J UOEH 38（ 4 ）: 279－289（2016） 279

［Original］

A Minimalist Analysis of English Topicalization: A Phase-Based Cartographic Complementizer Phrase (CP) Perspective

Hiroyoshi Tanaka*

Department of English, School of Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan. Yahata- nishi-ku, Kitakyushu 807-8555, Japan

Abstract : Under the basic tenet that syntactic derivation offers an optimal solution to both phonological realization and semantic interpretation of linguistic expression, the recent minimalist framework of syntactic theory claims that the basic unit for the derivation is equivalent to a syntactic propositional element, which is called a phase. In this analysis, syntactic derivation is assumed to proceed at phasal projections that include Complementizer Phrases (CP). However, there have been pointed out some empirical problems with respect to the failure of multiple occurrences of discourse-related elements in the CP domain. This problem can be easily overcome if the alternative approach in the recent minimalist perspective, which is called Cartographic CP analysis, is adopted, but this may raise a theoretical issue about the tension between phasality and four kinds of functional projections assumed in this analysis (Force Phrase (ForceP), Finite Phrase (FinP), Topic Phrase (TopP) and Focus Phrase (FocP)). This paper argues that a hybrid analysis with these two influential approaches can be proposed by claiming a reasonable assumption that syntacti- cally requisite projections (i.e., ForceP and FinP) are phases and independently constitute a phasehood with relevant heads in the derivation. This then enables us to capture various syntactic properties of the Topicalization construction in English. Our proposed analysis, coupled with some additional assumptions and observations in recent minimalist studies, can be extended to incorporate peculiar properties in temporal/conditional adverbials and imperatives.

Keywords : topicalization, phase, cartographic CP, temporal/conditional adverbials, imperatives.

（Received August 9, 2016, accepted November 7, 2016）

Introduction In the case of Topicalization in the root clause, as in (1a), the topic element appears in the sentence-ini- In English, one argument Determiner Phrase (DP), tial position, while in embedded Topicalization, as in whose discourse meaning is equivalent to “established” (1b), it appears between a complementizer (that) of the information in one conversational context among the clause and the subject phrase. participants, can optionally raise from its underlying In the framework of the Phase Theory, Topical- position to the left periphery of the clause, as shown ization can be analyzed as an instance of an Internal in (1).＊1 This type of operation (and the construction Merger (IM) to the edge of a phasal Complementizer itself) is traditionally called Topicalization.＊2 Phrase (CP) with the help of the Edge Feature (EF) of its head [3].＊3 Under the premise that phase heads are (1) a. This book, I really like _. [1] the central locus for syntactic derivations, this theory b. I believe that this book, you should read _. [2] assumes that only the head of the CP is responsible for

*Corresponding Author: Hiroyoshi Tanaka, Department of English, School of Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan. Yahatanishi-ku, Kitakyushu 807-8555, Japan, Tel: +81-93-691-7293, Fax: +81-93-692-3360, E-mail: [email protected] 280 H Tanaka

the merger-agreement property in the clausal periph- the head of Tense Phrase (TP), whereas Force makes ery. This idea, however, cannot appropriately handle a discourse-based relation (i.e., A´ (non-argument)-re- the grammaticality in (2) and (3), where more than lation) with the head of the TopP/FocP. We will show one discourse-related element appears in the sentence- the details of our analysis in the next section, and initial position. show that it can successfully overcome the empirical and theoretical problems found in previous studies, as

(2) a. ?? [That book]i, [to John]j, Mary handed _i _j. [4] well as capture the basic properties of Topicalization.

b. ?? [To John]j, [that book]i, Mary handed _i _j. [4] Moreover, our proposed analysis can explain some peculiar behaviors of Topicalization within temporal/

(3) a. [This book]i, [to ROBIN]j, I gave _i _j. [5] conditional adverbial clauses and imperative sentenc- ＊ b. [To ROBIN]j, [this book]i, I gave _i _j. [5] es. Finally, we will conclude this paper.

The degraded grammaticality in (2) is clearly de- Basic assumptions: phase-based cartographic per- rived from the circumstance where more than one spective topic element appears in the sentence-initial position. The contrast in (3) shows that topic elements can pre- In the framework of the Phase Theory, it is assumed cede focus elements, but not vice versa.＊4 The Phase that C, as a phase head, intrinsically equips with merger- Theory cannot give a plausible explanation for the agreement property, and transmits this to T through the grammaticality of these. Feature Inheritance (FI) operation [3]. For example, in Rizziʼs cartographic CP analysis can explain the the derivation of the subject Wh-Question in (5a), the FI grammaticality for such multiple discourse-related operation of an Agreement Feature (AF) and EF from C constructions as (2) and (3) [6, 7]. This analysis as- to T in (5b) causes the Wh-phrase (who) to agree with T sumes that the CP, which is inherently composed of and internally merge to the Spec(ifier)-TP. At the same two kinds of syntactic unit (i.e., ForceP-Fin(ite)P and time, an inherent EF in C drives who to raise to the Spec- Top(ic)P-Foc(us)P), is split whenever discourse-relat- CP. This simultaneous IM of who is shown in (5c) [8]. ed elements are merged in the clausal periphery. The resultant configuration is illustrated in (4).＊5 (5) a. Who arrived?

