English/spanish discourse properties: the identification of A/A'-positions

The present study focuses on the comparison of the nature of discourse constituents and their positions in the sentence in English and Spanish, within a generative approach to language. Specifically, we demonstrate that discourse elements behave in a different way and have a different location in English and Spanish. In this connection, the main body of the study is organized as follows. Chapter 0 introduces the main points to be dealt with throughout our dissertation. In Chapter 1, we examine the nature and behaviour of topics and foci, two key concepts in discourse analysis and information structure. As we will see, in order to understand the role of topicalised and focused elements in a particular language we have to take into account the specific characteristics of that language. Furthermore, we introduce Chomsky?s (2001) Phase Impenetrability Condition since discourse constituents move cyclically and through different phases. Chapter 2 discusses the syntax of discourse functions. Here, we show evidence that topics and foci move to a higher position in the sentence, i.e. they are not base-generated. In fact, it is conventionally accepted that English Topicalisation and Focalisation involve movement rather than base-generation. However, the analysis of discourse phenomena in Spanish has been much more controversial. We try to clarify such a controversy in this second chapter. Regarding Chapter 3, it concentrates on the difference between A-movement and A?-movement, argumental and non-argumental movement. We see how the properties of a movement determine whether it is argumental or non-argumental. In this sense, languages vary with respect to the systematic properties of syntactic reordering. So, discourse movement in Spanish is of an A-nature. Dealing with English, the specifier of Tense Phrase (TP) is not an available landing site for discourse constituents, that is, foci and topics have to move to the Complementiser Phrase (CP). Therefore, discourse movement in English is of an A?-nature. Likewise, in Chapter 4 we analyse the differences between English and Spanish with respect to the application of the operations of Topicalisation and Focalisation in main clauses and its possible extension to subordinate contexts, bearing in mind the distinction assumed here between factive and non-factive clauses (Hooper & Thompson 1973). We propose that discourse movement implies different landing-sites in English and Spanish. Consequently, both languages interact with factivity and assertedness in a different way. To be more precise, discourse movement is more constrained in English factive clauses than in Spanish ones. This restriction is due to intervention effects and the distinct syntactic positions used in each language. To test the relation between Topicalisation/Focalisation and factivity in English, a series of written dialogues were administered to ten English native speakers. Similarly, to test the relation between Topicalisation/Focalisation and factivity in Spanish, a series of written dialogues were presented to ten Spanish native speakers. All these informants have studied English Philology at the University of Seville and hence a relatively good knowledge of language is presupposed. The experimental results provide evidence that factive clauses resist topic or focus fronting in English while remaining compatible with discourse movement in Spanish. This asymmetry follows from intervention. In particular, in English the priority is that the subject receives nominative case in [Spec, T]. Thus, the specifier of TP is not an available landing site for discourse constituents, that is, topics and foci have to move to CP since focus features are not lowered from C to T. However, as we have just seen, on their way to CP, focused and topicalised constituents would have to move across a factive operator. Such a movement would cause intervention. Hence, discourse movement in English factive clauses is illicit. In addition, we can see that English Focalisation and Topicalisation are compatible with only some non-factive verbs. We will suggest that the complement of non-factive predicates may be asserted or non-asserted. In this way, the absence of assertion would explain why non-factive verbs are incompatible with focus or topic fronting. On the contrary, in Spanish since the subject agrees with the verb and does not undergo movement to TP, discourse elements can move freely into the specifier of such a projection. In this way, the factive operator is higher up and discourse constituents do not have to move across it. Therefore, we claim that CLLD and Focalisation are possible in Spanish factive clauses since these discourse constituents do not create intervention effects and the resulting sentence would be grammatical. However, the test shows that Focalisation is more restricted than CLLD in Spanish factive clauses. In this regard, factive and non-factive predicates may be asserted or non-asserted. The absence of assertion would explain why in some cases these verbs may not be compatible with Spanish Focalisation. Finally, Chapter 5 concludes the dissertation. REFERENCES Chomsky, N. (1999) ?Derivation by Phase?, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18. [Reprinted in M. Kenstowicz (ed.) (2001) Ken Hale. A Life in Language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1-52]. Hooper J.B. & S.A. Thompson (1973) ?On the Applicability of Root Transformations?, Linguistic Inquiry 4, 465-497.