Classical NEG Raising: An Essay on the Syntax of Negation

15. Topicalization

Topicalization 15.1 The Necessary Condition on Topicalization In the preceding chapter, we formulated a proposal for the necessary general condition on Negative Inversion. In this chapter, we investigate conditions on topicalization and the way topicalization structures interact with Classical NR. In the overwhelming mass of cases, when Negative Inversion is possible for a particular phrase type, topicalization is impossible, and conversely: (1) a. Under no circumstances would I agree to such a plan. b. *Under no circumstances, I would agree to such a plan. (2) a. Under those circumstances, I would agree to such a plan. b. *Under those circumstances would I agree to such a plan. Given such facts, the condition on the fronted phrase for topicalization appears to be essentially the negation of the condition on the fronted phrase for Negative Inversion, (25) of chapter 14, repeated here: (3) The Negative Inversion Condition In a structure K = [FocP Q Aux S], where Q is an NI focus, a. Q is (or dominates) a DP V such that V’s scope position is higher than the position of any other element of K; and b. i. V is SYNNEG or ii. 冀V冁 is a monotone decreasing function. Recall that SYNNEG was defined as follows ((13a) of chapter 14): (4) Definition: SYNNEG An XP Z is SYNNEG if and only if there is a unary-NEG structure V = [NEG X] and i. Z = V, or ii. V is the D of Z. 15 158 Chapter 15 Given that, the condition on topicalization can be formulated as follows: (5) The Topicalization Condition In a structure K = [TopP Q S], where Q is a topic, a. Q is (or dominates) a DP V such that V’s scope position is higher than the position of any other element of K; and b. i. V is not SYNNEG and ii. 冀V冁 is not monotone decreasing. Note that (5b) is the negation of (3b). Conditions (3) and (5) jointly account for the following systematic contrasts:1 (6) a. That fashion magazine/*No fashion magazine, I am sure he read. b. Those fashion magazines/*Not many fashion magazines, people still buy. c. Almost everyone/*Not everyone, they plan to interview. d. Many professors/*Few professors, the dean said were vampires. e. More than/*Less than thirty-two admission candidates, they did contact. For example, (6a) with no fashion magazine is excluded because no fashion magazine is both SYNNEG and monotone decreasing. Increasing DPs that are SYNNEG also cannot be topics, as illustrated in (7b,d): (7) a. Jane invited no fewer than seventy people to her party. b. *No fewer than seventy people, Jane invited to her party. c. *Only Louise, Jane is going to exclude from the meeting.2 d. *Not only Louise, Jane is going to exclude from the meeting. The ill-formedness of both (7c,d) illustrates both a desirable consequence of condition (5) and a problem parallel to the one only phrases in particular raised for our formulation of the Negative Inversion Condition. Even though the topic in (7d) is a negation of that in (7c), and the former yields an ungrammatical topicalization, so does the latter. The ungrammaticality of (7d) follows from the fact that not only Louise is SYNNEG (via (5bi)). But only Louise in (7c) is technically nonmonotonic, hence not actually blocked by (5bii). Again, perhaps an appeal to Strawson decreasingness is the proper solution, as only Louise in (7c) is Strawson decreasing. Alternatively, our suggestion in chapter 14 that such only phrases might be reductions of those like no one except Louise offers the possibility that only Louise is SYNNEG, hence blocked as a topic by (5bi). Topicalization 159 Condition (5) also predicts the following facts concerning the scope of negative quantifiers embedded in other DPs: (8) a. The disbarring of not a single corrupt lawyer, she disapproved of. (= She disapproved of the fact that no corrupt lawyers were disbarred.) b. Your willingness to interview not one star, Ted was shocked by. (= Ted was shocked by the fact that you were unwilling to interview any stars.) c. Interrogations of no one, he said took little time. (= He said failures to interrogate anyone took little time.) Example (8a) is grammatical even though the topic contains a decreasing negative DP, because the latter fails to have scope over the matrix clause. Similarly, (8b,c) are grammatical because not one star and no one do not take...