A criterial approach to the cartography of V2

(1)

Thesis

Reference

A criterial approach to the cartography of V2

SAMO, Giuseppe

Abstract

After having presented guidelines of the Cartography of Syntactic Structures (Cinque & Rizzi 2010; Rizzi & Cinque 2016) and discussed the drawbacks of recent analyses concerning V2, I shall present a criterial approach to V2. Inspired by the analysis of the WH-criterion (Rizzi 1991), I consider the V2 constraint as a sum of “residual” V2s. Each "residual V2" targets a different functional projection in the left periphery creating a Spec-head configuration in the activated criterial position (cf. Rizzi 2017). The “second linear” position of the verb results from the movement of the inflected verbal head (INFL) targeting the highest activated criterial position. In other words, there is no "bottleneck effect" in SpecFinP (Roberts 2004), but ordinary violations in terms of RM "of the same structural type". (Rizzi 2004).

SAMO, Giuseppe. A criterial approach to the cartography of V2. Thèse de doctorat : Univ.

Genève, 2018, no. L. 927

URN : urn:nbn:ch:unige-1089251

DOI : 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:108925

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:108925

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

(2)

A C

^RITERIAL

A

PPROACH TO THE

C

ARTOGRAPHY OF

V2

G

IUSEPPE

S

AMO

Presented in fulfillment of

the requirements of the dregree of

D

OCTEUR EN

L

INGUISTIQUE de l’

Université de Genève 2018

MEMBERS OF THE JURY:

PRESIDENT PROF.ERIC HAEBERLI

SUPERVISOR PROF.LUIGI RIZZI

SUPERVISOR PROF.UR SHLONSKY

EXTERNAL ADVISOR PROF.CECILIA POLETTO

Goethe Universität Frankfurt / Università degli Studi di Padova EXTERNAL ADVISOR PROF.ELISABETH STARK

Zürich Universität

(3)

(4)

“Die Wortfügung ist eine kunstmessige Gewisheit”

(Justus Georg Schottel*, 1663)

The Ideal City / La città ideale

Attributed to Luciano Laurana or Melozzo da Forlì, 1480 – 1490, Oil and tempera on Panel, 67, 5 x 239,5 cm, Galleria Nazionale Marche, Urbino (Italy)

* Schottelius J.G., Ausführliche Arbeit der Teutsche Haubtsprache, Braunschweig 1663 (HAB

https://upload.wikimedia.org/

(5)

Cette thèse suit les axes de recherche de la cartographie des structures syntaxiques (Cinque et Rizzi 2010), dont l'objectif est de dessiner des cartes aussi précises que possible pour exprimer la richesse des configurations structurelles.

Une des premières étapes de la thèse est de proposer une revue de la littérature en linguistique comparée à propos de la périphérie gauche de la phrase. Cette partie de la structure est considérée comme l'interface qui joue un rôle essentiel pour la connexion entre le contenu propositionnel exprimé par l'IP et l'articulation du discours.

Dans les chapitres suivants, la carte détaillée de la périphérie gauche développée par Rizzi & Bocci (2017) est utilisée comme un instrument de travail pour analyser les phénomènes liés au V2 (Verb Second: Den Besten 1983, Vikner 1995). Le V2 implique un mouvement du verbe fléchi et d'un constituant en position initiale; cette construction étant caractéristique de la plupart des langues germaniques (Vikner 1995) ainsi que de certaines variétés du romanche.

L'analyse de ce phénomène représente un défi significatif pour la recherche en syntaxe. Dans la littérature, les langues V2 ont été analysées soit comme ayant une périphérie gauche réduite par rapport aux langues non-V2, soit comme impliquant une forme de mouvement non-critériel. Ces deux types d’hypothèses ne reflètent pas le point de vue de la cartographie.

Ma thèse développe un mécanisme idéal prenant en compte les lignes directrices de l’approche cartographique, afin de créer un modèle conforme au fonctionnement des systèmes d'interface.

Le mécanisme adopte l’idée du V2 résiduel (Rizzi 1991, Haegeman & Zanuttini 1991), dont on peut tirer parti afin d’expliquer de manière micro-paramétrique la typologie des langues V2 (Benincà 1995).

(6)

Abbreviations

1S first person singular 2S second person singular 3S third person singular 1P first person pluar 2P second person singular 3P third person plural

AGRC complementizer agreement

AUX auxiliary

CL clitic

COMP complementizer

COND conditional

D.PRO d-pronoun

DAT dative

EXPL expletive

F feminine

FOC focus marker

FUT future

GEN genitive

INF Infinitive

LOC locative

M masculine

NEG negation

NOM nominative Case

OBLV oblique voice

OV object voice

P.PRO personal pronoun

PART particle of particle verbs

PREP preposition

PRT Particle

PST past

Q interrogative marker

RP resumptive pronoun

SCL Subject Clitic

SBJT Subjunctive

SV subject voice

Acknowledgements

My foremost thanks go to my mentors, Luigi Rizzi and Adriana Belletti. My journey to the Left Periphery started in Siena when I was a master’s student. I say grazie for these wonderful years in Geneva working under the ERC Advanced Grant 340297 (“SynCart”), which supported my doctoral studies. I would also like to say הדות to Ur Shlonsky for his help and the beautiful conversations about linguistic and non-linguistic subjects. I am thankful for the members of the jury who honoured me to discuss this work: grazie Cecilia Poletto, danke Elisabeth Stark and Eric Haeberli.

I gratefully acknowledge all the Linguistics department of Geneva: Giuliano Bocci, Paola Merlo, Luka Nerima, Genoveva Puskás, inter alia. A special köszönöm goes to Eva Capitao. I am grateful to my colleagues, with whom I discussed my (still ongoing) work:

thanks to Lena Baunaz, David Blunier, Caterina Bonan, Hasmik Jivanyan, Orijana Koldzic, Karoliina Lohiniva, Bahareh Samimi, Richard Zimmermann and all the other colleagues and visitors. A special merci goes to my office mates Frédérique Berthelot and Karen Martini. Another special mention goes to my “office mates” outside working hours, Lucas Tual and Francesco Ackermann. I thank my proofreader Benjamin Lowell Sluckin and his useful comments. I am devoted to Guglielmo Cinque and Liliane Haegeman, whose work turned out to be inspirational to me and it was emotional to discuss this work with them.

