THE BRAZILIAN STYLE OF THE MULTIPLE SUBJECT CONSTRUCTIONSAna C.P. Bastos
University of Connecticut

1.

Introduction

Multiple fronted nominal elements bearing exhaustive, contrastive or “aboutness”
interpretation are found in many languages, and have been called multiple subject
constructions, double subject constructions or multiple nominative constructions. Let us, forinstance, see the example (1) in Japanese.
(1)

Bunmeikoku-ga
dansei-ga heikin-zyumyoo-ga
mizikaicivilized countries-nom men-nom average life-span-nom is-short‘It is civilized countries that men – their average life-span is short in.’ (Kuno 1973)

In this paper, I investigate multiple fronted DP-constructions in Brazilian Portuguese(BP) as shown in (2). This type of construction resembles multiple subject constructions.
(2)

A caneca,
The mug,

a florzinha,(foi)
minha mãe (que) pintou ela.
the little-flower, (it-was) my mother (that) painted her.

‘As for the mug, as for the flower on it, (it was) my mother (who) painted it.’Given that in BP, these DPs trigger an “aboutness” reading, a more appropriate label forthem would be multiple topic constructions. However, a striking property of BP is that it does
not usually accept sequences of DP-topics with “aboutness” interpretation, except for cases
similar to (2) above. An example of this is given in (3).
(3) a. * O livro,
The book,a Maria, (foi)o João (que) comprou ele pra ela.
the Mary, (it-was) the John (that) bought it to her‘As for the book, as for Mary, (it was) John (who) bought it to her.’b. * A Maria,
the Mary,o livro, (foi)o João (que) comprou ele pra ela.
the book, (it-was) the John (that) bought it to her‘As for Mary, as for the book, (it was) John (who) bought it to her.’
As you can see by comparing (3a) and (3b), the unacceptability of these double topics
has nothing to do with superiority effects, since both sentences are unacceptable
independently of the linear order, in which the topics appear.

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2, 17–34© 2008 Ana C.P. Bastos

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

What is the difference between the acceptable multiple topic construction in (2) and the
non-acceptable multiple topic construction in (3)? The main difference is that there is adominance relation between the two fronted DPs in (2), but not in (3), i.e., in (2) “the little
flower” is in a part-whole relation with “the mug” and in the linear order “the little flower ofthe mug”, it dominates “the mug,” but in (3) “the book” is not dominated by “Mary” or viceversa.
Going back to multiple subject constructions in Japanese, many linguists have argued
that this phenomenon is derived through multiple specifier configurations or adjoined
positions to the same projection (Fukui 1986, Heycock & Lee1989, Heycock 1993, Koizumi
1994, Saito 1982, Takahashi 1994, 1996, Takezawa 1987, Tateishi 1991, Ura 1994, 1996,
1999, 2000, among others).
Comparing BP and Japanese, it has been brought to my attention that the translation of(3a,b) into Japanese gives acceptable sentences different from what we have seen for BP(Mamoru Saito, p.c.). Given that there is a real distinction between Japanese and BP data as
for how constrained the phenomenon is, I take a different path and argue that multiple topic
constructions in BP are derived through internal movements in the nominal domain, i.e., thesequence “the mug, the little flower” is actually derived from “the little flower of the mug”.
This analysis successfully explains the possible sequence of topics without overgenerationand it allows me to explain some additional properties: comma intonation patterns, “optional”
prepositions and “optional” resumptive pronouns.
This paper is organized as follows. In the first section, I make some remarks on thesyntactic periphery of BP and present in general terms my analysis for multiple topic
constructions. In the second section, I discuss possible and impossible sequences of topics,
correlating them with comma intonation patterns. In the third section, I address the issue ofpresence or absence of prepositions. Finally, in the fourth section, I investigate the possibilityof resumptive pronouns.
2.

Main Proposal

Before presenting my analysis of multiple topic constructions, I would like to make some
remarks on the structure of the left periphery in BP.
As presented above in (3), the sequence topic-topic is not allowed in BP, if it involves
DP-topics that are not in a dominance relation. However, it has been noted in many papers
that two DPs can actually co-exist in the left periphery of BP as long as the first one is a topic
and the second one is focused, but not the other way around (Pontes 1987, Ilari 1986, Kato
1993, 1998, Galves 1993, 1998, Kato and Raposo 1994, Figueiredo Silva 1996, Raposo 1997,
Grolla 2000, Bastos 2001, Mioto 2001, among others).

