Cover not available
Part of
Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti
Edited by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona Matteini
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 223] 2015
► pp. 209–236

A case of focal adverb preposing in French

This article is about a specific case of focal adverb preposing in French, i.e. preposing of the adverb ainsi ‘in this way’, which is necessarily followed by subject inversion, resulting in the word order [focal ainsi – V – S]. This construction appears in a very specific discourse context and, just as other cross-linguistic types of focus preposing, is the result of the movement of this adverb to a focus projection in the left periphery. I show that this correctly predicts the construction to be a main clause phenomenon and provide a syntactic analysis in terms of Relativized Minimality.
Keywords: Focus preposing, Focus projection, left periphery, main clause phenomenon, Relativized Minimality, subject inversion
Published online: 27 August 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.223.10lah
References (106)
References
Abels, Klaus. 2012. The Italian Left Periphery: A view from locality. Linguistic Inquiry 43(2): 229–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, Anne, Godard, Danièle & Sabio, Frédéric. 2008. Two types of NP preposing in French. In The Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stefan Müller (ed.), 306–324. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2009. The dramatic extraction construction in spoken French. Bucharest working papers in Linguistics 11(1): 135–148.Google Scholar
Authier, Jean-Marc. 2011. A movement analysis of French modal ellipsis. Probus 23: 175–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Authier, Jean-Marc & Haegeman, Liliane. 2014a. French adverbial clauses. Rescue by ellipsis and the truncation versus intervention debate. Probus. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. No such thing as ‘parameterized structural deficiency in the left periphery’. In Language Use and Linguistic Structure, Joseph Emonds & Markéta Janebová (eds), 33–46. Olomouc: Palacký University Press.Google Scholar
Aelbrecht, Lobke, Haegeman, Liliane & Nye, Rachel (eds). 2012. Main Clause Phenomena. New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar. 2001. On inversion in wh-questions in Romance. In Romance Inversion, Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves. Pollock (eds), 2–59. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2001. ‘Inversion’ as focalization. In Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 60–90. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Aspects of the Low IP Area. In The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 16–51. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The CP of clefts. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 33: 191–204.Google Scholar
. 2009. Structures and Strategies. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2011. Focus and the predicate of clefts. Paper presented at GIST3: Cartographic Structures and Beyond workshop at Ghent University.
. 2012. Focusing on clefts. Paper presented at the Workshop Cleft Sentences in Romance and Germanic, Going Romance, Leuven, December.
. 2013. On fin: Italian che, Japanese no, and the selective properties of the copula in clefts. In Deep Insights, Broad Perspectives. Essays in Honor of Mamooru Saito, Yoichi Miyamoto, Daiko Takahashi, Hideki Maki, Masao Ochi, Koji Sugisaki & Asako Uchibori (eds), 42–55. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
. 2014. The Focus map of clefts: Extraposition and Predication. To appear in Beyond Functional Sequence, Ur Shlonsky (ed.). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 2001. L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. 1, Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi & Anna Cardinaletti (eds) 129–208. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2004. Resumptive relatives and LF chains. In The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 76–114. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2013. On Focus movement in Italian. In Information Structure and Agreement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 197], Victoria Camacho-Taboada, Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández, Javier Martín-González and Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds), 194–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2006. Les clivées françaises de type : C’est comme ça que, C’est pour ça que, c’est là que tout a commencé. Moderna Språk 100(2): 273–287.Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano. 2007. Criterial positions and left periphery in Italian. Evidence for the syntactic encoding of contrastive focus. Nanzan Linguistics 3(1): 35–70. Special issue.Google Scholar
. 2013. The Syntax–Prosody Interface: A Cartographic Perspective with Evidence from Italian [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 204]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cédric & Jeong, Youngmi. 2004. The fine structure of intervention in syntax. In Issues in Current Linguistic Theory: A Festschrift for Hong Bae Lee, Chungja Kwon & Wonbin Lee (eds), 83–116. Seoul: Kyungchin.Google Scholar
Camacho-Taboada, Victoria & Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. 2014. Focus fronting and root phenomena in Spanish and English. In Language Use and Linguistic Structure, Joseph Emonds & Markéta Janebová (eds), 41–60. Olomouc: Palacký University Press.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2010. On a (wh-)moved topic in Italian, compared to Germanic. In Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 141], Artemis Alexiadou, Jorge Hankamer, T. McFadden, J. Nuger & Florian Schaeffer (eds), 3–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A–bar Dependencies. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clech-Darbon, Anne, Rialland, Annie & Rebuschi, Georges. 1999. Are there cleft sentences in French? In The Grammar of Focus [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 24], Lauri Tuller & Georges Rebuschi (eds), 83–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2010. Syntactic extraposition and clitic resumption in Italian. Lingua 120: 50–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections [Oxford Comparative Studies in Syntax). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Robert, Levine D. 2001. Stylistic inversion in English: A reconsideration. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 283–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cat, Cécile. 2012. Towards an interface definition of root phenomena. In Main Clause Phenomena. New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 135–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth, Jenny Doetjes & Sleeman, Petra. 2004. Dislocation. In Handbook of French semantics, Francis Corblin & Henriëtte de Swart (eds), 505–530. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joe. 1970. Root and Structure-preserving Transformations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
