1 Ana Maria Martins (University of Lisbon – FLUL/CLUL) Freie ...
1 Ana Maria Martins (University of Lisbon – FLUL/CLUL) Freie ...
1 Ana Maria Martins (University of Lisbon – FLUL/CLUL) Freie ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
CONTRASTIVE FOCUS FRONTING IN EUROPEAN PORTUGUESE<br />
<strong>Ana</strong> <strong>Maria</strong> <strong>Martins</strong> (<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lisbon</strong> <strong>–</strong> <strong>FLUL</strong>/<strong>CLUL</strong>)<br />
<strong>Freie</strong> Universität Berlin, 22 May 2012<br />
[This talk is based on joint work with João Costa. See Costa, J. and A. M. <strong>Martins</strong> 2011. “On<br />
Focus Movement in Europena Portuguese”. Probus 23.2: 217-245 ]<br />
Two interrelated questions:<br />
(i) Does European Portuguese (EP) display Contrastive Focus Fronting (CFF)?<br />
(ii) If the answer is positive, what might have motivated the lack <strong>of</strong> consensus observed in the<br />
literature in this respect?<br />
Two examples <strong>of</strong> this lack <strong>of</strong> consensus:<br />
(1) Isto fazem os reis Rouveret 1992: Focus fronting<br />
that do-3PL the kings Ambar 1999: Topic fronting<br />
Duarte 1997: D-linked presentation<br />
(2) Muito whisky bebeu o capitão! Raposo 1995: Focus fronting<br />
Much whisky drank the captain Ambar 1999: Evaluative fronting<br />
Costa 2004: Quantified DP fronting<br />
Two possible sources for the lack <strong>of</strong> consensus on the availability <strong>of</strong> CFF in EP<br />
(i) There is variation across EP speakers regarding CFF<br />
(ii) CFF “intersects” with other fronting constructions with respect to certain features<br />
EP contrasts with other Romance languages in that it has both Clitic Left Dislocation and<br />
(English-type) Topicalization in parallel<br />
(3) a. El diário, Pedro lo compró. Spanish. Zubizarreta 1999<br />
the newspaper Pedro it bought<br />
b. *El diário, Pedro compró.<br />
the newspaper Pedro it bought<br />
“The newspaper, Pedro bought (it)”.<br />
(4) a. Il tuo libro, lo ho comprato. Italian. Rizzi 1997<br />
the your book it I-have bought<br />
b. *Il tuo libro, ho comprato.<br />
the your book I-have bought<br />
“Your book, I have bought (it)”.<br />
(5) a. O jornal, o Pedro já o. comprou. European Portuguese<br />
the newspaper the Pedro already it bought<br />
b. O jornal, o Pedro já comprou.<br />
the newspaper the Pedro already. bought<br />
c. O teu livro, já o comprei.<br />
the your book already it bought<br />
d. O teu livro, já comprei.<br />
the your book already bought<br />
1
Goals <strong>of</strong> this presentation:<br />
(i) give evidence for the existence <strong>of</strong> CFF in EP by applying (to attested data) a set <strong>of</strong> tests<br />
that provide a clear distinction between CFF and Topicalization<br />
(ii) investigate whether there is more than one grammar in EP regarding CFF<br />
(iii) distinguish CFF from Evaluative exclamatives like (2) above<br />
(iv) evaluate whether the whole picture makes sense and adds something to our knowledge <strong>of</strong><br />
EP grammar, from which avenues for further research may come up<br />
Preview <strong>of</strong> the results and proposals:<br />
Table 1: Fronted constituents in CFF, Topicalization and Evaluative exclamatives<br />
Structure Distinctive feature(s) <strong>of</strong> fronted constituents<br />
Grammar A Grammar B<br />
Topicalization [D-linked]<br />
Evaluative exclamatives [Evaluative]<br />
Contrastive Focus<br />
Fronting<br />
[D-linked, Evaluative] [Deictic, Evaluative]<br />
Table 2: Three types <strong>of</strong> fronting in EP: Topicalization, CFF and Evaluative exclamatives<br />
Topicalization Contrastive Evaluative<br />
Focus Fronting exclamatives<br />
Cleft-like interpretation ‒ + ‒<br />
Proclisis ‒ + +<br />
Fronting <strong>of</strong> referential expressions + + ‒<br />
Fronting <strong>of</strong> non referential expressions ‒ + +<br />
Obligatory subject-verb inversion ‒ + ‒<br />
Unrestricted fronting <strong>of</strong> PP complements ‒ + ‒<br />
Relative clause extraposition ‒ + +<br />
Licensing <strong>of</strong> expletive negation ‒ ‒ +<br />
Speaker’s attitude marks contrast with<br />
assumed expectation state <strong>of</strong> the hearer<br />
‒ + ‒<br />
T-to-C movement in CFF is triggered by the feature [Evaluative]. From this basic<br />
assumption it is possible to derive the particularities <strong>of</strong> CFF with respect to subject-verb<br />
inversion<br />
The feature [Evaluative] licenses expletive negation in Evaluative exclamatives and might<br />
lay behind the apparent incompatibility between CFF and ordinary negation. (Cf. González<br />
Rodríguez 2009 on negation in exclamative sentences).<br />
The relevance <strong>of</strong> the feature [deictic] in CFF deserves further research as it plays a central<br />
role in other areas <strong>of</strong> EP grammar as well.<br />
1. A preliminary clarification: contrastive focus vs. narrow information focus<br />
A) Syntactically, preposed contrastive foci and information foci emerge in completely<br />
different sentence locations: preposed foci are clause-initial, whereas information focus is<br />
typically clause-final in European Portuguese. Contrastive focus is either left in situ, bearing<br />
2
prosodic prominence, or moves to the left periphery. If there is movement, prosodic<br />
prominence also obtains. On the contrary, information focus typically remains in the right<br />
periphery, where it is assigned sentence nuclear stress (Zubizarreta 1998, 1999, Costa 1998,<br />
2004).<br />
B) On discourse grounds, information and contrastive foci are licensed in different contexts<br />
(compare (6) with (7), displaying typical licensing contexts for each type <strong>of</strong> focus). Questionanswer<br />
pairs are the typical contexts in which it is possible to identify an information focus.<br />
Contrastive focus is typically not an appropriate answer to wh-questions. The inadequacy <strong>of</strong><br />
CFF in these contexts is similar to the inadequacy <strong>of</strong> clefts <strong>of</strong> different types:<br />
(6) [A] a. Quanto vais receber por mês?<br />
how-much go-2SG receive per month?<br />
‘How much will you be paid monthly?<br />
[B] b. Vou receber por mês 600 euros.<br />
go-1SG receive per month 600 euros<br />
c. # Vou receber por mês é 600 euros. (Cleft)<br />
go-1SG receive per month is 600 euros<br />
d. # 600 euros é (o) que vou receber por mês. (Cleft)<br />
600 euros is (the) that go-1SG receive per month<br />
e. # São 600 euros que vou receber por mês. (Cleft)<br />
are 600 euros that go-1SG receive per month<br />
f. # 600 EUROS vou eu receber por mês. (CFF)<br />
600 euros go-1SG I receive per month<br />
(7) [A] a. Trabalhas muito mas pagam-te bem.<br />
work-2SG much but pay-3PL-you well<br />
‘You work a lot, but they pay you well.’<br />
[B] b. SEISCENTOS EUROS recebo eu por mês. Achas que me<br />
600 euros receive I per month. think-2SG that me<br />
pagam bem?! (CFF)<br />
pay-3PL well<br />
‘600 euro is what I receive per month! Do you think they pay me well?!’<br />
C) Semantically and pragmatically, contrastive foci introduce an opposition value with<br />
respect to an assertion, presupposition or expectation. It is because they always express some<br />
type <strong>of</strong> disagreement, inducing a notion <strong>of</strong> contrast, that the sentences with CFF are not<br />
legitimate answers to mere quests for information.<br />
Finally, as the following examples show, in CFF structures the focalized constituent does not<br />
introduce by itself new information and is characteristically D-linked (Duarte 1997).<br />
(8) [A] Explica-lhe que não vai poder viver para sempre em casa<br />
explain-him that not go-2SG be-able to-live for always in house<br />
dos pais.<br />
<strong>of</strong>-the parents<br />
‘Explain to him that he won’t be able to stay forever at his parents’ place.’<br />
3
[B] Isso lhe digo eu todos os dias mas não lhe entra<br />
that him-DAT tell-1SG I all the days but not him enters<br />
na cabeça.<br />
in-the head<br />
‘That’s what I tell him every day, but it does not get into his head.’<br />
(9) [A] Estás cansada. Vai passar uns dias na praia.<br />
are-2SG tired. go-2SG spend some days in-the beach<br />
‘You’re tired! Go spend some days at the beach.’<br />
[B] Isso queria eu.<br />
that wanted I<br />
‘That’s what I wanted.’<br />
(10) [A] Ele tem muito jeito pró negócio.<br />
he has much ability for-the business<br />
‘He has a natural gift for business.’<br />
[B] Com esse jeito pró negócio me vendeu ele uma televisão<br />
with that ability for-the business me sold he a television<br />
avariada.<br />
broken<br />
‘It’s with that gift for business that he sold me a broken TV.’<br />
The core property <strong>of</strong> a contrastive focus is the addition <strong>of</strong> the speakers’ disagreeing<br />
