Subjects, Topics and the Interpretation of Referential pro.

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 13 It might be objected that questa rubrica in (16) is not an Aboutness-shift Topic: it is located in the right periphery of the sentence and, as such, it qualifies as a Familiar Topic (cf. section 3.2). In cases like this, it is argued that the relevant Familiar Topic is the low copy of a (previously mentioned) Aboutness-shift Topic that is kept silent in the local C-domain. In other words, I propose that the interpretation of referential pro always depends on the presence of a local Aboutness-shift Topic, which can be overt or silent and, when silent, it can be repeated by means of low copies (in FamP) for the sake of topic continuity. The relevant two sentences can be thus analyzed as is shown in (17a-b): 27 (17) a. [ShiftP [GP [IP conduco insieme al capo] [FamP questa rubricak tIP]]] ‘ I conduct with my boss this program.’ b. [ShiftP [IP prok è scritta ]] ‘ it is written.’ As we can see, in (17a) the (previously established) Aboutness-shift Topic is merged as a silent copy (in Spec,ShiftP) and re-merged as a Familiar Topic that is spelled-out in righthand position (after IP-movement). Since no ‘new’ Topic is proposed in the following sentence (17b), an additional silent copy is merged in the C-domain, which matches its features with the null pronoun in subject position. To invoke the presence of empty Topics could be considered an ad hoc stipulation and, without evidence, it runs the risk of rendering this proposal impossible to falsify. However, this problem can be solved – supporting the present analysis. Since the claim here is that a NS is bound by the local Aboutness-shift Topic, and Aboutness-shift Topics cannot be iterated in the same C-domain (see section 3.3), an empty Aboutness Topic must be incompatible with an overt one. An immediate test to verify the presence of silent Topics is therefore to 27 Here and in similar examples, the Aboutness-shift Topic is realized in boldface. Angle brackets are used to indicate silent Topics. 28 Notice that this account does not postulate a Topic chain across sentences, but a copying of referential features in different C-domains (through Merge of silent copies), till a new Aboutness-shift Topic is proposed. 29 The same explanation can be invoked for a case like the following, suggested by a NLLT reviewer: (i) A: Cosa ha fatto Giannik ? ‘What did Gianni do?’ B: prok ha parlato con Maria. ‘He talked to Maria.’ The DP Gianni in the question is clearly not a shifting Topic, although it is undoubtedly the current Aboutness Topic. Hence, according to the present proposal, it is a low copy of a previously mentioned Aboutness-shift Topic (which is silent in the local C-domain, both in the question and in the answer, like in (17) above). This explains why it is the only possible antecedent for the referential pro in the answer (cf. also Grimshaw and Samek-Lodovici (1988:199) for a similar explanation regarding by-phrases in wh-questions). 16 28, 29
introduce an overt one and consider its effects on the identification of the subject pro. 30 Let us consider the following: (18) a. Conduco insieme al capo questa rubricak … (= (17a)) ‘I conduct with my boss this program. b. …la prima partej, fortunatamente, proj è più facile. pro*k/j è scritta. its first part, luckily, is easier. It is written.’ c. …la prima partej, l’j ho già preparata. pro*k/j è più facile. pro*k/j è scritta. I have already prepared its first part. It is easier. It is written.’ As we can see, if an overt Aboutness-shift Topic is introduced, it triggers obligatory matching with the NSs in the following sentences, independent of its being a subject-Topic (18b) or a (clitic resumed) object-Topic (18c). So, even though questa rubrica clearly remains as a background (hence, Familiar) Topic (the new Topic clearly refers to it), it is no longer possible to understand that the entire program is written – only its prima parte. 31 For the same reasons, if we introduce an overt Aboutness-shift Topic before the sentence given in (18a), coreference with quella rubrica is excluded again: (19) L’intervistaj laj sto preparando perché conduco insieme al capo questa rubricak. proj/*k è scritta. ‘As for this interview, I’m preparing it because I conduct with my boss this program. It is written.’ To conclude, the existence of null Aboutness-shift Topics is supported by evidence concerning the interpretation of NSs. In line with Minimalist tenets (see section 5.2), their presence in the C-domain is necessary to allow for a local identification of referential pros (excluding a process of ‘binding across sentences’; cf. note 28). 4.2 Non-shifting ‘subjects’ in the C-domain When overt subjects are not used to produce a topic shift, they are associated with different tonal events and serve different discourse functions. Focus is one of the most common of these. Preverbal Focus in Italian is associated with contrast or emphasis and it cannot be an antecedent for pro, which supports the present analysis. Consider the following conversation: (20) A [Aboutness-shift Topic: the bossk] ma a te adesso prok ti paga? B ancora no comunque l’ultima volta prok m’aveva detto appunto che prok aveva intenzione di cominciare a farmi pagare se prok era soddisfatto di quella trasmissione là […] A tu l’hai chiesto o te l’ha detto luik? B luik me l’ha detto io non ho mai parlato di soldi, l’ha sempre tirato fuori luik il discorso A ‘does prok pay you now?’ 30 This test will be used systematically in this paper, every time a silent Topic is postulated. This proves the syntactic nature of the Topic-pro(noun) relation. I thank two NLLT reviewers for this suggestion. 31 Interestingly, if we introduce a subject-Topic that disagrees with the NS in its φ-features, the latter cannot be interpreted: (i) conduco insieme al capo questa rubricak. Le prime due partij, fortunatamente, proj sono finite. pro *k/*j è scritta. ‘I conduct with my boss this program. Luckily, its first two parts are finished. #It is written.’ This shows that the newly introduced Aboutness-shift Topic (le prime due parti) creates an intervention effect with respect to the (silent) preceding one (excluding its coreference with the pro) but, at the same time, it cannot qualify as a possible antecedent for the following NS. The latter cannot be interpreted in this way. 17
Page 1 and 2: Subjects, Topics and the Interpreta
Page 3 and 4: (2) Aboutness-shift Topic > Contras
Page 5 and 6: The problem is, therefore, to defin
Page 7 and 8: Among the different types of Topic
Page 9 and 10: As is shown, the tonic vowels of th
Page 11 and 12: lunatico, è capace che domani non
Page 13 and 14: guarda devi uscire (Figure 10) a Ma
Page 15: Figure 11 Also in this case, recove
Page 19 and 20: Figure 14 Then, a new Topic is prop
Page 21 and 22: The subject QP in sentence (23) can
Page 23 and 24: in Frascarelli 2000, 2004a). As an
Page 25 and 26: 5.3 Rizzi’s (2006) Subject Criter
Page 27 and 28: component can forget about the othe
Page 29 and 30: the spirit of the present proposal,
Page 31 and 32: . [la storia che ha raccontato Leok
Page 33 and 34: (54’) … e [ [ [ogni studentej]
Page 35 and 36: Calabrese, Andrea. 1986. ‘Pronomi
Page 37 and 38: ⎯⎯⎯ 1989. ‘The Null Subject
Page 39: SigurDsson, Halldór Á. and Joan M

Subjects, Topics and the Interpretation of Referential pro.

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?