1 Introduction

In this paper we provide a syntactic and a semantic analysis of a construction, present in Romance pro-drop (Catalan, Italian, Spanish), and partial pro-drop languages (Brazilian Portuguese), that consists of the first person strong pronoun (singular or plural) overtly realized at the left periphery of full sentences of a declarative type, by means of which the speaker expresses their point of view. We here focus mainly on data from oral Catalan, as illustrated in (1).1

    1. (1)
    1. a.
    1. [We were thinking of going out for dinner]
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. crec
    2. believe.1psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. vindré.
    2. come.1psg
    1. ‘I think I’m not going to come.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. [Trump is likely to introduce a new world order]
    1. Nosaltres↑,
    2. we
    1. ho
    2. it.neut
    1. veiem
    2. see.1ppl
    1. molt
    2. very
    1. negre
    2. black
    1. tot
    2. everything
    1. plegat.
    2. joined
    1. ‘Altogether the situation looks very bad to us.’

In both examples it looks as if the first person strong pronoun is used in the left periphery as the expression of a reference (or vantage) point (Langacker 1987; 1991) with regard to which the utterance is due to be interpreted. Likewise, in Talmy’s (1978; 2000) terms, the pronoun acts as a reference entity or Ground with respect to which an event is described (Espinal 2011: 73).

This construction, in which the first person strong pronoun corresponds to a non-integrated prosodic unit (graphically represented by an upward arrow), should not be confused with several other constructions in which (i) the pronoun jo ‘I’ is intonationally integrated into the sentence and corresponds to the subject of a propositional attitude predicate or a psychological verb (2) (note that the subject can be null); (ii) jo ‘I’ is in contrastive topic position and can be replaced by other pronouns and DPs (3); and (iii) the pronoun jo ‘I’ is in sentence-final position and conveys a strengthening effect over a proposition p (4).2

    1. (2)
    1. a.
    1. (Jo)
    2. I
    1. crec
    2. believe.1psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. vindré.
    2. come.1psg
    1. ‘I think I’m not going to come.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. (Nosaltres)
    2. we
    1. ho
    2. it.neut
    1. veiem
    2. see.1ppl
    1. molt
    2. very
    1. negre
    2. black
    1. tot
    2. everything
    1. plegat.
    2. joined
    1. ‘Altogether the situation looks very bad to us.’
    1. (3)
    1. I
    2. And
    1. {jo,
    2. I
    1. ell,
    2. he
    1. vostè,
    2. you
    1. la
    2. the
    1. meva
    2. my
    1. filla},
    2. daughter
    1. cal
    2. need
    1. que
    2. that
    1. porti
    2. wear.{1psg/3psg}
    1. mascareta?
    2. mask
    1. ‘And should {I, he, you, my daughter} wear a mask?’
    1. (4)
    1. a.
    1. Crec
    2. believe.1psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. vindré
    2. come.1psg
    1. jo.
    2. I
    1. ‘I strongly believe I’m not coming.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Ho
    2. it.neut
    1. veiem
    2. see.1ppl
    1. molt
    2. very
    1. negre
    2. black
    1. tot
    2. everything
    1. plegat
    2. joined
    1. nosaltres.
    2. we
    1. ‘Altogether we strongly believe that the situation looks very bad.’

From a prosodic perspective it is important to highlight that the examples in (1) differ from the ones in (2) – (4) in that the first person strong pronoun has a special intonation, with a rising pitch accent on the stressed syllable followed by a high boundary tone (L+H* H%).3 See the graphs in Figures 1 and 2, which show the F0 contours of the sentences in (1a) and (2a), respectively, as produced by a native speaker of Catalan.4

Figure 1: Intonation contour of the Catalan utterance in (1a). The first person strong pronoun is marked by a rising LH* pitch accent followed by a high H% boundary tone and a pause. The hanging topic is clearly uttered as an independent intonational phrase. The main clause is uttered as a canonical statement sentence, with a prenuclear rising LH* pitch accent aligned with the verb of the main clause, followed by a nuclear low L* pitch accent aligned with the verb of the subordinate clause and an L% boundary tone.

Figure 2: Intonation contour of the Catalan utterance in (2a). In a canonical declarative sentence, the pronoun is deaccented. The prenuclear rising LH* pitch accent falls on the verb of the main clause, followed by a nuclear low L* pitch accent aligned with the verb of the subordinate clause and an L% boundary tone.

