Que lindo o que vocês fizeram! - Brazilian Portuguese wh-exclamatives and the evidence for a split force¹

Que lindo o que vocês fizeram! - Exclamativas-wh sentenciais do português brasileiro e a evidência para um núcleo força cindido

ABSTRACT

Portuguese exhibits a great variety of wh-exclamative sentences, including sentential exclamatives, which are the main concern of this paper. Brazilian Portuguese sentential wh-exclamatives seem to provide evidence to propose a split Force in the periphery of the sentence (RIZZI, 1997) when one considers the cooccurrence of a relative and an exclamative in the same utterance. We assume there are at least two functional heads available in Force: a RelP (hosting relative WHs) and an ExclP, supposed to host exclamative WHs; analyzed data also show that exclamation must be higher than relativization in a Split Force projection, with some more place above ExclP for topicalizing other syntactic objects.

Keywords:
Wh-sentential exclamatives; Brazilian Portuguese; Split Force; Cartography

RESUMO

O Português do Brasil exibe uma grande variedade de exclamativas-wh, incluindo as exclamativas sentenciais, foco principal deste trabalho. Exclamativas-wh sentenciais do português do Brasil parecem prover evidência para propor uma projeção de Força cindida na periferia da sentença (RIZZI, 1997), quando se considera a co-ocorrência de uma relativa e uma exclamativa no mesmo enunciado. Assumimos aqui que existem pelo menos dois núcleos funcionais em Força: um RelP (que hospeda Whs relativos), e um ExclP, que seu supõe hospedar Whs exclamativos; os dados analisados também mostram que a exclamação precisa estar mais alta que a relativização na projeção de Força cindida, com ainda mais algum espaço acima de ExclP para a topicalização de outros objetos sintáticos.

Palavras-chave:
Exclamativas-wh sentenciais; Português do Brasil; Força cindida; Cartografia

Introduction

Exclamative sentences are complex utterances that generally express some emotional state of the speaker and tend to be “conventionally associated with a particular grammatical structure.” (MICHAELIS; LAMBRECHT 1996, p. 375), especially if one considers wh-exclamatives.

English exclamatory statements can exhibit a varied typology due to the structure they assume. According to Collins (2005, p.5), non wh-exclamative clauses in English can be structured throughout verb inversion (Is syntax easy!), the use of “so” (They were so rude!), an extraposed subject (The things he eats!), or another kind of extraposed subject construction (It is amazing how calm he is!).

Wh-exclamatives, as the name itself announces, are sentences containing a wh-phrase (an operator) that carries exclamatory force, which it imprints to the whole sentence over which it has scope. In English, one can find wh-exclamatives, such as “how tall she is!”; “what a nice car you bought!” or “what a wonderful world (it is)!” This paper especially concerns the wh-exclamative sentences.

Brazilian Portuguese (BP) exhibits a broad variety of wh-exclamatives: simple wh-exclamatives, like (1), sentential exclamatives, as in (2), and the types in (3) and (4):

(1) a. Que lindo carro!

what pretty car

‘what a pretty car!’

b. Que lindo carro esse!

what pretty car this!

‘What a pretty car this one!’

c. Que lindo esse carro!

what pretty this car

‘So pretty this car!’

(2) Que linda casa que você comprou!

what pretty house that you bought

‘What a pretty house you bought!’

(3) a. Que linda casa a (casa) que você comprou!

what pretty house the (house) that you bought

‘Such a pretty house (the house) you bought!’

b. Que triste destino o que ela teve!

what sad destiny the one that she had

‘Such a sad destiny she had’

(4) a. Que lindo o que você fez!

how pretty what you did

‘So pretty what you did!’

b. Que maravilha o que você conseguiu!

How wonderful what you achieved

‘So wonderful what you have achieved!’

Even though utterances (1) to (4) seem to present the same basic structure, if one analyses those sentences carefully, one might observe that there are some consistent differences:

1. (1) contains a non-sentential wh-exclamative;

2. (2) contains an ordinary sentential wh-exclamative;

3. (3) and (4) contain an exclamative followed by a relative clause (a headed relative in (3) and a free relative in (4)).

Our aim in this paper is twofold: first, we intend to show that there is a difference between the data in (2) and those found in (3) and (4) concerning the nature of the “que” morpheme, and second we intend to show how the data in (3) and (4) provide evidence to propose a split Force node in the left periphery of the sentence. We will argue that Force must be split up in at least two functional projections ExclP (for exclamation purposes) and RelP (for relativization). Our analysis is based on the cartographic approach for syntactic analysis (cf. RIZZI, 1997, 2017; RIZZI; CINQUE, 2016; RIZZI; BOCCI, 2017).

1. Some theoretical points on the syntax and semantics of exclamative sentences

Considering general discussion, exclamatives are usually considered a sentence type that expresses surprise about something the speaker judges to be a fact (cf. LIPTAK, 2005). Nonetheless, such a definition does not even come close to defining the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic complexities that exclamatives present. In fact, these complex characteristics make them hard to investigate (cf. BOSQUE, 2017).

In the semantic-pragmatic view, exclamatives are understood as speech acts. Due to this fact, they have illocutionary force, lack truth values and are exclusively attributed to the speaker (cf. BOSQUE, 2017). Most authors regard this speech act as a manifestation of surprise (cf. ELLIOT, 1974; CASTROVIEJO, 2006). Although true, there is evidence to believe they are more than that. According to Bosque (2017), surprise requires counter-expectation, and this is not always the case for exclamatives. For instance, sentence (5) below is an exclamation; however, it does not have to be uttered only due to counter-expectation. Regardless of that, it is an emotional reaction, which may be characterized as expressing excitement. In fact, exclamatives seem to express many emotional reactions, such as disappointment, frustration, excitement, enthusiasm, and amazement.

(5) Qué bonita mañana!(Spanish)

‘what a beautiful morning!’ (BOSQUE, 2017, p.3)

Another aspect concerning exclamatives, usually related to these structures’ description, is their extreme degree semantics. This places the individual on a scale, and particularly on the extreme of such a scale (VILLALBA, 2008, p.4):

(6) How expensive this wine is!

