Lecture 10 Topic Focus and Negative Fronting ADVANCED

Lecture 10: Topic, Focus and Negative Fronting ADVANCED SYNTAX

THE LEFT PERIPHERY So far we have seen that the front of the clause is reserved for the part of sentence semantics that deals with force Interrogative/declarative/exclamative/etc. This is where complementisers, inverted auxiliaries and wh-elements are situated [CP if/that [IP he is alive]] will [IP he arrive on time]] [CP who did [IP you speak to]] [CP what a nice house [IP you have]]

THE LEFT PERIPHERY But the front of the clause also houses other elements too: Those people, [IP I don’t talk to anymore] A: did you see Bill? B: no, (it was) JOHN [IP I saw] Under no circumstances would [IP I lie to you] All these examples involve the front of the clause (in front of the IP at least), but they do not contribute to the force of the sentence Instead they seem to affect the information status of the fronted element How important a piece of information it is What kind of information it carries

TOPICALISATION Topicalisation is the name of the fronting movement in the following examples John, I hate In this school, we pay attention to rules Ugly, he certainly was

A TERMINOLOGICAL NOTE Topic is a notion usually defined as what a sentence is about Perhaps more accurately it is what a set of connected sentences (discourse) is about what holds them together A man walked into a shop The shopkeeper greeted him The man asked for a pound of cheese He paid the shopkeeper and left

A TERMINOLOGICAL NOTE Therefore, the topic is something that has already been introduced into a conversation Or is assumed to be present (and to the fore) in both the speaker and hearers mind during the conversation even if it hasn’t actually be mentioned Certain things can be ‘triggered’ by the mention of something else We went to a restaurant yesterday The food was awful

A TERMINOLOGICAL NOTE We say that the topic carries ‘old’ information What follows the topic (the comment) carries the new information

A TERMINOLOGICAL NOTE We can see from our story that the topic is associated with certain forms A man walked into a shop The shopkeeper greeted him The man asked for a pound of cheese He paid the shopkeeper and left Pronouns Definite DPs However, topics are not necessarily fronted Why is the fronting movement called ‘topicalisation’?

A TERMINOLOGICAL NOTE Unfortunately this is a misnomer and has caused some confusion ever since its introduction But the name has become standard and so we seem to be stuck with it

THE REAL NATURE OF TOPICALISATION To be fronted, an element not only needs to be a topic but it also must involve contrast Contrast involves the comparison between at least two things So contrastive topics involve the presupposition of a set of topics things that have been previously introduced, or ‘triggered’ in a conversation The speaker selects one of this set and contrasts it with the others in the comment

THE REAL NATURE OF TOPICALISATION Three men went into a shop One of them, the shopkeeper already knew This implies that he didn’t know the other two Because ‘the shopkeeper knew him’ is given as a piece of information contrasting with the other two men

THE SYNTAX OF TOPICALISATION Obviously a contrastive topic is moved to the front of the clause But where does it move to? A first idea is that it moves to the specifier of CP The But so same place that the wh-phrase moves to there are reasons to believe that this is not

THE SYNTAX OF TOPICALISATION There can be more than one contrastive topic In this school, this kind of behaviour we will not tolerate There can only be one fronted wh-phrase * who where did you meet? Who did you meet where? A contrastive topic can precede a wh-phrase In this town, where can I buy some shoes? In embedded clauses, the contrastive topic follows the complementiser I said that, in this town, there are no shoeshops

THE SYNTAX OF TOPICALISATION If the topic moves to a specifier position of some phrase, the fact that there can be more than one of them indicates that there must be more than one such phrase

THE SYNTAX OF TOPICALISATION It has been suggested that the particular phrase involved is one dedicated to topicalisation, headed by an abstract ‘topic’ head

THE SYNTAX OF TOPICALISATION Evidence in favour of this idea is that some languages overtly realise this abstract topic marker: Japanese kodomo ga Terebi o mita child nom TV acc watched “the child watched the TV” Terebi wa kodomo ga mita TV top child nom watched “as for the TV, the child watched it”

THE SYNTAX OF TOPICALISATION However, we need to ask what category the ‘Top’ head belongs to It takes CP, IP and Top. P complements [Top. P that idiot Top [CP who would [IP vote for]]] . . . [CP that [Top. P this man Top [IP I just can’t stand]]] [Top. P in this place Top [Top. P this behaviour Top [CP we don’t like]] So it is not like a functional head C IP I VP D NP Deg AP

