Constraints on subjects : an optimality theoretic analysis
Vieri Samek-Lodovici1996, Doctoral thesis, UNSPECIFIED.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
This dissertation argues for an Optimality Theoretic analysis of null subjecthood, subject inversion, agreement and structural case assignment. It does so on the basis of the hypothesis that an analysis in terms of the interaction of violable, conflicting constraints adds to the deductive structure of linguistic explanations while simplifying the definition of the relevant syntactic modules. Among the most relevant results is a unified analysis of the crosslinguistic and language-internal distribution of null and inverted subjects. An initial investigation shows that subjects are null when referring to antecedents with topic status, and inverted when focused, a result formalized through the constraints DROPTOPIC and ALIGNFOCUS. The interaction between these constraints and the constraints SUBJECT and PARSE, favoring subjects in preverbal subject position, determines the distribution of null subjects language-internally and crosslinguistically, eliminating the need for an independent pro-drop parameter (Grimshaw & Samek-Lodovici 1995). My deepest gratitude goes to Jane Grimshaw and Alan Prince. They have splendid minds, and attending their courses and doing research with them has always been brain storming, refreshing, and simply wonderful. But what I feel most grateful for is their ability to accompany their enthusiasm for linguistic research with much humanity, always finding the time, the words, and the smiles, to encourage, help, and understand. I often feel they taught me more than linguistics. Jane has also inspired many of the ideas in this dissertation. In particular, I owe to her the intuition of the potential of an Optimality Theoretic approach to Syntax, and countless hours spent helping me identifying anything good or problematic hidden in my OT analyses. And of course, without Alan's teaching and advice on OT during these years, this dissertation would not have been possible. I also greatly benefited from the advice of the members of my committee. The meetings with Ken Safir, Richard Kayne and Maria Bittner were always highly rewarding experiences. Ken Safir and Richard Kayne's suggestions and remarks on null subjects, subject inversion, agreement and case assignment left me with enough material for a second dissertation, and I am very grateful for this. I am also very grateful to Maria Bittner for all I learnt from her on the syntax and semantics of focusing.
Related papers
Multiple Subject Positions: A Case ofPerfect Match between Syntax and Prosody
2011
The question of where in the sentence nominative arguments can appear has been well studied within the fields of syntax (e.g. Heycock 1993; Tateishi 1994; Ura 1996 for Japanese) and semantics (e.g. Diesing 1992; Kratzer 1996 for English and German). Most of the debate has centered around the issue of whether a nominative phrase has to be licensed in SpecTP (e.g. Chomsky 1991) or if it may remain in its base position (i.e. internal to vP/VP, Agree model in Chomsky 2000). In particular, it has been suggested, for several languages such as German, Greek, Japanese and Turkish, that, in these languages, certain subjects might be vP/VP-internal, never raising to SpecTP (see e.g. Haider 2005 and Wurmbrand 2006 for German; Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2001 for Greek; Tateishi 1994 for Japanese; Kornfilt 1984 and Öztürk 2004, 2005 for Turkish). In this paper, we provide, for the first time, prosodic evidence in support of this position: We show, focusing on Turkish, that, in this language, tw...
English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar, by Michael S. Rochemont and Peter W. Culicover, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990, vii+210 pp
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, 1992
Reviewed by TADAO MARUTA, Yamagata University* *I am grateful to Jun Abe, Toru Suzuki, and two anonymous reviewers of English Linguistics for helpful comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are my own.
Michael S. Rochemont and Peter W. Culicover. English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. VII + 210
Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 1992
An invitation to OT syntax and semantics
Lingua, 2007
This brief introduction to the volume compares models of grammaticality based on the simultaneous satisfaction of all UG constraints (e.g. Principles and Parameters, Minimalism) with models based on constraint conflict (e.g. Optimality Theory). It examines the consequences that these alternative definitions have on the analysis of crosslinguistic variation, economy of movement, and the conflict between economy of movement and economy of structure. In particular it shows how the desire to keep a simple definition of grammaticality (i.e. one based on simultaneous constraint satisfaction) is paid by the hidden complexity of economy principles and the theory-internal split separating the theoretical components addressing variation from those addressing linguistic universals, making variation accidental. In contrast, defining grammaticality on the base of constraint conflict roots variation into UG while keeping constraint complexity at check. A brief survey of the articles collected in this volume completes this introduction.