-18-

The Brazilian Style of the Multiple Subject Constructions (A. C.P. Bastos)(4)

A flor,(foi) PRA MARIA (que)the flower, (was) TO MARY (that)eu comprei ela. Topic > focus
I bought it‘As for the flower, it was to Mary that I bought it.’(5)

* (Foi) PRA MARIA (que)(was) TO MARY (that)a flor,eu comprei ela. *Focus > topic
the flower, I bought her‘As for the flower, it was to Mary that I bought it.’A prevalent view on the literature interprets these facts on the light of Rizzi’s (1997)
split CP hypothesis (Figueiredo Silva 1996, Grolla 2000, Bastos 2001, Mioto 2001). The
structure proposed by Rizzi (1997) for the syntactic left periphery is given in (6) below.
(6)[ForceP ... Force° [TopP ... Top° * [FocP ... Foc° [TopP ... Top° * [FinP ... Fin° [IP ... ]]]]]],
where TopP is recursive.

Following Rizzi’s system, the order topic-focus is straightforwardly accounted if we
assume that “the flower” in the specifier of the higher TopP and “to Mary” is in the specifierof FocP. Notice that no dominance relation between “the flower” and “to Mary” is requiredfor (4) to be acceptable, what makes this case very different from the sequence topic-topic.
That obviously raises the question of why the sentence in (5) is unacceptable, since inRizzi’s system, there is a TopP right under FocP. In Bastos (2001, 2003), I argued that BP
lacks the TopP projection lower than FocP.1
In this paper, I make the stronger claim that, in addition to lacking the lower TopP, BP
does not allow TopP recursion at all. As a consequence, all the possible occurrences ofmultiple topics are derived by internal movements inside the nominal domain.
If this is correct we make the prediction that BP allows sequences of DP-topics (satisfied
the dominance requirement) above a focused DP, which is also different from the subject of
the sentence. This prediction is borne out, as we can see in (7) and its simplified structure in(8).

1Part of the evidence for a lower TopP projection in Rizzi’s 1997 comes from the position of adverbs.
Lower adverbs can be accommodated as adjuncts of projections lower than FocP; they do not have tobe necessarily placed as specifiers of TopP in BP. In addition to that, notice that high adverbs,
commonly assumed to be base-generated in the CP-system, do not trigger the same comma intonationthat follows full DP topics. See section 3 for details on the comma intonation.

-19-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(7)

A caneca, a florzinha,
The mug, the little-flower,
pintou ela.
painted her(foi)
MINHA MÃE(que) eu acho que(it-was) MY
MOTHER (that) I think that‘As for the mug, as for the flower on it, (it was) my mother (that) I think thatpainted it.’(8) Internal movement in the DP
TopPDP
the mug, the little flower

Top’
Top

FocP
DP

Foc’

MY MOTHER Foc(that)

IP
I painted it

The structure in (8) contains only one TopP projection in the left periphery of thesentence in BP and all the DPs with topic interpretation are in there. This projection is rightabove FocP, which is the host for any focused DP. In addition to that, these two projections
are independent of the subject of the sentence. This structure makes the prediction thatmultiple topic constructions should be very restricted in BP, i.e. the only possiblecombinations of multiple topics are the ones compatible with an internal rearrangement of theconstituents within the nominal domain in the specifier of TopP.
Now, let us take a closer look at the nominal domain in the specifier of TopP to see how
the internal movements can be implemented. The main key to implement my analysis is theclaim that the structure of nominal domains contains a Topic Phrase above DP. This has been
proposed by Grohmann and Haegeman (2003), Ticio (2003), among others, and Ormazabal(1991) also proposed that there is a projection called K(omp)P above DP. My proposal isdifferent from those in the fact that TopP is not simply an escape-hatch, but a real topic
projection that triggers comma intonation and “aboutness” reading, while requiring oldbackground informational status.
The following diagram shows it in more details.