Danke to my Zürich group of informants: David Gerards, Franziska Stuntebeck, Daniela Casartelli. A tack, tak, takk, to all my informants during these years: Verner Egerland, Marit Westergaard, Gísli Rúnar Harðarson. I would also like to thank meine Göttinger Sieben, though they are not seven: Michael Job, who introduced me to Generative Grammar when I was an Erasmus student in Göttingen, Klaas Römer and Jan Martin Porcher for their help whenever I had questions about German. Engraziel to Renzo Caduff and his support with the data in Swiss Romansh. Grazie mille to Stanislao Zompí and Paolo Lorusso, to the colleagues and friends from various conferences, to all the participants of the 1st SynCart workshop, the conference which took place in my hometown: Chiusi and Syntax is an unforgettable mix. 谢谢 to Ursula Zhao and her huge patience towards me during these years. I am also grateful to Kofi, Gianni, Jan, John, Mary and all the fictional characters from linguistic examples.

Naturally, grazie to my brother Diego and to my parents Antonio and Assunta.

(8)

Chapter 1 The cartography of syntactic structures: the guidelines

1.1. A Brief History of Cartography

This study follows the program of research proposed in the Cartography of Syntactic Structures (Cinque & Rizzi 2010; Rizzi & Cinque 2016), which attempts to draw maps as precise and detailed as possible (Rizzi 2004a: 223) of syntactic configurations (Rizzi 2013: 319).

The generative theoretical framework considers the existence of a Universal Grammar able to solve the so-called “logical problem of language acquisition”. This grammar comprises:

(i) a system of principles, independent from experience, common to every grammar (Lightfoot 2003: 495), and

(ii) a system of parameters, binary values (+ o -), that the language learner chooses on the basis of his/her exposition to a linguistic environment (Fischer et al. 2001: 10).

The final outcome of this should turn out to be a model of how the language faculty works.

Why is syntax so important? In the Y-/T- model of grammar, there is no direct communication between the phonological component (PF) and the system of meaning (LF), which only interact via syntax (Chomsky & Lasnik 1977; Chomsky 1981, 1986, 1995), represented in (1). As it will be discussed throughout the work, I adopt the assumption that the different interpretations associated with distinct prosodic properties are determined by active features in the syntactic computations which provide specific instructions to the interfaces.

(1) Y-/ T- Model of Grammar

Syntax Sound

PF

Sense LF

(13)

The Y-/T- model suggests a dominant role of syntax in grammar. The idea of

“syntacticisation” of scope-discourse semantics properties (Cinque & Rizzi 2010; Rizzi 2013) will be further explored and discussed in this work.

Syntactic structures (Chomsky 1986) are based on three major layers (Rizzi 1997: 281), namely a lexical layer vP, an inflectional layer IP and a complementizer layer CP, as given in (2).

(2) Three major layers of syntactic structures

a. a lexical layer vP, the structural layer in which theta(θ)–roles (relations between verbs and their arguments, Haegeman 1994) are assigned.

b. a functional/inflectional layer IP hosting morphological specifications of the verb like Aspects, Tense and Modality and heads responsible for the licensing of argumental features such as case or agreement.

c. a complementizer layer CP, where complementizer are generated or moved to and where sentential items might be moved to satisfy some criteria such as Wh-, Focus or Topic.

Therefore, an initial map of the syntactic structures can be sketched in (3).

(3) [CP [IP [vP] (Chomsky 1986)

Since linguists began investigating those functional areas of the structure involving inflection, it has became clear that the functional structure required a richer articulation.

The starting point of the cartographic endeavour can be traced back to the analysis proposed by Pollock (1989), who, bringing evidence from English and French,

(14)

hypothesized that it was desirable to split the components of the IP. According to Shlonsky (2010: 420), “by demonstrating that INFL was not a unitary head, it [Pollock’s paper] broke the ice and led the way to the crosslinguistic exploration of the inflectional phrase”, because Pollockian AGR gave way to “contentful functional head which research would endeavour to identify”. Indeed, crosslinguistic analyses à-la Pollock were quickly extended to other domains of the verbal¹ inflections².

In 1999, Guglielmo Cinque proposed a typological analysis of a large range of languages and confirmed that adverbs³ “should not be seen as accessory appendices to clause structure (as the traditional notion of “adjunct” would suggest), but rather as an integral part of it” (Cinque 2006: 119) and “enter a syntactic hierarchy to which languages appear to conform” (Rizzi & Cinque 2016: 147), as given in (4).

(4) Cinque’s (1999) hierarchy

(Rizzi & Cinque 2016: 150)

1 On Pollock’s trend, Belletti (1990) took the opposite point of view, claiming that it is agreement that c- commands T.

2 Rizzi & Cinque (2016: 143) list “modality, mood, aspect, and voice, completed by different kinds of agreement morphemes and special layers such as negation”.

3 “Cinque's work on the IP structure exploits evidence relating to adverbial positions, verb movement, and morphology in order to hypothesize a very rich set of FPs that correspond to different semantic features (several types of aspect, mood and modality, and tense).” (Poletto 2000: 4)

(15)

Thus, Cartographic analyses do not only proceed crosslinguistically, but fine-grained descriptions of syntactic structures can also be drawn examining a single language.

