Eliminating constructions: the case of dislocation
A central goal of Generative Grammar ever since its inception (and crucially emphasized by the
Minimalist Program) has been to eliminate the notion of “construction,” by deducing properties
of surface forms from general principles of I-language (Chomsky 1981 et seq.). While this
approach has been successful for a wide range of empirical phenomena, some have so far resisted
reduction. Dislocation constructions, albeit amply studied, are a particularly recalcitrant case in
point: extant analyses postulate rather idiosyncratic derivations with little independent
plausibility, and a low degree of explanatory adequacy. In this talk, I show that Germanic-style
dislocation can be fully derived from basic and independently motivated mechanisms.
In Backgrounding Right-dislocation (BRD, (1)), a prosodically backgrounded XP expressing
discourse-old information appears at the right periphery of a clause containing a pronominal
correlate. In Contrastive Left-dilocation (CLD, (2)), a contrastive XP appears to the left of a
complete clause containing a coreferent demonstrative pronoun. BRD and CLD pose essentially
the same theoretical problem: in both constructions, the dislocated XP is optional/additional, and
in this sense extra-sentential (cf. the V3 order in (2)); at the same time, it shows connectivity into
the matrix clause (cf. binding in (3), (4); see Vat 1981, a.o.), hence inner-sentential properties.
To provide a principled explanation for their seemingly paradoxical status, I propose that
dislocated XPs are peripheral fragments, i.e. CPs reduced by IP-ellipsis (IPE), underlyingly
parallel to the matrix clause (modulo the dislocated XP and its correlate). To illustrate, (1) and (2)
are analyzed as shown in (1') and (2'), where “< … >” indicates elided material.
IPE-derived CP fragments have been shown to underlie sluicing (Ross 1969, Merchant 2001),
matrix/embedded fragment answers (Merchant 2004, Temmerman to appear), etc. (see also van
Craenenbroeck & Lipták 2006, Arregi 2010). An immediate prediction, which I show to be borne
out, is thus that BRD/CLD should conform to Merchant's (2001) form-identity generalizations
(see (5), (6)). Case identity between a dislocated XP and its correlate (as in (1), (2)) follows
straightforwardly from the parallelism of the two clauses (exactly as in sluicing/fragment
answers; see (1'), (2')). As for (6), we find that a preposition in a dislocated XP with a PP
correlate in the matrix must be retained in a non-P-stranding language like German (see (7a),
(8a)), but not in a P-stranding language like Norwegian or Icelandic (see (7b), (8b)), where the
preposition can be stranded in the ellipsis site (see (7b')). The fact that such form-identity effects
obtain in BRD/CLD is thus naturally accounted for. By the same token, the fragment analysis
predicts connectivity: the dislocated XP reconstructs in the standard way; however, it reconstructs
not within the matrix clause (where its position is occupied by the correlate), but internally to the
parallel elliptical clause, as illustrated in (3'), (4'). Inner-sentential properties of dislocated XPs
thus follow from parallelism of the two clauses.
As I demonstrate, there are various further parallels between BRD/CLD and other IPE-derived
fragments, such as a clause-mate condition on multiple BRD (cf. Sauerland 1999), the
impossibility of voice mismatches, and the possibility of both backward and forward ellipsis in
CLD (the latter illustrated in (9)/(9'), where the demonstrative resumes a proposition given in
preceding discourse). Finally, I show that both BRD and CLD exhibit island-repair by IPE
(documented for sluicing by Merchant 2001 and Lasnik 2001); taking this factor into account
resolves apparent locality paradoxes observed for CLD by Frey (2004) and Grewendorf (2008).
Analyzing dislocated XPs as peripheral fragments reconciles their extra-sentential and innersentential properties: they are optional add-ons to the matrix clause, but fully integrated
constituents of the parallel elliptical clause. This analysis reduces an entire class of hitherto
problematic constructions to independently motivated grammatical operations (A'-movement and
IPE), eliminating a significant amount of constructional residue from the theory of grammar.
(1)
(1')
(2)
(2')
(3)
(3')
(4)
(4')
(5)
(6)
(7a)
(7b)
(7b')
(8a)
(8b)
(9)
(9')
Ég þekki hana ekkert, dóttur
hans.
(Icelandic)
I know her.ACC nothing daughter.ACC his
'I don’t know her at all, his daughter.'
[CP1 ég þekki hana ekkert][CP2 dóttur hansi <þekki ég ti ekkert>]
Dem Peter, dem
habe ich schon oft geholfen.
(German)
the.DAT Peter, him.DAT have I already often helped
'Peter, I've often helped him.'
[CP1 dem Peteri <habe ich schon oft ti geholfen>][CP2 dem habe ich schon oft geholfen]
Die liebt doch jeder Lehreri, seinei Schüler.
(German)
them loves surely every teacher his students
[CP2 seine Schüleri <liebt doch jeder Lehrer ti>]
Stoltan af sjálfum sérii, það tel
ég Jónii ekki vera.
(Icelandic)
proud of himself
that believe I Jon not to.be
[CP2 stoltan af sjálfum sérii <tel ég Jóni ekki vera ti>]
Form-identity generalization I
The dislocated XP must bear the case that its correlate bears.
Form-identity generalization II
A language L will allow P-stranding in dislocation iff L allows P-stranding under A'-mvt.
Hast du schon mit ihnen geredet, *(mit) den Kindern?
(German)
have you already with them spoken
with the kids
Har du snakka med døm ennå, ungene?
(Norwegian)
have you spoken with them yet the.kids
[CP1 har du snakka med døm ennå][CP2 ungenei <har du snakka med ti ennå>]
Und *(über) den Peter, über den sagt sie nur Schlechtes.
(German)
and
about the Peter about him says she only bad.things
Manninn sem hún b’yr með, hann talar María illa
um.
(Icelandic)
the.man that she lives with him says María bad.things about
Wen hatte Peter alles getroffen? Den Hans, das wusste Maria.
(German)
who had Peter all met
the Hans that knew Maria
[CP1 den Hansi <hatte Peter ti getroffen>][CP2 das wusste Maria]
References
Arregi, K. 2010. Ellipsis in split questions. NLLT 28(3):539-92. ■ Chomsky, N. Lectures on Government
and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. ■ Van Craenenbroeck, J. & A. Lipták. 2006. The crosslinguistic syntax of
sluicing: evidence from Hungarian relatives. Syntax 9(3):248-74. ■ Frey, W. Notes on the syntax and
pragmatics of German left-dislocation. H. Lohnstein & S. Trissler (eds.), The syntax and semantics of the
left periphery. Mouton de Gruyter, 203-33. ■ Grewendorf, G. 2008. The left clausal periphery. B. Shaer et
al. (eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse. Routledge, 49-94. ■ Lasnik, H. 2001. When can you save a
structure by destroying it? M. Kim & U. Strauss (eds.), NELS 31 (vol. 2). GLSA, 301-20. ■ Merchant, J.
2001. The syntax of silence. OUP. ■ Merchant, J. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Ling & Phil 27:661-738. ■
Ross, J.R. 1969. Guess who? R.I. Binnick et al. (eds.), CLS 5. CLS, 252-86. ■ Sauerland, U. 1999.
Locality in ellipsis. Ms., University of Tübingen. ■ Temmerman, T. To appear. The syntax of Dutch
embedded fragment answers. NLLT. ■ Vat, J. 1981. Left-dislocation, connectedness, and reconstruction.
GAGL 20:80-103.