. 2004. Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. In Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and their Effects, David Adger, Cécile de Cat & Georges Tsoulas (eds), 75–121. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria & Leonetti, Manuel. 2009. Fronting and irony in Spanish. In Focus and Background in Romance Languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 214], Andreas Dufter & Jacob Daniel (eds), 155–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flament-Boistrancourt, Danièle. 1999. Quelques aspects d’ainsi et aussi consécutifs à la lumière d’un point de vue de non-francophone. Le Gré des Langues 15: 142–180.Google Scholar
Floricic, Franck. 2009. Negation and ‘focus clash’ in Sardinian. In Information Structure and its Interfaces, Lunella Mereu (ed.), 129–152. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Ramaglia, Francesca. 2009. Pseudo cleft constructions at the interfaces. <[URL]>
. 2013. (Pseudo)clefts at the syntax-prosody-discourse interface. In Cleft Structures [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 208], Katharina Hartmann & Tonje Veenstra (eds), 97–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, Naama, Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi. 2009. Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119: 67–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Giorgia. M. 1976. Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Language 52: 382–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guimier, Claude. 1997. La place du sujet clitique dans les énoncés avec adverbe initial. In La place du sujet en français contemporain, Catherine Fuchs (ed), 43–96. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1996. Negative inversion, the NEG-criterion, and the structure of CP. GenGenP 4.2: 93–119.Google Scholar
. 2000. Inversion, non-adjacent inversion and adjuncts in CP. Transactions of the Philological Society 98: 121–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003a. Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind and Language18: 317–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003b. Notes on long adverbial fronting in English and the Left Periphery. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 640–649. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006a. Argument Fronting in English, Romance CLLD and the Left Periphery. In Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture: Cross-linguistic Investigations, Raffaella Zanuttini, Hector Campos, Elena Herburger & Paul Portner (eds), 27–52. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–1669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The movement derivation of conditional clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4): 595–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 8. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, Meinunger, André & Vercauteren, Aleksandra. 2013. The architecture of it-clefts. Journal of Linguistics 50 (2): 269–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, Meinunger, André & Aleksandra Vercauteren. 2014. Against the matrix left peripheral analysis of English it-clefts. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2012 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 6], Karen Lahousse & Stefania Marzo (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Haegeman, Liliane & Ürögdi, Barbara. 2010a. Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement account. Theoretical Linguistics 36: 111–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. Operator movement, referentiality and intervention. Theoretical Linguistics 36: 233–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heggie, Lorrie. 1988. The Syntax of Copular Structures. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southern California.
Heycock, Caroline. 2006. Embedded root phenomena. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol II, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 174–209. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4): 465–497.Google Scholar
Hybertie, Charlotte. 1996. La conséquence en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Angel. 2010. Discourse-agreement features, phasal C and the edge: A minimalist approach. Diacrítica – Language Sciences Series 24(1): 25–49.Google Scholar
. 2013. Microvariation at the IS-syntax interface: The case of focus fronting. Workshop on syntactic variation, Barcelona, June 26–28.
Jonare, Brigitta. 1976. L’inversion dans la principale non-interogative en français contemporain. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena. 2013. L’adverbe ainsi en tête de phrase: Une analyse de corpus. MA thesis, KU Leuven. DOI logo
Karssenberg, Lena & Lahousse, Karen. 2014. Ainsi en tête de phrase + inversion: Une analyse de corpus [Actes du 4e Congrès Mondial de la Linguistique française]. SHS Web of Conferences 8: 2413–2427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1972. Subject inversion in French interrogatives. In Generative Studies in Romance Languages, Jean Casagrande & Bohdan Saciuk (eds), 70–126. Rowley MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard & Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1978. Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity, and move NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 595–621.Google Scholar
Kerleroux, Françoise & Marandin, Jean-Marie. 2001. L’ordre des mots. In Cahier Jean-Claude Milner, Jean-Marie Marandin (ed.), 277–302. Paris: Verdier.Google Scholar
E. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus informational focus. Language 74: 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lahousse, Karen. 2006. NP subject inversion in French: Two types, two configurations. Lingua 116: 424–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Information structure and epistemic modality in adverbial clauses in French. Studies in Language 34: 298–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Quand passent les cigognes. Le sujet nominal postverbal en français moderne. Paris: PUV.Google Scholar
. 2014. Low sentence structure in (DP subject inversion in) French. Talk presented at GLOW, Brussels, 4 April 2014.
