3.1 Introduction: the organization of the CP
3.1.2 Expanding the CP – positions for topic and focus
Besideswh-phrases, it is possible for both topics (what a sentence is about) and foci (the new information, which is usually marked by pitch accent, highlighted using small caps) to appear in a clause-initial position. This is illustrated for a
topic phrase in (3a) and for a focus phrase in (3b). From early on in the Generative tradition, it was assumed that both were located in SpecCP.
(3) a. Linguisticsihe always likedti. Topic
b. Nobodyidid I kissti! Focus
In English, we can see that both topics and foci can be moved from their base positions (indicated by thetsymbols in the examples) to the left of a clause.1It seems that a syntactic model in which the CP consists of a single X projection can still easily account for these facts, as we could simply state that the topic phrase in (3a) and the focus phrase in (3b) are located in SpecCP.
There are, however, languages in which it is possible to have both a topic and a focus in a clause-initial position. One frequently cited example is Hungarian, a language in which only the post-verbal positions have neutral information-structural functions, but the pre-verbal positions are specified for topic and focus.
This is illustrated in the example (4a) and (4b) taken from É. Kiss (1981).
(4) Hungarian (É. Kiss 1981) a. [Topic∅] [Focus∅]Szereti
love
János John
Marit.
Mary
‘John loves Mary.’
b. [TopicJános]
John [Focusmarit]
Mary
szereti.
love
‘As for John, it is Mary whom he loves.’
What the examples show is that, in a neutral sentence (from an informational perspective), the left-peripheral positions are left empty, as in (4a). If, however, the subject is topicalized and the object focused, both appear in a position that, in the old model, can only host one constituent.
Facts like these have led syntacticians to split up the CP into several projec-tions, starting from the early 1990s (e.g., Authier 1992; Hoekstra 1993). Rizzi (1997) argues, mainly based on data from Romance and Germanic languages such as Italian, French, and English, that the CP system consists of at least a projection that specifies the clause type (ForceP), one or more topic phrases (TopP), a focus
1Albeit under different circumstances, as the topic movement, as in (3a), does not lead to ad-ditional verb movement or the insertion of a dummy verb while focus movement, as in (3b), does.
phrase (FocP), and a phrase marking the finiteness of a clause (FinP). This 1997 model is shown in (5) in a version with all specifiers and all heads to the left.2
(5) ForceP
SpecForceP Force Force° TopicP*
SpecTopicP Topic Topic° FocP
SpecFocP Foc Foc° TopicP*
SpecTopicP Topic Topic° FinP
SpecFinP Fin Fin° IP
The key point of splitting up a functional hierarchy like the CP layer as depicted in (5) is that each phrase in the tree consists only of a simple specifier-head-complement configuration and that each head hosts one (and only one) morpho-syntactic feature. This ultimately lead to the formulation of the “One Feature One Head Principle” (Cinque & Rizzi 2008: 45) in (6) (see also Kayne 2005 and nanosyntactic approaches, see e.g., Starke 2009).
(6) One Feature One Head Principle (OFOH):
Each morphosyntactic feature corresponds to an independent syntactic head with a specific slot in the functional hierarchy.
This means that there is a tight link between syntax and semantics as each posi-tion in the tree has a dedicated interpretive funcposi-tion. In the case of the CP system,
2The reason for the TopPs marked with an asterisk is that it is assumed that it is a recursive projection (thus there can be several TopPs).
these interpretive functions are mainly discourse-related – at least in the case of root clauses. Thus we find dedicated positions for encoding interrogativity, topi-cality, or focality in the CP. In most cases, the elements that are hosted in these positions are taken out of the numeration, merged in their original (lower) posi-tion (via external merge) and then moved (via internal merge) into the relevant CP projection, but there seem to be some elements that are base-generated in the CP.
Especially in the cases ofwh-interrogatives, sentence topics, and focused ele-ments in the left periphery, we can see that these eleele-ments are clearly located in specifier positions (of the appropriate phrases) as they all can be XPs (and XPs cannot occupy head positions). Other elements in the CP area are clearly heads.
These cases mainly involve moved verbs in some sentence types (at least in some languages) and complementizers in embedded clauses.
Besides phrases and heads, it was already predicted in the old non-split CP model that it should be possible for a clause to have one phrase and one head in the CP. And indeed there are languages allowing for such a construction. In some varieties of English or in Swabian German, as illustrated in (7a) and (7b), a wh-phrase and a complementizer can, for example, occur in one embedded clause.3
(7) a. English
She don’t knowwhy thatshe love me.
b. Central Swabian
‘I don’t know why she doesn’t like me.’
