The low periphery of double object constructions in English and Spanish

THE LOW PERIPHERY OF DOUBLE OBJECT CONSTRUCTIONS IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH Ángel Jiménez Fernández Universidad de Sevilla RESUMEN En este trabajo exploramos la posibilidad de que las construcciones de doble objeto proyectan una periferia interna a la cláusula que contiene categorías funcionales específicas para las funciones de tópico y foco. Lenguas como el español presentan esta opción, mientras que estas categorías no se proyectan en lenguas como el inglés. Esta diferencia explicará la diferencia en términos de orden de palabras en ambas lenguas. Palabras clave: constucciones de doble objeto, tópico, foco, orden de palabras, minimalismo. ABSTRACT In this paper I will explore the possibility that double object constructions (DOCs) project a low periphery with specific dedicated categories for focus and topics. Languages such as Spanish are shown to allow for the projection of these discourse-related categories in DOCs, whereas languages such as English do not. This will account for the parametric differences in word order identified in both languages. Keywords: double object constructions, topic, focus, word order, minimalism. 0. INTRODUCTION Currently, within Generative Grammar there is an intensive and enriching debate about the relation between the information structure and certain syntactic reorderings detected in the sentence (Belletti, 2004; Beninca’ & Poletto, 2004; Cinque, 1999; Costa, 2000; É. Kiss, 2008; Etxepare & Uribe-Etxebarria, 2008; Jiménez, 2005, 2008; Ordóñez, 1998; Rizzi, 1997, 2004; Samek-Ludovici, 2005; Xu, 2004; Zubizarreta, 1998, 1999; among many others). The line of argumentation that I assume suggests that word order interacts with the discourse functions of focus and topic in such a way that the interpretive structure should be read off the syntactic configuration. ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 180 Ángel Jiménez Fernández In this work I explore the structure of double object constructions (DOCs) from an informational point of view. The informational load of the two objects will play a pivotal role in their alternative order in the patterns /O PO/ and /PO O/, illustrated in (1) for Spanish, as opposed to English in (2):1 (1) a. Susana le ofreció un café a María. b. Susana le ofreció a María un café. ‘Susana offered a cup of coffee to Mary.’ (2) a. Susan offered a cup of coffee to Mary. b. *Susan offered to Mary a cup of coffee. c. Susan offered Mary a cup of coffee. I will study the topic/focus partition in these constructions and propose that, under certain circumstances, DOCs project a Focus Phrase (along with a Topic Phrase) in languages like Spanish, but these discourse-linked dedicated categories are not part of the CP system. Assuming the works by Belletti (2004), Jayaseelan (2001), Ndayiragije (1999), inter al., I will claim that Focus Phrase (FocP) and Topic Phrase (TopP) are part of the lower vP system in the constructions under investigation. The (non-)existence of these low Foc and Top categories will establish a parametric difference between languages like English, with focus in situ in DOCs, and languages like Spanish, with movement of a focalised constituent to the internal periphery above vP. However, as I will show, English and Spanish share the property of projecting a FocP and a TopP in DOCs in which one of the objects is too heavy to remain in situ. This proposal will ultimately throw some light on the (non-)universality of functional categories. The paper is organized as follows: 1) the first section presents some assumptions about the phonological-syntax interface. It is taken for granted that the interpretive properties of the clause are a reflex of its syntactic structure, so that the interpretation of the clause should be derived from a specific syntactic configuration where at least two discourse functional categories are identified, namely Top and Foc; 2) in the second part of this work I deal with the data concerning the informational load in DOCs and propose that the different word-order patterns attested can be drawn from distinct discourse-related properties of DOCs, assigned in different discourse-designated positions within the syntactic structure; 3) in this section I present our proposal: DOCs project a clause-internal periphery, sheltering the dedicated categories of Top and Foc; 4) in section 4 I test my proposal by giving em- 1 The direct object will be referred to as O, whereas the indirect object will be represented as PO since in languages such as Spanish the latter is always introduced by a preposition. ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 The low periphery of double object constructions 181 pirical evidence related to adverb interpolation and definiteness effects; 4) finally, the main conclusions that are arrived at through this work are summarised at the end. 1. FOCUS, TOPIC AND THE LEFT PERIPHERY The concept of focus could be defined in terms of the discourse notion of the “presupposition”: the focus is the non-presupposed part of the sentence (Rizzi, 1997; Zubizarreta, 1999). In this case, the presupposed part is equivalent to the information shared by the speaker and the hearer in the moment in which the sentence is uttered at a given context. The left periphery of the clause is the place which may shelter wh-expressions in languages such as English and Spanish. However, the initial position in a sentence can also be the locus for constituents of a different nature as English examples like (2) below illustrate: (2) No other risks would he ever take. In (2), some rearrangement of the canonical English pattern has been made, so that the constituent no other risks has been focused. This means that it has been moved from its original position as object of take to the front of the sentence in order to receive special emphasis. The phenomenon at issue is called Focalization. In languages like English, the focus position at the left periphery seems to be associated with some kind of contrast or correction in relation to what has been said before (É. Kiss, 1998) and it is typically applied in negative constructions. From a discourse point of view, a focused element identifies the new information contained within the sentence. This information has not been mentioned previously in the discourse, thereby being unknown for the hearer. This is what crucially distinguishes focus and topic. Topics can also be displaced to the initial part of the sentence, but they identify old information. This information has been already mentioned in the communicative environment, so that it is known to the hearer. I will illustrate the notion of topic with the sentence produced by speaker B in the following dialogue (Radford, 2009: 326): (3) A: The demonstrators have been looting shops and setting fire to cars. B: That kind of behaviour, we cannot tolerate in a civilised society. In (3) the phrase that kind of behaviour takes its reference from the proposition made by Speaker A. In this regard, this constituent represents background information which is shared by the two speakers involved in the conversation. This implies that it is the topic of the discourse. The topic that kind of behaviour is the object of the verb tolerate. As such, it should occupy the canonical complement position after tolerate. Instead, it is placed at the front of the whole sentence, which is evidence to assume that it has ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 182 Ángel Jiménez Fernández undergone a movement operation of some kind. This movement operation is used to mark the displaced constituent as the topic of the sentence, and it is widely known as Topicalisation. A sentence can contain both topics and focus, as it is illustrated in (4), taken from Radford (2009): (4) He had seen something truly evil – prisoners being ritually raped, tortured and mutilated. He prayed [that atrocities like those, never again would he witness]. In the bracketed clause in (4), the complementiser that identifies the clause as being declarative in force.2 The determiner phrase (DP) atrocities like those is the complement of the verb witness though it has been dislocated to be highlighted as the topic of the sentence (notice that it refers back to the acts of rape, torture and mutilation mentioned in the preceding sentence). Finally, the fronted negative adverbial phrase never again is a focused constituent, which requires subject/auxiliary inversion. The term focus has given place to numerous debates as to its real nature. According to linguists such as Rizzi (1997), Belletti (2004) or É. Kiss (1998), there are two types of focus: contrastive focus, which expresses some kind of correction or contrast in relation to a previous assertion; and informational focus,3 which only involves unknown (merely new) information for the participants of the communication. The kind of focus instantiated in (2) and (4) illustrates the notion of contrastive focus. To exemplify the concept of informational focus, see sentences in (5): (5) Q: What did you buy in the supermarket? A: I bought only some milk. The information provided by the DP object some milk corresponds to the informational focus in (5). Typically the position where the informational focus is detected is the final part in a clause.4 In relation to the syntactic derivation of Focalization, some recent research suggests that the derivation of focalised constructions is accounted for if the CP is split into several functional categories: at least Topic and Focus Phrases (É. Kiss, 2008; Rizzi, 2004; Durlemann-Tame, 2005; Demonte & Fernández-Soriano, 2009; Her- 2 On arguments against an analysis of topicalisation as movement to the specifier of CP, see Jiménez (2005) and references therein. 