THE SYNTAX OF TOPICALISATION But it is not a predicate, taking arguments So It it is not like any thematic head is a head which is nothing like any other head This means it cannot be analysed with the categorial features [±F, ±N, ±V] This is a problem for theory of categories

THE SYNTAX OF TOPICALISATION Another possible analysis is that the topic is in an adjunction structure This accounts for why there can be more than one of them There would be no abstract ‘topic’ head required

THE SYNTAX OF TOPICALISATION We know that adjunction movements are possible When Given a head moves to another head, it adjoins to it that the topic is a phrase, it makes sense that it will adjoin to another phrase (CP, IP, etc. )

ADJUNCTION SITE OF THE TOPIC We have seen that topics can precede whphrases and follow complementisers This button, who wants to press? I think that, this button, the president shouldn’t press In the first case the topic must be adjoined to the CP and in the second it must be adjoined to IP

ADJUNCTION SITE OF THE TOPIC

LIMITS ON THE TOPIC ADJUNCTION SITE However, it appears that it is not optional whether the topic adjoins to CP or IP A topic cannot adjoin to the IP of a main clause: * when did, [IP that man, [IP you meet]] A topic cannot adjoin to the CP of an embedded clause: * I think, [CP that man, [CP that I don’t like]]

ACCOUNT OF LIMITS One way to describe all this is: The topic has to adjoin to the highest possible clausal node Usually this is CP But nothing can adjoin to the CP of an embedded clause Because this CP is selected by a governing head Therefore, in this case, it has to adjoin to the next highest clausal node i. e. The IP

MORE LIMITS ON TOPICALISATION It is hard to see whether a subject can topicalise because it is already at the front of the clause: Even if the subject is of an embedded clause it is difficult to tell: ? John, hates Bill John, I think, hates Bill Does this involve topicalisation of the subject or an epenthetic comment? John hates Bill, I think

MORE LIMITS ON TOPICALISATION: SUBJECTS However, a subject does not precede a wh-phrase in a main clause This suggests that subject cannot topicalise But the subject of an embedded clause can precede a wh-phrase in the main clause That man, who thinks likes Mary This cannot be treated as an epenthetic comment Who does John like * John, who does like * that man likes Mary, who thinks So it is only the subject of the main clause that cannot topicalise

MORE LIMITS ON TOPICALISATION: DPS We have seen that there can be more than one topic In this town, gun slingers, the sheriff shoots However, it is not possible to have more than one DP topic * Mary, flowers, I gave This is very odd and has no obvious explanation

TOPICALISATION AND ADVERBIALS We have seen that adverbials of all kinds (VP and sentential) can occupy the initial position This looks like the topic position It is at the front of the clause It has a similar intonation pattern While it can have the same contrastive meaning that topics do: Quickly, he hid the evidence Obviously, I had never seen him before Today, we will start on a new project But this isn’t always the case He suddenly realised the time Suddenly, he realised the time

TOPICALISATION AND ADVERBIALS It seems that these are two different processes: Today, who wants to go first * suddenly, who realised their mistake Who did suddenly John realise was missing Fronted adverbs therefore seem to adjoin to the IP, even in main clauses Adverbs can be topicalised (adjoined to CP in main clauses), but only if contrastive

OTHER KINDS OF TOPICALISATION: LEFT DISLOCATION This involves a fronted element and a ‘resumptive pronoun’ in the place associated with it That man, I don’t like him Given that there is a pronoun in this kind of structure, it is not easily analysed as involving movement Moreover, subjects can be left dislocated My father, he doesn’t like cats

OTHER KINDS OF TOPICALISATION: LEFT DISLOCATION The meaning of a left dislocation structure is also different from topicalisation It is mainly used to introduce a new topic rather than to contrast a set of established topics A: well, that’s life! M: life, don’t talk to me about that

OTHER KINDS OF TOPICALISATION: LEFT DISLOCATION A dislocated item is adjoined in the same place as a topic: CP of a main clause [CP IP My idea, [CP what do you think about it]] of an embedded clause I assumed that, [IP my father, [IP he wouldn’t like it]]

OTHER KINDS OF TOPICALISATION: AS FOR TOPICS There is a construction which seems to be a mixture of contrastive topicalisation and left dislocation: As for my wife, she didn’t leave the house The fronted element is a contrastive topic But the structure also involves a resumptive pronoun As subjects can appear as ‘as for’ topics, this is how we can contrastively topicalise a subject in English They are adjoined like other topics As for this idiot, why would anyone vote for him I think that, as for me, I wouldn’t buy his car