attitude regarding what he knows or supposes to be the expectations/convictions <strong>of</strong> the hearer.<br />
This attitude is added to the basic denotation <strong>of</strong> the sentence. As such, this type <strong>of</strong> focus<br />
signals the contrast between the information given by the speaker and the information that,<br />
according to the speaker’s beliefs, is previously assumed by the hearer. (Cf. Zimmermann<br />
2007; Onea and Zimmermann 2011).<br />
(11) Zimmermann’s (2007) definition <strong>of</strong> contrastive focus<br />
[Contrastive focus marking indicates] a contrast between the information conveyed by<br />
the speaker in asserting α and the assumed expectation state <strong>of</strong> the hearer: the speaker<br />
marks the content <strong>of</strong> α as <strong>–</strong> in her view <strong>–</strong> unlikely to be expected by the hearer, thus<br />
preparing the scene for a swifter update <strong>of</strong> the common ground.<br />
2. CFF vs. Topicalization<br />
Tests to be used (cf. Hernanz and Brucart 1987, Zubizarreta 1999, Ambar 1992, Rouveret<br />
1992, Duarte 1997, and Cardoso 2010):<br />
A <strong>–</strong> Cleft-like interpretation;<br />
B <strong>–</strong> Clitic placement;<br />
C <strong>–</strong> Sensitivity to referential properties <strong>of</strong> fronted constituent;<br />
D <strong>–</strong> Subject-verb inversion;<br />
E <strong>–</strong> PP-preposing (when the PP is the complement <strong>of</strong> certain existential and light);<br />
F <strong>–</strong> Relative clause extraposition.<br />
4
A <strong>–</strong> Cleft-like interpretation<br />
As shown in Hernanz and Brucart (1987) and Zubizarreta (1999), among others, CFF, unlike<br />
Topicalization (TOP), is interpretively equivalent to clefting. 1 This is shown in the sets <strong>of</strong><br />
examples in (12) to (15), with the relevant paraphrases. Other paralell examples will be given<br />
throughout the paper. The type <strong>of</strong> continuation given in the Topicalization example (12b) is<br />
ruled out in the CFF cases. This is a feature shared with clefts.<br />
(12) a. De notícias se faz o nosso mundo. (TV-channel slogan) (CFF)<br />
<strong>of</strong> news SE makes the our world<br />
(‘É de notícias que se faz o nosso mundo.’)<br />
is <strong>of</strong> news that SE makes the our world<br />
‘It’s the news that make up our world.’<br />
b. De notícias, estou farta e de debates e concursos também. (TOP)<br />
<strong>of</strong> news, am fed-up and <strong>of</strong> debates and contests too<br />
(# ‘É de notícias que estou farta e de debates e concursos também’)<br />
is <strong>of</strong> news that am fed-up and <strong>of</strong> debates and contests too<br />
‘I’m fed up with news, and with debates and contests too.’<br />
(13) E neste regime me tenho mantido. (from the newspaper Expresso) (CFF)<br />
and in-this register me have kept<br />
(‘E é neste regime que me tenho mantido.’)<br />
and is in-this register that me have kept<br />
‘It’s in this register that I keep myself<br />
(14) A grande notícia te dou agora. (from a novel by F. Namora) (CFF)<br />
the big news you-DAT give now<br />
(‘A grande notícia é a que te vou dar agora.’)<br />
the big news is the what you-DAT go-1SG give now<br />
‘The big news is what I’m going to tell you now.’<br />
(15) SEISCENTOS EUROS recebo eu por mês. Achas que me pagam<br />
six-hundred euros receive I per month. think-2SG that me pay<br />
bem?! (CFF)<br />
well<br />
(‘Seiscentos euros é o que eu recebo por mês. Achas que<br />
six-hundred euros is the what I receive per month. Think-2SG that<br />
me pagam bem?!)<br />
me pay well<br />
‘Six hundred euro is what I receive per month. Do you think they pay me well?!’<br />
1 We focus here on the exhaustivity feature that clefts share, and not on the subtle differences in information<br />
structure that differentiate different subtypes <strong>of</strong> cleft structures. In some cases a reverse pseudo-cleft seems to be<br />
a better paraphrase for a CFF sentence than a canonic cleft, as it captures more accurately the relevant<br />
interpretation. It might be the case that different interpretative subtypes <strong>of</strong> fronted foci can be distinguished, but<br />
this issue is left out <strong>of</strong> the scope <strong>of</strong> the current paper.<br />
5
B <strong>–</strong> Clitic Placement:<br />
Fronted constrastive foci trigger proclisis, unlike topicalized constituents. This contrast<br />
between CFF and Topicalization is shown above in (12) to (14) and below in (16)-(17).<br />
(16) a. De pequenino se torce o {pepino/destino}. (proverb and lyrics) (CFF)<br />
<strong>of</strong> little SE bends the cucumber/destiny<br />
b. *De pequenino torce-se o {pepino/destino}.<br />
<strong>of</strong> little bends-SE the cucumber/destiny<br />
‘It is from a very young age that skills are learnt.’ / ‘You make your own destiny<br />
from the very start.’<br />
(17) a. Valores mais altos se levantam. (from Google) (CFF)<br />
values more high SE raise<br />
b. *Valores mais altos levantam-se.<br />
values more high raise-SE<br />
‘Higher values impose themselves.’<br />
C <strong>–</strong> Sensitivity to referential properties <strong>of</strong> fronted constituent<br />
As shown in Duarte (1987, 1997), and <strong>Martins</strong> (1994, 1997), Topicalization is constrained by<br />
the referential properties <strong>of</strong> the moved constituents. As such, negative words and certain<br />
quantifiers cannot be topicalized. Similar types <strong>of</strong> constraints do not affect CFF structures.<br />
Negative words and quantifiers like ‘few’ are fronted in constructions that <strong>of</strong>ten additionally<br />
display other properties <strong>of</strong> CFF, namely proclisis and subject-verb inversion.<br />
(18) a. Nada se saberá. (CFF)<br />
nothing SE will-know<br />
‘Nothing will be known.’<br />
b. *Nada, eu (não) gostaria que os meus amigos (não)<br />
nothing, I (not) would-like that the my friends (not)<br />
soubessem. (from Google) (TOP)<br />
would-know<br />
‘I wouldn’t like my friends to know anything.’<br />
(19) Na pressa da crítica, lançam para os media um discurso<br />
in-the rush <strong>of</strong>-the criticism, throw-3PL to the media a discourse<br />
redutor e pessimista que nada tem contribuído para a<br />
reductive and pessimistic that nothing has contributed to the<br />
melhoria do clima escolar. (from the newspaper Público) (CFF)<br />
improvement <strong>of</strong>-the atmosphere scholar<br />
‘In the rush for criticizing, they launch in the media a reductive and pessimistic kind <strong>of</strong><br />
speech that does not contribute in anything to an improvement <strong>of</strong> the schools’<br />
atmosphere.’<br />
6
(20) a. Mas já a ninguém interessa isso. (from Google) (CFF)<br />
but already to no-one matters that<br />
‘That matters to no one anymore.’<br />
b. Não te preocupes, essa história fica entre nós,<br />
not you worry, that story stays between us,<br />
{a ninguém/ só ao João} a contarei. (CFF)<br />
to no-one/ only to-the João it-ACC will-tell-1SG<br />
‘Don’t you worry, that story stays between us. I will tell it {to no one/only to João}.’<br />
c. *A ninguém, eu (não) vou contar essa história. (TOP)<br />
to no-one I (not) go tell that story<br />
‘I’ll tell that story to no one’<br />
d. Ao João, eu (não) vou contar essa história. (TOP)<br />
to João, I (not) go tell that story<br />
‘I’ll tell that story to João.’<br />
(21) a. É uma decisão minha. Poucos colegas consultei. (CFF)<br />
is one decision mine. Few colleagues consulted<br />
‘It’s a decision on me. I consulted few colleagues.’<br />
b. *Poucos colegas, consulto(-os) 2 sempre antes de tomar<br />
few colleagues, consult-(them) always before <strong>of</strong> take<br />
qualquer decisão. (TOP)<br />
some decision<br />
‘I consult few colleagues, before taking some decision.’<br />
D <strong>–</strong> Subject-verb inversion<br />
Unlike Topicalization, CFF obligatorily induces subject-verb inversion. This is shown in (22)<br />
through (25), where we systematically observe the contrast between the grammaticality <strong>of</strong> VS<br />
sentences and the ungrammaticality <strong>of</strong> SV sentences. In order to make clear that we are<br />
dealing with focus fronting, most sentences display other properties <strong>of</strong> CFF.<br />
(22) a. De notícias se faz o nosso mundo. (CFF)<br />
<strong>of</strong> news SE makes the our world<br />
b. *De notícias o nosso mundo se faz.<br />
<strong>of</strong> news the our world SE makes<br />
‘It’s the news that make up our world.’<br />
(23) a. De pequenino se torce o {pepino/destino}. (CFF)<br />
<strong>of</strong> little SE bends the cucumber/ destiny<br />
b. *De pequenino o {pepino/destino} se torce.<br />
<strong>of</strong> little the cucumber/ destiny SE bends<br />
