Clausal doubling produces phantom islands
-
Carlos Muñoz Pérez
und
Matías Verdecchia
Abstract
Clausal doubling in Spanish seemingly displays “island effects”, i.e., the construction is unacceptable if the doubled clause is located within a syntactic island. In this paper, we argue that these restrictions are cases of phantom islands, that is, not the result of true syntactic island violations, but rather a byproduct of the information structure of the doubling pattern. We maintain that these effects arise from the dislocated clause being a contrastive topic. Concretely, we claim that in these cases, the sentence fails to address the immediate question under discussion presupposed by its contrastive topic. We show that this approach also accounts for the distribution of clausal doubling in embedding contexts.
Funding source: ANID/FONDECYT
Award Identifier / Grant number: 11240339
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We thank Harry van der Hulst for his generous support during the review process. Finally, we thank the organizers and audiences of GLOW 45 and Going Romance 2022, where parts of this paper were presented, for their insightful discussions. All errors are our own.
-
Research funding: Muñoz Pérez acknowledges funding from the ANID/FONDECYT project 11240339.
References
Abels, Klaus. 2001. The predicate cleft construction in Russian. In Steven Franks & Michael Yadroff (eds.) Proceedings of formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, vol. 9, 1–19. Bloomington, IN: Michigan Slavic Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti locality and adposition stranding. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Ambridge, Ben & Adele E. Goldberg. 2008. The island status of clausal complements: Evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics 19(3). 357–389. https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.014.Suche in Google Scholar
Bleaman, Isaac L. 2021. Predicate fronting in Yiddish and conditions on multiple copy spell-out. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 40(2). 393–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-021-09512-3.Suche in Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 511–545. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025887707652.10.1023/A:1025887707652Suche in Google Scholar
Cho, Eun & Kunio Nishiyama. 2000. Yoruba predicate clefts from a comparative perspective. In Vicky Carstens & Frederick Parkinson (eds.), Advances in African linguistics (Trends in African Linguistics 4), 37–49. Trenton: Africa World Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004Suche in Google Scholar
Cuneo, Nicole & Adele E. Goldberg. 2023. The discourse functions of grammatical constructions explain an enduring syntactic puzzle. Cognition 240. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105563.Suche in Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta & Olga Ferńandez-Soriano. 2009. Force and finiteness in the Spanish complementizer system. Probus 21(1). 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2009.002.Suche in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Goodhue, Daniel. 2018. On asking and answering biased polar questions. McGill University dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Goodhue, Daniel. 2022. All focus is contrastive: On polarity (verum) focus, answer focus, contrastive focus, and givenness. Journal of Semantics 39(1). 117–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffab018.Suche in Google Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific domains. On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.66Suche in Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel, Katharina Hartmann & Lisa Matthewson. 2020. Verum focus is verum, not focus: Cross-linguistic evidence. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.347.Suche in Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández & Andrew Radford. 2014. Deconstructing the subject condition in terms of cumulative constraint violation. The Linguistic Review 31(1). 73–150. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2013-0022.Suche in Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1). 41–53.Suche in Google Scholar
Hein, Johannes. 2016. Verb doubling and the order of operations at PF: Insights from Asante Twi. In Katja Barnickel, Matías Guzmán Naranjo, Johannes Hein, Sampson Korsah, Andrew Murphy, Ludger Paschen, Zorica Puškar & Joanna Zaleska (eds.), Replicative processes in grammar, 85–126. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Suche in Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan & Sandra Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4). 465–497.Suche in Google Scholar
Jordanoska, Izabela, Anna Kocher & Raúl Bendezú-Araujo. 2023. Introduction special issue: Marking the truth: A cross-linguistic approach to verum. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 42(3). 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2023-2012.Suche in Google Scholar
Kobele, Gregory Michael. 2006. Generating copies: An investigation into structural identity in language and grammar. University of California dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax. on the nature of functional categories and projections. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2006. Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P)-fronting. Syntax 9(1). 32–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00084.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Muñoz Pérez, Carlos & Matías Verdecchia. 2022. Predicate doubling in Spanish: On how discourse may mimic syntactic movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 40. 1159–1200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09536-3.Suche in Google Scholar
Muñoz Pérez, Carlos & Matías Verdecchia. 2023. Clausal doubling and verum marking in Spanish. Zeitschrift fur Sprachwissenschaft 42(3). 525–548. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2023-2011.Suche in Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4241.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2011. The copy theory of movement. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, 143–172. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Plann, Susan. 1982. Indirect questions in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 13(2). 297–312.Suche in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7Suche in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the position ‘Int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 267–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1163/9780585473949_016Suche in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Giuliano Bocci. 2017. Left periphery of the clause: Primarily illustrated for Italian. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edn., 1–30. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom104Suche in Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Jae Hak Yoon & Andreas Kathol (eds.), OSUWPL Volume 49: Papers in semantics, 35–57. Columbus: The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.Suche in Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics 5(6). 1–69. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6.Suche in Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02342617.Suche in Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1996. Focus. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 271–298. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1111/b.9780631207498.1997.00013.xSuche in Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Saab, Andrés. 2017. Varieties of verbal doubling in Romance. Isogloss: A Journal on Variation of Romance and Iberian Languages 3(1). 1–42. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.43.Suche in Google Scholar
Samko, Bern. 2016. Syntax & information structure: The grammar of English inversions. UC Santa Cruz dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy. 2007. Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117(6). 1034–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.006.Suche in Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser, David Beaver & Craige Roberts. 2010. What projects and why. In Nan Li & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 20, 309–327. CLC Publications.10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584Suche in Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna & Terje Lohndal. 2017. Strong vs. weak islands. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to syntax, 2nd edn., 1–51. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom008Suche in Google Scholar
Trinh, Tue. 2009. A constraint on copy deletion. Theoretical Linguistics 35(2–3). 183–227. https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2009.011.Suche in Google Scholar
Urmson, James O. 1952. Parenthetical verbs. Mind LXI(244). 480–496. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/lxi.244.480.Suche in Google Scholar
Verdecchia, Matías. 2023. Islas fantasma y fallas presuposicionales. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Vicente, Luis. 2007. The syntax of heads and phrases: A study of verb (phrase) fronting. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Vicente, Luis. 2009. An alternative to remnant movement for partial predicate fronting. Syntax 12(2). 158–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00126.x.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Comparing syntactic and discourse accounts of islands and parasitic gaps: experimental evidence from acceptability judgments
- Clausal doubling produces phantom islands
- On reduced wh-questions in Dagara
- Passivization strategies under ECM: evidence from Spanish dialects
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Comparing syntactic and discourse accounts of islands and parasitic gaps: experimental evidence from acceptability judgments
- Clausal doubling produces phantom islands
- On reduced wh-questions in Dagara
- Passivization strategies under ECM: evidence from Spanish dialects