-20-

The Brazilian Style of the Multiple Subject Constructions (A. C.P. Bastos)

TopP
TopP
Top

DP

the little flower[+Top]
D
the

NP
N
mug

t

The motivation for movement to the nominal TopP projection is implemented here interms of the checking theory, i.e. modifiers of an N may have a [+Top] feature, which is astrong feature; if that is the case, they will move to nominal TopP projection.
At this point, one could ask whether we are dealing with dominance or with a semantic
constraint, such as a requirement that multiple topics should be in a part-whole relationship.
This question is important because if one wants to pursue an analysis of multiple topic
constructions in BP in terms of TopP recursion or multiple specifiers, one could try to argue
that the constraints presented in (3) have a semantic-pragmatic basis.
The semantic view is quite attractive and it actually covers a great majority of data. In(9)-(11), we can see sequences of topics that can be in a way considered as part-whole
relation, such as some cases of unalienable possession, locative and others. One exception,
however, is presented in (12).2(9)

A unha do dedinho da minha mão (unalienable possession)‘The nail of the little finger of my hand’
A minha mão,The my hand,o dedinho,
a unha,the little-finger, the nail,(fui) EU (que) pintei ela.
(it-as) I (who) painted it‘As for my hand, as for the little finger, as for the nail, it was me who painted it.’(10)

A mancha da toalha da mesa (locative)“The spot of the tablecloth of the table”
A mesa,a toalha,a mancha, (fui) EU (que) consegui limpar ela
The table, the tablecloth, the spot, (it-as) I (who) manage to clean her.
‘As for the table, as for table cloth, as for the spot on it, it was me who manage toclean it.’2

It is possible to come up with examples with four or more DP topics, but they become progressively
degraded the more topics are added, since it is harder to process them. By adding determiners like esse
“this” and aquele “that” or resumptive pronouns, they improve considerably. All sequences with three
DP topics are slightly degraded in comparison with the ones with two DP topics, but I am still going to
use them, since they provide the most interesting patterns.

-21-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(11)

O parafuso do pneu do carro (part-whole)‘the screw of the tire of the car’
O carro, o pneu, o parafuso, o meu mecânico não conseguiu desenroscar ele.
the car, the tire, the screw, the my mechanic not manage-to unscrew it‘As for the car, as for its tire, as for the screw, my mechanic didn’t manage tounscrew it.’(12)

A reprodução da pintura da cidadezinha (sequences of themes)‘The reproduction of the picture of the little city’A cidadezinha, a pintura, a reprodução, (foi)minha mãe (que)the little-city, the picture, the reproduction, (it-was) my mother (that)encomendou ela.
ordered it‘As for the little city, as for the picture of it, as for the reproduction of the picture,(it was) my mother (who) ordered it.’Different from the relations expressed by the examples in (9)-(11), there is no way inwhich the sequence of themes in (12) can be understood as part-whole relation. “Thereproduction” is a separate object from “the picture” and “the picture” is a separate object
from “the little city”. Do these relations have some syntactic property in common? Following
Ticio (2003) in her analysis of Spanish DPs, the “theme” modifiers of a noun and themodifiers in Group B are base-generated in the complement position of the noun. Her group Bof modifiers includes part-whole relations. If Spanish and BP are identical in the structure of
their nominal domains, then we can actually group up all of those relations under a syntactic
criterion. This makes important predictions for other semantic relations like agent andalienable possession, but I will leave this issue open to further research.
In the next section, I examine possible and impossible sequences of multiple topics
involving larger nominal domains that can give us sequences of three topics. I will show thatthe possible combinations in multiple topic constructions are very restricted and that an
analysis in terms of TopP recursion overgenerates.
3.

Accounting for the Basic Patterns

In this section I will be concerned with nominal domains that follow the schema in (13a)or can be derived from it.
(13) a.
b.

A of-B of-C
a flordo fundo
the flower of-the bottom

da caneca.
of-the mug

As discussed above, the generalization is that multiple DP-topic constructions are
possible only if there is a dominance relation among the DPs inside a larger nominal domain.

-22-

The Brazilian Style of the Multiple Subject Constructions (A. C.P. Bastos)

For instance, a caneca ‘the mug’ is an argument of o fundo ‘the bottom’ and o fundo dacaneca ‘the bottom of the mug’ is an argument of a flor ‘the flower’.
Given the nominal domain in (13b), BP allows it to be topicalized as a whole, as we cansee in (14) below, where there is only one comma intonation separating the topic and the restof sentence.
(14) a.
b.