The main goal of this study is to analyze the structure and meaning of the jo–construction as exemplified in (1). In Section 2 we focus on the syntactic properties of jo↑, given that both pro-drop languages and partial pro-drop languages allow null subjects. Therefore, the relevant question that we try to answer in Section 2 is what the syntactic status of jo↑ / nosaltres↑ is. We review the reasons why the first person strong pronoun can neither be considered a subject, nor the subject of a double subject construction (Duarte 1995; Kato 1999). In so doing we also review how jo↑ differs from quirky subjects and from what look like third person expletive subjects and topics in Romance. This section ends by presenting several arguments that support the hypothesis that jo↑ is a (kind of) hanging topic.

In Section 3 we move to the semantic properties of the jo–construction. We show that (i) jo↑ introduces a subjective sentence; (ii) jo↑ refers to a non-selected experiencer, the speaker, that introduces a subjective declaration speech act; (iii) jo↑ can be instantiated as a judge in the periphery of the sentence; and (iv) jo↑ appears to contribute to / constrain the not-at-issue content as well as the at-issue meaning, since on the one hand its presence is the indicator that what follows is a special kind of declaration and, on the other, its presence requires a resumptive element inside the clause, exactly like other hanging topics.

In Section 4 we present a formal analysis of the jo–construction based on a model of the syntax-pragmatics interface that postulates several layers of illocutionary force (Krifka 2019; 2023; 2024a; 2024b). In accordance with this model, we explain how all these syntactic and semantic properties follow. In that way, we aim to support the thesis that heads of Speech Act related operators are represented in syntax, specifically at the left periphery where the syntactization of speech acts is commonly assumed to take place (Ross 1970; Speas & Tenny 2003), thus showing that the study of the jo–construction is relevant for the research on the syntax-information structure interface and pragmatics in general.

2 The syntax of the jo–construction

In this section, we first show that, syntactically, the first person strong pronoun in the jo–construction is not a subject but rather a (kind of) hanging topic. In Section 2.1 we present the core properties of this construction and show how they differ from other close constructions. We argue that the sentence-initial pronoun in the examples in (1) is distinct from the subject of double subject constructions (Duarte 1995; Kato 1999), from the so-called quirky subjects in Romance and from the third person strong expletive pronouns also described in various Romance languages. In Section 2.2, after reviewing the properties postulated for hanging topics (Cinque 1997), we argue that, syntactically, jo↑ is a (kind of) hanging topic and we point out that the construction is only possible with a resumptive element in the clause linked to jo↑/ nosaltres↑.

2.1 Jo↑ is not a subject

First, we focus on the non-subject status of jo. Catalan is a null subject language, and as such it allows subjects not to be pronounced, and be syntactically represented by a null pronoun pro. Alternatively, the subject may also be overt. The two possibilities of example (2a) are illustrated in (5a, b).5

    1. (5)
    1. a.
    1. pro
    2. pro
    1. crec
    2. believe.1psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. vindré.
    2. come.1psg
    1. ‘(I) think I’m not going to come.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Jo
    2. I
    1. crec
    2. believe.1psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. vindré.
    2. come.1psg
    1. ‘I think I’m not going to come.’

The status of jo↑ in jo–constructions is different from subject jo because it may show up even in a left peripheral position of an impersonal existential sentence, such as (6a). In this example it is the null subject in the subordinate clause, whose first person feature is expressed in the verbal morphology, that resumes jo↑, as shown in (6b).

    1. (6)
    1. a.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. hi
    2. there
    1. ha
    2. has.3psg
    1. gent
    2. people
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. l’entenc.
    2. cl.3psg-understand.1psg
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. hi
    2. there
    1. ha
    2. has.3psg
    1. gent
    2. people
    1. que
    2. that
    1. pro
    2.  
    1. no
    2. not
    1. l’entenc.
    2. cl.3psg-understand.1psg
    1. ‘There are people that I don’t understand.’

Jo↑ in jo–constructions may also co-occur with an overt first person subject (7). However, recall from section 1, that the first jo↑ has comma intonation, while the second jo has an integrated intonation:

    1. (7)
    1. a.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. jo
    2. I
    1. crec
    2. believe.1psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. vindré.
    2. come.1psg
    1. ‘I think I’m not going to come.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. jo
    2. I
    1. ho
    2. it.neut
    1. veig
    2. see.1psg
    1. molt
    2. very
    1. negre
    2. black
    1. tot
    2. everything
    1. plegat.
    2. joined
    1. ‘Altogether the situation looks very bad to me.’