b. [CP C [TP T[AF]/[EF] [vP v [VP arrived who]]]] (4) [ForceP Force [TopP Top [FocP Foc [TopP Top [FinP Fin [TP T c. [ who C [ who T [ v [ arrived who]]]] […]]]]]]] CP [EF] TP [AF]/[EF] vP VP

This analysis, however, in which these four projec- After these IMs, only the hierarchically topmost copy tions are supposed to be inherently endowed with a of who, the one appearing in the Spec-CP, is phonetically movement-agreement property, should be assessed un- realized in the phonological component, leading to the der the minimalist concept of a maximally simplified surface output of (5a). language ability. To put it simply, each projection in Next, letʼs move on to consider the essence of the (4) should be circumstantially asked whether it can be- Cartographic CP analysis [6, 7]. The basic CP struc- have as a central locus for the derivation like a phase. ture assumed in this analysis is illustrated in (6). The aim of this paper is to show the theoretical va- lidity of a hybrid analysis between Phase Theory and (6) [ForceP Force [TopP XP Top [FocP YP Foc [FinP Fin [TP T Cartographic CP analysis. These analyses can be suc- […]]]]]] cessfully blended if we consider that ForceP and FinP are phases, and that their heads independently con- Among these four kinds of functional projections, stitute a phase-based relation with the relevant heads both TopP and FocP function as a locus for providing the in each domain; more specifically, Fin establishes a discourse-related property of one lexical element in its Case/φ-based relation (i.e., A(rgument)-relation) with Spec-positions to phonological and semantic interfaces. A Minimalist Analysis of English Topicalization 281

Here, let us look at the phasehood of these projec- served in English, too, as in (9). tions in (6). At first, following previous studies [6, 7, ＊ 9-10, 11], this paper assumes that ForceP constitutes (9) a. Mary believes [TP him/ he to be late]. ＊ a phasehood, and its head establishes a close relation- b. Mary believes [CP he/ him is late]. ship with Top and Foc via the FI operation. The force property in the finite clause is necessary for determin- The contrast with respect to the surface form of the ing illocutionary force [6, 7], and, if necessary, mo- embedded subject can be explained in terms of a dif- tivating merger operations to the edge of the clausal ference of the maximal projection of the embedded periphery [9, 11]. In fact, it can be argued that the clause: in the nonfinite (9a), it projects TP, while in existence/absence of ForceP differentiates the gram- the finite (9b), it forms a full CP structure. This dif- maticality between (7) and (8) below. ferentiates the Case realization of the embedded sub- ject DP. First, in (9a), whose periphery lacks a CP, its (7) a. This book, I really like _. [1] subject realizes Accusative Case as a reflex that the matrix verb (believe) ʻexceptionallyʼ licenses to it as an b. I believe that this book, you should read _. [2] Accusative. Next, in (9b) with a complete CP, it can (8) a. ＊M y friends tend the more liberal candidates be argued that its subject gains a Nominative Case as a to support _. (raising) [12] result of the collaboration with Fin (or its property) in the CP and embedded T, as will be shown soon below. b. ＊I have decided your book to read _. Taking into consideration the essence of these (control) [13] analyses that advocate a close relationship between ＊ c. I disapprove of such books your reading _. finiteness and T, it is reasonable to assume that Fin, (gerund) [12] as a phase head, is responsible for the Case/φ-based d. ＊P olice believe the London area the suspect to A-relation by way of the conventional FI operation to have left _. (ECM) [13] T [3, 8], as in the derivation of (5b) above. Moreover, if we follow the current line of argument, it can also In the finite examples of (7), where the declarative be assumed that Force is responsible for the discourse- force property is necessarily realized in the CP domain, based A´-relation with Top and Foc via the force-/top- Topicalization is successfully applied. In contrast, Topi- ic-related FI operation.＊6 Our argument can be sum- calization cannot be applied in all the nonfinite examples marized in (10). shown in (8) without any force property in the embedded periphery. In the current line of discussion, this contrast (10) [ForceP Force [TopP XP Top[AF] [EF] [FocP YP Foc[AF] [EF] is simply ascribable to the existence of the ForceP (or Force property in C) in the clausal periphery [14]. A´-relation [ Fin [ Subj T [……]]]]]] In the next place, this paper assumes that FinP is also FinP TP [AF] [EF] a phase, and its head creates a relationship with T. Intui- A-relation tively, this seems to be the case because its central func- tion is to handle the finiteness which is necessary to be Here we consider some important points about the manifested in every clausal structure. In this point, it is derivation in (10). First, the A-relation between Fin noteworthy that the nonfinite clausal marker to has been and T is independently established with the A´-relation assumed to be in T in the generative tradition. More- between Force and Top/Foc. Therefore, the inertness over, Pesetsky and Torrego argue that the finite comple- of Force does not entail the failure of A-relation. mentizer “that is not C, but a particular realization of T Next, the status of TopP and FocP is crucially de- moved to C [15].” As a related argument, Holmberg and pendent on the appearance of ForceP; therefore, their Platzack claims a close relationship between Cʼs finite agreement-merger properties are directly transmitted property and its nominative Case licensing for subjects by way of the FI operation from Force. This implies in Spec-TP in V2 languages [16]. A similar fact is ob- that these two functional projections do not always 282 H Tanaka