What (6) seems to actually mean is something close to ‘’This wine is extremely expensive’’/’’This wine is expensive to an extreme degree’’. Besides these semantic aspects, there is the issue of more than one construction being available to express exclamation (cf. BOSQUE, 2017). Zendron da Cunha (2016) illustrates this fact for Brazilian Portuguese by proposing that in in this language there are at least three types of exclamatives, as demonstrated below:

(7) a. Que alto que ele é! (Sentential wh-exclamative)

how tall that he is

‘How tall he is!’

b. Que carro lindo! (Non-sentential wh-exclamative)

what car pretty

‘What a pretty car!’

c. Inteligente esse menino! (Free Small Clause)

smartthis boy!

‘That boy is smart!’

d. O Carlos é alto! (Illocutionary exclamative)

the Carlos is tall

‘Carlos is tall!’

(ZENDRON DA CUNHA, 2016, p. 34-36)

The author proposes this distinction based on the assumption that there is a difference between illocutionary force and sentence type, a matter we won’t tackle closely in this paper⁵. We shall now focus on the evaluation of our central concern in this paper: sentential wh-exclamatives. Let us, then, consider some previous analyses.

Elliot’s (1974) discussion on syntactic characteristics of wh-exclamatives provided some tests to analyze them, reaching the conclusion that they are an independent sentence type. In fact, at the time, things were not very clear on these structures, and exclamatives were considered a subtype of interrogatives. To support his claim, he put some evidence into analysis. For example, he showed that questions could allow insertion the words “any” (8), “ever” (9), and “whether” (10), while wh-exclamatives could not.

(8) a. How does Joe save any money?

b. *How Joe saves any money!

(9) a. What did you ever do for me?

b. *What you ever did for me!

(10) a. It’s unknown whether Bill will be here

b. *It’s incredible whether Bill will be here!

(ELLIOT, 1974, p. 234-240).

In addition, the author claimed it was not possible to negate wh-exclamatives in English and that they could only be embedded under factive verbs: (11) and (12), respectively.

(11) *I don’t remember what a tall man he is!

(12) * I claim how very tall Bill is! (“to claim” isn’t a factive verb)

(ELLIOT, 1974, p. 239)

This observation led others to propose that exclamatives are factive, such as Grimshaw (1979), Gutierrez-Rexach (1996), and Zanuttini and Portner (2003). According to Gutierrez-Rexach (1996), exclamatives’ factivity comes from the denotation of an illocutionary exclamative operator (supposed to integrate the derivation of those sentences), which includes a null emotive predicate.

In a similar breath, Zanuttini and Portner (2003) propose wh-exclamatives derivation to contain a factive operator; the CP of such constructions would be a two layered projection, the lower Spec position hosting the FactOp and the higher one hosting the wh-phrase. According to them, the factive operator is what accounts for the impossibility of embedding it under non-factive verbs, and the wh-word at the leftmost position determines the sentential type.

(13) $\left[{}_{CP2}Wh\right[{}_C[{}_{CP1}FactOp[{}_{C}complementizer\left[{}_{IP...}\right]\left]\right]]$ (Adapted)

Another remark about wh-exclamatives is that word order is relevant. For instance, Amaral’s (2009) analysis of European Portuguese (EP) wh-exclamatives shows that the order may be important for the correct interpretation of the sentence:

(14) O João é lindo.

The John is gorgeous (Declarative)

‘John is gorgeous’.

(15) OJoão é lindo! (Exclamative)

The John is gorgeous!

‘John is gorgeous!’

(16) Quem convidaste tu para a festa?! (Interrogative)

Who invited(2^nd p./s) you to the party?

‘Who have you invited to the party?’

(17) Quem tu convidaste para a festa! (Exclamative)

Who you invited to the party!

‘Who have you invited to the party!’

(AMARAL, 2009, p.14-15)

The author argues that in (14) and (15) prosody creates a clear distinction between the declarative and the exclamative sentences. However, the prosodic strategy is not available as a tool for distinguishing (16) from (17). In these cases, the speaker must rely on a structural cue to determine the sentence type, which is the presence vs. the absence of subject-verb inversion.

Moreover, in EP and BP the wh-word of an interrogative may remain sometimes in situ (although, according to Amaral (2009), in EP interrogatives the preference is for the initial position), whereas that of wh-exclamatives cannot. This might be taken as an evidence that the order of constituents is important for the semantics and pragmatics of the sentences, which corroborates the connection between syntax and discourse/pragmatics advocated by cartography (we are addressing cartographic theory in (2.3):

(18) A Maria comprou o quê?

the Mary bought what?

‘What did Mary buy?’

(19) O que a Maria comprou?

what the Mary bought?

‘What did Mary buy?’

(20) Que livro bom a Maria comprou!

what book nice the Mary bought!

‘What a nice book Mary bought!’

(21) *A Maria comprou que livro bom!

‘the Mary bought what book nice!’

Perhaps the most definable syntactic characteristic of wh-exclamatives is wh-movement. Authors, such as Radford (2004), Sebastián (2017), and Castroviejo (2006), analyze them as being generated by the displacement of the wh-phrase from its base position to the left periphery of the clause. Castroviejo (2006), however, assumes that the wh-phrase must contain a degree phrase at the left periphery and must include a wh-feature. In (24), the degree operator ‘tán’ is contained within the wh-word and in (25) the wh-word itself is the degree operator.

