Emphatic Topicalization and the Structure of the Left Periphery: Evidence from German and Bangla

Abstract

The goal of this article is to explore the structure of the clausal “left periphery” with respect to a phenomenon that has so far only rarely been identified as a root‐clause phenomenon: emphatic topicalization (ET). It is a form of movement by which a phrase (not necessarily a wh‐phrase) targets the specifier of a complementizer. This movement prevents the CP complement from remaining in its embedded position. For convergence, the entire CP in which ET has applied must move to the left periphery of the clause that immediately dominates it. It is argued that this latter move is necessary because ET induces a feature that is only interpretable in the domain of illocutionary force, illocutionary force being a property of the utterance (i.e., typically of the root clause). The data come from the Bavarian dialect of German (Germanic) and from Bangla (Indo‐Aryan). In spite of the differences between these languages, the similarity of the constraints that are revealed by this study cannot be accidental. For Bangla, a typical wh‐in‐situ language, it is shown that the syntax of ET scope is to a large extent parallel to the syntax of wh‐scope. Thus, the syntax of wh‐scope can be argued to follow from general properties of the parametric choices made in Bangla (and perhaps in closely related languages).

Evidentials are syntax-sensitive: The view from Bangla

“…Apart from naki, several other particles are banned from appearing in the clause-initial position. Bayer & Dasgupta (2016) demonstrate this ban for discourse particles such as ki (polar question marker), ba ('or'), to ('of course'/emphasis marker) and je (clause-initial complementizer). These can appear in many other positions, but not in the clause-initial position.…”

“…Other examples of such clitic-like elements provided below are slightly modified from Bayer & Dasgupta (2016): 11a. kothay-i ba ge-che Dilip?…”

“…Abstracting away from the technical details provided in these works, the general idea is that all of these elements banned from the clause-initial position in the language have "enclitic"-like properties 4 (cf. Faller 2002;Bayer & Dasgupta 2016). I assume that this property is enforced via the presence of an edge feature (Chomsky 2008).…”

Recomplementation in English and Spanish: Delineating the CP space

“…(55) (Tim Vickery, BBC Radio 5) I wonder if, given time, if Ramírez can fulfil that sort of role for the club. 26 Note that a seeming problem for the TopicP analysis of recomplementation according to which the specifier position of TopicP houses the flanked element is that the specifier and the head are normally separated from each other by an intonational break (Bayer & Dasgupta 2016;Radford 2018). This could be taken as evidence militating against such an analysis, and instead argue for an account wherein the two elements at stake occupy different projections (e.g., the specifier of TopicP and the head of FinitenessP, respectively).…”

A New Outlook of Complementizers

“…*Dean knows/realizes/regrets vegetables that Lily doesn't eat A reviewer mentions that in contexts known as "emphatic topicalization" (ET) non-wh XPs can move to the left of the complementizer in languages/dialects such as Southern German and Bangla [46], a sequence that should be ruled out by (7). It is further noted, however, that when ET occurs in these languages, it further triggers movement of the topicalized CP to the front of the clause that immediately dominates it for convergence; in other words, the examples such as (15) are allowed neither in English nor Southern German and Bangla.…”