A cline of constructions conventionally called raising-to-object (RTO) has been found throughout typologically diverse languages. In a theory-neutral sense, these constructions are characterized by allowing a phrase that is thematically linked to an embedded predicate to optionally surface outside of the embedded clause and exhibit characteristics typical of a matrix object. In both Passamaquoddy (Algonquian) and Romanian (Romance), for example, the subject of a finite embedded clause selected by a knowledge/perception verb can optionally appear in the matrix object position and show object agreement with the matrix verb (1)–(2):
Constructions similar to (1)–(2) have been observed in a number of genetically distinct languages, including Japanese (Kuno 1976; Tanaka 2002), Blackfoot (Frantz 1978), Korean (Hong 1990; Yoon 2007), Moroccan Arabic (Wager 1983; Massam 1985), Tsez (Polinsky & Potsdam 2001), Madurese (Davies 2005), and Zulu (Halpert & Zeller 2015). Despite their superficial similarities, these constructions fall into two subtypes with regard to whether or not the “raised” phrase (henceforth the XP) undergoes an actual movement from the embedded clause. In the first type of RTO, the XP is in fact base-generated in its spell-out position and semantically linked to the embedded clause via coindexation with an embedded pronoun. This type of construction is commonly referred to as prolepsis (e.g., Madurese: Davies 2005; Tagalog: Law 2011; Sundanese: Kurniawan 2012), illustrated with the data below from Madurese (3). According to Davies (2005), the XP Hasan, which appears to move out of the finite embedded CP, is essentially base-generated in the matrix object position and coindexed with the third-person pronoun aba’eng in the embedded clause:
A second type of RTO construction has been analyzed as involving an actual movement of the XP out of the embedded clause. Such constructions invariably impose a constraint known as “Subject-only”, whereby only the embedded subject is eligible for raising (e.g., Japanese: Bruening 2001; Tanaka 2002; Korean: Yoon 2007; Romanian: Alboiu & Hill 2013; Zulu: Halpert & Zeller 2015). In Zulu RTO, for example, only the embedded subject and not the embedded object (e.g., ‘egg’) can surface at the matrix object position and serve as an XP, as seen in (4):
Many Philippine-type Austronesian languages impose a similar constraint known as “Pivot-only”, whereby only the syntactically pivotal phrase eligible for A’-extraction (henceforth the Pivot) can participate in raising (e.g., Malagasy: Paul & Rabaovololona 1998; Pearson 2005; Tagalog: Gerassimova & Sells 2008; Law 2011; Atayal: Liu 2011; Tsou: Liu 2011; Paiwan: Wu 2013; Amis: Chen & Fukuda 2016; Seediq: Chen & Fukuda 2016). This constraint is illustrated with the Malagasy data below. As seen in (5), when the embedded verb of a complex sentence is in Actor voice (AV) (5a), only the external argument of the clause, i.e., the embedded Pivot, is eligible for raising. The embedded patient ‘that chicken’ cannot raise (5b), as it is not the Pivot of the AV clause.1 When the embedded verb is marked in Patient voice (PV), only the embedded patient, i.e., the Pivot of the PV clause, is eligible for raising (5c). The embedded external argument ‘Ranaivo’ cannot raise (5d), as it is not the Pivot of the clause:2
The purpose of this paper is to investigate a heretofore unanalyzed RTO construction in the Philippine-type Austronesian language Puyuma, which, unlike most attested cases of RTO, need not contain a pronoun in the embedded clause coindexed with the XP (e.g., (3)), and does not impose a “Subject/Pivot-only” constraint on the raised phrase. Contra the observation from Malagasy (5), a “raised” phrase in Puyuma RTO need not be the Pivot of the embedded clause. As seen in (6), in a complex sentence with a PV-marked embedded clause, the embedded Pivot kujan ‘the shrimp’ (6b) and the non-Pivot external argument walak ‘the child’ (6c) are both eligible for raising:
Adjuncts that semantically belong to the embedded clause are also accessible to raising. As seen in (7), an embedded locative adjunct (‘in Arasip’) may appear to the left of the complementizer dra and serve as an XP (7b):
At first glance, the Puyuma RTO construction appears to involve an XP that undergoes movement from the embedded clause to a matrix position, similar to what has been proposed for RTO in Japanese, Romanian, and Zulu (Tanaka 2002; Alboiu & Hill 2013; Halpert & Zeller 2015). The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that examples (6)–(7) in fact represent an under-explored type of RTO construction, in which the XP is base-generated at the embedded left periphery as a hanging topic, which is semantically linked to the embedded clause via the aboutness condition (e.g., Reinhart 1981; Lambrecht 1994). As an aboutness relation between a CP and a left-dislocated phrase (XP) can be established either through coindexation with an embedded pronoun or simply through the pragmatics, Puyuma RTO may, but need not, involve a gap in the embedded clause. This analysis is presented in (8):
|(8)||VMatrix [CP XP(i) C V …… (pronouni) …]||via the aboutness condition|
Under (8), I show that the relation between the XP and the embedded CP in Puyuma RTO is parallel to that between hanging topics and root clauses in the language. I argue accordingly that Puyuma RTO is best analyzed as an embedded topic construction that involves an aboutness topic base-generated at the left periphery of a finite embedded clause. Drawing on comparative data from RTO in Madurese (Davies 2005), Sundanese (Kurniawan 2012), and Tagalog (Gerassimova & Sells 2008; Law 2011), I discuss how the observation from Puyuma RTO enriches a typology of non-movement-type RTO constructions. Finally, I explore how the present construction adds to the microvariation found in RTO constructions that have been analyzed as containing an XP as an embedded topic, drawing on previous analyses of Tsez (Polinsky & Potsdam 2001) and Romanian (Alboiu & Hill 2013).
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. I begin by describing the basic facts of Puyuma RTO in Section 2, and present a non-movement analysis of the XP in Section 3. Section 4 investigates the structural relation between the XP and the embedded CP, and discusses why the XP shows apparent matrix object behaviors while situated in the embedded left periphery. Section 5 explores the shared characteristics between the XPs in RTO and hanging topics in Puyuma, and shows that Puyuma RTO is best analyzed as an embedded topic construction. Section 6 places Puyuma RTO in a typology of RTO constructions and discusses its implications. Section 7 summarizes and concludes.