(22) $\left[{}_{CP}\right[{}_{QP}whatfun\left[{}_C\sout{whEPP}\right[{}_{TP}we\left[{}_{T}have\right[{}_{VP}had\sout{whatfun}\left]\right]\left]\right]\left]\right]$ (RADFORD, 2004, p.115)

(23) $\left[{}_{CP}\left[{}_{DP}Whatabighous{e}_i\left[{}_{TP}She\left[{}_T\left[+past\right]_x\left[{}_{VP}tj[{}_{V}ha{d}_x\left[{}_{DP}t_i\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]$ (SEBASTIÁN, 2017, p. 12)

(24) $\left[{}_{DP}\left[{}_D{}^0_{\left[+wh\right]}quina\left[{}_{NP}\left[{}_{N}película\left[{}_{DegP}\left[{}_{Deg}{}^{0}tán\left[{}_{AP}entretinguda\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]$ (CASTROVIEJO, 2006, p.40)

(25) $\left[{}_{DegP}[{}_{Deg}{}^0_{\left[+wh\right]}Que{[}_{AP}entretinguda!\right]$ (CASTROVIEJO, 2006, p.40)

These are some of the characteristics of exclamatives and wh-exclamatives. By no means, they are exhaustive; they were displayed only as an overview of what aspects exclamatives present.

2. Focusing on Brazilian Portuguese Wh-exclamatives

In this section, we present the typology that Brazilian Portuguese wh-exclamatives exhibit, and try to analyze their syntactical behavior

2.1. The typology of sentential wh-exclamatives in Brazilian Portuguese

Brazilian Portuguese wh-exclamatives, as we have announced earlier, exhibit a variety of possibilities, which we list below:

i. A wh-exclamative phrase + finite TP

(26) a. [Que linda casa /(casa linda) você tem!]

what pretty house / house pretty you have!

‘What a pretty house you have!’

b. [Que linda casa / (casa linda) que você tem!]

what pretty house / house pretty that you have!

‘What a pretty house you have!’

c. A Maria não imagina [quão maravilhosos são os seus filhos.]

the Mary not imagine how wonderful are the (3^rd P/Poss) kids

‘Mary doesn´t figure out how wonderful her kids are.’

d. A Maria não imagina [quão maravilhosos que são os seus filhos].

the Mary not imagine how wonderful that are the

(3^rd P. Possessive) kids

‘Mary doesn´t figure out how wonderful her kids are’.

ii. A wh-exclamative phrase + a relative CP

(27) a. Que linda a casa [_HR que vocês têm!]

what pretty the house [that you have]

‘What a pretty house you have!’

b. Que linda casa a (casa) [_HR que vocês têm!]

what pretty house the (house) [that you have]

‘What a pretty house you have!’

c. Que lindo [_FR o que vocês fizeram!]

How pretty [ what you did]

‘How/So pretty what you did!’

Sentences in (26) constitute what we call here simple sentential wh-exclamatives. They can be structured as in (26)a, with the adjective positioned before or after the NP “casa”, and no “que” morpheme inserted, or they can have the appearance of (26)b with a “que” morpheme following the exclamative phrase.

A very interesting point here is that, as for the examples in (26), the adjective in the wh-exclamative phrase must modify a bare NP, the insertion of the determiner being definitely blocked:

(28) a. Que linda casa você tem!

b. *Que linda a casa você tem.

We will come back to this point later, as it seems to be extremely relevant to differentiate (26) a and b from (27) a and b.

(26)c and d are embedded wh-exclamatives whose properties seem to be strictly different from root exclamatives. We are not going to address (26) c and d in this paper, for we understand they deserve a sole discussion because of their complexity.

As for the data in (27), those contain what we call complex sentential wh-exclamatives, because those utterances exhibit a relative clause (or a relative CP) following the exclamative phrase (headed relatives in (27) a and b, and a Free Relative in c). In this paper, we are analyzing both kinds of exclamatives ((26) a-b and (27)), but we will focus on type (27), as it provides the evidence for the proposal we intend to develop.

Besides those utterances, one can yet find some non-sentential wh-exclamatives in BP, just as the ones in (29) below⁶:

(29) a. Que lindo vestido!

what pretty dress’

‘What a pretty dress!

b. Que casa maravilhosa!

what house wonderful

‘What a wonderful house!’

c. Que lindo!

‘How beautiful!’

d. Que maravilhoso!

‘How wonderful!’

e. Que vestido!

what dress

‘What a dress!’

f. Que casa!

what house

‘What a house!’

In the next section, we start to examine some interesting points on the syntax of exclamatives of the types (26)a and b and (27).

2.2. Do all sentential wh-exclamatives in Brazilian Portuguese behave just the same?

As we pointed out in 2.1, there is an important syntactic restriction on wh-exclamatives such as (26)a and b: the adjective in the exclamative phrase can never modify a DP, only a bare NP; (30) is bad, but the utterance becomes acceptable if one eliminates the determiner (31):

(30) *Que linda a casa você tem!

what pretty the house you have

(31) Que linda casa você tem!

what pretty house you have

‘What a pretty house you have!’

Let us now consider what happens to (26)b. It is possible to have a “que” morpheme following the exclamative phrase in wh-exclamatives; let’s check:

(32) Que linda casa que você tem!

what pretty house that you have

‘What a pretty house you have!’

If we compare it to (27)a, we can see they look very much alike, but may not be structurally similar. Let’s check:

(33) Que linda a casa [que você tem]!

(34) Que linda casa [que você tem]!

The point here is: they look alike, but we have reasons to believe there is a relative clause in (33) above, but not in (34). Let’s go back to the contrast between them, evidenced in (35) and (36) below:

(35) a. Que linda casa que você comprou.

what pretty house that you bought

‘What a pretty house you bought!’

b. Que linda casa você comprou.

what pretty house you bought

‘What a pretty house you bought!’

(36) a. Que linda a casa que você comprou!

what pretty the house that you bought

‘So pretty the house you bought!’

b. *Que linda a casa você comprou!

‘what pretty the house you bought’

As one can perfectly see, the omission of the “que” morpheme is not a problem in (35)b, but it leads to a crash in (36)b. Now, if we go back to (35)b, repeated below as (37), we might catch something interesting:

(37) a. Que linda casa você comprou.

b. *Que linda a casa você comprou.

In (37)b, as pointed before, the insertion of the determiner makes the sentence ungrammatical. Now (35)a exhibits the “que” word but it cannot work without “a”. If we consider the ideas presented in Smith (1964) and Kayne (1994) on the nature of relative clauses, it becomes easier to understand the contrast between (36)a and b if compared to (35) a and b.