‘Skills are learnt from a very young age.’<br />
2 With the clitic os (‘them’) present, the sentence would be a case <strong>of</strong> Clitic Left Dislocation, which would not<br />
change its ungrammatical status.<br />
7
(24) a. Isso queria o director. (from Google) (CFF)<br />
that wanted the dean<br />
b. *Isso o director queria. 3 (ungrammatical under the intended interpretation)<br />
that the dean wanted<br />
‘That’s (precisely) what the dean wanted.’<br />
(25) a. Uma melancia inteira me comeu aquele bruto. (CFF)<br />
a watermelon entire me-DAT ate that brute<br />
b. *Uma melancia inteira aquele bruto me comeu.<br />
a watermelon entire that brute me-DAT ate<br />
‘A whole watermelon, that’s what that beast ate!’<br />
E <strong>–</strong> PP preposing<br />
As shown in Hernanz and Brucart (1987), some prepositional verbal complements resist<br />
fronting in Topicalization constructions, although they can undergo CFF. This contrast is<br />
illustrated in the following examples, in which the difference between Topicalization and CFF<br />
is further signaled by the placement <strong>of</strong> the clitic and/or by the position <strong>of</strong> the subject. The<br />
relevant PP complements share the property <strong>of</strong> being selected by predicates <strong>of</strong> inclusion<br />
(featuring part-whole relations), a fact that is not discussed by Hernanz and Brucart (1987)<br />
and needs further investigation.<br />
(26) a. *De esforço, faz-se o sucesso. (TOP)<br />
<strong>of</strong> effort, makes-SE the success<br />
b. De esforço se faz o sucesso. (CFF)<br />
<strong>of</strong> effort SE makes the success<br />
‘It’s effort that builds success’<br />
(27) a. *Na crise financeira, o problema reside. (TOP)<br />
in-the crisis financial the problem lies<br />
b. Na crise financeira reside o problema. (CFF)<br />
in-the crisis financial lies the problem<br />
‘It’s in the financial crisis that the problem lies.’<br />
(28) a. *Destas quatro partes, o relatório consta. (TOP)<br />
<strong>of</strong>-these four parts the report consists<br />
b. Destas quatro partes consta o relatório. (CFF)<br />
<strong>of</strong>-these four parts consists the report<br />
‘The report consists <strong>of</strong> these four parts.’<br />
3 The sentence would be acceptable under a topic interpretation <strong>of</strong> isso (‘that’):<br />
(i) Isso, o director queria, mas isto, não sei se vai querer<br />
That, the director wanted but this, not know-1SG whether goes want<br />
‘ That, the director wanted, but this, I am not sure he will.’<br />
8
F <strong>–</strong> Relative Clause Extraposition<br />
Cardoso (2010) shows that only CFF, not Topicalization, licenses relative clause<br />
extraposition. The examples (29) to (31) below illustrate this point: compare the<br />
ungrammaticality <strong>of</strong> (29b), (30b) and (31b), which exhibit relative clause extraposition<br />
associated with Topicalization, with the grammaticality <strong>of</strong> (29c), (30a) and (31a), which<br />
display relative clause extraposition associated with CFF. As in the previous examples, CFF<br />
and Topicalization can be differentiated because <strong>of</strong> clitic placement and subject-verb<br />
inversion, or by the referential properties <strong>of</strong> the fronted constituent:<br />
(29) a. Crianças que não gostam de chocolate, também conheço. (TOP)<br />
children that not like <strong>of</strong> chocolate also know-1SG<br />
‘Children that don’t like chocolate, I also know.’<br />
b. *Crianças, também conheço que não gostam de chocolate. (TOP)<br />
children, also know-1SG that not like <strong>of</strong> chocolate<br />
c. Poucas crianças conheço que não gostam de chocolate. 4 (CFF)<br />
few children know-1PL that not like <strong>of</strong> chocolate<br />
‘Very few children I know that don’t like chocolate.’<br />
(30) a. Uma estranha doença lhe diagnosticaram então que lhe retirou toda<br />
a strange disease him diagnosed-3PL then that him took all<br />
a alegria. (CFF)<br />
the joy<br />
‘A strange disease that took away all his joy was diagnosed to him then.’<br />
b. *Uma estranha doença, diagnosticaram-lhe então que lhe retirou toda<br />
a strange disease diagnosed-3PL-him then that him took all<br />
a alegria. (TOP)<br />
the joy<br />
(31) a. Uma notícia te darei agora que vai deixar-te feliz. (CFF)<br />
a news you-DAT will-give now that goes leave-you happy<br />
‘It’s a news that will make you happy that I’ll give you now.’<br />
b. *Uma notícia, dar-te-ei agora que vai deixar-te feliz. (TOP)<br />
a news will-you-DAT-give now that goes leave-you happy<br />
The six criteria presented above differentiate CFF from Topicalization, and provide clear<br />
evidence for the existence <strong>of</strong> CFF in the grammar <strong>of</strong> European Portuguese. 5<br />
4 Google <strong>of</strong>fers similar examples with Poucas pessoas conheço que… (literally: few people I-know that…).<br />
5 Topicalization and CFF are similar with respect to island sensitivity and the ability to license parasitic gaps. Cf.<br />
Hernanz and Brucart (1987), Duarte (1987), Zubizarreta (1999), among others.<br />
(i) a. Dele {dizem/ garantem} os críticos que se sabe pouca coisa. (CFF)<br />
<strong>of</strong>-him say-3PL/ guarantee-3PL the critics that SE knows little thing<br />
‘It is <strong>of</strong> him that the critics say that little is known.’<br />
b. *Dele {conhecemos/ se conhecem} os críticos que desconfiam. [relative island]<br />
<strong>of</strong>-him know-1PL/ SE know-3PL the critics that mistrust<br />
‘We know/people knows the critics that mistrust him.’<br />
9
3. Two grammars for CFF, in a set-subset relation<br />
The lack <strong>of</strong> consensus regarding the availability <strong>of</strong> contrastive focus fronting in contemporary<br />
European Portuguese is a consequence <strong>of</strong> variation across speakers. EP includes a less<br />
restrictive grammar regarding CFF, which we will be labeled Grammar A, and a more<br />
restrictive grammar, which we be will labeled Grammar B. They are related in the sense that<br />
the latter is a subset <strong>of</strong> the former. The generalization to emerge from the data is that fronting<br />
in Grammar B is limited to deictic expressions and PPs or AdvPs including deictic<br />
expressions.<br />
3.1. The restrictive Grammar B: data supporting the generalization on deictics<br />
The following set <strong>of</strong> data illustrate the generalization that fronting in Grammar B is restricted<br />
to expressions containing a deictic element. In all the sentences judged grammatical by<br />
speakers <strong>of</strong> grammar B the focalized constituent includes either a deictic adverb (manner,<br />
temporal or locative), a personal pronoun or a demonstrative. It must be noted that<br />
pronominal direct objects are necessarily accusative clitics in EP and clitics do not undergo<br />
CFF. This is why in Grammar B there is no fronting <strong>of</strong> bare personal pronouns. Only PP<br />
verbal complements containing strong pronouns can be focused under CFF.<br />
a) Fronting <strong>of</strong> deictic adverbs: manner, temporal, locative adverbs:<br />
(32) Assim se vê a força do PC. (political slogan)<br />
like.that one sees the strength <strong>of</strong>-the PC<br />
‘That’s how you see the strength <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party.’<br />
(33) Transpúnhamos o portão, a pergunta desalinhou-lhe o passo,<br />
crossed-1PL the gate, the question unaligned-him-DAT the step,<br />
mas logo o rectificou, acertando-o pelo meu. (from a novel by F. Namora)<br />
but then it rectified setting-it by-the mine<br />
‘We were crossing the gate, the question made him lose his pace, but it was immediately<br />
that he corrected it, following mine.’<br />
(34) Por aqui se vê que um mesmo constituinte pode desempenhar<br />
by here one sees that one single constituent may play<br />
diferentes funções sintácticas. (e-mail message by undergraduate student)<br />
different functions syntactic<br />
‘It is in this way that one can see that one single constituent may play different syntactic<br />
roles.’<br />
(ii) a. MAÇÃS RISCADINHAS (me) disse a <strong>Maria</strong> que temos para o lanche. (CFF)<br />
apples striped (me) told the <strong>Maria</strong> that have-1PL for the snack<br />
‘It’s striped apples that <strong>Maria</strong> told me we’re having as a snack.’<br />
b. *MAÇÃS RISCADINHAS surpreendeu toda a gente que o Pedro tenha comprado<br />
apples striped surprised all the people that the Pedro would-have bought<br />
‘That Pedro would have bought striped apples surprised everybody.’ [subject island]<br />
(iii) ESSES LIVROS TODOS trouxe a <strong>Maria</strong> da biblioteca sem requisitar. (CFF)<br />
those books all brought the <strong>Maria</strong> from-the library without asking<br />