Previous studies have shown that RTO constructions across languages vary in (a) the size and finiteness of the complement, (b) the types of verbs that allow the structure, (c) the productivity of the construction, (d) the constraint on what types of phrases may serve as an XP, and (e) how the matrix behavior of the XP is manifested (see, e.g., Massam 1985; Moore 1998; Bruening 2001; Polinsky & Potsdam 2001; Tanaka 2002; Davies 2005; Yoon 2007; Alboiu & Hill 2013; Halpert & Zeller 2015). In this section, I provide a sketch of the morphosyntax of Puyuma (2.1), and present basic facts of Puyuma RTO with regard to (a)–(e) (2.2–4), summarized in (9):
|(9)||Main traits of Puyuma RTO|
|a.||Associated with a fully finite CP complement.|
|b.||Compatible with CP-taking verbs, most commonly with knowledge and perception verbs.|
|c.||Fully productive with Philippine-type voice alternation in both matrix and embedded clauses.|
|d.||Employs an XP that shows matrix-object behavior in case-marking and binding.|
|e.||Requires the XP to be definite, unless the XP bears a generic reading.|
Puyuma is a severely endangered Austronesian language spoken in southeastern Taiwan with less than 1,500 speakers (UNESCO 2010). Prior to this study, its RTO construction was reported in two reference grammars (Huang 2000; Teng 2007), both of which described it as a raising construction. The specific constraints and properties of this construction, however, have remained underanalyzed. Before entering into the discussion, I present basic facts of Puyuma relevant to the analysis of RTO.
As a typical Philippine-type language, Puyuma is predicate-initial, and possesses a four-way voice system with an elaborate argument-marking mechanism. The mapping between voice-marking and the argument-marking pattern in the language is presented in Table 1.
|Actor voice||Patient voice||Locative voice||Circumstantial voice|
As seen above, in Puyuma, when a clause is marked in Actor voice (AV) (-em-), Pivot-marking falls on the external argument, with the internal argument Accusative-marked (10a).3 When a clause is in Patient voice (PV) (-aw), Pivot-marking falls on the internal argument, with the external argument Genitive-marked (10b). When a clause is in Locative voice (LV) (-ay) or Circumstantial voice (CV) (-anay), Pivot-marking falls on the locative phrase and the benefactive or instrumental phrase, respectively. In either voice, the external argument carries Genitive-marking, and the internal argument carries Accusative-marking, as seen in (10c)–(d).
There is a noteworthy exception to this pattern. Like many other Philippine-type languages, Puyuma has a number of verbs that are morphologically marked as LV (-ay) but take a PV argument structure. In such cases, the LV-marked verb selects no locative phrase, but employs a Pivot-marked internal argument, as seen in (11a)–(b). Such verbs are glossed as “LV[PV]” throughout the paper.
The argument-marking system of Puyuma is presented in Table 2. As seen below, case-markers in the language are portmanteau in function, specifying both the case status of a phrase and the number and definiteness of its referent. In the dialect (Nanwang) investigated in this paper, Genitive and Accusative case have undergone morphological syncretism (Teng 2009). A Genitive/Accusative distinction is nevertheless evident by the presence or absence of a Genitive proclitic that crossreferences the Genitive phrase. As seen in (12a)–(b), the external argument of a non-AV clause is obligatorily present as a pronominal proclitic, which crossreferences a Genitive-marked proper name (12a). If the external argument is a pronoun, it appears merely as a proclitic. Accusative phrases, on the other hand, are not cross-referenced by a proclitic (e.g., kana kuraw ‘the fish’ in (12b)), which are therefore distinguished from the Genitive phrases. For the sake of clarity, I maintain a Genitive/Accusative distinction throughout the glosses in this paper.
|proper name||common noun||location|
The examples below illustrate how the definiteness distinction in argument-marking is manifested. In (13a), both the external and internal arguments bear an indefinite marker, whereas in (13b), both arguments are definite-marked. As both examples are in AV, there is no proclitic on the verb corresponding to the external argument bangsaran ‘young man’.
Finally, it is important to note that Puyuma imposes an A’-extraction restriction commonly found in Philippine-type languages, in which only the “Pivot”-marked phrase is eligible for A’-extraction. This constraint is known as “Pivot-only.” As exemplified in (14), when a clause is AV-marked, only the external argument, i.e., the Pivot, is accessible to relativization (14a). The internal argument cannot be relativized (14b), as it is not the Pivot of the AV-clause:
With this background in mind, I present the basic facts of Puyuma RTO in the following subsections.
I begin by clarifying the size and finiteness of the complement clause in the Puyuma RTO construction.
Puyuma RTO is associated with verbs that select a finite CP complement, and is most commonly observed with knowledge and perception verbs (e.g., ‘see’, ‘know’, ‘hear’, ‘dream’, ‘pray’, ‘fear’, ‘forget’, ‘miss’, ‘like’). Most languages in which RTO constructions are attested allow only a limited number of verbs to form an RTO structure (e.g., Japanese: Kuno 1976; Tanaka 2002; Passamaquoddy: Bruening 2001; Tsez: Polinsky & Potsdam 2001; Korean: Yoon 2007; Romanian: Alboiu & Hill 2013). In Puyuma, on the other hand, RTO is fully productive with CP-taking verbs.
The finite CP analysis of the RTO complement is evidenced by three major differences from infinitives. First, a complementizer dra is obligatorily present in the complement of RTO (15a), just as in non-raising sentences selected by the same matrix verb, as in (15b). In these examples I indicate the XP’s thematic equivalent in the embedded clause as “e.c.” (empty category), followed by a parenthesis that indicates its case status, as seen in (15a):
In contrast, infinitives in Puyuma do not allow a complementizer, as in (16a)–(b):
Second, the RTO complement is compatible with all types of voice markers (17a)–(d), as opposed to infinitives, which impose an “AV-only” constraint in voice-marking, whereby Actor voice is the only available voice marker on infinitival verbs (18a)–(b).
Third, the complement of RTO is fully compatible with all types of aspect markers (19), as opposed to infinitives, which cannot host aspect markers (20):
Given the observations above, it can be concluded that the complements of Puyuma RTO are finite CPs.
The XP in Puyuma RTO shows matrix object-like behaviors with respect to case-marking and binding. As seen below, an XP shows no case connectivity effect with the embedded clause, and its case-marking is fully dependent on the voice-marking of the matrix verb. When the matrix verb is in AV, the XP must bear Accusative-marking (21a), like a normal object of an AV verb (21b). When the matrix verb is in PV or LV, the XP obligatorily bears Pivot-marking (22a), like a normal object of PV verbs (22b):4
As can also be seen in the data above, Puyuma RTO imposes no voice-marking constraint on either the matrix or embedded verb, except for the fact that Circumstantial voice (as well as true Locative voice) is not an available voice type for the matrix verb of RTO.5
The matrix behavior of the XP is also manifested in binding. As seen below, at the “raised” position, a reflexive XP must be bound by a matrix antecedent, and it cannot be bound by the embedded external argument—which c-commands the XP’s thematic equivalent in the embedded clause. Therefore, in the RTO sentence (23a), the XP kantaaw ‘himself’ can only be interpreted as bound by the matrix external argument ‘Siber’, whereas in the non-raising sentence (23b), the thematic equivalent of the XP is locally bound by the embedded external argument, ‘Isaw’. Therefore, the RTO sentence (23a) bears a different reading from its non-raising counterpart (23b).