In 1997, Luigi Rizzi observed that the co-occurrence of complementizers and dislocated elements in the CP (or Left Periphery, henceforth LP) in Italian displayed a particular pattern. As for the order of elements that cannot co-occur, evidence for their positions in the structure is given by “their order with respect to a third element” (Rizzi

& Cinque 2016: 144). Since I will entirely dedicate the rest of the chapter to the CP, I will not enter into further details in this section. Following the spirit of Rizzi’s (1997) work, many authors brought evidence of interesting linguistic phenomena concerning the LP, such as topic or focus markers in languages like Gungbe, a Kwa language (Aboh 2004), and Japanese (Saito 2010). Studies also showed that elements bearing scope-discourse semantics can target lower projections too. These positions are “left-peripheral” to the vP (or Low IP area), as the Topic and Focus positions in Belletti (2004). In early 2000s, syntactic studies observed an outbreak of cartographic works. Up to now (2018), different language families have been investigated using cartographic tools and following cartographic guidelines (section 1.2)⁴. A non-exhaustive list of works can be found on the website of the SynCart⁵ ERC project. In (5), I will just list some relevant works concerning different language families and main areas of linguistic research:

(5)  Cartographic analyses

Romance: Rizzi (1997, 2004); Belletti (2004); Poletto (2000); Cinque (1999);

Cardinaletti (2004) Celtic: Roberts (2004) Slavic: Garzonio (2005); Krapova & Cinque (2008) Finno-Ugric: Puskás (2000) Semitic: Shlonsky (2000, 2014); Cushitic:

Frascarelli & Puglielli (2008) African languages: Aboh (2004); Biloa (2013); Torrence (2013) Chinese: Tsai (ed., 2015); Badan & Del Gobbo (2011); Paul (2005); Japanese:

Endo (2007, 2015); Saito (2012) Austronesian: Pearce (1999) Native American languages: Speas & Tenny (2003) Romance & Germanic dialectology: Ledgeway (2010); Paoli (2007); Grewendorf & Poletto (2011); Cruschina (2012) Classical Languages Benincà (2006); Franco (2009); Danckaert (2012)

4 Many of these publications are collected in the volumes “Cartography of Syntactic Structures”, sub-series of “Studies of comparative syntax” published by the Oxford University Press.

5 http://www.unige.ch/lettres/linguistique/syncart/about-cartography/references

(16)

From (5), I can sketch a map of languages investigated with cartographic tools. In green and red, respectively, Germanic and Romance languages.

(6) Atlas of Cartography (2018)

(from http://www.unige.ch/lettres/linguistique/syncart/about-cartography/)

How many functional projections might be there in the syntactic structure? The answer is easy, “there is no limit, in our view, as to how many of these projections there will ultimately be, provided that there is a syntactic and semantic justification for them”

(Benincà & Poletto⁶ 2004: 52). As for this work, I will follow the syntactic structure summarized in Rizzi & Cinque (2016) in (7) as “canon”. Specifically, the CP is the layer resulting from the studies on Italian (Rizzi 1997, 2001, 2004; Rizzi & Bocci 2017); the label Subj may also be split into further subject positions (Cardinaletti 2004); the IP is the layer derived following the works of Cinque (1999 and ff.); the lower Topic and Focus positions are adopted by Belletti’s (2004) analysis of the Low IP area. As for the vP, many publications have provided fine grained analyses (Ramchand 2008, inter alia), but I will not discuss them further in this dissertation, since these positions are not relevant for my argument. The Deictic layer (proposed for hosting Hanging Topics and Scene Setter

6 “We [Benincà & Poletto] claim that recursion is not an option. Neither of the two fields we examine here is recursive in the sense that there is a virtually infinite set of totally identical Topic phrases or Focus phrases. (Benincà & Poletto 2004: 53)”. I will follow a recursion of Topic analysis as it will be briefly discussed in section 1.3.

(17)

positions, Benincà & Poletto 2004; Wiltschko 2014 and also Stark 1996), will be discussed in chapter 2 and chapter 5.

(7) Cartographic tree

Not only have publications been totally dedicated to Cartography, but so have events like workshops and conferences. Cartographic events have been hosted in Ghent (Cartographic Structures and Beyond in 2011 and Gist 7 Conference: Cartography and Beyond in 2014), Geneva (Syntactic Cartography: Where do we go from here? In 2012), in Venice (Variation in C workshop in 2014), Beijing (Syntactic Cartography Workshop in 2015 and 2017), in Oslo (Word Order in the Left Periphery in 2017), in Barcelona (Cartography and Explanatory Adequacy in 2018), in Seoul (during the 2018 SNU International conference on Linguistics), in Florianópolis (Syntax, Semantics, Interface

& Cognition in 2018) and the recent 1^st SynCart workshop, organized by the University

(18)

of Geneva and the University of Siena, which took place in Southern Tuscany, in the cities of Chiusi, Siena, Pienza and Montepulciano. In 2017, the event “Left Periphery Reloaded” hosted by the University of Zurich, celebrated 20 years since the publication of “The fine structure of the Left Periphery” (Rizzi 1997), which has been inspirational for this thesis.

1.2. Cartography in detail: the guidelines

As briefly stated in the former sub-section, the functional projections in (7) are a result of fine-grained analyses in terms of order of elements, both cross-linguistically and within the same language. In order to analyse languages following a similar pattern, guidelines should be postulated. It is important to state that the following guidelines are not dogmata in the sense that they cannot be violated, but they should be respected to build an ideal⁷ theory.

1.2.1. One feature, one head

According to Kayne (1994: preface, xv), every phrase must have at least one and at most one head and at least one and at most one specifier.

(8) One feature, one head

“each morphosyntactic feature corresponds to an independent syntactic head with a specific slot in the functional hierarchy”.

(Cinque & Rizzi 2010: 54)

The postulation of a head should have empirical evidence in at least one natural language.

This evidence can be a morpheme (enclitic or particle) or a specific word order.

Why do we need to postulate different heads? Functional projections bear a function. It would be desirable that every functional projection trigger a specific function;

7 Naturally, as the Renaissance concept of the architecture of an ideal town has never been realized in one specific place (even though very pretty accurate examples exist, like Pienza, in Tuscany), it is quite impossible, at the moment, to build an “ideal theory”. However, I will try to describe some phenomena rigidly following the guidelines.

(19)

at the same time, it would be desirable that every functional projection should have one and only one function, and finally (less straightforwardly), that no more than one functional projection share the same function. The reader however is referred to Rizzi (2017) for an overview on the role of the morphosyntactic features and the format and locus of parameters.

1.2.2. Criterial approach and transparency at the interfaces

A basic tenet of cartographic work is the criterial approach to scope-discourse semantics.

Properties of scope-discourse semantics are expressed by different kinds of operators (interrogative, relative, exclamatives, etc.) and positions used to express “articulations relevant for the structuring of discourse” (Rizzi & Cinque 2016: 145).