A of-B of-C
a flor do fundo da caneca,(foi) ONTEMF(que) eu pintei ela.
the flower of-the bottom of-the mug, (was) YESTERDAYF (that) I painted her‘As for the flower of the bottom of the mug, it was yesterday that I painted it.’

Notice that it is not possible to have a sequence of topics, while preserving the directorder of the DPs inside the larger nominal domain, as we can see in (15)-(16). The facts
remain the same whether the preposition are present or not.
(15) a. * A, B, C and *A, of-B, of-Cb. a flor,(d)o fundo,(d)a caneca, (foi) ONTEMF(que) eu pintei ela.
the flower, (of) the bottom, (of)the mug, (was) YESTERDAYF (that) I painted her‘As for the flower of the bottom of the mug, it was yesterday that I painted it.’Given my proposal in the previous sections, only nominal domains that have a [+Top]
feature move up to the specifier of TopP. The sequence A of-B of-C can be generated ifneither the nominal domain B nor the nominal domain C has a [+Top] feature, as we can see
in the diagram in (17) below. As a consequence, they do not have to move up. The sequences
A,B,C and A,of-B,of-C are ruled out, because the comma intonation is triggered by TopP.
Since those nominal domains have not moved, they do not show the typical topic intonation.
Notice that the unacceptable sequence A,B,C can also be ruled out for case reasons, i.e.,
the lack of preposition implies the lack of a case checker and the derivation crashes. I am
assuming that the preposition de “of” in BP is the head of a “real” PP, which is needed forcase purposes. In addition to the option of having its case checked against the prepositional
head, I assume that nominal domains may have inherent case if they are [+Top]. In this case,after moved to the specifier of TopP, they will show up as nominative, which is the default
case in BP. Notice that this assumption is independently necessary, since BP allows
constructions, such as (17) below.
(16)

Flor, eu gosto de rosa.
Flower, I like of rose
‘As for flowers, I like roses.’-23-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

In (16) the nominal domain flor “flower” is arguably base-generated as topic, since it has
no relation with the internal argumental structure of the sentence. Kato (1998) argues that inthis case, elements like flor “flower” have inherent case in BP.
(17) Single topic B [-Top] and C [-Top]
TopPA
Top

DPA
D
the

NP

N
“A”
P
of

PPB
TopPB
Top

DPB

D

NP

the
N
“B”
[-Top]

PPC
P
of

TopPC
Top

DPC
D
the

NP
N’
N
“C”
[-Top]

Going back to the description of possible and impossible constructions, there are twocases of double topic constructions that are possible.
(18) a.
b.

C, A of-B,
a caneca,
the mug,

a flor do fundo,(foi) ONTEMF(que) eu pintei ela.
the flower of-the bottom, (was) YESTERDAYF (that) I painted her‘As for the mug, as for the flower of the bottom, it was yesterday that I painted it.’-24-

The Brazilian Style of the Multiple Subject Constructions (A. C.P. Bastos)(19) a.
b.

B of-C, A,
o fundo da caneca,a flor,(foi) ONTEMF(que) eu pintei ela.
the bottom of-the mug, the flower, (was) YESTERDAYF (that) I painted her‘As for the bottom of the mug, as for the flower, it was yesterday that I painted it.’

The case in (18) can be easily generated if the nominal domain C has the feature [+Top]
and the nominal domain B does not. The nominal domain C will move successive cyclicallyto the highest TopP, producing the order in which C is the first topic.
The case in (19) can be easily generated if the nominal domain B has the feature [+Top]
and the nominal domain C does not. The nominal domain B will move to the highest TopP
caring the nominal domain C along. This generates the order in which B of-C is the first topic.
Some unacceptable sequences are the following.
(20) a. * C, A, B and *C, A, of-B,b. * a caneca,a flor,(d)o fundo,(foi) ONTEMF(que) eu pintei ela.
the mug,
the flower, (of)the bottom, (was) YESTERDAYF (that) I painted her‘As for the mug, as for the flower of the bottom, it was yesterday that I painted it.’(21) a. * B, C, A and *B of-C, A,
b. * o fundo,(d)a caneca,
the bottom, (of)the mug,a flor,(foi) ONTEMF(que) eu pintei ela.
the flower, (was) YESTERDAYF (that) I painted her‘As for the bottom of the mug, as for the flower, it was yesterday that I painted it.’
Following the lines of my discussion for the sequences A,B,C and A,of-B,of-C, thesequences in (20) and (21) are ruled out, because the comma intonation is associated withconstituents that are moved to TopP. Since some nominal domains in those sequences havenot moved, they should not exhibit comma intonation.
The most interesting cases of multiple topics are the ones that involve three or more DPtopics, such as in (22) below and its derivation in (23).
(22) a.
b.