A similar effect is observed with RTO sentences that involve an XP containing a possessor. In such cases, only the matrix external argument and not the embedded external argument can bind into the XP and be interpreted as its possessor. Therefore, in the RTO sentence (24a), the XP tu=ngiyaw ‘her cat’ is most naturally interpreted so that the possessor is coindexed with the matrix subject Akang, whereas in a non-raising sentence (24b), tu=ngiyaw may be interpreted as the possessor referring to either the embedded external argument or the matrix external argument, resulting in a different reading from (24a).7
As shown above, the XP in Puyuma RTO shows matrix object behaviors in both case-marking and binding.
As introduced in Section 1, Philippine-type Austronesian languages commonly impose a “Pivot-only” constraint on the XP in RTO, which prevents non-A’-extractable phrases from participating in raising. In Puyuma RTO, however, this constraint is absent. As seen in (25), phrases with different case status and grammatical relations may serve as an XP. In (25a), the XP ‘Sayki’ is thematically identified with the Genitive-marked external argument of the embedded clause, whereas in (25b), the XP nadru walak ‘that child’ is thematically linked to the Accusative object of the embedded clause. In (25c), the XP ‘Tripul’ is thematically identified with a locative adjunct:
While a “Pivot-only” constraint on the XP is absent and the construction imposes no restriction on the grammatical relation of the XP, the XP in Puyuma RTO must be definite or be interpreted as generic if it bears an indefinite marking. As seen in (26a) and (27a), a phrase can be marked as either definite or indefinite in its theta-position ((26a), (27a)), whereas an XP must be definite-marked at the “raised” position in an RTO sentence ((26b), (27b)):
Exceptions to this constraint are found only when the XP has a generic reading. In such cases, the indefinite-marked XP may surface at the “raised” position, followed by a CP that denotes a proposition about the generic XP, as in (28a)–(b):
Besides such cases, the XPs in Puyuma RTO must be definite. This constraint serves as an important piece of evidence for understanding the nature of this construction, which will be discussed in Sections 4–5.
Having described the basic traits of Puyuma RTO, I put forward a non-movement analysis of the XP in this section, showing that the XP in Puyuma RTO is base-generated at its spell-out position.
Previous studies have revealed that RTO constructions across languages can be divided into three subtypes according to variation in the following behaviors: (a) the clause that the XP originates in (embedded or matrix), (b) the structural surface position of the XP, and (c) how the XP gets to its surface position (movement or base-generation). The first type of RTO has been analyzed as containing an XP that undergoes cyclic movement from its theta-position to a matrix A-position (29a) (Japanese: Tanaka 2002; Korean: Yoon 2007; Romanian: Alboiu & Hill 2013). The second type of RTO has been claimed to involve an XP that A’-moves from its theta-position to the embedded phase edge (29b) (Indonesian: Chung 1976; Passamaquoddy: Bruening 2001; Tsez: Polinsky & Potsdam 2001). A third type of RTO construction has been analyzed as containing an XP which is base-generated at the “raised” position and binds a coindexed pronoun in the embedded clause (29c) (e.g., Madurese: Davies 2005; Sundanese: Kurniawan 2012).
|(29)||Three types of RTO constructions|
|a.||XP undergoes cyclic movement from its theta-position to a matrix A-position9|
|Vmatrix …… XPi [CP <ti> C V …… <ti>]|
|b.||XP undergoes A’-movement to the embedded left periphery|
|Vmatrix …… [CP XPi C V …… <ti>]|
|c.||XP as base-generated at the “raised” position|
|Vmatrix …… XPi [CP C V …… pronouni]|
Given the absence of a “Pivot-only” constraint on the XP in Puyuma RTO—which obligatorily applies to all instances of A’-extraction in Puyuma (Huang 2000; Teng 2007)—an A’-movement analysis of the present construction (29a)–(b) is unlikely, pointing to a non-movement analysis of this construction. In the following subsections, I show that the behavior of the XP in Puyuma RTO indeed follows from this prediction.
The non-movement status of the XP is first indicated by the absence of island effects in the dependency between the XP and its correspondent in the embedded clause. As seen in (30), an XP can be identified with an empty category embedded inside a complex NP. That (30b) is wellformed thus suggests that the XP does not undergo A’-movement from the embedded clause.
Contra the observation from RTO, relativization (pseudo-clefting) in Puyuma is sensitive to island effects, whereby a phrase embedded inside a complex NP cannot be extracted (31a)–(b). This suggests that, unlike RTO, relativization in Puyuma involves A’-extraction.
Consistent with its immunity to complex NP islands, the XP in Puyuma RTO is insensitive to adjunct islands. As seen in (32), the XP ‘Isaw’, whose thematic equivalent is embedded inside an adjunct clause (32a), is eligible to surface at the “raised” position to form an RTO construction (32b). The well-formedness of this sentence again suggests that the XP does not undergo A’-movement from its theta-position.
This analysis is additionally confirmed with the data in (33), which shows that A’-extraction (pseudo-clefting) in Puyuma is sensitive to adjunct islands, as in (33):
A second argument for the non-movement analysis of the XP comes from its lack of reconstruction effects. As shown in the data below, an XP cannot contain a pronoun that is interpreted as a variable bound by the embedded external argument, hence the unavailability of a distributed reading between the XP and an embedded quantifier external argument. Therefore, in (34b), a bound variable reading is not available between the embedded quantifier external argument bulraybulrayan driya ‘every girl’ and the XP kantu arepu ‘her hair’. Likewise, a bound variable reading is not available between the embedded external argument suwan driya ‘every dog’ and the XP tu ikur ‘its tail’ in (35b):
The in-situ status of the Puyuma XPs is further evidenced by their difference in behavior from those in movement-type RTO constructions, which show reconstruction effects. According to previous studies, in instances of RTO whose XPs are sensitive to island effects, the XP can be interpreted as a variable bound by the embedded subject, suggesting that the XP undergoes movement from the embedded clause (see, e.g., Japanese RTO: Tanaka 2001; Passamaquoddy RTO: Bruening 2001; Romanian RTO: Alboiu & Hill 2013). In Passamaquoddy (Bruening 2001: 6), for instance, an XP can be bound by a quantifier external argument and interpreted as a variable (36b), suggesting that it undergoes A’-movement from the embedded clause:
Given the observations above, I conclude that Puyuma RTO is best analyzed as containing an XP base-generated in its spell-out position. Several important traits of this construction follow consistently from this analysis: first, the XP shows no case connectivity effect, indicating that the XP does not undergo movement from the embedded clause, and second, the XP is insensitive to a “Pivot-only” constraint, indicating the absence of A’-movement in this construction.
