Contrastive focus at the right edge Introduction: In Spanish, personal

Contrastive focus at the right edge
Introduction: In Spanish, personal infinitives, that is to say, infinitives able to license an overt
subject, have been argued to appear in subject and adjunct position, exclamatives and (rhetorical)
interrogatives, as opposed to complement clauses [1]. This distribution has been analyzed
variously in terms of government [1], L-marking [2] or phases [3], and yet it is called into
question by the existence of subject control data where a focused subject linearly follows an
infinitive clause in complement position (1). Crucially, clausal restructuring has not taken place,
as shown by the lack of clitic climbing [4], (2), a fact that makes the position of the subject more
puzzling.
Goal: The aim of this research is to further our knowledge of these subject control structures
within the context of a broader debate on the syntax of postverbal subjects in Spanish. In
particular, it is argued that (i) the postverbal subject in (1) is the subject of the main clause, not
the infinitival clause, and (ii) a remnant movement approach ([5], a.o.) can explain the data
successfully. This means that the traditional description of the distribution of personal infinitives
can be maintained.
Analysis: The evidence in favor of the view that the overt subject in (1) is part of the main
clause comes, for instance, from the fact that in Spanish the VSO order is grammatical in finite
clauses. If indeed the subject originates in the infinitival clause, the VSO order should be
possible, but it is by far more restricted than in finite embeded clauses (cf. (3a) and (3b), see also
[6]). Furthermore, under extraposition of the infinitival clause, the subject cannot be included in
the extraposed clause, but rather it has to remain in the main clause, (4). If the overt subject was
part of the infinitival clause, this behavior would remain unexplained. In contrast, if the sentence
final subject does not form a unity with the infinitival clause, this result would follow. Similarly,
focused subjects, either at the right or the left-edge of the clause take scope over negation, as
predicted by a remnant movement account, cf. (5)a/b vs. (5)c (see also [7], a.o.). Still another
feature of these structures is that the object of the infinitive c-commands the overt subject in
sentence final position, as shown by PPLE C effects, (6), (see [5] for this diagnosis applied to the
syntax of simple clauses). These c-command relationships and the evidence that the overt subject
originates as an argument of the main verb can be reconciled in a remnant movement account:
First, the focused subject, originating in the main clause, moves to FocP at the beginning of the
sentence, then the object of the infinitive moves to the left periphery where it c-commands the
subject and, finally, the whole TP of the main clause moves past these two elements. Similar
derivations have been proposed for Romance simple clauses already ([5]) and this research
provides further support for this view. Whereas the remnant movement derivation is not the only
mechanism that allows focused subjects to surface sentence-finally in this language (e.g., see [5]
and [7] for evidence that both remnant movement and object-shift are needed to account for the
full range of focused sentence-final subjects in Spanish), is not clear how other approaches to
postverbal subjects, e.g., p-movement ([8]), right adjuction of the subject to some projection
([9]), a so-called copy theory approach à la [10] ([11]), or even object-shift ([5] and [8], a.o.),
might explain the data under discussion.
Conclusion: This research provides novel evidence for a remnant movement approach to
postverbal subjects in Spanish. Furthermore, this analysis provides support for the traditional
description of the distribution of overt subjects of infinitives in Spanish, a non-trivial result for
approaches developed by assuming this distinction ([1], [2] and [3], a.o.) and for Case Theory,
PRO’s Theorem and their revisions.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
Ayer
lamentó haber comprado el pan PEDRO, y no Juan.
yesterday regretted to-have bought the bread Pedro, and not Juan
a.
Pedro lamentó haberlo comprado.
Pedro regretted to-have-it bought
b.
*Pedro lo lamentó haber comprado.
Pedro it regretted to-have bought.
a.
Ayer
compró Pedro (el) pan.
Yesterday bought Pedro the bread.
b.
#Ayer
lamentó haber comprado Pedro (el) pan.
Yesterday regretted to-have bought Pedro the bread
No haber (*PEDRO) ido (*PEDRO) es lo que (PEDRO/Pedro) lamentó
not to-have (PEDRO) went (PEDRO) is the what (PEDRO/Pedro) regretted
(PEDRO/Pedro) con amargura (PEDRO).
(PEDRO/Pedro) with bitterness (PEDRO).
‘The fact that Peter did not go is what he regretted bitterly’
a.
ANDONI no lamentó haberle
traído el vino
ANDONI not regretted to-have-him brought the wine
‘Andoni is the one who did not regret having brought the wine to him.’
b.
No lamentó haberle
traído el vino ANDONI.
c.
No lamentó (Andoni) haberle
traído (?Andoni) el vino.
‘It is not the case that Andoni regretted having brought the wine to him.’
a.
El libro, los hermanos de Evai lamentaron habérselo comprado a ellai.
the book, the brothers of Eva regretted
having
bought
to her
b.
*El libro, lamentaron habérselo comprado a ellai LOS HERMANOS DE EVAi.
Fernández Lagunilla, M. 1987. Los infinitivos con sujetos léxicos en español. Sintaxis de
las lenguas románicas. Madrid, Arquero, 125-147.
Ortega-Santos, I. 2003. Los sujetos léxicos de los infinitivos en castellano: Concordancia
abstracta y el Principio de la Proyección Extendida. M.A. Thesis, University of Arizona.
Sitaridou, I. The Synchrony and Diachrony of Romance Infinitives with Nominative
Subjects. Ph.D. Diss., University of Manchester.
Gómez Torrego, L. 1999. Los verbos auxiliares. Las perífrasis verbales de infinitivo.
Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa. 2197-2356.
Ordóñez, F. 2000. The clausal structure of Spanish: a comparative perspective. New
York: Garland.
Ordóñez, F. 2007. Cartography of postverbal subjects in Spanish and Catalan. Romance
Languages and Linguistic Theory 2005. 259–280.
Etxepare, R., and M. Uribe-Etxebarria. 2008. Word order and the arquitecture of
grammar. Talk at the Hispanic Linguistics Symposium at the Université Laval, Canada.
Zubizarreta, M.L. 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order. MIT Press.
Torrego, E. 1984. On Inversion in Spanish and Some of Its Effects. Linguistic Inquiry 15:
103-129.
Stjepanovic, S. 1999. What do second position clitization, scrambling and multiple whfronting have in common? Ph.D. Diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Ortega-Santos, I. 2006. On postverbal subjects, PF and the Copy Theory: The Spanish
case. Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla University Press. 55-66.