Printer Friendly

"So", "exclusivamente" and their positions in the sentence/"So", "exclusivamente" e suas posicoes na sentenca.

Introduction

Kayne's (2005) "One Feature, One Head Principle" undoubtedly became one of the fundamental tenets of the cartographic endeavor in syntax. This principle captures the initial idea which has motivated cartographic studies in the Principles and Parameters theory from its first works in the nineties (CINQUE, 1994,1995, [and especially] 1999; RIZZI, 1997): the assumption that the atoms of syntax should not be reduced to words or morphemes that generativists were used to representing in syntactic trees (e.g. vP, IP/TP, CP, etc. for the sentence; and DP for the nominal expression). The cartography project has shown that the IP/TP would actually consist of approximately 40 functional projections; and the CP zone would be formed by almost fifteen functional projections. Abney's (1986), Szabolcsi's (1987), Pollock's (1989) and Beghelli and Stowell's (1997) works should also be recognized as the major precursors of the cartography enterprise in Syntax. These works paved the way for the investigation of the small-forming units of syntactic structures and their main phrases.

In this context, it is worth remembering Cinque's (1999) work, whose efforts focused on determining the position of different classes of adverbs, which constitute almost 40 classes, that would correspond--surprisingly (for that time)--to different classes of functional heads (also in the order of 40). In his seminal work, Cinque not only brought important contributions to the syntax of adverbs and the architecture of the clause--Cinque's theory offers an interesting approach to the generative Middleueld, which pays enormous attention to descriptions that typologists have been doing on languages from different families--but also brings two major theoretical and conceptual contributions to Generativism: (i) how one could understand the principles that would be shared by all languages (as inherited by Universal Grammar); and, related to (i), (ii) how one could explain the interesting issue of parametric variation--which, for him, is linked to Merge operations, i.e. external Merge (what is merged with morphophonological material and what gets unpronounced (MOURA, 2005)) and internal Merge (the different height, in the hierarchies, that displacements target in distinct languages).

If cartographic studies are on the right track, it is expected that not only those classes of adverbs described in Cinque (1999), but also focusing adverbs like only, also, mainly, etc. (which correspond to about five semantic (sub) classes) be rigidly ordered, i.e. that they occupy a fixed position in the universal hierarchy of functional elements in the clause.

This work brings a contribution to the cartographic endeavor, in the sense that it seeks to show, based on the syntactic distribution of a class of focusing adverbs--the exclusive AdvPs so 'only' and exclusivamente 'exclusively' in Brazilian Portuguese--that such adverbiais not only are rigidly ordered with respect to other adverbs of the Cinque hierarchy but are also ordered among themselves.

Some syntactic properties of higher AdvPs are brought to light: (i) higher AdvPs cannot be recovered by the elliptical VP in Portuguese, (ii) they do not allow the extraction of their associated focus, (iii) they cannot appear in the sentence-final position. These properties are tested against focusing so 'only' to see whether it behaves as a higher or lower adverb. The conclusion is that so'only' also occupies a position among higher adverbs.

The syntactic behavior of exclusive adverbs like exclusivamente--which surprisingly behaves as quantificational adverbs, and not as the focusing so (which, as will be seen in due time, belongs to another syntactic class in spite of its semantics)--leads us to suggest that there exists (at least) two positions for exclusive focusing adverbs, one among high adverbs and the other among low adverbs.

The obvious corollary of this duality is the acknowledgment that the different behaviors of exclusive and quantificational adverbs cannot be purely accounted for on semantic grounds. Yet, it should find its explanation in the structure. What explains the different behavior of exclusive and quantificational adverbs is the position they occupy in the hierarchy. In other words the question is related to the architecture of the clause.

In the next section, I present Cinque's (1999) cartographic approach to adverbs and clausal structure. Further, my attempt is to determine the position that so 'only' occupies among the adverbs of the Cinque hierarchy. Next, the syntactic properties of higher adverbs will be tested against those of focusing so. Then I will compare the properties of quantificational adverbs with those of focusing so 'only'. Subsequently, I will discuss the syntactic behavior of lower adverbs, including the quantificational ones. As will be shown, higher adverbs behave like so. I further propose a position for the lower exclusive adverb exclusivamente 'exclusively'. A general summary of the work will be presented in the penultimate section. In the last section, I will make the acknowledgments.

Theoretical framework

Based on the relative distribution of adverbs from different semantic classes in different languages, Cinque (1999) proposes that Chomsky's (1986) IP (or "TP" in the minimalist tradition (CHOMSKY, 1995)) would actually correspond to the following functional distinctions:

(1) The Universal Hierarchy of Functional Projections of the IP (Cinque (1999, p.106), modified in Cinque (2006))

[frankly [Mood.sub.SpeechAct] > [surprisingly [Mood.sub.Mirative>] [luckily [Mood.sub.Evaluative] > [allegedly [Mood.sub.Evidential] > [probably [Mod.sub.Epistemic] > [once [T.sub.Past] > [then [T.sub.Future] > [perhaps [Mood.sub.Irrealis] > [necessarily [Mod.sub.Necessity] > [possibly [Mod.sub.possibility] > [usually [Asp.sub.Habitual] > [finally [Asp.sub.Delayed] > [tendentially [Asp.sub.Predispositional] > [again [Asp.sub.Repetitive(I)] > [often [Asp.sub.Frequentative(I)] > [willingly [Mod.sub.Volition] > [quickly [Asp.sub.Celerative(I)] > [already [T.sub.Anterior] > [no longer [Asp.sub.Terminative] > [still [Asp.sub.Continuative] > [always [Asp.sub.Continuous] > [just [Asp.sub.Retrospective] > [soon [Asp.sub.Proximative] > [briefly [Asp.sub.Durative] > [(?) [Asp.sub.Generic/Progressive] > [almost [Asp.sub.Prospective] > [suddenly [Asp.sub.Inceptive] > [obligatorily [Mod.sub.Obligation] > [in vain [Asp.sub.Frustrative] > [(?) [Asp.sub.Conative] > [completely [Asp.sub.SgCompletive(I)] > [tutto [Asp.sub.PlCompletive] > [well Voice > [early [Asp.sub.Celerative(II)] > [? [Asp.sub.Inceptive(II)] > [again [Asp.sub.Repetitive(II)] > [often [Asp.sub.Frequentative(II)] > ...

Unless an informational structure-related feature (Topic, Focus, etc.) has to be valued, the adverbs in (1) occupy a fixed position in the structure and do not move from the position where they are externally merged. Thus, adverbs are diagnostics for the movement of other constituents of the sentence (e.g. the V, auxiliaries, modals, V arguments, etc.).

To arrive at the Universal Hierarchy of clausal functional projections, Cinque (1999) first turns to transitivity tests, which involve adverbs from different classes. He takes combinations of two adverbs from different classes in the two possible relative orders (see (2-3)) to determine their position in the hierarchy.

(2) a. [AdvP.sub.A] > [AdvP.sub.B]

b. *[AdvP.sub.B] > [AdvP.sub.A]

(3) a. [AdvP.sub.B] > [AdvP.sub.C],

b. *[AdvP.sub.C], > [AdvP.sub.B]

By combining (2) and (3), it follows that [AdvP.sub.A] precedes [AdvP.sub.B] which in turn precedes [AdvP.sub.C]. Below, this mechanism is illustrated on the basis of English data involving four higher adverbs: speech act, evaluative, evidential and epistemic adverbs. The examples are taken from Cinque (1999, p.33).

(4) Speech act adverbs (honestly > Evaluative adverbs (unfortunately:

a. Honestly I am unfortunately unable to help you.

b. *Unfortunately I am honestly unable to help you.

(5) Evaluative adverbs (fortunately) > Evidential adverbs (evidently:

a. Fortunately, he had evidently had his own opinion of the matter.

b. *Evidently he had fortunately had his own opinion of the matter.

(6) Evidential adverbs (clearly > Epistemic adverbs (probably:

a. Clearly John probably will quickly learn French perfectly.

b. *Probably John clearly will quickly learn French perfectly.

Transitivity tests have also been applied to functional heads (in various languages) by Cinque. (7), for instance, presents auxiliary verbs in English and Spanish, which have been considered core categories of Inflection (IP):

(7) a. These books have been being read all year. (CINQUE, 1999, p. 57) b. Esos libros han estado siendo 1 eidos todo el ano. (= 7a)

In (7), have (a) and han (b) lexicalize the head ofTense; been (7a) and estado (7b), the perfect aspect; being (7a) and siendo (7b), the progressive; the lexical verb, given the passive construction, derivationally lexicalizes Voice (read, in (a); leidos, in (7b)). Given (7), we can infer the following partial ordering (of. 7'):

(7') Tense > [Asp.sub.Perfect] > [Asp.sub.Progressive] > Voice ... (> V) (CINQUE, 1999, p.57)

Since adverbs and functional heads match (each other) in terms of number, relative order and semantic classes, it is possible to propose that adverbs are an integral part of the functional structure of the clause. This is precisely one of the innovations Cinque (1999) brings to the theory of grammar.

Since the past active participle can occupy a position to the right and to the left of each one of the low adverbs in Italian, Cinque suggests that there would be only one head between each two adverbs, an argument in favor of its proposal for the location of AdvPs in Spec (CINQUE, 1999).

What about focusing adverbs?

Despite its empirical and conceptual coverage, Cinque's (1999) universal hierarchy presented in (1) is not equipped with dedicated positions for focusing AdvPs of distinct semantic classes. Yet, Cinque (1999, 2004) recognizes that they can be treated along the lines of Bayer (1996) and Kayne (1998).

Munaro (2012) also provides a "cartographic" treatment of focusing adverbs by taking them to be merged as the head of one of the peripheral focus projections (in the CP area or in the lower IP area (i.e. in the vP)). In Munaro's account, which also follows Kayne (1998), the focusing adverb attracts the focus to its Spec (this is represented by step (1) in figure 1, below), followed by the movement of the focusing adverb to the head immediately above (see step (2) in the figure), and, subsequently, by the movement of the remnant (see (3) in figure 1).

Attractive by its simplicity--as focalization by adverbs actually reflects the (more) general process of focalization (with the focusing adverbs occupying the head of one of the two focus proj ections)--, Munaro's proposal apparently does not provide a structural reason for the existence of a hierarchy of different semantic classes of focusing adverbs, given the fact that it assumes only two positions (in the CP and vP domains) for these adverbs, regardless of their (semantic) class.

Recent advances in the Cartography Project (CINQUE; RIZZI, 2010) and references cited there) lead us to ask the following question: "which position(s) do different (semantic) classes of focusing adverbs occupy in terms of functional hierarchies?" One way to approach the syntax of focusing adverbs in line with the cartographic enterprise would be by recognizing that each one of the different classes of these AdvPs would have a distinct position of Merge, in line with the "One Feature, One Head Principle" (KAYNE, 2005). This strong view will be the one assumed here.

The following data suggest that different classes of focusing AdvPs are also rigidly ordered among each other and with respect to the other adverbs of the Cinque hierarchy:

(8) a. O Mane ate so falaria ingles se precisasse. The Mane even only would-speak English if he-had to 'Mane would even only speak English, if he had to'

b. *O Mane so ate falaria ingles se precisasse.

(9) a. ?He'd even only speak English, if he had to.

b. *He'd only even speak English, if he had to. (KAYNE, 1998, p.162)

(10) a. Ti ho chiesto di leggere anche solo un capitolo. [Italian--G. Cinque, p.c.] You I-have asked to read even only a chapter 'I've asked you to read even only a chapter'

b. *Ti ho chiesto di leggere solo anche un capitolo.

(11) a. Ion mananca (chiar) si numai paine. [Romeno--A. Bleotu, p.c.] Ion eat even only bread Ton even only eats bread'

b. *Ion mananca (chiar) numai si paine.

(12) a. [[[lian.sub.1] mohuoke zheme miren de [yuyan.sub.F1]].sub.i] ye [zhiyou.sub.2] [zhangsan.sub.F2] zai yanjou [t.sub.i] even Mohawk so attractive DE language YE only Z. Prog study '[Only.sub.2] [Zhangsan.sub.F2] (1) is studying [even.sub.1] such a fascinating language as [Mohawk.sub.F1].

b. *[zhiyou.sub.2] [zhangsan.sub.F2] [[[lian.sub.1] mohuoke zheme miren de [yuyan.sub.F1]].sub.i] ye zai yanjou [t.sub.i]. ([sup.OK]lian>zhiyou; *zhiyou>lian [Chines (SHU, 2011, p. 124)]

(13) a. Chulsu-nim yeksi tansunhl uss-ess-ul kussita [Korean] C. -TOP also merely/only smile-past-EPIST 'Cliulsu also only smiled'

b. Chulsu-nim tansunhl *(,) yeksi uss-ess-ul kussita. (Sung Yun Cho, pers. communication)

(14) a. tashuobudingzhiqu-guoxinjiapuo. [Chinese (SHU, 2011, p.160)] he maybe only go-Exp Singapore 'He has maybe only been to Singapore.'

b. *ta zhi shuobuding qu-guo xinjiapuo he only maybe go-Exp Singapore

a'. Ele talvez so foi para Cingapura. (= 14a,b) [Brazilian Portuguese]

b'. *Ele so talvez foi para Cingapura. (2)

(15) a. O Jose come provavelmente so arroz. The Jose eats probaby only rice 'Jose probably only eats rice'

b. *O Jose come so provavelmente arroz.

(16) a. O Mane so ja limpou o banheiro. The Mane only already cleaned the bathroom 'Mane only already cleaned the bathroom'

b. *O Mane ja so limpou o banheiro.

(17) a. Ha solo gia mangiato ia pasta. [Italian] (S/he-)had only already eaten the pasta 'S/he had only already eaten pasta'

b. *Ha gia solo mangiato la pasta. (Guglielmo Cinque, pers. communication)

(8-17) suggests the following template: 1

(18) (i) provavelmente/talvez > so > ja probably/perhaps > only > already

(ii) tambem > so even > only

For the sentences given in (8-17), it is important to remember that, in the Cartographic tradition, the adverbs under consideration occupy the position of specifiers at the sentence level. Thus, for a given AdvP like probably, for instance, it is assumed to always occupy [Spec, [Mod.sub.Epistemic]P]--except in the cases of homonymy for which the same lexical form is merged in more than one position with different semantic specifications for each distinct position Thus, provavelmente 'probably' (see 19a,b,c) always occupies the same position in the sentence structure. The same is true of so 'only'.

(19) a. O Jose provavelmente so comeu arroz. The Jose probably only ate rice 'Jose probably only ate rice'

b. O Jose provavelmente comeu so arroz. The Jose probably ate only rice 'Jose probably ate only rice'

c. O Jose comeu provavelmente so arroz. The Jose ate probably only rice 'Jose ate probably only rice'

Some empirical facts support the contention that, even in cases like (19c)--which hides an interesting ambiguity briefly described below -, the adverb is still merged in the extended projection of the verb and does not enter the derivation as an adjunct of the DP. The discussion of the verbal ellipsis phenomenon in Portuguese (cfr. the sentences in (36-39) and related text) should help us understand why those theories arguing that an adverb can be directly adjoined to a DP may not be correct. If the adverb cannot be recovered by the elliptical VP (in VP ellipsis constructions), that amounts to saying that the AdvP cannot be an adjunct of the DP. That is a good reason for completely abandoning the possibility of free and direct adjunction of AdvPs to DPs and other constituents of the clause.

Furthermore, (19c) and similar sentences are ambiguous in both Brazilian (BP) and European Portuguese (EP) (seeTESCARI NETO (2013) chapter 5). In one reading, the adverb in (c) may only modify the DP (as seen by the paraphrase in (19c'), below). In the other possible reading the adverb in (c) modifies all the VP as well (given the acceptability of (19c")).

(19) c'. O Jose comeu provavelmente so arroz, nao feijao. The Jose ate probably only rice, not bean (narrow scope) 'Jose probably only ate rice, not beans'

c". O Jose comeu provavelmente so arroz, nao bebeu leite. The Jose ate probably only rice, not drink milk (wide scope) 'Jose probably only ate rice, he didn't drink milk'

Where is the adverb so 'only' located in the Cinque hierarchy?

Bever and Clark (2008) and Shu (2011) recognize that focusing adverbs are classified into the following semantic classes (see the table below):

exclusives: only, just, merely, ...
non-scalar additives: too, also, ...
scalar additives: even
particularizers: in particular, for example, ...
intensives: really, totally, ...
minimizing downtoners: kind of, barely, hardly, ...
maximizing downtoners: at most, at best, at the maximum, ...


As previously stated, considering the seven classes of focusing adverbs mentioned in the above table, the paper only investigates the position of exclusive adverbs with respect to the other AdvPs of the Cinque hierarchy. At the end of the work, I will show that these adverbs actually correspond to two distinct syntactic classes--which are realized in two different and non-adjacent projections--due to their distinct position in the hierarchy. This fact explains their different behavior regarding a range of syntactic properties.