Having presented a non-movement analysis for the XP in Puyuma RTO, I address an important question: how is the relation between the base-generated XP and the embedded CP established? In this section, I demonstrate that the relation between the two is formed by the aboutness condition.
We have seen in Section 1 that an XP can be identified with an adjunct of the embedded clause. Two examples of this type are presented below, whereby the XP is identified with a temporal (37a) or locative (37b) adjunct of the embedded CP:
These examples suggests that the presence of a gap might not be necessary for the complement clause of Puyuma RTO, indicating that the relation between the XP and the embedded CP in this construction cannot be attributed to a conventional proleptic analysis—according to which the XP is thematically linked to the embedded clause through coindexation with an embedded pronoun, as in (38) (Higgins 1981; Panhuis 1984; Massam 1985; Davies 2005; Salzmann to appear):
|(38)||Vmatrix …… XPi [CP C V …… pronouni] prolepsis||(repeated from (29c))|
The data below shows further evidence that the relation between the XP and the CP in Puyuma RTO is distinct from that of a proleptic construction. In both sentences the embedded clause is gapless, but denotes a proposition relevant to the XP. The well-formedness of both examples (39)–(40) suggests that the XP-CP relation in Puyuma RTO may be established simply through the pragmatics.
I argue that the relation between the XP and the embedded CP in Puyuma RTO is best analyzed as formed by the aboutness condition (Reinhart 1981; Gundel 1985; Lambrecht 1994; Jacobs 2001) (41), whereby the XP is essentially an aboutness topic of the embedded clause.
|(41)||A topic is an expression whose referent the sentence is about. The concept “topic” is a category of pragmatic aboutness. (Reinhart 1981)|
As an aboutness relation between a topic and a CP can be established either through coindexation with an embedded pronoun or simply through the pragmatics, the embedded CP in a Puyuma RTO sentence may but need not contain a pronoun. This analysis is illustrated in (42):
|(42)||VMatrix …… [CP DP(i) C …. V … (pronouni)]]||via the aboutness condition|
If this proposal is on the right track, Puyuma RTO is predicted to show two characteristics: (i) the XP should exhibit topic properties, and (ii) the RTO complement must be pragmatically connected to the referent of the XP to satisfy the aboutness condition. In this subsection, I discuss evidence for the second prediction. The topic properties of the XP will be discussed in Section 4.
Consistent with the proposal in (42), example (43) shows that failure to establish an aboutness relation between the XP and the CP yields semantic infelicity and makes an RTO sentence unacceptable. As seen below, when the embedded CP in RTO does not contain a pronoun coindexed with the XP, the content of the CP must be pragmatically connected to the XP. Therefore, replacing the embedded Pivot etruk ‘carp’ with ladru ‘mango’—which is not pragmatically connected to the XP ‘fish’—makes the RTO sentence unacceptable.
In line with the observation from (43), example (44) shows that an RTO sentence is infelicitous if the pragmatic connection between the XP and the CP is missing. Without context, the sentence in (44) is unacceptable, as the XP ‘Sayki’ is not pragmatically linked to the content of the embedded CP “Siber bought a car”. However, a Puyuma speaker I consulted noted that (44) is potentially acceptable if the XP ‘Sayki’ and the embedded Pivot ‘Siber’ have a certain relationship that is known by both the speaker and the addressee. For instance, if the XP ‘Sayki’ refers to the wife of Siber, (44) is acceptable as a propositional sentence about Sayki. This interpretation lends further support to the current analysis, that the relation between the XP and the CP is established through the aboutness condition.
Additional evidence for this analysis is shown in the data below: In order to establish the aboutness relation between the XP and the CP, the XP ‘Atrung’ in (45) must be interpreted as the possessor of the embedded possessive phrase ‘her house’, as the XP cannot be pragmatically linked to any other argument within the embedded CP. Therefore, although in simple clauses (e.g., (46)), both ‘Senten’ and ‘Labu’ are a potential binder of the possessive phrase ‘her house’, in the RTO sentence (45), only the XP (‘Atrung’) can be interpreted as the possessor of the pronominal phrase ‘her house’ in order for the aboutness relation between the XP and the CP to be established.10
Given the observations above, I conclude that the relation between the XP and the CP in Puyuma RTO is best analyzed as established through the aboutness condition.
Having addressed the non-movement nature of the XP and its relation with the embedded clause, I turn to two subsequent questions: (i) what is the structural relation between the XP and the embedded CP?, and (ii) how are the matrix behaviors of the XP accounted for? I will show that the XP in Puyuma RTO is best analyzed as an aboutness topic base-generated in a specifier position in the embedded left periphery, as in (47):
Under this analysis, the XP forms a constituent with the embedded CP, and does not undergo movement into an A-position in the higher clause. I will first present evidence for this analysis (4.1) and discuss how the XP shows apparent matrix object-like behaviors (4.2).
Support for the XP being internal to the embedded CP comes from two independent pieces of evidence. First, an XP cannot be separated from the embedded CP in linear order, as seen in (48):11
In contrast, a genuine matrix object can be separated from a following complement by the same temporal adverb adaman ‘yesterday’, as in (49):12
The difference between (48) and (49) suggests that the XP in Puyuma RTO must not be base-generated in a matrix object position, but is situated in the embedded left periphery. This analysis is reinforced by an observation from Madurese proleptic construction (Davies 2005), where an XP is free to surface to the left of a matrix temporal adverb, as in (50):
Despite the lack of in-depth analysis on the structural position of the XP in proleptic constructions, previous work has generally assumed it to be base-generated in a direct object position and be independent of the embedded clause (see, e.g., Davies 2005, which proposes the XP to be base-generated at [Spec, AgrOP]; see also Kurniawan 2012 and Salzmann to appear for a similar assumption). The difference in acceptability of an intervening adverb between the XP and the CP between Madurese prolepsis and Puyuma RTO therefore suggests that the latter employs a structure distinct from prolepsis.
The second argument for the current analysis—that the XP in Puyuma RTO is inside the embedded CP—comes from the case-marking of the XP. As shown in all data presented in this paper, in Puyuma, there can only be one (particular) phrase that is eligible for Pivot-marking within each finite CP. This “Pivot as unique constraint” is stated in (51) and illustrated with the data below in (52)–(53). As (52) shows, when a verb is PV-marked, the Theme DP of the sentence must be Pivot-marked.
|(51)||In every clause, there must be one and only one phrase that bears Pivot-marking. The selection of the Pivot-marked phrase is indicated by voice-marking on the verb.|
When a non-AV marked verb selects two objects, only one of the two is eligible for Pivot-marking. This is seen in (53): when a ditransitive verb is in PV, only the Recipient can be Pivot-marked (53a); when the verb is in CV, only the Theme can be Pivot-marked (53b). A “double-Pivot-marking” pattern results in ungrammaticality.