In the example in (7a) we find thewh-phrasewhyin a specifier position and the complementizerthat in a head position, and in the example in (7b), we similarly find thewh-phrasewarom‘why’ in a specifier and the complementizerdass‘that’
in a head position.
One of the earliest discoveries of Cartographic research was, however, that different complementizers seem to be located in the heads of different projections (Rizzi 1997) – a fact that could not be explained in the early CP model. This can be illustrated for Italian. In this language, it can be shown that the complementizer che‘that’, its infinitival counterpartdi, and the interrogative complementizerse
‘if’ occur in different positions in embedded clauses. The following examples,
3The example in (7a) is a line from the song “Eleven 11:/11” by a musician named Rob Curly.
from (8) to (11), are taken from Rizzi (2013: 205). The examples in (8) show the complementizerche‘that’ and its infinitival counterpartdi.
(8) Italian (Rizzi 2013: 205) a. Ho
‘I decided that I would speak to Gianni tomorrow.’
b. Ho
‘I decided to speak to Gianni tomorrow.’
As can be seen, the complementizerche‘that’ requires the verb in the embedded clause to be inflected (8a). The complementizerdi‘that’, in contrast, requires the verb in the embedded clause to be in its infinitival form (8b). Now, it is possi-ble in Italian to topicalize an element inside the embedded clause via (clitic) left dislocation. In this case, there are two possibilities. The topicalized element will show up either before or after the complementizer, providing inferences about its structural position.
In the case of the complementizerche, the topicalized element will occur after che as shown in (9). Note that in some varieties of Italian this is the only op-tion, while in other varieties it would not be ungrammatical (but nevertheless somehow marked) to have it the other way around.
(9) Italian (Rizzi 2013: 205) Ho
‘I decided that, to Gianni, I will speak tomorrow.’
Things are different fordi, however. As illustrated in the examples in (10), the infinitival complementizerdican only be placed after the topic.
(10) Italian (Rizzi 2013: 205) a. Ho
‘I decided that, to Gianni, I will speak tommorow.’
b. *Ho
‘I decided to speak to Gianni tomorrow.’
Following the assumption of a rigidly ordered set of functional projection we can conclude thatdiis in a structurally lower position thancheand, additionally, in a structurally lower position than TopP.
Finally, consider the interrogative complementizerse‘if’ that is used in Italian to introduce embedded polar interrogatives. It can easily follow (11a) and precede a topic (11b), but can also be sandwiched between two topics (11c).
(11) Italian (Rizzi 2013: 205) a. Non
‘I don’t know, to Gianni, if we could speak to him.’
b. Non
‘I don’t know if, to Gianni, we could speak.’
c. Non
‘I don’t know, to Gianni, if, your book, we could give.’
Combining the insights of the presented data we arrive at the following order:
(12) Force (che)>Topic>Interrogativity (se)>Topic>Finiteness (di)
Note that Rizzi (2001) assumes that the Int(errogativity) projection here is not responsible for encoding interrogative Force, which he assumes to be located in ForceP, but rather that Int “is a position hosting a certain kind of operator (yes/no, reason), which is connected to, but distinct from, the Force position” (Rizzi 2013:
206).4
4While this is a little bit cryptic, other researchers hold the position that IntP is responsible for encoding interrogative force (both in polar and constituent questions) (e.g., Aboh & Pfau 2010), as will be discussed in Section 3.6 and Section 3.7. In the end, I believe that if one wants to strictly follow the Cartographic idea, it is inevitable to postulate one projection for each func-tion. Thus, we would get rid of general projections like ForceP and split it into DecP (encoding declarativity), IntP (encoding interrogativity), ImpP (encoding imperativity) etc. It would even be plausible to further distinguish between one WhIntP and one PolIntP – and perhaps even an additional general GenIntP being active in both polar and constituent interrogatives.
What the Italian examples above show is that not all orders of CP elements are allowed. The crucial part of these ordering restrictions is that they cannot be explained assuming a single CP projection. Additionally, other options, such as adjunction (e.g., De Cat 2007), simply assuming that the CP is build up in a re-cursive way (e.g., McCloskey 1992; Suñer 1993), or assuming multiple specifiers (e.g., Chomsky 1995b) also do not account for the facts presented, as all these solutions would not predict a strict ordering among the elements under discus-sion. Additional evidence for the split-CP hypothesis comes from languages that have distinct markers, that is, overt functional heads, in the left periphery, for example, for marking topic and focus (e.g., Aboh 2004a).