Smith (1964) observes (and KAYNE (1994) reaffirms) the dependency between a relative clause and a determiner: there can be no relative clause attached to a bare NP, only to a DP, i.e., there is a close relationship between a relative clause and an article. If this is correct, we must conclude there is a relative clause in (36)a, but not in (35)a. This means that the “que” morpheme in (36)a is a relativizer, which is the reason why it cannot be omitted⁷.

If one also considers (27)c, it is possible to find out something interesting as well. In (27)c “o” and “que” form an amalgamated word in Brazilian Portuguese, as a result of a grammaticalization process attested in the diachrony of such utterances⁸, something like “what” in English,

But what is the nature of “que” in (35)a, then? This is what we will try to answer in the next following sections.

2.3. The cartographic enterprise.

The attempt to build syntactic explanation for things that were once relegated to some merely functional-discursive analysis as well as the attempt to analyze some grammatical specificities that have traditionally been considered the result of the interaction between simple morphosyntactic features and lexical categories as constituting some independent syntactic heads has received strong support after Pollock’s (1989) Split Infl hypothesis, and Cinque’s (1999) analysis of the IP structure (RIZZI; BOCCI (2017)). This approach is currently known as the cartography of syntactic structures.

Since Rizzi (1997), some discourse related phenomena located in the CP area of the sentence, such as focus, topic or illocutionary force, have received a syntactic treatment in what Rizzi himself calls a criterial syntax. The main idea is that functional structures must be understood as “complex syntactic objects, consisting of richly articulated and cross-linguistically stable sequences of functional elements” (RIZZI; BOCCI 2017, p. 3).

Analyzing the Italian language, Rizzi (1997) observed that, given certain conditions on the configuration of topics and focused elements and their position relatively to the C⁰, one might think about the CP of a sentence as a richly articulated area, much more than having only a specifier position above the head. For example, in some of the data Rizzi analyzed, topics would always have to follow a complementizer of the type “che”, but precede a complementizer of the type “di”:

(38) a. Credoche, il tuo libro, loro lo apprezzerebbero molto.

‘I believe that they would appreciate your book very much’

b. * Credo, il tuo libro, che loro lo apprezzerebbero molto.

‘I believe, your book, that they will apreciate it a lot’

(39) a. Credo, il tuo libro, di aprezzarlo molto.

‘I believe, your book, ‘of’ to appreciate it a lot’

b. * Credo di, il tuo libro, aprezzarlo molto.

‘I believe of you book to appreciate it a lot’

Rizzi (1997, p. 288)

Based on the evidence, Rizzi proposes that the CP system is limited on the left by a Force node and on the right by a Fin node; the former would be responsible for the codification of illocutionary force, while the later would be responsible for encoding inflectional information to the TP node (finite or infinitive).

Besides this, Rizzi also observed that focused elements in Italian would be sometimes preceded, sometimes followed by topics, what led him to propose that topics would be recursive in the left periphery, while there would be only one position for focalized expressions in this area. Let’s see:

(40) A Gianni, QUESTO, domani, gli dovrete dire

‘To Gianni, THIS, tomorrow you should tell him’

Hence, this would be the configuration of the left periphery of the clause, according to him:

(41) $\left[Force\left[*Top\left[Foc\left[*Toc\left[Fin\left[IP\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]$

Recently, Rizzi and Bocci (2017) - based on some papers on cartography from the 1990s until now - have refined the map of the left periphery, considering the existence of an IntP projection, that hosts “if” and “why”; a projection Q_emb, which hosts wh-interrogative phrases in embedded sentences; and a ModP projection to host moved adverbs and some more topic positions. Therefore, the configuration of the left periphery would be the following:

(42) $\left[Force\left[Top*\left[Int\left[Top*\left[Foc\left[Top*\left[Mod\left[Top*\left[Qemb\left[Fin{[}_{IP...}\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]$

Syntactic elements would then be moved to one of those projections due to some criteria responsible, in order to verify some interpretable feature, integrating a special configuration, namely a Spec-head configuration, where the displaced element (in Spec) and the head of the projection share a specific features as a Focus feature, a Topic feature, an interrogative feature, and so on. Each criterion would involve one head containing one single feature, what leads to a main requirement: one feature, one head (KAYNE, 2005) - which means that each head carries one feature (and one only) and will enter a single verifying operation with a phrase carrying the same interpretable feature.

In the following section, we will try to evaluate the “que” morpheme found in data like (26)b, which we claim to be different from what is found in data of the (27)b type.

2.4. On the nature of “que”.

As proposed in the introduction, one of our aims is to analyze the nature of the “que” morpheme integrating sentential wh-exclamatives in Brazilian Portuguese data. We understand there are reasons to believe that the “que” following the exclamative phrase in (43) is different from the one integrating the sentence in (44):

(43) Que linda casa que você comprou!

what pretty house that you bought

‘What a pretty house you bought!’

(44) Que linda a casa que você comprou.

How pretty the house that you bought

‘How pretty (is) the house that you bought!’

As we pointed out in 2.2., it is not possible to elide the second “que” in (44), because there is some kind of dependency between “que” and the determiner “a”. In that section, we argued that this restriction is because we have a relative clause integrating the utterance and “que” is the relativizer. A sentence without “que” is bad:

(45) *Que linda a casa você comprou!

But, in (43), one might not find the same kind of restriction, what leads us to conclude that “que” has a different status in that utterance (see (46) bellow):

(46) Que linda casa você comprou!

Many other Brazilian Portuguese constructions, such as interrogatives or relatives can also exhibit a “que” morpheme somehow similar to the one in (43). That is what can be seen in the data below:

(47) Quem_i que o João viu t _i? (wh-interrogative)

who that the John saw

‘Who did John see?’

(48) A pessoa [com quem]_i que eu falei t _i chegou. (wh-relative)

the person with whom that I talked arrived

‘The person with whom I have talked has arrived’.

