The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalisation

31 Pages·2004·0.1 MB·English

rof secneuqesnoc sti dna sesualc laibrevda fo xatnys ehT
* noitasilacipot
Liliane Haegeman, Université Charles de Gaulle – Lille III,
UMR 8258 Silex du CNRS, [email protected]
1. noitcudortnI
1.1. f omiA the paper
Based on data from English, the paper first argues that adverbial clauses are
not a homogenous group and that at least two types must be distinguished:
central adverbial clauses modify the proposition expressed by clause with
which they are related, and peripheral adverbial clauses provide background
propositions that are to be processed as the privileged discourse context for
the proposition expressed in the associated clause. These two types of clauses
differ in both external and internal syntax, and my claim will be that the left
periphery (in the sense of Rizzi 1997) of central adverbial clauses lacks the
projection of the functional head Force, responsible for speaker anchoring. The
second part of the paper takes a comparative perspective and explores the
consequences of this proposal for argument fronting. The analysis correctly
predicts that argument topicalisation in English is excluded in central adverbial
clauses. However, clitic left dislocation in Romance is possible in central
adverbial clauses in spite of the assumed absence of ForceP in their left
periphery. I will offer an account for the contrast exploring the role of Fin in
licensing topics.
1.2. Two types of adverbial clauses
The first part of this paper is concerned with the syntax of adverbial clauses. In
the recent syntax literature, adverbial clauses have often tended to be
discussed as one undifferentiated group with respect to syntactic properties
such as extraction, parasitic gap licensing etc 1 . Closer examination reveals that
they do not behave homogeneously and that, though adverbial clauses may
share some properties, sub-types can be distinguished. Basing the account on
English data, I distinguish between adverbial clauses whose semantic function
is to structure the event expressed in the associated clause and adverbial
clauses that structure the discourse. The latter type expresses propositions
that are to be processed as part of the discourse background for the
proposition expressed in the associated clause. For instance, adverbial
clauses introduced by the conjunction elihw either provide a temporal
specification of the event, as illustrated in (1a), or they provide a background
proposition which, combined with the proposition expressed by the associated
clause, will yield contextual implications and thus enhance the relevance of the
associated clause (in the sense of Sperber and Wilson (1986)), as illustrated in
(1b):
61
(1) a According to Smith, a group of Arkansas state troopers who
worked for Clinton while he was governor wanted to go public with
tales of Clinton’s womanising. ( Guardian , G2, 12.3.2, page 3, col
2-3)(event time: 'during the time that')
b While [Dr Williams’] support for women priests and gay
partnerships might label him as liberal, this would be a misleading
way of depicting his uncompromisingly orthodox espousal of
Christian belief. ( Guardian , 2.3.2, page 9, col 1-2) (background
assumption: 'whereas',) 2
Similarly, clauses introduced by the conditional conjunction fi either express a
condition for the realisation of the event expressed in the main clause (2a), or
they provide a proposition that serves as a background assumption which,
combined with the assertion of the associated clause, yields additional
inferences (2b).