Concrete examples are A’-constructions. In A’-constructions, a syntactic element occurs in two positions which are dedicated to two kinds of interpretative properties:

theta-roles and properties of scope-discourse semantics. According to the criterial approach to scope-discourse semantics (Rizzi 1997), it is the Left Periphery (section 1.3.) that is populated by several functional heads which attract phrases bearing matching features (e.g. Topic attracts an element bearing a +Top feature); they start the application of interpretative routines at the interface with sound, through the assignment of the appropriate intonational contour (Bocci 2013), and at the interface with meaning, by interpreting the dependent of the criterial head in terms of the appropriate notions.

Criterial heads give rise to Spec - head - complement configurations as given in (9).

(9) Spec-head configurations

topic:

SpecFP: fronted XP F°: Topic head

complement: comment on the topic

(20)

focus:

SpecFP: fronted XP F°: Focus head

complement: presupposition

subject: fronted XP – Subj – predicate SpecFP: fronted XP

F°: Subject head complement: predicate [etc.]

Once “a phrase enters into a criterial configuration, it is frozen in place, and becomes unavailable to further movements” (Rizzi 2015: 317). Further movement is excluded because the element should be readable at the interfaces with sound and meaning.

The criterial approach contributes to the "syntacticisation" (Cinque & Rizzi 2010;

Rizzi 2013) of semantic, pragmatic and prosodic properties. It makes explicit the syntactic component necessarily correlating with these properties in different configurations. The natural hypothesis is that languages generally share the same structural mechanism, but the criterial heads may be null or overt. Straightforward evidence supporting the approach is offered by languages of the world in which criterial heads are overtly expressed. E.g.

Gungbe (Aboh 2004) shows over topic and focus particles (section 1.3.2.3.); Japanese (Endo 2007, Saito 2012) realizes Q particles; Welsh (Roberts 2004) has overt complementizers in different positions (section 1.3.1.4.).

A summary of the properties of the criterial approach is given in (10).

(10) Criterial approach to scope-discourse semantics properties (based on Rizzi 2015: 316 – 317)

a. In syntax, the criterial head attracts a phrase bearing the matching criterial feature and creates a Spec-head configuration of matching elements. The fronted phrase cannot undergo further movements.

b. At the interfaces with sound, the criterial heads give “explicit instruction to the phonological processes of pitch contour assignment, to yield the

(21)

special contours that typically make topic-comment and focus- presupposition articulations easily detectable from the phonetic signal (Bocci 2013)” (Rizzi 2015: 317). At the interface with meaning, the criterial head give instructions in order to properly interpret the dependents.

1.2.3. Locality

The theory of locality is a major component in cartography. Rizzi (1990) proposed that classical locality phenomena explained in terms of barriers or islands (Chomksy 1964, 1986; Ross 1967) can be examined in terms of blocking effects. Rizzi (2011) summarises those effects in terms of intervention (10a) and impenetrability (10b).

(10) Types of blocking effects

(a) Intervention: a local relation is disrupted by the intervention of an element with certain properties which make it a potential participant in that local relation.

(b) Impenetrability: certain syntactic configurations are impervious to local rules, which cannot take place across their boundaries.

(Rizzi 2011: 210)

I will only focus on the intervention locality (10a). Here, intervention locality is expressed by the principle of Relativized Minimality (henceforth RM)⁸. Starke (2001) refines the theory, claiming that the violations are induced by the movement of an element with a specific “feature make-up across another element which is also endowed with some feature(s)” (Lahousse et al. 2014): therefore, featural RM (fRM).

8 In minimalism, the same concept is expressed through with the Minimal Link Condition/Minimal Search (Chomsky 1995, 2000).

(22)

In a configuration like (11), fRM predicts that X and Y cannot be related in the following configuration when Z qualifies as an intervener of the “same structural type”.

(11) Relativized Minimality X…Z…Y

Y is in a minimal configuration with X iff there is no Z such that (i) Z is of the same structural type as X, and

(ii) Z intervenes between X and Y.

(Rizzi 2004: 225; 4) “Being of the same structural type” is understood as “sharing a feature of the same class”

(Lahousse et al. 2014), where features represent syntactic, semantic or scope-discourse properties of the element under discussion.

As originally proposed by Starke (2001), “there can be different significant set-theoretic relations between the featural specifications of the intervener Z and the two elements, X and Y, which should enter into a local relation”. Following, among others, Lanzlinger &

Soare (2017)⁹, these sets may enter the structural typology expressed in terms of morphosyntactic features in Rizzi (2004) in (12).

(12) Typology of features

i. Argumental: person, number, gender, case ii. Quantificational: Wh, Neg, measure, focus . . .

iii. Modifier: evaluative, epistemic, Neg, frequentative, celerative, measure, manner, . . . .

iv. Topic etc.

(Rizzi 2004: 243; 61)

Recently, Krapova & Cinque (2008) discussed a further interpretation of RM in which the intervener Z in the configuration …X…Y….Z… triggers violations “when all the occurrences of Z” intervene.

9 Laenzlinger and Soare (forthcoming) propose, on the basis of data from French, Italian and Romanian, a hierarchy of A’-features.

(23)

Further evidence for the need for a finer theory of locality comes from studies in language pathology and language acquisition, where, within the same language, the grammar of different populations (e.g. the grammar of adults vs. the grammar of children) may vary concerning locality effects (Grillo 2008; Friedmann, Belletti & Rizzi 2009; Belletti, Brunato, Friedmann, Rizzi 2012; Martini, in prep.¹⁰).

1.2.4. Cartography within Generative Grammar: Minimalism, Phase Theory, Labeling

1.2.4.1. Some notes on Cartography and Minimalism

The minimalist program lays the foundation of contemporary generative grammar, at the end of the 1990s, while flourishing cartographic work was starting to appear.

These two approaches toward syntactic principles take two different paths, since the Minimalist Program aims to go beyond “explanatory adequacy” (an explanation of how language can be learned) to develop a plausible account for the evolution of human linguistic ability¹¹, whereas Cartography’s main attempt is to draw maps as precise and detailed as possible (Rizzi 2004b: 223) of syntactic configurations (Rizzi 2013: 319).

Another different point of view is related to the notion ‘adjuncts’, which are tendentially excluded in Cartography (cf. Cinque 1999; Ernst 2002). Perhaps one substantive difference with mainstream minimalist papers has to do with the assumption of on the richness of the functional lexicon, and the fact that it systematically gives rise to functional sequences.