emerge in the cartographic CP structure: their appear- Second, both types of operation are not applicable ances are necessarily accompanied by ForceP [17]. In to the element embedded in the inside of the previ- fact, Topicalization cannot be applied to the structures ously A´-moved element, as in (15) and (16) [21-23]. without ForceP, as we will show later. Finally, we mention the theoretical validity of our anal- (15) ?? [Vowel harmony]j, I think that [articles about _j]i, ysis. In the conceptual perspective, the hybrid analysis you should read _i. [23] proposed here may cause a tension between the Phase ＊ (16) Whyi do you wonder [how likely to fix the car _i]j Theory without TopP/FocP in the CP domain and the John is _j? [23] Cartographic CP analysis which considers these projec- tions to be one of the central loci for computations. These Third, these moved elements can formally license a seemingly conflicting notions can be reconciled if only parasitic gap (PG) in the sentence. Given that the PG computationally requisite projections (i.e., ForceP and licensing requires an A´-moved element in the sentence FinP) constitute a phase. This enables us to assume that [24], the well-formedness of (17) and (18) is derived TopP and FocP are nonphases for their optional status, from the appropriate licensing of PG of the topical- and their computational properties are derivationally suc- ized phrase (these papers) and the fronted Wh-phrase ceeded from Force through the FI operation [18]. (which articles), respectively.

Analysis: basic properties of topicalization (17) These papers I filed _ [without reading pg]. [25] (18) Which articles did John file _ [without reading pg]? As shown in the preceding section, Topicalization [23] can be applied in any clause with a root property, as repeated in (11). These data shown in (11), (13), (15) and (17) are sufficient for us to postulate that the Topicalization op- (11) a. This book, I really like _. [1] eration is such an instance of syntactic A´-movement to b. I believe that this book, you should read _. [2] the CP periphery as Wh-Movement. Our phase-based cartographic analysis can straight- This root-embedded applicability is also seen in the forwardly capture these properties. First, under a gen- case of Wh-Movement, as in (12). eral assumption that the complementizer that occupies a Force position in the cartographic CP [26], the linear (12) a. What did John see _? orders among clause-initial elements in (11) can be b. I wondered what John saw _. straightforwardly explained. Next, given that the topic phrase internally merges with the Spec-TopP, which Grammatical similarities between Topicalization and is conventionally analyzed to be equivalent to the A´- Wh-Movement can be observed in other respects. First, movement of the Wh-phrase to the Spec-CP (or Spec- they manifest syntactic island phenomena. Their appli- FocP [6]) in the case of Wh-Questions, we can argue cations are prohibited from within Complex DP Island that the grammaticality in (13), (15) and (17) is a direct as in (13a) and (14a), and Wh-Island as in (13b) and consequence of the A´-nature of Topicalization. (For a (14b), respectively. detailed analysis of examples of Wh-Movement exam- ples, see Tanaka [27, 28] and references cited therein) (13) a ＊This book, I accept the argument that John should Moreover, our analysis can successfully incorporate read _. [1] the contrast with respect to the clausal (non)finiteness b. ＊This book, I wonder who read _. [1] of the Topicalization application. The relevant para- digms are repeated below.＊7 (14) a. ＊Which book did John meet a child who read _? [19] (19) a. This book, I really like _. [1] b. ＊Who did you ask where John saw _? [20] b. I believe that this book, you should read _. [2] A Minimalist Analysis of English Topicalization 283

