1732-8160 The Puzzles of Topic Dislocations in Polish Mokrosz Ewelina author Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II Correspondence to: Ewelina Mokrosz 28 04 2023 Vol. 17, Issue 4 Volume 17 (2022) 145 176 Copyright © 2023 2023 <p>In this paper we show that there are different topic dislocations in Polish, each representing a specific type of a discourse function. With a battery of diagnostic tests we analyse each dislocation and propose their classification. As it turns out, constructions implementing a contrastive topic exhibit features of both A and A’-movement, which turns out problematic for a uniform analysis. We demonstrate that the movement in them is non-quantificational. The movement targeting TopP consists of at least two steps. An object undergoes A-movement and lands in the specifier of an Aboutness Phrase. Then it moves to SpecTopP where it checks a discourse feature.</p> 1 Ackerman Lauren, Frazier Michael, Yoshida Masaya (2018). Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry 49 (4), 847–859. 2 Andrason Alexander. 2016. To resume or not to resume : Some remarks on “resumption” in left dislocation constructions in Polish, and its relevance for biblical Hebrew. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 50 (1), 185–199. 3 Antonyuk Svitlana. 2021. Russian OVS: Towards a better understanding of the construction’s properties and significance. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 29, 1–16. 4 Benincà Paola, Poletto Cecilia (2004). Topic, focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In The Structure of CP and IP, the Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 52–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5 Bianchi Valentina, Frascarelli Mara (2010). Is topic a root phenomenon? IBERIA: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2, 43–88. 6 Birner Betty J., Ward Gregory (2019). The interaction of topicalization and left-dislocation in English. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Linguistics 28 (December). 7 Bondaruk Anna (2009). Constraints on predicate clefting in Polish. In Studies in Formal Slavic Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantic and Information Structure, Gerhild Zybatow, Uwe Junghanns, Denisa Lenertová, Petr Biskup (eds.), 65–79. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 8 Bošković Željko (2007). On the locality and motivation of move and agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (4), 589–644. 9 Büring Daniel (2005). Binding Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10 Cardinaletti Anna (2004). Toward a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 115–165. New York: Oxford University Press. 11 Cecchetto Carlo (2000). Clitic doubling and reconstruction. Probus 12 (1), 93–126. 12 Cegłowski Piotr, Tajsner Przemysław (2006). Topicalisation and object fronting in Polish. A view from a minimalist perspective. In IFAtuation: A Life in IFA. A Festschrift for Professor Jacek Fisiak on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (ed.), 99–131. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe. 13 Chierchia Gennaro (2020). Origins of weak crossover: When dynamic semantics meets event semantics. Natural Language Semantics 28 (1), 23–76. 14 Chomsky Noam (1977). On Wh-Movement. In Formal Syntax, Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, Adrian Akmajian (eds.), 71–132. New York: Academic Press. 15 Chomsky Noam (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger Publishers. 16 Chomsky Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 17 Chomsky Noam (2000). Minimalist inquiries. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Richard Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka, Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), 89–156. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 18 Chomsky Noam (2001). Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 19 Chomsky Noam (2015). Problems of Projection: Extensions. In Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honor of Adriana Belletti, Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, Simona Matteini (eds.), 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 20 Citko Barbara, Allison Germain, Jacek Witkoś (2018). If you cannot agree, move on! On labels and non-nominative subjects. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3 (1). 21 Cruschina Silvio (2011). Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press. 22 Cruschina Silvio (2021). Topicalization, dislocation and clitic resumption. Studia Linguistica 76 (2), 1–27. 23 Duszak Anna (1984). Topical sentence positions in English and Polish. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 18, 55–70. 24 Engdahl Elisabet (1983). Parasitic Gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy 6 (1), 5–34. 25 Frascarelli Mara (2000). The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. 26 Frascarelli Mara (2019). Topics, conversational dynamics and the root/non-root distinction: Adverbial clauses at the discourse-syntax interface. In Architecture of Topic, Valéria Molnár, Verner Egerland, Susanne Winkler (eds.), 139–170. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 27 Frascarelli Mara, Hinterhölzl Roland (2007). Types of topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: Generalizations across Languages, Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler (eds.), 87–116. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 28 Frey Werner (2005). Pragmatic properties of certain German and English left peripheral constructions. Linguistics 43 (1), 89–129. 29 Grewendorf Günther (2008). The left clausal periphery: Clitic left-dislocation in Italian and left-dislocation in German’. In Dislocated Elements in Discourse Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Perspectives, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey, Claudia Maienborn (eds.), 49–94. London: Routledge. 30 Haegeman Liliane (2012). Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 8. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press. 