TOPICALIZATION AND RELATIVIZATION IN MINIMALIST SYNTAX HIROKI EGASHIRA Tokyo Metropolitan University This paper reanalyzes topicalization and relativization in the frame- work of the Minimalist Program put forward recently by Chomsky (1995) and proposes a unified approach to these two operations. We analyze topicalization as morphologically driven movement, depending, on the circumstances where topicalization is applicable. We further extend this analysis to relativization, and clarify a driving force for movement of a relative pronoun.* 1. Introduction Lasnik and Saito (1992) (henceforth L&S) analyze the topicalization construction in terms of adjunction. Although this analysis is in- genious, there are some topicalization constructions that it cannot deal with. In this paper, we will first reexamine their analysis and point out some problems. We will then propose an alternative analysis of topicalization in the framework of the Minimalist Program put forth recently by Chomsky (1995). We will further extend the proposed analysis of topicalization to relativization, and propose that relativiza- tion undergoes the same operation as topicalization. 2. Lasnik and Saito's Analysis and Its Problems L&S argue that the topicalization construction as in (1a) below is * This paper is based on my presentation at the 14th National Conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan held at Kwansei Gakuin University on November 16-17, 1996. I am. grateful to Heizo Nakajima, Ken-ichi Takami, Hiroshi Hasegawa, Shigeo Tonoike, Ichiro Hirata, Kensuke Takonai, and Kosuke Tanaka for their long and patient discussion with me. I also thank Koji Fujita and Jun Abe for their comments and criticisms on the presentation. I am also indebted to two anonymous EL reviewers for insightful comments and suggestions. It goes without saying that all remaining errors are mine. English Linguistics 14 (1997) 28-51 -28- (C)1997 by the English Linguistic Society of Japan TOPICALIZATION AND RELATIVIZATION IN MINIMALIST SYNTAX 29 derived by adjunction of a topic element to TP (=IP), =as shown in (1b): (1) a. This book, I really like. b. [TP This booki [TP I really like ti]] This analysis is based on the fact that in an embedded clause, a topic element appears between the complementizer that occupying the head of CP and the subject occupying the Spec of TP, as observed in (2): (2) I believe [CP that [TP the booki [TP I gave ti away to some friends]]] (L&S (1992: 76)) Behind this analysis, as pointed by Rochemont (1989), lies the ad- junction condition; namely, adjunction is possible only to a maximal projection that is a nonargument (Chomsky (1986)). The TP node, whether it is a matrix TP or an embedded one, is a nonargument maximal projection since it is not semantically-selected by a lexical category. Although this analysis correctly predicts the distribution of a topic element, a closer look at other topicalization constructions reveals that L&S's analysis has both theoretical and empirical problems. Let us begin with its empirical problems. There are several in- stances that resist adjunction of a topic element to the TP node in spite of the fact that the adjunction condition is observed. Observe the following sentence involving an infinitival clause: (3) a. My friends tend to support more liberal candidates. b. *My friends tend [CP [TP more liberal candidatesi [TP to support ti]]] (Hooper & Thompson (1973: 485)) In (3b) the object of the verb support in (3a) is topicalized and adjoined to the infinitival TP, which is a nonargument maximal pro- jection. However, the derived sentence is ungrammatical. Next, compare the following two sentences: (4) a. I believe [that you will like the book] b. It's important [that he study the book more carefully] (Hooper & Thompson (1973: 485)) The bracketed clause in (4a) is declarative and that in (4b) is sub- junctive. However, they are identical in the sense that they consist of the projection of C (complementizer) and that of T.1 Then, L&S's analysis would predict that topicalization should be applicable in both 1 Although in (4b) T is not lexicallyrealized, it is natural to assumethat there is a null element in T because in the British Englishshould generallyappears. 30 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 14 (1997) embedded clauses, because the embedded TP in (4) is a nonargument maximal projection. However, topicalization for (4a) is grammatical, while that for (4b) is not: (5) a. I believe [CPthat. [TPthis booki [TPyou will really like ti]]] b. *It's important [CP that [TP the booki [TP he study ti more carefully]]] (Hooper & Thompson (1973: 485)) Another problem with L&S's analysis concerns imperatives. Imai & Nakajima (1972) and Imai et al. (1989) argue that imperatives consists of the projection of T, whose feature is specified as [Imp], and that a null subject occupies the Spec of TP: (6) [TP pro T[Imp][VP study the Minimalist Program developed recently by Chomsky]] Given this