(2) a. If your back-supporting muscles tire, you will be at increased risk
of lower-back pain ( Independent on Sunday, Sports , 14.10.1,
page 29, col 3) (event-condition)
b If we are so short of teachers (‘Jobs crisis grows as new term
looms’, August 30), why don’t we send our children to Germany to
be educated? (Letters to the editor, Eddie Catlin, Norwich,
Guardian , 31.8.1, page 9, col 5) (‘given that', background
assumption)
Table 1 classifies a number of English conjunctions with respect to the clause
type they introduce. Some conjunctions can embed clauses either of the two
readings; other conjunctions introduce adverbial clauses that have only one
reading: either they always modify the event ( before, after, until ) or they always
contribute to discourse structuring ( although, whereas, given that ). 3
Conjunction Central adverbial clause Peripheral adverbial clause
Event structure Discourse structure
Before etmnietvE
After etmnietvE
litnU etmnietvE
sA etmnietvE Rationale
ecniS etmnietvE Rationale
While etmnietvE Background assumption (Contrast)
When etmnietvE Background assumption (Contrast)
If Event-condition Background assumption/premise
s/oecs‘uaceB ‘Event-reason’ Argument/ reason
oS that Purpose Result
Whereas Background assumption (contrast)
Although Concession/contrast
Given that Background assumption/premise
62
Table 1: Typology of adverbial clauses in English
1.3. Organisation of the paper
The paper is organised as follows. In section 2 I provide further evidence for
the distinction between the two types of adverbial clauses, focusing on their
external syntax. To account for the observed contrasts, I propose that
peripheral adverbial clauses are syntactically less integrated with the
associated clause than central event-related adverbial clauses. Section 3
shows that there are also distinctions with respect to the internal syntax of the
two types, with peripheral adverbial clauses tolerating what have come to be
known as root or main clause phenomena (MCP). MCP are excluded from
central adverbial clauses. Section 4 accounts for this contrast by proposing that
the CP-domain of central adverbial clauses is structurally deficient and lacks
the functional heads encoding speaker-related functions (speech time,
epistemic modality, illocutionary force). MCP depend on the presence of Force.
Sections 5 and 6 move to comparative data. In English central adverbial
clauses, topicalisation of arguments is predicted to be banned because it
depends on the encoding of speaker. However, while argument topicalisation is
disallowed in English central adverbial clauses, it is possible in Romance. In
section 7 I speculate that the fronted arguments in the Romance languages
examined can be licensed by the head Fin, the lowest inflectional head of the
CP domain. Section 7 concludes the paper.
2. External syntax: degrees of integration
In this section I provide evidence for the distinction between adverbial clauses
which is introduced above and illustrated in examples (1) - (2). I relate the
contrast to the degree of syntactic integration of the adverbial clause with the
associated clause.
2.1. Co-ordination of likes
Typically, only adverbial clauses with parallel interpretations can be co-
ordinated: in (3a), both conditional clauses will be read as event-related central
conditionals and in (3b) they will both be read as discourse-related peripheral
conditionals. There is no way in which the conditional clauses in (3) could be
given distinct interpretations with the first being event-related and the second
discourse-related (or vice versa):
(3) a The party is also in danger of alienating older people above the
poverty line, Mr Cable argues. ‘Both these groups will swing to the
Conservatives if the Tories are smart enough and if ew evah
nothing much to offer them.’ ( Guardian , 11.2.2., page 6, col 5)
b tuB if Sir Richard has been tainted by the affair, and if rM
Sixsmith’s role may not have been as entirely well-intentioned as
he claims, the individual most damaged by the row remains
Stephen Byers. ( Guardian , 25.2.2, page 4, col 3)
63
2.2. Scope phenomena
Scopal properties distinguish the two adverbial clause types. Essentially,
central adverbial clauses can be within the scope of operators in the
associated clause 4 , while peripheral adverbial clauses are outside the scope of
such operators. This can be illustrated in a number of different ways, some of
which discussed below.
2.2.1. Temporal subordination
Central adverbial clauses are within the scope of temporal operators in the
associated clause, while peripheral adverbial clauses are not. This has been
pointed out in the literature. Hornstein (1993), for instance, discusses temporal
dependency as a property of what I have labelled central adverbial clauses.
temporal adjuncts headed by temporal connectives such as ,nehw,elihw
after , before, as, until, and ecnis interact with the tense of the matrix
clause . … There are rather specific tense-concord restrictions that
obtain between the tense of the matrix clause and the tense of the
modifying clause. These restrictions can be largely accounted for
structurally in terms of the C[onstraint] on D[erived] T[ense] S[tructures]
and the rule that combines these clauses into complex tense structures.