‘It was all those books what <strong>Maria</strong> brought from the library without asking.’<br />
[parasitic gap in adjunct island]<br />
10
) Fronting <strong>of</strong> PPs containing personal pronouns:<br />
(35) A retórica é a maior arma dos políticos. Com ela se<br />
the rhetoric is the biggest weapon <strong>of</strong>-the politicians. with it themselves<br />
elevam, com ela se desgraçam. (from the newspaper Expresso/Única)<br />
raise-3PL with it temselves disgrace-3PL<br />
‘Rhetoric is the politicians’ greatest weapon. It is with it they elevate themselves, it is<br />
with it they fall in disgrace.’<br />
(36) {A ele/ ao João} se deve o sucesso da iniciativa.<br />
to him/ to-the João-ADRESS FORM one owes the success <strong>of</strong>-the initiative<br />
‘It’s {to him/to João} one owes the success <strong>of</strong> the initiative.’<br />
c) Fronting <strong>of</strong> demonstratives or PPs containing them:<br />
(37) Digo-te que isso queria eu. (from Google)<br />
say-1SG-you-DAT that that wanted I<br />
‘I tell you: that’s what I wanted.’<br />
(38) A este facto se deve o envio do meu teste formativo hoje,<br />
to this fact SE owes the sending <strong>of</strong>-the my test formative today<br />
quarta-feira. (e-mail message)<br />
Wednesday<br />
‘It’s because <strong>of</strong> this fact that I’m only sending my assignment today, Wednesday.’<br />
The data above attest that all cases <strong>of</strong> fronting accepted in Grammar B must contain a deictic<br />
expression <strong>–</strong> be it a pronoun referring to a salient discourse participant, a deictic adverb, or a<br />
demonstrative. The only case that does not contain one <strong>of</strong> these expressions is the proper<br />
name in (36), a case that is considered nevertheless deictic, since it is the polite way <strong>of</strong><br />
addressing the hearer in a formal context (i.e. addressing the other by his/her own name). It<br />
functions, thus, as a vocative.<br />
3.2. Deictic Fronting is a restrictive type <strong>of</strong> Contrastive Focus Fronting<br />
Deictic fronting behaves just like CFF and differs from Topicalization with respect to the<br />
grammatical tests introduced in section 2. None <strong>of</strong> the relevant tests places deictic fronting<br />
together with Topicalization. 6 Instead deictic fronting systematically patterns with CFF.<br />
(Tests A <strong>–</strong> Cleft-like interpretation)<br />
(39) Se o livro saiu bem, a si se deve.<br />
if the book came-out well, to you SE owes<br />
(‘Se o livro saiu bem é a si que se deve’)<br />
if the book came-out well is to you that SE owes<br />
‘If the book came out fine, it’s to you that we owe it.’<br />
6 It is not the case that deictic fronting patterns with Topicalization with respect to test C because Topicalization<br />
is not restricted to a subtype <strong>of</strong> referential expressions.<br />
11
(40) Contra esta ingratidão e injustiça se escreve este livro.<br />
against this ingratitude and injustice SE write-3SG this book<br />
(‘É contra esta ingratidão e injustiça que se escreve este livro’)<br />
is against this ingratitude and injustice that SE write-3SG this book<br />
‘This book was written to repair such ingratitude and injustice [against the Nobel Prize<br />
Egas Moniz].’ (from the newspaper Expresso/Actual)<br />
(Tests B <strong>–</strong> Clitic placement)<br />
(41) a. {Deste est<strong>of</strong>o/ assim} se fazem os grandes homens.<br />
<strong>of</strong>-this stuff / like-this SE make-3PL the great men<br />
b. *{Deste est<strong>of</strong>o / assim} fazem-se os grandes homens.<br />
<strong>of</strong>-this stuff / like-this make-3PL-SE the great men<br />
‘This is how great men are forged.’ (from Said Ali 1966 [1908] / from Google)<br />
(Tests D <strong>–</strong> Subject-verb inversion)<br />
(42) a. Assim o olhou o pessoal do posto Shell.<br />
like-that him looked the staff <strong>of</strong>-the station Shell (from a novel by J.<br />
‘That’s how the staff <strong>of</strong> the Shell gas station looked at him.’ Cardoso Pires)<br />
b. *Assim o pessoal do posto Shell o olhou.<br />
like-that the staff <strong>of</strong>-the station Shell him looked<br />
(Tests E <strong>–</strong> PP preposing)<br />
(43) a. Nesta crise financeira que atravessamos reside o problema.<br />
in-the crisis financial that face-1PL lies the problem<br />
‘It’s in this financial crisis we are currently facing that the problem lies.’<br />
b. *Nesta crise financeira que atravessamos, o problema reside.<br />
in-this crisis financial that face-1PL the problem lies<br />
(Test G <strong>–</strong> Relative clause extraposition)<br />
(44) Poucas dessas crianças autistas conheci (ao longo da vida)<br />
few <strong>of</strong>-those children autistic knew-1PL in-the course <strong>of</strong>-the life<br />
que não estabelecem nenhum tipo de interacção.<br />
that not establish-3PL any kind <strong>of</strong> interaction<br />
‘During my life I came across few autistic children that would not establish any kind <strong>of</strong><br />
interaction.’<br />
3.3. Deictic fronting is not Topicalization<br />
One further argument against the idea that deictic fronting might be some kind <strong>of</strong><br />
Topicalization associated with a particular type <strong>of</strong> prosodic marking comes from data like<br />
those in (45) to (48).<br />
Sentences (45)-(46) show that in EP the subject can be contrastively focused in situ:<br />
12
(45) O GATO comeu a tarte (não o cão)<br />
the cat ate the pie (not the dog)<br />
‘It was the cat that ate the pie, not the dog.’<br />
(46) DOCUMENTOS E PROVAS INDESMENTÍVEIS demonstram que esta<br />
Documents and pro<strong>of</strong>s undeniable demonstrate that this<br />
missão foi dirigida do exterior.<br />
mission was directed from-the abroad.<br />
‘It’s documents and unmistakable pro<strong>of</strong>s what demonstrates that this mission was<br />
directed from abroad.’ (from the newspaper Público; capital letters added)<br />
The above sentences show that a subject can be focalized in its original position, when<br />
associated to a specific intonational pattern. The sentences given below show, on the other<br />
hand, that in situ focalized subjects are not proclisis triggers, otherwise the attested sentences<br />
(47)-(48) would not be judged ungrammatical in Grammar B, which permits sentences (45)-<br />
(46). Therefore, it is a legitimate conclusion that the sentences with proclisis given in sections<br />
3.1 and 3.2 correspond to a syntactic strategy for focusing and not just to a mere prosodic<br />
strategy applied to topicalized constituents. 7<br />
(47) O porta-voz de Ismail Hanniyed o disse.<br />
the spokesperson <strong>of</strong> Ismail Hanniyed it-ACC said<br />
‘The spokesperson <strong>of</strong> Ismail Hanniyed said so.’<br />
(sentence from the newspaper Expresso, which João Costa judges ungrammatical)<br />
(48) Ele o disse, quinta-feira, na breve declaração à imprensa<br />
he it-ACC said Thursday in-the brief declaration to-the press<br />
‘He said it himself, last Thursday, in his brief declaration to the press.’<br />
(sentence from the newspaper Expresso, which João Costa judges ungrammatical)<br />
4. CFF vs Evaluative exclamatives<br />
Raposo (1995, 2000) discussed sentences like (49), which have been characterized in Ambar<br />
(1999) as Evaluative structures, and not as Focus structures. I will refer to them as Evaluative<br />
exclamatives, using this term in a narrow sense that excludes wh- exclamatives. Constituents<br />
fronted in Evaluative exclamatives are restricted to a subset <strong>of</strong> degree-like expressions, like<br />
the DPs including the quantifier muito (‘much’) or the adjective grande (‘big’). See (49)-(50):<br />
(49) Muito whisky bebeu o capitão!<br />
much whisky drank the captain<br />
‘Much whisky the captain drank!’<br />
7 The ungrammaticality <strong>of</strong> sentence (48) seems to indicate that in Grammar B the subject cannot undergo CFF,<br />
even if it is a deictic. This further difference between Grammar A and Grammar B is not explored in the current<br />
paper.<br />
13
4.1. Similarities between CFF and Evaluative exclamatives<br />
a) Like CFF, Evaluative exclamatives induce proclisis:<br />
(50) a. Muito whisky lhe deu o capitão!<br />
Much whisky him gave the captain<br />
‘Much whisky the captain gave him!’<br />
b. Grande sarilho me arranjaste!<br />
big trouble me-DAT brought<br />
‘In such a big trouble you put me!’<br />
b) Like CFF, Evaluative exclamatives allow fronting <strong>of</strong> non referential expressions:<br />
(51) a. Nem um beijo me deste!<br />
not a kiss me-DAT gave<br />
‘You didn’t even give me a kiss!’<br />
c) Like CFF, Evaluative exclamatives are compatible with relative clause extraposition:<br />
(52) Muito whisky o João bebeu que estava fora do prazo!<br />
much whisky the João drank that was out <strong>of</strong>-the expiry-date<br />
