1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Variation
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of The analysis of rightmost focus is alive and kicking
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

As far back as Cecchetto (1999), Villalba (2000) and Belletti (2001, 2004), the low IP area has gained prominence in the literature. In this article we show that right dislocation in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), qua an information-structural configuration, is counterintuitive to the argument that there is a discursive area sandwiched between IP and vP, and in favour of a clause-external analysis which locates right-dislocated phrases IP-externally. This claim is based on inspecting the properties of right dislocated elements in MSA relative to binding under Condition C, licensing negative polarity items, agreement alternation and wide focus. Crucially, the IP-external analysis of right dislocation, as a consequence, proves to present a unified account of focus in MSA, where we maintain that the apparent complexity and diversity of focus in this language is illusory, and epiphenomenal, emerging from the interaction of focus expressions and right dislocation — to wit, focalization in MSA occurs in situ, specifically in the rightmost position, with string-initial focus and string-medial focus being taken to be a reflex of an interfering right dislocation process targeting an IP-external position. The resulting outcome thus strongly lends support to Samek-Lodovici’s (2006) model of a focus-less split CP, gives evidence that the rightmost analysis of focus (Zubizarreta 1998; Büring 2001; Dehé 2005; Samek-Lodovici 2006, 2015) cover historically unrelated languages, and likewise casts a shadow of doubt on the viability of the cartographic approach to MSA Ouhalla (1994a, 1997) and Shlonsky (2000).

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24048.alz
2025-04-08
2025-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lv.24048.alz
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abels, Klaus
    2012 The Italian left periphery: A view from locality. Linguistic Inquiry(). –. 10.1162/LING_a_00084
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00084 [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Balushi, Rashid Ali
    2011 Case in Standard Arabic: The untraveled paths: University of Ottawa dissertation.
  3. Algryani, Ali
    2012 The syntax of ellipsis in Libyan Arabic: a generative analysis of sluicing, VP ellipsis, stripping and negative contrast: Newcastle University dissertation.
  4. Alqassas, Ahmad
    2021 A unified theory of polarity sensitivity: Comparative syntax of Arabic. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780197554883.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197554883.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Alshamari, Murdhy
    2017 Topic particles in the north Hail dialect of Najdi Arabic: Newcastle University dissertation.
  6. Alzayid, Ali
    . forthcoming. On low topics in Najdi Arabic: a rejoinder to Alshamari and Jarrah (2022). to appear inLinguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Alzayid, Ali A.
    2022 Arabic dislocation, vol.. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/la.271
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.271 [Google Scholar]
  8. Aoun, Joseph
    1999 Clitic-doubled arguments. InBeyond principles and parameters, –. Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑4822‑1_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4822-1_2 [Google Scholar]
  9. Aoun, Joseph & Elabbas Benmamoun
    1998 Minimality, reconstruction, and movement. Linguistic Inquiry(). –. 10.1162/002438998553888
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553888 [Google Scholar]
  10. Aoun, Joseph E., Elabbas Benmamoun & Lina Choueiri
    2010 The syntax of Arabic. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Arregi, Karlos
    2002 Focus on basque movements: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
  12. Baker, Mark C.
    2008 The syntax of agreement and concord, vol.. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619830
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619830 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bakir, Murtadha
    2011 Against the split-CP hypothesis. Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics–. 10.1075/cilt.317.09bak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.317.09bak [Google Scholar]
  14. Beaver, David I. & Brady Z. Clark
    2009 Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Beck, Sigrid & Shravan Vasishth
    2009 Multiple focus. Journal of Semantics(). –. 10.1093/jos/ffp001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Belletti, Adriana
    1990 Generalized verb movement: Aspects of verb syntax. Rosenberg & Sellier.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 2001 Inversion as focalization. Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar. . 10.1093/oso/9780195142693.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195142693.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2004 Aspects of the low IP area. The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures. –. 10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bianchi, Valentina
    1995 Consequences of antisymmetry for the syntax of headed relative clauses. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bjorkman, Bronwyn M. & Hedde Zeijlstra
    2019 Checking up on (ɸ-) agree. Linguistic Inquiry(). –. 10.1162/ling_a_00319
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00319 [Google Scholar]
  21. Bobaljik, Jonathan David
    1999 Adverbs: The hierarchy paradox. Glot international(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Bocci, Giuliano
    2013 The syntax prosody interface: A cartographic perspective with evidence from italian, vol.. John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/la.204
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.204 [Google Scholar]
  23. Boeckx, Cedric
    2000 Quirky agreement. Studia linguistica(). –. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00070
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00070 [Google Scholar]
  24. Bruening, Benjamin
    2018 Double object constructions and prepositional dative constructions are distinct: A reply to Ormazabal and Romero 2012. Linguistic Inquiry(). –. 10.1162/LING_a_00268
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00268 [Google Scholar]
  25. Bruening, Benjamin & Eman Al Khalaf
    2019 No argument-adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for binding Condition C. Journal of Linguistics(). –. 10.1017/S0022226718000324
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000324 [Google Scholar]