(20) a. ＊I have decided your book to read _. (control) [13] collaboration between Force and Top. In contrast, it b. ＊I disapprove of such books your reading _. cannot be applied in nonfinite cases like (20) and (21), (gerund) [12] because ForceP is completely missing in CP. This con- sequence strongly supports our central claim that Topi- In our phase-based cartographic analysis, it can be calization is crucially dependent on the existence of the explained that the contrast between the finite para- phasal ForceP in CP. At the same time, this suggests digms in (19) and nonfinite ones in (20) is derived that our analysis has an empirical advantage, compared from the existence of the ForceP in the CP field. In to Rizziʼs Cartographic CP analysis.＊8 (19), with ForceP (or Force property), its head suc- Finally, our approach can appropriately explain the cessfully inherits both EF and AF to the Top, and then grammaticality in the case of multiple discourse-related the DP can be fronted from its underlying position, elements in the left peripheral position, as repeated in resulting in the well-formed Topicalization configura- (22) and (23). tion. In contrast, in (20), without ForceP, the EF, as a driving force of Topicalization, cannot be supplied (22) a. ??[That book]i, [to John]j, Mary handed _i _j. [4] from Force to Top via the FI operation. Therefore, the b. ??[To John]j, [that book]i, Mary handed _i _j. [4] output in (20) itself cannot be derived in our current line of analysis. (23) a. [This book]i, [to ROBIN]j, I gave _i _j. [5] ＊ As a related fact to the ill-formed paradigms in (20), b. [To ROBIN]j, [this book]i, I gave _i _j. [5] it is well known that Topicalization is strictly prohib- ited in clauses in which the nonfinite complementizer First, given the basic notion on the discourse-related for appears, as below. agreement, a DP and a head must be built in a one- to-one relation. This then means that in (22), neither ＊ (21) a. I propose [FinP these books, for John to read _ ]. of the topic phrases can appear in the Spec-TopP, and [14] therefore these examples can never be derived from ＊ b. I propose [FinP for, these books, John to read _ ]. our analysis. Next, TopP occupies a higher position [14] than FocP. This positional relation between them read- ily accommodates the topic-focus order in (23a) but Given Rizziʼs claim that nonfinite complementizer not the reverse one in (23b). for occupies the Fin head, the maximal projection of To sum up this section, we have demonstrated that the embedded clause in (21) is supposed to be FinP our analysis can give an appropriate explanation of at most [29]. This implies that the ForceP in (21) is various properties of Topicalization, and it can be em- missing in the CP field. It can then be argued that pirically supported. Topicalization cannot be motivated in the inside of the embedded clause of (21). Conditional/temporal adverbials These empirical facts shown in (19)-(21) cannot be appropriately explained by the simple Cartographic CP As explained in the previous section, Topicalization analysis proposed in Rizzi [6]. This analysis assumes is basically applicable to root clauses. However, this that TopP independently projects (or its property re- operation is prohibited within the conditional/temporal mains) into any CP fields, and its head can freely mo- adverbial clause, which seemingly obtains a root prop- tivate Topicalization without any help from other func- erty [9]. Relevant examples are shown below. tional projections. This means that it wrongly predicts ＊ (20) and (21) to be well-formed, contrary to fact. On (24) a. If these exams you donʼt pass _, you wonʼt get the other hand, our analysis can directly ascribe the the degree. [30] grammaticality in (19)-(21) to the existence of ForceP: b. ＊While her book Mary was writing _ this time in a finite case like (19) equipped with ForceP in CP, last year, her children were staying with her Topicalization can be applied as a result of the FI-based mother. [30] 284 H Tanaka

However, Topicalization is not always prohibited in viously can in PAC, as in (28). the inside of such adverbials. Haegeman introduces some well-formed examples, as in (25) [9]. (27) a. ＊ Mary accepted the invitation without hesitation after John may have accepted it. [33] (25) a. If these problems we cannot solve _, there are b. ?? John works best while his children are prob- many others that we can tackle immediately. [31] ably/might be asleep. [33] b. If anemonies you donʼt like _, why not plant roses instead? [31] (28) a. The ferry will be fairly cheap, while/whereas the plane may/will probably be too expensive. [33] c. His face not many admired, while his character still fewer felt they could praise _. [31] b. If Le Pen will probably win, Jospin must be dis- appointed. [33] For the functional difference between ill-formed (24) and well-formed (25), Haegeman states that “ad- Second, CAC cannot contain their own question verbial clauses that do not allow for fronted arguments tags in the sentence-final position, as in (29). are fully integrated in the host clause and are inter- preted as modifying the event expressed in the associ- (29) a. Bill took a degree at Oxford while his children ated clause. […]. On the other hand, ʻperipheralʼ ad- were still very young, didn’t he? [34] verbial clauses do allow (to some extent) for argument b. ＊ Bill took a degree at Oxford while his children fronting: they are less tightly connected to the host were still very young, weren’t they? [34] clause […] and serve to provide the discourse frame against which the proposition expressed in the host In this respect, we can find a different situation in clauses is evaluated [32].” This statement implies that the case of PAC. When this type of adverbial follows adverbial clauses whose function is to simply modify host clauses in the sentence, tags associated with the the proposition manifested in the host clause do not hosts must emerge right behind their clauses as in permit Topicalization in their clauses, as in (24). In (30a), but not in the sentence-final position as in (30b). contrast, adverbials which build up a discourse condi- tion prerequisite for the proposition manifested in the (30) a. Bill took a degree at Oxford, didn’t he, while his host clause can tolerate the application of Topicaliza- daughter is studying at UCL . [34] tion in their clauses, as in (25). Haegeman finds this b. ＊B ill took a degree at Oxford, while his daughter functional difference between them to be derived from is studying at UCL, didn’t he? [34] their structural differences in the CP domain [33]. Spe- cifically, the former ʻcentralʼ type ([9]) lacks ForceP as However, PAC can have their own tags in the sen- a locus for encoding of illocutionary force, while the tence-final position, as in (31). latter ʻperipheralʼ type constitutes a full CP structure. Given this, CP structures for each adverbial clauses are (31) Bill took a degree at Oxford, while his daughter is illustrated in (26). studying at UCL, isn’t she? [34]