The examples in (7) remind us of the so-called “double subject” construction (Duarte 1995; Kato 1999; Costa et al. 2004; Costa 2010; a.o.), which has been postulated in Brazilian Portuguese. In (8), we show that a resumed subject may occur with left-peripheral DPs – nominals, pronouns or quantifiers – that have an integrated intonation with the clause.6

    1. (8)
    1. a.
    1. [O
    2. the
    1. Mario]i
    2. Mario
    1. elei
    2. he
    1. saiu
    2. left
    1. cedo
    2. early
    1. esta
    2. this
    1. manhã.                                                                                          (Brazilian Portuguese)
    2. morning
    1. ‘Mario left early this morning.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. [A
    2. the
    1. incompetência]i
    2. incompetence
    1. elai
    2. it
    1. é
    2. is
    1. de
    2. of
    1. caráter
    2. character
    1. nacional.
    2. national
    1. ‘Incompetence is at a national level.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. [Você]i
    2. you
    1. cêi
    2. you
    1. sempre
    2. always
    1. fala
    2. say
    1. isso.
    2. that
    1. ‘You always say that.’
    1.  
    1. d.
    1. [Toda
    2. every
    1. criança]i
    2. child
    1. elai
    2. she
    1. aprende
    2. learns
    1. rápido
    2. quickly
    1. a
    2. to
    1. gostar
    2. like
    1. de
    2. of
    1. coca-cola.
    2. coca-cola
    1. ‘All children quickly learn to enjoy coke.’

It should be noted that in sharp contrast with the examples in (8), double subject constructions in Brazilian Portuguese are rare when a first person pronoun is resumed (Costa et al. 2004). However, examples are easily found in oral speech (9a), and even on the internet (9b), from a post at a site dedicated to complaints.

    1. (9)
    1. a.
    1. Eu↑,
    2. I
    1. eu
    2. I
    1. não
    2. not
    1. quero
    2. want.1psg
    1. nada
    2. nothing
    1. disso.                                                                                               (Brazilian Portuguese)
    2. of-this
    1. ‘I don’t want any of this.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Então
    2. then
    1. eu
    2. I
    1. eu
    2. I
    1. acho
    2. think
    1. isso
    2. that
    1. um
    2. an
    1. absurdo
    2. absurdity
    1. de
    2. of
    1. uma
    2. an
    1. empresa
    2. enterprise
    1. que
    2. that
    1. se
    2. se.cl
    1. chama
    2. call
    1. Santander
    2. Santander
    1. fazer
    2. do
    1. essa
    2. this
    1. covardia
    2. cowardice
    1. com
    2. with
    1. cliente
    2. client
    1. ‘I think it’s outrageous that an enterprise that calls itself Santander to act so cowardly with clients.’
    2. (https://www.reclameaqui.com.br/santander/entao-eu-eu-acho-isso-um-absurdo-de-uma-empresa-que-se-chama-santander-faze_RPieI8wx6Q555YZb/) Acessed on 08-07-24.

This construction has never been separately studied, since the literature on Brazilian Portuguese focuses on the double subject construction in (8). However, notice that the examples in (9) (see also footnote 1, ex. (ic)) need a special intonation on eu↑ ‘I’ in initial position, differently from what happens in double subject constructions. The Brazilian Portuguese examples in (10), as well as the Catalan sentences in (11), show that eu↑ / jo↑ may occur without a double subject, from which we conclude that the strong pronoun heads a different construction.

    1. (10)
    1. a.
    1. Eu↑,
    2. I
    1. tem
    2. has
    1. gente
    2. people
    1. que
    2. that
    1. me
    2. me
    1. faz
    2. make
    1. sentir
    2. feel
    1. mal.
    2. bad
    1. ‘There are people who makes me feel bad.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Eu↑,
    2. I
    1. parece
    2. seems
    1. que
    2. that
    1. eu
    2. I
    1. não
    2. not
    1. irei.
    2. go.1psg
    1. ‘It seems I’m not going.’
    1. (11)
    1. a.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. hi
    2. there
    1. ha
    2. has.3psg
    1. gent
    2. people
    1. que
    2. that
    1. em
    2. me
    1. fa
    2. makes.3psg
    1. sentir
    2. feel
    1. malament.
    2. bad
    1. ‘There are people that make me feel bad.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. sembla
    2. seems
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. podré
    2. be.able.1psg
    1. venir.
    2. come
    1. ‘It seems that I will not be able to come.’