Topicality in Sentence Focus Utterances [FORTHCOMING in Studies in Language]
Studies in Language, 2020
Focus and newness are distinct features. The fact that subconstituents of focus can be given or discourse-old has been pointed out in Selkirk (1984) and Lambrecht (1994). Nevertheless, when it comes to Sentence Focus, it is still common to equate Focus with newness, and to treat SF sentences as necessarily all-new. One of the reasons for such bias is that formally or typologically oriented descriptions of SF tend to analyze only intransitive ‘out of the blue’ SF utterances stemming from elicitation. Based on SF utterances in natural speech in Kakabe, a Western Mande language, the present study shows that in natural speech SF utterances are associated with a rich array of discourse strategies. Accordingly, the discourse properties of the referents inside SF are subject to variation and affect the implementation of the focus-marking. The study also shows how the discourse properties of referents define the distribution of the focus marker in Kakabe.
Topic, Focus, and Exhaustive Interpretation
2017
In this paper, we propose that a sentence like John \(_T\) ate broccoli \(_F\) should pragmatically be interpreted as follows: (a) Focus should be interpreted exhaustively; John ate only broccoli; (b) Topic must be interpreted exhaustively: Only John ate (only) broccoli; and (c) The speaker takes it to be possible (or even knows, if he is competent) that at least one alternative of the form x ate y not entailed by the sentence is true. It will be shown that in terms of this analysis we can also account for all the scope-inversion data of Buring (Linguist Philos 20: 175–194, 1997), without giving rise to some of the problems of the latter analysis.
Subjects, nominative case, agreement and functional heads
Lingua, 1993
We thank Jaqueline Gueron and Barbara Vance for helpful comments on an earlier draft, Halldor Sigurasson for a discussion of Icelandic and for his native speaker judgements, and Martin Everaert for helping us to find the literature we needed on Icelandic. 0024-3841/93/$06.00 0 1993 -Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved restricted however, to environments where the complementizer is selected by the matrix verb, cf.
Null and overt subjects at the syntax-discourse interface
Referential expressions such as definite descriptions and pronouns are crucial to the processes of language comprehension and production. Understanding which definite description a pronoun refers to, and knowing when to use a pronoun instead of a definite description, are integral to a speaker's linguistic competence, and a fundamental aspect of language development.
Towards a typology of focus: Subject position and microvariation at the discourse-syntax interface
Ampersand: An International Journ al of General and Applied Linguistics, 2015
In this work I explore the different discourse-syntax interface properties of focus fronting in Standard Spanish (SS) and Southern Peninsular Spanish (SPS) including Andalusian and Extremaduran varieties. In SS it is taken for granted that in focus fronting the verb is obligatorily adjacent to the preposed constituent. I show that this is not the case in SPS, where this condition is optional. I carry out an analysis of three types of foci which involve movement to the left periphery (contrastive focus, mirative focus and quantifier fronting) and one type of topic (resumptive preposing). Discourse, syntactic, and semantic properties are taken into account to illustrate this typology. Crucially, only contrastive and mirative focus contexts allow for preverbal subjects in SPS, which are proposed to be Given Topics in this variety. On the other hand, resumptive preposing is shown to entail a case of topic fronting. I use different experiments with empirical data and judgements by native speakers to test my proposal that focus-verb (or topic-verb) adjacency is subject to microparametric variation in Spanish. Keywords: contrastive focus, mirative focus, resumptive preposing, quantifier fronting, preverbal subjects, topics
Related topics
Related papers
Fronting: The Syntax and Pragmatics of Focus and Topic
UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2000
We argue on conceptual and empirical grounds that there are no dedicated Topic and Focus heads. Instead, we postulate two semantically trivial heads, Gap and Φon, which may be merged in the left periphery, with distinct syntactic and morphological properties. Gap is a Case assigner; Φon morphologically selects for the PF-interpretable part of some sign. These heads can be exploited to front phrases which may be pragmatically interpreted as topic or focus. We further argue that the two fronting mechanisms postulated can explain certain properties of NPI licensing in English, where Copy Movement, with or without movement in the PF component, cannot. * We would like to thank Enoch Aboh for help with data. This paper is an expansion of one we gave to the Conference on the Interaction between Syntax and Pragmatics, and we would like to thank members of the audience for questions and discussion. Comments on this paper would be welcome.
Consequences of a syntactic, predicative focus-marking system (2013)
Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 2013
Using original data from Nɬeʔkepmxcín (Thompson River Salish; Thompson 1992, 1996) to illustrate, this paper explores some semantic and syntactic consequences of a purely predicative syntactic focus-marking strategy. If focus is marked on the clausal predicate, and never on argument positions, then there are necessary consequences for other areas of the grammar. I discuss two such consequences in this paper. First, focus sensitive expressions like only must be purely adverbial, and never adnominal. Secondly, since there is one predicate per clause, there can only be one focus per clause. I outline several strategies to deal with discourse contexts which, at least in English, involve multiple foci. Finally, I conclude by suggesting some further potential consequences of a predicative focus-marking system.