(Hornstein 1993: 43)
Concerning what I have labelled peripheral adverbial clauses Hornstein says:
There is a secondary conjunctive interpretation that all these
connectives ( as, while, when ) shade into. They get an interpretation
similar to and in these contexts. And is not a temporal connective, and
these conjunctive interpretations do not tell against the theory [of
temporal subordination and complex tense structures] Hornstein (206:
note 19)
Hornstein's 'secondary conjunctive interpretation' corresponds to my discourse-
related interpretation. Note though that it would not be correct to treat
discourse-related adverbial clauses simply in terms of co-ordination. I will
illustrate this for contrastive elihw clauses. It is true that contrastive elihw is
semantically close to a co-ordinating conjunction, as shown by (4), in which
elihw can be replaced by but or by and :
(4) a John does a Ph.D in Oxford while he did his first degree in
Cambridge.
a' John does a Ph.D in Oxford and/but he did his first degree in
Cambridge.
b John reads the Guardian while Mary r eads the Times.
b' John reads the Guardian and/ but Mary reads the Times.
64
However, contrastive elihw clauses do not share all the properties of co-
ordinated clauses. Ellipsis of the subject of the second co-ordinated clause is
possible in (5a) but in an adverbial clause introduced by contrastive elihw the
subject cannot be ellipted (5b): 5
(5) a John does a Ph.D. in Oxford but did his first degree in Cambridge.
b *John does a Ph.D. in Oxford while did his first degree in
Cambridge.
Gapping is possible with co-ordinated clauses but not in constructions with a
contrastive elihw clause:
(6) a John reads the Guardian and Mary the Times.
b *?John reads the Guardian while Mary the Times.
With respect to conditional clauses, Declerck and Reed (2001) distinguish two
types. The first, labelled the present perspective type, is said to be 'temporally
subordinated' to the matrix clause, the second which they label the future
perspective type is not temporally subordinated. A clause is temporally
subordinated when the interpretation of its tense forms depends on that of the
associated clause. Interestingly, Declerck and Reed relate the difference in
temporal relations to a difference in illocutionary force, a point to which I return.
When the Present Perspective System is used in the [conditional] sub-
clause [i.e. with temporal subordination, lh (2a)], the speaker makes a
single (but complex) prediction : she presents the contents of the two
clauses as forming a unit. […] when the Future Perspective metsyS
[without temporal subordination lh] is used in both clauses [conditional
and associated clause, lh, (2b,7a,b below)], eht rekaeps sekam owt
independent predictions: there are, as it were , two illocutionary speech
acts . (Declerck & Reed 2001: 131):
Temporally subordinated conditional clauses such as those in (2a) are central
conditionals. In such adverbial clauses a present tense is interpreted with
future reading when it is within the scope of a matrix future time expression. In
peripheral conditional clauses tense interpretation is independent: the tense of
the associated clause does not affect the interpretation of that of the adverbial
clause. For conditionals, the non-subordinated pattern is illustrated in (2b)
above, in which the present tense in the subordinate clause refers to a present
time, and it is also illustrated also in (7a) in which future time is expressed
independently in the adverbial clause. (7b) illustrates independent temporal
expression in discourse-related elihw clauses.
(7) a If I’m no longer going to be arrested for possessing cannabis for
ym nwo noitpmusnoc ('Cannabis laws eased in drugs policy
shake-up', October 24), shouldn’t I be able to grow my own?
(Jason Cundy, Letter to the editor Guardian , 25.11.1, page 9, col.
8)
65
b The French president, Jacques Chirac will tell George Bush in
Washington today that while France will continue to back the
military campaign in Afghanistan , the search for a political
framework for the country’s future must be intensified. ( Guardian ,
19.11.1, page 4, col 3)
Observe, though, that it cannot be argued that peripheral adverbial clauses
must never be temporally subordinated and that they are somehow
syntactically completely unattached (a claim I had made in my earlier work
(Haegeman 1991)). Peripheral adverbial clauses may be temporally
subordinated when together with the associated clause, they are embedded
under a higher verb:
(8) The EOC -commissioned research found that while girls erew
aware of discrimination, less than 40 per cent of 15 and 16 year
olds thought girls and boys were treated the same in the family.
( Observer , 28.10.1, page 9, col 2)
The past tense of were in the contrastive elihw clause in (8) is not triggered by
the impact of the past tense of thought in the associated clause, but rather both
the past tense of were and that of thought are the result of the embedding the
two containing clauses under the higher past tense verb found .
