Right Peripheral Fragments: Right dislocation and related phenomena in Romance

Description

In recent years, a number of authors (De Vries 2009, Truckenbrodt 2015, Ott and de Vries 2016, inter alia) have defended that right dislocations (RD) should be treated as bisentential structures, where the “dislocated” constituent is actually a remnant of a clausal ellipsis operation licensed under identity with an antecedent clause. Although Romance RD is a fertile area of research, the consequences of the biclausal analysis remain unexplored in these languages. This monograph intends to fill this gap. Adopting this approach not only solves some issues that have always been at the core of dislocation structures in general; it also allows us to uncover novel sets of data and to provide straightforward explanations for well-known generalizations. Further, it brings RD along with a set of phenomena which are structurally very similar, like afterthoughts or split questions, which have been independently argued to display a bisentential structure. Under alternative, monoclausal approaches to RD, the striking similarities between these phenomena must be rendered anecdotal. Right Peripheral Fragments Editorial page Title page Copyright page Table of contents Acknowledgements 1. Introduction 1.1 Word order and information structure 1.2 Dislocations: A structural paradox 1.3 Organization of the book 2. A tale of two clauses 2.1 The biclausal analysis 2.1.1 D as a fragment 2.1.2 Specifying coordination 2.2 Deriving the properties 2.2.1 D is internal to the HC 2.2.1.1 Theta role 2.2.1.2 Case morphology 2.2.1.3 Reconstruction into HC 2.2.1.4 Island sensitivity 2.2.2 D is external to the HC 2.2.2.1 A c-command paradox 2.2.2.2 No gap 2.2.2.3 Movement 2.3 Against a D-K structural link 2.3.1 RD as a doubling phenomenon 2.3.1.1 Right dislocation isn’t agreement 2.3.1.2 Right dislocation isn’t clitic doubling 2.3.2 Right dislocation isn’t resumption 2.3.3 Summary 2.4 On extraction from D 2.4.1 López (2009) and Villalba (2000) 2.4.2 Samek-Lodovici (2015) 2.5 Implications for prosody 2.6 Concluding remarks 3. Previous accounts 3.1 D is ‘in situ’ 3.1.1 Right dislocation as LF movement 3.1.2 Problems 3.1.2.1 Word order in Catalan 3.1.2.2 Extraction 3.1.2.3 Morphology in Zulu 3.1.2.4 Clitic doubling in French and Italian 3.2 Peripheral approaches 3.2.1 Movement vs base generation 3.2.2 Remnant movement 3.3 Middle field approaches 3.3.1 The low periphery 3.3.1.1 A vs Ā-movement 3.3.1.2 All focus context 3.4 The right roof constraint 3.5 Left-right asymmetries 3.5.1 Asymmetry 1: Extraction 3.5.2 Asymmetry 2: ECP effects in French 3.5.3 Asymmetry 3: Aux-to-comp in Italian 3.5.4 Asymmetry 4: Obviation effects 3.5.5 Asymmetry 5: Reconstruction and principle C 3.5.6 Asymmetry 6: Variable binding 3.5.7 Interim summary 3.6 D is external to the clause 3.7 Summary 4. Locality without movement 4.1 On movement and ellipsis 4.1.1 The (syntactic) licensing of ellipsis 4.1.2 Challenges for MADA 4.1.3 Ellipsis as radical deaccentuation 4.2 Islands 4.2.1 The Dutch data 4.2.2 The Romance data 4.3 The minimal coordination hypothesis 4.3.1 Dutch (multiple) extraposition 4.3.2 Interim summary 4.3.3 The MCH in Romance 4.3.4 Where does the MCH derive from? 4.4 Multiple dislocations 4.4.1 Clause-mate dislocations 4.4.2 Dislocation from different clauses 4.4.3 Recursive dislocations 4.4.4 Wrapping up 4.5 D does not move 4.5.1 Lack of motivation 4.5.2 Scope 4.5.3 A note on P-stranding 4.6 Conclusion 5. Other right peripheral fragments 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 The right periphery of the clause 5.1.2 A structural paradox 5.1.3 The biclausal solution 5.2 RD as a (force-)dependent RPF 5.2.1 Two types of RPF 5.2.2 RDs vs AT/SQs 5.2.2.1 Independent illocutionary force 5.2.2.2 Independent propositionality 5.2.2.3 RPF across speakers 5.2.2.4 Presence of comment clauses 5.2.2.5 Sentential adverbs and modal particles 5.2.3 A proposal 5.3 ‘In situ’ fragments 5.3.1 Islands 5.3.1.1 SQs 5.3.1.2 ATs 5.3.2 Complementizers and sentential RPF 5.3.3 Scope 5.3.4 Interim summary 5.4 Predicative afterthoughts 5.4.1 A copular source 5.4.2 Properties of D 5.4.2.1 PredATs as a force-independent RPF 5.4.2.2 Restrictions 5.4.3 Movement of D 5.4.4 A brief note on PredNPs 5.5 Other right peripheral fragments 5.6 Conclusion 6. Concluding remarks References Index