61

The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences fortopicalisation *

Liliane Haegeman, Université Charles de Gaulle – Lille III,UMR 8258 Silex du CNRS, l.haegeman@skynet.be

1. Introduction

1.1. Aim of the paper

Based on data from English, the paper first argues that adverbial clauses arenot a homogenous group and that at least two types must be distinguished:central adverbial clauses modify the proposition expressed by clause withwhich they are related, and peripheral adverbial clauses provide backgroundpropositions that are to be processed as the privileged discourse context forthe proposition expressed in the associated clause. These two types of clausesdiffer in both external and internal syntax, and my claim will be that the leftperiphery (in the sense of Rizzi 1997) of central adverbial clauses lacks theprojection of the functional head Force, responsible for speaker anchoring. Thesecond part of the paper takes a comparative perspective and explores theconsequences of this proposal for argument fronting. The analysis correctlypredicts that argument topicalisation in English is excluded in central adverbialclauses. However, clitic left dislocation in Romance is possible in centraladverbial clauses in spite of the assumed absence of ForceP in their leftperiphery. I will offer an account for the contrast exploring the role of Fin inlicensing topics.

1.2. Two types of adverbial clauses

The first part of this paper is concerned with the syntax of adverbial clauses. Inthe recent syntax literature, adverbial clauses have often tended to bediscussed as one undifferentiated group with respect to syntactic propertiessuch as extraction, parasitic gap licensing etc1. Closer examination reveals thatthey do not behave homogeneously and that, though adverbial clauses mayshare some properties, sub-types can be distinguished. Basing the account onEnglish data, I distinguish between adverbial clauses whose semantic functionis to structure the event expressed in the associated clause and adverbialclauses that structure the discourse. The latter type expresses propositionsthat are to be processed as part of the discourse background for theproposition expressed in the associated clause. For instance, adverbialclauses introduced by the conjunction while either provide a temporalspecification of the event, as illustrated in (1a), or they provide a backgroundproposition which, combined with the proposition expressed by the associatedclause, will yield contextual implications and thus enhance the relevance of theassociated clause (in the sense of Sperber and Wilson (1986)), as illustrated in(1b):

62

(1) a According to Smith, a group of Arkansas state troopers whoworked for Clinton while he was governor wanted to go public withtales of Clinton’s womanising. (Guardian, G2, 12.3.2, page 3, col2-3)(event time: 'during the time that')

b While [Dr Williams’] support for women priests and gaypartnerships might label him as liberal, this would be a misleadingway of depicting his uncompromisingly orthodox espousal ofChristian belief. (Guardian, 2.3.2, page 9, col 1-2) (backgroundassumption: 'whereas',)2

Similarly, clauses introduced by the conditional conjunction if either express acondition for the realisation of the event expressed in the main clause (2a), orthey provide a proposition that serves as a background assumption which,combined with the assertion of the associated clause, yields additionalinferences (2b).

(2) a. If your back-supporting muscles tire, you will be at increased riskof lower-back pain (Independent on Sunday, Sports, 14.10.1,page 29, col 3) (event-condition)

b If we are so short of teachers (‘Jobs crisis grows as new termlooms’, August 30), why don’t we send our children to Germany tobe educated? (Letters to the editor, Eddie Catlin, Norwich,Guardian, 31.8.1, page 9, col 5) (‘given that', backgroundassumption)

Table 1 classifies a number of English conjunctions with respect to the clausetype they introduce. Some conjunctions can embed clauses either of the tworeadings; other conjunctions introduce adverbial clauses that have only onereading: either they always modify the event (before, after, until) or they alwayscontribute to discourse structuring (although, whereas, given that). 3

Conjunction Central adverbial clauseEvent structure

Peripheral adverbial clause Discourse structure

Before Event timeAfter Event timeUntil Event timeAs Event time RationaleSince Event time RationaleWhile Event time Background assumption (Contrast)When Event time Background assumption (Contrast)If Event-condition Background assumption/premiseBecause/ ‘cos ‘Event-reason’ Argument/ reasonSo that Purpose ResultWhereas Background assumption (contrast)Although Concession/contrastGiven that Background assumption/premise

63

Table 1: Typology of adverbial clauses in English1.3. Organisation of the paper

The paper is organised as follows. In section 2 I provide further evidence forthe distinction between the two types of adverbial clauses, focusing on theirexternal syntax. To account for the observed contrasts, I propose thatperipheral adverbial clauses are syntactically less integrated with theassociated clause than central event-related adverbial clauses. Section 3shows that there are also distinctions with respect to the internal syntax of thetwo types, with peripheral adverbial clauses tolerating what have come to beknown as root or main clause phenomena (MCP). MCP are excluded fromcentral adverbial clauses. Section 4 accounts for this contrast by proposing thatthe CP-domain of central adverbial clauses is structurally deficient and lacksthe functional heads encoding speaker-related functions (speech time,epistemic modality, illocutionary force). MCP depend on the presence of Force.Sections 5 and 6 move to comparative data. In English central adverbialclauses, topicalisation of arguments is predicted to be banned because itdepends on the encoding of speaker. However, while argument topicalisation isdisallowed in English central adverbial clauses, it is possible in Romance. Insection 7 I speculate that the fronted arguments in the Romance languagesexamined can be licensed by the head Fin, the lowest inflectional head of theCP domain. Section 7 concludes the paper.

2. External syntax: degrees of integration

In this section I provide evidence for the distinction between adverbial clauseswhich is introduced above and illustrated in examples (1) - (2). I relate thecontrast to the degree of syntactic integration of the adverbial clause with theassociated clause.

2.1. Co-ordination of likes

Typically, only adverbial clauses with parallel interpretations can be co-ordinated: in (3a), both conditional clauses will be read as event-related centralconditionals and in (3b) they will both be read as discourse-related peripheralconditionals. There is no way in which the conditional clauses in (3) could begiven distinct interpretations with the first being event-related and the seconddiscourse-related (or vice versa):

(3) a The party is also in danger of alienating older people above thepoverty line, Mr Cable argues. ‘Both these groups will swing to theConservatives if the Tories are smart enough and if we havenothing much to offer them.’ (Guardian, 11.2.2., page 6, col 5)

b But if Sir Richard has been tainted by the affair, and if MrSixsmith’s role may not have been as entirely well-intentioned ashe claims, the individual most damaged by the row remainsStephen Byers. (Guardian, 25.2.2, page 4, col 3)

64

2.2. Scope phenomena

Scopal properties distinguish the two adverbial clause types. Essentially,central adverbial clauses can be within the scope of operators in theassociated clause4, while peripheral adverbial clauses are outside the scope ofsuch operators. This can be illustrated in a number of different ways, some ofwhich discussed below.

2.2.1. Temporal subordination

Central adverbial clauses are within the scope of temporal operators in theassociated clause, while peripheral adverbial clauses are not. This has beenpointed out in the literature. Hornstein (1993), for instance, discusses temporaldependency as a property of what I have labelled central adverbial clauses.

temporal adjuncts headed by temporal connectives such as when, while,after, before, as, until, and since interact with the tense of the matrixclause. … There are rather specific tense-concord restrictions thatobtain between the tense of the matrix clause and the tense of themodifying clause. These restrictions can be largely accounted forstructurally in terms of the C[onstraint] on D[erived] T[ense] S[tructures]and the rule that combines these clauses into complex tense structures.(Hornstein 1993: 43)

Concerning what I have labelled peripheral adverbial clauses Hornstein says:There is a secondary conjunctive interpretation that all theseconnectives (as, while, when) shade into. They get an interpretationsimilar to and in these contexts. And is not a temporal connective, andthese conjunctive interpretations do not tell against the theory [oftemporal subordination and complex tense structures] Hornstein (206:note 19)

Hornstein's 'secondary conjunctive interpretation' corresponds to my discourse-related interpretation. Note though that it would not be correct to treatdiscourse-related adverbial clauses simply in terms of co-ordination. I willillustrate this for contrastive while clauses. It is true that contrastive while issemantically close to a co-ordinating conjunction, as shown by (4), in whichwhile can be replaced by but or by and:

(4) a John does a Ph.D in Oxford while he did his first degree inCambridge.

a' John does a Ph.D in Oxford and/but he did his first degree inCambridge.

b John reads the Guardian while Mary reads the Times.b' John reads the Guardian and/ but Mary reads the Times.

65

However, contrastive while clauses do not share all the properties of co-ordinated clauses. Ellipsis of the subject of the second co-ordinated clause ispossible in (5a) but in an adverbial clause introduced by contrastive while thesubject cannot be ellipted (5b): 5

(5) a John does a Ph.D. in Oxford but did his first degree in Cambridge.b *John does a Ph.D. in Oxford while did his first degree in

Cambridge.