From Cinque's (1999) work, it is known that habitual adverbs (solitamente 'usually') precede presuppositional negation (mica), which in turn precedes piu ('more'):

(20) solitamente > mica > gia > piu ... (CINQUE, 1999, p.6)

If one considers the position of focusing so 'only' with respect to the adverbs in (20) (cfr. (21) and (23)), they get the (partial) picture shown in (22) and (24):

(21) a. Non ha mica solo mangiato la pasta. [Italiano] Not Aux NEG only eaten the pasta 'He hasn't only eaten pasta'

b. *Non ha solo mica mangiato la pasta. (G. Cinque, personal communication)

(22) ... solitamente/usually/geralmente > 'mica' > solo/only/so > gia/already/ja ...

(23) a. Lui ha solo completamente distrutto una cosa, la sua casa. [Italian] He has only completely destructed one thing, the his house 'He only has completely destructed one thing: his house'

b. *Lui ha completamente solo distrutto una cosa, la sua casa. (G. Cinque, pers. com.)

Since completamente 'completely' is a VP adverb, i.e. it is located above vP, we can add the generalization in (24):

(24) solo/so/only may be located in the lower zone of the IP, but still above the vP.

Given the transitivity relations discussed above, there is one intriguing question to ask in the present context: where is so/solo/only located among the adverbs of the Cinque hierarchy? The data presented above and the sentences in (25-26), below, suggest that the focusing adverb so 'only' occupies a position in between the high adverbs and the low adverbs in the hierarchy in (1) (see, for this, (27)).

(25) [T.sub.Anterior]ja/alieady/gia:

A:--O que o Jose ja limpou?

What that the Jose already cleaned

'What has Jose already cleaned?'

B:--Ele so ja limpou a casa.

He only already cleaned the house

'He's only already cleaned the house'

B':--*Ele ja so limpou a casa.

(26) [Asp.sub.Continuative]ainda/still/ancora:'

a. *Ele ainda so nao limpou a casa.

He still only not cleaned the house

'He hasn't only cleaned the house yet'

b. Ele so ainda nao limpou a casa.

(27) solitamente/usually ([Asp.sub.Habitual]) > mica (pressupositional negation) > solo/only ([Foc.sub.Exclusive]) >ja/gia/already ([T.sub.anterior]) > ainda/ancora/still ([Asp.sub.Continuative])

By applying transitivity tests involving so 'only' and the adverbs located near the habitual aspect, one can specify the position occupied by so 'only' in the hierarchy of IP adverbs. So 'only' must necessarily follow the tardive aspect adverb finalmente 'finally', the predispositional aspect adverb tendencialmente 'tendentially' and the repetitive aspect adverb novamente 'again' (cf. 28a-c, respectively).

(28) a. *O Jose so finalmente perdeu a cabeca.

The Jose only finally lost the head

'Jose only finally lost his head'

a'. O Jose finalmente so perdeu a cabeca. (3)

The Jose finally only lost the head

'Jose has finally only lost his head'

b. *O Jose so tendencialmente perde a cabeca do nada.

The Jose only tendentially lost the head out of nowhere

b'. O Jose tendencialmente so perde a cabeca do nada.

The Jose tendentially only loses the head out of nowhere

'Jose tendentially loses the head out of nowhere'

c. *O Jose so novamente perdeu a cabeca.

The Jose only again lost the head

'Jose has only again lost his head'

c'. O Jose novamente so perdeu a cabeca.

Jose has again only lost the head

Regarding the frequentative (28d,d'), the volitional (28e,e') and the celerative (28f,f') adverbs, it seems that it is not possible to establish a relative order between each one of them with respect to the adverb so 'only':

(28) d. O Jose so frequentemente perde a cabeca (nao raramente!)

The Jose only frequently loses the head (not rarely!)

'Jose only frequently loses his head'

d'. O Jose frequentemente so perde a cabeca.

e. O Jose so voluntariamente fez a tarefa.

f. The Jose only willingly did the homework

'Jose only willingly did the homework'

e'. O Jose voluntariamente so fez a tarefa.

f. O Jose so rapidamente lava a louca.

The Jose only quickly does the dishes

'Jose only quickly does the dishes

f. O Jose rapidamente so lava a louca.

g. O Jose so ja lavou a louca.

The Jose only already did the dishes

'Jose only already did the dishes'

g'. */??O Jose ja so lavou a louca.

This free ordering is apparent but not real. If one assumes Kayne's (1998) analysis of focusing adverbs (seeTescari Neto (2013)), they can infer that, after the attraction of the constituent under the scope of so 'only', the other adverb may or may not move to the left as part of the remnant, creating the impression that it is not possible to establish a rigid and fixed order between the two adverbs. See Fig. 2, 3 and 4 below, where Fig. 2 corresponds to what is common to the derivations of all these sentences; Figure 3 (see further in the text) corresponds to the final steps of the derivational history of (28d,e,f) and Fig. 4 (even further in the text) to the derivation of (28d',e',f). However, the fact that so 'only' necessarily has to precede ;a 'already' (cfr. (28g,g')) is an important piece of evidence to the idea that so ' only' occupies a rigid, fixed position in the hierarchy, necessarily after novamente'again' (cf. (28c,c')).

As suggested in Figure 2 (see also the footnote 3), before the Merge of the frequentative adverb in the specifier of the corresponding functional projection (according to the Cinque hierarchy), a probing head [K.sup.0] attracts to its specifier the constituent under the scope of the frequentative adverb, along the lines of Kayne (1998) (see the step indicated as (1) in Fig. 2). After the movement of the constituent to be focalized, the adverb enters the derivation in the specifier immediately above, following the Cinque hierarchy. After that, remnant movement takes place (see the step indicated as (2) in Fig. 2), thus restoring the previous order. The movement of the remnant creates the illusion that there was no movement. These steps are common to derivational history of all instances of (28d/d'-f/f).

To derive the sentences where so precedes the other adverb, the steps of the derivation would basically be the same: if the scope of the adverbs is assigned in Narrow Syntax through movement (KAYNE, 1998; TESCARI NETO, 2013), before the Merge of so, a probing head attracts to its specifier the constituent containing the adverb frequentemente/voluntariamente/rapidamente--which bears the focus feature, followed by the Merge of so 'only' in the specifier on the left and by remnant movement (see Figure (3) below).

In those cases where frequentemente/voluntaiiamente/rapidamenteprecedes so, the first steps of the derivation are the same as those described in Fig. 2. The difference has to do with the material which will be moved to the specifier of the probing head (4) and with the material moved as remnant: the former will not contain the adverb iiequentemente/voluntaiiamente/iapidamente which will be moved as part of the latter, thus, again, creating the illusion that it is not possible to establish a rigid and fixed order between the focusing so 'only' and the adverb frequentemente/voluntariamente/rapidamente. (see Figure (4) below).

The data presented so far show that so 'only' occupies a position between [AsP.sub.Repetmve(I)] 'again' and [Asp.sub.Frequentative(I)] 'frequently' (see (29) below). Hence, it would only be a higher adverb. There are some syntactic properties of higher AdvPs that are also valid for so 'only', as we are going to see in the next sections.

(29) (frankly [Mood.sub.SpeechAct] > [luckily [Mood.sub.Evaluative] > [allegedly [Mood.sub.Evidential] > [probably [Mod.sub.Epistemic] > [once

Some syntactic properties of higher adverbs

In the literature on adverbs, there is some confusion regarding their syntactic status: if they are high/sentential/IP adverbs or low/VP adverbs. The confusion increases even more when a 'high' adverb has scope over a verbal argument (see the discussion on the data in (19c,o',c"), above). Such confusion is very clear in a language like BP where a high adverb can be linearized in different positions in the sentence:

(30) (Provavelmente) o Brasil (provavelmente) ganhara (provavelmente) a Copa do Mundo

(probably), Brazil (probably) will-win (probably) the World Cup

The position of the adverb between the V and the DP-complement ("ganhara provavelmente a Copa ...") seems to be problematic to formal theories, according to which provavelmente 'probably' occupies a higher position the IP space (it is traditionally adjoined to the IP--see JACKENDOFF, 1972). This apparent problem stems from the fact that one cannot derive the appearance of the adverb in between the verb and its complement by simply moving the V across provavelmente 'probably', given the ungramaticality of (31):

(31) *O Joao mente provavelmente

The Joao tells-lies probably

'Joao probably tells lies'

As shown by Cinque (1999), the active past participle cannot move across high adverbs in Italian. Tescari Neto (2013) discussed the test presented by Cinque, suggesting that its validity is absolute if one only takes unergative verbs such as mentir 'to lie'. This is so because unergative verbs undoubtedly lack internal arguments. Hence, as we have already pointed out, the appearance of the lexical verb to the left of the adverb in sentences like (32) is the result of the movement of the remnant containing the V.

(32) O Eduardo comeu provavelmente o bolo.