2.2.2. Adjunct scope
As expected, in addition to tense, other adverbial operators may also have
scope over central adverbial clauses but they do not scope over peripheral
adverbial clauses. In (9a,b), the frequency adverbs always and usually scope
over the central adverbial clauses. In (9c) on the other hand, the frequency
tcnujda often in the matrix clause does not scope over the peripheral adverbial
elihw clause, with its own independent adverb of frequency ( always ):
(9) a I always get home before the programme starts.
b ‘When a woman says she wants to go out and get a job, ‘ [Oliver
Reed] once remarked, ‘it usually means she’s hopelessly behind
with the ironing.’( Observer , 10.3.2, p 32, col 1)
c While Mary always drives to school, John often goes by bike.
2.2.3. Negation
Main clause negation may scope over central adverbial clauses, but peripheral
adverbial clauses cannot fall within the scope of a negative operator in an
associated clause, as illustrated by the contrast between (10a,b) and (10c):
(10) a He doesn’t drink while he is driving.
b He never drinks while he is driving.
c My husband doesn't smoke cigarettes, while he does occasionally
smoke a cigar.
66
In (10a) and (10b) the negation can be said to range over a complex event: 'he
does not drink-drive'. In (10c) two propositions are interpreted in parallel, only
one of these is negated.
67
2.2.4. Focus (cleft/ only )
As illustrated by the clefting in (11), a focus operator in the matrix clause may
select the central adverbial clause (11a,b); a focus operator in the associated
clause cannot range over the peripheral adverbial clause (11c).
(11) a It is after I left that I realised he was my former teacher.
b It’s only while [time] you’re alive that human selfishness, or
whatever, is held against you ( Independent on Sunday, Review
14.10.1, page 9, col 1)
c *It is while ym rehtom saw a efiwesuoh taht ym rehtaf desuot
work in a brickyard.
2.2.5. Interrogative scope
As is to be expected by now, an interrogative operator in the matrix clause may
target a central adverbial clause (12a,b), though not the peripheral adverbial
clause (12c,d):
(12) a Do you ever read Belgian newspapers while you are abroad?
b While you are abroad, do you ever read Belgian newspapers?
c While Bush is clearly delighted to have Blair as an extra
ambassador for his policies at the moment, somebody to get on
those dangerous aeroplanes and rush around the Middle East
chatting up guys with difficult names in order to strengthen
America’s position, what kind of influence do we really imagine
Blair has on Bushes foreign policy? ( Independent , tnemmoC
1.11.1, page 5, col 3)
2.3. Prosody & orthography
Peripheral adverbial clauses are typically prosodically set off from the
associated clause by comma intonation, usually signalled by a comma in
writing. Sometimes, however, the peripheral adverbial clause is typographically
set off as if it were an independent clause. Some attested examples of this
practice are given in (13):
(13) a Today the party’s Treasury spokesman, Matthew Taylor, will
commit the Liberal Democrats to entering the next election with a
promise to pump more money into the NHS, possibly with a
special health tax. While an emergency debate this weekend is
likely to reaffirm Liberal Democrat scepticism about British
involvement in a war with Iraq. ( Independent , 9.3.2, page 8, col 8)
b Maybe Tyson should redirect his energies towards a sport less
likely to bring out his violent side. Figure skating for example, or
synchronised swimming. Because this week’s ugly scenes
probably won’t be the last and every time the moral commentators
become even more outraged: these boxers – they are behaving in
68
a violent and aggressive manner! ( Guardian , 26.1.2, page 8, col
3)
Based on the scope facts discussed in section 2.2, as well as the
prosodic/orthographic separation of the peripheral adverbial clauses, I have
elaborated an account (Haegeman 1984a,b,c,d, 1991) according to which
central adverbial clauses and peripheral adverbial clauses differ in their
external syntax, more precisely in the level and degree of integration with the
associated clause. Central adverbial clauses are adjoined to VP or to IP and
are part of the main clause; peripheral adverbial clauses are adjoined to CP,
hence their connection with the associated clause is much looser. My proposal
thus differs from the conclusions drawn by Declerck and Reed, who deny there
is a syntactic contrast:
a subordinate clause is a syntactically dependent clause. Such
questions as the scope of negation, focusing, modality, etc. in the head
clause are immaterial to this, as they pertain, not to syntactic, but to
semantic integration (Declerck and Reed 2001: 37-8)
Further evidence for the proposed syntactic distinction in terms of degrees of
embedding/syntactic integration is given in the next sections.