Gapping is possible with co-ordinated clauses but not in constructions with acontrastive while clause:

(6) a John reads the Guardian and Mary the Times.b *?John reads the Guardian while Mary the Times.

With respect to conditional clauses, Declerck and Reed (2001) distinguish twotypes. The first, labelled the present perspective type, is said to be 'temporallysubordinated' to the matrix clause, the second which they label the futureperspective type is not temporally subordinated. A clause is temporallysubordinated when the interpretation of its tense forms depends on that of theassociated clause. Interestingly, Declerck and Reed relate the difference intemporal relations to a difference in illocutionary force, a point to which I return.

When the Present Perspective System is used in the [conditional] sub-clause [i.e. with temporal subordination, lh (2a)], the speaker makes asingle (but complex) prediction: she presents the contents of the twoclauses as forming a unit. […] when the Future Perspective System[without temporal subordination lh] is used in both clauses [conditionaland associated clause, lh, (2b,7a,b below)], the speaker makes twoindependent predictions: there are, as it were, two illocutionary speechacts. (Declerck & Reed 2001: 131):

Temporally subordinated conditional clauses such as those in (2a) are centralconditionals. In such adverbial clauses a present tense is interpreted withfuture reading when it is within the scope of a matrix future time expression. Inperipheral conditional clauses tense interpretation is independent: the tense ofthe associated clause does not affect the interpretation of that of the adverbialclause. For conditionals, the non-subordinated pattern is illustrated in (2b)above, in which the present tense in the subordinate clause refers to a presenttime, and it is also illustrated also in (7a) in which future time is expressedindependently in the adverbial clause. (7b) illustrates independent temporalexpression in discourse-related while clauses.

(7) a If I’m no longer going to be arrested for possessing cannabis formy own consumption ('Cannabis laws eased in drugs policyshake-up', October 24), shouldn’t I be able to grow my own?(Jason Cundy, Letter to the editor Guardian, 25.11.1, page 9, col.8)

66

b The French president, Jacques Chirac will tell George Bush inWashington today that while France will continue to back themilitary campaign in Afghanistan, the search for a politicalframework for the country’s future must be intensified. (Guardian,19.11.1, page 4, col 3)

Observe, though, that it cannot be argued that peripheral adverbial clausesmust never be temporally subordinated and that they are somehowsyntactically completely unattached (a claim I had made in my earlier work(Haegeman 1991)). Peripheral adverbial clauses may be temporallysubordinated when together with the associated clause, they are embeddedunder a higher verb:

(8) The EOC -commissioned research found that while girls wereaware of discrimination, less than 40 per cent of 15 and 16 yearolds thought girls and boys were treated the same in the family.(Observer, 28.10.1, page 9, col 2)

The past tense of were in the contrastive while clause in (8) is not triggered bythe impact of the past tense of thought in the associated clause, but rather boththe past tense of were and that of thought are the result of the embedding thetwo containing clauses under the higher past tense verb found.

2.2.2. Adjunct scope

As expected, in addition to tense, other adverbial operators may also havescope over central adverbial clauses but they do not scope over peripheraladverbial clauses. In (9a,b), the frequency adverbs always and usually scopeover the central adverbial clauses. In (9c) on the other hand, the frequencyadjunct often in the matrix clause does not scope over the peripheral adverbialwhile clause, with its own independent adverb of frequency (always):

(9) a I always get home before the programme starts.b ‘When a woman says she wants to go out and get a job, ‘ [Oliver

Reed] once remarked, ‘it usually means she’s hopelessly behindwith the ironing.’(Observer, 10.3.2, p 32, col 1)

c While Mary always drives to school, John often goes by bike.

2.2.3. Negation

Main clause negation may scope over central adverbial clauses, but peripheraladverbial clauses cannot fall within the scope of a negative operator in anassociated clause, as illustrated by the contrast between (10a,b) and (10c):

(10) a He doesn’t drink while he is driving.b He never drinks while he is driving.c My husband doesn't smoke cigarettes, while he does occasionally

smoke a cigar.

67

In (10a) and (10b) the negation can be said to range over a complex event: 'hedoes not drink-drive'. In (10c) two propositions are interpreted in parallel, onlyone of these is negated.

68

2.2.4. Focus (cleft/only)

As illustrated by the clefting in (11), a focus operator in the matrix clause mayselect the central adverbial clause (11a,b); a focus operator in the associatedclause cannot range over the peripheral adverbial clause (11c).

(11) a It is after I left that I realised he was my former teacher.b It’s only while [time] you’re alive that human selfishness, or

whatever, is held against you (Independent on Sunday, Review14.10.1, page 9, col 1)

c *It is while my mother was a housewife that my father used towork in a brickyard.

2.2.5. Interrogative scope

As is to be expected by now, an interrogative operator in the matrix clause maytarget a central adverbial clause (12a,b), though not the peripheral adverbialclause (12c,d):

(12) a Do you ever read Belgian newspapers while you are abroad?b While you are abroad, do you ever read Belgian newspapers?c While Bush is clearly delighted to have Blair as an extra

ambassador for his policies at the moment, somebody to get onthose dangerous aeroplanes and rush around the Middle Eastchatting up guys with difficult names in order to strengthenAmerica’s position, what kind of influence do we really imagineBlair has on Bushes foreign policy? (Independent, Comment1.11.1, page 5, col 3)

2.3. Prosody & orthography

Peripheral adverbial clauses are typically prosodically set off from theassociated clause by comma intonation, usually signalled by a comma inwriting. Sometimes, however, the peripheral adverbial clause is typographicallyset off as if it were an independent clause. Some attested examples of thispractice are given in (13):

(13) a Today the party’s Treasury spokesman, Matthew Taylor, willcommit the Liberal Democrats to entering the next election with apromise to pump more money into the NHS, possibly with aspecial health tax. While an emergency debate this weekend islikely to reaffirm Liberal Democrat scepticism about Britishinvolvement in a war with Iraq. (Independent, 9.3.2, page 8, col 8)

b Maybe Tyson should redirect his energies towards a sport lesslikely to bring out his violent side. Figure skating for example, orsynchronised swimming. Because this week’s ugly scenesprobably won’t be the last and every time the moral commentatorsbecome even more outraged: these boxers – they are behaving in

69

a violent and aggressive manner! (Guardian, 26.1.2, page 8, col3)

Based on the scope facts discussed in section 2.2, as well as theprosodic/orthographic separation of the peripheral adverbial clauses, I haveelaborated an account (Haegeman 1984a,b,c,d, 1991) according to whichcentral adverbial clauses and peripheral adverbial clauses differ in theirexternal syntax, more precisely in the level and degree of integration with theassociated clause. Central adverbial clauses are adjoined to VP or to IP andare part of the main clause; peripheral adverbial clauses are adjoined to CP,hence their connection with the associated clause is much looser. My proposalthus differs from the conclusions drawn by Declerck and Reed, who deny thereis a syntactic contrast:

a subordinate clause is a syntactically dependent clause. Suchquestions as the scope of negation, focusing, modality, etc. in the headclause are immaterial to this, as they pertain, not to syntactic, but tosemantic integration (Declerck and Reed 2001: 37-8)

Further evidence for the proposed syntactic distinction in terms of degrees ofembedding/syntactic integration is given in the next sections.

2.4. VP ellipsis and strict/sloppy identity

The data in (14) show that central adverbial clauses may be affected by VP-ellipsis and that when such adverbial clauses contain a pronoun, VP-ellipsismay lead to a so-called sloppy identity reading. Thus in (14a) so will Bill may beinterpreted as in (14b) or as in (14c), the latter illustrating the sloppy identityreading:

(14) a Johni will leave the meeting before hisi paper is discussed and sowill Bill.

b (i) Bill will also leave the meeting before Johni’s paper isdiscussed.

c (ii) Billj will also leave the meeting before hisj paper is discussed.

A temporal while clause may also be affected by VP-ellipsis and a sloppyidentity reading may arise:

(15) a Johni works most efficiently while hisi children are at school andso does Bill.

b Bill also works most efficiently while John’s children are at school.c Billj also works most efficiently while hisj children are at school.

On the other hand, contrastive while clauses, which I take to be peripheral, arenot affected by VP-ellipsis and VP-ellipsis does not lead to sloppy readings.(16a) has the interpretation paraphrased in (16b) and there is no way in whichone will assign a sloppy identity interpretation to the pronoun his and assumethat James's wife is also unemployed. My analysis predicts this difference. In

70

(16a) the peripheral adjunct clause is attached outside the VP of theassociated clause, hence VP-ellipsis cannot affect the adverbial clause.

(16) a While hisi wife is unemployed, Johni has a high-powered job in thecity and so does Jamesj.

b Jamesj also has a high powered job in the city.