(26) a. [FinP Fin [TP Subj T [……]]] (Central Adverbial For the grammaticality in (27)-(31), CAC, in which Clause: CAC) ForceP is missing in CP, cannot license modal ele-

b. [ForceP Force [TopP. FocP Top/Foc [FinP Fin [TP Subj T ments, while PAC, whose CP structure is complete, [……]]]]] (Peripheral Adverbial Clause: PAC) definitely can. Thus, the structural difference regard- ing ForceP between CAC and PAC is a direct factor in The structural difference between CAC and PAC in the grammaticality between (27) and (28), and (29b) (26) is empirically supported by some kinds of force- and (31). related elements. First, epistemic modal auxiliaries/ Returning to the main discussion, the presence/ab- adverbs cannot appear in CAC, as in (27), but they ob- sence of ForceP in these two types of adverbials can A Minimalist Analysis of English Topicalization 285

be straightforwardly extended to give an account of (33) a. (You can have raisins for a snack.) CHOCO- the difference with regard to (24) and (25). First, CAC LATE, donʼt even think about _! [37] without ForceP clearly fail to constitute the A´-relation b. The TIE give _ to Bob, the AFTERSHAVE give _ between Force and topic elements, resulting in the ill- to Don! [42] formedness in (24) in our analysis. In contrast to this, in the case of PAC, Force can successfully motivate c. THESE stocks, buy _ immediately! (Those avoid _ the Topicalization operation to the Spec-TopP. This at all costs!) [41] naturally accounts for the well-formedness in (25).＊9 To summarize this section, we have shown that the In this paper, we argue that the contrast between (32) existence/absence of phasal ForceP in the cartographic and (33) lies in the featural content of the null element CP determines the grammaticality with regard to the in the imperatives. Following previous studies [36-38], Topicalization application in two types of conditional/ we assume that this is equivalent to a null imperative temporal adverbial clause. operator (henceforth, Op), which contains a set of mor- phosyntactic features associated with a directive for en- Imperatives coding an addressorʼs command/request to addressees and as a result is dedicated to identifying the relevant In preceding sections, we argued that ForceP, as a sentence as an imperative. Moreover, this Op contrib- phase, plays a crucial role in the application of Topi- utes to establishing the discourse background which is calization. This argument naturally leads us to expect relevant for the use of imperative sentences, by delim- its operation to be applicable in any clause with an il- iting the context as an irrealis where a certain state is locutionary force. For example, it has been generally not realized at the stage of the utterance of the sentence assumed that imperative sentences uniquely have an il- [37]. Moreover, we assume that the Opʼs feature (tem- locutionary force as an imperative, which is associated porarily, call it [imperative (IMP)] feature) is obliga- with an addresserʼs command/request to addressees in torily licensed at ForceP [36, 37]. Given this, the Op, the discourse. In the generative tradition, this prop- whose underlying position is the inside of TP [43], un- erty has been analyzed to be formally licensed at the dergoes IM with the Spec-ForceP, and engages with its ＊10 clausal periphery in the course of the derivation [35- head through the agreement of each [IMP] feature. 38]. More specifically, a phonetically null element In terms of the inherent properties of Op, Haegeman tied to an addresserʼs “command/request” implicature [43] implies that this operator has enriched featural is formally licensed in the CP domain. In the current contents. One of the features is an operator feature line of discussion, the locus for the null element should which corresponds to the [IMP] feature above. The be ForceP. Therefore, it can be expected that Topical- other is a discourse-related feature, and its role is to set ization could be successfully applied in the imperative a discourse context relevant for imperatives, namely, sentence. This expectation, however, is not the case, to identify the addressee as a discourse participant [35, as shown in (32). 44], or to establish an irrealis context. Given this, we can assume that the Op inherently gains a [Top] fea- (32) a. ＊The weapons leave behind _! [39] ture, as well as an [IMP] feature, and in the course of b. ＊This book, leave _ on the table! [40] the derivation, it stops by Spec-TopP for its checking before moving on to the Spec-ForceP. Its successive c. ＊The book, buy _! [41] IMs are illustrated in (34). Interestingly enough, however, the sentence be- comes rather acceptable if the fronted argument gains (34) [ForceP Op[IMP]/[Top] Force[IMP] [TopP Op[IMP]/[Top]Top[Top] contrastively focal interpretation, as below. [FocP Foc [FinP Fin [TP …]]]]] 286 H Tanaka