Points of agreement can be however observed:

(i) The minimalist approach introduced the distinction between interpretable and uninterpretable features, it claimed that the movement (or internal merge) is triggered by the need to check and delete these features (Chomsky 2004) or

10 For a more exhaustive list, the website of the ERC SynCart provides a larger set of references, edited by Karen Martini, at the following link http://www.unige.ch/lettres/linguistique/syncart/cartographylocality/

11 In later work, Chomsky gives the departuring point of the program: “[...] despite repeated clarification, MP is often taken to be a hypothesis about language or a new approach to language, displacing earlier ones.

It is neither. Furthermore, as again repeatedly stressed, the program is theory neutral: whatever one's conception of UG, one can be interested in principled explanation (MP), or not. And if so, essentially the same questions will arise.” (Chomsky 2005: 157, footnote 6).

(24)

value them (Chomsky 2001): these concepts are described in cartographic terms of Criteria.

(ii) Cartography, moreover, shares other points with Minimalism such as the emphasis on interfaces and the economy principle (Rizzi 2004b). Syntactic operations seem to have a cost in terms of computational resources, and, thus natural language syntax is designed in order to minimize this cost in the expression of the intended meanings. Studies on locality are showing that natural languages do privilege local simplicity of configuration (cf. Rizzi 2013a).

Finally, Minimalism “considers UG sparse and minimal”, but “it is common practice for minimalist work to posit an occasional Voice or Applicative or Focus head as needed, and to continue to assume that the sparse C-T-v-V architecture is sufficient, with minor modications” (Ramchand & Svenonius 2014: 2). In this sense, adopting Ramchand &

Svenonius (2014), Minimalism needs Cartography. They are however complementary since there is a natural division of labor between minimalism and cartographic studies:

one focuses on fundamental underlying mechanisms, the other on structures.

1.2.4.2. Some notes on Cartography and Phases

In contemporary linguistic descriptions, phases represent a basic ingredient in syntactic computation. Phases have been object of studies starting from the early 2000s (Chomsky 2001, 2005; Pesetsky & Torrego 2004; Gallego 2007). Phases play a central role in the engine of the derivation: once a phase has been completed, the linguistic material is sent to the interfaces and the complement of the phase head is no more accessible. Only the edge of the phase, namely “the head and (any number of) specifier(s), remain “accessible to a higher phase” (Boeckx & Grohmann 2004: 1).

The role of phases is similar to the one of barriers (cf. Vlachos 2005) and they represent boundaries, that according to the PIC, Phase-Impenetrability Condition¹², (Chomsky

12 ''The domain of H (a head) is not accesible to operation at ZP (the smallest strong phase); only H and its edge are accessible to such operations.'' (Chomsky 2001: 14).

(25)

2001: 13) are impenetrable domains to movement unlike the edge of the phase. Within a minimalist framework, the two phases are considered CP and vP.

Translating such a proposal into Cartographic terms, the results are still challenging. The same questions raised in Shlonsky (2010: 426):

“Thus, phases (CP and vP) and their edges (i.e., their heads and specifiers) play a key role in the computation of locality in minimalist syntax. It is far from clear how to integrate these notions into the structural maps of cartography, in which the clause is typically seen as a homogenous hierarchy of projections. In Cinque’s system, for example, T dissolves into two distinct projections (Past and Future). Each should, in principle, have a specifier but which one corresponds to T? Similarly, what does ''little v'' correspond to in a cartographic articulation of lower aspect and event-type? Which one of these lower heads should be taken to constitute the edge of vP? The problem is just as acute in the CP domain, where the edge of CP is its (outer) specifier, but in a cartographic perspective, should it be equated with Spec/Fin, Spec/Force or perhaps Spec/Focus (which, according to Rizzi 1997, hosts wh operators)?”.

Further research is required, especially on the parallelism between phases (CP and vP) and peripheries (Left Periphery and periphery of the vP).

1.2.4.3. Some notes on Cartography and Labeling

The goal of the special issue of Lingua (130) was “to present some fundamental ideas and empirical results of modern syntactic research, and make them available to the scientific communities interested in the study of language as a cognitive capacity” (Rizzi 2013: 1) bringing evidence that there exist no “myth of language universals” (Cf. Evans &

Levinson 2009). This special issue hosts a ground-breaking article by Noam Chomsky called Problems of projections. The main aim of this proposal is to give a description of the computational system in terms of labeling. In recent years, this path has been followed by many authors (Rizzi 2014, 2015a, b, 2016; Shlonsky 2014; Belletti forthcoming inter alia), who also attempt to integrate the labeling algorithm with Cartography.

According to Chomsky (2013), syntactic trees must be uniformly labeled at the interfaces, following the Uniform Labeling Constraint. In other words, the structure is read by the interfaces if every node is properly labelled. The label is assigned by heads and, in the presence of multiple heads, the closest one “wins the competition” and labels the node.

Proximity can be the labeling-counterpart of locality.

(26)

In case of a non-assignation, the system requires movement. Movements of projections (non-head or in former theoretical approaches, a phrase) as subjects (Chomsky 2013) become obligatory in order to properly label a node in a situation when there is a competition between heads, because they are both at the same distance. According to the algorithm, not all the elements can move. Phrasal movements should only involve maximal projections. Following (Rizzi 2015: 327), “given the traditional X-bar schema, XP can be moved, but the non-maximal projection X’ is inert for movement: there is DP movement, VP movement, CP movement, but no D’, V’, C’ movement.”. Linguistic items move until they are forced to stop (the so-called halting problem), because they would be selected by higher nodes with which the XP shares the label.

Cartographically speaking, these latter positions are criterial positions, defined by heads bearing specific features, e.g. Q, Top, Foc, (perhaps the list of features in Rizzi 2004, 2013, expressing scope-discourse properties). In other words, the halting problem might be described in terms of Criterial Freezing effects (Rizzi 2007 and following works).

Following Rizzi (2015: 335), labeling would be a first step towards the “further explanation” of syntactic computation (Rizzi 2013, section 1.3.0 of this work) concerning freezing effects: the internally merged XP is no more a maximal projection and therefore cannot undergo further movement. A modification (Rizzi 2015) of the No tampering condition (roughly speaking, elements which are created by merge cannot be modified, namely moved) also allows complex head movement, as the one discussed in this work.

