Cover not available

In:Boundaries, Phases and Interfaces: Case studies in honor of Violeta Demonte
Edited by Olga Fernández-Soriano, Elena Castroviejo Miró and Isabel Pérez-Jiménez
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 239] 2017
► pp. 223–254

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Subextraction at the Discourse-Grammar interface

A featural approach to island effects

 | University of Roma Tre
 | University of Seville
Published online: 14 June 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.239.11fra
In this paper we carry out an interface investigation of subject islands in Italian and Spanish, in which subextraction in the form of focus fronting is connected with the type of Focus implemented by the subextracted PP (Corrective vs. Mirative) and the D-properties of the subextraction site. Adopting a featural approach, we claim that subjects are not ‘absolute’ islands and variation is not idiosyncratic: subextraction is possible in the two languages under examination provided specific properties are met in the relevant D-domain and depending on the information-structural properties of the subextracted PP. More precisely, subextraction of a Corrective Focus in Italian is fully accepted from [−spec] DPs, whereas Spanish needs a [−def] feature in the same context. Subextraction to obtain a mirative interpretation, on the other hand, is only (marginally) allowed from [+def, −spec] DPs: this is attributed to the compatibility between D-features and the discourse-semantics properties of a Mirative Focus.
Article outline
  • 1.Basic assumptions and working hypotheses
    • 1.1Specificity and definiteness
    • 1.2Focus subextraction
    • 1.3The subextraction site
  • 2.Islands and specificity effects: Cross-linguistic variation
  • 3.Data and preliminary results: The interpretive analysis
    • 3.1Subextraction from a [−spec] preverbal/postverbal DP
    • 3.2Subextraction from a [+spec] DP
  • 4.Prosodic cues to discourse interpretation: The interface analysis
    • 4.1CF subextraction from a [−spec]DP: Intonational contour
    • 4.2CF subextraction from a [+spec] DP: Intonational contour
    • 4.3MF subextraction from a [+spec]DP: Intonational contour
  • 5.Conclusive remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (74)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-Movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar. 1995. Null Subjects. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2012. Focus fronting and the syntax-semantics interface. Ms, University of Siena.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina & Bocci, Giuliano. 2012. Should I stay or should I go? Optional focus movement in Italian. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9, Christopher Piñón (ed.), 1–16. <[URL]> Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina & Chesi, Cristiano. 2012. Subject islands and the Subject Criterion. In Enjoy Linguistics! Papers Offered to Luigi Rizzi’s on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Valentina Bianchi & Cristiano Chesi (eds), 25–53. Siena: CISCL Press. <[URL]> Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Subject islands, reconstruction, and the flow of the computation. Linguistic Inquiry 45(4): 525–569. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Chesi, Cristiano & Cruschina, Silvio. 2015. Focus fronting and its implicatures. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2013: Selected Papers from Going Romance 2013 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 8], Enoch Aboh, Jeannette Schaeffer & Petra Sleeman (eds), 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina & Frascarelli, Mara. 2010. Is Topic a root phenomenon? Iberia 2(1): 43–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boecks, Cedric. 2012. Syntactic Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2008. On successive cyclic movement and the freezing effect of feature checking. In Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology, Jutta Hartmann, Veronika Hegedüs, & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 195–233. Amsterdam: Elsevier North Holland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. To appear. On NPs and clauses and the forthcoming Linguistic Inquiry paper getting really edgy. Linguistic Inquiry.
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1997. Subjects and clause structure. In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 33-63. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Toward a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 115-165. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui. 2013. An expectation-based account of subject islands and parasitism. Journal of Linguistics 49 (2): 285–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 232–286. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, Gugliemo. 1990. Types of A’-Dependencies. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio 2012. Discourse-related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1: 33–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enç, Murvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–26.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2006. What’s what? In Gradience in Grammar, Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry, Ralf Vogel & Matthias Schlesewsky (eds), 317–335. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Face, Timothy L. 2002. Intonational Marking of Contrastive Focus in Madrid Spanish. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2000. The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 50]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Topicalizzazione e ripresa clitica. Analisi sincronica, confronto diacronico e considerazioni tipologiche. In Italia Linguistica Anno Mille, Italia Linguistica Anno Duemila, Nicoletta Maraschio & Teresa Poggi Salani (eds), 547–562. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Dislocation, Clitic Resumption and Minimality: A Comparative Analysis of Left and Right Topic Constructions in Italian. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2002, Bok-Bennema Reineke, Bart Hollebrandse, Brigitte Kampers-Manhe & Petra Sleeman (eds.), 99-118. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro. An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 691–734. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. The Fine Structure of the Topic Field. In The Bantu-Romance Connection. A Comparative Investigation of Verbal Agreement, DPs, and Information Structure, Cécile De Cat & Katherine Demuth (eds), 261-292. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. In press. The interpretation of pro in consistent and partial NS languages: A comparative interface analysis. In Understanding Pro-Drop, Federica Cognola and Jan Casalicchio (eds), Understanding Null Subjects. A Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective”. Oxford: OUP.