2.5. Parasitic gaps

Central adverbial clauses allow for parasitic gaps bound by operators in theassociated clause (17); parasitic gaps in peripheral adverbial clauses aresomewhat degraded:6

(17) a John is the guy they said they’ll hire [∅] - if I publicly criticise [∅] -in order to get me to praise [∅] (Nissenbaum 2000)

b He is a man who if you know [∅] you will love [∅] (Jespersen1931: 202)

(18) a This is the paper which I memorised [∅] while I was copying [∅].b ?This is the paper which I myself enjoyed [∅] very much,

while/whereas you will probably dislike [∅].(cf. Postal 2001: 299ff))

The contrast follows from an account that assumes that peripheral adverbialclauses are not fully integrated with the associated clause. If the parasitic gapphenomenon depends on a kind of semantic composition between theadverbial clause containing the PG and the matrix clause containing theoperator and the 'real gap' (Nissenbaum 2000, chapter 3), it is reasonable topropose that this complex predicate formation is subject to constraints oflocality. The syntactic independence of peripheral adverbial clauses entailsthat they lack the required local relation with the associated clause, renderingthe formation of a complex predicate (and hence the existence of PG)impossible. On the other hand, being near-coordinate, ATB extractions may beexpected to be marginally possible in peripheral adverbial clauses.

The contrast between the type of adverbial clauses can also be detected tosome extent in simple extraction. While extraction out of adjunct clauses isgenerally somewhat degraded (see Sabel 2002 for a recent discussion and forreferences), argument extraction out of a central adverbial clause of the event-related type is marginally acceptable, with the effect of a weak subjacencyviolation. Data such as (19) are occasionally found (cf. Haegeman 1987)

(19) a the details and the whole, which an artist cannot be great unlesshe reconciles (Ru, Sel. 1.175, Jespersen, 1931: 202)

b a stranger, from that remote and barbarian Isle which the ImperialRoman shivered when he named, paused.(Lytton, Pomp, v, chxi,153b, Poutsma 1926: 645)

71

Similar examples in which extraction is launched from a peripheral adverbialclause are unattested; they would lead to full ungrammaticality:

(19) c ??This is the paper which I enjoyed the conference very much,whereas I disliked [∅].(cf. Postal 2001: 299 ff.))7

d ??This is the paper which, whereas I disliked [∅], I enjoyed theconference very much.(cf. Postal 2001: 299 ff.))

2.6. External syntax

Updating my earlier analysis I propose that central adverbial clauses aremerged with the matrix clause at an earlier point in the derivation thanperipheral adverbial clauses. While central adverbial clauses are adjoined tovP or to an Inflectional projection (cf. Thompson 1994, Nissenbaum 2000).8

Peripheral adverbial clauses are merged with the associated clause after thelatter is fully projected, i.e. they are merged with a CP: the resulting structurewill be as in (20), a pattern close to co-ordination.9

(20) Peripheral adverbial clauses:[CP1 adverbial clause [CP1 associated clause]]

3. Internal syntax: Main clause phenomena in peripheral adverbialclauses

My earlier work (Haegeman 1984a,b,c,d, 1991) discussed the differences inexternal syntax of the adverbial clauses. This section shows that the differencein external syntax is paired with a difference in internal syntax. Summarisingthe discussion below, I will show that, typically, peripheral adverbial clausesgive rise to so-called root phenomena (Emonds 1970, 2000) or Main clausephenomena (MCP) (Hooper and Thompson 1973): they display a number ofsyntactic patterns which are usually restricted to root clauses. MCP are notavailable in central adverbial clauses.

3.1. Speaker oriented epistemic modals and adverbial clauses

One difference between central adverbial clauses and peripheral adverbialclauses is that the latter may, and the former may not, contain expressions ofepistemic modality:

(21) a *Mary accepted the invitation without hesitation after John mayhave accepted it (based on Verstraete 2001: 149)

b ??John works best while his children are probably/might beasleep.

c The ferry will be fairly cheap, while/whereas the plane may/ willprobably be too expensive.

Epistemic modality is by definition speaker-related: it expresses the speaker'sevaluation concerning the likelihood of the state of affairs/event. This

72

evaluation is anchored to the speech time. Crucially, even if 'epistemic modalscan be morphologically associated with a past tense, … this morphologicalmarking does not express the speaker's past judgement. Either it is used fortentativeness,… or it occurs in a context of indirect or free indirect speech'(Verstraete 2001: 152, italics mine).

73

3.2. Illocutionary force

The availability of epistemic modality in peripheral adverbial clauses and itsabsence in central adverbial clauses suggest that peripheral clauses encodespeaker-anchoring in a way that central adverbial clauses do not. Thisdistinction is confirmed by the fact that discourse-related adverbial clauseshave illocutionary force, a point signalled by Declerck and Reed (2001) forperipheral conditional clauses (cf. section 2.2.1). Central adverbial clauses donot have this illocutionary potential. There are a number of empirical factsconfirming the opposition.

3.2.1. Echoic effect in conditional clauses

Declerck and Reed signal that peripheral conditional clauses are echoic:closed P-clauses [≈ peripheral conditional clauses lh]are always echoicin one sense or another. They can echo straightforward statementsabout the actual world, or they can echo Q-propositions about anonfactual world. However, the claim that closed P-propositions areechoic need not mean that they have to be echoes of actual utterances.They may also be echoes of an internal or mental proposition (thought)such as the interpretation of an experience, perception etc. (Declerckand Reed 2001:83)

Being echoic, peripheral adverbial clauses must 'echo' a speaker, hence theyencode encoding a speech act.

3.2.2. Tags: ( H&T 1973: 471.)

Further evidence for the encoding of illocutionary force in peripheral adverbialclauses and its absence in central adverbial clauses comes from theobservation that peripheral adverbial clauses may and that central adverbialclauses may not have their own question tags associated with them. In (22a)the tag didn't she is related to the matrix clause; a tag hadn't they, which wouldhave to be related to the adverbial clause, is not possible, as seen in (22b).Temporal while clauses show the same restrictions (23).

(22) a Mary went back to college after/before her children had finishedschool, didn’t she?

b *Mary went back to college after/before her children had finishedschool, hadn't they?

(23) a Bill took a degree at Oxford while his children were still veryyoung, didn’t he?

b *Bill took a degree at Oxford while his children were still veryyoung, weren’t they?

The situation is different with peripheral adverbial clauses. Sentence-finalcontrastive while clauses cannot be followed by a tag relating to the associated

74

clause. Such a tag would have to precede the contrastive while clause (24a,b).On the other hand, a contrastive while clause may have its own tag (24c):

(24) a *Bill took a degree at Oxford, while his daughter is studying atUCL, didn’t he?

b Bill took a degree at Oxford, didn’t he, while his daughter isstudying at UCL.

c Bill took a degree at Oxford, while his daughter is studying atUCL, isn’t she?

(25) is an attested example in which a question tag is associated with aperipheral because clause:

(25) Henry III, or example, ruled for 56 years but his golden jubileewas flop. ‘Henry III?’ they said, ‘Erm, now which one’s that then?Cos Henry V is Agincourt, isn’t he…(Guardian, 2.2.2., page 8, col2)

3.2.3. (Rhetorical) questions

Among peripheral adverbial clauses, because clauses and although clausesmay typically also be associated with interrogative force. In this case, theinterpretation of the adverbial clause will be that of a rhetorical question:

(26) a No one would have been too upset about her bad behaviour,because wasn't that what writers were put on earth to do?(Observer, 20.8.2000 page 27, col 8)

b News about the anti-American demonstrations which had begunto appear in Berlin and other parts of Germany in the fortnightsince the summit hadn’t exactly helped sell what was supposed tobe Michelle's greatest success. Although what did the mid-westcare about Berlin? (BNC, Verstraete 2002: 147)

3.2.4. Imperatives (Verstraete 2002: 146)

Verstraete (2002: 146) signals that some peripheral adverbial clauses may alsohave imperative force [see note 5]. I refer to his work for discussion.

3.3. Argument fronting in adverbial clauses.In the literature on English, it has often been assumed that ‘embeddedtopicalization is consistently impossible in an adjunct clause’ (Maki, Kaiser andOchi 1999: 4). This restriction is illustrated in (27) (see also Authier 1992):

(27) a *Before this book, Mary read, John had already read it (Maki,Kaiser & Ochi 1999:4)

b *Before MY book, Mary bought, John had already bought YOURSc *If some of these precautions you take, you will pass the exam.10

75

Observe, though, that the ban on topicalisation is considerably weakened inperipheral adverbial clauses in English, as shown by the data in (28):

(28) a His face not many admired, while his character still fewer felt theycould praise. (Quirk et al 1378)

b [He had brought a number of records.] Although some of them Ireally enjoyed, others were note very inspiring.