  26. Brunetti, Lisa
    2003 A unification of focus: Università degli Studi di Firenze dissertation.
  27. 2004 Are there two distinct foci in Italian?Southwest Journal of Linguistics(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Büring, Daniel
    2001 Let’s phrase it! focus, word order, and prosodic phrasing in German double object constructions. Competition in syntax–. 10.1515/9783110829068.69
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110829068.69 [Google Scholar]
  29. Calabrese, Andrea
    1992 Some remarks on focus and logical structures in Italian. Harvard working papers in linguistics. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Camacho, José
    2003 The coarse structure of the center periphery. Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Cardinaletti, Anna
    2002 Against optional and null clitics. right dislocation vs. marginalization. Studia linguistica(). –. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00086
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00086 [Google Scholar]
  32. Cecchetto, Carlo
    1999 A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Romance. Studia Linguistica(). –. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00039
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00039 [Google Scholar]
  33. Chafe, Wallace
    1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, topics, and point of view. Subject and topic.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Laura J. Downing
    2009 Where’s the topic in Zulu?The Linguistic Review. 10.1515/tlir.2009.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2009.008 [Google Scholar]
  35. Chomsky, Noam
    1993 A minimalist program for linguistic theory. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 1995 The minimalist program. MIT press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 2001 Derivation by phase. InMichael Ken-stowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, –. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. –. 10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2008 On phases. Current Studies in Linguistics Series. .
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 2019 Some puzzling foundational issues: The reading program. Catalan journal of linguistics–. 10.5565/rev/catjl.287
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.287 [Google Scholar]
  40. Chomsky, Noam, Ángel J. Gallego & Dennis Ott
    2019 Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics–. 10.5565/rev/catjl.288
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.288 [Google Scholar]
  41. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1990 Types of ā-dependencies. MIT press Cambridge, MA.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 1999 Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Cruschina, Silvio
    2010 Syntactic extraposition and clitic resumption in Italian. Lingua(). –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  44. Culicover, Peter W. & Michael Rochemont
    1983 Stress and focus in English. Language–. 10.2307/414063
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414063 [Google Scholar]
  45. De Cat, Cécile
    2002 French dislocation.: University of York dissertation.
  46. Dehé, Nicole
    2005 The optimal placement of up and ab-a comparison. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics. –. 10.1007/s10828‑004‑1686‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-004-1686-9 [Google Scholar]
  47. Den Dikken, Marcel & Balázs Surányi
    2017 Contrasting contrastive left-dislocation explications. Linguistic Inquiry(). –. 10.1162/LING_a_00254
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00254 [Google Scholar]
  48. Diessel, Holger
    2004 The acquisition of complex sentences, vol.. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486531
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486531 [Google Scholar]
  49. Dikken, Marcel den, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder
    2000 Pseudoclefts and ellipsis. Studia linguistica(). –. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00050
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00050 [Google Scholar]
  50. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen
    1990 Clitic doubling, wh-movement, and quantification in Romanian. Linguistic inquiry(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Eilam, Aviad