structure, it is natural to assume that it is possible to topicalize the object of the verb study and adjoin it to the nonargument TP. However, the application of topicalization in (6) gives rise to ungrammaticality: (7) *[TP [the Minimalist Program developed recently by Chom- sky]i [TP pro T[Imp][VP study ti]]] Let us turn to a theoretical problem with L&S's analysis. Basically, the adjunction operation is executed freely. In other words, this operation requires no driving force. However, in the Minimalist Program, all movement operations are restricted to morphologically driven movement. If this assumption is correct (and we believe it), L&S's analysis would end up encountering a serious problem, since their analysis of topicalization requires no driving force. In this section we have seen that L&S's TP adjunction analysis of topicalization encounters both empirical and theoretical problems; empirically, there are several constructions that resist topicalization in spite of the fact that the adjunction condition is observed, and theoretically, movement by adjunction would be called into question in the framework of the Minimalist Program. Given this state of affairs, we can conclude that L&S's analysis loses its force, and that some modifications of the analysis of the topicalization construction seems to be called for. 3. An Alternative Analysis Let us first compare the grammatical (1a) with the ungrammatical TOPICALIZATION AND RELATIVIZATION IN MINIMALIST SYNTAX 31 (3b), (5b) and (7), all repeated below: (8) This book, I really like. (9) a. *My friends tend more liberal candidates to support. b. *It's important that the book he study more carefully. c. *The Minimalist Program developed recently by Chom- sky study. The crucial difference between (8) and (9) seems to lie in the property of T, to whose maximal projection a topic element is adjoined. The property of T in (8) is finite, while that of T in (9) in non-finite. Thus, we can generalize that topicalization is possible if T is finite, and make the following assumptions: (10) a. A finite T is assigned a [Top(ic)] feature, which is a strong feature to be checked when it is drawn from the Lexicon to the Numeration. b. D(eterminer) of a topicalized element is always as- signed an Interpretable [Top] feature. The abstract morphological feature [Top], which we assume in (10), can be found in topicalization in Illongo: (11) a. dala sang babayi sang bata. bring AGT woman OBJ child 'A woman brought a child.' b. Nag-dala ang babayi sang bata. AGT-bring TOP woman OBJ child ' The woman brought a child.' c. Gin-dala sang babayi ang bata OBJ-bring AGT woman TOP child 'The/A woman brought the child.' (Schachter (1973: 24)) According to Schachter (1973), (b) and (c) in (11) are topicalization sentences derived from (11a). In this language, when an element is topicalized, the topicalized element is marked with the topic marker ang as shown in (11b) and (11c). This suggests that in some lan- guages, a [Top] feature is morphologically realized. Therefore, it can be assumed that the overt realization of the [Top] feature in Illongo holds covertly for English even when morphological evidence is lacking. It should be emphasized here that the assumptions in (10) claim that topicalization is derived by the morphological checking operation. The topicalization in Illongo in (11) also supports this claim. Let us see (11) again. When the subject is topicalized as in (11b), the prefix nag, 32 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 14 (1997) an agent marker, is attached to the verb dala. The same prefixation is also observed in the object topicalization: when the object is topicalized as seen in (11c), the object-marking prefix gin is attached to the verb dala. This kind of prefixation cannot be observed in (11a), where no elements are topicalized. This agreement phenomena suggest that a topic element covertly raises to T which has overtly hosted a verb at the Spell-Out for the feature checking as seen below: (12) a. [TP ang-babayi [Top]i [T' [T[Top] [V nag-dala]] [VP ti sang bata]]] b. [TP ang-bata[Top]i [T' [T[Top] [V gin-dala]] [VP sang babayi ti]]] We can, therefore, conclude that these agreement (or prefixation) phenomena observed in this language support the claim in (10). Furthermore, the assumption in (10a) can explain the ungrammati- cality of (9) because it claims that a strong [Top] feature is assigned to a finite T: T in (9) is not finite. With the assumption in (10) in mind, let us see how the topicaliza- tion construction in (8) above, repeated below, can be derived:2 (13) This booki, I (really) like ti. At an earlier stage of the derivation of (13), we have (14), where the subject I is attracted from the VP internal subject position to the Spec of T by the strong [D] feature that T has:3 (14) [TP I[D]i [T' T [D][Top] [VP ti like [DP [D this [Top]] [NP book]]]]] In order for the strong [Top] feature to be checked, another checking domain of T has to be projected.