The Eduardo ate probably the cake

'Eduardo probably ate the cake'

Although for Cinque (1999) the syntactic status of an adverb (i.e. if the it is a sentential AdvP, taking under its scope/being adjoined to the IP, or a VP adverb) appears to be of little relevance, the author classifies them into two big groups, each one including adverbs from different classes, i.e. from different projections of the hierarchy. One is the group of high adverbs and the other that of low AdvPs. Being "high" not only means that the adverb is merged in a high position in the Middlefleld, but also that it cannot be linearized on the right of the active past participle in Italian. Conversely, being "low" means that the AdvP enters the derivation in a medial-low position in the Middlefleld. In this case, it can appear to the right of past participle. In the sequence, I present some syntactic properties mentioned in Tescari Neto (2013) as being common to those adverbs called high AdvPs by Cinque (sentential adverbs in the general literature) .These properties are crucial for the present argumentation as they help us showing that the AdvP so 'only' behaves as a high adverb, while quantificational AdvPs and, surprisingly, the exclusive AdvP exclusivamente 'exclusively' behaves like low AdvPs.

The first property has to do with the impossible appearance of a high adverb in the sentence-final position. High adverbs can only appear sentence-finally if de-accented (BELLETTI, 1990; CINQUE, 1999; ERNST, 2002; LAENZLINGER, 2002; TESCARI NETO, 2013). Note that (33a,a') are ungrammatical: the high adverb appears in the sentence-final position, but it is not prosodically marked (flat intonation for these sentences). (33c,o') are grammatical: the low adverb can appear in the sentence-final position. The appearance of a high AdvP in the sentence-final position is only possible if it is de-accented (cfr. (33b,b') where the comma tries to capture in the writing the fact that the sentence adverb is de-accented). (33a,b,c) are sentences from Italian whose correspondents in Portuguese are given in (33a',b',c').

(33) a. *Gianni mente probabilmente

G. tells-lies probably

'G. tells lies probably'

a'. *O Pedro mente provavelmente.

Pedro tells-lies probably

'P. tells lies probably'

b. Gianni mente, probabilmente.

G. tells-lies, probably

b'. O Pedro mente, provavelmente.

Pedro tells-lies, probably

c. Gianni mente sempre/bene/ancora.

G. tells-lies always/well/still

'G. always/well/still tells lies'

c'. O Pedro mente sempre/bem/ainda

Pedro tells-lies always/well/still

Remember that the AdvP so 'only', according to the transitivity tests already applied here, occupies a position among the higher adverbs in the Middlefield. Concerning the first property, it also behaves exactly as provavelmente 'probably':

(33) e. *O Pedro mente so.

The Pedro tells-lies only

'Pedro only tells lies'

e. O Pedro mente, so

The second property has to do with the ability that low AdvPs have in allowing the extraction of the constituent modified by them. High AdvPs do not have this ability. Given the "Criterial Freezing" (RIZZI, 2004), the constituent modified by a high adverb cannot be extracted (BEVER; CLARK, 2008; TESCARINETO, 2013):

(34) a. O Pedro comprou provavelmente uma BMW.

The Pedro bought probably a BMW

'Pedro probably bought a BMW

b. *O [que.sub.i] o Pedro comprou provavelmente [t.sub.i]?

[What.sub.i] the Pedro bought probably [t.sub.i]?

What did Pedro probably bought?'

It is important to note that ungrammaticality of (34b) is related to the reading where the adverb takes scope over the wh-constituent o que 'what', which has been extracted in that sentence. It is not related to the interpretation where the adverb modifies the VP. (34a) and (34b) are ambiguous. The paraphrases in (34a',a") illustrate the two possible readings for (34a). This ambiguity has already been mentioned at the beginning of this section.

(34) a'. O Pedro comprou provavelmente uma BMW, nao um Fusca, (narrowscope)

The Pedro bought probably a BMW, not a Volkswagen Beetle

'Pedro probably bought a BMW, not a Volkswagen Beetle'

a". O Pedro comprou provavelmente uma BMW, nao alugou um carro (widescope)

The Pedro bought probably a BMW, not rent a car

'Pedro probably bought a BMW, he didn't rent a car'

If one considers the reading where the adverb in (34b) has wide scope, i.e. scope over the VP (as paraphrased in (34a') to (34a)), (34b) may be considered grammatical. For the purposes of this study, it is crucially important to exclude this wide scope reading (namely, the scope over the VP). This is so because such reading should always be possible, given that the adverb is necessarily found in a position higher than the landing site of the V (which cannot raise past high AdvPs, as already mentioned in the discussion of (31) and (33)).

The exclusion of (34b), repeated below--

(34) b. *O que o Pedro comprou provavelmente [t.sub.i]?

What the Pedro bought probably [t.sub.i]?

What did Pedro probably bought?'

For which it is to be borne in mind, again, that the relevant reading involves modification of the extracted constituent by the AdvP and not modification of the whole VP--serves as a criterion to distinguish between high and low AdvPs, since only the constituent modified by a low adverb can be extracted. As I will show later, the constituent modified by a low adverb can be extracted with no risk for the grammaticality of the sentence. From now on, for the cases of extraction to the left periphery, only the narrow scope reading will be taken into account.

Returning to the second property, whereby constituents under the scope of a high adverb cannot be extracted, the same pattern described above for the adverb provavelmente 'probably' is also valid for the focusing adverb so 'only': the focus associated with so cannot be extracted (JACKENDOFF, 1972; KAYNE, 1998; BEVER; CLARK, 2008;TESCARI NETO, 2013) (see (34) and (35b)):e (6)

(35) a. *[Mary.sub.i], he only likes [x.sub.i]. (BEVER; CLARK, 2008, p.160)

b. O Pedro comprou so uma BMW.

The Pedro bought only a BMW

'Pedro only bought a BMW

c. *O que (que) o Pedro comprou so t?

What (that) the Pedro bought only t

What has Pedro only bought t?

The third property of higher adverbs states that they cannot be recovered by the elliptical VP in Portuguese (TESCARI NETO, 2013), since they occupy a position above the landing site of the V (on its movement to INFL):

(36) O Pedro comprou provavelmente uma BMW e a Maria tambem comprou [-].

The Pedro bought probably a BMW and the Mary also bought [-]

'Pedro probably bought a BMW and so did Mary'

[-]: *bought probably a BMW

[-]: bought a BMW

In the present context, it is necessary to discriminate between what actually is the syntactic phenomenon of VP ellipsis in Portuguese and other syntactic constructions involving the deletion of constituents, such as 'stripping'. For a correct understanding of the phenomenon, it is also necessary to distinguish VP ellipsis in English from VP ellipsis in Portuguese. Sentences like (37) are clear examples of stripping, which is different from VP ellipsis:

(37) O Pedro provavelmente comprou uma BMW e a Maria tambem [-].

The Pedro probably bought a BMW and the Mary too

'Pedro probably bought a BMW and so did Mary'

(37) differs from real cases of VP ellipsis given that, as already known of syntacticians working on BP, stripping cannot appear within an island (CYRINO; MATOS, 2002) (see (37')). On the other hand, VP ellipsis is possible within islands (see (36')).

(37') *O Pedro provavelmente comprou uma BMW quando a Maria tambem [-].

Pedro probably bought a BMW when Maria also [-].

'Pedro probably bought a BMW when Maria also bought a BMW

(36') O Pedro comprou provavelmente uma BMW quando a Maria tambem comprou [-]

The Pedro bought probably a BMW when the Maria also bought [-]

'Pedro probably bought a BMW when Maria also did [-]

Since Matos's (1992) work on elliptical constructions in Portuguese, it is known that one of the points that distinguish the VP ellipsis phenomenon in (European and Brazilian) Portuguese from the same phenomenon in English is the fact that the lexical verb can license VP ellipsis in Portuguese, but not in English. That explains the reason for the ungrammaticality of (38a), from English, and the grammaticality of the Portuguese sentence in (38b).

(38) a. *John starts reading that book and Mary starts [-], too. ((18) em Cyrino e

Matos (2002, p.183))

b. O Joao comecou a ler aquele livro e a Maria tambem comecou [-]. (= (38a))

The Joao started to read that book and the Maria also started

'Joao started reading that book and so did Maria [-]'

The ungrammaticality of (38a) is justified in terms of the absence of verb movement to, say, INFL in English (POLLOCK, 1989). The presence of a constituent endowed with a [+V] feature in INFL is a necessary condition for the VP ellipsis phenomenon. As English has no V movement to INFL, elliptical constructions are possible only if an auxiliary or a modal verb is present in the numeration. This verb is directly merged in INFL, and, from that position, it can license the ellipsis of the VP in English (see (38c), below).