A similar contrast is to be found in Japanese11 (cf. Heycock 2002), where watopicalisation is not possible in central adverbial clauses but it is licit inperipheral adverbial clauses. (29) illustrates the contrast in conditional clauses:

(29) a *Mosi sono yoona zassi-wa, (anata-ga) yome-ba,if that like magazine-top (you-nom) read (conditional)-if(anata-wa) yasai-ga sukini narimasu.(you-top) vegetable-nom like become'If these magazines, you read, you will come to like vegetables'

b Mosi sono yoona zassi–wa (anata-ga) sukide-nai (conclusive)-naraba,if that like magazine-top (you-nom) like-not-ifnaze (anata-wa) (sorera-o) kai-tuzukerunodesu ka?why you-top them-acc buy-continue, Q'If such magazines, you don't like, why do you keep buying them?'

In Japanese, the choice of conjunction distinguishes the two types ofconditionals. Central conditional clauses are introduced by the conjunction ba,peripheral conditional clauses are introduced by the complex conjunctionnaraba. Interestingly, nara itself can be used as a subordinating conjunction.Concerning the conditional sentence pattern [S1 nara] S2, Kuno (1973: 168)says: ‘It is usually said that this pattern has a strong degree of assertion aboutthe statement represented by S1’. Though I do not want to pursue the syntax ofJapanese adverbial clauses here, the make-up of the two conjunctions is in linewith my proposal that peripheral adverbial clauses encode speaker-anchoringin a way that central adverbial clauses do not. I return to topicalisation insection 5.

3.4. If… then as MCP

It has been proposed in the literature (Iatridou and Kroch 1992) that theif…then sequence is a MCP. As expected, the pattern is available in peripheraladverbial clauses and it is not available in central adverbial clauses.

(30) a France will be expensive while if you go to England then you willget value for money.

b I wouldn’t recommend Virgin, ‘cos if you travel with them then youmay have the problem of overbooking.

c *Mary does not enjoy a film on TV until if she has put her childrento bed then they sleep well.

76

3.5. A syntactic account? 12

The availability of root phenomena/MCP in a restricted set of embeddedclauses has been repeatedly signalled in the generative literature. However,earlier discussions tended to imply that a fully syntactic account is unavailable:

As a positive environment we can say that [root] transformations operateonly on Ss that are asserted. …some transformations are sensitive tomore than just syntactic configurations. It does not seem possible todefine the domain of an RT in terms of syntactic structures in anygeneral way. However, …, even if it were possible to define in syntacticterms the conditions under which RTs can apply, … the question of whythese transformations can apply in certain syntactic environments andnot others would still be unanswered (Hooper & Thompson 1973: 495,italics mine)

In the next section I outline a syntactic account for the observation thatperipheral adverbial clauses do and central adverbial clause don't displayMCP.13

4. RT/MCP and the internal make-up of CP

4.1. 'Reduction'

My proposal is inspired by Hooper and Thompson's own observation,reproduced in the citation below, that MCP are generally excluded from whatthey call 'reduced' clauses:

Though RTs may apply in some complements that are full sentencesintroduced by the complementiser that, they may never apply in anycomplements that are reduced clauses. By reduced clauses we meaninfinitives, gerunds, and subjunctive clauses14, i.e. those complementtypes which have uninflected verbs. (Hooper and Thompson 1973: 484-5, italics mine)15

I will pursue this idea of structural truncation16. Following Hooper andThompson's suggestion, I elaborate the hypothesis that central adverbialclauses are structurally deficient while peripheral adverbial clauses display thefull clausal structure. More specifically, I argue that the CP-domain of centraladverbial clauses lacks the functional projection encoding the speaker-role andwhich is projected in root clauses (and in clauses embedded under speech actverbs or under propositional attitude verbs). The speaker-related projection, Icontend, is available in peripheral adverbial clauses.17 Observe that thesyntactic distinction is semantically motivated. Peripheral adverbial clausesexpress independent propositions that serve as the immediate discoursebackground to the associated clause; central adverbial clauses are part of andmodify the proposition with which they are associated.

77

4.2. The periphery of the clause: the split CP (Rizzi 1997)

Various authors have proposed that the unitary CP-layer be replaced by ahierarchy of functional projections. (31a) is the hierarchy proposed by Rizzi(1997), on which I will base the discussion here.

(31) a Force > Topic > Focus > Fin18

Following Bhatt and Yoon (1992), Bennis (2000) and Rizzi (1997: note 6), Idistinguish the head Force, which encodes anchoring to speaker, from thehead Sub whose function is merely to hosts the subordinator and introduce thesubordinate clause.19 Subordinating conjunctions are inserted in ‘Sub’; Subserves to subordinate the clause, to 'make it available for (categorial) selectionindependently of its force' (Rizzi 1997). The head Force encodes anchoring tospeaker, and I propose that this head is implicated in the licensing of, amongother things, illocutionary force and epistemic modality. Both central adverbialclauses and peripheral adverbial clauses contain the position Sub, but only thelatter encode anchoring to the speaker, represented as Force. Root clausesobviously also contain the functional head Force. We thus end up with thefollowing functional hierarchies in the left periphery of finite clauses20:

(31) b Central adverbial clause: Sub Fin c Peripheral adverbial clause: Sub Force Top* Focus Find Root clause: Force Top* Focus Fin

I propose that in addition to encoding illocutionary force, Force licenses speechtime. The independent encoding of temporal relations in a syntactic domaindepends on the availability of an independent Speech time in that domain,which by hypothesis depends on the presence of Force.21 Epistemic modality,which I take to be anchored to speaker and to speech time, requires thepresence of the head Force. Given (31b), epistemic modality will beunavailable in central adverbial clauses and, given (31c), it will be available inperipheral adverbial clauses. For an independent argument for relatingepistemic modality and illocutionary Force I also refer to recent work by Bayer(2001: 14-15).

5. Argument fronting and adverbial clauses

5.1. Topicalisation in embedded domains in English

Let us now turn to the availability or absence of topicalisation in adverbialclauses signalled in section 3.3. I exploit a correlation postulated by Bayer(2001) for German embedded topicalisation. Bayer says:

… this form of topicalisation is the grammar’s reflex of the speech act tobe performed and is as such on a par with German constructionsinvolving modal particles like aber, denn, doch, ja etc. Modal particlessupply features which interact with other features such as [WH] yielding awide range of illocutionary forces. Bayer 2001: 14-15)

78

. …if emphatic topicalisation belongs to the class of grammatical meansof force projection in the sense of Rizzi (1997), its root clause propertyand strict left peripherality [in Bavarian] are not surprising. ‘ (Bayer 2001:14-15)

Let us assume that English topicalisation is like the German topicalisationdiscussed by Bayer. Putting it very roughly, (32a) would have the reading(32b): the speaker relates the topic to the clause that is predicated of it. Inother words, topicalisation is a 'speech act'.

(32) a This book, I don't like.b Concerning this book, the speaker says that speaker does not

like it.

I assume that English does not have an alternative way of relating a frontedtopic to the associated clause, while, as we will see below, some Romancelanguages have alternative mechanisms. Assuming that the head Forceencodes speech anchoring and that this head is available in peripheraladverbial clauses will allow us to predict that such adverbial clauses allow forargumental topicalisation. Conversely, the non-availability of the head Force incentral adverbial clauses will mean that fronted arguments in such clausescannot be related to the associated clausal domain. 22

Along minimalist lines, we might express the dependency betweenargumental topicalisation and Force by associating a FORCE feature to thehead topic23. Topicalisation is then somehow represented as a type of speechact. If there is no alternative way of licensing a topic in English, then, a Topiccan only be licit in a domain containing Force. An embedded clause containinga topicalised argument but lacking Force will be ungrammatical (33d). In (33) Iassume without discussion that focalisation too is speaker-related and thatFocus can also be associated with a Force feature, though this remains aspeculation subject to future study. 24

(33) a Central adverbial clause:Sub Fin IP

b Peripheral adverbial clause: Sub Force TopForce Focus Force Fin IP

c Root clause: Force Top ForceFocus Force Fin IP

d. : *Sub TopForce Focus Force Fin IP

5.2. CLLD in Romance

Rizzi's (1997) account of topicalisation relies heavily on an assumed similaritybetween argument fronting in English and clitic left dislocation (CLLD) inRomance. Notably, Rizzi assumes that in both operations, the topicalisedargument is located in the specifier of TopP. The problem with this account isthat while argument topicalisation is excluded in central adverbial clauses inEnglish (and Japanese), as discussed above, this restriction seems to be

79

relaxed in Romance where clitic left dislocation (CLLD) is possible in at leastsome types of central adverbial clauses. If central adverbial clauses lack theprojection Force, and if Force is crucial in licensing topicalisation, then we donot expect this asymmetry. Exploring and adapting some accounts in theliterature, I will propose in section 6 that topicalisation in Romance need notdepend on Force but can be licensed by the head Finiteness.