As introduced in Section 2, other than argument-marking the Pivot status of a constituent is manifested also by its accessibility to A’-extraction. As shown in (54), only when the internal argument of a verb is in Pivot status can it undergo A’-extraction. Therefore, only when the verb ‘forget’ is in PV can the object ‘key’ be pseudo-clefted:
When a knowledge/perception verb selects a CP complement, as in (55), the Pivot status of the CP is not morphologically realized, but is nevertheless manifested in the CP’s accessibility to A’-extraction. The special constraint has been observed in various Philippine-type Austronesian languages, and has led to the claim that CPs are Case-licensed in these languages, just as DPs are (e.g., Chung 1994; Pearson 2005; Rackowski & Richards 2005; Chen & Fukuda 2016). See the data below from Puyuma (56) and Tagalog (57):
Given the extraction facts presented above, we can conclude that a CP complement bears Pivot status when it is selected by a PV-marked verb, as in (58):
Building on this generalization, consider again the RTO sentence in (59):
Given that Pivot-marking must be unique within a single clause (see the “Pivot as unique” constraint in (51)), the fact that the XP in the RTO sentence (59) bears obligatory Pivot-marking thus suggests that the XP and the CP must form a single constituent. If they do not, the Pivot status of both the CP and the XP would suggest an argument-marking pattern that is otherwise disallowed in Puyuma.
Further support for this proposal comes from the data below in (60), which shows that A’-extraction out of the embedded CP is possible in an RTO sentence.14 The fact that an object can be extracted from the embedded CP in this sentence indicates that the embedded CP must be in Pivot status.
Given the observations above, I conclude that the XP’s apparent matrix-object behavior in case-marking is best analyzed as reflecting the case assigned to the CP. This analysis is illustrated in (61):
Below I provide an account for why the XP—as a left-dislocated phrase in the embedded [Spec CP]—manifests matrix-object-like case-marking. Following recent proposals by van Koppen et al. (2016) and Pearson (2018), I argue that a left-dislocated phrase can have its morphological case determined “from above” by a c-commanding head, as long as it is in a local structural relation to that head. Following Pesetsky (2013), I assume that morphological case is the reflex of categorial feature copying in the syntax, where feature copying occurs when a head merges with a dependent. For example, when a head F selects a complement, the lexical category feature of F is copied onto all the terms of that complement. If the complement contains a DP, the feature copied from F may be realized on that DP—which is expressed through insertion of a particular morphological case when the complement is spelled out.
Under this approach, in Puyuma RTO constructions, merger of the matrix V with the embedded CP causes V’s categorial feature to be copied onto every term of the CP, including the XP, which is base-generated in [Spec CP].15 Since the XP is a DP and is locally c-commanded by the matrix V, it will realize this categorial feature in the form of morphological case. Following the existing accusative approaches to Philippine-type Austronesian languages (e.g., Chung 1994; Pearson 2001; 2005; Rackowski 2002; Rackowski & Richards 2005; Chen 2016, 2017), I assume that Puyuma exhibits a nominative-accusative Case system, and that the marker “Pivot” is a topic marker that overrides morphological case, which falls on the external argument in AV clauses and the internal argument in PV clauses, as illustrated in Table 3. Under this analysis, the CP complement of a knowledge/perception verb always receives (abstract) accusative Case, which is spell-out as morphological case and copied onto the XP. When the CP complement is in Pivot status, however, the accusative case on the XP is overridden by “Pivot”-marking, resulting in ECM-like phenomenon in Puyuma RTO constructions.
|Actor voice||Patient voice|
In sum, given evidence from word order restrictions on the XP (see (48)) and the “Pivot as unique” constraint discussed above (see (51) and its associated discussion), we can conclude that the XP in Puyuma RTO is best analyzed as a dislocated phrase base-generated in the embedded left periphery.
Having addressed the structural relation between the XP and the CP, an important question needs to be answered: if the XP is indeed situated in the embedded left periphery (62), how can it manifest matrix object behaviors in binding, as discussed in 2.2? In this subsection, I show that these apparent matrix behaviors of the XP in fact follow from the present analysis.
As the XP is base-generated at the embedded left edge, it is predicted to be unable to be bound by the embedded external argument, as is indeed observed in the previous data (23)–(24) in Section 2.2. On the other hand, given that anaphoric binding in Puyuma can cross a clausal boundary—as seen in (63a)–(b)—we expect that an XP can be bound by a coreferential matrix external argument, as it is the closest antecedent of the XP. This prediction is indeed borne out with the observations in the previous examples (23b) and (24b), repeated below in (64a)–(b):
Given these observations, it can be concluded that there is no conflict between the current analysis of the XP and its apparent matrix object-like behaviors.
Having proposed in 4.1 that the XP in Puyuma RTO has the status of an embedded topic, I will demonstrate that the XP exhibits behaviors similar to those of hanging topics in Puyuma (65):
|(65)||The status of the XP in Puyuma RTO|
|The relation between an XP and the embedded CP is parallel to that between hanging topics and root clauses.|
In this subsection, I summarize basic traits of hanging topics in Puyuma. Puyuma has a sentence-initial position that can be filled by three types of phrases: (i) referential definite DPs, (ii) indefinite DPs that bear a generic reading, and (iii) adjuncts that embed a definite DP. Indefinite DPs cannot occupy this position (66b), unless they have a generic reading, as in (66c)–(d). Adjuncts that contain a definite DP and an adverbial clause may also surface at this position, as in (66e):
In constructions like (66a)–(e), the left-dislocated phrase (henceforth YP) is followed by a particle i and a pause. Phrases eligible to occupy the sentence-initial position show characteristics typical of a base-generated phrase. First, similar to what is observed with the XP in RTO, failure to establish an aboutness relation between a YP and the root clause results in semantic infelicity. This is seen in (67)–(68): in order for the sentence (67) to be acceptable, the possessive phrase ‘her house’ embedded inside an adjunct must be interpreted as being possessed by the YP ‘Senten’. Example (68) further shows that a YP must be pragmatically associated with the root clause. Thus, replacing the embedded Pivot pulrikudrakudran ‘chrysanthemums’ with pangudral ‘pineapples’—which is not pragmatically linked to the hanging topic ‘flowers’—results in semantic infelicity:
Further, several pieces of evidence suggest that the YP does not undergo A’-movement from the root clause.16 First, similar to the XP in RTO, the YP is insensitive to a “Pivot-only” constraint, and can be identified with phrases of all types of case status and thematic roles. As seen in (69), a YP can be identified with a Genitive external argument (69a), an Accusative internal argument (69b), or a locative adjunct (69c):
Second, the dependency between a YP and its correspondent in the root clause does not show island effects. As seen in (70), a YP can be identified with an external argument embedded inside a complex NP island, indicating that it does not A’-move from its theta-position.