The interesting connecting point between (48), (41) and (43) is that the “que” morpheme can be elided in these other utterances resulting in a grammatical sentence:

(49) Quem_i o João viu t _i?

(50) A pessoa [com quem]_i eu falei t _i chegou.

We assume here the “que” morpheme in those sentences represent the lexical realization of the head in a functional syntactic projection. Let’s first consider the interrogative in (47). In Brazilian Portuguese, wh-movement is optional, as one can find the same structure with a moved wh and a wh in situ⁹. That’s what we find in (51) bellow:

(51) a. O João viu quem?

the John saw who

‘Who did John see?’

b. Quem_i o João viu t _i?

who the John saw

‘ Who did John see?’

But it is crucial to observe that if “que” is in the derivation, movement is not optional, but mandatory, as it is clear from the ungrammaticality of (52):

(52) *que o João viu quem?

‘that the John saw who’

We will argue here that “que” is realizing the Foc head of a Focus projection, which is supposed to host wh-interrogatives in matrix clauses (see. RIZZI (1997)), hence triggering a Focus criterion and activating a checking procedure:

Similarly, we propose that “que” in (54) is the lexicalization of Force⁰ in the Force projection and movement of the wh-phrase satisfies a Force criterion:

The natural conclusion at this point is that we must also consider “que” in (43) as Force⁰, and take all the expression “Que linda casa” as the wh-exclamative phrase displaced to the periphery to satisfy a Force criterion:

Since the “que” could perfectly be elided, this might be taken as an evidence for the non-relativizer nature of “que”.

Considering these facts, we reach a differentiation between “que” (the second occurrence) in (43) and “que” in (44): in the former, “que” lexicalizes exclamative Force and can be elided any time just as in wh-interrogative and wh-relative sentences; in the latter, “que” is the relativizer that must be phonetically realized due to the restriction in the existence of bare relative clauses in Brazilian Portuguese.

A natural question to be made at this point is why “que” can be elided in (43), but not in (44) a and b if, according to the argumentation, it represents exactly the same category in both cases (i.e. the lexicalization of Force), one possible answer could be: as there are no bare relatives in Portuguese, the language requires some lexical material in spec or in the head to license the desired interpretation/Force; the Force head might not be pronounced in wh-exclamatives, just as what happens to interrogative ow wh-relative clauses, as long as they have some material in Spec. This specific point requires some more study as well as a more refined analysis, so we will leave it partially opened here for further investigation.

As for data in (27c) repeated below as (56), it is important to highlight other interesting points; let us see:

(56) a. Que lindo o que você fez!

how pretty what you did

‘So pretty what you did!’

b. Que maravilha o que você conseguiu!

How wonderful what you achieved

‘So wonderful what you have achieved’.

The data in (56) show us once again the possibility of the co-occurrence of an exclamative and a relative in the same CP projection. In (a) and (b) we have the exclamative phrase followed by a free relative clause, where “o que” is a grammaticalized item (see DUARTE; BRITO (2003)) introducing a free relative clause. Once again, we come to the question: how can one single Force projection host two different wh-phrases that contain different interpretable features (namely “relative” and “exclamative)?

We will examine this matter and search for a suitable answer in the following sections.

3. The derivation of sentential wh-exclamatives and the evidence for a split Force

According to Rizzi (1997), if something is displaced to the left periphery of a clause, this movement instantiation is being triggered in order to satisfy a criterion. For instance, one specific phrase with a feature [α] must be in a Spec-head relation with a head carrying [α] to satisfy this criterion. If we are talking about a Focus feature, there is movement to the Spec of a Focus projection as a requirement of a Focus criterion; if it is a Topic feature, we are talking about a Topic criterion and so on.

Moreover, if one takes Kayne’s (2005) “one feature, one head” principle as a basis for the criteria syntax in cartography, there is a clear problem for the derivation of sentences like (44) and (56) above, namely the fact that there are two different features being associated to one single Force projection: a relative and an exclamative.

Let us then try to solve this problem.

3.1. Is there enough room for everybody?

Rizzi (1997) shows that relative words are in Force; Rizzi & Bocci (2017) propose (for obvious reasons) that displaced exclamative phrases are also in Force.

If data like (44) and (56) in Brazilian Portuguese really exhibit a cooccurrence of an exclamative and a relative within the same CP area, there is no way to explain the grammaticality of those sentences, considering the fact that the Force node (as any other in this perspective) is supposed to be involved in one “checking” operation only. The one feature, one head principle should block the derivation of sentences like those, contrary to fact.

The only way to solve this puzzle is proposing that the area we call Force might be richer than it seems. We will propose here that Force must be split into at least two different functional projections: a RelP and an ExclP, each one of these responsible for the “checking” of one specific feature (a Rel or an Excl one). Let us take a closer look on the derivation of those sentences.

Let’s first take a loonk on how (43) (repeated here as (51)) is derived in order to understand (44) and (57), we would say the derivation goes on as shown step-by-step below:

(57) Que linda casa que você comprou!

what pretty house that you bought

‘What a pretty house you bought!’

Step 1: The exclamative phrase “que linda casa” is selected by the verb “bought”, being interpreted as its complement:

(58) $[{}_{\mathit{T}\mathit{P}}vocêcomprou[quelindacasa{}_{[+Excl]}]$

Step 2: The Force head is merged and activates Force:

(59) $[Forceque[{}_{\mathit{T}\mathit{P}}vocêcomprou[quelindacasa[{}_{+Excl]}\left]\right]]$

Step 3: A Force criterion is activated and requires movement of the exclamative phrase containing the relevant feature; the exclamative phrase is, then, moved to Spec, ForceP:

(60) $\left[{}_{\mathit{F}\mathit{o}\mathit{r}\mathit{c}\mathit{e}\mathit{P}}\right[Quelindacasa][{}_{\mathit{F}\mathit{o}\mathit{r}\mathit{c}\mathit{e}}que[{}_{\mathit{T}\mathit{P}}vocêcomprou[\sout{quelindacas{a}_{[+Excl]}}\left]\right]]$