At the time of characterizing the core properties of the jo–construction, it must also be pointed out that jo↑ differs also from so-called “quirky subjects” (Sigurdsson 1992). In Romance, quirky subjects are dative (12a) or locative (12b) (Belletti & Rizzi 1988; Masullo 1993; Fernández-Soriano 1999; Rigau 1999), and it is this dative or locative subject that is assumed to satisfy the EPP feature of Tense. A sentence that contains both the dative and the locative subjects is ungrammatical (12c), thus suggesting that the dative and locative compete for the same subject position. The dative clitic subject em can be doubled with a mi (12d) (Demonte 1995), and it can even combine with jo↑ (12e), which has a default nominative case, thus supporting once more the conclusion that the peripheral first person strong pronoun is not a subject.

    1. (12)
    1. a.
    1. Em
    2. me
    1. falta
    2. misses.3psg
    1. cafè.
    2. coffee
    1. ‘I’m missing coffee.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Aquí
    2. here
    1. falta
    2. misses.3psg
    1. cafè.
    2. coffee
    1. ‘Coffee is missing here.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. ??/*Aquí
    2. here
    1. em
    2. me
    1. falta
    2. misses.3psg
    1. cafè.
    2. coffee
    1.  
    1. d.
    1. A
    2. to
    1. mi,
    2. me
    1. em
    2. me
    1. falta
    2. misses.3psg
    1. cafè.
    2. coffee
    1. ‘I’m missing coffee.’
    1.  
    1. e.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. a
    2. to
    1. mi
    2. me
    1. em
    2. me
    1. falta
    2. misses.3psg
    1. cafè.
    2. coffee
    1. ‘I’m missing coffee.’

Before we close this section we may also consider the extent to which jo↑ could be conceived an expletive subject or topic similar to third person strong pronouns used for purely pragmatic purposes. Thus, the pronoun ele in European Portuguese is hypothesized as being an expletive element that lexicalizes Force Phrase and, interestingly, can precede an overt first person singular pronoun.

    1. (13)
    1. Ele
    2. it
    1. eu
    2. I
    1. gosto
    2. like.1psg
    1. de
    2. of
    1. socorrer
    2. help
    1. as
    2. the
    1. pessoas!
    2. people
    1. ‘I like to help people!’ (Carrilho 2008: 2, ex. (1))

Similarly, the pronoun ell in Majorcan Catalan and the pronoun ello in Dominican Spanish have been claimed to be used as exclamative particles and discourse markers, respectively.

    1. (14)
    1. a.
    1. ¡Ell
    2. it
    1. ha
    2. must
    1. de
    2. of
    1. ploure
    2. rain
    1. un
    2. one
    1. dia
    2. day
    1. o
    2. or
    1. altre!
    2. other
    1. ‘It is going to have to rain one of these days!’ (Todolí 2002: 1371, ex. (32a))
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Ello
    2. it
    1. hay
    2. has.there
    1. muchos
    2. many
    1. mangos
    2. mangos
    1. este
    2. this
    1. año.
    2. year
    1. ‘This year there are many mangos.’ (Hinzelin & Kayser 2007: 177, ex. (b))

These expletive items share with jo↑ the fact that they are not obligatory but differ in that jo↑ (i) requires a resumptive item in the clause, (ii) is excluded with meteorological verbs, (iii) and does not precede assertions, but rather declarations, as argued in Section 3.

2.2 Jo↑ is a (kind of) hanging topic

In this section we show that jo↑ in the jo–construction is a (kind of) hanging topic, since on the one hand it fulfills the properties attributed to hanging topics in general, but on the other hand it is restricted to first person. The jo–construction shares syntactic properties with hanging topics, but not necessarily their interpretive properties.

Hanging topics have several distinguishing properties that have been pointed out by Cinque (1997: 96; see also Cinque 1990).