(38) c. John is reading that book and Mary is [-], too

(Brazilian and European) Portuguese exhibits V movement to INFL (CYRINO; MATOS, 2002; MATOS; CYRINO, 2001; CYRINO, 2013). Once the lexical verb is in INFL, it can license the deletion of all constituents c-commanded by it (say, the deletion of the whole VP, which may contain adjuncts, VP complements and the unpronounced copy of V, whose pronounced copy will be spelled-out in INFL). This is an important difference between VP-ellipsis facts in English and Portuguese. For this reason, VP ellipsis is a bona fide test to detect if an adverb is low or high in Portuguese, as high adverbs will necessarily occupy a position above the landing site of the V in Portuguese. Auxiliaries, even in English, can move past high adverbs (POLLOCK, 1989). Hence, they cannot help us discriminating between high and low adverbs.

The observations made on the adverb provavelmente 'probably' of (36), namely, that this adverb cannot be recovered by the elliptical VP in Brazilian Portuguese, are also valid for the adverb only in English (BEVER; CLARK, 2008) and its correspondent (so) in Portuguese. Brazilian Portuguese speakers to whom focusing so 'only' can only be a higher AdvP never recover this adverb in the second element of the coordination in VP ellipsis constructions (Lilian Teixeira, personal communication):

(39) O Pedro comeu so arroz e a Maria tambem comeu [-]. (7)

Peter ate only rice and Mary also ate [-].

'Pedro only ate rice and so did Mary'

a. [-]: *ate only rice b. [-]: ate rice

Therefore, as we have seen in this section, so 'only' behaves like a high adverb, as far as the three properties generally attributable to high AdvPs are concerned.

Exclusive so 'only' vs. quantificational adverbs

Bever and Clark (2008) observed that the (narrow) focus associated with quantificational adverbs, unlike the one associated with an exclusive AdvP (e.g., only) can be extracted and moved to the left periphery. In this section, some data that led Bever & Clark to propose a semantic analysis for the differences between exclusive only and quantificational adverbs will be shown. The data involve whextraction, focus movement, cleft sentences, adjunct fronting--syntactic processes traditionally assumed in the literature as involving displacement of constituents to the left periphery. In the following sections, the spectrum of analysis will be expanded, by including other classes of low and high adverbs to show that Bever & Clark's data are only epiphenomenal: the focusing adverb only is just a high adverb. Therefore, it behaves like other high adverbs with respect to the extraction possibilities, the recovering in VP-ellipsis, and the impossible appearance in the sentence-final position (this latter property was not mentioned in Bever and Clark). Unlike higher adverbs--here included the exclusive focusing so/only--, quantificational AdvPs, being merged in lower positions, have an opposite behavior with respect to these properties. The conclusion reached at the penultimate section will be that the differences between exclusive and quantificational adverbs cannot be simply reduced to a semantic problem: in fact, the reason is structural and related to the position the adverb occupies in the hierarchy.

1. WH-Extraction: While quantificational adverbs allow the extraction of the constituent associated to them (cfr. (40a, 41a)), focusing so/only does not allow such extraction (cfr. (42a, 43a) whose paraphrase cannot be extended to (42,43) respectively):

(40) What do you think Kim always gives his mother? (= 41) (BEVER; CLARK, 2008, p.165)

a. 'What is the thing such that Kim gives that thing and nothing else to his mother?'

b. 'What do you think that Kim gives his mother and no one else?'

(41) O que voce acha que o Jose sempre deu para a sua mae? (= 40)

a. Qual e a coisa que o Jose (sempre) deu aquela coisa e nada mais para a sua mae?

b. O que voce acha que o Jose (sempre) deu para a sua mae e para ninguem mais?

(42) What do you think Kim only gives his mother? (= 43)

a. What is the thing such that Kim gives that thing and nothing else to his mother?

b. What do you think Kim gives his mother and noone else?

(43) O que voce acha que o Jose so deu para a mae dele? (= 42)

a. *Qual e a coisa que o Jose so deu aquela coisa e nada mais para a mae dele?

b. O que voce acha que o Jose so deu para a mae dele e para ninguem mais?

2. Focalization: Contrastive localization involves movement to the left periphery, i.e. to a dedicated position in the CP domain (see, for instance, Mioto's (2001) work on the Brazilian Portuguese split CP domain). Note that the interpretation given to (44a) in (44a') is grammatical, i.e. the focus associated with the frequentative adverb can be extracted. 50'only', on the other hand, does not allow the extraction of its associated constituent (see the paraphrase of (44b) in (44b')).

(44) a. Fishsticks, I believe Kim always buys. (BEVER; CLARK, 2008, p.165)

a'. 'I believe that Kim always buys fishsticks and nothing else'

b. Fishsticks, I believe Kim only buys.

b'. '*I believe that Kim buys fishsticks and nothing else.'

Again, quantificational AdvPs behave differently from focusing so/only, which, in turn, behaves like a high adverb, as we are going to see.

3. AdvP fronting: Quantificational adverbs allow the displacement of another AdvP modified by them (see (45) and the paraphrase in (45a')).

(45) a. On Sunday, I thought you always went to the store.

a'. I thought that you went to the store on Sunday and no other day'

The adverb so 'only', on the other hand, does not allow the fronting of an AdvP modified by it (see the paraphrase of (45b) in (45b '), which shows that (45b) cannot receive the interpretation where "On Sunday" is fronted).

(45) b. On Sunday I thought you only went to the store.

b'. '*I thought that you went to the store on Sunday and no other day'

As will be discussed in the next section, high adverbs do not allow the fronting of the AdvP modified by them.

Low adverbs behave as quantificational AdvPs; high adverbs as so 'only'

In this section, it will be shown that the polarization in two major groups should not be "quantificational adverbs" versus "focusing so/only"--as suggested in Bever and Clark (2008)--but, rather, "high adverbs" versus "low adverbs". Selecting two points on a continuum, where focusing only would be placed on one end and quantificational adverbs on the other, is only part of the whole story. Focusing only is just a representative of the class of high adverbs; quantificational adverbs are representatives of the so-called low adverbs, i.e. those adverbs that are merged in medial/lower positions in the Middlefleld. Hence, Bever & Clark's polarization (only vs. adverbs of quantification) is reductive. To argue against them, it will be shown that there is a class of exclusive adverbs that behaves as low adverbs and not as exclusive only, which occupies, as previously seen, a higher position in the Middlefleld. The motivation is structural and it is related to the position of the adverb in the hierarchy.

1. Focalization: high adverbs behave like focusing so/only, i.e. they do not allow the extraction of the constituent under their (narrow) scope. Thus, (46) is ungrammatical if the adverb has narrow scope. Yet, the constituent modified by a low adverb (47) can be moved to the left:

(46) *Caine [assada.sub.i], eu acredito que o Jose come provavelmente [t.sub.i] (, nao fritura)...

Pot [roast.sub.i], I believe that Jose eats probably [t.sub.i] (, not fried meal)...

Tot roast, I believe that Jose probably eats (, not fried meal)'

(47) Carne [assada.sub.i], eu acho que o Jose come ainda/frequentemente/rapidamente/

etc. [t.sub.i](, nao tritura).

Pot [roast.sub.i] I believe that Jose eats still/frequently/rapidly/etc. [t.sub.i] (not fried meal).

Tot roast, I believe that Jose still/frequently/rapidly/etc. eats (not fried meal).'

2. Adjunct fronting : Adjuncts cannot be fronted too if they are associated with a high adverb (48). When associated with a low adverb, their movement is possible (49):

(48) *De [domingo.sub.i] que eu achava que voce fosse as compras provavelmente [t.sub.i] nao um outro dia.

On [Sundays.sub.i] that I thought that you were shopping probably [t.sub.i], not another day 'On Sundays I thought you were probably shopping, not another day'

(49) De [domingo.sub.i] que eu achava que voce fosse as compras ainda/frequentemente/ etc. [t.sub.i], nao um outro dia.

On [Sundays.sub.i] that I thought you were shopping still/frequently/etc. [t.sub.i], not another day 'On Sundays I thought you were still/frequently/etc. shopping, not another day'

3. Cleft sentences: Cleft structures also involve movement to the left periphery. Hence, it is only possible to cleave the constituent modified by a low adverb (51). The constituent modified by a high adverb (50) cannot enter these structures.

(50) *Uma [Skol.sub.i] e que eu acho que o Ze bebia provavelmente [t.sub.i]. (nao uma Brahma)

A [Skol.sub.i] is what I think that Jose used-to-drink probably [t.sub.i] (not a Brahma)

A Skol is what I think Jose used to drink probably (not a Brahma)

(51) Uma Skole que eu acho que o Ze bebia frequentemente/ainda [t.sub.i]. (nao uma Brahma)

A [Skol.sub.i] is what I think Jose used-to-drink frequently/still [t.sub.i] (not a Brahma)

A Skol is what I think Jose used to drink frequently/still (not a Brahma)'

4. Wh-extraction: It is also possible to wh-extract the constituent under the scope of a low adverb (53). The one associated to a high adverb can never be extracted (52).