The exclamative is felicitously constructed. Now, how are (44) and (56) derived? It seems to us that the derivation of theses sentences goes on as shown below, respectively:

(61) $[{}_{ExclP}{[Quelindo]}_k[{}_{RelP}{[oque]}_i[{}_{TP}vocêfez{t}_i{t}_k]\left]\right]\left]\right]$

(62) $\left[{}_{ExclP}\left[Quelinda\right]_{k}a\left[{}_{RelP}\left[casa\right]_i\left[{}_{Rel}que\left[{}_{TP}Vocêcomprou{t}_i{t}_k\right]\right]\right]\right]\left]\right]$

We represented their derivations step by step below. Let us start with (63):

Step 1: After the TP is formed, (61) has the format of (63):

(63) ${\left[{}_{TP}Vocêfez\left[{\left[oqu{e}_{\left[+Rel\right]}\right]}_i{\left[quelind{o}_{\left[+Excl\right]}\right]}_k\right]\right]}^{10}$ ¹⁰

Step 2: The existence of a phrase containing a relative feature activates a Rel criterion and the Rel projection is activated in Force¹¹; the criterion raises the Rel-phrase to Spec, RelP:

(64) $\left[{}_{RelP}\left[oqu{e}_{\left[+Rel\right]}\right]_i\left[{}_{TP}vocêfez{\left[\sout{oqu{e}_{\left[+Rel\right]}}\right]}_i\left[quelind{o}_{\left[+Excl\right]}\right]\right]\right]\left]\right]$

Step 3: The phrase with an exclamative feature, then, activates the Exclamative projection and an Exclamative criterion forces displacement to Spec, ExclP:

(65) $\left[{}_{ExclP}\left[\left[quelind{o}_{\left[+Excl\right]}\right]\left[{}_{Excl}\left[{}_{RelP}\left[oqu{e}_{\left[+Rel\right]}\right]_i\left[{}_{TP}vocêfez{\left[\sout{oqu{e}_{\left[+Rel\right]}}\right]}_i[\sout{quelind{o}_{\left[+Excl\right]}}\right]\right]\right]\right]\right]$

The derivation of (62) involves a more complex sequence of operations. It goes on step-by-step as we show right below:

Step 1: After the TP is complete, (56) might look like (60):

(66) $\left[{}_{TP}Vocêcomprou\left[cas{a}_{\left[+Rel\right]}\right][quelind{a}_{\left[+Excl\right]}\right]$

Step 2: As expected, the presence of a phrase with a [+Rel] feature activates the Relative projection within Force; Rel⁰ (que)¹² is then merged:

(67) $\left[{}_{RelP}\right[{}_{Rel}que[{}_{TP}Vocêcomprou\left[cas{a}_{\left[+Rel\right]}\right]\left[quelind{a}_{\left[+Excl\right]}\right]$

Step 3: As we have argued before, the relative clause in this sentence is selected by a determiner (see. KAYNE (1994)); after the relative projection is activated, D is externally merged:

(68) $a\left[{}_{RelP}\right[{}_{Rel}que[{}_{TP}Vocêcomprou\left[cas{a}_{\left[+Rel\right]}\right]\left[quelind{a}_{\left[+Excl\right]}\right]$

Step 4: The relative criterion applies, and the phrase carrying the [+Rel] feature is moved to the Spec, RelP:

(69) $a\left[{}_{RelP}casa\right[{}_{Rel}que[{}_{TP}Vocêcomprou\left[\sout{cas{a}_{\left[+Rel\right]}}\right]\left[quelind{a}_{\left[+Excl\right]}\right]$

Step 5: The presence of a phrase with a [+Excl] feature activates the Exclamative projection:

(70) $\left[{}_{ExclP}\right[{}_{Excl}a\left[{}_{RelP}{\left[cas{a}_{\left[+Rel\right]}\right]}_i\right[{}_{Rel}que[{}_{TP}Vocêcomprou\sout{{\left[cas{a}_{\left[+Rel\right]}\right]}_i}{\left[quelind{a}_{\left[+Excl\right]}\right]}_k$

Step 6: The exclamative criterion applies and the exclamative phrase is raised to Spec, ExclP:

(71) $\left[{}_{ExclP}\right[{\left[quelind{a}_{\left[+Excl\right]}\right]}_k\left[{}_{Excl}a\right[{}_{RelP}{\left[cas{a}_{\left[+Rel\right]}\right]}_i\left[{}_{Rel}que\right[{}_{TP}vocêcomprou\sout{{\left[cas{a}_{\left[+Rel\right]}\right]}_i}\sout{{\left[quelind{a}_{\left[+Excl\right]}\right]}_k}$

The analyzed data also show that exclamation must be higher than relativization in Brazilian Portuguese, as one can perfectly see by the ungrammaticality of (66) and (67):

(72) $*\left[{}_{RelP}Oque\left[{}_{ExclP}quelindo\left[{}_{TP}vocêfez!\right]\right]\right]$

‘what how beautiful you did!’

(73) $*\left[{}_{RelP}Acasaquevocêcomprou\left[{}_{ExclP}quelinda!\right]\right]$

‘the house that you boughthow beautiful!’

3.2. Is there any more room?

A relevant thing to be said about the ungrammaticality of (73) is that a variation of it is highly attested by Brazilian Portuguese speakers. With a pause, represented here by the comma, the preposing of the relative clause seems good, just as (74) shows:

(74) A casa que você comprou, que linda!

‘the house that you bought, how pretty!’

An important thing at this point is wondering if there is more material in Force other than the RelP and the ExclP projections, such as a Topic positions, for example. What (74) seems to attest is that YES there is, one just needs to be sure of where exactly this Topic projection is.

Benincà (2001) and Benincà & Poleto (2004) would call the preposed relative in (74) a “hanging topic” hosted by a DiscP above Force. Benincà (2001) proposes there are empirical reasons (both syntactic and semantic) to think that exclamative phrases must be in Spec, ForceP, with hanging topics being higher. According to this proposal, only bare DPs could be hanging topics, not anything else.

