Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669

www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua

Conditionals, factives and the left periphery

Liliane Haegeman *
LilleIII, UMR 8163 STL du CNRS, 59653 Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex, France
Received 19 July 2004; received in revised form 3 March 2005; accepted 15 March 2005

This paper is dedicated to Neil Smith. Neil’s inspiring work, his wide-ranging interests and his unconditionally
positive encouragement have given whole generations of students and colleagues an enthusiasm for linguistics
that will never go away. Neil is one of the few people who could be called ‘general linguists’: he has contributed
in a significant way to syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and phonology in his own work and when directing others.
As for myself, it is no exaggeration to say that Neil has been at the basis of my entire career. As this
paper shows, Neil’s interest in conditional clauses has been contagious.

Abstract
In this paper, I discuss the relevance of the decomposition of CP for the syntax of adverbial clauses. I will
show that conjunctions introducing adverbial clauses, such as if, while and since, may select a reduced CP,
in which case such clauses lack main clause phenomena (MCP), or the conjunctions may select a full
fledged CP, in which case the adverbial clauses are compatible with MCP. In the second part of the paper, I
will argue that complements of factive predicates can also be shown to instantiate the reduced structures.
# 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Adverbial clauses; Split CP; Factive predicates

1. Overview

In the last 10 years a lot of attention has been paid to the need for decomposing what were
considered to be unitary projections into sequences of specialised projections. One domain to
which this decomposition has been applied with interesting results is the CP. In this paper, I first
discuss the relevance of the decomposition of CP for the syntax of adverbial clauses. I will argue
that conjunctions introducing adverbial clauses, such as if, while and since, may select a reduced
CP, in which case such clauses lack main clause phenomena (MCP), or the conjunctions may

* Tel.: +33 320 41 6766.

E-mail address: liliane.haegeman@univ_lille3.fr.

0024-3841/$ – see front matter # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2005.03.014
1652 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669

select a full fledged CP in which case the adverbial clauses are compatible with MCP. In the
second part of the paper, I will argue that complements of factive predicates instantiate the
reduced structures.

2. Starting point: two types of conditional clause

2.1. Speaker-oriented adverbs in conditional clauses

In his discussion of the distribution of adverbs, Nilsen (2004) discusses, among other things,
the restrictions on the distribution of speaker-oriented adverbs like allegedly, fortunately,
possibly, evidently. Among the domains that resist such adverbials, he cites antecedents of
conditional clauses. To account for the restriction on these adverbs in conditional antecedents,
Nilsen proposes that speaker-oriented adverbs are positive polarity items (PPI) and he interprets
the restriction as a consequence of the general restriction on PPIs.
Two remarks must be made with respect to this account for the distribution of speaker-oriented
adverbials in conditional clauses. First, as pointed out by Nilsen himself (2004:811, note 5), the
judgements are not a neat as one might wish.
One can also find occurrences of probably in antecedents of conditionals which are not
that bad:

[1] [a] If Le Pen will probably win, Jospin must be disappointed.

I take the slipperiness of some [of] these intuitions to be comparable to that found with
relative adverb ordering. Consequently, I will try to stick to phenomena for which the
intuitions are sharper.

As I will show below, intuitions seem to be ‘slippery’ because the conjunction if may introduce
two distinct types of conditional clauses. One type of conditional clause restricts the event or state
of affairs expressed in the main clause. This type of conditional, illustrated in (1b), does not allow
speaker-oriented adverbials. Another type of conditional, illustrated in (1c) serves to make
manifest a privileged discourse context which is part of the modal base (in the sense of
Speas, 2004b) for the interpretation of the associated clause.1 This type (illustrated by Nilsen’s
(1a)) allows the relevant adverbials.

(1) b If it (*probably) rains you may get wet.

You will not succeed if you (*probably) don’t study.
c If you are probably going to move soon, there’s no point in getting a broadband
connection at home.
If he probably won’t be in this afternoon, I won’t wait for him.

This leads to a second observation concerning Nilsen’s analysis. He focuses on PPIs

as the mirror image of NPIs and thus, among adverbial clauses, he singles out conditional
clauses, a context which licences NPIs and will, according to his analysis, not license the

1
Diane Blakemore (personal communication) points out that in terms of Sperber and Wilson’s (1986) Relevance theory
the privileged context is one in which the antecedent of the conditional is ‘attributive’.
 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669 1653

speaker-oriented adverbials, which are PPI. However, observe that the relevant class of
speaker-oriented adverbials is banned from a wider range of adverbial clauses, including, for
instance, temporal adverbial clauses introduced by, while, when, since, purpose clauses
introduced by so that:

(2) a *John works best while/when his children are probably doing some homework.
b *I haven’t seen Mary since she probably left her job.
c *He will send the text by mail today so that it probably reaches me on time.

In the above examples the adverbial is intended to be prosodically integrated in the adverbial
clause, which itself is also not set off by comma intonation. The adverbial clauses above are not in
any obvious way considered as NPI licensing contexts, and still they do not admit for the class of
speaker-oriented adverbials. In contrast, other adverbial clauses introduced by what seem to be
the same conjunctions do admit speaker-oriented adverbials, as shown in (3):

(3) a John is currently doing a Ph.D. in linguistics, while/when his daughter

is probably going to study medicine.
b I won’t be seeing Mary, since she probably will be leaving early today.
c He will send the text by mail today, so that it probably will reach me on time.

The adverbial clauses in (2) and in (3) do not differ in terms of NPI licensing. Rather, the
difference between the adverbial clauses is that whereas in (2) the adverbial clauses are event-
related, in (3) they are discourse-related.

2.2. The syntax of adverbial clauses: a survey

In previous work (see Haegeman, 1984a, 1984b, 1984c, 2002, 2003a, 2003b) I have analysed
the difference between the two types of conditional clauses,2 and between two types of adverbial
clauses in general, in terms of both their external syntax and their internal syntax. With respect to
the internal syntax, I propose that discourse-related conditionals (and similar adverbial clauses)
have more functional structure than their event-related counterparts. I elaborate this issue in some
more detail in section 3.
As regards the external syntax of adverbial clauses, I refer to event-related adverbial clauses as
‘central adverbial clauses’, and to discourse-related adverbial clauses as ‘peripheral adverbial
clauses’, reflecting the degree of syntactic integration with the associated clause. I assume that
the two types of adverbial clauses are adjoined at different points in the structure. While central
adverbials are integrated at the level of IP,3 peripheral adverbial clauses are adjoined to the host
clause at a much later point in the derivation. Alternatively (see Haegeman, 1991; Shaer and Frey,
2003, 2004), peripheral adverbial clauses are what I called ‘orphan’ constituents (Haegeman,
1991) and are not adjoined to the host clause in the narrow syntax. A similar proposal is
elaborated for non-restrictive relatives by Cinque (1981), Safir (1986) and Fabb (1990), and for
topics by Raposo (1996), who proposes that ‘topics are generated as independent phrase markers
and are later ‘merged’ in some performance or discourse component outside of the computational
system’ (Raposo and Uriagereka, 2005:689).

2
For the restrictions on conditionals see also Von Fintel and Iatridou (2002, 2003).
3
Or TP. What is crucial is that these adverbials are merged before CP.
1654 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669

Obviously, the external syntax of the clauses should be correlated with their internal syntax:
central adverbial clauses are more integrated precisely because they have less structure,
peripheral adverbial clauses are less (or not) integrated because they have an additional layer
of structure which resists full integration. For reasons of space I will not discuss the external
syntax of these clauses here and I will concentrate on the internal syntax (see Haegeman,
1991, 2003a).

3. Internal syntax of adjuncts

In the framework of functional grammar, Hengeveld (1989) distinguishes five types of

adverbial modifiers.4 What I have labelled central adverbial clauses correspond to two of his
classes: ‘predicate satellites’ and ‘predication satellites’. My class of ‘peripheral adverbial
clauses’ covers three classes: ‘proposition satellites’, ‘illocution satellites’ and ‘clause satellites’.
It seems to me, though, that the latter three have enough in common to be grouped into one class.
Hengeveld provides the following characterisation to describe the various types of ‘satellites’:

(4) Classification of satellites (Hengeveld, 1989:150–151, italics mine)

(i) Predicate satellites capture the lexical means which specify additional properties
of the set of S[tate]o[f]A[ffair]s designated by a bare predication,
(ii) Predication satellites capture the lexical means which locate the SoAs designated
by a predication in a real or imaginary world and thus restrict the set of potential
referents of the predication to the external situation(s) the speaker has in mind,
(iii) Proposition satellites capture the lexical means through which the speaker specifies
his attitude towards the proposition he puts forward for consideration,
(iv) Illocution satellites capture the lexical means through which the speaker modifies
the force of the basic illocution of a linguistic expression so as to make it fit his
communicative strategy,
(v) Clause satellites capture the lexical means through which the speaker locates the
speech act designated by a clause within the context of discourse and thus restricts
the set of potential perlocutions of the clause.

The core property which singles out peripheral adverbial clauses (iii–v) from central adverbial
clauses (i and ii) is that peripheral adverbial clauses, but not central ones, are anchored to the
speaker. Though there may be justification for more fine-grained distinctions among peripheral
adverbial clauses, Hengeveld’s definitions above strongly suggest that two major classes can be
distinguished in terms of speaker anchoring. This opposition is also reflected in the following
citation:
The main difference between satellites at the interpersonal level (proposition satellites and
illocution satellites) and satellites at the representational level (predicate satellites and
predication satellites) is that the former are speaker-, addressee- or speech act oriented,
whereas the latter are argument or SoA-oriented. (Hengeveld, 1989:151)
In this section I will present an overview of the repercussions of the presence or absence of
speaker anchoring for the internal syntax of adverbial clauses.

4
For early treatment see Rutherford (1970) and Hooper and Thompson (1973), among others.
 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669 1655

3.1. Speech act and adverbial clauses

In their comprehensive overview of conditional clauses, Declerck and Reed (2001) come
close to distinguishing peripheral conditional clauses from central conditional clauses, though
the authors do not use those precise labels. Central adverbial clauses are temporally subordinated
to the tense in the matrix clause. This is referred to as the Present perspective system by the
Declerck and Reed. Peripheral adverbial clauses are anchored to the speech time. For conditional
sub-clauses this temporal independence is referred to as the Future perspective system.5 Declerck
and Reed (2001) say:
When the Present Perspective System is used in the sub-clause [i.e. conditional with temporal
subordination], the speaker makes a single (but complex) prediction: she presents the
contents of the two clauses as forming a unit. . . . . . . when the Future Perspective System
[without temporal subordination] is used in both clauses [conditional and associated clause],
the speaker makes two independent predictions: there are, as it were, two illocutionary speech
acts. (Declerck and Reed, 2001:131, italics mine):
This statement is reminiscent of the distinction [
speaker anchoring] proposed above. Peripheral
adverbial clauses can contain a range of manifestations of speaker anchoring which are absent
from central adverbial clauses. An obvious illustration of the contrast is that peripheral adverbial
clauses may contain speaker-oriented adverbials. (5) contains some attested examples. As shown
by (6), such adverbials are not possible in central adverbial clauses.

(5) a [A referendum on a united Ireland] . . . will be a ‘good thing’, because frankly

they need to be taken down a peg and come down to earth and be a little bit
more sober in their approach to things. (Guardian, 22.7.2, page 4, col 4)
b While obviously fiction has qualities distinct from political prose, novelists do
clearly respond to the political world of which they are part. (based on MIT
OpenCourseWare » Literature » 21L.471 Major English Novels: Reading
Romantic Fiction, Spring 2002)
c Why doesn’t she adore me, if apparently everyone else does? (Guardian,
Sport, 6.3.4, page 3, col 2).
(6) a *I didn’t drop the class because frankly I didn’t like it, I dropped it because it
was too expensive.
b *If apparently you cannot reach her later this week, you will have to give
me a call.

As highlighted by Declerck and Reed (2001), peripheral conditional clauses are echoic:
closed P-clauses6 are always echoic in one sense or another. They can echo straightforward
statements about the actual world, or they can echo Q-propositions about a nonfactual
world. However, the claim that closed P-propositions are echoic need not mean that they
have to be echoes of actual utterances. They may also be echoes of an internal or mental

5
Declerck and Reed’s terminology is potentially misleading in that it is precisely the adverbial clauses with ‘future
perspective’ which are anchored to the (present) speech time.
6
Declerck and Reed’s P-clauses are similar (though not identical) to my peripheral conditional clauses.
1656 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669

proposition (thought) such as the interpretation of an experience, perception etc. (Declerck

and Reed, 2001:83)
The speaker echoes a statement in the discourse and makes that the privileged component of the
modal base for the main proposition. Clearly, being echoic here implies speaker anchoring: it is
the speaker who ‘echoes’ the proposition. (7) is an example in which a peripheral conditional
echoes a previous statement. Nilsen’s example (1a) is also echoic.

(7) If we are so short of teachers (‘Jobs crisis grows as new term looms’, August 30),
why don’t we send our children to Germany to be educated? (Letters to the editor,
Eddie Catlin, Norwich, Guardian, 31.8.1, page 9, col 5)

3.2. Force markers

Languages with distinctive markers of illocutionary force offer further evidence for the
contrast between the two types of adverbial clauses. (8) illustrates conditional clauses in Korean7:

(8) a ku chayk-ul cohaha-n-ta-myen

that book-ACC like-PRES-DEC-if
way kukes-ul ca-ci anh-ni?
why that-ACC buy-NMZ not do-Q
‘If you like that book, why don’t you buy it?’
b (ku-ka) i chayk-ul ilk-umyen/ilk-ess-umyen
(he-NOM) this book-ACC read-if / read-PAST-if
ku-nun ama ku yenghwa-lul poko siphe hal kes-i-ta.
he-TOP probably that movie-ACC see want will-DEC
‘If he reads/read this book, he will probably want to see that movie.’

In (8a), the peripheral conditional clause, which expresses a premise entertained as a background
for the host clause, contains ta, a declarative speech act marker; this marker does not occur in a
central conditional (8b).

3.3. Topicalisation and adverbial clauses

English argument fronting is typically restricted to root clauses and embedded clauses with
root properties; adjunct fronting is not subject to this restriction.8

(9) a *If these exams you don’t pass, you won’t get the degree.
b If next week you cannot get hold of me on Monday, try again later.
(10) a *While her book Mary was writing this time last year, her children were
staying with her mother.
b While around this time last year Mary was writing her book, her children
were staying with her mother.

7
Judgements for Korean:Shin-Sook Kim. Abbreviations: NMZ (=nominaliser), Q (=question/interrogative), Dec
(=declarative). The alternation umyen/myen depends on whether the preceding word is a consonant or a vowel.
8
As pointed out by McCloskey (2004, in press) not all temporal clauses allow adjunct fronting.
 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669 1657

(11) a *When her regular column she began to write for The Times, I thought she
would be OK.
b When last month she began to write a regular column for The Times,
I thought she would be OK.

One possibility is to account for the difference between these adverbial clauses in terms of the
articulation of their left periphery along the lines of Rizzi (1997). According to this idea,
peripheral adverbial clauses would have more functional structure than central adverbial clauses.
However, the differences between argument fronting and adjunct fronting in adverbial clauses
cannot be captured in terms of the precise decomposition of CP proposed by Rizzi (1997).
According to his proposal, fronted arguments target the specifier of TopP and fronted adjuncts are
TopP-adjoined. If both types of fronting target TopP, then it is not clear how one can be ruled out
in the central adverbial clause while the other is grammatical. This would be tantamount to
saying that in central adverbial clauses adjunction to TopP is possible, while the specifier of TopP
is not available as a landing site. In order to solve this problem, Haegeman (2003a, 2003b)
proposes that, as suggested by Rizzi himself (1997, see his footnotes 26, 30 and 32), some fronted
adjuncts need not be adjoined to TopP. Specifically, temporal adjuncts, for instance, may also be
somewhat lower in the left periphery.9
Argument fronting is (sometimes marginally) possible in peripheral adverbial clauses. (12)
provides some examples: (12a) is from the literature, (12b–f) are attested examples, (12g–i) are
constructed examples:

(12) a His face not many admired, while his character still fewer felt they could praise.
(Quirk et al., 1985:1378)
b I think we have more or less solved the problem for donkeys here, because those
we haven’t got, we know about. (Guardian, G2, 18.2.3, page 3, col 2).
c We don’t look to his paintings for common place truths, though truths they
contain none the less. (Guardian, G2, 18.02.3, page 8, col 1)
d Professor Head (Letters July 28) suggests the oath of allegiance implies
commitment to monarchy as a system of government. It doesn’t, though whether
this will mollify him, I don’t know. (Guardian, 29.7.3, page 17, col 5, letters to
the editor, Rev. Steve Parish. Warrington)
e Naturally, my carrots, peas, beans, potatoes, lettuces and tomatoes have a taste
beyond compare, although whether it is because they are organic or just mine
I am not sure. (Guardian, 6.11.3, page 2, col 1)
f It is amazing how this view could have spread about someone who changed the
image of causes like Aids and landmines, and in doing so showed a possible new
role for the royals. It is particularly ironic since so much of what Diana did for
her fellow humans she did with no concern for publicity whatsoever.
(Guardian, G2, 31.8.4, page 9, col 2)
g If these problems we cannot solve, there are many others that we can tackle
immediately.
h If aphids we did not worry about, snails we did.
i If anemones you don’t like, why not plant roses instead?

9
They could be FinP adjoined, or perhaps specifiers of ModP (Rizzi, 2004).
1658 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669

The contrasting behaviour of argument fronting in the two types of adverbial clauses is also found
in Japanese, in Korean (see Whitman, 1989), and in Gungbe, which I will illustrate presently, and
it has been reported for Chinese (Lu Peng, 2003:232–234).10
In Japanese,11 wa topicalization is impossible in central conditional clauses (Maki et al., 1999)
but it is licit in peripheral conditional clauses expressing a premise for the processing of the host
clause.

(13) a *Mosi sono yoona zassi-wa, (anata-ga) yome-ba,

if that like magazine-TOP (you-NOM) read (CONDITIONAL)-if
(anata-wa) yasai-ga sukini narimasu.
(you-TOP) vegetable-NOM like become
‘If these magazines, you read, you will come to like vegetables’
b Mosi sono yoona zassi –wa (anata-ga) sukide-nai (CONCLUSIVE)-naraba,
if that like magazine-TOP (you-NOM) like-not-if
naze (anata-wa) (sorera-o) kai-tuzukerunodesu ka?
why (you-TOP) (them-ACC) buy-continue, Q
‘If such magazines, you don’t like, why do you keep buying them?’

Observe that ba in the central conditional clause is replaced by nara ba in the peripheral
conditional clause. With respect to the pattern ‘S1 nara S2’ Kuno says:
It is usually said that this pattern has a strong degree of assertion about the statement
represented by S1’. (Kuno, 1973:168)
This observation ties in with the distinction proposed above. The presence of nara signals
speaker anchoring.
Korean shows a similar contrast between central conditionals, which do not allow
topicalization, and peripheral ones, which do (see Whitman, 1989).12

(14) a *i chayk-un (ku-ka) ilk-umyen/ilk-ess-umyen

this book-TOP (he-NOM)read-if / read-PAST-if
ku-nun ama ku yenghwa-lul poko siphe hal kes-i-ta
he-TOP probably that movie-ACC see want will-DEC
‘If this book, he reads/read, he will probably want to see that movie.’
(‘central adverbial’)
b ku chayk-un (ney-ka) cohaha-n-ta-myen way kukes-ul ca-ci anh-ni?
that book-TOP (you-NOM) like-PRES-DEC-if why that-ACC buy-NMZ not do-Q
‘If that book, you like, why don’t you buy it?’ (peripheral adverbial)

In Gungbe (Aboh, personal communication), only ni conditionals with echoic reading allow ya
topicalization. (15) ‘implies that speaker and hearer are not at the Procure, but in another

10
Lu Peng distinguishes an external topic from an internal one. The latter appears to the right of the subject and is
arguably IP internal. It can occur in all types of adverbial clauses. The external topic is restricted to what would be
peripheral adverbial clauses.
11
Thanks to Hideki Maki (personal communication) for the Japanese data. See also Kuroda (1992:350), Sawada and
Larson (2004, section 1.2).
12
Thanks to Shin Sook Kim for the judgements.
 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669 1659

bookshop where they have found a book that the hearer had seen at Procure and which he had told
the speaker about’ (Aboh, personal communication).13

(15) (*) Ni wema ehe lo ya, a mon e to

if book this Det TOP 2sg see 3SG at
Procure, xo e na mi.
Procure, buy 3SG for me

Concerning Chinese topicalisation, Lu Peng (2003) says:

‘La position de topique externe n’est pas disponible dans toutes les catégories de
subordonnées adverbiales. Ainsi, en présence d’un topique externe les phrases
conditionnelle, concessive, causale-inferentielle et causale en yinwei (‘parce que’) sont
naturelles, tandis que les séquences finale . . . et temporelle . . . sont inacceptables.’ . . .
parmi les trois catégories de subordonnées susceptibles de figurer dans IP ou Pr[ed]P . . .
aucune d’entre elles ne peut disposer du topique externe dans sa structure.’ (Lu Peng,
2003:232–234)14
Lu Peng’s IP or PredP associated adverbial clauses correspond to ‘central adverbial clauses’.
The different distributions of argument fronting in the two types of adverbial clauses are not
accidental: as pointed out by Bayer (2001) in relation to Bavarian topicalisation data, argument
fronting can be correlated to the speaker anchoring discussed above.
. . . this form of topicalisation is the grammar’s reflex of the speech act to be performed and
is as such on a par with German constructions involving modal particles like aber, denn,
doch, ja etc. Modal particles supply features which interact with other features such as [WH]
yielding a wide range of illocutionary forces. (Bayer, 2001:14–15)

. . . if emphatic topicalisation belongs to the class of grammatical means of force projection

in the sense of Rizzi (1997), its root clause property and strict left peripherality
[in Bavarian] are not surprising. (Bayer, 2001:14–15, italics mine)
It is then also no accident that argument fronting and speaker-oriented adverbials are found in the
peripheral adverbial clauses, since these are anchored to the speaker.

4. Main Clause Phenomena and the internal make-up of CP

4.1. ‘Structural reduction’

In the literature topicalisation has been referred to as one example of the so-called ‘Root
phenomena’ or ‘Main Clause Phenomena’ (MCP) (Emonds, 1970, Hooper and Thompson,
1973), that is, syntactic patterns whose distribution is restricted to root clauses and to embedded
clauses with root like properties. In the citation below, Hooper and Thompson (1973) seem to

13
The resumptive pronoun e (3SG) is somewhere between a weak pronoun and a clitic (for discussion see Aboh, 2004).
14
Translation ‘the position of external topic is not available in all types of subordinate adverbials. An external topic is
natural with conditionals, concessives, inferential-causals with yinwei (‘because’), while goal clauses and temporal
clauses do not allow them . . . among the adverbial clauses that can associate with IP or PredP none can have an external
topic.
1660 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669

deny that a syntactic account can be provided for the occurrence of MCP in certain types of
embedded clauses:

As a positive environment we can say that [root] transformations operate only on Ss that are
asserted. . . . some transformations are sensitive to more than just syntactic configurations.
It does not seem possible to define the domain of an RT in terms of syntactic structures in
any general way. However, . . ., even if it were possible to define in syntactic terms the
conditions under which RTs can apply, . . . the question of why these transformations can
apply in certain syntactic environments and not others would still be unanswered. (Hooper
and Thompson, 1973:495, italics mine)

Nevertheless, in the same paper the authors point out that MCP are generally excluded from
structurally ‘reduced’ clauses.

Though RTs may apply in some complements that are full sentences introduced by the
complementiser that, they may never apply in any complements that are reduced clauses.
By reduced clauses we mean infinitives, gerunds, and subjunctive clauses,15 i.e. those
complement types which have uninflected verbs. (Hooper and Thompson, 1973:484–485,
italics mine)16

I have proposed that central adverbial clauses are structurally deficient, while peripheral
adverbial clauses display the full clausal structure available in root clauses. The difference in
structure between the two types of adverbial clauses is located in the left periphery of the
adverbial clause. The CP-domain of central adverbial clauses lacks the functional projection that
allows anchoring to the speaker and which is available in root clauses (and in clauses embedded
under speech act verbs or propositional attitude verbs). The speaker-related projection is
available in peripheral adverbial clauses. I will elaborate this structural distinction in the next
section.

4.2. Main Clause Phenomena and the internal make-up of CP

4.2.1. ‘Reduction’ and speaker-related projections

The structural distinction between the two types of adverbial clauses which I want to advocate
is analogous to the type of distinction postulated elsewhere to differentiate between complement
clauses. Citing work by Benincà and Poletto (2004), for instance, Grewendorf (2002:53) refers to
‘the idea that embedded clause vary as to which portions of the CP-layer may be projected, and
that this has to do with the selectional properties of the matrix verb . . . it may be a property of
non-bridge verbs that their complement does not project the whole CP-layer while bridge verbs
select a complete CP-layer with all projections of the left periphery available.’17 Since both the
reduced complement clauses and the complete complement clauses can be embedded under the
subordinating conjunction that, we must assume that the conjunction may select complements of
varying sizes.18 The possibility that a head may select complements with more or less functional

15
There is an important difference between English and Romance; see note 20, and Haegeman (2004).
16
That non-finite clauses cannot contain MCP is also endorsed by Emonds (2004).
17
See also, among others, (Kuroda, 1992:350; McCloskey, 2004, in press; Meinunger, 2004).
18
It is not clear to me at this point how to formalise this. One option is that the conjunctions are underspecified for the
‘size’ of the extended projection of V that they embed.
 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669 1661

structure is not restricted to the clausal complement of the conjunction that. It can be generalised
to other subordinating conjunctions. In order to make this idea more precise I use a slightly
modified version of Rizzi’s (1997) split CP.

4.2.2. The periphery of the clause: the split CP (Rizzi, 1997)

4.2.2.1. Force versus Sub. Rizzi (1997) replaces the unitary CP by an articulated structure as
in (16a):

(16) a Force > Topic > Focus > Fin19

Following Bhatt and Yoon (1992), Rizzi (1997, note 6), Roussou (2000) and others, I have
introduced a distinction between the functional head that ensures speaker anchoring, which I
initially labelled ‘Force’ (Haegeman, 2002, 2003a, 2003b), and the head hosting the
subordinating conjunction, labelled Sub. Sub serves to subordinate the clause, and makes it
available for selection independently of its force (see also Rizzi, 1997). The head Force was
intended to encode the anchoring of the proposition to the speaker and was implicated in the
licensing of, among other things, independent temporal reference, epistemic modality,
topicalisation and the occurrence of markers of illocutionary force. A similar proposal was
formulated by Roussou (2000) on the basis of data from Modern Greek. She says:

For present purposes let us take the highest C, realised by pu in [17a], to have the properties
of a subordinator: it connects the clause to some element of the higher clause (so that the
former depends on the latter). [note omitted] Given its connecting properties we will
simply refer to this head as C. . . .

In Roussou’s [17a], there are three central C positions each specified for different features. The
higher C gives us ‘subordination’, the middle C clause-typing, and the lower C modality . . ..
Focus/Topic is situated between the two higher [heads] (Roussou, 2000:79).

[17] a [C pu [Topic/ Focus [COp oti/na/as [Neg [CM ua/ tna/as [I cl+V. . .]]]]]]20

As a first approximation, I replaced Roussou’s ‘COp’ by the label Force: her C corresponds to the
head I labelled Sub, and her CM would correspond to Fin.

[17] b [Sub pu [Topic/ Focus [Force oti/na/as [Neg [Fin ua/ tna/as [I cl+V. . .]]]]]]

Both central adverbial clauses and peripheral adverbial clauses must contain the position Sub
because this is the position that hosts the subordinating conjunction. Central adverbial clauses
refer to events/states of affairs, and lack manifestations of speaker anchoring. I have proposed
that they lack the head Force, and all the dominating projections. In contrast, peripheral adverbial
clauses encode speaker-related phenomena and hence must contain Force and the related
projections TopP and FocP. Root clauses obviously also contain Force. We end up with the

19
Mainly on the basis of Romance data, Rizzi (1997) introduces a lower topic position to the right of Focus. This
position is probably restricted to Romance (see Haegeman, 2004).
20
Pu introduces complements of factive predicates, oti that of non factive predicates. I have simplified Roussou’s
structures somewhat. See also section 5 on factive predicates.
1662 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669

following functional hierarchies in the left periphery of finite clauses (Haegeman, 2002, 2003a,
2003b).
(16) b Central adverbial clause:
Sub Fin
c Peripheral adverbial clause:
Sub Top Focus Force Fin
d Root clause:
Top Focus Force Fin

4.2.2.2. Speaker deixis. Using the label ‘Force’ as intended to refer to speaker anchoring,
however, may be misleading. On the one hand, this label might be taken to imply that peripheral
clauses are associated with a choice of speech acts, which is true for some (18 and 19) but
certainly not for all (see also Verstraete, 2002:146): only although and because are easily
compatible with (rhetorical) questions or with imperatives:
(18) a No-one would have been too upset about her bad behaviour, because wasn’t
that what writers were put on earth to do? (Observer, 20.8.2000, page 27, col 8)
b News about the anti-American demonstrations which had begun to appear in
Berlin and other parts of Germany in the fortnight since the summit hadn’t
exactly helped sell what was supposed to be Michelle’s greatest success.
Although what did the mid-west care about Berlin? (BNC, Verstraete, 2002:147)
c ??Mary studied linguistics, while what did John study?
(19) a The students should have enough money, although remember we are expecting
a drop in the department funding.
b The fees should bring in more money, because remember we are expecting
a drop in the department funding.
c ??The students should have enough money, while remember we are expecting a
drop in the department funding.
A further problem is that the proposal that truncated structures lack the head ‘Force’ might lead to
the conclusion that such clauses cannot be typed as [
interrogative]. This too is not correct. In his
discussion of Hiberno English embedded interrogative clauses, McCloskey (2004, in press)
shows that the conjunction if may select either a ‘speech act’ interrogative, or an interrogative
which is not a such a speech act (an ‘interrogative sentence radical’ in McCloskey ‘s terminology
(in press:32). Speech act interrogatives involve a higher layer of CP-structure which, according to
McCloskey, is the ‘locus of incorporation of the Quest operator’. I would assume that
McCloskey’s opposition between the two types of if-clauses coincides with the difference I
propose between the full fledged CP and the truncated CP structure. However, this means that
clause typing must also be available in the truncated structure.21
Because of the above considerations I wish to replace the potentially misleading label ‘Force’
in the characterisation of CP structure of peripheral adverbial clauses. Peripheral adverbial
clauses are distinguished from central adverbial clauses by the fact that they are directly anchored
to the speaker. This property, which also implies the encoding of Speech Time, licences MCP.
Following Tenny’s (2000) classification of adverbial adjuncts, I will replace the notion Force by

21
See also Zanuttini and Portner’s (2003) arguments against representing Force in the syntax.
 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669 1663

the concept ‘Speaker deixis’ (SD), the intention being that SD is a functional layer required to
anchor a proposition to a speaker.
Starting out from the Cinque (1999) hierarchy of adverbials, Tenny (2000) distinguishes six
semantic zones, of which the top ‘point of view’ zone is of central interest here. Referring to the
top four adverbial projections in the Cinque hierarchy, she says:
The top ‘point of view’ zone contains those mood or modality elements that necessarily
introduce the point of view of the speaker, and therefore also introduce the speaker as a
sentient, deictic argument. We cannot have a point of view without a sentient being to hold
it. A speech act, of course, necessarily involves the speaker as a participant. An evaluative
expression, at the sentence level, reflects the point of view of the speaker. Evidentiality
involves the speaker as a sentient perceiver, a proposition that is apparently true or false
must be so to someone. Finally epistemic modality, which addresses a state of knowledge
of something must involve a sentient mind that is in the state of knowing; at the sentence
level it is the speaker who is represented as holding that knowledge. (Tenny, 2000:319)

(16b-c-d) would then be replaced by (20):

(20) a Central adverbial clause:

Sub Fin
b Peripheral adverbial clause:
Sub Top Focus SD Fin
c Root clause:
Top Focus SD Fin

Hengeveld’s proposition satellites, illocution satellites and clause satellites could then be seen as
modifiers of SD. Possibly, SD itself decomposes into further projections (cf. Speas, 2004a), but I
will ignore this issue here. What is crucial, for my purposes, is that TopP and FocP depend on the
speaker-related semantic zone of the left periphery: they cannot project if SD is not projected
(see also Bayer, 2001:14–15).22,23

5. Speculations on the complements of factive predicates24

The complements of factive predicates constitute another clause type that tends to resist MCPs
(Kiparsky and Kiparsky, 1971, Hooper and Thompson, 1973). Traditionally, factive predicates

22
In work on root phenomena in embedded clauses Meinunger (2004) proposes that embedded clauses displaying Verb
Second in German are characterised by the presence of an assertion operator in the CP domain. This proposal is obviously
compatible with postulating a speaker-related projection in CP. In the reinterpretation proposed here, embedded V2 would
be related to speaker deixis.
23
Diane Blakemore points out that at first sight one may be puzzled by relating echoic conditionals with speaker deixis,
since in such echoic clauses the speaker is representing a thought attributed to someone else without providing a
guarantee of truthfulness. However, as also pointed out by Diane Blakemore, according to Sperber and Wilson, every
utterance is a representation of the speaker’s thought. In the case of echoic conditionals ‘the thought represented is itself a
representation of another (attributed) thought’. In this sense the conditional is an utterance whose propositional form
represented the speaker’s representation of the attributed thought. Thus peripheral adverbials (including echoic condi-
tionals) constitute an independent act of representation, while central adverbials are integrated in the act of representation
associated with the main clause.
24
Thanks to Danièle VandeVelde for discussing these points with me.
1664 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669

are taken to presuppose the truth of their propositional complement. Concerning such
complements Zubizaretta (2001) says:
It is likely that factive predicates, which presuppose the truth of their propositional
complement, contain an Ass(ertion) operator in its CP. This operator is lexicalized by the
complementizer, which explains why it must be obligatorily present [cf. John regrets
*(that) Mary is bald]. Complements of propositional attitude verbs lack an Ass operator,
therefore, their complementizer may be absent in some languages [cf. John thinks (that)
Mary is bald]. (Zubizaretta, 2001:201)
Zubizaretta’s proposal is not compatible with the analysis of the left periphery that I have been
developing here and in my earlier work (Haegeman, 2002, 2003a, 2003b). An assertion
operator clearly would be associated with illocutionary force and this in turn suggests that
speaker deixis is available in the complements of factive predicates. However, if speaker deixis is
available, one would expect that such complements freely allow for MCP, contrary to fact
(see Hooper and Thompson, 1973:479). For instance, in English the complements of factive
predicates resist argument topicalisation25,26:
(21) a (%)*John regrets that this book Mary read.27 (Maki et al., 1999:3, their (2c))
b *I resent the fact that each part he had to examine carefully.
(Hooper and Thompson, 1973:479, their (109))

Maki et al (1999:9, their (11)) signal that in Japanese too, topicalisation is banned from the
complements of factive predicates:
(22) a John-wa [kono hon-*wa/o Mary-ga yonda no]-o kookaisiteiru
John top this book *top/acc Mary nom read COMP –acc regret
‘John regrets that this book, Mary read.’
b John-wa [Mary-*wa/ga kono hon-o yonda no]-o kookaisiteiru
John-top [Mary *top/nom this book-acc read COMP] acc regret
‘John regrets that Mary read this book’.

Speaker-oriented adverbials are also not easily compatible with the complements of factive
predicates28:

(21) c *John regrets that Mary probably/obviously/unfortunately did not attend

the meeting.

25
Again the facts are different for Romance Clitic Left Dislocation (see Haegeman, 2004).
26
Similarly, my analysis is not compatible with that proposed by Barbiers (2002). This author seems to imply that the
complement of a factive predicate has more structure (‘Force is complete’ Barbiers, 2002:50) than that of non-factive one
(‘propositional clauses are defective’, Barbiers, 2002:51). However, Barbiers classifies complements of verbs like meedelen
(‘announce’) with factive predicates, suggesting that he may possibly be using a different type of definition of factivity.
27
On factive verbs and semifactives see Hooper and Thompson (1973:480 ff). For discussion of variable judgements on
topicalisation in complements of factive predicates I refer to Maki et al. (1999).
28
A complication is that one can find modal auxiliaries in the complement of factive predicates (i).
(i) John regrets that Mary may not attend the meeting.
Two analyses are possible, with a slightly different interpretation. Either may in (i) expresses ‘pure’ possibility (‘it is
possible that’), it does not need to reflect either the speaker’s judgement or John’s judgement. Alternatively, regret has
acquired speech act feature and means ‘regret to say’. See text discussion of (24).
 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669 1665

Rather than containing an additional layer of structure hosting the assertion operator, comple-
ments of factive verbs can be argued to lack speaker deixis and hence to be structurally
impoverished.29 In contrast with Zubizaretta’s analysis, I proposal that clauses introduced by that
and embedded under factive predicates be considered as reduced finite structures, characterised
by the lack of speaker deixis (and TopP and FocP, the projections which are, by hypothesis,
licensed by speaker deixis.)

(20) d Complements of factive predicates that Mod* Fin

‘Presupposition’ would thus not result from an extra operation on the proposition but rather
from the lack of it: presupposed complements are those propositions that do not encode
anchoring to a speaker.30 The ‘factive’ interpretation of such clauses could be seen as a default
reading: their content, not being asserted, or related to the speaker, is, as it were, ‘taken for
granted’.
Additional support for associating an impoverished structure with the complements of
factive predicates is provided by McCloskey (2004, in press). He discusses, among other
things, the so called double that structures illustrated in (23)31:

29
If an assertion operator is postulated, we do not expect it to be associated with the (non-assertive) complement of a
factive predicate, but it might be postulated in the root and root like environments (cf. Meinunger, 2004).
30
This analysis would not exclude that complements of factive predicates instantiate additional structure, but if they
do, then it would be in terms of, for instance, being selected by a D-head, rather than there being additional CP-
internal structure (see Roussou, 1994).
Modern Greek complements of factive verbs are introduced by the specialised conjunction pu which would select
the reduced structure (ia), oti complements are compatible with the richer structure (ib).
(i) a [Sub pu [Fin na [I cl+V.]]]
b [Sub [Topic/ Focus [SD oti [Fin [I cl+V. . .]]]]]
OR: b0 [Sub oti [Topic/ Focus [SD t [Fin [I cl+V. . .]]]]]
An anonymous reviewer for this paper points out that factive predicates introduced by pu may contain speaker
oriented adverbials.
(ii) O Yanis lipate pu mallon dhen tha parevrethi sti sinandisi.
the John is sorry that probably not will attend-3S in the meeting.
‘John is sorry/regrets that probably he won’t attend the meeting.’
(iii) O Yanis lipate pu *(mallon) dhen parevrethike sti sinandisi.
the John is sorry that probably not attended-3S in the meeting
‘John is sorry that he (*probably) didn’t attend the meeting.’
The reviewer points out that the difference between the examples is related to the fact that in (i) the embedded clause
contains the modal particle tha which has a future interpretation, and induces the ‘ability’ modality, i.e. he won’t be
able to attend, while in (ii) the embedded clause is in the past tense and does not have a modal component. According
to the analysis presented here the implication would be that in (ii) but not in (iii) there is an SD projection. The
reviewer points out that it is not certain ‘that there is a clear difference regarding the matrix verb lipate in the two
constructions, and if there is one this is not independent of the properties (temporal/modal) of the embedded clause.’
Though I obviously would have to examine these data further it would appear at first sight that (ii) can carry the
interpretation in which Yanis ‘says’ that he is sorry that he won’t be able to attend, while (iii) would have the ‘pure’
factive reading.
31
These patterns resemble the ‘recomplementation’ pattern in Galician illustrated in (i):
(i) Dixeron que a este home que non o maltratemos.
say-PAST-3PL that to this man that not him mistreat-1PL
Raposo and Uriagereka (2005:646) consider the second occurrence of que as an instantiation of the functional head F,
which seems similar to Fin in Rizzi (1997). For reasons of space I do not elaborate this issue here.
1666 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669

(23) a I found that when there were an equal number of men and women that the
women tended to talk to the women. (McCloskey, in press:25, ex. (71f))
b Assembly members insisted that when the scaffolders shouted offensive remarks
at passing women, that the same abuse should then be repeated in Welsh.
(Guardian, 21.7.1, page 8, col 1)

McCloskey relates the occurrence of double that to a double CP structure, which is ‘the canonical
structural realisation of the semantic type of speech acts’. Double that structures are not routinely
available in the complements of factive verbs:

(23) c *They regretted that especially since it was raining so heavily that they hadn’t
left earlier. (McCloskey, 2004:handout p. 17, ex. (83b))

Van Gelderen (2003, 2004) also relates the absence of MCP in the complements of factive
predicates to the restrictions on the left periphery. She proposes that the presence of a factive
nominal in the specifier of ForceP blocks the left periphery.
A problem for the discussion of the complement of factive predicates is that judgements are, to
use Nilsen’s term (2004:811, note 5), ‘slippery’ (see Maki et al., 1999:8–9, note 8 for some
discussion, see also Hooper and Thompson’s discussion, 1973:479 ff). This is because factive
predicates often display dual behaviour. The verb regret, for instance, is often cited as a
prototypical factive predicates. However, this verb can have a reading in which it does not simply
express the subject’s emotive reaction to a particular ‘fact’. Rather, it can roughly correspond to
‘regret to say’ or ‘express ones regrets that’.

(24) a We regret that due to a funding shortage there will no longer be any drinks
available at the bar for non members.

Informally speaking, in this reading regret becomes like a speech act verb and, as a result, its
complement can be enriched with the ‘speaker deixis’ component which will license a full CP
complement. In this type of reading the complement of regret may well host speaker-oriented
adverbials and MCP, and the double that structure becomes much more acceptable:

(24) b I regret that those details, I cannot reveal to non members.

c We regret that because our funding has been halved over the last year that there
will no longer be any drinks available at the bar for non members.

For similar discussion of variable judgements on topicalisation in complements of factive

predicates I refer to Urmson (1963); Maki et al. (1999); Gärtner (2001:127–28); Shaer and Frey
(2004:486).

6. Conclusion

This paper re-elaborates and extends my earlier work on adverbial clauses. Adopting a
modified version of Rizzi’s left periphery, I propose that upper layer of the left periphery contains
speaker-related material and is dependent on speaker anchoring. Speaker anchoring is associated
with a projection related to speaker deixis (Tenny, 2000). When speaker deixis is available in a
domain, topicalisation, epistemic modality, speaker-related adverbials and independent temporal
 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669 1667

anchoring are licensed. In reduced clauses, the CP domain lacks speaker deixis and related
projections, hence MCP are not licensed.
Subordinating conjunctions selecting adverbial sub clauses such as if, when, while have dual
selectional behaviour. When introducing a central adverbial clause, they select a reduced CP
structure, lacking speaker deixis. When introducing a peripheral adverbial clause the layer
associated with speaker deixis is available. The ‘slippery’ judgements signalled by Nilsen (2004)
for conditional clauses are probably due to this dual selectional behaviour of the conjunctions in
question.
The complements of factive predicates are taken to instantiate the reduced CP without speaker
deixis. To account for the variable judgements, I assume that factive predicates like regret may
also be enriched with speech act potential in which case they select a fully projected CP and their
complements become compatible with MCP.

Acknowledgments

I thank Diane Blakemore, Danièle van de Velde, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful
comments. Needless to say, I remain responsible for the remaining errors.

References

Aboh, E., 2004. The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences. Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.
Barbiers, S., 2002. Remnant stranding and the theory of movement. In: Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopolou, E., Barbiers, S.,
Gaertner, H.-M. (Eds.), Dimensions of Movement. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, New York, pp. 47–69.
Bayer, J., 2001. Asymmetry in emphatic topicalization. In: Féry, C., Sternefeld, W. (Eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientiae,
Studia Grammatica, vol. 52, pp. 15–47.
Benincà, P., Poletto, C., 2004. Topic, focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In: Rizzi, L. (Ed.), The Structure of CP and
IP. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp. 52–75.
Bhatt, R., Yoon, J., 1992. On the composition of Comp and parameters of V-2. In: Bates, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of
WCCFL, vol. 10. Stanford CSLI Publication, pp. 41–53.
Cinque, G., 1981. On the theory of relative clauses and markedness. The Linguistic Review 1, 247–296.
Cinque, G., 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.
Declerck, R., Reed, S., 2001. Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Emonds, J., 1970. Root and Structure-preserving Transformations. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Emonds, J., 2004. Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. In: Adger, D., de Cat, C., Tsoulas, G. (Eds.),
Peripheries. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 75–120.
Fabb, N., 1990. The difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Linguistics 26,
57–79.
Von Fintel, K., Iatridou, S., 2002. If and when if clauses can restrict quantifiers. Unpublished manuscript. MIT Cambridge.
Von Fintel, K., Iatridou, S., 2003. Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 173–198.
Gärtner, H.-M., 2001. Are there V2 relative clauses in German? Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3, 97–141.
Van Gelderen, E., 2003. The CP and split CP cross-linguistically. Unpublished manuscript.
Van Gelderen, E., 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. John Benjamins, New York, Amsterdam.
Grewendorf, G., 2002. Left dislocation as movement. In: Mauck, S., Mittelstaedt, J. (Eds.), Georgetown University
Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, vol. 2, Fall. pp. 31–81.
Haegeman, L., 1984a. Parasitic gaps and adverbial clauses. Journal of Linguistics 20, 229–232.
Haegeman, L., 1984b. Pragmatic conditionals in English. Folia Linguistica 18, 485–502.
Haegeman, L., 1984c. Remarks on adverbial clauses and definite anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 712–715.
Haegeman, L., 1991. Parenthetical adverbials: the radical orphanage approach. In: Chiba, S., Ogawa, A., Fuiwara, Y.,
Yamada, N., Koma, O., Yagi, T. (Eds.), Aspects of Modern English Linguistics: Papers Presented to Masatomo Ukaji
on His 60th Birthday. Kaitakusha, Tokyo, pp. 232–253.
1668 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669

Haegeman, L., 2002. Anchoring to Speaker, adverbial clauses and the structure of CP. In: Mauck, S., Mittelstaedt, J.
(Eds.), Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, vol. 2, Fall, pp. 117–180.
Haegeman, L., 2003a. Conditional clauses: external and internal syntax. Mind and Language 18, 317–339.
Haegeman, L., 2003b. Speculations on adverbial fronting and the Left Periphery. In: Guéron, J., Tasmowski, L. (Eds.),
Temps et Point de Vue/Tense and Point of View Publidix, Paris, pp. 329–365.
Haegeman, L., 2004. Topicalization, CLLD and the left periphery. In: Shaer, B., Frey, W., Maienborn, C. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, ZAS Berlin, November 2003. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35,
vol. 1, pp. 157–192.
Hengeveld, K., 1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25, 127–158.
Hooper, J., Thompson, S., 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 465–497.
Kiparsky, P., Kiparsky, C., 1971. Fact. In: Steinberg, D., Jakobovitz, L. (Eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 345–369.
Kuno, S., 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Kuroda, S.-Y., 1992. Whether we agree or not: a comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In: Japanese Syntax and
Semantics. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 315–357.
Lu, P., 2003. La Subordination Adverbiale en Chinois Contemporain. Ph.D. thesis: Paris 7.
Maki, H., Kaiser, L., Ochi, M., 1999. Embedded topicalization in English and Japanese. Lingua 109, 1–14.
McCloskey, J., 2004. Questions in a local English. Paper presented at Georgetown University Round Table. Handout.
McCloskey, J., in press. Questions and questioning in a local English. In: Zanuttini, R., Campos, H., Herburger, E.,
Portner, P. (Eds.), Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture: Cross-Linguistic Investigations. Georgetown University
Press, Georgetown.
Meinunger, A., 2004. Verb Second in German(ic) and Mood selection in Romance. Paper presented at the Workshop on
Clause Typing and the Left Periphery. Georgetown University Round Table.
Nilsen, Ø., 2004. Domains for adverbs. In: Alexiadou, A. (Ed.), Adverbs Across Frameworks. Lingua 114, 809–847.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, J., Leech, G., Svartvik, J., 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman,
London.
Raposo, E., 1996. Towards a unification of topic constructions. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Santa
Barbara.
Raposo, E., Uriagereka, J., 2005. Clitic placement in Western Iberian. In: Cinque, G., Kayne, R. (Eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Comparative Syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp. 639–697.
Rizzi, L., 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In: Haegeman, L. (Ed.), Elements of Grammar. Kluwer,
Dordrecht, pp. 281–337.
Rizzi, L., 2004. Locality and left periphery. In: Belletti, A. (Ed.), Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic
Structures, vol. 3. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, pp. 223–251.
Roussou, A., 1994. The Syntax of Complementizers. Ph.D. dissertation, UCL.
Roussou, A., 2000. On the left periphery. Modal particles and complementizers. Journal of Greek Linguistics 1, 65–94.
Rutherford, W., 1970. Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in English. Language 46, 97–115.
Safir, K., 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 663–690.
Sawada, M., Larson, R.K., 2004. Presupposition and root transforms in adjunct clauses. In: Wolf., M., Moulton, K. (Eds.),
Proceedings of NELS 34. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 517–528.
Shaer, B., Frey, W., 2003. Toward an account of English and German left-peripheral elements. Paper presented at the
LAGB Oxford, September 2003.
Shaer, B., Frey, W., 2004. ‘Integrated’ and ‘non-integrated’ left peripheral elements in German and English. In: Shaer, B.,
Frey, W., Maienborn, C. (Eds), Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, ZAS Berlin, November 2003. ZAS
Papers in Linguistics 35, vol. 2, pp. 465–502.
Speas, M., 2004a. Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua 114, 255–
277.
Speas, M., 2004b. Evidential paradigms, world variables and person agreement features. In: Safir, S., Bianchi, V. (Eds.),
Special Issue of The Italian Journal of Linguistics 16(1), 253–280.
Sperber, D., Wilson, D., 1986. Relevance. Blackwell, Oxford.
Tenny, C., 2000. Core events and adverbial modification. In: Tenny, C., Pustejovsky, J. (Eds.), Events as Grammatical
Objects. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 285–334.
Urmson, J.-O., 1963. Parenthetical verbs. In: Caton, C. (Ed.), Philosophy and Ordinary Language. University of Illinois
Press, Urbana, pp. 220–240.
Verstraete, J.-C., 2002. Interpersonal Grammar and Clause Combining in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Leuven.
 L. Haegeman / Lingua 116 (2006) 1651–1669 1669

Whitman, J., 1989. Topic, modality, and IP structure. In: Kuno, S., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Harvard
Workshop on Korean Linguistics. Hanshun, Seoul.
Zanuttini, R., Portner, P., 2003. Exclamative clauses: at the syntax–semantics interface. Language 79, 39–81.
Zubizaretta, M.-L., 2001. Preverbal subjects in romance interrogatives. In: Hulk, A., Pollock, J.-Y. (Eds.), Subject Inversion
in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp. 183–204.