Consistent with the observations above, the YP shows no reconstruction effects. As seen in the data below, a pronominal YP (‘her child’) cannot be interpreted as a variable bound by a quantifier external argument (‘every mother’), as in (71b):
Finally, the YP shows no case connectivity effects with the root clause. As seen in (72), a phrase that occupies the topic position must carry the morphological marking ‘Pivot’, regardless of its case status in the root clause:17
Given the observations above, I argue that the YP exhibits the hallmarks of a hanging topic/aboutness topic, which is base-generated extra-sententially and pragmatically connected to a clause via the aboutness condition (e.g., Aissen 1992; Anagnostopoulou 1997; Zeller 2009; Miyagawa to appear). The observations that a YP must be either definite-marked or bear a generic reading follows directly from this analysis, as aboutness topics are commonly observed to be subject to a constraint that they must be definite or generic (see, e.g., Reinhart 1982; Lyons 1999; Krifka 2001; Cruschina 2016).
In what follows, I discuss how this hanging topic construction sheds light on the nature of Puyuma RTO.
As foreshadowed in the preceding subsection, the XP in Puyuma RTO shows behaviors parallel to hanging topics (the YPs). Both exhibit the hallmarks of a base-generated phrase, evidenced by their insensitivity to a “Pivot-only” constraint, as well as their immunity to islands, lack of reconstruction effects, and absence of case connectivity. Furthermore, both are subject to a definiteness constraint, except for cases where they bear a generic reading. These similarities are summarized in Table 4.
|hanging topic||XP in RTO|
|case connectivity effect||✕||✕|
Given Table 4, I argue that Puyuma RTO is best analyzed as an embedded topic construction that contains an aboutness topic base-generated at the embedded [Spec CP], whose structure has been discussed previously in Section 4.1. The current analysis is in concord with Massam’s (1985) proposal that apparent cases of RTO constructions may contain an XP that functions as an embedded topic, which may or may not undergo further ECM-movement into a matrix A-position (Massam 1985: 115–23). The non-movement analysis of the XP further concurs with a recent proposal in Landau (2011), that the relation between a gapless propositional CP and a hanging topic can be established via the aboutness condition.
The aboutness topic analysis of the XP offers a compelling account for several important traits of Puyuma RTO: (i) the XPs are subject to a definiteness constraint (2.3) while are insensitive to the constraints on A’-extraction (3.1–3.2), and (ii) the construction need not contain a gap in the embedded clause (3.3). Finally, the observation that Puyuma RTO is fully productive with CP-taking verbs follows from this analysis, as verbs which select a CP complement presumably cannot restrict whether that CP includes a topic.
An anonymous reviewer noted that if the present analysis is on the right track, the embedded gap in Puyuma RTO (whenever present) should be fillable with an overt pronoun, as should the gap in a hanging topic construction. This prediction is indeed borne out. As shown in the preceding discussion, both an XP and a hanging topic (YP) can be coindexed with a possessive phrase (e.g., (66b), (70)). Furthermore, as introduced in Section 2.1, when the embedded clause of an RTO construction is non-AV-marked, a Genitive proclitic is obligatorily present on the embedded verb, which crossreferences the XP, as seen previously in (21a) and (22a). The same observation applies to hanging topic constructions, as seen above in (69a) and (70). According to primary fieldwork, only when the embedded clause in an RTO sentence is AV-marked is an overt pronoun dispreferred (73a). A parallel observation is found with hanging topic constructions (73b), where the spell-out of an overt pronoun in the theta-position of the topic phrase is disfavored:
A final question regarding the topic analysis of the XP concerns the observation that unlike the YPs in hanging topic constructions (74a), a presence of the particle i following the XP in Puyuma RTO is considered redundant and disfavored by speakers (74b):
I remain agnostic about the nature of this asymmetry, and tentatively propose that the particle i is the spell-out of the functional head that introduces the aboutness topic at the C domain. In matrix environment, this functional head is always spelled out, as the matrix complementizer is not morphologically realized in Puyuma. In embedded environment, on the other hand, this functional head is preferred to be null, as spelling out both this head and the embedded complementizer dra—which is obligatorily spelled out in all sentences with a finite embedded clause—results in two adjacent functional words, which is disprefered in Puyuma grammar. This possible analysis requires further investigation.
In this section, I place Puyuma RTO in a typology of RTO constructions and explore its implications. In Section 6.1, I discuss how the current constructions enrich our understanding of the microvariation found in non-movement-type RTO constructions. In Section 6.2, I focus on the embedded topic analysis of the XP in Puyuma RTO, and point out that XPs in a number of RTO constructions exhibit variation in behavior parallel to topics in root clause environments.
I have demonstrated in the preceding sections that Puyuma RTO contains a base-generated topic whose relation with the finite embedded CP need not be established via an embedded gap. As briefly discussed in Section 3.3, the acceptability of a gapless embedded CP in Puyuma RTO suggests that this construction employs a mechanism different from similar constructions found in three other Austronesian languages, Madurese, Sundanese, and Tagalog (Davies 2005; Law 2011; Kurniawan 2012), despite their superficial resemblances in Table 5.
|a||finite embedded CP||✓||✓||✓||✓|
|d||case connectivity of the XP||✕||?||?||✕|
|e||obligatoriness of an embedded gap||✕||✕||✓||✓|
|f||Subject/Pivot-only constriant on the XP||✕||✕||✕||✓|
As seen above, RTO in all four languages employs a finite CP complement and an XP that shows the hallmarks of a base-generated phrase, manifested in its insensitivity to islands, lack of reconstruction effects, and case connectivity. However, a closer look at these four constructions reveals interesting microvariation. First, in Puyuma, a pro in the embedded clause is not necessary, whereas in Madurese, Sundanese, and Tagalog a pro is required (Davies 2005; Gerassimova & Sells 2008; Law 2011; Kurniawan 2012). Second, Puyuma, Madurese, and Sundanese do not impose a “Subject/Pivot-only” constraint on the XP, while Tagalog does (Kroeger 1993; Gerassimova & Sells 2008). In addition, RTO in the first three languages shows full productivity with CP-taking verbs, whereas Tagalog RTO is restricted to a small number of knowledge/perception verbs (Law 2011; primary data). In what follows, I discuss the ways in which the differences in these constructions illuminate the strategies available for establishing a relation between a left-dislocated XP and a CP.