2.4. VP ellipsis and strict/sloppy identity
The data in (14) show that central adverbial clauses may be affected by VP-
ellipsis and that when such adverbial clauses contain a pronoun, VP-ellipsis
may lead to a so-called sloppy identity reading. Thus in (14a) l ll iloBisw yameb
interpreted as in (14b) or as in (14c), the latter illustrating the sloppy identity
reading:
(14) a John will leave the meeting before his paper is discussed and so
i i
will Bill.
b (i) Bill will also leave the meeting before John s’ paper is
i
discussed.
c (ii) Bill will also leave the meeting before his paper is discussed.
j j
A temporal elihw clause may also be affected by VP-ellipsis and a sloppy
identity reading may arise:
(15) a John works most efficiently while his children are at school and
i i
so does Bill.
b Bill also works most efficiently while John’s children are at school.
c Bill also works most efficiently while his children are at school.
j j
On the other hand, contrastive elihw clauses, which I take to be peripheral, are
not affected by VP-ellipsis and VP-ellipsis does not lead to sloppy readings.
(16a) has the interpretation paraphrased in (16b) and there is no way in which
one will assign a sloppy identity interpretation to the pronoun sih dnaemussa
that James's wife is also unemployed. My analysis predicts this difference. In
69
(16a) the peripheral adjunct clause is attached outside the VP of the
associated clause, hence VP-ellipsis cannot affect the adverbial clause.
(16) a While his wife is unemployed, John has a high-powered job in the
i i
city and so does James .
j
b semaJ also has a high powered job in the city.
j
2.5. Parasitic gaps
Central adverbial clauses allow for parasitic gaps bound by operators in the
associated clause (17); parasitic gaps in peripheral adverbial clauses are
somewhat degraded: 6
(17) a John is the guy they said they’ll hire [ ˘ ] - if I publicly criticise [ ˘ ] -
in order to get me to praise [ ˘ ] (Nissenbaum 2000)
b He is a man who if you know [ ˘ ] you will love [ ˘ ] (Jespersen
1931: 202)
(18) a This is the paper which I memorised [ ˘ ] while I was copying [ ˘ ].
b ?This is the paper which I myself enjoyed [ ˘ ] yrev ,hcum
while/whereas you will probably dislike [ ˘ ].(cf. Postal 2001: 299
ff))
The contrast follows from an account that assumes that peripheral adverbial
clauses are not fully integrated with the associated clause. If the parasitic gap
phenomenon depends on a kind of semantic composition between the
adverbial clause containing the PG and the matrix clause containing the
operator and the 'real gap' (Nissenbaum 2000, chapter 3), it is reasonable to
propose that this complex predicate formation is subject to constraints of
locality. The syntactic independence of peripheral adverbial clauses entails
that they lack the required local relation with the associated clause, rendering
the formation of a complex predicate (and hence the existence of PG)
impossible. On the other hand, being near-coordinate, ATB extractions may be
expected to be marginally possible in peripheral adverbial clauses.
The contrast between the type of adverbial clauses can also be detected to
some extent in simple extraction. While extraction out of adjunct clauses is
generally somewhat degraded (see Sabel 2002 for a recent discussion and for
references), argument extraction out of a central adverbial clause of the event-
related type is marginally acceptable, with the effect of a weak subjacency
violation. Data such as (19) are occasionally found (cf. Haegeman 1987)
(19) a the details and the whole, which an ar tist cannot be great unless
he reconciles (Ru, Sel. 1.175, Jespersen, 1931: 202)
b a stranger, from that remote and barbarian Isle which the Imperial
Roman shivered when he named, paused.(Lytton, Pomp , v, ch
xi,153b, Poutsma 1926: 645)
70