E.g., the verb moves to the inflectional domain, where a Tlex, or some lower inflectional layer projections, attracts vlex. In this case, we will have a complex head against a simple head, just drawn from the lexicon, and the simple head wins the labeling competition. A refined approach would involve the fact that both the attractor and attracted element share features: as of movement to T, v has a T feature, therefore will be attracted by T. This would be in line with the analysis I will propose in chapter 3.

After having reviewed the role of Cartography within a generative approach to grammar, I shall dedicate the next two sections to the layer of the syntactic structure dedicated to scope-discourse semantic properties. In sub-section 1.3.0, I will present a brief history of the studies on the Left Periphery, whereas in sub-section 1.3.1. and in sub-

(27)

section 1.3.2., I will review the properties of the different functional heads populating the CP. Finally, in section 1.4., I will list the different strategies languages adopt in order to activate the Left Periphery.

1.3. The structure of the CP: evidence from Italian

In this section, I shall briefly sketch out an analysis of the Complementizer Phrase discussed in Rizzi (1997, 2004), Rizzi & Cinque (2016) and Rizzi & Bocci (2017).

1.3.0. Brief history of the fine structure of the Left Periphery (Rizzi 1997, 2001, 2004)

The CP has to be considered as the interface that plays a crucial role in connecting the clausal content expressed by the IP with a higher structure: the discourse articulation in main clauses or a higher sentence in embedded contexts. As a consequence of that, this layer has to be split into at least two heads, one in connection with the outside and one with the sentential content. In the literature, the former is called Force and the latter Finitess (Rizzi 1997).

As stated in section 1.1., the CP mainly hosts two types of syntactic elements.

Beyond the complementizers, the LP is the landing site for the elements that are moved to the left in order to be interpreted at the interfaces (section 1.2.2.). Studies in comparative syntax further displayed the presence of other heads that in some languages, such as Gungbe (Aboh 2004), are phonetically overt: these heads are to be considered clues for the cartographic endeavour. They attract and trigger the movement of constituents from the IP or vP to the CP for scope-discourse semantics reasons: they are the unique head of Focus (section 1.3.2.1.) the multiple heads of Topics (section 1.3.2.2.), and the Modifier head (section 1.3.2.4.), with the latter hosting highlighted adverbials.

For the reason that these elements can co-occur with the complementizers, Rizzi (1997 and related works) aimed to “map the Left Periphery” (cf. Benincà & Munaro, eds., 2010). In the following pages, I briefly introduce the functional projections of the map in (13) from Rizzi (1997, 2004a, 2013b), Rizzi & Cinque (2016) and Rizzi & Bocci (2017) where * denotes free recursion:

(28)

(13) [Force [Top* [Int [Top* [Foc [Top* [Mod [Top* [Qemb [Fin [IP [...]]]]]]]]]]]]

(Rizzi & Cinque 2016:146)

It is important to note that (13) is not a templatic order of syntactic primitives (contra Abels 2012; Chomsky, Gallego & Ott, forthcoming), unrelated to other requirements or constraints: the idea of insisting on a primitive order leads up to a blind alley and therefore it is natural and desirable to look for ''further explanation'' going beyond the mere observation of the properties of the functional sequences.

The sequence in (13) is an ''object of the world'' and it has to be considered a point of departure.

“Consider an analogy with the sequence of DNA: once we have a map of the sequence, particular subsequences may be amenable to ''further explanations'' in terms of physical / chemical laws, or evolutionary theory: but the ordering is a real, substantive component of organisms, not an ephemeral artifact. So there is no inconstency between the endeavour of drawing precise cartographic maps and the attempt to pursue ''further explanations'' of cartographic properties”

(Rizzi 2013a: 213)

This research will not give an anti-cartographic result: indeed, an early attempt to find a ''further explanation'' was already sketched out in Rizzi (1997) on the uniqueness of Focus (which will be sketched in section 1.3.2.1.).

Finally, nothing excludes the presence of other dedicated positions in the Left Periphery or that the functional heads in (13) host other functions. Examples are the specific positions of Hanging Topics and Scene Setters (of which I will discuss in chapter 2 and 5), since, repeating what has been claimed by Benincà and Poletto (2004: 52), ''there is no limit, in our view, as to how many of these projections there will ultimately be, provided that there is a syntactic and semantic justification for them''.

In the next sub-sections, I present a small survey of the characteristics of the Left Peripheral functional projections¹³.

13 This section is entirely base on the website SynCart, edited by myself:

http://www.unige.ch/lettres/linguistique/syncart/about-cartography/

(29)

1.3.1. Complementizers

1.3.1.1. Force Phrase (ForceP)

ForceP is the highest position of the Left Periphery, connected with previous discourse in main clauses; its head is selected by a higher verb in embedded clauses.

Force° is the head that expresses the sentence type (cf. Cheng 1991), that is whether the sentence is a question or a declarative, exclamative, relative, comparative, adverbial, and so on. The name of this functional head is referred to as Force, the illocutionary force of a sentence, and the term was given in Rizzi (1997) adopting Chomsky's specification of Force term. The head of ForceP is usually filled by a complementizer, a free functional morpheme, which often resembles "demonstrative pronouns, wh-elements, certain kinds of nouns, etc." (Rizzi 1997: 285); relative operators may occupy its specifier (Rizzi 1997: 289). Evidence from Italian shows that Topics can only follow Force, corresponding to the declarative complementizer che ‘that’ in (14):

(14) Italian

a. Ho deciso che, la macchina, la comprerò quest'anno I decided that, the car, I will buy it this year'

b. *Ho deciso la macchina, che la comprerò quest'anno I decided the car, that I will buy it this year

(Rizzi & Bocci 2017: 3; 1, 2)

1.3.1.2. IntP

Evidence from Italian indicates that complementizers such as se 'if ' must be kept distinct from the highest ForceP or the lowest FinP, since se ‘if’ can precede (15a), follow (15b) or be surrounded (15c) by Topics:

(15) Italian

a. Mi domando se, la macchina, potrò comprarla quest’anno I wonder if, the car, I will buy this year