    2011 Explorations in the informational component. Doctoral Dissertation, Pennsylvania University.
  52. Epstein, Samuel David & T Daniel Seely
    1999 Spec-ifying the GF “subject”; eliminating a-chains and the EPP within a derivational model. Ms. UMich and EMich.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
    1997 The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 2007 Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface, vol.. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199262588.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199262588.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  55. Fanselow, Gisbert
    2006 On pure syntax (uncontaminated by information structure). Form, structure and grammar–. 10.1524/9783050085555.137
     https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050085555.137 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2008 In need of mediation: the relation between syntax and information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica(). –. 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.12
     https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.12 [Google Scholar]
  57. Fanselow, Gisbert & Denisa Lenertová
    2011 Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory(). –. 10.1007/s11049‑010‑9109‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9109-x [Google Scholar]
  58. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader
    1993 Issues in the structure of arabic clauses and words. Studies in natural language and linguistic theory. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑1986‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1986-5 [Google Scholar]
  59. Feldhausen, Ingo
    2010 Sentential form and prosodic structure of catalan. John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam. 10.1075/la.168
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.168 [Google Scholar]
  60. Fernandez, Javi
    2013 How left is right? locating Romance CLRD. A Handout for a paper presented at XXIII CGG, Madrid.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Fernandez-Sanchez, Javier
    2017 Right dislocation as a biclausal phenomenon: evidence from Romance languages: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. dissertation.
  62. Fernández-Sánchez, Javier
    2020 Right peripheral fragments: Right dislocation and related phenomena in Romance, vol.. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/la.258
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.258 [Google Scholar]
  63. Fernández-Sánchez, Javier & Dennis Ott
    2020 Dislocations. Language and Linguistics Compass(). . 10.1111/lnc3.12391
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12391 [Google Scholar]
  64. Fox, Danny
    1999 Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry(). –. 10.1162/002438999554020
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554020 [Google Scholar]
  65. Frascarelli, Mara
    2000 The syntax-phonology interface in focus and topic constructions in Italian, vol.. Springer Science & Business Media. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9500‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9500-1 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2004 Dislocation, clitic resumption and minimality. InRomance languages and linguistic theory–.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Freidin, Robert
    1986 Fundamental issues in the theory of binding. InStudies in the acquisition of anaphora, –. Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑4548‑7_4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4548-7_4 [Google Scholar]
  68. Giannakidou, Anastasia
    2006 N-words and negative concord. The Blackwell companion to syntax. –. 10.1002/9780470996591.ch45
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch45 [Google Scholar]
  69. Grewendorf, Günther
    2015 Remnant movement, vol.. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. 10.1515/9781614516330
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614516330 [Google Scholar]
  70. Halliday, Michael AK.
    1967 Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of linguistics(). –. 10.1017/S0022226700016613
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016613 [Google Scholar]
  71. Hallman, Peter
    2015 Syntactic neutralization in double object constructions. Linguistic inquiry(). –. 10.1162/LING_a_00187
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00187 [Google Scholar]
  72. Hamlaoui, Fatima & Kriszta Szendrői
    2015 A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases. Phonology(). –. 10.1017/S0952675715000056
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675715000056 [Google Scholar]
  73. Hamlaoui, Fatima & Kriszta Szendroi
    2017 The syntax-phonology mapping of intonational phrases in complex sentences: A flexible approach. Glossa().
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Harley, Heidi
    2002 Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic variation yearbook(). –. 10.1075/livy.2.04har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.2.04har [Google Scholar]
  75. Horvath, Julia
    2000 Interfaces vs. the computational system in the syntax of focus. InIn interface strategies, –. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 2010 “discourse features”, syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua(). –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  77. Iatridou, Sabine
    1995 Clitics and island effects. University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics(). .
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Jackendoff, Ray S.
    1972 Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Jarrah, Marwan
    2017 Subject extraction in Jordanian Arabic. Newcastle: Newcastle University dissertation.
  80. Kayne, Richard
    1994 The antisymmetry of syntax, vol.. MIT press.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Kiss, Katalin É.
    1998 Identificational focus versus information focus. Language(). –. 10.1353/lan.1998.0211
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211 [Google Scholar]
  82. Krifka, Manfred
    1992 A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. InInformations-struktur und grammatik, –. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑12176‑3_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_2 [Google Scholar]
  83. 2006 Association with focus phrases. The architecture of focus. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 2008 Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica(). –. 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.2
     https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2 [Google Scholar]
  85. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994 Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents, vol.. Cambridge university press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  86. Lasnik, Howard