5.3. Some data

The different distribution of English topicalised arguments and their Romancecounterparts has not passed unnoticed in the literature. For instance,concerning Italian CLLD, Cinque (1990) points out that

The ‘left-dislocated’ phrase of CLLD [in Italian, lh] can occur at the frontof virtually any subordinate clause type:

(34) Da quando, al mercato, ci va lui, non mangiano piu bene.since when to the market he goes there they don’t eat well anymore

CLLD contrasts with LD, which typically occurs in root contexts and (to differentdegrees of marginality) in the complements of only a few classes ofpropositional attitude verbs (Cinque 1990: 58, (41)= his (1b))

The data in (35) show that Italian central conditional clauses allow CLLD.Italian subjunctive clauses also allow CLLD (35c). In this respect, Italian againdiffers from English, where subjunctive clauses are incompatible withtopicalisation (Hooper and Thompson 1973: 484-5, see citation above).

(35) a Se gli esami finali non li superi, non otterrai il diploma. 25

if the final exams not them pass, you won’t obtain the degreeb Se questi tre esami riuscirai a superarli, avrai superato tutti i

requisiti per il diploma.if those three exam you manage to pass, you will have satisfied allthe requirements for the diploma

c Non vorrei que lo stipendio lo prendesse anche una che non neha bisogno26

I wouldn’t want the salary it-take-subjunctive also one that not of ithas need

For Spanish, it has also been noted that CLLD is not restricted to rootenvironments (Zubizaretta 1998: 187). Spanish subjunctive clauses also allowCLLD:

(36) a Si este examen no lo apruebas con un cinco, perderás el cursoentero.27

If this exam you don't pass with a 5, you'll miss the whole yearb Prefiero que estos textos no te los prepares hasta la semana

próxima.I prefer that these texts you do not prepare until next week

80

The Catalan analogues of these data, given in (37), are also grammatical28:

(37) a Si aquest examen no l'aproves amb un cinc, perdràs el curssencer.if this exam you don't pass with a 5, you'll miss the whole year

b Si els exàmens de setembre no els corrigeix el professor, ho fa elseu ajudant.if the September exams the professor doesn't correct them, hisassistant will do it

c Quan aquesta cançó la vaig tornar a sentir al cap dels anys, emvaig emocionar molt.when this song I heard again after some years, I got reallyemotional

The French data are slightly less clear cut, possibly due to the influence ofnormative attitudes of speakers. Many of my informants did accept theexamples in (38), with CLLD in a central, event-related adverbial clause.29

(38) a Si ce livre-là tu le trouve à la Fnac, achète-le.if this book there you it find in the Fnac, buy it

b Dès que ton texte, je l'aurai lu, je t'appellerai.as soon as your text, I it will have read I will call you

c Quand ça, je l'ai appris, j'ai immédiatement téléphoné à la police.when that I it heard I have immediately called the police

In French, CLLD is also allowed in subjunctive complements:

(38) e Je préfère que ce texte-là, tu ne le lises pas.I prefer that this text there you don't read it

f J'aimerais que ce texte-là, tu le prépares pour la semaineprochaine.I would like that that text there you it prepare for next week30

Finally, to extend the comparison, in Modern Greek too, CLLD is not restrictedto root environments. Anagnostopoulou (1997: 163, her (26)) provides thefollowing:

(39) I Maria ine xaroumeni tora pu ton Janni ton paratise.the Mary is happy now that the John him left-3sg'Mary is happy now that she has left John.'

6. The landing site(s) of topicalised arguments

6.1. Topicalisation to Spec,IP

The Romance and the Greek data illustrated in section 5.3 are problematic ifwe account for the absence of topicalisation in English and Japanese centraladverbial clauses by the non-availability of Force and if, as, for instance, in

81

Rizzi (1997) and Grewendorf (2002), CLLD also targets a Force-licensedTopP. Since the syntactic distinction between the two types of adverbialclauses is claimed to be motivated semantically, I do not want to simplystipulate that while Force is missing in English central adverbial clauses, it isavailable in the Romance ones.31 One solution is to propose that argumenttopicalisation is not a syntactically uniform phenomenon and that in addition tothe argument fronting to TopP discussed above, fronted arguments may alsotarget a position that remains licensed in central adverbial clauses. 32

Such proposals have indeed been made in the literature. According to onetype of analysis, the landing site of topicalisation can also be IP-internal.Iatridou and Kroch (1992) exploit the distinction between a CP topic and an IPtopic to account for the contrast between Yiddish and Icelandic on the onehand and Danish and Frisian on the other. Their analysis is exploited withrespect to CLLD in Spanish by Zubizaretta (1998):

Spanish to some extent resembles some of the Germanic languages –specifically, Yiddish and Icelandic (references omitted)…. GeneralisedTP analysis. Languages with a generalised TP may be said to allow acertain amount of feature syncretism. More precisely, in these languagesa discourse-based functional features, such as ‘topic’, ‘focus’, or‘emphasis’, may combine with the feature T(ense), giving rise to thesyncretic categories T/’topic’, T/’focus’, T/’emphasis’. A topic, focused, oremphatic phrase may therefore be moved to [Spec,T] for feature-checking purposes … This of course is possible only to the extent thatthe nominative subject can be licensed in these languages in some wayother than via specifier-head agreement with T. (Zubizaretta 1998:100)33

If in addition to the movement to TopP deployed in English, Romance CLLD-edtopics may also target an IP-internal position we predict that CLLD topics arisein central adverbial clauses, regardless of the non-availability of TopP in theCP-area.

The proposal that CLLD in Romance can target the IP-internal specifier ofTP raises two problems for the discussion at hand. First of all, assuminguniqueness of specifiers34, the prediction would be that in Romance centraladverbial clauses in general either the subject is preverbal or a CLLD-topic isbut not both. This prediction is not fully borne out. Though judgements are nothomogeneous, in central adverbial clauses both subject and CLLD argumentmay precede the verb, at least for some speakers (see also Zubizaretta 1999though)

(40) a Cat Si els exàmens de setembre el professor no els corregeix atemps, ho fa el seu ajudant.if the September exams the professor doesn't correct them ontime, his assistant will do it

b Sp Si los exámenes de septiembre el profesor no los corrige atiempo, lo hace su ayudante.

A second problem concerns infinitival clauses. Following Hooper andThompson (1973), I assume that infinitival control complements are structurally

82

reduced and lack ForceP. This accounts for the fact, observed by Hooper andThompson, that English infinitival clauses resist argument fronting (40a) (seealso Emonds's (2000: 8) restriction of discourse projections to finite clauses).

(41) a * I have decided your book to read.

Again, the Romance data are different. Rizzi (1997) and Bianchi (2001) signalthat CLLD is possible in Italian control infinitives (41b-d). If the lowertopicalisation in Romance targets an IP-internal position such as, say, SpecTP,we would indeed expect topicalisation to be possible in infinitival clauses.However, we would also expect the fronted argument to follow the infinitivalconjunction di. This expectation is not borne out for Italian as shown by (41b-d):

(41) b Gianni pensa, il tuo libro, di conoscerlo bene. (Rizzi, 1997:309)

Gianni thinks, the your book, di know-it wellc Mi sembra, il tuo libro, di conoscerlo bene. (Rizzi, 1997: 309)

Me seems the your book di know –it welld Gianni sostiene, il tuo libro, di conoscerlo bene.

Gianni maintains, the your book, di know it well (Bianchi 2001:29, her (69c)

As a way out, one might propose that the topicalised arguments in (41b,c,d) areparenthetical constituents inserted at constituent boundaries but perhaps not(fully) syntactically integrated in the structure. However, observe that such aparenthetical analysis is not plausible. If Italian topics associated with infinitivalcomplements were simply parentheticals, we would probably expect them toalso be compatible with raising patterns35. Rizzi (1997: 309) signals that whilein Italian control complements allow for topicalisation, raising complements donot:

(41) e *?Gianni sembra, il tuo libro, conoscerlo bene.Gianni seems the your book know –it well

In French too, control infinitives marginally allow argument topicalisation and,again, the fronted topic precedes the infinitival complementiser à:

(42) a Je cherche ton livre à l’acheter d’occasion. (Tellier 2001: 356-7)I seek-for your book à it buy second hand

b *Je cherche à, ton livre, l’acheter d’occasion.I seek-for à your book it buy second hand

There is also a contrast between control patterns and raising patterns, assignalled by Rizzi (1997: 331, note 24), who says:

Speakers of French are reluctant to accept CLLD with infinitives.Nevertheless, a detectable contrast exists between control and raising(Ch. Laenzlinger p.c.):

Rizzi provides the following contrast:

83

(43) a ??Je pense, ton livre, pouvoir le comprendre.I think, your book, to be able tito understand.'

b *Marie semble, ton livre, pouvoir le comprendre.Marie seems, your book, to be able it understand

Let us assume with Rizzi (1997) that Italian infinitival di and French à occupythe head Fin, the lowest functional head in the CP domain. Let us also continueto assume that control complements lack Force. Given the grammaticality of(41b-c-d, 42a, 43a) we conclude that topicalisation in Italian and French controlinfinitives cannot be dependent on Force. Putting it differently, the fronted topicis not related to the following clause by the speaker-anchoring. The assumptionwould have to be that in Romance there is an alternative mechanism forachieving the link between topic and the associated clause and that thissecond device is not available in English.