(30)

b. Mi domando, la macchina, se potrò comprarla quest’anno I wonder, the car, if I will manage to buy it this year

c. Mi domando, a mio figlio, se, la macchina, gliela compreremo quest’anno I wonder, to my son, if, the car, we will buy it to him this year

(Rizzi & Bocci 2017: 5; 9)

On the other side, IntP is rigidly ordered with respect to Focus. Complementizer se 'if ' must precede the focalized element, as in (16):

(16) Italian

a. Mi domando se LA MACCHINA gli potremmo regalare (non la moto) I wonder if THE CAR we could give to him (not the motorbike)

b. *Mi domando LA MACCHINA se gli potremmo regalare (non la moto) I wonder THE CAR if we could give to him, (not the motorbike)

(Rizzi & Bocci 2017: 5, 10)

Not only does IntP host complementizers such as 'if ', but it also harbours wh-elements like perché 'why' and “other reason adverbials in its specifier, both in main and in embedded questions'' (Rizzi & Bocci 2017). Items like perché can be directly merged in IntP (Rizzi 2001) or they may land in IntP from a lower CP position (Shlonsky & Soare 2011). Finally, “Int should not be confused with the marker of interrogative Force, which plausibly appears in the highest position of the C-system” (Force; Rizzi 2013: 206).

1.3.1.3. Finitess Phrase (FinP)

The finitess head is the lowest head of the CP and it is in direct contact with the content of the IP. Rizzi (1997: 283) claims that “the choice of the complementizer reflects certain properties of the verbal system of the clause”, such as its finite/non-finite nature. Because of its position, FinP can only be preceded by Topics or Focus.

(31)

(17) Italian

a. Ho deciso la macchina di comprarla quest’anno I decided the car of buy.INF.it this year

b. *Ho deciso di la macchina comprarla quest’anno I decided of the car buy.INF.CL3F this year

Since FinP contains “a tense specification which matches the one expressed on the lower inflectional system” (Rizzi 1997: 283), FinP is often assumed to be the landing site of the verb within the CP, in VSO languages (cf. Roberts & Roussou 2002) and in V2 languages (cf. Haegeman 1996, Roberts 2004 a.o.). Chapter 2 will discuss the latter assumption.

1.3.1.4 Co-occurrence of complementizers

The complementizers represent the pillars of the Left Periphery, and it is possible to draw a first “cartography” of complementizer positions in (18).

(18) ForceP IntP FinP

Natural languages add further evidence to such a cartography, displaying co-occurrence of complementizers.

As for the co-occurrence of the extreme complementizers, Force can co-occur with FinP, the so-called double comp constructions. The complementizers can have either the same morpho-phonological realization, as in e.g. the Northern Italian varieties (Paoli 2007) in (19), or two different realizations, as in Welsh (Roberts 2004), where Force and Finitess are expressed by two particles, as illustrated in (20). Both examples show that the complemetizers globally surround Topic and Focus positions.

(19) Ligurian

I pensan che, quella zuvena i tö ch’ i nuo suportan propium, nu i mè

SCL think that that young the your that SCLNEG her.tolerate really NEG the my ‘They think that it is your parents who cannot stand that young women, not mine’

(Paoli 2007: 1069; 12)

(32)

(20) Welsh

Dywedais i mai fel arfer y dynion a fuasai'n gwerth'ur ci.

Said I PRT as usual the men PRT would asp sell-the dog ''I said that it's as usual the men who would sell the dog''

(Roberts 2004: 16)

On the other hand, ForceP and IntP can co-occur in different languages, for instance in Spanish (21a). Saito (2012) analyses the Japanese equivalent of (21a) as involving a higher head which marks the “reported” character of the embedded clause to, and a lower interrogative head ka (21b). Japanese is the mirror image of Spanish, due to the head parameter. Akin to Japanese, evidence of co-occurence are found in the Dravidian language Malayam (21c), where a "question marker" -oo can occur with a “quotative”

complementizers -∂:

(21) a. Spanish

Maria decía / preguntaba que si queríamos más sopa.

Maria said / asked that if would.like.1P more soup 'Maria said/asked whether we wanted some more soup'

(Demonte & Fernández-Soriano 2009: 31; 16a)

b. Japanese

Taroo-wa Ziroo-ni [dare-ga kare-no ie-ni kuru ka to] tazuneta Taroo-TOP Ziroo-DAT who-NOM he-GEN house-to come PRTPRT inquired 'Lit. Taroo asked Ziroo that who is coming to his house'

(Saito 2012)

c. Malayam

John Mary wannu-(w)oo enn∂ coodiccu John Mary came -Q COMP asked ‘John asked whether Mary came.’

(Jayaseelan 2008: 47; 10b)

(33)

1.3.2. Landing sites for internally merged elements

Within the LP, certain functional heads trigger the movement to their Spec of IP-internal XPs bearing the relevant feature. As previously stated, these heads give instructions to the systems of sound and meaning in order to give the proper intonational contour and the right interpretation to the moved element.

In this section, I shall investigate the left peripheral positions dedicated to this function.

I shall start with the unique Focus head (section 1.3.2.1.), the multiple Topic heads (1.3.2.2.) and the differences between them (section 1.3.2.3.). Before presenting a position for embedded wh-elements (1.3.2.5.), I describe the functional projection hosting

“highlighted” (in the sense of Rizzi 2004) adverbials.

1.3.2.1. Focus Phrase (FocP)

Given the configuration Spec - head - complement the head of the functional FocP projection is a Foc head, a focalized phrase is in the Spec position, and the presupposition, e.g. what is old/presupposed in the clause following the focalized phrase, fills the complement position. The Focus projection is the landing site of focalized elements bearing a +Foc feature. In (22), la macchina ‘the car’ is correctively focalized, that is correcting a previous assumption of the addressee of the utterance.

(22) Italian

LA MACCHINA ho prestato a Gianni (non il motorino) THE CAR I lent to Gianni (not the scooter)

The Foc head is unique in the Left Periphery; its uniqueness might follow from interpretative properties of the structure, as stated in a first rudimentary form in the following interpretative instruction: ''if a FocP was recursively embedded as the complement of a higher Foc, we would have that the complement of a higher Foc head contains a Focus position, an inconsistent interpretative property. An element cannot be simultaneously focused and a component of the presupposed part'' (Rizzi 2013: 212), as in (23).