    2003 Minimalist investigations in linguistic theory. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Lebeaux, David
    1988 Language acquisition of the form of grammar: Umass University dissertation.
  88. López, Luis
    2003 Steps for a well-adjusted dislocation. Studia Linguistica(). –. 10.1111/j.0039‑3193.2003.00104.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0039-3193.2003.00104.x [Google Scholar]
  89. 2009 A derivational syntax for information structure, vol.. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557400.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557400.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  90. 2016 Dislocations and information structure. InThe Oxford handbook of information structure. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.003 [Google Scholar]
  91. Merchant, Jason
    2004 Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and philosophy(). –. 10.1007/s10988‑005‑7378‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3 [Google Scholar]
  92. Miyagawa, Shigeru
    1987 Wa and the WH phrase. Perspectives on topicalization: The case of Japanese wa–. 10.1075/tsl.14.10miy
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.14.10miy [Google Scholar]
  93. 2010 Why agree? why move? unifying agreement-based and discourse configurational languages. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Moscati, Vincenzo
    2006 The scope of negation. Siena: University of Siena dissertation.
  95. Moutaouakil, Ahmed
    1989 Pragmatic functions in a functional grammar of Arabic. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. 10.1515/9783110874181
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110874181 [Google Scholar]
  96. Neeleman, Ad, Elena Titov, Hans Van de Koot & Reiko Vermeulen
    2009 A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. Alternatives to cartography. 10.1515/9783110217124.15
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110217124.15 [Google Scholar]
  97. Onea, Edgar & Anna Volodina
    2011 Between specification and explanation: About a German discourse particle. International Review of Pragmatics(). –. 10.1163/187731011X561036
     https://doi.org/10.1163/187731011X561036 [Google Scholar]
  98. Ott, Dennis & Mark De Vries
    2014 A biclausal analysis of right-dislocation. InProceedings of NELS, vol., –.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Ouhalla, Jamal
    1994a Focus in Standard Arabic. Linguistics in Potsdam. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 1994b Verb movement and word order in Arabic. InVerb movement. . 10.1017/CBO9780511627705.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627705.004 [Google Scholar]
  101. 1997 Remarks on focus in Standard Arabic. Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic: science series–. 10.1075/cilt.153.04ouh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.153.04ouh [Google Scholar]
  102. Ouhalla, Jamal & Ur Shlonsky
    2002 Themes in Arabic and Hebrew syntax, vol.. Springer Science & Business Media. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑0351‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0351-3 [Google Scholar]
  103. Paul, Waltraud & John Whitman
    2017 Topic prominence. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition–. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom065
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom065 [Google Scholar]
  104. Pesetsky, David
    1987 Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. The representation of (in) definiteness. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Ramchand, Gillian & Peter Svenonius
    2014 Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language sciences. –. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  106. van Riemsdijk, Henk & Edwin Williams
    1981 NP-structure. The Linguistic Review. 10.1515/tlir.1981.1.2.171
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1981.1.2.171 [Google Scholar]
  107. Ritter, Elizabeth & Martina Wiltschko
    2014 The composition of INFL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory(). –. 10.1007/s11049‑014‑9248‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9248-6 [Google Scholar]
  108. Rizzi, Luigi
    1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. InElements of grammar, –. Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  109. 2004 Locality and left periphery. Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures. –. 10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  110. Rizzi, Luigi & Giuliano Bocci
    2017 Left periphery of the clause: Primarily illustrated for Italian. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition–. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom104
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom104 [Google Scholar]
  111. Rizzi, Luigi & Guglielmo Cinque
    2016 Functional categories and syntactic theory. Annual Review of Linguistics. –. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011415‑040827
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040827 [Google Scholar]
  112. Rochemont, Michael Shaun
    1986 Focus in generative grammar. J. Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/sigla.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sigla.4 [Google Scholar]
  113. Rooth, Mats
    1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural language semantics(). –. 10.1007/BF02342617
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  114. Ryding, Karin C.
    2005 A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge university press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486975
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486975 [Google Scholar]
  115. Safir, Ken
    1999 Vehicle change and reconstruction in Ā-chains. Linguistic inquiry(). –. 10.1162/002438999554228
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554228 [Google Scholar]
  116. Samek-Lodovici, Vieri
    2006 When right dislocation meets the left-periphery.: A unified analysis of Italian non-final focus. Lingua(). –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.04.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  117. 2009 Topic, focus, and background in italian clauses. Focus and background in Romance languages. 10.1075/slcs.112.12sam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.112.12sam [Google Scholar]
  118. 2010 Final and non-final focus in Italian DPs. Lingua(). –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.007 [Google Scholar]
  119. 2015 The interaction of focus, givenness, and prosody: A study of italian clause structure, vol.. OUP Oxford. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198737926.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198737926.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  120. Sauerland, Uli
    1998 The meaning of chains: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
  121. Schwabe, Kerstin & Susanne Winkler
    2007 On information structure, meaning and form: generalizations across languages, vol.. John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/la.100
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100 [Google Scholar]
  122. Schwarzschild, Roger
    1999 Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural language semantics(). –. 10.1023/A:1008370902407
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008370902407 [Google Scholar]
  123. Shlonsky, Ur
    1997 Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay in comparative Semitic syntax. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195108668.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195108668.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  124. 2000 Remarks on the complementizer layer of Standard Arabic. InResearch in afroasiatic grammar: Papers from the third conference on afroasiatic languages, sophia antipolis, 1996, vol.. John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/cilt.202.15shl
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.202.15shl [Google Scholar]
  125. Soltan, Usama
    2007 On formal feature licensing in minimalism: Aspects of Standard Arabic morphosyntax: University of Maryland dissertation.
  126. Sportiche, Dominique
    2019 Somber prospects for late merger. Linguistic Inquiry(). –. 10.1162/ling_a_00306
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00306 [Google Scholar]
  127. Stalnaker, Robert C.
    1978 Assertion. InPragmatics, –. Brill. 10.1163/9789004368873_013
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_013 [Google Scholar]
  128. Szendroi, Kriszta
    2001 Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. University of London, University College London (United Kingdom).
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Szendrői, Kriszta
    2017 The syntax of information structure and the PF interface. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics().
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Takahashi, Shoichi & Sarah Hulsey
    2009 Wholesale late merger: Beyond the A/A distinction. Linguistic Inquiry(). –. 10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.387
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.387 [Google Scholar]
  131. Tomasello, Michael
    2005 Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard university press. 10.2307/j.ctv26070v8
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv26070v8 [Google Scholar]
  132. Vallduví, Enric
    1993 The informational component: University of Pennsylvania. dissertation.
  133. Vallduví, Enric & Maria Vilkuna
    1998 On rheme and kontrast. InThe limits of syntax, –. Brill. 10.1163/9789004373167_005
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373167_005 [Google Scholar]
  134. Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen
    2009 Alternatives to cartography, vol.. Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110217124
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110217124 [Google Scholar]
  135. Villalba, Xavier
    1999 Symmetry and antisymmetry in syntax. Syntaxis. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  136. 2000 The syntax of sentence periphery: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, dissertation.
  137. Wagner, Michael
    2020 Prosodic focus–. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 10.1002/9781118788516.sem133. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118788516.sem133
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem133 [Google Scholar]
  138. Weir, Andrew
    2014 Fragments and clausal ellipsis: University of Massachusetts-Amherst dissertation.
  139. Wiltschko, Martina
    2014 The universal structure of categories: Towards a formal typology, vol.. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139833899
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139833899 [Google Scholar]
  140. Zeller, Jochen
    2015 Argument prominence and agreement: Explaining an unexpected object asymmetry in Zulu. Lingua. –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.009 [Google Scholar]
  141. Ziv, Yael
    1994 Left and right dislocations: Discourse functions and anaphora. Journal of pragmatics(). –. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90033‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90033-7 [Google Scholar]
  142. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa
    1998 Prosody, focus, and word order. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Zyman, Erik
    2022 Phase-constrained obligatory late adjunction. Syntax(). –. 10.1111/synt.12226
     https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12226 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24048.alz
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: information structure ; focus-less split CP ; right dislocation ; Modern Standard Arabic ; focus ; low IP area.

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error