‘João drank a lot <strong>of</strong> whisky that was expired!’ (from Cardoso 2010)<br />
4.2. Differences between CFF and Evaluative exclamatives<br />
a) Evaluative exclamatives are not interpretively equivalent to cleft sentences. So they<br />
smoothly admit the type <strong>of</strong> continuation that is incompatible with the exhaustive meaning <strong>of</strong><br />
clefts:<br />
(53) Muito whisky bebeu o capitão, e muita cerveja também!<br />
much whisky drank the captain and much beer too<br />
‘Much whisky the captain drank, and much beer as well!’<br />
b) Subject-verb inversion is optional in Evaluative exclamatives:<br />
(54) a. Muito whisky o capitão bebeu.<br />
much whisky the captain drank<br />
b. Muito whisky bebeu o capitão.<br />
much whisky drank the captain<br />
‘Much whisky the captain drank!’<br />
c) In contrast to CFF, no preceding discourse setting is required for Evaluative<br />
exclamatives. They typically appear in out-<strong>of</strong>-the blue contexts. In (55b), the lack <strong>of</strong> a<br />
previous discourse context blocks the availability <strong>of</strong> CFF as a grammatically adequate option,<br />
while the Evaluative exclamative in (55a) is perfectly fine:<br />
14
(55) Situation: Peter and Mary are having breakfast in silence. Thinking about the party they<br />
attended together the previous evening, Mary utters out-<strong>of</strong>-the blue:<br />
a. Muita cerveja a gente bebeu ontem! (Evaluative exclamative)<br />
Much beer the people drank yesterday<br />
‘So much beer we drank yesterday!’<br />
b. # Com cerveja se embebedou o João. (CFF)<br />
with beer himself got-drunk the John<br />
‘It was with beer that John got drunk.’<br />
d) Evaluative exclamatives do not express disagreement or contrast; instead, they are<br />
evaluations <strong>of</strong> facts or situations known both to speaker and hearer. In other words, a sentence<br />
like (56-B-a) below (‘Much wine John drank!’) can only be used in a context in which it is<br />
known to both speaker and hearer who João is, and that a wine-drinking situation took place.<br />
Evaluative exclamatives typically ‘comment’ on given information. The paradigm in (56)<br />
illustrates the oddity <strong>of</strong> Evaluative exclamatives when set against a disagreeing/contrastive<br />
discourse context, while in the same context sentences displaying CFF are perfectly fine:<br />
(56) [A] O João ontem não bebeu.<br />
the João yesterday not drank<br />
‘John didn’t drink yesterday.’<br />
[B] a. # Muita cerveja (o João) bebeu (o João)! (Evaluative exclamative)<br />
much beer (the João) drank (the Joao)<br />
‘Much beer John drank!’<br />
b. Toneladas de cerveja bebeu o João! (Não me digas que<br />
tons <strong>of</strong> beer drank the João! (not me tell that<br />
não viste?!) (CFF)<br />
not saw-2SG)<br />
‘John drank TONS OF BEER. How could you possibly not see?’<br />
e) Evaluative exclamatives in contrast to CFF are compatible with expletive negation. See<br />
how in (57a) negation does not induce a negative reading:<br />
(57) a. Muito não bebe aquele rapaz!<br />
much not drinks that boy<br />
b. Muito bebe aquele rapaz!<br />
much drinks that boy<br />
‘So much he drinks!’<br />
5. The information structure status <strong>of</strong> sentences with CFF<br />
The examples in (58) to (61) below are clear cases <strong>of</strong> CFF sentences displaying broad<br />
information focus. Sentence (58) is the slogan <strong>of</strong> a TV channel specialized in information<br />
news. (59) below is the title and subtitle <strong>of</strong> a newspaper review <strong>of</strong> a new TV documentary<br />
series. (60) is also the title and subtitle <strong>of</strong> a newspaper piece: although the title sets the theme<br />
(i.e. the relation between rhetoric and politics), the subtitle displaying the CFF structure is not<br />
trivially deducible from it and introduces in fact all new information. A similar pattern is<br />
15
exhibited in (61) and (62) below, where deictic expressions (locative and demonstrative,<br />
respectively) anchor the CFF clauses to the immediate discourse context without preventing<br />
them to display broad information focus. Moreover, examples (58) and (60) show that the<br />
context licensing CFF is to be understood in a broad sense, and might not be linguistically<br />
expressed. The general knowledge <strong>of</strong> TV channels and the history <strong>of</strong> the United States,<br />
respectively, is what allows the authors <strong>of</strong> the TV slogan and the newspaper title to play with<br />
the supposed expectations <strong>of</strong> the public. On the other hand, examples (60), (61) and (62)<br />
demonstrate that when, more commonly, there is an openly expressed discourse context, it<br />
does not constrain the availability <strong>of</strong> broad information focus CFF sentences.<br />
(58) a. De notícias se faz o nosso mundo. (TV-channel slogan) (CFF)<br />
<strong>of</strong> news SE makes the our world<br />
(‘É de notícias que se faz o nosso mundo.’)<br />
is <strong>of</strong> news that SE makes the our world<br />
‘It’s the news that make up our world.’<br />
(59) América, modo de usar: Em 12 fatias se conta a história dos<br />
America, how to use: in 12 slices SE tells the history <strong>of</strong> -the<br />
‘states’ num hino à reencenação dos arquivos. Obama recomenda.<br />
States in-a hymn to-the recreation <strong>of</strong>-the archives. Obama recommends<br />
‘… The history <strong>of</strong> the United States is told in 12 episodes…’<br />
(from newspaper Expresso/Actual)<br />
(60) A retórica é a maior arma dos políticos. Com ela se<br />
the rhetoric is the biggest weapon <strong>of</strong>-the politicians. with it themselves<br />
elevam, com ela se desgraçam. (from the newspaper Expresso/Única)<br />
raise-3PL with it temselves disgrace-3PL<br />
‘Rhetoric is the politicians’ greatest weapon. It is with it they elevate themselves, it is<br />
with it they fall in disgrace.’<br />
(61) Embarcou para Cuba com um contrato tentador, e aí o atacou<br />
embarked to Cuba with a contract tempting and there him attacked<br />
uma terrível doença das Antilhas. (from the newspaper A Capital. In CRPC)<br />
a terrible disease <strong>of</strong>-the Antilles<br />
‘He embarked to Cuba with an inviting contract, and it was there that he contracted a<br />
terrible disease from the Antilles.’<br />
(62) A carta já vai longa de.mais, e disso me penitencio.<br />
the letter already goes long too.much and <strong>of</strong>-this me impose-penance<br />
‘This letter is getting too long, and that is what I apologize for.’<br />
(from a preface by João Lobo Antunes)<br />
Sentences with CFF involve broad focus both in Grammar A and in Grammar B (which<br />
further confirms that the two grammars do not differ in the properties associated to this<br />
construction). The fronted constituent establishes a connection with the discourse background,<br />
but the sentence as a whole conveys new information, patterning in this respect like<br />
presentational sentences as shown by (Duarte 1997) who coins CFF sentences as D-linked<br />
16
presentations). CFF sentences differ from standard presentational sentences (that is, sentences<br />
expressing thetic judgements, in the terms <strong>of</strong> Kuroda [2005] and previous work) in being<br />
Discourse-linked and necessarily involving the transmission <strong>of</strong> the speaker’s (disagreeing)<br />
attitude. This makes CFF sentences ‘marked’ in contrast to ‘unmarked’<br />
presentational/descriptive sentences (cf. Kuroda 2005).<br />
Crucially, CFF and narrow information focus are dissociated. As such, it is expected that CFF<br />
sentences are not appropriate answers to wh-questions (see section 1. above).<br />
6. Summary and further facts<br />
A) THREE TYPES OF FRONTED CONSTITUENTS. The fronted constituents in Topicalization, in<br />
Contrastive Focus Fronting, and in Evaluative exclamatives are different, and it is possible to<br />
tease them apart on the basis <strong>of</strong> syntactic and interpretational criteria:<br />
Table 2: Three types <strong>of</strong> fronting in EP: Topicalization, CFF and Evaluative exclamatives<br />
Topicalization Contrastive Evaluative<br />
Focus Fronting exclamatives<br />
Cleft-like interpretation ‒ + ‒<br />
Proclisis ‒ + +<br />
Fronting <strong>of</strong> referential expressions + + ‒<br />
Fronting <strong>of</strong> non referential expressions ‒ + +<br />
Obligatory subject-verb inversion ‒ + ‒<br />
Unrestricted fronting <strong>of</strong> PP complements ‒ + ‒<br />
Relative clause extraposition ‒ + +<br />
Licensing <strong>of</strong> expletive negation ‒ ‒ +<br />
Speaker’s attitude marks contrast with<br />
assumed expectation state <strong>of</strong> the hearer<br />
‒ + ‒<br />
B) TWO GRAMMARS FOR CFF. Contemporary European Portuguese includes two grammars<br />