3 It is also called identificational focus by some authors like É. Kiss (1998). 4 Although the existence of the two types of focus has been recognized in literature, the distinction among them has been often ignored. In this way, in the analysis of Italian by Brunetti (2003) it is manifested that the Italian focus, and in general that of any language, never expresses exhaustive identification, but there is only one type of focus, which expresses non-presupposed information. ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 The low periphery of double object constructions 183 nanz, 2007; etc.).5 Both discourse-related categories could be considered as crucial projections in the sentence event and they project only in those clauses that show Topicalization and/or Focalization. Regarding the Focus Phrase and following the Economy Principle, it will be only projected when it is strictly necessary. Only when the speaker wants to highlight some element and moves such a constituent to the left periphery, will the phenomenon of Focalization and the subsequent projection of FocP take place. In the light of recent ideas by Chomsky (2001, 2006, 2008), this movement is motivated by feature valuation. According to Jiménez (2005: 282), in languages such as English, which is described by its poor morphology, the focus of a clause will be marked by a null focus morpheme. Due to the important semantic content that such an element has, the [Foc]-feature housed in this null focus affix will be already valued because it is extracted from the Lexicon as interpretable. If Chomsky’s (2006, 2008) claim that only uninterpretable features activate the process of feature valuation is on the right track, displacement in focused constructions will be explained by positing that the category Foc contains an uninterpretable feature which, adopting Miyagawa’s (2005) featural system, works in conjunction with the [EPP] feature and triggers movement of the focalised constituent to Spec-FocP. The same strategy is used for cases of Topicalisation. Rizzi (1997 and subsequent work) has proposed that the FocP is dominated by a TopP at the left periphery. In our system, this TopP contains an unvalued Top feature which activates the feature valuation process. AGREE applies and by combining the [Top] feature with the [EPP] under Top the relevant category will be attracted to Spec-TopP. To illustrate how the whole process of feature valuation is activated, sentence (6) will show the derivation in (7):6 (6) That kind of thing, never in my life will I do again. 5 Alongside Top and Foc two other categories are identified in the CP-system: namely, Force and Finiteness. Rizzi (1997) proposes that, when unnecessary, the partition of CP into Force and Finiteness is avoided by conflating them into just one single category. On this possibility, see Radford (2007). Force and Finiteness do not play any role in our analysis, so I will leave them aside. 6 The derivation in (7) is partial as only the [focus]-feature is taken into account. The rest of morphosyntactic features and all the syntactic projections are not taken into consideration. ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 184 Ángel Jiménez Fernández (7) TopP DP Top’ That kind of thing [Top] Top FocP [Top] [EPP] AdvP Foc’ never in my life [Foc] Foc TP will D T’ [FOC] [EPP] I never in my life will I do that kind of thing again7 As can be observed in (7), the AdvP never in my life has been displaced to the left periphery of the clause. What is interesting about (7) is that the focused constituent need not move in order to value the uninterpretable discourse feature under Foc as [Foc]. Following Chomsky (2005, 2006), feature valuation takes place via AGREE, which is a syntactic relation between a Probe and a Goal. By AGREE, features of the Probe will be valued with those of the Goal. To be more specific, Foc will probe the Goal never in my life and thereby feature valuation applies. AGREE can apply in a long-distance relation between a Probe and a Goal, which accounts for focus in situ. However, categories may optionally be assigned an [EPP] feature, which will trigger movement of the agreed constituent to Spec- 7 Cinque (1999) offers a full classification of adverbs, which I basically adopt here. In his analysis adverbs are generated as specifiers of the functional category that they modify. Another point at issue is that adverbs such as never in my life and again are usually classified as aspectual adverbs, which will be generated within an Aspectual Phrase. Assuming the category conflation hypothesis proposed by Radford (2007), the categories of Tense and Aspect are likely to be syncretised under just one single T category, in which case aspectual adverbs will be generated via adjunction within TP. ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 The low periphery of double object constructions 185 FocP. This avoids transferring illegible features to the other components of grammar. Another discourse-related phenomenon to take into account in (7) is the topic displacement of the DP that kind of thing to the Edge of the TopP. The Top head contains an unvalued discourse feature which, in conjunction with its EPP, will attract the topicalised category to Spec-TopP. As a consequence, this discourse feature gets specified as [Top]. 2. Factors influencing the order of post-verbal constituents 2.1. The topic/focus partition Each language can choose the way in which its constituents are ordered in the sentence freely. However, according to É. Kiss (1995), languages present certain uniformity in their structuring. Some languages show a rigid word order, while other languages are characterised by their relatively free word order. This is the pivotal parametric distinction between English and Spanish. In spite of this classification, some factors may be proved to be quite influential upon sentence constituents in that they alter the original order of the pattern /O PO/ through the process of a derivation. Aspects such as the discourse function are clear instances which influence the different rearrangements identified in the sentence. According to Behaghel (1930), “The Given-Before-New Principle” states that the known information has to be placed before the new one in such a way that we can establish a common ground between the participants of the communicative event.8 More recently, Rizzi (1997), Uriagereka (1995), É. Kiss (1995) or Zubizarreta (1999), among many others, suggest that there is a cross-linguistic tendency to present given information (topics) at the initial part of the clause, while leaving new information (focus) for final position. Spanish exemplifies the type of language observing this tendency as a strategy to rearrange the sentence constituents. Accordingly, Spanish can modify the order of the elements in a sentence depending on the information prominence that is assigned to each part, that is, the linear order of elements can be manipulated in order to give greater emphasis to a specific constituent. This manipulation can be observed in the following examples: (8) a. ¿Qué le dio Juan a su madre? ‘What did Juan give (to) his mother?’ b.1. Juan le dio a su madre un beso. ‘Juan gave his mother a kiss’ 8 Simple sentences are easier to process than complex ones. For this reason, the hardest tasks are postponed for the end. It would secure an effective communication (Behaghel, 1930). ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 186 Ángel Jiménez Fernández b.2. *Juan le dio un beso a su madre. ‘Juan gave a kiss to his mother’ (9) a. ¿A quién le dio Juan un beso? ‘Who did Juan give a kiss to?’ b.1. *Juan le dio a su madre un beso.9 ‘Juan gave his mother a kiss’ b.2. Juan le dio un beso a su madre. ‘Juan gave a kiss to his mother’ As mentioned earlier, two well defined parts are to be distinguished in every sentence: topic and focus. The topic is the point of departure for the rest of the sentence, whereas the focus possesses the nuclear intonation and is normally new information. The new information that is required in the questions (8a) and (9a) is the element corresponding to the focalised constituent in the answer. More specifically, in (8a) the element that is considered as known information is su madre, whereas the new information is that conveyed by the DP un beso. As regards English, there is a difference in the strategy used. In English, when the information provided by a given constituent is new the most prominent accent is located upon such an element, but this does not involve a word-order manipulation of post-verbal constituents. In this sense, the position of focus in English does not usually vary even when questions of the type (10) and (11) tend to put focus on different elements. It is the discourse/phonological prominence that helps identify the words or cluster of words representing the focus of a specific construction. (10) a. What did John give to his mother? b.1. *John gave to his mother a kiss’. b.2. John gave a kiss to his mother. (11) a. Who did John give a kiss to? b.1. *John gave to his mother a kiss. b.2. John gave a kiss to his mother. As the data in (10-11) show, when the prepositional double object is used in English the order of the object and the prepositional object is fixed. No rearrangement is allowed irrespective of the fact that the constituent standing for topic and focus may be altered. The descriptive generalisation that we arrive at is that some languages (Spanish) reorder the clause elements to assign the functions of topic and 9 Phonology can render these structures correct if the main stress is put on the corresponding new element. ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 The low periphery of double object constructions 187 focus, whereas other languages (English) do not make use of syntactic reordering, opting instead for a phonological strategy. 2.2. Heavy NP-Shift A second factor determining constituent reordering in the sentence is the structural complexity (Arnold & Wasow, 2003). One of the first linguists who talked about structural complexity was Behaghel (1930), who proposed “The Law of Growing Constituents”. This has more recently received the name of “End-Weight Principle” by Quirk et al. (1985). Rather informally, this principle states that simple phrases precede complex ones. To illustrate how the End-weight principle works, consider examples in (12-13): (12) a. Le di a mi hermana todos los libros que había cogido prestados de su biblioteca. b. I gave to my sister all the books that I had loaned from her library. (13) a. ??Le di todos los libros que había cogido de su biblioteca a mi hermana. b. ??I gave the books that I had loaned from her library to my sister. As can be observed, the order /PO O/ is preferred both in Spanish and English when the direct object is too heavy. Descriptively, this situation holds because this object is somehow postponed in relation with the prepositional object due to the fact that its heaviness precludes it from staying in a middle position. In the generative tradition, Ross (1967) pioneered work on syntactic rearrangement and proposed a specific transformation to describe this optional reordering. Such a process is known within the classical transformational grammar as “Heavy NP Shift” (Ross, 1967). The proposed movement was rightwards, but this analysis has been abandoned after Kayne’s (1994) ban on rightward movement. There have been many proposals to explain the phenomenon at issue (Larson, 1988, 1990; Jackendoff, 1990, among many others. The position that I will take is that the rearrangements associated with “Complex NP Shift” are crucially related to the discourse structure of the sentence. In my system, the displaced constituents are identified as either topic or focus. More specifically, the complex constituent relates to a focus position, whereas the smaller parts are linked to a topic position.10 Going back to the relevant examples in (12), the PO is light and, as such, it is assigned the 10 The idea that length or heaviness relates to the discourse partition topic/focus is also posited by Quirk et al. (1985), who claim that ditransitive and complex-transitive constructions may involve reordering of the postverbal sequence depending on their relative weight and suggest that the heaviest element is identified with the focus of the sentence. For a discourse-based approach to complextransitive constructions in the form of small clauses, see Jiménez (2008). ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 194 Ángel Jiménez Fernández Concerning moving categories, empirical evidence comes from the interpolation of VP-adverbials such as en secreto ‘secretely’, cuidadosamente ‘carefully’, deliberadamente ‘deliberately’, intencionadamente ‘intentionally’, etc. These adverbs occupy a low position within the clause. Plausible answers for the question in (22) include the clauses in (23): (22) ¿A quién le dio Ángela el dinero? ‘Who did Angela give the Money to?’ (23) a. Ángela le dio el dinero a papá en secreto. b. ??Ángela le dio en secreto el dinero a papá. c. ??Ángela le dio el dinero en secreto a papá.16 ‘Angela gave the money to daddy secretly’ All these examples contain the VP-adverbial en secreto which is presumably generated low in the clause, specifically within the VP (Cinque, 1999; Ojea, 1994; among many others). My line of reasoning is that if the adverbial may correctly occur after the O and the PO, it is because both objects have moved out of VP (I am assuming, following Cinque (1999), that adverbs generate as specifiers of the category that they modify, so that in this particular case the adverbial en secreto originates in Spec-VP). The crucial point about the data in (23) is that only (23a) is suitable as an answer to (22), which confirms the possibility of linking the dislocated constituents in DOCs to a left periphery above vP. However, if the information conveyed by the VP-adverbial en secreto is shared in the context, (23a) would not be available as an answer. Consider (24) and (25): (24) ¿A quién le dio Ángela el dinero en secreto? ‘Who did Angela give the Money to secretly?’ (25) a. ???Ángela le dio el dinero a papá en secreto. b. Ángela le dio en secreto el dinero a papá. c. Ángela le dio el dinero en secreto a papá. ‘Angela gave the money to daddy secretly’ In this situation the adverbial and the DP object el dinero are two topics in the low periphery. This explains why (25b-c) are correct when used as answers to (24). On the contrary, (24a) presumes two possible informational readings of the adverbial: first, it could be neutral (neither topic nor focus); second, it could be inter- 16 The anomaly of the examples in (b-c) emerges only when these sentences are used as answers to (22). Even in this situation, if the adverbial is felt as background information and is given phonological prominence, the two sentences (23b) and (23c) are felicitous answers to (22). ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 The low periphery of double object constructions 195 preted as informational focus. Neither of these two interpretations is compatible with the information requested in (24). The data in (22)-(25) seem to justify my claim that in DOCs the two objects involved may move to a low periphery to value discourse features in the relevant category. A similar picture emerges when concentrating on the interconnection of Complex-NP-Shift and VP-adverbs: (26) a. Ángela le devolvió a Juan el dinero que me envió el año pasado en secreto. b. Ángela le devolvió a Juan en secreto el dinero que me envió el año pasado. c. Ángela le devolvió en secreto a Juan el dinero que me envió el año pasado. ‘Angela secretly gave back to John the money that he sent me last year’. As can be observed, there are no differences concerning the position that the adverbial en secreto takes in relation to the slots occupied by the object and the prepositional object. This is expected in the light of the distinction between a neutral reading and a topic reading of the adverbial. If the adverbial is neutral to the type of information expressed, it is commonly left in final position; otherwise, it is displaced to the low TopP above vP. In English, the situation is different. I have claimed that in DOCs the categories Top and Foc may project clause-internally in cases of Complex-NP-Shift. Furthermore, I have suggested one crucial difference between Spanish and English in that only in English a remnant VP-topicalization will be needed to account for the position occupied by the verb in relation to the following object. The prediction is that if a VP-adverb is inserted, once the VP is displaced to a higher slot, the adverb should occur higher in the clause too, as it is pied-piped along with the remnant VP. This prediction is shown to be valid when comparing the data in (27): (27) a. Angela secretly gave back to John the money that he sent me last year. b. ??Angela gave back to John the money that he sent me last year secretly. c. ??Angela gave back to John secretly the money that he sent me last year. Finally, I will present some empirical support for the topic status of low topics. Definite/specific DPs are commonly associated with the background information which is shared by both speaker and hearer (Diesing, 1997; É Kiss, 2002). Actually, Jayaseelan (2001: 66) uses Definiteness/Specificity to show that definites and ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 196 Ángel Jiménez Fernández specifics are topicalisable in Malayalam.17 If topics are always definite/specific, this means that the occurrence of an indefinite as a low topic should be barred. This prediction is borne out in (28-29): (28) a. Le han dado a los/*unos chicos dinero. b. Le han dado dinero a los/unos chicos. ‘The/some kids have been given money.’ (29) a. María le entregó la/*cualquier tesis a Ángela. b. María le entregó a Ángela la/cualquier tesis. ‘Maria gave the/any thesis to Angela.’ The data in (28-29) indicate that when the object or the prepositional object are definite/specific they can function as low topics, since they are part of the background information, but when they are realised by indefinites, such as unos chicos ‘some kids’ or cualquier tesis ‘any thesis’, they cannot be preposed to the low topic position. In contrast to low topics, low foci are predicted to allow indefinite and nonspecific expressions. This will explain why the DPs unos chicos and cualquier tesis can occur in a lower position, as in (28b) and (29b). This justifies the focus status of the object that occurs second in DOCs. 5. CONCLUSIONS In this paper I have explored the possibility that DOCs project a low periphery with specific dedicated categories for focus and topics. In the light of this hypothesis, I have analysed data from Spanish and English and arrived at the conclusion that languages such as Spanish allow for the projection of these discourse-related categories in DOCs, whereas languages such as English do not. This accounts for differences in word order in that in Spanish the two objects involved in DOCs can be rearranged depending on their topic/focus features, but in English this rearrangement is predicted to be prohibited and a pure phonological strategy is used to highlight the discourse prominence of the two objects. However, another factor which influences on reordering is the Complex NP- Shift. In this connection, both languages show permutations in DOCs when one of the objects is too heavy to remain in situ. I have claimed that heavy and light constituents are dealt with by syntax as focus and topic respectively, and proposed that in these constructions Foc and Top are projected above vP. The Foc and Top are picked up from the Lexicon with unvalued discourse-related features which acti- 17 See also İşsever (2003) for the interaction of background information and specificity effects in Turkish. ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 The low periphery of double object constructions 197 vate the process of feature valuation. The EPP under Foc and Top attracts the relevant constituent depending on its heaviness. 6. REFERENCES Arnold, J. & Wasow, T. (2003) “Post-verbal Constituent Ordering in English”. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (eds.) Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 119-154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Behaghel, O. (1930) Von deutscher Wortstellung [On German word order], Zeitschrift fur Deutschkunde, 44, 81-9. Belletti, A & U. Shlonsky (1995) “The Order of Verbal Complements: A Comparative Study”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 489-526. Belletti, A. (2004) “Aspects of the Low IP Area”. In L. Rizzi (ed.) The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volumen 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 16-51. Belletti, A. (2005) “Extended doubling and the VP periphery”, Probus 17, 1-35. Beninca’, P. & C. Poletto (2004) “Topic, Focus, and V2: Defining the CP Sublayers”. In L. Rizzi (ed.) The Structure of CP and IP – The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2. Oxford University Press: New York, 52-75. Brunetti, L. (2003) “Is there any Difference between Contrastive Focus and Information Focus?” In M. Weisgerber (ed.), Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung SuB7, Universitat Konstanz, Germany, 53-69. Camacho, V. (2006) La Arquitectura de la Gramática: Los Clíticos Pronominales Románicos y Eslavos. Sevilla: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla. Chomsky, N. (2001) “Derivation by phase”. In: M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: a life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1-52. Chomsky, N. (2006) “Approaching UG from below”, manuscript, MIT. Chomsky, N. (2008) “On phases”. In: R. Freidin, C. Otero & M.L. Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 133-166. Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Costa, J. (2000) “Focus in situ: Evidence from Portuguese”. Probus 12 (2), 187- 228. Costa, J. & M.C. Figueiredo (2006) “On the (in)dependence relation between syntax and pragmatics”. In: V. Molnár & S. Winkler (eds.), The Architecture of Focus. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 83-104. Demonte, V. (1995) “Dative alternation in Spanish”, Probus 7, 5-30. ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 198 Ángel Jiménez Fernández Demonte, V. & O. Fernández Soriano (2009) “Force and Finiteness in the Spanish Complementizer System”, Probus (to appear). Diesing, M. (1997) “Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 369-427. Durrleman-Tame, S. (2005) “Notes on the Left periphery in Jamaican Creole”, GG@G (Generative Grammar in Geneva) 4, 113-157. É. Kiss, K. (1995) Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press. É. Kiss, K. (1998) “Identificational Focus versus Information Focus”, Language 74, 245-273. É. Kiss, K. (2002) The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: CUP. É. Kiss, K. (2008) “Free word order, (non)configurationality, and phases”, Linguistic Inquiry 39 (3), 441-475. Etxepare, R. & M. Uribe-Etxebarria (2008) “The interfaces of focus in Spanish”, paper presented at the Mediterranean Syntax Meeting II, Boğaziçi University, Istambul. Haider, H. (2004) “Pre- and postverbal adverbials in OV and VO”, Lingua 114, 779-807. Hernanz, M.L. (2007) “From polarity to modality: Some (a)symmetries between bien and sí in Spanish”. In: L. Eguren & O. Fernández Soriano (eds.). Coreference, Modality, and Focus, Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. 