|(75)||Prolepsis refers to a construction where an apparent nonthematic object in the matrix clause anticipates the referent of that object as a thematic argument of the embedded clause. (Davies 2005: 646).|
Along the line of previous work, Salzmann (to appear) has explicitly argued that a coreferential element in the embedded clause is obligatory in a proleptic construction. This constraint is illustrated with the English examples (76a)–(b) (Salzmann to appear: 1):
|(76)||a.||I believe of Johni that hei likes Mary.|
|b.||*I believe of this crisis that the president should resign.|
Consistent with this definition, the RTO constructions in Madurese, Sundanese, and Tagalog have each been described as requiring an embedded resumptive element coindexed with the XP. In Madurese and Sundanese, the resumptive element can be manifested as an overt pronoun (77a)–(b) (Davies 2005; Kurniawan 2012), whereas in Tagalog, it is usually a null pro (Law 2011; primary data), as in (77c):
The differences between these three constructions and Puyuma RTO suggests that the relationship between a base-generated left-dislocated phrase and a CP can be established through at least two strategies: coindexation, as employed by Madurese, Sundanese, and Tagalog (78a), and an aboutness condition, as employed by Puyuma (78b):
|(78)||a.||VMatrix … [DPi [CP C …. V … pronouni]]||via coindexation with an embedded pronoun|
|b.||VMatrix …. DP(i) [CP C …. V … (pronouni)]||via the aboutness condition|
Finally, the case of Tagalog RTO further suggests that languages may employ an independent constraint to restrict the coindexation relation between a left-dislocated phrase and a CP. As seen below, an XP in Tagalog RTO must be identified with an embedded Pivot phrase, while this is not the case in Madurese and Sundanese RTO:
In the following subsection, I turn to the topic analysis of the XP in Puyuma RTO and discuss its implications.
It has been shown in Section 5 that the XP in Puyuma RTO has the status of an embedded topic, which shares a number of similarities with hanging topics in root clauses. The parallel behaviors between XPs and hanging topics in Puyuma thus suggest that languages may utilize parallel strategies in forming matrix and embedded topicalization. One question that arises from this observation is whether an embedded topic analysis may apply to other apparent cases of RTO.
It is widely observed that topics behave differently across and within languages. A topic may be base-generated in its theta-position and undergo A’-movement to the left periphery, commonly referred to as an internal topic; it may also be base-generated outside of a clause, as an external or hanging topic (e.g., Rizzi 1986; 1997; Cinque 1990; Aissen 1992; Anagnostopoulou 1997; Zeller 2009). If the XP in some RTO constructions has the status of an embedded topic, we expect to observe similar variation in behavior with the XPs.
This prediction is indeed borne out, along with Massam’s (1985) proposal that some ECM elements may have the status of an embedded topic. Besides Puyuma, Tsez and Romanian have also been analyzed as having an RTO construction which contains an XP as an embedded topic (Polinsky & Potsdam 2001; Alboiu & Hill 2013). Crucially, each of these three constructions exemplifies a different type of embedded topic construction: Puyuma RTO involves an XP base-generated as a hanging topic (80a), whereas the XPs in Tsez RTO have been shown to undergo covert A’-movement from the embedded theta-position to the embedded left edge (80b) (Polinsky & Potsdam 2001). Finally, in the Romanian RTO, it has been claimed that the XPs undergo cyclic movement from the embedded theta-position to a matrix A-position, as in (80c) (Alboiu & Hill 2013):
|(80)||Microvariation in RTO constructions that have been analyzed as an embedded topic construction|
|c.||VMatrix||……||XPi [TOP]||[CP <ti>||C||V||……||<ti>]||Romanian RTO|
The differences in behavior of the XP in these three languages (80a)–(c) has an important implication, namely that the variation observed in topics across languages is also attested with XPs in apparent cases of RTO constructions. This strongly suggests that at least a subclass of RTO constructions may be properly analyzed as instances of embedded topicalization, calling for further investigation of existing cases of RTO and their correlation with topicalization in the same language.
This paper has investigated an understudied type of raising-to-object (RTO) construction found in Puyuma (Philippine-type, Austronesian), which shows an apparent phenomenon of raising, yet employs a base-generated left-dislocated phrase that shows behaviors parallel to hanging topics in Puyuma. I demonstrated that the XP is best analyzed as an embedded aboutness topic, which forms a single constituent with the CP and is semantically connected to the embedded clause via the aboutness condition. I have further shown that the apparent matrix object behaviors of the XP come from its manifesting object case-marking assigned to the embedded CP, as well as the fact that anaphoric binding may cross clause boundaries in Puyuma. This analysis enriches the current understanding of the microvariation in non-movement-type RTO constructions, and sheds light on the nature of RTO by contributing to the understanding that XPs in RTO may exhibit variation in behavior parallel to topics in a root-clause environment, calling for future investigation of a correlation between XPs and topics.
1For the sake of consistency, I replace the terms “Actor trigger” and “Theme trigger” used in Pearson (2005) with “Actor voice” and “Patient voice”, respectively.
2This paper adopts the conventional glosses “Pivot,” “Genitive,” and “Accusative” in the Austronesian literature without committing to any specific analysis of Philippine-type Austronesian languages. The label “Pivot” refers to the argument-marking on the sole phrase in a clause eligible for A’-extraction. The label “Genitive” refers to the case-marking on non-Pivot-marked external arguments. The label “Accusative” refers to the case-marking on non-Pivot-marked internal arguments.
3See footnote 2 for a note on the use of the terms “Accusative” and “Genitive” in this paper.
4As discussed in Section 2.1, a number of activity verbs in Puyuma employ an LV-form but take a PV argument structure. As seen in (22a), such verbs may take a clausal complement and form an RTO sentence. As these verbs behave like a PV verb and select a theme (rather than a locative phrase) as their argument (e.g., (22b)), they do not violate the generalization above.
5As Circumstantial voice selects a benefactor or instrument as the Pivot, it is not applicable to RTO constructions, since the embedded CP of an RTO sentence is a direct object of the matrix verb. The same reason applies to true Locative voice, which selects a locative phrase as the Pivot.
6An anonymous reviewer commented that it should be possible to interpret the embedded pronoun tayta’aw in (25b) as a reflexive bound by the matrix subject ‘Siber’, given the fact that anaphoric binding in Puyuma can cross a clausal boundary, as seen in the following example:
However, all Puyuma speakers I consulted considered it far more natural to interpret the pronoun in (23b) as a reflexive of the embedded agent. I suppose that this preference for reflexives to be locally bound is not too surprising. As a matrix reflexive reading for the pronoun ‘himself’ is marginally acceptable for (23b), I consider the binding facts in (23b) to have no conflict with the long-distance reflexivization phenomenon shown in this example.
7The XP kantu ngiyaw in (24a) appears to bear a different possessive form from its embedded counterpart tu ngiyaw in (24b). This is because possessive pronouns in Puyuma are sensitive to Case: kantu is the third-person Accusative form and tu is the third-person Pivot form.