This derivation successfully captures the contrast ＊2 . This paper adopts boldface notations for moved ele- between (32) and (33). First, it can be explained that ments, and underline ones for their base positions. the ungrammaticality in (32) derives from the multiple ＊3 . Chomsky argues that movement operations are restated appearance of the Op and the overt topic element in as IM operations [3]. For convenience, this paper often one Spec-TopP. This is the same explanation as the uses the term “movement” in the case of IM operation. one in (22) in the previous discussion. In contrast, the ＊4 . As shown in (3), this paper uses capital letters for fo- IM of the null Op never interferes with the focused el- cused elements. ement in the Spec-FocP, resulting in the well-formed- ＊5 . Rizzi originally assumes that there are two TopPs in ness of (33). To recap, our proposed derivation shown the clausal periphery, as in (4) [6]. In the following in (34) can successfully explain the grammatical con- discussion, we omit this lower TopP for the reason that trast of the discourse-related element (topic vs. focus) this projection is mainly used for discourse-related in imperative sentences. phenomena in Romance languages [45]. Moreover, this paper assumes that whenever the activation of CP Conclusion does not take place, the single CP projects and its head handles entire syntactic operations related to it [46]. In this paper, we have demonstrated the legitimacy This is the case in the derivation of (1). of a hybrid approach to the phase-theoretic derivation ＊6 . We assume that the discourse-related AFs from Force and cartographic CP structure. The main claim is cru- to Top/Foc are optional features that are assigned to cially related to the phasehood in the cartographic CP relevant lexical items in the Lexical Subarray [47]. structure: Force and Fin as a phase head independently For the interpretability of AFs, the ones in Top/Foc are constitute a syntactic relation with relevant heads. Our interpretable, while the ones in XP/YP are uninterpret- proposed derivation, coupled with some additional as- able [48]. As for EF, phase heads optionally bear it, sumptions in the recent minimalist framework, can which is a driving force for discourse-related move- felicitously capture various intriguing properties of ments and is associated with interpretive effects on English Topicalization constructions. outcome [3]. ＊7 . The maximal projection of the embedded clause in Acknowledgements raising and ECM is generally assumed to be TP, not CP. Therefore, we deliberately focus on the relevant This paper is an extended version of a part of Tanaka paradigms in (20) from the original ones shown in (8). [18]. My sincere gratitude goes to Nobuaki Nishioka, ＊8 . We thank an anonymous reviewer for clarifying this Takayoshi Kurogi and Tomonori Otsuka for their help- point. ful suggestions. My thanks also go to Christopher P. ＊9 . This paper assumes that in the split CP configuration, Carman for stylistic improvements, and to two anony- ForceP contains a conditional if or temporal when/while mous reviewers. Needless to say, all remaining errors in its head position. Therefore, in the ill-formed ex- are my own. This research was partly supported by a amples of (24), there are no suitable positions for these Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) from the Ja- subordinators, unlike in the well-formed ones of (25). pan Society for the Promotion of Science, Grant No. ＊10. Tentatively, this paper assumes the [IMP] feature of 15K02606. the Op is uninterpretable, while the one of the Force head is interpretable, following the agreement system Notes proposed in this paper (see footnote 6 for the related argument.). The idiosyncratic nature of [IMP] feature ＊1 . In the perspective of information structure, Topical- may be supported by the peculiar status of English im- ization dedicates to constituting topic-comment order, peratives: nonovert subjects, obligatory appearances where the topic phrase is “old” information which is of do in negative imperatives, and consistently non- already provided by a discourse participant, and the inflectional verbal forms. We will leave the details of comment phrase is “new” information. [IMP] feature for the future study. A Minimalist Analysis of English Topicalization 287

