called-me
b. *Ele me telefonou.
he me called
‘He called me.’
c. Ele já
me telefonou. (obligatory proclisis)
he
already me called
‘He has already called me.’
22
ANNEX 3: Unambiguous Metalinguistic Negation (MN) markers in EP
Horn (1989:363): MN is as “a device for objecting to a previous utterance on any grounds
whatever”, which “focuses, not on the truth or falsity of a proposition, but on the assertability
of an utterance”. It is rectification part of the sentences in (1) that undoes their interpretative
ambiguity, because the same negative marker expresses ordinary negation and MN.
(1)
a. A: Some men are chauvinists.
B Some men aren’t chauvinists – all men are chauvinists.
b. A: He is meeting a woman this evening.
B: No, he’s not (meeting a woman this evening) – he’s meeting his wife!
c. A: Were you a little worried?
B: I wasn’t a little worried, my friend; I was worried sick.
Horn (1989: 362ff.)
Generally in the world’s languages the standard predicative negation marker may express MN
as well. But languages also express MN through certain sentence-peripheral idiomatic
expressions, which lexically vary from language to language but nonetheless display a similar
syntax across languages:
(2)
a. Al and Hilary are married my eye.
b. Like hell Al and Hilary are married
(3)
c. Eles são casados uma ova.
they are married a
roe
d. Uma ova é que são casados.
a
roe is that are married
‘They are married my eye.’
(cf. Drozd 2001:55)
Sentence-peripheral idiomatic expressions such as like hell, my eye, etc. appear to be crosslinguistically available as a means to express metalinguistic negation. European Portuguese
exhibits a less trivial trait as it displays not only sentence-peripheral MN markers (e.g., uma
ova ‘a roe’) but also MN markers that are placed sentence-internally (like lá, originated from
the deictic locative ‘there’, and agora, originated from the temporal adverb ‘now’):
(4)
A: Estás um pouco preocupado?
are-2SG a
little
worried
‘Are you a little worried?’
B: Estou lá/agora
um pouco preocupado,
am
MN-marker a
little
worried
‘I’m not a little worried, I am worried sick.’
estou morto
am dead
de preocupação.
of worry
(5) Standard tests for MN:
(i) MN does not license negative polarity items (NPIs)
(ii) MN is compatible with (strong) positive polarity items (PPIs)
(iii) MN requires licensing by discourse/pragmatic context
(6)
a. ??He isn’t {pretty/somewhat/rather} tall.
b. A: He is {pretty/somewhat/rather} tall.
B: He isn’t {pretty/somewhat/rather} tall – he’s humongous.
(7)
A: Chris managed to solve some problems.
B: a. Chris didn’t manage to solve any problems.
b. Chris didn’t manage to solve {some/*any problems} – he solved them easily.
(8)
A: You still love me.
B: Like hell I {still love you / *love you anymore}.
23
EUROPEAN PORTUGUESE DEICTICS AS MN MARKERS
Test (iii): MN requires licensing by discourse/pragmatic context
(9)
a. Hoje
não estás
com boa cara. O
que se.passa?
today not are-2SG with good face. the what is-going-on
b. *Hoje estás
lá/agora
com boa cara. O
que se.passa?
today are-2SG MN-marker with good face. the what is-going-on
‘You don’t look good today. What happened?’
Test (ii): MN requires licensing by discourse/pragmatic context
(10) a. Tiveste uma sorte
do
diabo.
had-2SG a
good-luck of-the devil
‘So lucky you were!’
b. *Não tiveste uma sorte
do
diabo. (out-of-the-blue declarative)
not
had-2SG a
good-luck of-the devil
‘You were not that lucky.’
c. *Tiveste uma sorte
do
diabo?
had-2SG a good-luck of-the devil
‘Were you really lucky?’
d. Tive
lá/agora
uma sorte
do
diabo. (as a reply to (10a))
had-1SG MN-marker a
good-luck of-the devil
‘I wasn’t so lucky. ’
Test (i): MN does not license negative polarity items (NPIs)
(11) A:
Tu é que conheces uma pessoa que sabe
arranjar
isto.
you is that know-2SG a
person that knows fix-INFIN this
‘You do know someone that can fix this.’
B: a. Eu não conheço ninguém que saiba arranjar
isso.
I
not know-1SG nobody
that knows fix-INFIN that
b. Eu conheço lá/agora
alguém/*ninguém que saiba arranjar isso.
I
know-1SG MN-marker somebody/*nobody that knows fix that
‘I don’t know anyone who can fix that.’
(12) A:
Hoje
vais
sair
comigo.
today go-2SG go-out with-me
‘Today we are going out together.’
B: a. Eu não saio
contigo
nem
morta.
I
not go-out-1SG with-you not-even dead
b. *Eu saio
lá/agora
contigo
nem
morta.
I
go-out-1SG MN-marker with-you not-even dead
‘No way I will go out with you.’
(13) A:
Eu sei
que tu
gostas de marisco.
I
know-1SG that you like-2SG of seafood
B: a. Eu não gosto de marisco de todo.
I
not like-1SG of seafood at all
b. *Eu gosto lá/agora
de marisco de todo.
I
like-1SG MN-marker of seafood at all
‘I don’t like seafood at all.’
24