(52) *O [que.sub.i] voce acha que o Jose deu provavelmente [t.sub.i] para a mae dele?

[What.sub.i] you think that the Jose gave probably [t.sub.i] to his mother?

'What do you think that Jose probably gave to his mother?'

(53) O [que.sub.i] voce acha que o Jose deu frequentemente/ainda/etc. [t.sub.i] paia a mae dele?

[What.sub.i] you think that the Jose gave frequently/still/etc. [t.sub.i] to his mother?

'What do you think Jose frequently/still/etc. gave to his mother?'

5. Relative clauses: Since relativization also involves movement to CP, it is also a bone fide test to discriminate between high and low adverbs. Low adverbs allow the relativization of the constituent modified by them (see (55)), whereas high adverbs react to such extraction (cf. (54)).

(54) *Eu vi a [menina.sub.i] que o Joao beijou provavelmente [t.sub.i] (nao a outra).

I saw the [girl.sub.i] that the Joao kissed probably [t.sub.i] (not the other).

'I saw the [girl.sub.i] Joao probably kissed [t.sub.i] (not the other girl).

(55) Eu vi a meninaj que o Joao beija frequentemente/ainda/etc [t.sub.i]

I saw the [girl.sub.i] that the Joao kissed frequently/still/etc. [t.sub.i] (not the other).

'I saw the [girl.sub.i] Joao frequently/still/etc. kissed [t.sub.i] (not the other girl).

So far, I have shown that exclusive adverbs (so/only) behave like high adverbs with respect to the extraction possibilities of the constituent they modify. High adverbs and focusing so/only do not allow the extraction of the constituent modified by them. If semantics were responsible for the asymmetries that put focusing only on the one side and quantificational adverbs on the other, we should not find cases of exclusive adverbs that also behave like quantificational adverbs regarding, for instance, the extraction of the constituent modified by them to the left periphery. This is what will be shown in the next section. The conclusion is that what Bever & Clark thought should receive a semantic explanation should actually receive a structural (i.e. syntactic) explanation.

Actually, there are two positions for exclusive adverbs

The interesting fact that one and the same sentence can have two exclusive focusing adverbs in BP, namely so 'only' and exclusivamente 'exclusively', respectively) suggests the existence of two distinct positions for this class:

(54) A Mara so tinha limpado exclusivamente o banheiro (nao tinha lavado a sala/; nao a cozinha).

Mara only had cleaned exclusively the bathroom (not had washed the room/the kitchen)

'Mara had only cleaned exclusively the bathrom (she hadn't washed the room/ the kitchen')

Exclusivamente 'exclusively' seems to be an option, in BP, to fill the lower position. Some speakers never recover so 'only' in VP ellipsis (cfr. (37), repeated as (55) below).

(55) O Pedro comeu so arroz e a Maria tambem comeu [-]. The Pedro ate only rice and the Mary too ate [-]

a. [-]: *ate only rice b. [-]: ate rice

Curiously, but not surprisingly, speakers of this group do recover the focusing adverb exclusivamente 'exclusively':

(56) O Pedro comeu exclusivamente arroz e a Maria tambem comeu [-]. The Pedro ate exclusively rice and the Maria too ate [-] 'Pedro exclusively ate rice and Maria did too [-]

a. [-]: ate exclusively rice b. [-]: ate rice

In their grammar, the constituent associated with the focusing adverb exclusivamente 'exclusively', unlike the one associated with so 'only', can be extracted:

(57) O [que.sub.i] que o Pedro comeu exclusivamente [t.sub.i]? [What.sub.i] that the Pedro ate exclusively [t.sub.i]? 'What did Pedro exclusively ate?'

Thus, there is good reason to defend the existence of two syntactic positions for exclusive adverbs (a high position, between the higher adverbs of the Cinque hierarchy, and a low one, which has exclusivamente 'exclusively' behaving as a low AdvP).

Further evidence in favor of a lower position for exclusive adverbs comes from the phenomenon of verb movement in BP. Judging by Galves (1994), V movement is mandatory to the left of the adverb completamente 'completely' in BP:

(58) a. O Joao acabou completamente o seu trabalho. The Joao finished completely the his work 'Joao completely finished his work'

b. *O J. completamente acabou o seu trabalho.

Hence, it is expected that the exclusive adverb exclusivamente 'exclusively '--or so 'only' (if there is a lower so in some grammar of BP) for those who also accept its recovering in VP ellipsis structures--occupies a position above [Asp.sub.SingCompletive(I)], since exclusivamente 'exclusively' can precede the V in BP:

(59) a. (?)A Mara exclusivamente usa Q-boa para limpar o banheiro. The Mara exclusively uses Q-boa to clean the bathroom 'Mara exclusively uses Q-boa to clean the bathroom'

b. A Mara usa exclusivamente Q-boa para limpar o banheiro.

Note that (59b) is undoubtedly more acceptable than (59a) which is not ungrammatical, nonetheless. The fact that (59a) is acceptable to some extent leads us to conclude that only the lower exclusive adverb necessarily occupies a position to the left of completamente 'completely', which, as shown in (58), has to appear to the right of V, i.e. V must move past it.

Exclusivamente 'exclusively' has to follow brevemente 'briefly' ([Asp.sub.Durative]) (60), guase'almost' ([Asp.sub.Prospective]) (61),repentinamente'suddenly' ([Asp.sub.Incoative](I)) (62), obrigatoriamente 'obligatorily' ([Mood.sub.Obligation]) (63), em vao'in vain' ([Asp.sub.Frustrative]) (64), which, by turn, precedes the completive completamente 'completely ' in the hierarchy:

(60) a. A Mara brevemente exclusivamente usa Q-boa para limpar o banheiro. The Mara briefly exclusively uses Q-boa to clean the bathroom 'Mara briefly exclusively uses Q-boa to clean the bathroom'

b. *A Mara exclusivamente brevemente usa Q-boa para limpar o banheiro.

(61) a. A Mara quase exclusivamente usa Q-boa para limpar o banheiro. The Mara almost exclusively uses Q-boa to clean the bathroom 'Mara almost exclusively uses Q-boa to clean the bathroom'

b. *A Mara exclusivamente quase usa Q-boa para limpar o banheiro.

(62) a. A Mara repentinamente exclusivamente usa Q-boa para limpar o banheiro. The Mara suddenly exclusively uses Q-boa to clean the bathroom 'Mara suddenly exclusively uses Q-boa to clean the bathroom'

b. * A Mara exclusivamente repentinamente usa Q-boa para limpar o banheiro.

(63) a. A Mara obrigatoriamente exclusivamente usa Q-boa para limpar o banheiro. The Mara obligatorily exclusively uses Q-boa to clean the bathroom 'Mara obligatorily exclusively uses Q-boa to clean the bathroom'

b. * A Mara exclusivamente obrigatoriamente usa Q-boa para limpar o banheiro.

(64) a. A Mara em vao exclusivamente usa Q-boa para limpar o banheiro. The Mara in vain exclusively uses Q-boa to clean the bathroom 'Mara in vain exclusively uses Q-boa to clean the bathroom'

b. *A Mara exclusivamente em vao usa Q-boa para limpar o banheiro.

As far as the lower position of the so-called exclusive adverb is concerned, the data presented in this section lead us to conclude that it is located between the frustrative aspect (lexicalized by the adverb em vao'in vain') and the completive aspect (completamente 'completely'), in accordance with the template given in (64').

(64') ... [obligatorily [Mod.sub.Obligation] > [in vain [Asp.sub.Frustrative] > [exclusively/only [Foc.sub.Exclusivee(II)]/ [(?) > [completely [Asp.sub.SgCompletive] >....

Therefore, there is good reason to propose a lower position to Merge an exclusive adverb too. In this use, the exclusive exclusivamente 'exclusively', unlike the high adverb so 'only', is recovered by the elliptical VP--as are the other low adverbs (cfr. (65-66)). It can also appear in the sentence-final position (as is the case for low adverbs) (cp. (67a) and (67b)) and allow the extraction of the constituent under its scope (wh-fronting (68a,b), cleft-sentences (69a,b)).