FOCUS Consider the following: A: you’ve met Bill, haven’t you? B: no, JOHN I know, but not Bill Obviously the fronted element (JOHN) is contrastive

FOCUS But It it is not a topic carries new information it corrects something that was wrongly believed So it is new to the hearer It has a different intonation pattern to the topic It carries more stress There is no pause after it John, I know JOHN I know

FOCUS Something that introduces new and important information is called a focus In English, focus is usually marked by intonation alone – main stress: A: who did you meet? B I met BILL A: who knows the answer B: JOHN knows the answer

FOCUS But it can be fronted, particularly if it is strongly contrastive (as in corrective situations) A: who did you meet B: I met BILL : ? ? ? BILL I met A: you met John B: no, BILL I met : no, I met BILL

THE SYNTAX OF FOCUS FRONTING Unlike topicalisation, only one fronted focus is allowed: A: you met John at his house B: * no, IN THE PARK BILL I met This suggests that this movement is not an adjunction Therefore it moves the focus into a specifier position But which one?

THE SYNTAX OF FOCUS FRONTING The fronted focus position precedes the subject The obvious candidate would be specifier of CP This is supported by the fact that fronted foci and wh-phrases are in complementary distribution: * BILL who met But against this hypothesis is the fact that fronted foci follow complementisers I said that BILL I met

THE SYNTAX OF FOCUS FRONTING There are independent reasons why wh-elements and foci cannot appear in the same sentence You can’t ask for new information and provide new information in the same sentence This is shown by the ungrammaticality of the following, which doesn’t involve focus fronting: * who likes BILL All in all, then, we can assume that the fronted focus does not move to the specifier of CP There must be another phrase between the CP and the IP

THE SYNTAX OF FOCUS FRONTING What heads this phrase? What is its category?

THE SYNTAX OF FOCUS FRONTING We know that C takes an IP complement But the phrase containing the fronted focus cannot be IP as There can be no extra inflection * BILL will I may meet Inflections take VP (or v. P) complements, not IP

THE SYNTAX OF FOCUS FRONTING A possible solution: similar to the ‘little v’ there is a ‘little i’ V = [-F, +V, -N] v = [+V, -N] I = [+F, +V, -N] i = [+F, +V] Complementisers select for a [+F, +V, -N] complement IP and i. P satisfy this requirement

THE SYNTAX OF FOCUS FRONTING However, ‘i’ is never overtly realised, so we have no direct evidence of its existence

NEGATIVE FRONTING Negative phrases can be moved to the front of the clause [Not a single person] have I seen all day Note that there is an inverted auxiliary in this structure Perhaps the fronted negative moves to the specifier of CP

NEGATIVE FRONTING But like Foci, fronted negatives follow complementisers I said that [under no circumstances] was the money to be spent So it seems as though the relevant position is specifier of i. P Note that the inverted auxiliary occupies the ‘i’ position This is overt evidence for its existence

FOCUS AND NEGATIVE FRONTING The question arises If both foci and fronted negatives move to specifier of i. P, why is the inversion only with fronted negatives? The difference between negatives and foci are that negatives affect the type of clauses they are part of

FOCUS AND NEGATIVE FRONTING Something happened, didn’t it Nothing happened, did it Positive sentences are tagged with negative tags Negative sentences are tagged with positive tags John arrived and so did Bill No letter arrived, an neither did a parcel Positive sentences trigger ‘so’ Negative sentences trigger ‘neither’

FOCUS AND NEGATIVE FRONTING There is no indication that there is such a thing as a ‘focus’ type of sentence In this way, negatives are like wh-elements Their presence affects the meaning of the whole sentence

FOCUS AND NEGATIVE FRONTING Wh-elements affect the status of the CP by agreeing with the C head So something must be in this position

FOCUS AND NEGATIVE FRONTING Similarly we can assume that the negative also needs to agree with the i head So something needs to be in this position Hence, inversion

FOCUS AND NEGATIVE FRONTING As focus does not affect the meaning of the clause in this way, it does not need to agree with the head So the head position does not need to be filled

CONCLUSION There a number of movements which target the front of the clause Adjunctions Contrastive topics Fronted Adverbials Adjoin to the highest clausal node possible (CP or IP) Adjoin to the IP Movements to specifiers Wh-movement Focus fronting Specifier of CP Specifier of i. P Negative fronting Specifier of i. P