6.2. CLLD as IP adjunction

To account for the different distributions of topicalisation in English and CLLDin Greek, Anagnostopoulou (1997: 166) suggests that in Romance the frontedtopic is adjoined to IP.

[the difference] follows from general conditions under which Chains ofthis type are licensed. Recall that CLLD is a predication construction.The CLLD element is the subject of predication and the rest of theclause is the predicate, the clitic chain being the predicate variable …i.e.the open position which permits S (CP or IP) to qualify as a predicate.…In CLLD, IP may qualify as the predicate because it properly containsthe predicate variable chain (i.e. the clitic chain). For this reason, thesubject of predication can be adjoined to IP. (1997: 166)

According to Anagnostopoulou, English topicalisation must be related toSpec,CP, hence cannot adjoin to spec,IP (see her account for details). Though this analysis would indeed achieve the desired result of makingtopicalisation independent of Force in Romance, an IP-adjunction approach isalso problematic in the light of the fact that topicalisation arises in controlinfinitives and not in raising infinitives. In particular, the fact that the CLLD-topicprecedes the infinitival complementiser, which we assume occupies Fin, isproblematic for IP-adjunction.

6.3. CLLD and FinP

In independent work (Haegeman 2002) I have shown that Rizzi's proposal thatfronted adjuncts target TopP must be modified to account for the difference indistribution between long moved adjuncts and locally moved adjuncts (seeHaegeman 2001 for detailed discussion). Let us assume that locally frontedadjuncts in English (and in Romance) target FinP, the lower projection in theCP domain36. This allows us to predict correctly that they will be admitted incentral adverbial clauses.

84

(44) a If with all these precautions you don't succeed, you should tryagain.

b If after lunch he's not there, you should call him up.

In order to account for the distribution of CLLD in Romance and in ModernGreek I propose that in those CLLD patterns, the fronted argument canlicensed by Fin, and that this is not possible in English. The question obviouslyarises why Fin is able to license argument topicalisation in Romance and why itdoesn't in English. The data in (40) suggest that it is not the mere fact that thesubject occupies a post-verbal position that is crucial to allowing topicalisationin central adverbial clauses, since even with preverbal subjects adverbialclauses allow for CLLD, at least for some speakers.

To account for the difference between English topicalisation andRomance CLLD I adopt some version of Anagnostopoulou's account:topicalisation is a predication relation established between the topic and thepredicate, the clause that expresses the comment. The licensing of the topic inthe Romance Spec,FinP is a function of the phi features of Fin. Observe thatwe know independently that the phi features of Fin match those of I. In WestFlemish agreement between the inflectional features of Fin and those of I areconfirmed by the morphological spell-out:

(45) a WF dan-k (ik) goan that -sg -I (I) go

b da-se (zie) goatthat-sg she (she) goes

c dan-ze (zunder) goanthat-pl-they (they) go

In finite clauses, Fin agrees with I in terms of the subject phi features. Inaddition Fin also has a tense feature, possibly encoding a Reference time (seeBianchi 2001 for some discussion of the encoding of temporal values in C, andfor the proposal that Fin licenses person features, see Carstens (20020 fordiscussion of complementiser agreement in minimalist terms).

By virtue of the clitic on I, languages with CLLD spell out object phifeatures on the head I. If Fin and I agree in phi features, then it is a natural stepto propose that in Romance CLLD structures Fin agrees with I not only forsubject phi features but also for object phi features. This accessibility of theobject phi features on Fin (via their presence on I by virtue of the clitic) canlicense the 'low' CLLD- topic in Spec,Fin.

If raising infinitives involve bare IP, they lack Fin, hence here ispossibility for licensing a CLLD-topic even in Romance. If, on the other hand,control infinitives, though reduced, comprise at least FinP they will becompatible with CLLD. (cf. Rizzi 1997: 309). 37

In English or in Japanese topicalisation does not involve the spell out ofthe fronted argument as a clitic on I; object phi features are not encoded on Iand hence they cannot be picked up by Fin under agreement. Such languages,which lack object phi features on Fin, cannot link the fronted argument to theclause via the agreement relation in Fin and they have to have recourse to aseparate strategy for licensing topics. In the spirit of the discussions in Bayer

85

(2001) and Whitman (1989) I suggested above that in these languagesargument fronting depends on speaker anchoring; it always targets the TopPwith the feature Force.

Note that though the presence of the object clitic on I in Romancecontributes to the availability of object fronting in central adverbial clauses thepresence of object clitics as such is probably not essential to the availability oflower topicalisation. Alternative mechanisms might achieve the same effect asshown by the fact that Hungarian allows fronting of arguments in centraladverbial clauses while lacking the clitic doubling process (Puskas pc).

(45) Ha az orvost ' nem talàlja, hivja fell az àpolonöt.if the doctor neg find-you call up the nurse"If the doctor you don't find, call up the nurse".

However, Hungarian displays object agreement, so arguably in spite of theabsence of an object clitic, the head I still encodes object phi features and Fincan inherit these features and license a low topic.The intuition that FinP is involved in the lower topicalisation is also echoed inrecent work by Grewendorf (2002), though he exploits it differently. Simplifyinghis account here for expository reasons, he arrives at the partial structures in(46) for (i) German topicalisation of an argument (2002:48, 68)38, (ii) Germanleft dislocation of an argument with a D-pronoun, and (iii) Romance CLLD. In(46b) and (46c) the topicalised DP is the specifier of a 'Big DP' and the d-pronoun/clitic is the head of the BigDP. I refer to his discussion for details(2002: 68).

(46) a [ForceP [TopP [FocP [FinP den Studenteni kenne [IP ich ti]]]]]the student know I

b [ForceP [TopP den Studenteni [FocP [FinP [BIGDP ti [D den] kenne [IP ich tBIGDP]]]]]]the student that know I

c [ForceP [TopP Maria i [FocP [FinP [IP Leo la incontra [BIGDP ti [D tla] t BIGDP

]]]]]]Maria Leo her meets

Grewendorf assumes that both German left dislocation and Romance CLLDtarget TopP, but it is not clear how he accounts for the fact that in certaindeficient structures CLLD is possible. Within his account, the Romance CLLDelement might arguably also move to FinP, which he claims for Germantopicalisation, in which case the truncated structures could still locate topics.

6.4. A lower TopP in the periphery?

An alternative to the proposal that Fin licenses topics is to adopt a morearticulated structure for the left periphery in which there is a lower specialisedposition for fronted adjuncts and for lower topics. Rizzi (1997, 2001), forinstance, proposes a lower Topic position, which dominates Fin. If we assumethat the lower topic position is available in Romance and not in English theproposal will also capture the difference between Romance and English. This

86

is the account in Haegeman (2002). However, then the question remains whythe lower position is available in one language group and not in the other. Hereagain one might appeal to the properties of Fin. There is also someindependent debate as to the plausibility of postulating a lower specialisedTopP (see Benincà 2000, Grewendorf 2002: 46).

7. Summary and further questions

This paper first examines the syntax of adverbial clauses and its relevance forargument fronting. We distinguish between peripheral and central adverbialclauses in terms of their external syntax. Based on a number of diagnostics, Ipropose that the former are merged in the derivation later than the latter,leading to different scope relations with operators in the associated clause.Peripheral adverbial clauses show evidence for the head Force in their CPdomain while central adverbial clauses have a reduced CP structure, lackingForce.

In section 5, I examine the distribution of topicalised arguments in centraladverbial clauses. While fronted topics are excluded in English centraladverbial clauses, Romance CLLD is allowed in central adverbial clauses. Insection 6 I propose that while fronted topics in English are anchored to theclause via the head Force, CLLD arguments in Romance are related to theclause via a specifier head relation with Fin. This relation is made available byvirtue of the object phi features in Fin, inherited from the feature composition ofI.