C, B, A,a caneca,
the mug,o fundo, a flor,(foi) ONTEMF(que) eu pintei ela.
the bottom, the flower, (was) YESTERDAYF (that) I painted her‘As for the mug, as for the bottom, as for the flower, it was yesterday that I painted
it.’

-25-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(23)Multiple topics B [+Top] and C [+Top]
TopPA
TopPB
TopPC

Top

the “C”

TopA

DPA

DPB

the “A” tB

D
the

NP
N
“B”

tC

In (23) both the nominal domain B and the nominal domain C have [+Top] features. As
for case, they have inherent case and there are no prepositional phrases in the structure at all.
Notice that nominal domains with inherent case are somehow related to the presence of[+Top] feature, since as mentioned above, nominal domains in situ that are not dominated by
a PP cause the derivation to crash.
One question that can be raised at this point is why the nominal domain C moves as awhole. One could think that the [+Top] feature is a noun feature or a DP feature. Why can thenoun or DP not to move to the specifier of its own TopPc? Taking a closer look at (9) below,
we can see the structure of the nominal domain C before the nominal domain B merges with
it. In that structure, we can see that if the noun moves by itself to TopP, the head of the DP
will stand alone. In BP, determiners are phonological clitics and cannot be stranded; actually
the same holds for the preposition de “of”, but I will leave the preposition issue for the next
section. If instead of the nominal head, the NP moves to the specifier of TopP, the problem of
stranding the determiner will remain.
(24) Nominal domain C before nominal domain B merges with it
TopPC
Top

DPC
D
the

NPC
“C”
[+Top]

Given that the NPC cannot move up, why can’t the DPC move to the specifier of TopPC?
The answer to this question comes from anti-locality, i.e. the ban on movement that is too
short, originally proposed in Bošković (1994) and later developed by a number of authors,-26-

The Brazilian Style of the Multiple Subject Constructions (A. C.P. Bastos)including Grohmann (2000) and Abels (2003).3 I am assuming here Abels’s (2003) version of
the anti-locality condition, which blocks the movement of the complement of a phase head toits specifier. With the additional assumption that TopPC is a phase head, since it is the highest
projection in the nominal domain, we can successfully exclude the possibility of movement of
DPC to the TopPC. The only way of checking the [+Top] feature within the nominal domain C
is to move the whole nominal domain C to the next available specifier of TopP, which is the
specifier of TopPB.4
4.

Accounting for “Optional” Prepositions

In multiple topic constructions, the very first topic may have what descriptively could becalled an “optional” preposition. The relevant data is given below.
(25) a.
b.

C, A of-B, and of-C, A of-B,(d)a caneca, a flor do fundo,(foi) ONTEMF(que) eu pintei ela.
(of)the mug, the flower of-the bottom, (was) YESTERDAYF (that) I painted her‘As for the mug, as for the flower of the bottom, it was yesterday that I painted it.’(26) a.
b.

B of-C, A, and of-B of-C, A,(d)o fundo da caneca,a flor,(foi) ONTEMF(que) eu pintei ela.
(of) the bottom of-the mug, the flower, (was) YESTERDAYF (that) I painted her‘As for the bottom of the mug, as for the flower, it was yesterday that I painted it.’(27) a.
b.

of-C, B, A, and *of-C, of-B, A,(d)a caneca, (*d)o fundo, a flor,(foi) ONTEMF(que) eu pintei ela.
(of) the mug, the bottom, (of)the flower, (was) YESTERDAYF (that) I painted her‘As for the mug, as for the bottom, as for the flower, it was yesterday that I paintedit.’

I have claimed in the previous section that [+Top] nominal domains can have inherent
case. Let us suppose now that they actually have a choice: if they have inherent case, they are
not dominated by a PP and if they have structural case they are dominated by a PP.5 This
optionally is responsible for the presence or absence of a preposition and accounts
3

See also Bošković (1997, 2005) for further reformulations of the condition. Bošković’s (1994)
formulation of the anti-locality condition is a revised version of Saito and Murasugi (1993), previously
discussed by Saito (University of Connecticut lectures 1993) but not included in the final version of
the paper.
4

I am assuming a process of percolation of features among the heads within the nominal domain C
what will ultimately allow TopPC to check the [+Top] feature.
5

Notice that [-Top] nominal domains can only have structural case.

-27-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

straightforwardly to (25)-(26). The case in (27) is more complex and I would like to show its
derivation step-by-step. Let us start with the derivation for the acceptable case, which follows
the schema [of-C, B, A].
The diagram in (28) shows that the nominal domain C has a [+Top] feature, is dominatedby a PP and has structural case, while the nominal domain B has a [+Top] feature, is not
dominated by a PP and has inherent case.
(28)
Step 1:

Step 2:

TopPB
Top

TopPB
PPC

DPB
D
the

of-the “C”

TopB

NP
N

DPB
D
the

PPC

N
“B”
[+Top]“B”[+Top]
P
of

NP
tC

TopPC
the “C”[+Top]The diagram in (28) shows a derivation in which the whole PPC moves up to specifier of
TopPB. The derivation proceeds with TopPB moving to the specifier of TopPA as in (29)
below and the resulting sequence will be in accordance with the schema [of-C, B, A].
(29)
Step 3:

Step 4:

TopPA
Top

TopPA
TopPB

DPA
D
the

PPC
NP

N

Top

Top

DPB

of-the “C”
D
the

TopPB

PPC
TopB DPB
of-the “C”
the “B” tC

DPA
the “A” tB

NP
N
“B”

tC

As for the derivation of the unacceptable case *[of-C, of-B, A], this sequence will arise ifboth C and B have structural case and they are both [+Top]. The relevant structures are in (30)and (31).

-28-

The Brazilian Style of the Multiple Subject Constructions (A. C.P. Bastos)In (30) we can see some steps of the derivation in which the PPC is already merged with
the PPB. Assuming that PPs are phases, the movement of TopPC to the specifier of PPC isblocked. By the same line of reasoning presented above, the only way of checking the [+Top]
feature within the nominal domain is to move the whole PP up to the specifier of TopPB.
However, as one can see in (31), as a result of this movement, the preposition that heads PPB
gets stranded, i.e. it ends up right before an intonational boundary, the one that characterizes
the topic projection.
(30)
Step 1:(31)
Step 2:
PPB

PPB
P
of

P
of

TopPB

TopPB
PPC

Top

DPB
D
the

#of-the “C”#

D
the

NP

N
“B”
[+Top]

DPB
NP
N
“B”
[+Top]

PPC
P
of

TopB

tC

TopPC
Top

DPC
the “C”[+Top]

It is independently attested that BP does not allow preposition stranding, such as shownin (18) below.
(32)* Quem você gosta de?
Who you like of‘Who do you like?’

Given the discussion above, the sequence *[of-C, of-B, A] is ruled out by preposition
stranding in BP.
5.

Accounting for “Optional” Resumptive Pronouns

Another property of constructions with sequences of topics in BP is that they optionallyallow resumptive pronouns, as exemplified below.

-29-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(33) a.
b.

C, A of-B (of it),a caneca, a flor do fundo (dela),(foi) ONTEMF(que) eu pintei ela.
the mug, the flower of-the bottom (of it), (was) YESTERDAYF (that) I painted her‘As for the mug, as for the lower of the bottom, it was yesterday that I painted it.’(34) a.
b.

B of-C, A (of it),o fundo da caneca,a flor (dele),(foi) ONTEMF(que) eu pintei ela.
the bottom of-the mug, the flower (of it), (was) YESTERDAYF (that) I painted her‘As for the bottom of the mug, as for the flower, it was yesterday that I painted it.’(35) a.
b.

C, B (of it), A (of it),a caneca, o fundo (dela), a flor (dele),(foi) ONTEMF
the mug, the bottom (of it), the flower (of it), (was) YESTERDAYF(que) eu pintei ela.
(that) I painted her‘As for the mug, as for the bottom, as for the flower, it was yesterday that I painted
it.’

To account for the presence of resumptive pronouns, I follow Grohmann (2000) and I
argue that (anti-) locality violations may be rescued by the operation Copy Spell Out. In thisview the pronunciation of the resumptive pronouns rescues anti-locality violations, forinstance, those that were disallowed in the previous section.
It is important to highlight that Abels (2003) does not agree that anti-locality violations
in his system can be rescued, as he says in the footnote 53. However, rescuing by theoperation Copy Spell Out is not intrinsically incompatible with his system.
Combining Grohmann’s Copy Spell Out operation and Abel’s (2003) system, it ispossible to explain the pattern of resumptive pronouns.
I will concentrate my discussion on the sentence in (35), which is the most complex case.
As discussed before, moving TopPC to the specifier of PPC is a violation of the anti-locality
condition in (36) given the assumption that PP is a phase. However, let us suppose that we domake this movement and by the application of Copy Spell Out, a resumptive pronoun is left
behind rescuing the anti-locality violation. In the course of the derivation, TopPC reaches the
specifier of TopPB. The result is shown in (37).

-30-

The Brazilian Style of the Multiple Subject Constructions (A. C.P. Bastos)(36)
Step 1:(37)
Step 2:

PPB
P
of

PPB

TopPB
Top

P
TopPC

DPB
D
the

TopPB

of-the “C”
NP

TopB

DPB

D
the

N
“B”
[+Top]

PPC
P
of

NP

N
PPC
“B”
[+Top] t
P

TopPC

tC
RP

Top

DPC
the “C”[+Top]In the previous section, I discussed that the movement of TopPC to the specifier of TopPB
in (37) causes the preposition to be stranded. One alternative to solve this problem is to have
TopPB moved as a whole to the specifier of PPB. This movement is a violation of the antilocality condition, but it can be rescued by Copy Spell Out, as shown in (38) below. The
resumptive pronoun will also have the function of preventing the preposition of being
stranded.
(38)
Step 3:
TopPA
TopPB
TopPC
the “C”

Top

TopB

DPA

DPB
D
the

the

NP

NP
N
“A”
N
“B”

PPB

PPC
of

of
tC

tB
RP

RP

The derivation above provides the desired result, i.e. the sequence [C, B (of-it), A (ofit)]. The position in which the resumptive pronouns appears is successfully accounted as well.

-31-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

6.

Final Remarks

In this paper I proposed that multiple topic constructions in BP are generated by internal
rearrangements in the nominal domain. I assumed Ticio 2003 and Grohmann and Haegeman
2002 that a TopP projection is available in the nominal domain and I suggested that theproperties of this projection fully correlate to the properties found in the clausal domain. With
this TopP projection, it was possible to successfully explain several possible and impossible
sequences of multiple topics.
The analysis proposed in this paper makes several predictions that should be investigatedfurther. For instance, the analysis makes the prediction that these internal arrangements
should correlate to the possibilities of extraction out of the nominal domain. In other words,
the question is whether TopP (in the sense used in this paper) is the escape-hatch of thenominal domain.
This investigation can be made by considering patterns of extraction of only one
argument of the noun, and also considering the possibilities of extraction of one argument in
the presence of other arguments of the same noun.
In the first case, it will be relevant whether the argument is a theme, an agent or apossessive and their correlation with extraction out of definite-indefinite DPs. In addition tothat, issues related to locality and anti-locality may be addressed.
As for the second case, the extraction of one argument in the presence of otherarguments is very restricted. If TopP is the escape-hatch of the nominal domain, then theserestricted patterns of extraction should correlate with the restrictions on topicalization.

References
Abels, K. (2003) Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality, and Adposition Stranding. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Connecticut.
Bastos, A. C.P. (2001) Fazer, eu Faço! Topicalização de Constituintes Verbais em Português
Brasileiro. Master’s thesis, Universidade de Campinas.
Bastos, A. C.P. (2003) “Constituintes Verbais como Tópicos em Português Brasileiro.” Letras de Hoje.
Porto Alegre: v.38, n.1, 237-249.
Bošković, Ž. (1994) “D-Structure, Theta-Criterion, and Movement into Theta-Positions,” Linguistic
Analysis 24: 247-286.
Bošković, Ž. (1997) The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 32)
Bošković, Ž. (2005) “On the Locality of Left Branch Extraction and the Structure of NP,” Studia
Linguistica 59, 1-45.
Fiqueiredo Silva, M. C. (1996) A Posição Sujeito no Português Brasileiro. Campinas: Ed. da
UNICAMP, 37-86.