    1. (15)
    1. a.
    1. The lefthand phrase can be of category DP only.
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. There may be at most one lefthand phrase.
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. The left-hand phrase occurs typically to the left of a “root” S.
    1.  
    1. d.
    1. The “resumptive element” can be a “pronominal” noun (or epithet, like that poor guy) or an ordinary pronoun, either stressed or clitic.
    1.  
    1. e.
    1. There is no connectedness between the left-hand phrase and the resumptive element (in terms of case-matching, etc.).
    1.  
    1. f.
    1. The relation between the left-hand phrase and the resumptive element is not sensitive to island constraints.

The properties in (15a, c) apply to jo–construction directly. The jo–construction also complies with line (15b). In fact, hanging topics normally cannot be iterated but can be combined with left-dislocated topics, and they are always higher (Benincà & Poletto 2004; López 2016; Catasso 2022). Consider the Catalan example in (16), where en Joan is a hanging topic and de llibres is a left-dislocated topic.7

    1. (16)
    1. ?(A)
    2. to
    1. en
    2. D
    1. Joan,
    2. Joan
    1. de
    2. de
    1. llibres,
    2. books
    1. la
    2. the
    1. Maria
    2. Maria
    1. n’ha
    2. cl.has
    1. regalat
    2. given
    1. molts
    2. many
    1. a
    2. to
    1. ell.
    2. him
    1. ‘Maria has given many books to him.’

Likewise, jo↑ precedes so-called scene setting adverbs and left-dislocated topic constituents, if they are present, as illustrated in (17).8

    1. (17)
    1. a.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. aquest
    2. this
    1. semestre,
    2. semester
    1. a
    2. at
    1. la
    2. the
    1. universitat,
    2. university
    1. em
    2. me
    1. preocupa
    2. worries
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. em
    2. me
    1. contractin.
    2. hire.subj3ppl
    1. ‘This semester, at the university, I’m concerned that they do not hire me.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. ??/*Aquest
    2. this
    1. semestre,
    2. semester
    1. jo↑,
    2. I
    1. a
    2. at
    1. la
    2. the
    1. universitat,
    2. university
    1. em
    2. me
    1. preocupa
    2. worries
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. em
    2. me
    1. contractin.
    2. hire.subj3ppl

Concerning resumption (15d), the literature (Cinque 1990; Benincà & Poletto 2004; López 2016; a.o.) points out that hanging topics require a resumptive item in the clause. Likewise, the jo–construction requires an element in the sentence that resumes the first person in the left periphery. Besides resumption by a pronoun, which may also have a specifier a mi (18a) or a PP per mi (dubbed an attitude-holder or opinion-holder; Bosse et al. 2012; Bylinina 2017) (18b), the expression of this resumption can be in the form of a null subject pro and be instantiated by means of morphological marking on the verb (-o in marxo ‘I leave’) (18c). See also the examples in (1), (6) and (7) above.

    1. (18)
    1. a.
    1. Joi↑,
    2. I
    1. (a
    2. to
    1. mii)
    2. me.1psg
    1. emi
    2. me.1psg
    1. preocupa
    2. worry.3psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. les
    2. the
    1. coses
    2. things
    1. no
    2. not
    1. rutllin.
    2. work.3ppl
    1. ‘I get worried when things don’t work.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Joi↑,
    2. I
    1. per
    2. for
    1. mii,
    2. me
    1. hi
    2. there
    1. ha
    2. has
    1. gent
    2. people
    1. que
    2. that
    1. és
    2. is
    1. imbècil.
    2. idiot
    1. ‘In my opinion there are people who are idiots.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. Joi↑,
    2. I
    1. proi
    2.  
    1. marxoi
    2. leave.1psg
    1. a
    2. to
    1. fer
    2. do
    1. el
    2. the
    1. doctorat
    2. doctorate
    1. a
    2. at
    1. l’estranger.
    2. the-abroad
    1. ‘I’ll leave to do the doctorate abroad.’

If there is neither a verbal first person agreement morphology nor an overt first person pronoun, the jo–construction is discarded. See the minimal pairs in (19) and (20).

