Abstract
In this paper I claim that topic-topicalization is an obligatory substitution movement into Muller and Sternefeld's (1993) Topic Phrase, and that focus-topicalization is an optional adjunction movement to the IP-adjoined position. The present analysis of topic- and focus-topicalizations, coupled with Rizzi's (1990) Relativized Minimality, is shown to straightforwardly account for (i) why topic-topicalization constitutes an island while focus-topicalization does not, (ii) why a topic-topicalized element must precede a focus-topicalized element when both topic- and focus-topicalizations are applied to a single clause, and (iii) why multiple topic-topicalization is not allowed while multiple focus-topicalization is allowed. I also claim that Culicover's (1991) analysis of topic- and focus-topicalizations is not tenable, and that Chomsky's (1992, 1995) movement theory cannot accommodate the question of why topic-topicalized elements create an island while focus-topicalized elements do not
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
