On VP- focus projection and the integration of adjuncts. Evidence from Polish
cytuj
pobierz pliki
RIS BIB ENDNOTEChoose format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEOn VP- focus projection and the integration of adjuncts. Evidence from Polish
Publication date: 15.10.2012
Studies in Polish Linguistics, Volume 7 (2012), Vol. 7, Issue 1, pp. 37 - 61
Authors
On VP- focus projection and the integration of adjuncts. Evidence from Polish
The two main topics of the paper are VP focus projection and the integration of adjuncts in VPs. First, a few conceptual and empirical questions are raised to Hornstein’s (2009) account of VP focus projection which is based on the “pure Concatenate/dangling off” way of adding adjuncts to a VP. It is argued that an account along these lines may have to recourse to a derivational look-ahead, which is a disadvantage. It is also noted that the “dangling off “ solution proves problematic if adjuncts have to fulfill the function of modifying events. What is more, it is not clear why the integration in a structure, necessary for movement, should be treated as a sufficient condition for focus projection.
Next, the paper offers a short taxonomy of VP-pre-posing types in Polish. They appear to fall in two major categories: (i) VP- pre-posing for focus, and (ii) VP-pre-posing for topic. It is argued that in the former type, representing Focus Fronting (FF), a pre-posed VP is a separate Intonation Phrase, in which, as predicted by Truckenbrodt (2001) and others, the rightmost accented phrase must receive a prominent phrasal stress. Thus, the VP-final main stress on adjuncts is derived from the interplay of syntax and phonology, unlike in Hornstein’s (2009) account. Such a view is supported by the observed cases of VP pre-posing for topic in Polish in which the earlier distribution of stresses within a VP (derived by a Nuclear Stress Rule) is conserved after movement, and no extra phonological stress rule applies.
The second major topic of the paper is the mechanics of adjunct integration in VPs. It is argued that there are two ways in which adjuncts may be added to the structure of a VP; by Concatenate (a default option) or by Merge. The former is only possible if no further instance of Merge is to follow, which is at the completion of vP and CP phases. The less economical Merge option is used when the VP-plus-adjunct undergoes further pre-posing for focus or for topic. Finally, it is shown how the phase-wise derivation may map on the procedure of stress promotion in a structure of a VP. It is argued that adjuncts concatenated to the root, prior to Spell-out, cannot receive an appropriate number of stress grids, and hence cannot carry main VP-stress.
Adger David (2007): Stress and Phasal Syntax. — Linguistic Analysis 33: 238–266.
Bailyn John F. (2003): Russian scrambling exists. — [In:] Simin Karimi (ed.): Word order and scrambling; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 156–176.
Boeckx Cedric (2008): Bare Syntax. — Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Büring Daniel.(2006). Focus projection and default prominence. — [In:] Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.): The Architecture of Focus; Berlin &New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 321–346
Chomsky Noam (1995): The Minimalist Program; Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Chomsky Noam (2001): Derivation by phase. — [In:] Michael Kenstowicz (ed.): Ken Hale: A life in language; Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1–52.
Chomsky Noam (2004): Beyond explanatory adequacy. — [In:] Adriana Belletti (ed.): Structures and Beyond. Vol. 3 of The Cartography of Syntactic Structure; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104–31.
Chomsky Noam (2005): Three factors in language design. — Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.
Chomsky Noam (2008): On phases. — [In:] Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín Otero, Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.): Foundational issues in linguistic theory; Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 133–166.
Chomsky Noam, Morris Halle (1968): The sound pattern of English. — New York: Harper and Row.
Cinque Guglielmo (1993): A null theory of phrase and compound stress. — Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–298.
Epstein David and T. Daniel Seely (2002): Rule applications as cycles in a level-free syntax. — [In:] Samuel David Epstein, T. Daniel Seely (eds.): Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 65–89.
Gussenhoven Carlos (1992): Sentence accents and argument structure. — [In:] Iggy M. Roca (ed.): Themantic structure. Its role in grammar; Berlin & New York: Foris, 79–106.
Halle Morris, Vergnaud Jean-Roger (1987): An essay on stress. — Current Studies in Linguistics 15. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hornstein Norbert (2009): A theory of syntax. Minimal operations and Universal Grammar. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiss Katalin E. (1998): Identificational Focus versus Information Focus. — Language 74: 245–73.
Lebeaux David (2000): Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar. — Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lopez Luis (2009): A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure. — Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nissenbaum Jon (2000): Investigations of covert phrase movement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge, Mass.
Reinhart Tanya (2006): Focus – The PF Interface. — [In:] Tanya Reinhart (ed.): Interface Strategies: Reference set computation; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 125–164.
Rizzi Luigi (2004): Locality and Left Periphery. — [In :] Adriana Belletti (ed.): Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Vol. 3; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 223–251.
Rizzi Luigi (2006): On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects. — [In:] Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Norbert Corver (eds.): Wh-Movement: Moving On; Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 97–133.
Rooth Mats E. (1992): A theory of focus interpretation. — Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.
Schwarzchild Roger (1999): GIVENness, AVOIDF and Other Constraints on the Placement of Accent. — Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177.
Selkirk Elizabeth O. (1995): Sentence prosody: intonation, stress and phrasing. — [In:] John A. Goldsmith (ed.): The Handbook of phonological theory; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 550–569.
Selkirk Elizabeth O. (2005): Comments on Intonational Phrasing in English — [In:] Sonia Frota, Marina Vigario, Maria Joao Freitas (eds): Prosodies 2005; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 11–58.
Stepanov Arthur (2001): Cyclic domains in syntactic theory. — University of Connecticut, PhD dissertation.
Svenonus Peter (2004): On the Edge. — [In:] David Adger, Cecile de Cat, George Tsoulas. (eds.): Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and their Effects; Dordrecht: Kluver, 259–287.
Tajsner Przemysław, Cegłowski Piotr (2006): Topicalisation and Object Fronting in Polish. — [In:] Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (ed.): IFAtuation: A Life in IFA. A Festschrift for Professor Jacek Fisiak; Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, 99–129.
Tajsner Przemysław (2008): Aspects of the Grammar of Focus. A Minimalist View. — Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Truckenbrodt Hubert (2006): Phrasal Stress. — [In:] Keith Brown (ed.): The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics. Vol. 9; Oxford: Elsevier, 572–579.
Winkler Susanne (2000): Silent Copy and Polarity Focus in VP Ellipsis. — [In:] Kerstin Schwabe, Ning Zhang (eds.): Ellipsis in Coordination; Tübingen: Otto Niemeyer, 221–247.
Zubizarreta Maria Luisa (1998): Prosody, Focus and Word Order. (= Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 33). — Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.
Zubizarreta Maria Luisa, Vergnaud Jean-Roger (2005): Phrasal stress, Focus and Syntax. – [In]: M. Everaert, H. van Riemsdijk (eds.): The Blackwell Companion to Syntax; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Information: Studies in Polish Linguistics, Volume 7 (2012), Vol. 7, Issue 1, pp. 37 - 61
Article type: Original article
Titles:
On VP- focus projection and the integration of adjuncts. Evidence from Polish
Projekcja „fokusu” w ramach frazy czasownikowej i syntaktyczna integracja okolicznika z uwzględnieniem danych z języka polskiego
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Wieniawskiego 1, 61-712 Poznań, Poland
Published at: 15.10.2012
Article status: Open
Licence: None
Percentage share of authors:
Article corrections:
-Publication languages:
EnglishView count: 2675
Number of downloads: 1787