A question that is obviously of interest is whether, if there are indeed twoprocesses of topicalisation in the left periphery, these lead to interpretivedifferences. One suggestion that one might explore is that the Force-licensedtopic is temporally related to Speech -time and that the Fin-related topic istemporally related to the reference time. Klein (1991) introduces the conceptTopic time for what seems to be the Reference time. I hope to explore thisquestion in future work.

Assuming that indeed topics are not only licensed in the specifier of TopP,then the question raised above extends to the more general issue oftopicalisation as a uniform process: it would seem desirable to bring out somekind of commonality between the licensing conditions of these topics.

References

Anagnostopoulou, E. 1997. "Clitic left dislocation and contrastive leftdislocation." In Materials on Left Dislocation, E. Anagnostopoulou, H.van Riemsdijk & F. Zwarts (eds), 151-192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ashby, W. 1988. "The syntax, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics of left- and right-dislocations in French. Lingua, 75, 203-229.

Authier, J.-M. 1992. "Iterated CPs and embedded topicalisation." LinguisticInquiry 23: 329-336.

Barnes, B. 1985. Left Detachment in Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

Bayer, J. 2001. "Asymmetry in emphatic topicalisation." Ms. University ofUtrecht.

87

Benincà, P. 2001. "The position of topic and focus in the left periphery." InCurrent Studies in Italian Linguistics Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, C.Cinque & G. Salvi (eds.), 39-64. Dordrecht: Foris.

Benincà, P./Poletto C. 2001. "Topic, focus and V2: defining the CP sublayers."Ms. University of Padova.

Bennis, H. 2000. "On the interpretation of functional categories." In Interfacestrategies, H. Bennis, M. Everaert, & E. Reuland (eds). KNAWpublications

Bhatt R, and J. Yoon 1992. "On the composition of Comp and parameters of V-2." In Proceedings of WCCFL, D. Bates (ed.), Stanford CSLI. 10: 41-53.

Bianchi, V. 2001. "On Person Agreement." University of Pisa, ms.Butler, J 2002. "A minimalist treatment of modality." www-

users.york.ac.uk/~jrcb100/.Carstens, V. 2002. "Agreement in Comp." Ms. University of Missouri-Columbia.Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A’ Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass: MIT PressDeclerck, R. & S. Reed. 2001. Conditionals: a Comprehensive Empirical

Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Doherty, M. 1985. Epistemische Bedeuting. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Enç, M. 1987. "Anchoring conditions for Tense." Linguistic Inquiry 18 (4): .633-

657.Emonds, J. 1970. "Root and Structure-preserving Transformations." Ph.D.

diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Emonds, J. 2000. "Unspecified categories as the key to rootconstructions." Paper presented at the Peripheries conference,University of York (2000).

Escobar, L. 1997. "Clitic left dislocation and other relatives." InAnagnostopolou, van Riemsdijk and Zwarts, 233-274.

Frascarelli, M. 2000. The Syntax Phonology Interface in Focus and TopicConstructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Grewendorf, G. 2002. "Left dislocation as movement." In GeorgetownUniversity Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, Volume 2, Fall2002, S. Mauck and J. Mittelstaedt (eds), 31-81.

Haegeman, L. 1984a. "Parasitic gaps and adverbial clauses." Journal ofLinguistics 20: 229-232.

Haegeman, L. 1984b. "Pragmatic conditionals in English." Folia Linguistica 18:485-502.

Haegeman, L. 1984c. "Remarks on adverbial clauses and definite anaphora."Linguistic Inquiry 15 (4): 712-715.

Haegeman, L. 1984d. "Pragmatic conditionals in English." Studia AnglicaPosnaniensia, xviii, 485-502.

Haegeman, L. 1987. "Complexity and literary prose: some suggestions forformalisation." Language and Style 20: 214-222.

Haegeman, L. 1991."Parenthetical adverbials: the radical orphanageapproach." In Aspects of Modern English linguistics: Papers Presentedto Masatomo Ukaji on His 60th Birthday, S. Chiba, A Ogawa, Y. Fuiwara,N. Yamada, O. Koma & T Yagi (eds.), 232-53. Tokyo: Kaitakushi.

Haegeman, L. 2001. "Speculations on adverbial fronting and the left periphery."Paper presented at the Tournesol conference, Temps et Point de Vue/Tense and Point of View, France/Flanders (GOA-UIA Anvers, Jeune

88

Equipe Syntaxe – U. Paris), December 2001. To appear in theproceedings.

Haegeman, L. 2002. "Anchoring to speaker, adverbial clauses and thestructure of CP." In Georgetown University Working Papers inTheoretical Linguistics, Volume 2, Fall 2002, S. Mauck and J.Mittelstaedt (eds), 117-180.

Heycock, C. 2002. "Embedded root phenomena." Ms. University of EdinburghHooper, J. and S. Thompson. 1973. “On the applicability of Root

Transformations.” Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465-97.Hornstein, N. 1990. As Time Goes By. Cambridge, Mass: the MIT Press.Iatridou, S. and T. Kroch 1992. 'The licensing of CP recursion and its relevance

to the Germanic Verb-Second phenomenon." Working papers inScandinavian Syntax, 50, 1-24.

Jespersen, O. 1922. Language, Its Nature, Development and Origin. London:G. Allen & Unwin.

Klein, W. 1991. Time in Language. London: Routledge.Kuno, S. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Mass:

the MIT Press.Lambrecht, K. 1981. Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Non-Standard

French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Lopez, L. 2002. 'Toward a grammar without Topp and FocP. In Georgetown

University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, Volume 2, Fall2002, S. Mauck and J. Mittelstaedt (eds), 181-209.

Maki, H., L. Kaiser, and M. Ochi 1999. "Embedded topicalisation in English andJapanese." Lingua 109: 1-14.

Meinunger, A. (2000) Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

Nissenbaum, J. 2000. "Investigations of covert phrase movement." Ph.D. diss.,Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Paul, I. 2002. "The syntactic encoding of topic and focus." In GeorgetownUniversity Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, Volume 2, Fall2002, S. Mauck and J. Mittelstaedt (eds), 247-261.

Postal, P. 2001. "Parasitic and pseudo parasitic gaps." In Parasitic Gaps, P.Culicover & P. Postal (eds), 253-313. Cambridge, Mass: the MIT Press.

Poutsma, H. (1926) A Grammar of Late Modern English, Part I, The Sentence.Second half, Groningen: Noordhoff.

Quirk et al (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.London: Longman.

Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Free Press.Rizzi , L. 1997. "The fine structure of the left periphery." In Elements of

Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Rizzi, L. 2001. 'Locality and left periphery." Ms. University of Siena.Roussou, A. 2000. "On the left periphery. Modal particles and

complementisers." Journal of Greek Linguistics 1: 65-94.Rutherford, W. 1970. "Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in

English." Language 46: 97-115.Sabel, J. 2002. "A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands." The Linguistic

Review, 19 (3): 271-315.Sperber, D. and D. Wilson 1986. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.

89

Tellier, C. 2001. "On some distinctive properties of parasitic gaps in French." InParasitic Gaps, P. Culicover & P. Postal (eds), 341-367. Cambridge,Mass: the MIT Press.

Thompson, E. 1994. "The syntax and semantics of temporal adjunct clauses."Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 24.

Verstraete, J.-C. 2002. "Interpersonal grammar and clause combining inEnglish." Ph.D. diss, University of Leuven.

Zubizaretta, M-L. 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, Mass.:the MIT Press.

Zubizaretta, M-L. 1999. "Word order in Spanish and the nature of nominativecase." In Beyond Principles and Parameters. Essays in Memory ofOsvaldo Jaeggli, K. Johnson & I. Roberts (eds), 223-250. Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Notes

* This paper was presented at the conference Linguistique Comparée des Langues Romanes.Hommage à Liliane Tasmowski, held in September 2002 at the University of Antwerp. I thankthe participants of the conference for their comments and suggestions. Special thanks go toLiliane Tasmowski for her many inspiring suggestions, to Jacqueline Guéron for clarifying somecrucial areas and to Caroline Heycock for her very useful comments on several versions of thiswork. Thanks to Caroline Heycock, Ruth Huart, Brenda Laca, Anne-Marie Le Boles, HidekiMaki, Philip Miller, Josep Quer, Luigi Rizzi and Marleen van Peteghem for help with the data.None of those mentioned can be held responsible for the way I have used their help.1 For a recent illustration, see Sabel's (2002) reworking of subjacency in minimalist terms. Inhis paper, all adverbial clauses are grouped as giving rise to CED effects; no mention is madeof the distinction discussed here.2 In this paper, I sometimes use attested examples because the desired reading is moredirectly accessible than would be the case with constructed examples. This is particularly usefulto illustrate the discourse-related adverbial clauses. By using attested examples there is notneed to create a discourse as well as an example, the discourse being the one associated withthe original example.3 It is not clear what determines whether a conjunction has dual behaviour. I leave this forfuture study.4 As I will be assuming that the relation between the peripheral adverbial clause and theassociated clause is not really one of genuine subordination (cf. section 2.6. (20)), I sometimesuse the term 'associated clause' rather than the term 'main/matrix clause'. The latter terms,though appropriate for the clauses modified by central adverbial clauses are less felicitous forthe clause associated with peripheral ones.5 The conjunction although does marginally seem to allow for subject ellipsis as shown by thefollowing attested example. (i) If you prefer a warmer surface, wood is resilient and will mellow beautifully with

age, but can be pricey. Laminate flooring is less expensive, although ∅ isn’tsuitable for areas that might get wet. (Ideal Home, July 2001 , page 68)

Possibly, clauses introduced by although are indeed near-co-ordinate. An additional argumentfor this is provided by Verstraete (2002), who points out that although clauses, unlike whileclauses, may contain imperatives:

(ii) a The students should have enough money, although remember we areexpecting a drop in the department funding.

b ??The students should have enough money while remember we are expectinga drop in the department funding.

(iii) a. I wouldn't worry too much about it, although do prepare for words with thisenemy ( Verstraete 2002: 147)

b ??I wouldn't worry too much about the syntax exam, while do prepare carefullyfor the semantics.

Liliane Tasmowski (pc) points out similar contrasts in French: parce que ('because') allows foran imperative but puisque ('since') does not.

90

One might use such contrasts in support of a further subclassification of adverbial clauses.Based on work by Verstraete (2002) and pursuing a suggestion by Jacqueline Guéron, it mightbe proposed that some peripheral adverbial clauses have Mood though not Force, while othershave both Mood and Force. See also Roussou (2000) for Mood and the left periphery.6 This contrast between the two types of clauses is not very sharp, as pointed out by CarolineHeycock (pc). Judgements are difficult because peripheral adverbial clauses, being near-coordinate will allow (marginally) for ATB extraction. See also the discussion in Postal (2001).7 Cf. I enjoyed the conference very much while I disliked his paper.8 One might further explore this analysis using recent proposals by Butler (2002). He arguesthat just like IP is associated with a periphery (CP) VP is associated with a peripheral domain.The CP associated with VP would be the domain that hosts central adverbial clauses. Forreasons of space I cannot go into this here.9 As discussed in section 2.2.1 (examples (5), (6)) I assume that the patter is not identical tothat of co-ordination.10 But locally fronted adjuncts are possible(i) If with all these precautions things still go wrong, you should call the policeThis shows clearly that argument fronting and adjunct fronting are not identical. See section6.3.11 Thanks to Hideki Maki (pc) for the Japanese data.12 See also discussion in Heycock (2002).13 Emonds (2000) offers an account according to which MCP occur in what he calls 'DiscourseShells'. Discourse Shells are categorically unspecified, and 'may immediately dominate (only)IPs specified as 'Discourse projections'. Unembedded clauses are always potential discourseprojections; particular languages may also specify progressively larger classes of finite clausesas discourse projections. (Emonds 2000:8).

In my account the head Force licenses what would probably correspond to Emonds'sDiscourse Shells. I do not assume, though, that Force may be arbitrarily available in embeddeddomains depending on language specific properties. Rather, I would assume there isinterpretive basis for the availability of Force. In section 6, I propose that languages vary as tothe functions Fin can assume, one of which may be topic licensing. This account should not betaken to imply that Fin acquires the feature Force in specific languages.14 There is an important difference between English and Romance; this is discussed insections 5 and 6.15 That non-finite clauses cannot contain MCP is also endorsed by Emonds (2000: 8).16 For similar proposals to differentiate the complements of bridge verbs and non-bridge verbsin terms of structural truncation see Benincà (2001), Benincà/Poletto (2001), Grewendorf(2002).17 For reasons of space I cannot show in detail how my account deals with temporalsubordination in central adverbial clauses. I intend to elaborate this in future work.18 Mainly on the basis of Romance data, Rizzi (1997) introduces a second topic position to theright of Focus. It is not clear that this is generally available and may well be specific toRomance (cf. discussion in Grewendorf (2002) and also section 6.4).19 Alternatively, FORCE could be seen as a feature on the subordinating head Sub, but thisraises question of root clauses which do have illocutionary force but presumably normally lackthe subordinating head.20 I discuss non-finite infinitival clauses in section 6.1..21 Conceivably, the dependency should be stated the other way and Force depends on Speechtime. What is distinctive in peripheral adverbial clauses and what licences MCP would then bethe syntactic encoding of Speech Time (S). Such a position would entail the reworking of theclaims made below but is not incompatible with the main argumentation of this paper. Forinstance, epistemic modality might be argued to depend on S. I hope to look into differentalternative formulations in future work.22 Whitman (1989) postulates a link between topicalisation and the availability of modalmarkers. If epistemic modality depends on Force (as suggested above), and if topicalisationalso may depend on Force, this is expected.

The restrictions could also be restated in terms of the alternative proposal briefly introducedin note 21: if topicalisation depends on epistemic modality and if the latter is anchored tospeech time, we predict topicalisation will be excluded from non-root environments.23 In (33), ForceP dominates TopP, but the ordering may well be the other way round asdiscussed in Haegeman (2002). This would mean that (33) is replaced by (i).

(i) a Central adverbial clause: Sub Fin IPb Peripheral adverbial clause: Sub TopForce Focus ForceForce Fin IPc Root clause: Top ForceFocus ForceForce Fin IPd : *Sub TopForce Focus ForceForce Fin IP

91

Along Minimalist lines, Top and Focus would have an uninterpretable FORCE feature, which

is deleted by Force to Top movement or by agreement.24 Crucially, I do not assume that fronted adjuncts are invariably topics. See Haegeman (2001)and section 6.3. for discussion. I leave aside the question whether English topicalisationinvolves a null operator in the CP domain (cf. Rizzi 1997).25 (a,b): judgements Rizzi (pc), (c) Frascarelli (2000: 151).26 Frascarelli 2000: 151, her (183a)27 Judgements Josep Quer (pc). The data are apparently not uniform across speakers asshown by the following citation from Escobar (1997):

For Spanish, left-dislocated phrases with CLLD cannot appear embedded withsubjunctive mood which otherwise seem to facilitate the most clear cases ofembedding in Spanish:

[i] ??/*Ella prefiere que a Luis, el médico lo examineShe prefers the that a Luis, acc-cl the doctor examines

…we may conclude that CLLD is a root phenomenon. (Escobar 1997: 248, italicsmine)

28 Judgements Josep Quer.29 For the use of dislocation in spoken French, see also Ashby (1988), Barnes (1985),Lambrecht (1981).30 Thanks to A Le Boles and Philip Miller for help with the French examples. Again there isvariation in judgements, but this may well be due to prescriptive attitudes (Marleen vanPeteghem p.c.).31 Such an account would be along the lines of work by Paul (2002).32 Pushing the account in the text, note that it may no longer be clear whether one shouldactually postulate a designated position TopP (as assumed by Rizzi 1997). It could be that theoperation of topicalisation is parasitic on some other property of the left periphery, say, forinstance, the encoding of speech time or of reference time, or the availability of phi features.

Meinunger (2000) interprets IP-internal scrambling in German as topicalisation. This alsomeans that topicalisation is an operation not specifically associated with the left periphery, andpresumably it depends on the availability of other properties. Meinunger relates topicalisationand agreement features.

For another alternative approach in terms of multiple specifiers see also López (2002).33 See Zubizaretta (1999) for a slightly different implementation.34 This is not generally accepted , though, cf. Sabel (2002), López (2002) and many others.In English (i) a parenthetical element can be inserted to the immediate left of the raisinginfinitive:

(i) a John seems, as far as I can tell, to be completely unaware of the problems.b John seemed, however, to be completely unaware of the problems.

36 In fact, in Haegeman (2002) and following Rizzi (2001), I postulate a lower TopP and alower ModP for locally fronted adverbial adjuncts. See the discussion of this proposal in section6.4.37 Zubizaretta (1999: 241) gives the following Spanish example as ungrammatical. Observethat there is no overt spell out of an infinitival complementiser:

(ii) Maria piensa la carta escribirlaMaria thinks the letter write+it

The absence of the complementiser might be taken to indicate either a further structuralreduction or a weakening of the featural composition of Fin. The same account could be usedto account for the degradation of French (36).38 My summary is based on his discussion on page 48 but topicalisation in German is notdeveloped in detail.