However, in Brazilian Portuguese there is the possibility of (75):

(75) Para a noiva, que lindas as floresque o João vai dar!

to the fiancé, how pretty the flowers that the John will give

‘To his fiancé, how beautiful (are) the flowers John will give’.

In Benincà’s (2001) analysis, the PP “Para a noiva” in (75) must be understood as a left dislocated element into the left periphery - differing, hence, from hanging topics. This being so, the preposed relative in (74) is supposed to be hosted outside Force, as well as the PP in (75).

What is tricky about these data is that Brazilian Portuguese still allows what we find in (76) below:

(76) [Para a noiva]_i, as flores que o João vai dar t _i, que lindas!

‘to the fiancé, the flowers that the John will give, how pretty’

To his fiancé, the flowers John will give, how beautiful!

One might yet consider (77) below:

(77) ??[As flores que o João vai dar t _i]_k, [para a noiva]_i t _k, que lindas!¹³

If Benincà’s proposal is correctly addressed, one must consider there is order restriction in Brazilian Portuguese considering the co-occurrence of hanging topics (HT) and left dislocated elements (LD): hanging topics must be lower than LD constructions in such structures.

Nevertheless, there are still some semantic points to address here: in (71), even though we postulate, as Benincà does, a discourse projection (DiscP) higher than Force, we must yet explain how the exclamation illocutionary force has scope over the whole utterance, including the PP.

An alternative analysis would be to consider there are Topic positions available within Force, as it is clear by the present argumentation that it must be split at least into two different projections, namely ExclP and RelP. In lack of some more independent evidence for this analysis, we leave it as an open point for further studies.

4. Final Remarks

Brazilian Portuguese sentential wh-exclamatives provide evidence for a Split Force projection in the left periphery. What data seem to show is that one can have a relative and an exclamative in the same utterance, both being related to syntactic operations held in Force. If language is constrained by the one feature-one head principle (KAYNE 2005), then one must postulate the existence of a RelP and an ExclP within Force, both associated to specific criteria (a Relative criterion and an Exclamative criterion respectively) responsible for the checking of each specific feature ([+Rel], [+Excl]).

The data also show that exclamatives must be higher than relatives in Brazilian Portuguese, and that it is also possible to topicalize syntactic material in even higher positions, what might be an evidence of a richer Force area than what has been proposed so far. Further study on those structures might confirm these findings (or not)!

References

• AMARAL, D. 2009. Algumas construções-wh em português europeu-periferia esquerda e fases. Master’s Dissertation, Curso de Letras, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa.
• BELLETTI, A. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In: RIZZI, L. (Ed.). The structure of CP and IP: the cartography of syntactic structures. New York: Oxford University Press.
• BENINCÀ, P. 2001. The position of Topic and Focus in the left periphery. In: G. Cinque & G. Salvi (eds.). Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier-North Holland. p. 39-64.
• BENINCÀ, P.; POLETTO, C. 2004. Topic, Focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In: RIZZI, L. (ed.). The structure of CP and IP: the cartography of syntactic structures. New York: Oxford University Press .
• BOSQUE, I. 2017. Spanish Exclamatives in Perspective: A Survey of Properties, Classes, and Current Theoretical Issues. In: BOSQUE, I (ed.) Advances in the Analysis of Spanish Exclamatives. Columbus, OH: State University Press.
• CASTROVIEJO, E. 2006. Wh-exclamatives in Catalan. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Barcelona.
• CINQUE, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• COLINS, P. 2005. Exclamative clauses in English. In: Word. Vol. 56, n. 1.
• CONIGLIO, M; ZEGREAN, I. 2012. Splitting up force: Evidence from discourse particles. New Horizons. In: Main Clause Phenomena, Linguistics Today 190. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• DUARTE, I. & BRITO, A. M. 2003. ‘Orações Relativas e Construções Aparentadas’. In: MATEUS et al. Gramática da Língua Portuguesa. Lisboa: Caminho. p. 655-694.
• ELLIOT, D. E. 1974. Toward a Grammar of Exclamations. Foundations of Language, 11(2), 231-246.
• GRIMSHAW, J. 1979. Complement Selection and the Lexicon. In: Linguistic Inquiry, v. 10, n. 2.
• GUTIÉRREZ-REXACH, J. 1996. The Semantics of Exclamatives. In: GARRET, E.; LEE, F. (eds.). Syntax at Sunset. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics. p. 146-162.
• KATO, M. & NUNES, J. 2009. A uniform raising analysis for standard and nonstandard relative clauses. In: Jairo Nunes (org.). Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax. 1ª ed. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, v. 1, p. 93-120.
• KATO, M. A. 2004. Two types of wh-in-situ in Brazilian Portuguese. Georgetown Round-Table in Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC.
• KAYNE, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 25) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• KAYNE, R. 2005. Movement and Silence. New York: Oxford University Press .
• KENNEDY, E. 2007. A antinaturalidade do pied-piping em orações relativas. Ph.D. Thesis, UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro.
• LIPTÁK, A. 2005. The left periphery of Hungarian Exclamatives. In: BRUGÈ, L.; JUSTI, G.; SCHWEIKERT, W.; TURANO, G. (eds). Contributions to the thirtieth Incontro di Gramática Generativa: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina, Venice, 2005.
• MEDEIROS JUNIOR, P. 2014. Orações relativas livres do PB: Sintaxe, Semântica e Diacronia. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp), São Paulo.
• MEDEIROS JUNIOR, P. 2016. From [o[que]] to [o que] in Brazilian Portuguese Free relatives. In: KATO, M. & ORDOÑEZ, F. (eds.) The Morphossyntax of Portuguese and Spanish in Latin America. Oxford University Press.
• MEDEIROS JUNIOR, P. 2018. Sujeitos-wh e movimento para posições focais em sentenças infinitivas do português brasileiro. In: Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, v. 26, n. 2, p. 945- 979.
• MEDEIROS JUNIOR, P. 2020. Uma Análise da Relativização no PB: Questões Teóricas e Panorama Geral. In: MEDEIROS JUNIOR, P.; GUSSER, S.; LUNGUINHO, M. V.; GUERRA VICENTE, H. (eds.). Relativização e Clivagem no PB: Sintaxe, Aquisição, Diacronia e Experimentação. Campinas, SP: Pontes Editores.
• MICHAELIS, L. A. & LAMBRECHT, K. 1996. The exclamative sentence type in English. In: GOLDBERG, A (ed.). Conceptual Structure, discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI. p. 375-390.
• POLLOCK, J-Y. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424.
• RADFORD, A. 2004. English Syntax: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• RIZZI, L. 1997. The Fine-Structure of the Left Periphery. In: Haegeman, L. (ed.). Elements of Grammar. Kluwer, Berkeley. p. 281-337.
• RIZZI, L. & CINQUE, G. 2016. Functional Categories and Syntactic Theory. Annual Review of Linguistics, v. 2, n. 1, p. 139-163.
• RIZZI, L. 2017. Cartography and explanatory principles: Locality, labeling, and interpretive procedures. In: Proceedings of the WOLP, Oslo.
• RIZZI, L. & BOCCI, G. 2017. The left periphery of the clause - primarily illustrated for Italian. In: EVERAERT, M.; VAN RIEMSDIJK, H. C (eds.). Blackwell Companion to Syntax, II edition. Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey.
• SIBALDO, M. 2016. A. Semelhanças e diferenças entre duas sentenças exclamativas do português brasileiro. In: Gragoatá, Niterói, n. 40. p. 113-132.
• SIEIRO, P. L. de M. 2020. Sentential wh-exclamatives in Brazilian Portuguese. Master’s Dissertation - Programa de Pós-Graduação em Linguística, Universidade de Brasília - UnB, Brasília - DF.
• SMITH, C. 1964. Determiners and Relative Clauses in a generative Grammar of English. In: Language, 40.
• VILLALBA, X. 2008. Exclamatives: A Thematic Guide with Few Answers and Many Questions. In: Catalan Journal of Linguistics 7.
• ZANUTTINI, R.; PORTNER, P. 2003. Exclamative clauses: at the syntax-semantics interface. Language, 79, n. 1, p. 39-81.
• ZENDRON DA CUNHA, K. 2016. Sentenças exclamativas em português brasileiro: um estudo experimental de interface. Master’s Dissertation - Programa de Pós-graduação em Linguística UFSC, Florianópolis.