(65) O Pedro limpou o banheiro cuidadosamente e a Maria tambem limpou [-]. The Pedro cleaned the bathroom carefully and the Maria too cleaned [-] 'Pedro cleaned the bathroom carefully and so did Maria'

a. [-]: cleaned the bathroom carefully; b. [-]: cleaned the bathroom

(66) O Pedro limpou exclusivamente o banheiro e a Maria tambem limpou [-]. The Pedro cleaned exclusively the bathroom and the Maria too cleaned [-] 'Pedro exclusively cleaned the bathroom and so did Maria [-]

a. [-]: cleaned exclusively the bathroom; b. [-]: cleaned the bathroom

(67) a. O Pedro limpou o banheiro exclusivamente. The Pedro cleaned the bathroom exclusively 'Pedro exclusively cleaned the bathroom'

b. O Pedro limpou o banheiro cuidadosamente. The Pedro cleaned the bathroom carefully

(68) a. O [que.sub.i] o Pedro limpou exclusivamente [t.sub.i]? Whati the Pedro cleaned exclusively ti ? 'Whati did Pedro cleaned exclusively ti?

b. O [que.sub.i] o Pedro limpou cuidadosamente ti? Whati the Pedro cleaned carefully ti? '[What.sub.i] did Pedro cleaned carefully [t.sub.i]?

(69) a. Foi o [banheiro.sub.i] que o Pedro limpou exclusivamente [t.sub.i]. It was the bathroomi that the Pedro cleaned exclusively ti

b. Foi o banheiroi que o Pedro limpou cuidadosamente ti It was the [bathroom.sub.i] that the Pedro cleaned carefully [t.sub.i]

(65-69) show that the exclusive adverb actually behaves as a low adverb, given its syntactic properties. If the interpretation of Bever & Clark was correct, one would expect that, because of its semantics, the exclusive adverb exclusivamente 'exclusively' should behave as its "relative", the exclusive so 'only'. I have shown that what is at stake is actually the position that the elements occupy in the structure. Low adverbs (whether quantificational or not (including the exclusive focusing exclusivamente 'exclusively')) share a set of syntactic properties: (i) they can appear in the sentence-final position, (ii) the constituent they modify can be extracted, (iii) they are recoverable by the elliptical VP. Such properties are not shared by high adverbs and focusing so 'only'.

In guise of conclusion

Were Semantics responsible for the asymmetries Bever and Clark (2008) observed when comparing quantificational adverbs and exclusive adverbs, one should expect the same pattern for both exclusive adverbs, so 'only' and exclusivamente 'exclusively' independently of their position.

The proposal has the advantage of explaining the same set of data discussed by Bever and Clark. Besides that, it can also explain why focusing so 'only' behaves as other high adverbs (in their focusing use).

Furthermore, the unexpected behavior of the low exclusive adverb (exclusivamente 'exclusively') is also accounted for by the cartographic analysis presented here by means of a sole structural analysis.

All in all, the paper offers some contribution to studies on the cartography of syntactic structures, when it shows that there are clear differences in the syntactic behavior of constituents by only considering the position that these elements occupy in the hierarchy (i.e. the position where they are externally merged). Saying that what is responsible for the asymmetries that set apart high adverbs (including so 'only') and low adverbs (quantificational adverbs and the exclusive exclusivamente 'exclusively' included) is the position of these items in the hierarchy does not mean that semantic explanations should be ignored. It only shows the work developed by syntax.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1981-5794-1509-7

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers who made this work greatly improve in quality. I only mentioned them in the text where they do not share my judgments. Many thanks to Sonia Cyrino for having embraced the idea of supervising my post-doctoral research on focusing adverbs in the framework of the Cartography. Thanks to Guglielmo Cinque for inspiring my research and for the interesting insights he gave me in October 2013 in Venice. Thanks to Lilian Teixeira by the ingenious remarks she made on VP ellipsis and so 'only', which resulted in the ideas presented here. Many thanks to the colleagues and the audience of the symposium on the left periphery at the II International Conference on Language and Literature in the Southern Border, Chapeco, Brazil, November 2013.1 should also thank the staff and PhD students of the "Dipartimento di Scienze del Linguaggio" (University of Venice), where I presented a first version of the topics presented here. Last, but not least, a special thanks to FAPESP, the funding agency of Sao Paulo, for my post-doctoral grant (#2013/04001-1).

REFERENCES

ABNEY, S. P. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. 1986. 234 f. Thesis (Doctor in Linguistics)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1986.

BAYER, J. Directionality and Logical Form: On The Scope of Focussing Particles and Wh-in situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.

BEGHELLI, E; STOWELL.T. Distributivity and Negation. In: SZABOLCSI, A. (Ed.). Ways of Scope Taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer Publications, 1997. p. 71-107.

BELLETTI, A. Generalized Verb Movement. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier, 1990.

BEVER, D.; CLARK, B. Z. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008.

CHOMSKY, N. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995.

--. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986.

--. Deep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic Interpretation. In: STEINBERG, D. D.; JAKOBOVITS, L. A. (Ed.). Semantics. Cambridge: CUP, 1971. p.62-119.

CINQUE, G. Restructuring and Functional Heads: the Cartography of Syntactic Structures, v.4. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

--. Issues in Adverbial Syntax. Lingua, Leiden, v. 114, n.6, p.683-710, 2004.

--. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

--. Adverbs and the Universal Hierarchy of Functional Projections. GLOW Newsletter, Utrecht, n.34, p. 14-15, 1995.

--. On the Evidence for Partial N Movement in the Romance DP. In: CINQUE, G. et al. (Ed.). Path Towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honour of Richard S. Kayne. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1994. p. 85-110.

CINQUE, G.; RIZZI, L. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. In: HEINE, B.; NARROG, H. (Ed). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: OUR2010. p. 51-65.

CYRINO, S. On Richness of Tense and Verb Movement in Brazilian Portuguese. In: CAMACHO-TABOADA, M. V. et al. (Ed.) Information Structure and Agreement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2013. p. 297-317.

CYRINO, S.; MATOS, G. VP Ellipsis in European and Brazilian Portuguese: a Comparative Analysis. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, Lisboa, v. 1, n. 2, p. 177-195, 2002.

ERNST, T. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

GALVES, C. V-movement, Levels of Representation and the Structure of S. Letras de Hoje, Porto Alegre, n. 96, p. 35-58,1994.

JACKENDOFF, R. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1972.

KAYNE, R. S. Movement and Silence. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

--. Overt vs. Covert Movements. Syntax, Harvard, n. 1, p. 128-191, 1998. LAENZLINGER, C. A Feature-based Theory of Adverb Syntax. GG@G: Generative Grammar in Geneva, n. 3, p. 67-105, 2002.

MATOS, G. Construcoes de Elipse do predicado em Portugues: SV Nulo e Despojamento. 1992. 459 f. Thesis (Doctor in Portuguese Linguistics)--Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, 1992.

MATOS, G.; CYRINO, S. Elipse de VP no Portugues Europeu e no Portugues Brasileiro. Boletim da Abralin 26, Guama, n.esp., p. 386-390, 2001.

MIOTO, C. Sobre o Sistema CP no Portugues Brasileiro. Revista Letras, Curitiba, n. 56, p. 97-139, jul./dez. 2001.

MOURA, D. Variacao em sintaxe. In: MOURA, D.; FARIAS, J. Reflexoes sobre a sintaxe do portugues. Maceio: Ed. da UFAL, 2005. p. 47-71.

MUNARO, N. On The Syntax of Focalizers in Some Italo-Romance Dialects. In: BAAUW, F. et al. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2011. p.157-174.

POLLOCK, J.-Y. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, Massachusetts, v. 20, n. 3, p. 365-474,1989.

RIZZI, L. The Fine Structure of Left Periphery. In: HAEGMAN, L. (Ed.). Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1997. p.281-337.

--. On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects. 2004. Available in: <http://www.ciscl.unisi.it/doc/doc_pub/Rizzi_2004-On_the_form_of_chains.pdf>. Access in: 2 sept. 2015.

SHU, C. Sentence Adverbs in the Kingdom of Agree. 2011. 253 p. Thesis (Doctor in Linguistics)--Stony Brook University, New York, 2011.

SZABOLCSI, A. Functional Categories in the Noun Phrase. In: KENESEI, I. (Ed.). Approaches to Hungarian, v. 2. Budapest: Jate Szeged, 1987. p. 167-189.

TESCARI NETO, A. On Verb Movement in Brazilian Portuguese: A Cartographic Study. 2013.392 p. Thesis (Doctor in Language Science)--Universita di Venezia, Venezia, 2013.

Recebido em dezembro de 2013.

Aprovado em abril de 2014.

Aquiles Tescari NETO, UFRJ--Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Faculdade de Letras. Rio de Janeiro--Rio de Janeiro--Brasil. 21941-917--aquilestescaii@yahoo.it.

(1) The indexes [F.sub.1] and [F.sub.2] refer to the focusing adverbs which have scope over the constituents numbered as 1 and 2, respectively. Notice that In Chinese the scope relation among the focusing adverbs must be captured by Syntax. Thus, there Is a pie-SpeE-Out movement of a portion of the clause, indicated by the Index T, which contains the modifier 1 and the focus [F.sub.1]. To the present discussion, It Is Important to point out that the surface ordering "[1 [[F.sub.1].sub.i], [2[F.sub.2]] ... [t.sub.i]" exactly reflects an underlying hierarchy where [Adv.sub.1] > [Adv.sub.2] (the same ordering seen in (8-11)).

