Cover not available
Part of
Left Sentence Peripheries in Spanish: Diachronic, Variationist and Comparative Perspectives
Edited by Andreas Dufter and Álvaro S. Octavio de Toledo y Huerta
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 214] 2014
► pp. 253–282

Chapter 9. On the grammaticalization of the Assertion Structure

A view from Spanish

| University of Southern California
This paper argues that the standard and colloquial variety of Spanish pseudo-clefts provide support for the bi-clausal analysis of such constructions (Ross 1972, Schlenker 1998, 2003, den Dikken et al. 2000), and this transparently encodes the Assertion Structure of the sentence: the pre-copular clause encodes the presupposition and the post-copular clause the assertion, with the focused phrase contained within the latter. It is furthermore argued that the Caribbean Spanish bare-copular construction, in particular the Andean variety of the Bucaramanga dialect of Colombia (Méndez-Vallejo 2009), constitutes a more advanced stage of the bi-clausal grammaticalization of the Assertion Structure, with a reduced bi-clausal structure. Finally, it is suggested that standard Spanish monoclausal sentences with a sentence final focus in a non-canonical word order can be given an analysis that involves a variant of the reduced bi-clausal structure proposed for the Caribbean Spanish bare-copular construction.
Published online: 31 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.214.14zub
References (37)
References
Adger, David. 2007. Stress and phasal syntax. Linguistic Analysis 33(3–4): 238–266.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In The Structure of CP and IP [The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 2 ], Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 16–51. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio. 1999. On focus vs. wh-movement: The case of Caribbean Spanish. Sophia Linguistica 44–45: 1–32.Google Scholar
Camacho, José. 2006. In situ focus in Caribbean Spanish: Towards a unified account of focus. In Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium , 13–23. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2002. Against optional and null clitics. Right dislocation vs. marginalization. Studia Linguistica 56(1): 29–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2(4): 303–351.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language , Michael J. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida & Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam. 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik , Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 157–186. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. The syntax of time arguments. Lingua 117(2): 330–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel, Meinunger, André & Wilder, Chris. 2000. Pseudoclefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 54(1): 41–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drubig, Hans Bernhard. 1994. Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus [Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 “Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik” 51]. Tübingen: University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Fernández-Soriano, Olga. 2009. On the nature of covert operations: the case of focus in Spanish pseudo-clefts. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory: Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ Amsterdam 2007 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 1], Enoch O. Aboh, Elisabeth van der Linden, Josep Quer & Petra Sleeman (eds), 87–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin. 1997. Questions. In Handbook of Logic and Language , Jan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (eds), 1055–1124. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James & May, Robert. 1981. Questions, quantifiers and crossing. The Linguistic Review 1(1): 41–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Roger. 1976. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English . Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2009. The Syntax of Sentential Stress . Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 2007. Topic and Focus: Two structural positions associated with logical functions in the left-periphery of the Hungarian sentence. In Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6 [Working Papers of SFB 632], Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds), 69–81. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1995. A time relational analysis of Russian aspect. Language 71(4): 669–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The Generic Book , Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds), 125–175. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1991. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik [Linguistische Berichte Sonderhefte 4], Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 17–53. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In The Architecture of Focus , Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds), 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Méndez-Vallejo, Catalina. 2009. Focalizing SER (‘TO BE’) in Colombian Spanish. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Molnár, Valéria & Winkler, Susanne. 2010. Edges and gaps: contrast at the interfaces. Lingua 120(6): 1392–1415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco. 1997. Word Order and Clause Structure in Spanish and Other Romance Languages. PhD dissertation, CUNY.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the Left Periphery. In Elements of Grammar. Handbook of Generative Syntax , Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1972. Act. In Semantics of Natural Language , Donald Davidson & Gilbert Harman (eds), 10–126. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 1998. Pseudocleft connectivity and the structure of noun phrases. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
. 2003. Clausal equations (a note on the connectivity problem). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(1):157–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect . Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1993. The syntax of tense. Ms, UCLA.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 1990. Times as temporal argument structure. Paper presented at the conference “Time in Language”. Cambridge MA: MIT.
. 1995. Temporal argument structure: configurational elements of construal. In Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality . Vol. 1: Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives , Pier Marco Bertinetto, Valentino Bianchi, James Higginbotham & Mario Squartini (eds), 397–410. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
. 2013. Tense, aspect and modality. In The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax , Marcel den Dikken (ed.), 746–792. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Heidinger, Steffen
2022. Corpus Data and the Position of Information Focus in Spanish. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 15:1 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Vercauteren, Aleksandra
2018. European Portuguese focalizing SER ‘to be’. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 13 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, 13], ► pp. 297 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.