with Contrastive Focus Fronting. One grammar is less restrictive regarding the array <strong>of</strong><br />
constituents that can be fronted. The other grammar constrains this operation, which can only<br />
affect deictic expressions. In this more restrictive variant, CFF structures are comparable to<br />
other grammatical structures <strong>of</strong> European Portuguese, which have in common the fact that<br />
word order alternations may be limited to constituents containing deictic expressions:<br />
a) Magro (2007) shows that clitic interpolation in contemporary European Portuguese dialects<br />
is restricted to deictic expressions intervening in between the clitic pronoun and the verb.<br />
b) Costa and <strong>Martins</strong> (2009, 2010) show that middle distance scrambling exists in European<br />
Portuguese, but it is restricted to deictic locative expressions.<br />
c) <strong>Martins</strong> (2010) shows that European Portuguese syntactically expresses metalinguistic<br />
negation (MN) through unambiguous MN markers, but while a wide range <strong>of</strong> clause<br />
peripheral MN markers is available, clause internal MN markers are limited to cá and lá<br />
(literally here and there), endowed with deixis-related features. While peripheral MN markers<br />
directly merge in Spec,CP, internal MN markers reach Spec,CP by movement.<br />
17
What is common to all these domains is that, in all cases, the processes leading to word order<br />
changes are restricted to deictic expressions. A deixis-related feature appears to be relevant<br />
for triggering syntactic and post-syntactic (in the case <strong>of</strong> interpolation) displacement<br />
operations. The deicitic feature appears to be relevant for the C-T system.<br />
7. A feature-based analysis for the three-way distinction between topic, focus and<br />
evaluative fronted constituents in European Portuguese<br />
A) PROPOSAL<br />
The relevant features for characterizing the three types <strong>of</strong> fronted constituents in European<br />
Portuguese are [D-linked]/[deictic] and [evaluative]. These features codify basic semantic<br />
distinctions and possibly determine how such distinctions interact with syntax. (Cf.<br />
Remberger 2010, Menshing and Remberger 2010, and references therein).<br />
Table 1: Fronted constituents in CFF, Topicalization and Evaluative exclamatives<br />
Structure Distinctive feature(s) <strong>of</strong> fronted constituents<br />
Grammar A Grammar B<br />
Topicalization [D-linked]<br />
Evaluative exclamatives [Evaluative]<br />
Contrastive Focus<br />
Fronting<br />
[D-linked, Evaluative] [Deictic, Evaluative]<br />
It follows from this proposal that D-linked is involved both in Topicalization and in CFF<br />
(Duarte 1997), in Grammars A and B, since deictic implies D-linked, a one-side implication.<br />
This explains why these two constructions have <strong>of</strong>ten been hard to tease apart. Another<br />
consequence <strong>of</strong> this proposal is that there is no need to argue for the syntactic relevance <strong>of</strong><br />
focus features, which is coherent with the findings <strong>of</strong> Costa (2010) and Kratzer and Selkirk<br />
(2009), as it is shown in these works that the focalization effects obtain when the<br />
interpretations generated via movement are read <strong>of</strong>f at the interfaces.<br />
B) CONSEQUENCES:<br />
a) Subject-verb inversion is determined by the [Evaluative] feature<br />
The last aspect involved in CFF we would like to emphasize is the obligatoriness <strong>of</strong> subjectverb<br />
inversion. It is legitimate to take this as an indication <strong>of</strong> T-to-C movement, as argued in<br />
Ambar (1992). Since no T-to-C is involved in Topicalization (cf. Duarte 1987), it is possible<br />
to contend that T-to-C is related to the evaluative feature, but not to the D-linked feature.<br />
Inserting so-called focus adverbs, like até ‘even’ or só ‘only’ may be an alternative strategy<br />
for licensing [evaluative] features, which would explain the fact that inversion is not<br />
obligatory in the presence <strong>of</strong> such adverbs. Also negative words and the limited set <strong>of</strong><br />
quantificational and high-degree expressions required by Evaluative exclamatives might well<br />
be alternative licensers, thus dispensing with V-to-C and making subject-verb inversion<br />
optional (see footnote 8 and section 2.2.1).<br />
18
(63) a. A NINGUÉM contarei eu essa história.<br />
to no-one will-tell I that story<br />
b. A NINGUÉM eu contarei essa história.<br />
to no-one I will-tell that story<br />
‘I won’t tell anybody what happened.’<br />
(64) a. A LISTA TELEFÓNICA leu o João de ponta a ponta.<br />
the list telephonic read the João from end to end<br />
b. *A LISTA TELEFÓNICA o João leu de ponta a ponta.<br />
the list telephonic the João read from end to end<br />
‘John read THE PHONE LIST from end to end.’<br />
c. {Até/ só} a lista telefónica o João leu de ponta a ponta.<br />
{even/ only} the list telephonic the João read from end to end<br />
‘Even/only the phone list John read from end to end.’<br />
b) The feature [evaluative] feeds while the feature [D-linked] blocks expletive negation.<br />
c) The incompatibility <strong>of</strong> Evaluative exclamatives and possibly CFF constructions with<br />
standard negation is also related to [evaluative], as Topicalization freely allows standard<br />
negation. (Cf. González Rodríguez 2009 on negation in exclamative sentences)<br />
d) The grammatical significance <strong>of</strong> the feature [deictic] in EP grammar is empirically well<br />
established but rests poorly understood.<br />
References<br />
Ambar, Manuela 1992. Para Uma Sintaxe da Inversão Sujeito-Verbo em Português. Lisboa: Colibri.<br />
Ambar, Manuela 1999. Aspects <strong>of</strong> the Syntax <strong>of</strong> Focus in Portuguese. In G. Rebuschi & L. Tuller<br />
(eds.), The Grammar <strong>of</strong> Focus, 23-53. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.<br />
Avesani, Cinzia and Mario Vayra 2003. Broad, narrow and contrastive focus in Florentine Italian.<br />
Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the 15th International Congress <strong>of</strong> Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS). 1803-1806,<br />
Barcelona: UAB.<br />
Barbosa, Pilar 1995. Null Subjects. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT dissertation.<br />
Batllori, Montserrat & Mª. Lluïsa Hernanz (forthcoming). Weak Focus and Polarity: Asymmetries<br />
between Spanish and Catalan. In Theresa Biberauer & George Walkden (eds), Syntax over Time:<br />
Lexical, Morphological and Information Structural Interactions. Oxford: Oxford <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />
Cardoso, Adriana 2010. Variation and Change in the Syntax <strong>of</strong> Relative Clauses. New Evidence from<br />
Portuguese. Lisboa: Universty <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lisbon</strong> (<strong>FLUL</strong>) dissertation.<br />
Cinque, Guglielmo 1990. Types <strong>of</strong> Ā-Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.<br />
Costa, João 1998. Word Order Variation: A constraint-based approach. Leiden: HIL/Leiden<br />
<strong>University</strong> dissertation.<br />
Costa, João 2004. Subject Positions and the Interfaces: The Case <strong>of</strong> European Portuguese. Berlin &<br />
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.<br />
Costa, João. 2010. Prosodic prominence: a syntactic matter? In N. Erteschik-Shir & L. Rochman<br />
(eds.), The Sound Patterns <strong>of</strong> Syntax, 93-109. Oxford: Oxford <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />
Costa, João & <strong>Ana</strong> <strong>Maria</strong> <strong>Martins</strong> 2009. Scrambling de média distância com advérbios locativos no<br />
português contemporâneo. In A. Fiéis & M. A. Coutinho (eds.), Actas do XXIV Encontro Nacional<br />
da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 225-237. Lisboa: APL. 225-237.<br />
Costa, João & <strong>Ana</strong> <strong>Maria</strong> <strong>Martins</strong> 2010. Middle Scrambling with Deictic Locatives in European<br />
Portuguese. In R. Bok-Bennema, B. Kampers-Manhe & B. Hollebrandse (eds.), Romance<br />
Languages and Linguistic Theory 2008, 59-76. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.<br />
19
Culicover, Peter. 1991. Polarity, Inversion, and Focus in English. In G. Westphal, B. Ao, & H.-R.<br />
Chae (eds.), Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 1991),<br />
46-68. Department <strong>of</strong> Linguistics, Ohio State <strong>University</strong>.<br />
Duarte, Inês 1987. A Construção de Topicalização na Gramática do Português. Lisboa: <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Lisbon</strong> (<strong>FLUL</strong>) dissertation.<br />
Duarte, Inês 1997. Ordem de palavras: sintaxe e estrutura discursiva. In A. M. Brito, F. Oliveira, I.<br />
Pires de Lima & R. M. Martelo (eds.), Sentido que a Vida Faz. Estudos para Óscar Lopes, 581-<br />
592. Porto: Campo das Letras.<br />
Frota, Sónia 2000. Prosody and Focus in European Portuguese. Phonological Phrasing and<br />
Intonation. New York: Garland.<br />
Hernanz, <strong>Maria</strong> Lluïsa & José <strong>Maria</strong> Brucart 1987. La Sintaxis: Principios teóricos. La oración<br />
simple. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica.<br />
Kratzer, Angelika and Lisa Selkirk. 2009. Distinguishing contrastive, new and given information.<br />
Paper presented at the Workshop on Prosody and Meaning. Barcelona: UAB.<br />
http://prosodia.upf.edu/activitats/prosodyandmeaning/arxiu/kratzer_selkirk.pdf<br />
Kuroda, S.-Y. 2005. Focusing on the matter <strong>of</strong> Topic: a study on wa and ga in Japanese. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
East Asian Linguistics 14.1-58.<br />
Lasnik, Howard & Mamoru Saito 1992. Move α: Conditions on Its Application and Output.<br />
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.<br />
Magro, Catarina. 2007. Clíticos: variações sobre o tema. Ph.D. dissertation. <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lisbon</strong>.<br />
<strong>Martins</strong>, <strong>Ana</strong> <strong>Maria</strong> 1994. Enclisis, VP-Ellipsis and the Nature <strong>of</strong> Sigma. Probus 6.173-205.<br />
<strong>Martins</strong>, <strong>Ana</strong> <strong>Maria</strong> 1994. Clíticos na História do Português. Ph.D. dissertation. <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lisbon</strong>.<br />
<strong>Martins</strong>, <strong>Ana</strong> <strong>Maria</strong> 2010. Negação metalinguística (lá, lá e agora). In A. M. Brito, F. Silva, J. Veloso<br />
& A. Fiéis (eds.), Actas do XXV Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 567-<br />
587. Lisboa: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística.<br />
<strong>Martins</strong>, <strong>Ana</strong> <strong>Maria</strong> (forthcoming). Deictic locatives, emphasis and metalinguistic negation. In<br />
Charlotte Galves et al. (eds.), Diachronic Syntax: Parameter Theory and Dynamics <strong>of</strong> Change.<br />
Oxford <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />
Mascarenhas, Isabel. 2006. Evidências sintácticas e prosódicas para o estatutos do sujeitos pré-verbais<br />
em PE. In Fátima Oliveira & Joaquim Barbosa (eds.), XXVI Encontro Nacional da Associação<br />
Portuguesa de Linguística, 525-538. Lisboa: APL.<br />
Mensching, Guido and Eva-<strong>Maria</strong> Remberger 2010. “The left periphery <strong>of</strong> Sardinian”. Syntactic<br />
Variation. The Dialects <strong>of</strong> Italy, ed. by. Roberta D’Alessadro, Ian Roberts and Adam Ledgeway.<br />
Cambridge: Cambridge <strong>University</strong> Press. 261-276.<br />
Prieto Vives, Pilar 2002. Entonació’. In J. Solà, M.ª R. Lloret, J. Mascaró & M. Pérez Saldanya (eds.),<br />
Gramática del Català Contemporani. Volum 1: Introducció, Fonètica i Fonologia, Morfologia,<br />
393-462. Barcelona: Empúries.<br />
Raposo, Eduardo 1995. Próclise, ênclise e posição do verbo em português europeu. In J. Camilo dos<br />
Santos and F. G. Williams (eds.), O Amor das Letras e das Gentes: In honor <strong>of</strong> <strong>Maria</strong> de Lourdes<br />
Belchior Pontes, 455-481. Santa Barbara, California: Center for Portuguese Studies. UCSB.<br />
Raposo, Eduardo 2000. Clitic Positions and Verb Movement. In J. Costa (ed.), Portuguese Syntax.<br />
New Comparative Studies, 266-297. Oxford/New York: Oxford <strong>University</strong> Press.<br />
Remberger, Eva-<strong>Maria</strong> 2010. “Left Peripheral Interactions in Romance”. Paper delivered at:<br />
Workshop on “Focus, Contrast and Givenness in Interaction with Extraction and Deletion”.<br />
Tübingen, SFB 833-A7, 26-27 March 2010.<br />
Rouveret, A. 1999. Clitics, Subjects and Tense in European Portuguese. In Clitics in the Languages <strong>of</strong><br />
Europe, ed. H. van Riemsdijk, 639-677. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br />
Rizzi, Luigi 1997. The fine structure <strong>of</strong> the left-periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements <strong>of</strong><br />
Grammar: Handobook <strong>of</strong> Generative Syntax, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.<br />
Rouveret, Alain. 1992. Clitic Placement, Focus and the Wackernagel Position in European Portuguese,<br />
Eurotyp Working Papers [Theme Group 8: Clitics], Volume 3, 103-139.<br />
Said Ali, Manuel 1966 [1908]. Dificuldades da Língua Portuguesa. Rio de Janeiro: Livr. Acadêmica.<br />
Selkirk, E. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS vs. Presentational Focus: Prosodic evidence from right node<br />
raising in English. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the 1 st International Conference on Speech Prosody, 643-646.<br />
Aix-en-Provence.<br />
20
Torrego, E. 1984. “On Inversion in Spanish and Some <strong>of</strong> its Effects”. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 103-127.<br />
Viana, Céu 1987. Para a Síntese da Entoação do Português. Ph.D. dissertation. <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lisbon</strong>.<br />
Zimmermann, Malte 2007. Contrastive Focus, In C. G. Fanselow & M. Krifka (eds.), The Notion <strong>of</strong><br />
Information Structure = Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6.147-159.<br />
Zimmermann, Malte and Edgar Onea 2011. “Focus marking and focus interpretation”. Lingua 2011:<br />
1651-1670.<br />
Zubizarreta, <strong>Maria</strong> Luisa 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge: MIT Press.<br />
Zubizarreta, <strong>Maria</strong> Luisa 1999. Las funciones informativas: Tema y foco. In Ignacio Bosque &<br />
Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, Vol. 3, 4215-4244.<br />
Madrid: Espasa.<br />
ANNEX 1: The term ‘Topicalization’: some quotations<br />
It is not entirely clear that (24a) [Un viaje a las Canarias hizo Antonio este verano] and (25a) [Un<br />
edificio de dos pisos derrumbaron los albañiles] are the Spanish equivalent <strong>of</strong> a Topicalization<br />
construction. (...) In Torrego (1980), I claimed that the data presented by Rivero as illustrative <strong>of</strong><br />
Spanish Topicalization do not constitute a unified phenomenon. I based this conclusion primarily on<br />
the facts <strong>of</strong> inversion (although in that paper I did not establish a correlation between Wh Movement<br />
and obligatory inversion). The interaction between Wh Movement and V-Preposing shown to hold for<br />
Spanish confirms that my observation was correct. Frontings such as (24a) and (25a) might be<br />
considered Wh-focus constructions. (Torrego 1984:110)<br />
As mentioned in chapter 1, topicalization could more appropriately be termed Focus Movement in<br />
Italian, since its left-peripheral phrase obligatorily bears heavy stress, its pragmatic function being to<br />
contrast the “topicalized” constituent with some other constituent. I nonetheless retain the term<br />
topicalization here to emphasize its syntactic identity to the English construction (though the<br />
pragmatics <strong>of</strong> the latter is indeed closer to that <strong>of</strong> CLLD in Italian...) For the sake <strong>of</strong> clarity, I will<br />
continue to capitalize topicalized constituents. (Cinque 1990:180-181)<br />
…the presence <strong>of</strong> an empty operator in topicalization is tied to the quantificational force <strong>of</strong> the<br />
construction, which involves the “fronting” <strong>of</strong> a focused element, in Italian. (Cinque 1990:81)<br />
A traditional articulation <strong>of</strong> the clause that typically involves the left periphery is the articulation in<br />
topic and comment, as expressed by the English construction referred to as Topicalization [Your book,<br />
you should give t to Paul (not to Bill)] (…). Formally similar but interpretatively very different is the<br />
focus-presupposition articulation [YOUR BOOK you should give t to Paul (not mine)] (…). In Italian<br />
and more generally in Romance, the topic-comment articulation is typically expressed by the<br />
construction that Cinque (1990) has called Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD), involving a resumptive<br />
clitic coreferential to the topic (…). The focus-presupposition articulation can be expressed in Italian<br />
by preposing the focal element (focalization) and assigning it special focal stress (…). In Italian this<br />
option is restricted to contrastive focus (…). [IL TUO LIBRO ho letto (, non il suo)] could not be<br />
felicitously uttered as conveying non-contrastive new information, i.e. as an answer to the question<br />
“What did you read?”. Other languages use the clause-initial position for non-contrastive focus as well<br />
