Refine
Year of publication
- 2010 (3) (remove)
Language
- English (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3) (remove)
Keywords
- A-bar-movement (1)
- Accentuation (1)
- Cyclic linearization (1)
- Czech (1)
- Focus (1)
- German (1)
- Information structure (1)
- Intervention effects (1)
- Prosody-syntax interface (1)
- Topic (1)
Institute
This paper examines the impact of contrastive focus in Georgian syntax. In a semi-naturalistic production study, we elicited spontaneous answers to questions which have shown that contexts involving contrastive focus induce placement of the focused constituent at the immediately preverbal position more frequently than other contexts. Based on this observation we investigate the properties of Georgian grammar which may account for the different impact of contrastive vs. non-contrastive contexts on word order. We first examine the involved syntactic structures and present evidence that preverbal focus is a result of movement to the specifier position of a functional projection whose head attracts the finite verb. We then address the question whether there is evidence for an association between contrast and movement to this position and we provide evidence that the correlation between context and order in the behavioral data does not result from a biunique form-function association of the kind 'contrast <-> move-movement to the specifier position', but from an asymmetry at a discourse level such that contexts involving contrast induce answers in which focused constituents occupy the stressed position in the clause more often than contexts that do not.
Left peripheral focus
(2010)
In Czech, German, and many other languages, part of the semantic focus
of the utterance can be moved to the left periphery of the clause. The main generalization is that only the leftmost accented part of the semantic focus can be moved. We propose that movement to the left periphery is generally triggered by an unspecific edge feature of C (Chomsky 2008) and its restrictions can be attributed to requirements of cyclic linearization, modifying the theory of cyclic linearization developed by Fox and Pesetsky (2005). The crucial assumption is that structural accent is a direct consequence of being linearized at merge, thus it is indirectly relevant for (locality restrictions on) movement. The absence of structural accent correlates with given-ness. Given elements may later receive (topic or contrastive) accents, which accounts for fronting in multiple focus/contrastive topic constructions. Without any additional assumptions, the model can account for movement of pragmatically unmarked elements to the left periphery (‘formal fronting’, Frey 2005). Crucially, the analysis makes no reference at all to concepts of information structure in the syntax, in line with the claim of Chomsky (2008) that UG specifies no direct link between syntax and information structure.