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Ramaglia, Francesca. 2013a. ‘Phasing’ contrast at the interfaces: A feature-compositional approach to Topics. In Information Structure and Agreement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 197], Victoria Camacho-Taboada, Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández, Javier Martín-González & Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds), 55–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013b. Optionality in contrast. Paper presented at the XXXIX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa . Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, February 21–23.
Frascarelli, Mara & Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. 2013. Focus fronting and specificity effects at the discourse-grammar interface. Paper presented at the 2nd Cambridge Comparative Syntax Conference (CamCos2) . University of Cambridge, 9–11 May.
Gallego, Ángel J. 2011. Successive cyclicity, phases, and CED effects. Studia Linguistica 65(1): 32–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J. & Uriagereka, Juan. 2007. Conditions on sub-extraction. In Coreference, Modality, and Focus [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 111], Luis Eguren & Olga Fernández Soriano (eds), 45–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 1997. The categorial status of determiners. In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 95–123. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greco, Ciro, Marrelli, Marco & Haegeman, Liliane. 2014. The opacity of subjects in Italian: An experimental investigation on the role of external-syntax factors in cumulative effects. Ms, Ghent University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2007. Types of focus in English. In Topic and Focus: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation, Chung-Min Lee, Matthew Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds), 83–100. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and the Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. & Radford, Andrew. 2014. Deconstructing the subject condition in terms of cumulative constraint violation. The Linguistic Review 31(1): 73–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hualde, José I. 2003. El modelo métrico y autosegmental. In Teorías de la entonación, Pilar Prieto (ed.), 155–184. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T., James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ihsane, Tabea & Puskás, Genoveva. 2001. Specific is not definite. Generative Grammar in Geneva 2: 39–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. 2009. On the composite nature of subject islands: A phase-based approach. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22: 91–138.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. On the order of multiple topics and discourse-feature inheritance. Dilbilim Araştırmaları 1: 5–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. A new look at subject islands: The phasehood of definiteness. Anglica Wratislaviensia 50: 137–170.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Towards a typology of focus: Subject position and microvariation at the discourse-syntax interface. Ampersand: An International Journal of Applied and General Linguistics 2: 49–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015b. When focus goes wild: Syntactic positions for information focus. LingBaW (Linguistics Beyond and Within) 1: 119–133.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. & Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2014. A feature-inheritance approach to root phenomena and parametric variation. Lingua 145: 276–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9: 1–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Working Papers of the SFB632 [Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 6], Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds), 13–55. Postdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel & Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2009. Fronting and verum-focus in Spanish. In Focus and Background in Romance Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 112], Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 155–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lohndal Terje. 2011. Freezing effects and objects. Journal of Linguistics 47: 163–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2009. A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoup. 1992. The specificity condition and the CED. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 510–516.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The Syntax of Silence. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why Agree? Why Move? Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Molnar, Valeria. 2006. On different kinds of contrast. In The Architecture of Focus, Valeria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds), 197–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet & Julia Hirschberg. 1990. The Meaning of Intonational Contours in the Interpretation of Discourse. In Intentions in Communication, Philip. R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha E. Pollack (eds), 271-311. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Jean-Yves Pollock. 2004. On the left periphery of some Romance wh-questions. In The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 251-296. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2001. Multiple interfaces. In Cognitive Interfaces. Emile van der Zee & Urpo NikanneConstraints on Linking Cognitive Information, (eds), 21–53. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quer, Josep. 2002. Edging quantifiers. On QP-fronting in Western Romance. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 232], Claire Beyssade, Reineke Bok-Bennema, Frank A.C. Drijkoningen & Paola Monachesi (eds), 253–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics. Philosophica 27, 53-94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-Movement. Moving On, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 97–133. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Craig. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 287–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2006. The EPP and Null Subjects in Romance. PhD dissertation, University of Newcastle.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1992. Two properties of clitics. In Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure: Cross-linguistic Perspectives, James Huang & Robert May (eds), 233–251 Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Villa-García, Julio. 2012. Recomplementation and locality of movement in Spanish. Probus 24(2): 257–314.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willim, Ewa. 2000. On the grammar of Polish nominals. In Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka (eds), 319–346. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L.
2025. To move or not to move: Is focus on the edge?. Journal of Linguistics 61:3 ► pp. 571 ff. DOI logo
Jiménez Fernández, Ángel Luis
2021. Relativas y Anteposición Negativa en inglés y español. Verba: Anuario Galego de Filoloxía 48 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue