Contrastive topics and foci in Brazilian Portuguese : ordering effects and interpretation

Title: Contrastive topics and foci in Brazilian Portuguese : ordering effects and interpretation
Author: Assmann, Muriel
Source document: Linguistica Brunensia. 2020, vol. 68, iss. 1, pp. 41-59
  • ISSN
    1803-7410 (print)
    2336-4440 (online)
Type: Article

Notice: These citations are automatically created and might not follow citation rules properly.

This paper discusses the ordering effects of contrastive topics and foci in Brazilian Portuguese. I will show that the distribution of CT and F in BP strikingly parallels that observed for Dutch in Neeleman – Van de Koot (2008): 1) it is possible for a focus to precede a contrastive topic, as long as this configuration respects the canonical word order of the syntactic constituents, and 2) it is impossible for a focus to move across a contrastive topic. I propose to interpret sentences with a contrastive topic using the Topic Abstraction account (Constant 2014), in which a contrastive topic is simply an F-marked phrase in a specific configuration (more precisely, an F phrase that has raised to the CT-λ position). Building on the Topic Abstraction account, I propose a simple additional condition that captures Neeleman – Van de Koot's (2008) generalization for Dutch as well as the BP data: a focus interpretation of the moved F is blocked by the CT-λ, and that's why F>CT is impossible in configurations where one of the Fs has moved.
This work was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), project grant P29180-G23, Unalternative Constraints Crosslinguistically.
[1] Assmann, Muriel. In preparation. Contrastive topics and foci in Brazilian Portuguese: Ordering effects and interpretation. Doctoral thesis, University of Vienna.

[2] Brunetti, Lisa. 2009. On the semantic and contextual factors that determine topic selection in Italian and Spanish. The Linguistic Review 26(2/3), pp. 261–289.

[3] Büring, Daniel. 1997. The Meaning of Topic and Focus – The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.

[4] Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents. Linguistics & Philosophy 26 (5), pp. 511–545. | DOI 10.1023/A:1025887707652

[5] Büring, Daniel. 2015. A Theory of Second Occurrence Focus. Language as a Cognitive Process/Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(1-2), pp. 73–87.

[6] Büring, Daniel. 2016. (Contrastive) Topic. In: Féry, Caroline – Ishihara Shin, eds. The Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 64–85.

[7] Constant, Noah. 2014. Constrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations. Doctoral thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

[8] Cruschina, Silvio – Remberger, Eva-Maria. 2017. Focus Fronting. In: Durfter, Andreas – Stark Elisabeth, eds. Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 502–535.

[9] Frascarelli, Mara – Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of Topics in German and Italian. In: Schwabe, Kerstin – Winkler, Susanne, eds. On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–116.

[10] Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[11] Kato, Mary – Martins, Ana Maria. 2016. European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese: An overview on word order. In: Wetzels, Leo – Menuzzi, Sergio – Costa, João, eds. The handbook of Portuguese linguistics. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 15–40.

[12] Leonetti, Manuel – Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2009. Fronting and verum focus in Spanish. In: Dufter, Andreas – Jacob, Daniel, eds. Focus and background in Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 155–204.

[13] Menuzzi, Sergio – Roisenberg, Gabriel. 2010. Tópicos Contrastivos e Contraste Temático: Um Estudo do Papel Discursivo da "Articulação Informacional". In: Cadernos de Estudos Lingüísticos. Campinas, Brazil: IEL/UNICAMP. pp. 233–253.

[14] Mioto, Carlos, 2003. FOCALIZAÇÃO E QUANTIFICAÇÃO. Foco e Pressuposição. Revista Letras 61, pp. 169–189.

[15] Neeleman, Ad – Titov, Elena – Van de Koot, Hans – Vermeulen, Reiko. 2009. A Syntactic Typology of Topic, Focus and Contrast. In: van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, ed. Alternatives to Cartography. Brussels: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 15–51.

[16] Neeleman, Ad – Van de Koot, Hans. 2008. Dutch Scrambling and the Nature of Discourse Templates. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11(2), pp. 137–189. | DOI 10.1007/s10828-008-9018-0

[17] Neeleman, Ad – Van de Koot, Hans. 2012. Towards a Unified Encoding of Contrast and Scope. In: Neeleman, Ad – Vermeulen, Reiko, eds. The syntax of topic, focus, and contrast. An interface-based approach. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 39–76.

[18] Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In: Haegeman, Lilian, ed. Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. pp. 281–337.

[19] Rooth, Mats. 1992. A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, pp. 75–116. | DOI 10.1007/BF02342617

[20] Wagner, Michael. 2012. Contrastive Topics Decomposed. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(8), pp. 1–54.