References left periphery. In: Adverbial clauses, main clause phe- nomena, and the composition of the left periphery: the 1 . Chomsky N (1977): On Wh-movement. In: Formal cartography of syntactic structures, volume 8. Oxford syntax. (Culicover PW, Wasow T & Akmajian A, ed). University Press, Oxford p 68 Academic Press, New York p 91 14 . Adger D (2006): Three domains of finiteness: a mini- 2 . Chomsky N (1977): On Wh-movement. In: Formal malist perspective. Lingbuzz 41pp http://ling.auf.net/ syntax. (Culicover PW, Wasow T & Akmajian A, ed). lingbuzz/000296 [2016/04/01] Academic Press, New York p 93 15 . Pesetsky D & Torrego E (2004): Tense, case, and the 3 . Chomsky N (2008): On phases. In: Foundational is- nature of syntactic categories. In: The syntax of time. sues in linguistic theory: essays in honor of Jean-Roger (Guéron J & Lecarme J, ed). MIT Press, Massachu- Vergnaud. (Freidin R, Otero CP & Zubizarreta ML, setts p 499 ed). MIT Press, Massachusetts pp 133—166 16 . Holmberg A & Platzack C (1995): The role of inflec- 4 . Saito M & Fukui N (1998): Order in phrase structure tion in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford University Press, and movement. Linguist Inq 29: 439—474 Oxford 264 pp 5 . Haegeman L (2012): Background: the articulated 17 . Haegeman L (2004): Topicalization, CLLD and the left structure of the left periphery. In: Adverbial clauses, periphery. In: Proceedings of the dislocated elements main clause phenomena, and the composition of the workshop, ZAS Berlin, November 2003 (ZAS papers in left periphery: the cartography of syntactic structures, linguistics 35). (Shaer B, Frey W & Maienborn C, ed). volume 8. Oxford University Press, Oxford p 20 Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin p 169 6 . Rizzi L (1997): The fine structure of the left periphery. 18 . Tanaka H (2016): A minimalist analysis of two types In: Elements of grammar: handbook in generative syn- of English right node raising constructions. English tax. (Haegeman L, ed). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Linguistics 33: 69—87 Dordrecht pp 281—337 19 . Boeckx C (2012): Never such innocence again. In: 7 . Rizzi L (2006): On the form of chains: criterial posi- Syntactic islands: key topics in syntax. Cambridge tions and ECP effects. In: WH-movement: moving on. University Press, Cambridge p 5 (Cheng LL-S & Corver N, ed). MIT Press, Massachu- 20 . Boeckx C (2012): Never such innocence again. In: setts pp 97—134 Syntactic islands: key topics in syntax. Cambridge 8 . Richards MD (2007): On feature inheritance: an argu- University Press, Cambridge p 10 ment from the phase impenetrability condition. Lin- 21 . Lasnik H & Saito M (1992): Move α: conditions on its guist Inq 38: 563—572 application and output. MIT Press, Massachusetts 222 pp 9 . Haegeman L (2004): Topicalization, CLLD and the left 22 . Nunes J (2004): Linearization of chains and sideward periphery. In: Proceedings of the dislocated elements movement. MIT Press, Massachusetts 196 pp workshop, ZAS Berlin, November 2003 (ZAS papers 23 . Stepanov A (2007): The end of CED? Minimalism and in linguistics 35). (Shaer B, Frey W & Maienborn C, extraction domains. Syntax 10: 80—126 ed). Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Ber- 24 . Engdahl E (1983): Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and phi- lin pp 157—192 losophy 6: 5—34 10 . Cruschina S (2011): Discourse-related features and 25 . Jayaseelan KA (2008): Topic, focus and adverb posi- functional projections. Oxford University Press, Ox- tions in clause structure. Nanzan Linguistics 4: 43—68 ford 251 pp 26 . Haegeman L (1997): Elements of grammar. In: Ele- 11 . Bianchi V (2015): Focus fronting and the syntax-se- ments of grammar: handbook in generative syntax. mantics interface. In: Beyond functional sequence: the (Haegeman L, ed). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dor- cartography of syntactic structures 10. (Shlonsky U, drecht p 54 ed). Oxford University Press, Oxford pp 60—72 27 . Tanaka H (2012): A phase-based account of English A´- 12 . Hooper JB & Thompson SA (1973): On the applicabil- merger constructions. Doctoral Dissertation. No. 159. ity of root transformations. Linguist Inq 4: 465—497 Kyushu University, Fukuoka 200 pp 13 . Haegeman L (2012): Arguments and adjuncts on the 28 . Tanaka H (2012): The phase-based approach to adjunct 288 H Tanaka