31 Haider Hubert (2010). The Syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 32 Jasinskaja Katja (2016). Information structure in Slavic. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry, Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), 709–732. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 33 Krapova Iliyana, CINQUE Guglielmo (2008). Clitic reduplication constructions in Bulgarian. In Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages, Dalina Tasmowski, Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), 257–88. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 34 Krifka Manfred (1999). Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT 8, Devon Strolovitch, Aaron Lawson (eds.), 111–128. Cornell: CLC Publications. 35 Kuno Susumo (1973). The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 36 Lambrecht Knud (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topics, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 37 Lasnik Howard, Stowell Tim (1991). Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22 (4), 687–720. 38 Lipták Anikó (2011). The structure of the topic field in Hungarian. In Mapping the Left Periphery, Paola Benincà, Nicola Munaro (eds.), 163–198. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 39 López Luis (2016). Dislocations and information structure. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry, Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), 402–421. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 40 Łęska Paulina (2016). Agreement under case matching in Polish co and który relative clauses headed by numerically quantified nouns. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24 (1), 113–136. 41 Merchant Jason (2001). The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 42 Müller Gereon (2018). Structure removal in complex prefields. Natural Language &amp; Linguistic Theory 36 (1), 219–264. 43 Orszulak Marcin (2011). Focus and wh-movement in English and Polish: The cartographic approach. Anglica Wratislaviensia 49, 93–105. 44 Pan Victor Junnan (2016). Resumptivity in Mandarin Chinese: A Minimalist Account. Resumptivity in Mandarin Chinese. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 45 Pereltsvaig Asya (2021). The OVS order in Russian: Where are the O and the V? Journal of Slavic Linguistics 29 (FASL 28 extra issue), 1–15. 46 Pesetsky David (1987). Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The Representation of (in)Definitess, Eric J. Reuland, Alice G. B. Ter Meulen (eds.), 98–129. Cambridge: MIT Press. 47 Polinsky Maria, Potsdam Eric (2014). Left edge topics in Russian and the Processing of anaphoric dependencies. Journal of Linguistics 50, 629–669. 48 Reinhart Tanya (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27. 49 Rizzi Luigi (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 50 Rizzi Luigi (2004). Locality and left periphery. In Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 223–251. Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press. 51 Rizzi Luigi (2005). On some properties of subjects and topics.’ In Proceedings of the 30th Incontro Di Grammatica Generativa, Laura Bruge, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, Walter Schweikert, Giuseppina Turano (eds.), 203–224. Venezia: Cafoscarina. 52 Rizzi Luigi (2006). On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In WHMovement: Moving On, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Norbert Corver (eds.), 97–133. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 53 Rizzi Luigi (2018). Subjects, topics and the interpretation of Pro’. In From Sounds to Structures: Beyond the Veil of Maya, Roberto Petrosino, Pietro Cerrone, Harry van der Hulst (eds.), 510–529. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 54 Rizzi Luigi, Shlonsky Ur (2007). Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces &#43; Recursion &#61; Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, Hans Martin Gärtner, Uli Sauerland (eds.), 115–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 55 Ross Robert (1967). Constraints on Variabales in Syntax. PhD thesis, MIT. 56 Safir Ken (1996). Derivation, representation, and resumption: The domain of weak crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 27 (2), 313–339. 57 Shaer Benjamin (2008). German and English left-peripheral elements and the “Orphan” analysis of non-integration. In Dislocated Elements in Discourse, Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Perspective, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey, Claudia Maienborn (eds.), 366–397. London: Routledge. 58 Sturgeon Anne (2008). The Left Periphery. La.129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 59 Sudhoff Stefan (2010). Focus Particles in German. La.151. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 60 Szczegielniak Adam (2005). Relativization that you did. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics (Updated Version of a Harvard Doctoral Dissertation under the Title “Relativization and Ellipsis”) 24. 61 Takano Yuji (2000). Illicit remnant movement: An argument for feature-driven movement. Linguistic Inquiry 31 (1), 141–156. 62 Tomaszewicz Barbara (2012). The syntactic position of Polish by and main clause phenomena. In Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons, Albert Aelbrecht (ed.), 257–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 63 Vermeulen Reiko (2010). The Syntax of Topic, Contrast and Contrastive Topic. Presented at the On Linguistics Interfaces II (OnLI II), The University of Ulster. 64 Wiland Bartosz (2016). Le charme discret of remnant movement: Crossing and nesting in Polish OVS sentences. Studies in Polish Linguistics 11 (3), 133–65. 65 Witkoś Jacek (2008). On the correlation between A-type scrambling and lack of weak crossover effects’. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 44, 297–327. 66 Wood Jim, Livitz Inna (2012). What Isn’t an Oblique Subject in Icelandic and Russian? University of Iceland. 67 Wurmbrand Susi (200 4). No TP-Fronting Meets Nearly Headless Nick. University of Connecticut.