-32-

The Brazilian Style of the Multiple Subject Constructions (A. C.P. Bastos)

Fukui, N. (1986) A Theory of Category Projection and its Applications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Galves, C. (1993) “O en Fraquecimento da Concordância no Português Brasileiro.” In I. Roberts and
M. Kato (orgs.), O Português Brasileiro: Uma Viagem Diacrônica. Campinas, Ed. Unicamp.
Galves, C. (1998) “Tópicos e Sujeitos, Pronomes e Concordância no Português Brasileiro.” Cadernosde Estudos Lingüísticos, Campinas, 34: 19-31.
Grohmann, K. (2000) Prolific Peripheries: A Radical View from the Left. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Maryland, College Park.
Grohmann, K. and L. Haegeman (2003) “Resuming Reflexives.” Nordlyd 31, 46-62.
Grolla, E. B. (2000) A Aquisição da Periferia Esquerda da Sentença em Português Brasileiro.
Dissertação de Mestrado, IEL/Unicamp, Campinas, SP.
Heycock, C. (1993) “Syntactic Predication in Japanese.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2, 167-211.
Heycock, C. and Lee, Y.-S. (1989) “Subject and Predication in Korean and Japanese.” Ohak Yon’gu /Language Research 25. 775-791.
Ilari, R. (1986) Perspectiva Funcional da Frase Portuguesa. Campinas, Ed. Unicamp.
Kato, M. (1993) “Recontando a História das Relativas em uma Perspectiva Paramétrica.” In I. Roberts
and M. Kato (orgs.), Português Brasileiro – Uma Viagem Diacrônica. Campinas: Editora daUnicamp.
Kato, M. (1998) “Tópicos como Alçamento de Predicados Secundários.” Cadernos de Estudos
Lingüísticos 34, 67-76.
Kato, M. and Raposo, E. (1994) “European and Brasilian Portuguese Word Order: Questions, Focus
and Topic Constructions.” Ms., UNICAMP/UCSB.
Koizumi, M. (1994) “Nominative Objects: The Role of TP in Japanese.” In M. Koizumi and H. Ura(eds.), Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 1: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24,
211-230.
Mioto, C. (2001) Sobre o sistema CP no português Brasileiro. Curitiba, Revista Letras, 56, 97-140.
Ormazabal, J. (1991) “Asymmetries on Wh-movement and Some Theoretical Consequences.” Ms.,
University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Pontes, E. (1987) O Tópico no Português do Brasil. Campinas, Pontes.
Raposo, E. (1997) “Toward a Unification of Topic Constructions.” Ms., University of California,
Santa Barbara.
Rizzi, L. (1997) “The Fine Structure of Left Periphery”. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar,
Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281-337.
Saito, M. (1982) “Case Marking in Japanese: A Preliminary Study.” Ms., MIT.
Saito, M. and K. Murasugi. (1993) “Subject Predication within IP and DP.” Ms., University ofConnecticut and Kinjo Gakuin University. [Revised version published in K. Johnson and I.
Roberts (eds.), Beyond Principles and Parameters, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp.167-188.]
Takahashi, C. (1994) “Case, Agreement, and Multiple Subjects: Subjectivization in Syntax and LF.”
In Akatsuka, N. (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 4, Stanford: CSLI, 394-411.
Takahashi, C. (1996) Multiplicity, Optionality and Constraints on the Distribution of Nominative Casein Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Takezawa, K. (1987) A Configurational Approach to Case-Marking in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Washington.
Tateishi, K. (1991) The Syntax of ‘Subjects’. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

-33-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Ticio, E. (2003) On the Structure of DPs. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Ura, H. (1994) “Varieties of Raising and the Feature-Based Bare Phrase Structure Theory,” MIT
Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7.
Ura, H. (1996) Multiple Feature-Checking: A Theory of Grammatical Function Splitting. Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Ura, H. (1999) “Checking Theory and Dative Subject Constructions in Japanese and Korean.” Journalof East Asian Linguistics 8, 223-254.
Ura, H. (2000) Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

-34-