• 1
  We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for the precious comments and suggestions on this paper, and we also thank the comments by the audience of the 3^rd. EISSI, held in Santa Catarina in the winter of 2018. Of course, we take all responsibility for what´s being attested here.

• 4
  This research has been developed with the financial support by CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) - Brazil, grant code 001.

• 5
  In attendance to what has been suggested by one of the anonymous reviewers, we wish to address here, briefly, the contrast illocutionary force versus sentence type. For Zendron da Cunha (2016), following Zanuttini and Portner’s (2003) ideas, any sentence can become an exclamation, but there are some sentential types that are directly connected to a specific illocutionary force. The author calls it a sentential force, which is typically associated to the way the sentence is used. Considering this idea closely, sentences (7)c-d above have the structure of declaratives (sentential type) but carry the illocutionary force of exclamation. Coniglio and Zegrean’s (2012) paper on ForceP stands for a very similar idea; the authors explain that a certain type of illocutionary force is usually mapped into syntax by means of a specific clause type, what can be understood as a one-to-one relation between clause/sentential type and illocutionary force. However, there are instances in which this does not happen, such as in the following sentence “Could you call the police? (CONIGLIO; ZEGREAN, 2012, p.234)”. Here, the illocutionary force of the sentence is directive/imperative, but the clause type is interrogative. This example shows that a speech act may be realized by a clause type that does not typically correspond to its illocutionary force. Therefore, the authors conclude that illocutionary force and clause type are two distinct features of a sentence. They use this observation as an argument for proposing that ForceP should be split into two projections, which they call Illocutionary Force (ILL) and Clause Type (CT). It seems to us that this proposal is on the right track, but we will not tackle it closely in this paper. Nevertheless, we assume that wh-exclamatives have both the sentential type and the illocutionary force of exclamation (For more on this topic, see (Sieiro, 2020, p.87-89).
• 6
  We are not focusing on those kinds of wh-exclamatives here, although they contain very interesting material. For an analysis of this kind of exclamative, see Sibaldo (2016).
• 7
  It’s important to observe here that there are no bare relatives in Portuguese as in English; a relative with no relativizer is ungrammatical in this language:
  (i) Ela é a pessoa que eu conheço.
  ‘She is the person that I know’
  (ii) *Ela é a pessoa eu conheço
  ‘She is the person I know’
• 8
  See Medeiros Junior (2016) for a detailed analysis on the nature of “o que” in Brazilian Portuguese free relatives.
• 9
  Kato (2004) and Medeiros Junior (2018) argue based on Belletti (2004) that there’s no in situ wh in these sentences.
• 10
  We take the relation between [o que] and [que lindo] to be some sort of secondary predication, where [que lindo] selects [o que] as its external argument; considering the fact that both are operator (in this context), both of them can be displaced in satisfaction of criteria, according to the features each one carry. For a more detailed view, seei Sieiro (2020).
• 11
  For some discussion on the derivation o free relatives in Brazilian Portuguese, see Medeiros Junior (2014).
• 12
  . Contrarily to what Kato & Nunes (2009) propose, we are assuming here that Brazilian Portuguese exhibits two kinds of relative clauses: wh-relatives and the that type relatives with the “que” morpheme in Rel⁰. For some other opinion on the same track, see Kennedy (2007) and Medeiros Junior (2020).
• 13
  Of course, without the commas (and the related pauses on oral speech), (56) is perfectly good, considering there is no displacement of the PP and the relative clause is hanging.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  06 July 2020
• Date of issue
  2020

History

• Received
  03 June 2019
• Accepted
  05 Mar 2020