island phenomena. In: Kotoba-to Kokoro-no Tankyu 38 . Haegeman L (2012): Adverbial clauses, main clause (Inquiries into Language and Mind: A Festschrift for phenomena, and the composition of the left periphery: Professor Toshiaki Inada on the Occasion of his Re- the cartography of syntactic structures, volume 8. Ox- tirement from Kyushu University). (Ohashi H, Kubo ford University Press, Oxford 316 pp T, Nishioka N, Munemasa Y & Murao H, ed). Kaita- 39 . Jensen B (2007): In favour of a truncated imperative kusya, Tokyo pp 205—220 clause structure: evidence from adverbs. Working Pa- 29 . Rizzi L (1997): The fine structure of the left periphery. pers in Scandinavian Syntax 80: 163—185 In: Elements of grammar: handbook in generative syn- 40 . Bianchi V & Frascarelli M (2009): Another look at the tax. (Haegeman L, ed). Kluwer Academic Publishers, A-topic. In: Is topic a root phenomenon? Lingbuzz p Dordrecht p 301 26 http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000954 [2016/04/01] 30 . Haegeman L (2004): Topicalization, CLLD and the left 41 . Cormany E (2014): Distinguishing clause-typing and periphery. In: Proceedings of the dislocated elements subject positions in imperatives. U Penn Working Pa- workshop, ZAS Berlin, November 2003 (ZAS papers in pers in Linguistics 20 (1): 61—69 linguistics 35). (Shaer B, Frey W & Maienborn C, ed). 42 . van der Wurff W (2007): Imperative clauses in genera- Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin p 159 tive grammar: an introduction. In: Imperative clauses 31 . Haegeman L (2004): Topicalization, CLLD and the left in generative grammar: studies in Honour of Frits Beu- periphery. In: Proceedings of the dislocated elements kema. (van der Wurff W, ed). John Benjamins Pub- workshop, ZAS Berlin, November 2003 (ZAS papers in lishing Company. Amsterdam p 34 linguistics 35). (Shaer B, Frey W & Maienborn C, ed). 43 . Haegeman L (2012): Intervention effects and the left Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin p 160 periphery. In: Adverbial clauses, main clause phenom- 32 . Haegeman L (2004): Topicalization, CLLD and the left ena, and the composition of the left periphery: the car- periphery. In: Proceedings of the dislocated elements tography of syntactic structures 8. Oxford University workshop, ZAS Berlin, November 2003 (ZAS papers in Press, Oxford. p 139 linguistics 35). (Shaer B, Frey W & Maienborn C, ed). 44 . Haegeman L (2012): Intervention effects and the left Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin p 161 periphery. In: Adverbial clauses, main clause phenom- 33 . Haegeman L (2004): Topicalization, CLLD and the left ena, and the composition of the left periphery: the car- periphery. In: Proceedings of the dislocated elements tography of syntactic structures 8. Oxford University workshop, ZAS Berlin, November 2003 (ZAS papers in Press, Oxford. p 140 linguistics 35). (Shaer B, Frey W & Maienborn C, ed). 45 . Haegeman L (2004): Topicalization, CLLD and the left Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin p 163 periphery. In: Proceedings of the dislocated elements 34 . Haegeman L (2004): Topicalization, CLLD and the left workshop, ZAS Berlin, November 2003 (ZAS papers in periphery. In: Proceedings of the dislocated elements linguistics 35). (Shaer B, Frey W & Maienborn C, ed). workshop, ZAS Berlin, November 2003 (ZAS papers in Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin p 168 linguistics 35). (Shaer B, Frey W & Maienborn C, ed). 46 . Rizzi L (1997): The fine structure of the left periphery. Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin p 165 In: Elements of grammar: handbook in generative syn- 35 . Beukema F & Coopmans P (1989): A government-bind- tax. (Haegeman L, ed). Kluwer Academic Publishers, ing perspective on the imperatives in English. Journal Dordrecht p 314 of linguistics 25: 417—436 47 . Chomsky N (2001): Derivation by phase. In: Ken 36 . Potsdam E (1998): Syntactic issues in the English im- Hale: a life in language. (Kenstowicz M, ed). MIT perative. Garland Publishing, New York 428 pp Press, Massachusetts p 12 37 . Han C-H (2000): The structure and interpretation of 48 . Bošković Ž (2007): On the locality and motivation of imperatives: mood and force in universal grammar. move and agree: an even more minimal theory. Lin- Garland Publishing, New York 263 pp guist inq 38: 589—644

A Minimalist Analysis of English Topicalization 289

英語話題化構文のミニマリスト分析：フェイズとカートグラフィック的観点から

田中 公介

産業医科大学 医学部 英語講座

要 旨：統語派生が言語表現の音声具現化と意味解釈への最適解を提供するという基本理念のもとで，近年の ミニマリスト統語派生理論では，その派生単位がフェイズと呼ばれる統語的命題要素であると主張されている．こ の分析では，補文標識句（Complementizer Phrase: CP）を含むフェイズ投射をもとに統語派生が進むが，CP領域内で複 数の談話関連要素が生起可能な事実を説明できない問題が指摘されている．この問題は，近年のミニマリスト統語 論においてもう一つの影響力のある分析であるカートグラフィックCP分析を採用することによって克服されるが， 文タイプ・発話効力関連句（Force Phrase: ForceP），定性関連句（Finite Phrase: FinP），話題句（Topic Phrase: TopP），焦点句 （Focus Phrase: FocP）という4種の機能投射とそのフェイズ性に関する理論的問題を呈する可能性がある．本論文で は，統語派生上必要不可欠なForcePとFinPがフェイズとしてそれぞれに関連した主要部とフェイズ関係を形成する 融合分析を提案する．この結果，英語の話題化構文の基本特性が説明される．また，近年の他のミニマリスト研究に おける観察と仮定を踏まえることにより，時・条件の副詞節中や命令文中における話題化構文の固有特性を説明でき ることも示す．

キーワード：話題化，フェイズ，カートグラフィックCP構造，時・条件の副詞節，命令文．

J UOEH（産業医大誌） 38（4）：279－289（ 2016）