(Hungarian …; Albanian …; Greek …). Some other languages (e.g. French) do not seem to use a<br />
structural focus position, at least in the overt syntax (Spanish seems to have a focus construction<br />
similar to the Italian one). (Rizzi 1997:285-286.<br />
It should be noted here that my terminology is slighty diferente from Cinque’s: he follows the<br />
traditional terminology in using the term “Topicalization” to refer to the English constructions (1)<br />
[Your book, you should give to Paul (not to Bill)] and (2) [YOUR BOOK you should give to Paul (not<br />
mine)]; he then extends this term to cover the Italian construction (4) [IL TUO LIBRO ho letto (, non<br />
ilsuo)]. I try to avoid the term Topicalization, and refer to (1) and (3) [Il tuo libro, lo ho letto] as Topic<br />
(Comment) structures and to (2) and (4) as Focus (Presupposition) structures. (Rizzi 1997:328)<br />
21
ANNEX 2: Middle scrambling with deictic locatives in European Portuguese (Costa & <strong>Martins</strong><br />
While lá-type locatives can become left-adjacent to the verb by moving to Spec,TP, this position is not<br />
accessible to other locative constituents:<br />
(1) a. O Pedro já para lá vai.<br />
the Pedro already/soon to there goes<br />
‘Peter is ready to go there.’<br />
b. *O Pedro já para Lisboa vai.<br />
the Pedro already/soon to <strong>Lisbon</strong> goes<br />
‘Peter is ready to go to <strong>Lisbon</strong>.’<br />
c. *O Pedro já longe vai.<br />
the Pedro already far goes<br />
“Peter is far away already.”<br />
(2) a. O Pedro já lá vai a casa.<br />
the Pedro already/soon there goes to house<br />
“Peter is ready to go to his/her/their/our house.”<br />
b. *O Pedro já lá a casa vai.<br />
the Pedro already/soon there to house goes<br />
Lá-type locatives denote a location identified with respect to the speaker’s location at the utterance<br />
time (see (3)). The special link between Tense and lá-type locatives is rooted in their similar nature as<br />
speaker-anchored and utterance-anchored deictics.<br />
(3) Ontem ele esteve lá comigo.<br />
Yesterday he was there with.me<br />
Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (2000) analyse Tense and Aspect as dyadic predicates projecting a<br />
maximal projection in the syntax and establishing an ordering relation between its two time-denoting<br />
arguments. The external argument <strong>of</strong> Tense (T 0 ) is a reference time, the utterance-time (UT-T); its<br />
internal argument is the assertion time (AST-T). The utterance time (UT-T) plays a central role in the<br />
interpretation <strong>of</strong> lá-type locatives. The syntactic locus <strong>of</strong> the UT-T argument is Spec,TP. It now seems<br />
less enigmatic that Spec,TP might be the target <strong>of</strong> movement <strong>of</strong> this very particular type <strong>of</strong><br />
speaker/utterance-anchored deictic locatives. Seemingly, temporal and spatial anchoring can work<br />
together as far as the right kind <strong>of</strong> deictic locatives is available.<br />
(4) * [P (Subjwithout polarity features) [[+aff] [TP loc [(cl) [ V+T]] ...<br />
(5) a. Ele telefonou para lá.<br />
he called to there<br />
b. *Ele para lá telefonou.<br />
he to there called<br />
‘He called there.’<br />
c. Ele já para lá telefonou. (optional scrambling)<br />
he already to there called<br />
‘He has already called there.’<br />
(6) a. Ele telefonou-me.<br />
he called-me<br />
b. *Ele me telefonou.<br />
he me called<br />
‘He called me.’<br />
c. Ele já me telefonou. (obligatory proclisis)<br />
he already me called<br />
‘He has already called me.’<br />
22
ANNEX 3: Unambiguous Metalinguistic Negation (MN) markers in EP<br />
Horn (1989:363): MN is as “a device for objecting to a previous utterance on any grounds<br />
whatever”, which “focuses, not on the truth or falsity <strong>of</strong> a proposition, but on the assertability<br />
<strong>of</strong> an utterance”. It is rectification part <strong>of</strong> the sentences in (1) that undoes their interpretative<br />
ambiguity, because the same negative marker expresses ordinary negation and MN.<br />
(1) a. A: Some men are chauvinists.<br />
B Some men aren’t chauvinists <strong>–</strong> all men are chauvinists.<br />
b. A: He is meeting a woman this evening.<br />
B: No, he’s not (meeting a woman this evening) <strong>–</strong> he’s meeting his wife!<br />
c. A: Were you a little worried?<br />
B: I wasn’t a little worried, my friend; I was worried sick.<br />
Horn (1989: 362ff.)<br />
Generally in the world’s languages the standard predicative negation marker may express MN<br />
as well. But languages also express MN through certain sentence-peripheral idiomatic<br />
expressions, which lexically vary from language to language but nonetheless display a similar<br />
syntax across languages:<br />
(2) a. Al and Hilary are married my eye. (cf. Drozd 2001:55)<br />
b. Like hell Al and Hilary are married<br />
(3) c. Eles são casados uma ova.<br />
they are married a roe<br />
d. Uma ova é que são casados.<br />
a roe is that are married<br />
‘They are married my eye.’<br />
Sentence-peripheral idiomatic expressions such as like hell, my eye, etc. appear to be crosslinguistically<br />
available as a means to express metalinguistic negation. European Portuguese<br />
exhibits a less trivial trait as it displays not only sentence-peripheral MN markers (e.g., uma<br />
ova ‘a roe’) but also MN markers that are placed sentence-internally (like lá, originated from<br />
the deictic locative ‘there’, and agora, originated from the temporal adverb ‘now’):<br />
(4) A: Estás um pouco preocupado?<br />
are-2SG a little worried<br />
‘Are you a little worried?’<br />
B: Estou lá/agora um pouco preocupado, estou morto de preocupação.<br />
am MN-marker a little worried am dead <strong>of</strong> worry<br />
‘I’m not a little worried, I am worried sick.’<br />
(5) Standard tests for MN:<br />
(i) MN does not license negative polarity items (NPIs)<br />
(ii) MN is compatible with (strong) positive polarity items (PPIs)<br />
(iii) MN requires licensing by discourse/pragmatic context<br />
(6) a. ??He isn’t {pretty/somewhat/rather} tall.<br />
b. A: He is {pretty/somewhat/rather} tall.<br />
B: He isn’t {pretty/somewhat/rather} tall <strong>–</strong> he’s humongous.<br />
(7) A: Chris managed to solve some problems.<br />
B: a. Chris didn’t manage to solve any problems.<br />
b. Chris didn’t manage to solve {some/*any problems} <strong>–</strong> he solved them easily.<br />
(8) A: You still love me.<br />
B: Like hell I {still love you / *love you anymore}.<br />
23
EUROPEAN PORTUGUESE DEICTICS AS MN MARKERS<br />
Test (iii): MN requires licensing by discourse/pragmatic context<br />
(9) a. Hoje não estás com boa cara. O que se.passa?<br />
today not are-2SG with good face. the what is-going-on<br />
b. *Hoje estás lá/agora com boa cara. O que se.passa?<br />
today are-2SG MN-marker with good face. the what is-going-on<br />
‘You don’t look good today. What happened?’<br />
Test (ii): MN requires licensing by discourse/pragmatic context<br />
(10) a. Tiveste uma sorte do diabo.<br />
had-2SG a good-luck <strong>of</strong>-the devil<br />
‘So lucky you were!’<br />
b. *Não tiveste uma sorte do diabo. (out-<strong>of</strong>-the-blue declarative)<br />
not had-2SG a good-luck <strong>of</strong>-the devil<br />
‘You were not that lucky.’<br />
c. *Tiveste uma sorte do diabo?<br />
had-2SG a good-luck <strong>of</strong>-the devil<br />
‘Were you really lucky?’<br />
d. Tive lá/agora uma sorte do diabo. (as a reply to (10a))<br />
had-1SG MN-marker a good-luck <strong>of</strong>-the devil<br />
‘I wasn’t so lucky. ’<br />
Test (i): MN does not license negative polarity items (NPIs)<br />
(11) A: Tu é que conheces uma pessoa que sabe arranjar isto.<br />
you is that know-2SG a person that knows fix-INFIN this<br />
‘You do know someone that can fix this.’<br />
B: a. Eu não conheço ninguém que saiba arranjar isso.<br />
I not know-1SG nobody that knows fix-INFIN that<br />
b. Eu conheço lá/agora alguém/*ninguém que saiba arranjar isso.<br />
I know-1SG MN-marker somebody/*nobody that knows fix that<br />
‘I don’t know anyone who can fix that.’<br />
(12) A: Hoje vais sair comigo.<br />
today go-2SG go-out with-me<br />
‘Today we are going out together.’<br />
B: a. Eu não saio contigo nem morta.<br />
I not go-out-1SG with-you not-even dead<br />
b. *Eu saio lá/agora contigo nem morta.<br />
I go-out-1SG MN-marker with-you not-even dead<br />
‘No way I will go out with you.’<br />
(13) A: Eu sei que tu gostas de marisco.<br />
I know-1SG that you like-2SG <strong>of</strong> seafood<br />
B: a. Eu não gosto de marisco de todo.<br />
I not like-1SG <strong>of</strong> seafood at all<br />
b. *Eu gosto lá/agora de marisco de todo.<br />
I like-1SG MN-marker <strong>of</strong> seafood at all<br />
‘I don’t like seafood at all.’<br />
24