133-170. Hinterhölzl, R. (2006) Scrambling, Remnant Movement, and Restructuring in West Germanic. Oxford: OUP. İşsever, S. (2003) “Information Structure in Turkish: The Word Order-Prosody Interface”, Lingua 113, 1025-1053. Jackendoff, R. (1990) “On Larson's treatment of the double object construction”, Linguistic Inquiry 21, 427-456. Jayaseelan, K. (2001) “IP-Internal Topic and Focus Phrases”, Studia Linguistica 55, 39-75. Jiménez, Á. (2000) “Categorías Funcionales Mínimas”, Actas del IV Congreso de Lingüística General. Universidad de Cádiz. 1515-1523. Jiménez, Á (2005). “A Minimalist Approach to Topicalisation and Focalisation”. In: F. Garrudo & J. Comesaña (eds.) Estudios de Filología Inglesa en Honor de Antonio Garnica. Sevilla: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla. 269-290. ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 The low periphery of double object constructions 199 Jiménez, Á. (2008) “A discourse/agreement-based approach to peripheries”, paper presented at the Mediterranean Syntax Meeting II, Boğaziçi University, Istambul. Kayne, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Larson, R. (1988) “On the Double Object Construction”, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391. Larson, R. (1990) “Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff”, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589-632. Linden, E. van der & P. Sleeman (2007) “Clitic Dislocation: Evidence for a low Topic position”. In: B. Los & M. van Koppen (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands. 173–186. Miyagawa, S. (2005) “On the EPP”. In: N. Richards & M. McGinnis (eds.) Perspectives on Phases. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 201-236. Ndayiragije, J. (1999) “Checking. Economy”, Linguistic Inquiry 30 (3), 399-444. Ojea, A. (1994) “Adverbios y categorías funcionales en español”, Revista Española de Lingüística 24 (2), 393-416. Ordoñez, F. (1998) “Post-Verbal Asymmetries in Spanish”, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16, 313-346. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989) “Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP”, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Londres/Nueva York: Longman. Radford, A. (2007) “Split projections, percolation, syncretism and interrogative auxiliary inversion”. In: A. Radford (ed.) Martin Atkinson – The Minimalist Muse, Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 53, 157-192. Radford, A. (2009) Analysing English Sentences. Cambridge: CUP. Rizzi, L. (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery”. In: L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 281-337. Rizzi, L. (2004) The Structure of CP and IP: the Cartography of Syntactic Structures. New York: Oxford University Press, 1-75. Rooryck, J. (1992) “Romance Enclitic Ordering and Universal Grammar”, Linguistic Review 9: 219-250. Ross, J. R . (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD diss., MIT. Rouveret, A. (2002) “How are resumptive pronouns linked to the periphery?” Linguistic Variation Yearbook, volume 2, 123-184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 200 Ángel Jiménez Fernández ISSN 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 23 (2009) 179-200 Samek-Lodovici, V. (2005) “Prosody-Syntax Interaction in the Expression of Focus”, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23, 687-755. Uriagereka, J. (1995) “An F-position in Western Romance”. In: K. É. Kiss (ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages, 153–175. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Valmala, V. (2008) “Topic, focus and floating quantification”, paper presented at the Mediterranean Syntax Meeting II, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul. Villalba, X. (1999) “Right Dislocation is not right dislocation”. In: O. Fullana, F. Roca (eds.). Studies on the Syntax of Central Romance Languages. Girona: Universidad de Girona. 227-241 Xu, L. (2004) “Manifestation of informational focus”, Lingua 114, 277-299. Zubizarreta, M.L. (1998) Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zubizarreta, M.L. (1999) “Las funciones informativa: Tema y foco”. In: I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.). Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa. 4215-4244. Ángel Jiménez Fernández Fecha de recepción: 2 de diciembre de 2008 [email protected] Fecha de aceptación: 26 de enero de 2009 Departamento de Filología Inglesa Universidad de Sevilla