(34)

(23) Italian

*LA MACCHINA A GIANNI ho prestato (non il motorino, non ad Antonio) THE CAR TO GIANNI I lent (not the scooter, not to Antonio)

Is it the case that only one FOC feature exists? According to Bianchi, Bocci & Cruschina (2015 and related works), there is A TYPOLOGY OF FOCI (not only one): Corrective, Mirative and New Information Focus. The typology is summarized in (24).

(24) Typology of Foci

(i) Corrective Focus (Bianchi & Bocci 2012) signals “contrast across utterances: the asserted proposition (i.e. the corrective claim) is incompatible and inconsistent with an antecedent proposition which comes from a previous speech act.” (Cruschina 2016: 22).

(ii) Mirative Focus is related to an item constituting new informationwhich is considered particularly surprising or unexpected.

(iii) (New) Information Focus: typical of answers to questions (cf. Krifka 2001; Belletti 2009). In Italian, such a focus targets a low IP area focus projection.

In Italian, the functional projection in the CP hosts both Corrective and Mirative Focus, whereas New Information Focus occupies a lower clause internal position in the Periphery of the vP (Belletti 2004). In other grammatical systems, such as Sicilian (Cruschina 2012), left peripheral FocP can also be the landing site for New Information Focus. Left peripheral and clause internal focus positions are also exploited in different types of clefts, as proposed in Belletti (2009, 2015). As illustrated in (25) for Italian, clitic resumption of a focused phrase is not possible within the following IP (contrary to what happens with Topics¹⁴).

14 The reader is referred to Benincà & Poletto (2004: 56) for a critical analysis.

(35)

(25) Italian

a. IL TUO LIBRO ho letto (, non il suo) Your book read.1s (, not his)

b. *IL TUO LIBRO l’ho letto (, non il suo) Your book it-read.1s (, not his)

(Rizzi 1997: 286; 4)

Finally, as illustrated in (26), Focus and wh-items cannot co-occur. Plausibly, they are candidates for the same position.

(26) Italian

a. *A GIANNI che cosa hai detto (, non a Piero)?

‘TO GIANNI what did you tell (, not to Piero)?

b. *Che cosa A GIANNI hai detto (, non a Piero)?

‘’What TO GIANNI did you tell (, not to Piero)?

(Rizzi 1997: 291)

In various natural languages of the world showing overt realization of the Focus head, e.g. Gungbe, there is straightforward evidence that “such particles are confined to the left periphery. Gungbe “does not allow for multiple wh-questions or bona fide in situ questions, but it does permit wh-in situ echo questions like (27). In this case, the wh- phrase, while undoubtedly focal, cannot bear the focus marker. This would not be expected if wè was a DP-internal marker, while it follows from the view that wè is a DP- external left peripheral head, attracting wh-phrases and other focal elements” (Rizzi 2013:

204).

(27) Gungbe

a. fíté wè é yì?

Where FOC he went?

b. é yì fíté (*wè)?

he went where (FOC)?

(from Rizzi 2013: 204; 6)

(36)

1.3.2.2. Topic Phrase (TopP)

Topic has first been depicted as “a preposed element characteristically set off from the rest of the clause by 'comma intonation' and normally expressing old information somehow available and salient in previous discourse" (Rizzi 1997: 285).

Even if different authors do not agree with the positions of the LP, they do remark a difference with Foci, as elegantly summarized by Benincà & Poletto (2004: 63): “All the elements in the Topic field share at least two properties: (a) they are not related to a variable in the clause, differently from elements belonging to the Focus field; and (b) they are all "known information" in some sense.”

Within a configuration Spec - head – complement, the head of the functional projection is a Top head, the fronted phrase is in Spec position, and the complement constitutes a comment on that topic. Topic heads attract elements in the clause bearing a +Top feature.

In languages like Italian, Topics are typically realized in Clitic Left Dislocation structures (ClLD), in which a clitic resumptive pronoun is present in the clause following the topic and predicating some property of it (28a); in other languages such as, e.g. English (28b), a gap is present in the position in which the fronted topic is first merged:

(28) a. Italian

Il tuo libro, lo ho letto Your book I read it.

(Rizzi 1997: 286; 3)

b. English

Your book, I bought __ yesterday

(Rizzi 2013: 214; 36b)

Topics can be iterated in the CP at least in Romance, illustrated with Italian in (29).

(37)

(29) Italian

L’anno prossimo, in questo modo, le elezioni, senza troppe difficolta, a Gianni, Next year, in this way, the elections, without trouble, (to) Gianni, you potreste fargliele vincere

could.2P make to him win them

(Italian, Rizzi 2004: 246; 66)

Authors do not agree on the idea of recursive topics in the Left Periphery of Italian. A typology of topics has been put forward by Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl (2007) and Bianchi and Frascarelli (2010). They proposed arguments for a three-way distinction between different kinds of topic, adopting labels which can be traced back within the previous literature. The typology is based on the discourse roles of the different topics: (a) aboutness (shifting) topic, (b) contrastive topic and (c) given (familiar) topic, briefly presented in (30).

(30) Typology of Topics

“(a) Aboutness [shifting] topic: ''what the sentence is about'' (Reinhardt 1981, Lambrecht 1994); in particular, a constituent that is ''newly introduced, newly changed or newly returned to'' (Givón 1983: 8), a constituent which is proposed as ''a matter of standing and current interest or concern'' (Strawson 1964);

(b) contrastive topic: an element that induces alternatives which have no impact on the focus value and creates oppositional pairs with respect to other topics (Kuno 1976, Büring 1999);

(c) familiar (given) topic: a given or accessible (cf. Chafe 1987) constituent, which is typically destressed and realized in a pronominal form (Pesetsky 1987); when a familiar topic is textually given and d-linked with a pre-established aboutness topic, it is defined as a continuing topic (cf. Givón 1983)”.

(Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl 2007: 88)

I will avoid the term aboutness topics, since all topics (and subjects) have an

“aboutness” property in common (cf. Rizzi 2015b). Therefore, I will refer to A-Topic of the system of Bianchi & Frascarelli (2010) as Shifting Topic, using the very first

A criterial approach to the cartography of V2

Thesis

Reference