(2) One of the anonymous reviewers considers only marginal, but not ungrammatical, the sentence given In (lb):

(1) a. Ele talvez so tenha Ido a padaria. He perhaps only had gone to the bakery 'He perhaps only had gone to the bakery'

b. ?Ele so talvez tenha Ido a padaria.

For me, (i.b) Is ungrammatical, unless so 'only' Is "prosodlcally marked". For the purposes of this work, In the production of granrnratlcallty judgment tests, It Is necessary to create "reliable minimal pairs", that Is, sentences with 'flat Intonation'. If the adverb so 'only' In (b) Is prosodlcally marked, (b) no longer forms a minimal pair with (a) and both sentences have to be excluded from the data.

(3) For one of the reviewers, after much Insistence, the sentence (la) below--which forms a legitimate minimal pair with (ib), as defined In note 2)--Is not ungrammatical, but only marginal:

(i) a. ?O Joao finalmente so fez a capa do trabalho. The Joao finally only did the title page of the paper 'Joao has finally only finished the title page of the paper'

b. *O Joao so finalmente fez a capa.

For me, even (1(a)) Is grammatical. However, It Is worth observing that, In spite of the fact that both sentences present some level of degradation In the referee's judgment, his/her feelings on the differences between (a) and (b) are very clear, as the symbols"?" and "*" before them would suggest: (a) Is less degraded than (b), the latter considered completely ungrammatical by the reviewer.

In the present context, It Is Important to bring to the discussion the sentence given In (1c), which has also been provided by the referee.

(i) c. O Joao finalmente fez so a capa. The Joao finally did only the title page 'Joao has finally finished only the title page'

For the theoretical and methodological purposes of this study, sentences like (1c) should be disregarded for one reason: (1c) does not form a minimal pair with (lb), given the fact that the adverbs In (1c) are not In contiguity. The contiguity Is extremely Important here--whether the AdvP Is before an auxiliary or even the lexical verb or If the AdvPs Is before one of the arguments of the V--because the movement of the remnant can mask the ordering of the adverbs, creating the Illusion that It Is not possible to establish a rigid and fixed order among them. For this reason, It Is necessary that AdvPs be contiguous.

(4) In Kayne (1998), this probing head would be lexicalized by the focusing adverb which, after the movement of the focus to its specifier, would also raise and adjoin to the head above. The modification made here--which keeps Kayne's original idea and the same derivational process--departs only partially from his analysis: here, the probing head is not filled by the adverb but by an unpronounced head, in Portuguese. As noted by Tescari Neto (2013), there is (morphosyntactic) evidence for the assumption of this probing head in Syntax, whenever a scope-inducing/focus-sensitive element (focusing adverbs, higher adverbs, etc.) enters the derivation. Shu (2011, p.132) mentions the existence of an 'agreement marker' cai, in Chinese, which may appear with a focusing adverb in that language. The indexes [F.sub.1] and [F.sub.2] indicate the focus of the associated focusing adverb bearing the same index.

(i) Chinese (SHU, 2011, p.132) A:--zhangsan changchang mai xigua 'Zhangsan often buys watermelons.' [B:--bu. ta zhi[(you).sub.1] [[[ouer.sub.2]].sub.F1] cai mai [xigua.sub.F2]. no he only sometimes CAI buy watermelon 'No. He [only.sub.1] buys [watermelons.sub.F2] [[[occasionally.sub.2]].sub.F1].'

Thus, I take cai, when it appears with a focusing adverb, to be the probing head associated with the focus. As such, cai attracts the focus, in this case otter 'sometimes' to its Spec, followed by the Merge of its associated focusing adverb, namely, zhi(you). In Brazilian Portuguese, this probing head is silent.

(5) One could ask why the same expedient used for frequentemente can no longer be used with ja 'already'. That is, whether the movement of the remnant drags along the adverb so 'only' or not, thus producing two possible orders. For the time being, there seems to be no answer to this question. However, from the viewpoint of a strong cartographic line--which Is the one assumed here--, this unique behavior of the adverbs In (28d,d';e,e';f,f), frequentemente 'frequently' Included', Is highly revealing: the adverbs In (28d-f), which are located below so 'only' (cfr. (29)) In the hierarchy, can move or not to the left of so as part of the remnant, whereas ja 'already' and the AdvPs located below cannot. This different behavior of the adverbs In (28) with respect to so and ja suggests the existence of syntactic operations (Internal Merge ('displacement'), In this case) which are only available to some adverbs belonging to a certain portion of the hierarchy. At first sight, there Is no semantic explanation for the distinct behavior of the adverbs In (28d-f) with respect to ja regarding the possibility of being part of the remnant or not: the adverbs In (28d-f) Include aspectual AdvPs (frequentemente 'frequently' and rammente 'rarely') and a volitive adverb (voluntariamente 'willingly'); ja 'already' Is a tense adverb In Cinque (1999). Thus, the answer must be found In the structure, he. In the position occupied by the adverb In the hierarchy. These facts would suggest that there Is no alternative to Cartography.

(6) The following data present an adverb being linearized between the subject and the lexical verb. The post-Pollockian tradition understands that adverbs occupy fixed positions and that the other constituents move In the sentence. Since adverbs occupy fixed positions, they are reliable diagnostics for movements.

(1) a. O Pedro provavelmente compraria meloes. The Pedro probably would-buy melons 'Pedro would probably buy lemons'

b. O gue o Pedro provavelmente compraria? ([sup.OK]:wlde scope; *narrow scope) What the Pedro probably would-buy 'What would Pedro probably buy?'

Even (ia) is ambiguous. In one reading, the adverb can take scope over everything following it (see the paraphrase (la')). This reading resembles what is referred to here as 'the wide scope reading' or scope over the VP. The other possible reading Is the one where the adverb has scope only over the most embedded constituent (cfr. paraphrase (la")), a typical case of 'narrow focus' (CHOMSKY, 1971).

(i) a'. O Pedro provavelmente compraria meloes, nao (os) pediria emprestado. The Pedro probably would-buy melons, not (them) would-ask-borrow 'Pedro would probably buy melons, he wouldn't borrow them'

b'. O Pedro provavelmente compraria meloes, nao macas. The Pedro probably would-buy melons, not apples 'Pedro would probably buy melons, not apples'

The ambiguity is preseived in the sentence where the constituent is wh-extracted (ib): provavelmente 'probably' may have scope over either the entire VP (formed in this case by the verb plus the unpronounced copy of the wh-extracted constituent) or only over the wh-extracted constituent. For me, only the reading where the adverb has wide scope (i.e. scope over the VP) is possible. If one has in mind the reading where the adverb has scope over the extracted constituent (as in (lb') above), such reading should be ungrammatical. In the examples shown in the seguence, the reader will realize that, in the formulation of the test, we prefer locating the adverb on the right of the lexical verb, as in (34a) and (35b). This Is only a methodological choice motivated by the fact that the speakers consulted prefer the narrow scope reading In declaratives where the adverb is found between the verb and its complement (as In (34a) and (35b)). Likewise, speakers tend to prefer the 'wide scope reading' for (ia), above. This Is only a guestion of preference, as these sentences are always ambiguous.

(7) Here lies one of the differences between Brazilian and European Portuguese, which Cyrlno and Matos (2002) mentioned In their text: (39) Is ambiguous not only between a VP ellipsis Interpretation for the gap ("[-]"), naturally ungrammatical If the adverb gets recovered (39a), and a null object Interpretation (39b), which Is possible in both Brazilian and European Portuguese, ft Is still compatible with a reading where the verb comer to eat' Is treated as a monoargumental V, having an Implicit argument. The reading where the gap Is Interpreted as a null object or the one where the verb comer to eat' Is monoargumental In Brazilian Portuguese do not Invalidate this test, ft only shows that, If the VP ellipsis test Is applied, for Instance, to (39), the result should be ungrammatical (39a), being the adjunct above the position reached by the verb.
COPYRIGHT 2015 Universidade Estadual Paulista
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:texto en ingles
Author:Neto, Aquiles Tescari
Publication:Alfa: Revista de Linguistica
Article Type:Ensayo critico
Date:Nov 1, 2015
Words:11824
Previous Article:Object-verb order in Brazilian Portuguese: a mechanism for the expression of subjectivity/Ordem objeto-verbo no portugues do Brasil: mecanismo de...
Next Article:New conversations with Jacques Fontanille/Novas conversas com Jacques Fontanille.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters