24.1030, Review: Syntax; Semantics: Aelbrecht, Haegeman, and Nye (eds., 2012)

[linguist at linguistlist.org]

LINGUIST List: Vol-24-1030. Wed Feb 27 2013. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 24.1030, Review: Syntax; Semantics: Aelbrecht, Haegeman, and Nye (eds., 2012)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Veronika Drake, U of Wisconsin Madison
Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin Madison
       <reviews at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Anja Wanner <anja at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  


Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:40:19
From: Francesc González i Planas [fgonzpl at gmail.com, francesc at romaniaminor.net]
Subject: Main Clause Phenomena

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=24-1030.html&submissionid=5795739&topicid=9&msgnumber=1
 
Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=5795739


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/23/23-3310.html

EDITOR: Lobke  Aelbrecht
EDITOR: Liliane  Haegeman
EDITOR: Rachel  Nye
TITLE: Main Clause Phenomena
SUBTITLE: New Horizons
SERIES TITLE: Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2012

REVIEWER: Francesc González i Planas, Universitat de Girona

SUMMARY

This volume focuses on Main Clause Phenomena (henceforth MCP) or Root
Transformations/Phenomena (henceforth RT or RP), which are terms often used as
synonyms. MCP are syntactic phenomena related to main clauses and a limited
type of subordinate clauses (the so-called “root-like” clauses), and are
unavailable in the major group of embedded clauses. Most papers in this volume
explore the syntactic nature of MCP within the cartographic framework, but
there are also contributions in the minimalist framework, as well as some that
relate the syntax of MCP with semantic and pragmatic interfaces.

The volume is divided into an introductory paper and two parts. In their
introduction (“Main Clause Phenomena and the privilege of the root”, pp. 1-19)
the editors describe the origins of the topic and the most important phenomena
and present an outline of the book.

Part I (“Explaining Main Clause Phenomena: The bigger picture”) is a
collection of seven papers in which different theoretical explanations for MCP
are explored. The first paper in Part I, “Augmented structure preservation and
the Tensed S Constraint,” by Joseph E. Emonds (pp. 21-46), is a minimalist
revision of Edmonds’ (1970, 1976) seminal ideas on the topic, where he
postulates a set of label-less projections or “Discourse Shells” that permits
root movements for Structure Preservation. Against Rizzi’s (1997) split-CP
hypothesis, Emonds argues that unlabeled Discourse Shells are the best way to
analyze the clausal left periphery.

“Root transformations & quantificational structure,” by Richard K. Larson and
Miyuki Sawada (pp. 47-78), gives a semantic analysis of the (non-)availability
of RT in asserted adverbial adjuncts (‘because’-clauses) and presupposed
adjuncts (‘when/before/after’-clauses). They propose a “semantic closure”
account in which RT are available in adverbial clauses that correspond to the
scope of quantification, but not in those corresponding to the restriction.

Shigeru Miyagawa’s paper (“Agreements that occur mainly in the main clause”,
pp. 79-112) focuses on allocutive agreement in Souletin Basque and politeness
marking in Japanese as two manifestations of a same phenomenon, i.e. an
implementation of the hearer (or second-person) agreement in main clauses that
involves a Speech Act layer (Speas & Tenny 2003, Haegeman & Hill 2010).

Focusing on the absence of argument fronting in English adverbial clauses, in
“The syntax of MCP: Deriving the truncation account” (pp. 113-134) Liliane
Haegeman proposes that MCP restrictions in embedded clauses are bound to
locality conditions on movement. In earlier work (e.g., Haegeman 2003), she
proposed that MCP restrictions are explained by a reduced structure of the CP
layer, the so-called “truncation” account; but in recent work (e.g., Haegeman
2010), she has proposed that these restrictions are explained by the movement
of an abstract operator that blocks fronting operations. In this paper,
Haegeman revisits the truncation account and derives it from an
intervention-based account.

“Towards an interface definition of root phenomena” (pp. 135-158), by  Cécile
De Cat, explores a pragmatics-syntax interface account for MCP. De Cat
identifies different kinds of data that syntactic approaches cannot account
for (the gradience in acceptability within clause types, the variable
behaviour of peripheral adverbial clauses, and the existence of root phenomena
in “fragments”) and that can only be explained by the interpretive component.

In “Explaining matrix/subordinate domain discrepancies” (pp. 159-176), David
W. Lightfoot argues that discrepancies between matrix and subordinate domains
can be explained through Universal Grammar principles and acquisition
principles. Following the degree-0 learnability approach, Lightfoot proposes
that children learn only from simple structures and cannot learn operations
manifested only in embedded clauses, i.e. in more complex structures.

The final paper of Part I is “Parenthetical main clauses – or not? On
appositives and quasi-relatives”, by Mark de Vries (pp. 177-202). The paper
discusses two construction types: appositive relative clauses and
quasi-relatives. De Vries argues that syntactic and semantic characteristics
canonically associated with main clauses do not always go together. Following
this perspective, he shows that appositive relative clauses and appositions
are related, and that relativization as such and parenthesis are independent
phenomena. On the one hand, the syntactically subordinated status of
appositive relative clauses are due to an abstract relative operator in their
structure, and the semantic main clause effects attested in appositive
relative clauses are due to their construal as parenthetical specifications of
the anchor. On the other hand, quasi-relatives lack a relative operator and
are qualified as coordinated main clauses or inserted as regular
parentheticals.

Part II (“The phenomena”) is divided into three thematical groups of papers:
in section A, there are three papers on particles and agreement markers
related to MCP, in section B, there are four papers on complementizers and
verb-second (henceforth V2), and in section C, there are three papers on
adverbial clauses.

The first paper in section A is “Topic particle stranding and the structure of
CP” (pp. 203-228), by Norio Nasu. He argues for the existence of a projection
above the CP layer that encodes the speaker-addressee interactions. He
examines syntactic and pragmatic characteristics of topic particle stranding
(i.e. a topic particle without an overt topic phrase), sentence-final
particles and politeness marking in Japanese. Following Speas and Tenny
(2003), he concludes that topic particle stranding occurs in a Speech Act
domain above ForceP (Rizzi 1997).

In “Splitting up Force: Evidence from discourse particles” (pp. 229-256),
Marco Coniglio and Iulia Zegrean propose to split ForceP (Rizzi 1997) into two
distinct projections: Illocutionary Force and Clause Type. This proposal
captures the cross-linguistic properties of discourse particles at the
discourse level (the modification of the illocutionary force reflecting the
speaker’s attitude) and their syntactic restrictions (each clause type
licenses a different set of clausal particles).

The final paper in section A is “The syntactic position of Polish ‘by’ and
Main Clause Phenomena” (pp. 257-278). Barbara Tomaszewicz observes in this
paper that the position of the irrealis particle ‘by’ in Polish conditionals
correlates with constraints on MCP: when ‘by’ is in a C-head position, MCP are
precluded, and when it is in a lower position, MCP are available. Following
Haegeman (2010), she suggests an intervention-based account where ‘by’ moves
to a C-head position in conditional clauses. Specifically, a world operator
moves to Spec,CP and acts as an intervener for MCP.

The first paper in section B is “A main clause complementizer” by Virginia
Hill (pp. 279-296). This paper focuses on Romanian (assertive) main clauses
that display the complementizer ‘că.’ She proposes that ‘că’ is the spell-out
of Force head, and the re-iteration of ‘că’ when is possible reflects the
re-iteration of ForceP in the structure of the left periphery. Finally, Hill
relates the re-iteration of ForceP to the need of locality for the C-to-T
feature inheritance (Chomsky 2008).

In “The status of complementizers in the left periphery” (pp. 297-318), Rita
Manzini argues for the nominal nature of complementizers. She compares the
complementizer-headed structures with headed relative and free relative
clauses and concludes that complementizers are more similar to free relatives
than headed relatives.

Irene Franco’s “Minimality and embedded V2 in Scandinavian” (pp. 319-344)
focuses on the syntactic and interpretive properties of V2 subordinate clauses
in Scandinavian languages within the cartographic approach. She argues that
the final interpretation of each embedded clause is the result of the specific
derivation of such a clause, which derives from the information structure.
Embedded V2 and topicalization result from V-to-Fin and D-linking of a Topic,
which is an operator that A'-moves through Spec,FinP. The ungrammaticality of
this derivation in certain clause types is explained as the result of an
operator intervention effect.

The final paper in section B is “Against a uniform treatment of second
position effects as force markers”, by Krzysztof Migdalski (pp. 345-364), in
which two constructions are investigated: V2 in Dutch and second position
cliticization in Serbo-Croatian. In this paper, Migdalski challenges the view
that V2 is a force marker. He investigates the history of V2 and clitic-second
position and concludes that second position effects encompass a number of
different operations, only some of which can be argued to mark force.

The first paper in section C is “The syntax-discourse interface in adverbial
clauses”, by Yoshio Endo (pp. 365-384). The paper discusses the typology of
adverbial clauses in Japanese. Based on insights from traditional descriptive
Japanese grammarians, Endo shows that structures of the different adverbial
clause types are directly related to the point at which they are merged with
the main clause.

In “Subjunctive mood, epistemic modality and Main Clause Phenomena in the
analysis of adverbial clauses” (pp. 385-404), Vesselina Laskova discusses the
two types of adverbial clauses —central and peripheral clauses— in relation to
the properties of the Bulgarian non-past verbal form, which is an
instantiation of subjunctive mood. She argues that the distribution of the
bare non-past verbal form is an argument in favour of the distinction between
central and peripheral clauses and shows that Bulgarian peripheral clauses can
be subdivided into two subgroups: premise and adversative clauses.

The final paper is “On two types of adverbial clauses allowing
root-phenomena,” by Werner Frey (pp. 405-430). In this paper, Frey
distinguishes a third type of adverbial clauses. He argues that central
adverbial clauses —which do not allow MCP— are licensed syntactically by the
host’s verbal projection, and peripheral adverbial clauses —wich do allow MCP—
are licensed syntactically by Force in the host’s periphery. Moreover,
adverbials of the third class are not syntactically licensed at all, being
only semantically linked to their associated clause by a specific discourse
relation.

EVALUATION

This book is inspired by the conference “GIST2: On Clause-Typing and Main
Clause Phenomena” (p. 1), which took place in 2010 at the University of Ghent
(Belgium),, but it is not only a relevant selection of papers. A great effort
was made in the review process in order to strengthen links between the
authors of the various papers. The final result is a useful resource for
scholars and advanced students who are interested in MCP and the clausal
architecture, although the volume presupposes familiarity with the
cartographic approach (e.g. Rizzi 1997) and early works on the topic (Emonds
1970, 1976; Hooper & Thompson 1973).

Without neglecting the origins of the topic, the volume draws “new horizons”
for future research on the MCP. The set of reviewed papers highlights various
aspects of MCP that should be taken into account in future research:

(i) MCP are not a homogeneous class of phenomena that can easily be accounted
for by the same type of explanation (see Miyagawa’s and De Cat’s papers); in
some cases the authors need to use an analysis that recovers the performative
component in the syntax of the sentence (Ross 1970), and in others it seems
that the assertive value of clauses (Hooper & Thompson 1973) does not become
something so important as it was believed.

(ii) Syntactic approaches alone do not suffice to explain the MCP accurately;
but they must provide explanations that take into account the interpretative
component of grammar (semantics and pragmatics) (see especially Larson &
Sawada’s and De Cat’s papers).

(iii) It is possible that the derivation of certain types of clauses related
to the presence or absence of MCP is parameterized, so that similar (or
identical) results are achieved in different ways in different languages (see
e.g. Yoshio Endo’s paper for Japanese and English adverbial clauses).

Regarding observation (i), Miyagawa’s paper shows that there are three types
of clauses in relation to (un)availability of MCP (cf. De Cat’s paper). The
first type is the “P-root” clause (main clauses, ‘say’ complement clauses, and
‘because’ clauses), which appear to allow all MCP; the second one is
“Semi-root” clause (‘believe/know’ complement clauses and indirect questions),
which allow a group of MCP; and the third one is the type “Non-root” clause
(‘deny / be surprised’ complement clauses), which prevent MCP. Following these
observations, De Cat proposes a clausal typology wherein P-roots are
performative and have an independent information structure, Semi-roots have
only independent information structure, and Non-roots are not performative and
have not an independent information structure. Regarding MCP related to
performative level of the clause, several papers in this volume offer analyses
based on Speas & Tenny (2003), who proposed a Speech Act layer in the top of
the CP area. As for the information structure, an analysis of the left
periphery à la Rizzi (1997) explains the MCP in P-root and Semi-root clauses.
Finally, the Split-CP hypothesis combined with the operator-intervention
account (or the truncation account, see Haegeman’s paper for a discussion) can
explain the unavailability of the MCP in the Non-roots. In this sense, these
articles show that the cartographic approach has significant advantages over
other theoretical approaches.

However, De Cat’s and Larson & Sawada’s papers demonstrate that exclusively
syntactic approaches cannot explain satisfactorily all the casuistry of MCP.
Specifically, Larson & Sawada’s paper shows that the semantics of the sentence
is involved in the derivation of adverbial clauses, so that the quantification
scope is established as a relevant factor to allow or not the MCP. This does
not mean that it is possible to remove the syntactic explanation of MCP and
transfer all responsibility to the semantic component. If we adopt a
theoretical model such as cartography, in which the syntactic derivation is
determined by semantics, then each semantic interpretation must correspond to
a different syntactic derivation, which does not exclude any of these
components, but it does combine them. A similar consideration can be made as
for the relationship between syntax and the interpretive component in the line
of Speas & Tenny’s (2003) proposal.

Since Haegeman (2003), central and peripheral adverbial clauses have become a
recurring topic in the studies on MCP. Progress in the study of these clauses
has brought new hypotheses such as the “truncation” and “intervention”-based
accounts (see Haegeman’s paper). However, the papers of the last section show
new data that should be taken into account in future research, for which a
unified analysis should be explored.

It should be noted that the volume contains other interesting contributions.
First, Emonds’ minimalist paper is a doubly valuable contribution: because (i)
it comes from the author of  early benchmark studies on MCP (Emonds 1970,
1976), and (ii) it shows an alternative analysis to cartography, which is the
dominant model in the volume. In this regard, Manzini’s non-cartographic paper
is interesting because it contributes significantly to relating MCP and
research lines seeking parallelisms between CP and DP. Finally, I would like
to highlight Hill’s paper, which has a topic related to the MCP that is a very
current one: the presence of complementizer ‘that’ in intermediate positions.
She proposes a ForceP iteration in different parts of the left periphery, so
that instantiations of Force head is through the complementizer ‘că’ in
Romanian. This phenomenon, a version of which also occurs in Catalan or
Spanish, should be studied if it can be cross-linguistically related to other
complementizer-doubling phenomena (e.g., the Ibero-Romance and English
recomplementation, see Demonte & Fernández-Soriano 2009; González i Planas in
press; Radford 2013; Villa-García 2012).

In conclusion, the papers collected in “Main clause phenomena: New horizons”
map out new ways in the research on MCP.  I believe that this volume will
become an important reference on the matter.

REFERENCES

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In R. Freidin, C. Otero & M.-L. Zubizarreta
(eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in Honor of
Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133-166. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Demonte, Violeta & Fernández-Soriano, Olga. 2009. Force and finiteness in the
Spanish complementizer system. Probus 21: 23-49. DOI: 10.1515/prbs.2009.002

Edmonds, Joseph. 1970. Root and structure-preserving transformations.
Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.

Edmonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New
York: Academic Press.

González i Planas, Francesc. In press. On quotative recomplementation: Between
pragmatics and morphosyntax. International Journal of Language Studies.
Available in: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001620

Haegeman, Liliane. 2003. Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax.
Mind and Language 18:317-339. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0017.00230

Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. The movement derivation of conditional clauses.
Linguistic Inquiry 41:595-621.

Haegeman, Liliane & Virginia Hill. 2010. The syntactization of discourse. Ms.
Ghent University, University of New Brunswick-SJ. URL:
http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001182

Hooper, Joan & Sandra A. Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of root
transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465-491.

Radford, Andrew. 2013. The complementiser system in spoken English: Evidence
from broadcast media. In Victoria Camacho-Taboada, Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández,
Javier Martín-González, & Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds.), Information structure
and agreement, 11-54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane
Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 281-337.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Ross, John. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Roderick Jacobs & Peter
Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 222-272.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Speas, Peggy  & Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view
roles. In Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), Asymmetry in grammar, 315-344.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Villa-García, Julio. 2012. Recomplementation and locality of movement in
Spanish. Probus 24: 257-314. DOI: 10.1515/probus-2012-0011


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Francesc González i Planas (Universitat de Girona) is a graduate in Agronomic
Engineering (University of Girona), Linguistics (University of Barcelona), and
master’s in Catalan and Spanish as second languages (University of Girona). He
is currently a 3rd year PhD candidate at the University of Girona. He worked
as an adjunct lecturer in the Department of Philology and Comunication at the
University of Girona and is a collaborator member of the LIDIAGC research
group (Grup de Recerca en Lingüística Diacrònica i Gramàtica Comparada) at the
University of Girona. His research interests include complementizer doubling,
main clause phenomena, information structure, and quotative constructions in
the Romance languages.








----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-24-1030	
----------------------------------------------------------