8Note that Locative phrases in Puyuma are always marked by the locative marker i, which does not inflect for Case (see Table 2). As seen in the data below, a locative phrase always carries the marker i regardless of whether it is a Pivot (i) or non-Pivot phrase (ii):
9Note that the cyclic movement in (29a) shows an apparent violation of the Improper Movement Configuration (Chomsky 1973; 1986)—according to which a phrase cannot move from an A’-position (embedded [Spec CP]) to an A-position. Previous works have proposed different accounts for the soundness of this movement: both Tanaka (2002) and Yoon (2007) have argued that the RTO construction in Japanese and Korean involves an instance of A-movement, given that the complement of their construction is not fully finite. Alboiu & Hill (2013), on the other hand, show that the cyclic movement of the XP in Romanian RTO exhibits both A- and A’-properties, and propose that this movement is driven by both [uTop] and [uφ].
10Note that the possessor-possessum relation between the XP and the embedded possessum phrase in (45) cannot be analyzed as an instance of possessor raising. This is because the possessor-possessum relation between the XP and the possessum in the embedded clause is not subject to a “Pivot-only” constraint—namely, the possessum is not the Pivot of the embedded clause. As all instances of A’-movement in Puyuma (as well as in other Philippine-type languages) are subject to this constraint, the lack of a this constraint here thus rules out (45) as an example of possessor raising.
11The temporal adverb adman ‘yesterday’ in (48) cannot be interpreted as modifying the embedded clause. This observation is consistent with speakers’ responses to grammaticality judgement test, that multiple XPs are not allowed in Puyuma RTO.
12Based on primary data, I assume (49) to be an instance of finite control (e.g., Landau 2004; Lee 2009), in which the complementizer dra is obligatorily presented. This control complement is nevertheless distinct from the complement of RTO, as the verbal morphology inside the complement is obligatorily in subjunctive form. Given the focus of the paper I do not go into details regarding the structure of (49) here.
13In Puyuma, clauses that involve an instance of A’-extraction obligatorily employ a different set of verbal morphology conventionally regarded as “voice-marking used in nominalized environment” (see, e.g., Teng 2007; Ross 2009). Therefore, the LV[PV] affix in (56a) (as well as (60a)) appears in -an form, rather than -ay form as seen in other examples.
14Both Puyuma speakers I consulted accepted this sentence as grammatical, while acknowledging that this construction is not commonly used.
15The current analysis is based on Pearson’s (2018) proposal for topics in Malagasy perception verb complements.
16According to previous descriptions (Huang 2000; Teng 2007) and my own fieldwork, Puyuma exhibits only one type of topic construction, which, according to the present analysis, employs base-generated external topics.
17Therefore, Pivot-marking in Puyuma is syncretic with the default argument-marking, since hanging topics are base-generated Caseless at the matrix left periphery.
ACC = accusative, AV = actor voice, AUG = augment, AUX = auxiliary, C = complementizer, CL = object pronominal clitic, COM = comparative degree, CONJ = conjunct, CONJ.INF = conjunct inflection, COP = copula, CV = circumstantial voice, DEF = definite, DEM = demonstrative, DIR = direct, e.c. = empty category, DOM = differential object marker, EMPH = emphatic particle, F = feminine, FV = final vowel, INDF = indefinite, IRR = irrealis, GEN = genitive, LK = linker, LOC = locative, LV = locative voice, OBL = oblique, OBV = obviative third person, PART = particle, PRF = perfective, PROJ = projective, PV = patient voice, QUOT = quotative particle, REFL = reflexive, SM = subject marker, STAT = stative, SUBJ = subjunctive, SUPER = superlative degree, TA = transitive verb with animate object
I am very grateful to Atrung Kagi for her generosity and patience in sharing her language. Without her this study would have been impossible. Thanks also to Sunay Paelavang, Sawagu Tsai, and Biyun Chang for their time and willingness in sharing their language. Finally, I would like to thank Shin Fukuda, William O’Grady, and the audiences at AFLA 21 and WCCFL 33, as well as three anonymous reviewers for discussion and valuable feedback on this work.
The author has no competing interests to declare.
Aissen, Judith. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68. 43–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0017
Alboiu, Gabriela & Virginia Hill. 2013. The case of A-bar ECM: Evidence from Romanian. In Stefan Keine & Shayne Sloggett (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Second Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, 25–39. Amherst, MA: GSLA.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1997. Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In Elena Anagnostopoulou, Henk van Riemsdijk & Frans Zwats (eds.), Materials on left dislocation, 151–192. John Benjamins: Amsterdam.
Chen, Victoria & Shin Fukuda. 2016. Raising-to-object-out-of-CP as embedded left dislocations: Evidence from three Formosan languages. In Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 88–98. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Davies, William. 2005. Madurese prolepsis and its implications for a typology of raising. Language 81. 645–665. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0121
Gerassimova, Veronica & Peter Sells. 2008. Long-distance dependencies in Tagalog: The Case for Raising. In Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 190–198. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Gundel, Jeanette. 1985. Shared knowledge and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics 9. 83–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90049-9
Halpert, Claire & Jochen Zeller. 2015. Right dislocation and raising-to-object in Zulu. The Linguistic Review 32(3). 475–513. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2014-0029
Hong, Ki-Sun. 1990. Subject-to-object raising in Korean. In Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell & Errapel Meijas-Bikandi (eds.), Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective, 215–225. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Jacobs, Joachim. 2001. The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39(4). 641–681. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.027
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9. 1–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017903702063
Kurniawan, Eri. 2012. Does Sundanese have prolepsis and/or raising-to-object constructions? In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Society (AFLA 18), 16–30. Online publication hosted by the University of Western Ontario.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607
Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finitess and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 811–877. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-4265-5
Landau, Idan. 2011. Predication vs. aboutness in copy raising. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 779–813. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9134-4
Law, Paul. 2011. Raising in Tagalog. In Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer & Barbara Tomaszewicz (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 142–151. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789
Moore, John. 1998. Turkish copy-raising and A-chain locality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 149–189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005911609491
Pearson, Matthew. 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an A’-element. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(2). 381–457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-1582-7
Pearson, Matthew. 2018. Predicate raising and perception verb complements in Malagasy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36(3). 781–849. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9388-6
Pesetsky, David. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262019729.001.0001
Polinsky, Maria & Eric Potsdam. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19. 583–646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010757806504
Rackowski, Andrea & Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 565–599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464368
Ross, Malcolm. 2009. Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: a reappraisal. In K. Alexander Adelaar & Andrew Pawley (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A Festschrift for Robert Blust, 295–326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Salzmann, Martin. to appear. Prolepsis. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The companion to syntax. 2nd edition: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom062
Tanaka, Hidekazu. 2002. Raising to object out of CP. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 637–652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902762731790
Yoon, James. 2007. Raising of major arguments in Korean (and Japanese). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(3). 615–653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9020-2