On the Position of Nominative Subjects in Contemporary English
LTML No 18, 2022
In contemporary English, it is assumed that the structural position of nominative subjects, i.e., grammatical subjects of finite sentences, is [Spec. IP]1 (Pollock 1989; Belletti 1990; Chomsky 1991, 1993, 1995; Rizzi 1997; Radford 2009; Puskás 2013; Rouveret 2018, inter alia). What this means is that subjects with nominative Case do not move higher than the inflectional domain or IP in contemporary English. Nevertheless, if it is assumed following Reinhart (1981), Lambrecht (1994), Laenzlinger (2006), and Frascarelli (2007) that nominative subjects constitute another category of topics, then, this type of subjects must be defined by a topic feature ([+topic]) and give rise to a topic head (top) in accordance with the One Feature One Head (OFOH) principle2 (Starke 2009). Needless to say that if nominative subjects are considered as topics in contemporary English, this implies that their structural position is higher than IP, namely in CP. As a consequence, this paper aims at showing that the position of nominative subjects in contemporary English is the specifier of topP, a projection in the CP system (as opposed to TopP (or left(ward) dislocation)). Keywords: Topic feature, Nominative Case, One Feature One Head, Agreement, Movement.
Focus types and argument asymmetries: a cross-linguistic study in language production
2010
The effects of focus on syntax differ across languages: some languages encode focus in situ, while in other languages focus induces an array of constructions that deviate from the canonical configuration, such as noncanonical orders or clefts. This article presents semi-spontaneously produced data from American English, Québec French, Hungarian, and Georgian that shows exactly that speakers of these languages select different structures in identical discourse conditions. The observed cross-linguistic differences are accounted for by means of grammatical properties of the object languages that hold independently of information structure. This account leads to the conclusion that a non-compositional mapping between information structural concepts and structural configurations is an unnecessary complication of the grammatical model.
A comparative syntactic review of null-subject parameter in English and Ịzọn
The theory of universal grammar relies predominantly on the biolinguistic concept of natural endowment and innate knowledge of the general principles of language. It postulates that all humans are naturally endowed with the general rules and configurations of language and to this extent, all natural languages have similar structural features. The theory of universal grammar as hypothesized by Chomsky and propagated by other linguists not only recognizes the universality of the general principles of language but also the existence of language-specific idiosyncratic features that constitute parametric variations among languages. These are the parameters of universal grammar. The most prominent parameters that create distinctions between languages are head directionality, pro-drop or null-subject and wh- parameters. This paper reviews the null-subject parameter in English and juxtaposes its occurrence or non-occurrence in the Ịzọn language. The aim of the paper is to characterize the parametric choices by English and Ịzọn languages in the derivation of grammatically convergent sentences with null-subject constituents. The study is competence-based and used data from tokens of sentences in conversation among competent native speakers of Ịzọn language. Data from each language were translated into the other via a gloss and comparatively analysed. The study reveals that null-subject constituent is not a characteristic feature of English syntax but a feature of Ịzọn syntax. The study is significant because it contributes fresh linguistic data for the principles and parameter theory. Key words: Universal grammar, principles and parameters, parametric variations, null-subject, English, Ịzọn, syntactic.
Focus in Existential Sentences (2012)
Starting from the question of the extension of the focus in existential constructions, this paper primarily aims to draw up a classification of both genuine and spurious types of existential sentences in Italian. Four major types will be identified: (I) existential sentences, (II) inverse locatives, (III) deictic locatives, and (IV) presentational sentences. It will be shown that this classification may shed new light on the apparent differences between Italian and other languages, such as English, with regard to well-known phenomena and restrictions such as the definiteness effects. The pragmatic, semantic, and syntactic properties of the elements occurring in this construction will be examined with respect to each type of sentence identified. Following the cartographic approach, the existence of particular structures in Italian (types II and III) will be analysed in terms of discourse-related syntactic operations associated with designated functional projections within the clause, such as the focalization of postverbal subjects and the dislocation of old-information constituents. Type IV, instead, will be argued to be the result of a process of grammaticalization peculiar to Italian and, at least synchronically, unrelated to genuine existential sentences. A Luigi, a cui sono sinceramente grato e riconoscente per tutto ciò che mi ha trasmesso e insegnato
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.