Lahousse, Karen, Laenzlinger, Christopher & Soare Gabriela. 2014. Contrast and intervention at the periphery. Lingua 143: 56–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Le Bidois, Robert 1952. L’Inversion du sujet dans la prose contemporaine (1900–1950). Paris: Artrey. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Le Goffic, Pierre. 1997. Forme et place du sujet dans l’interrogation partielle. In La place du sujet en français contemporain, Catherine Fuchs (ed.), 15–42. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel & Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2009. Fronting and verum focus in Spanish. In Focus and Background in Romance Languages, Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 155–204. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lutz, Uli, Müller, Gereon & von Stechow, Arnim (eds). 2000. Wh-Scope Marking [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 37]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maki, Hideki, Kaiser, Lizanne & Ochi, Masao. 1999. Embedded topicalization in English and Japanese. Lingua 109: 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, Dana. 1989. Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 7: 565–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meinunger, André, 1996. Speculations on the syntax of (pseudo-)clefts. Ms, Berlin, ZAS.
Molinier, Christian. 2013. Ainsi: Deux emplois complémentaires d’un adverbe type. In Adverbes et compléments adverbiaux/Adverbs and Adverbial Complements [Special issue of Lingvisticae Investigationes 36(2)], Jan Radimský & Ignazio Mauro Mirto (eds), 311–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molnár, Valeria. 2002. Contrast in a contrastive perspective. In Information Structure in a Cross-linguistic Perspective, Hilde Hasselgård, Stig K.A. Johansson, Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds), 147–161. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David, 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The Representation of (In)definiteness, Eric Reuland & Alice ter Meulen (eds), 98–129. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reeve, Matthew. 2011. The syntactic structure of English Clefts. Lingua 121: 142–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Clefts and their Relatives [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 185]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 289–330. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. On the position of interrogative in the Left Periphery of the clause. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays Offered toLorenzo Renzi, Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds), 287–296. Oxford: North-Holland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 223–251. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2010. Some consequences of criterial freezing. In Functional Structure from Top to Toe, Peter Svenonius (ed.), 19–45. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur. 2006. Satisfying the subject criterion by a nonsubject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 341–362. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1975. Les phrases copulatives en français. Recherches Linguistiques 3: 143–191.Google Scholar
Sabio, Frédéric. 1995. Micro-syntaxe et macro-syntaxe: L’exemple des “compléments antéposés” en français. Recherches sur le Français Parlé 13: 111–155.Google Scholar
. 2006. L’antéposition des compléments en français contemporain: L’exemple des objets directs. Linguisticae Investigationes 29: 173–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sleeman, Petra. 2011. Quantifier–focalization in French and Italian. Handout presented at department of linguistics, KU Leuven.
Starke, Michal. 2001. Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université de Genève.
Togeby, Knud. 1982–1985. Grammaire française. Copenhague: Akademisk Vorlag.Google Scholar
Torregrossa, Jacopo. 2012. Towards a taxonomy of focus types: The case of information foci and contrastive foci in Italian. In UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers in Semantics, Denis Paperno (ed.), 151–172. Los Angeles CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Uribe-Etxebarria, Miriam. 1991. On the structural positions of the subject in Spanish, their nature and their consequences from quantification. In Syntactic Theory and Basque Syntax, Joseba A. Lakarra & Jon Ortiz de (eds), 447–493. San Sebastián: ASJU.Google Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2008. So-inversion as polarity focus. In Proceedings of the 38th Western Conference on Linguistics, Michael Grosvald & Dianne Soares (eds), 304–317. Fresno CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1984. Prépositions orphelines et pronoms nuls. Recherches linguistiques 12: 46–91.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Lahousse, Karen
2022. Is focus a root phenomenon?. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Wolfe, Sam
2022. Microvariation and Change in the Romance Left Periphery. Probus 34:1 ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.