    1. (19)
    1. a.
    1. *Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. sembla
    2. seems.3psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. arribaràs
    2. arrive.fut.2psg
    1. tard.
    2. late
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Joi↑,
    2. I
    1. sembla
    2. seems.
    1. que
    2. 3psg
    1. proi
    2. that
    1. arribaréi
    2. arrive.fut.1psg
    1. tard.
    2. late
    1. ‘It seems I’ll arrive late.’
    1. (20)
    1. a.
    1. *Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. en
    2. D
    1. Joan
    2. Joan
    1. et
    2. cl.2psg
    1. trobarà
    2. meet.fut.3psg
    1. a
    2. at
    1. casa.
    2. home
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Joi↑,
    2. I
    1. en
    2. D
    1. Joan
    2. Joan
    1. emi
    2. cl.1psg
    1. trobarà
    2. meet.fut.3psg
    1. a
    2. at
    1. casa.
    2. home
    1. ‘Joan will find me at home.’

Importantly, number agreement is not crucial, as we can also have plural first person resumption.

    1. (21)
    1. a.
    1. Joi↑,
    2. I
    1. sembla
    2. seems.3psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. proi
    2.  
    1. somi
    2. be.1ppl
    1. molt
    2. very
    1. intel·ligents.
    2. intelligent
    1. ‘It seems that we are very intelligent.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Joi↑,
    2. I
    1. ensi
    2. cl.1ppl
    1. fas
    2. do.2psg
    1. sentir
    2. feel
    1. bé.
    2. good
    1. ‘You make us feel good.’

There is an apparent exception to that restriction, however. Unlike clitic pronouns (e.g., the dative em in (22a)), possessive determiners bearing first person features cannot serve as the resumptive element in the clause, no matter whether the possessive appears in preverbal or in postverbal position, (22b, c).

    1. (22)
    1. a.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. se
    2. 3psg.cl
    1. m’ha
    2. cl.1psg-has
    1. espatllat
    2. broken
    1. l’ordinador.
    2. the-computer
    1. ‘My computer broke down on me.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. [el
    2. the
    1. meu
    2. poss.1psg
    1. ordinador]
    2. computer
    1. s’ha
    2. cl-has
    1. espatllat.
    2. broken
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. *Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. s’ha
    2. cl-has
    1. espatllat
    2. broken
    1. [el
    2. the
    1. meu
    2. poss.1psg
    1. ordinador].
    2. computer

As pointed out by a reviewer the difference illustrated in these examples is that whereas (22a) is interpreted as a statement about the speaker, (22b, c) are statements about the speaker’s computer. However, regrettably, this semantic difference does not explain the ungrammaticality of (22b, c).

We consider that the impossibility of (22b, c) is due to the fact that meu is embedded in a DP whose phi-features do not agree in person with jo↑. Therefore, we postulate that the ungrammaticality of these examples arises because of the A-over-A principle (Chomsky 1964), which states that if a rule ambiguously refers to A in a structure of the form of (23), the rule must apply to the higher, more inclusive, node (marked with a box).

    1. (23)

This principle rules out meu as a potential pronoun to resume jo↑. Since the highest DP projection bears third person, according to the A-over-A principle the embedded DP bearing the first person pronoun is not available to fulfill the requirement for jo↑ resumption. See the simplified structure in (24).9

    1. (24)

Crucially, it must be emphasized once again that jo↑ is a kind of hanging topic – that is, its peculiarity is related to being first person singular, whereas hanging topics are tacitly assumed in the literature to be third person DPs (Cinque 1997; López 2016; a.o.) and, hence, are not subject to the A-over-A principle.10

Concerning case-matching (15e), it has been claimed in the literature that hanging topics do not generally agree in case (see also López 2016). These constituents take a default case marking, which in Catalan (like in Italian, Portuguese and Spanish) is nominative (Kato 1999; Schütze 2001; Villa-García 2023).11 This notwithstanding, notice that the strong pronoun with default case can be coindexed not only with a default nominative subject (as in (7), (9), (10b)), but also with a pronoun in accusative or dative case inside the sentence, as illustrated in (10a), (11a), (12e) and in (25).

    1. (25)
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. em
    2. me
    1. sembla
    2. looks-like.3psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. em
    2. me
    1. quedo
    2. remain.1psg
    1. a
    2. at
    1. casa.
    2. home
    1. ‘I think I’m going to stay home.’

Concerning islandhood (15f), it has been claimed that hanging topics are not sensitive to islands (Cinque 1997; Villa-Garcia 2023). In other words, unlike what happens in the case of sequences containing movement, this restriction does not apply to the jo–construction in strong islands such as the Coordinate Structure Constraint, as illustrated in (26) (or the Complex DP Constraint, illustrated in (10a) and (11a)). In fact, the contrast in (26) shows the possibility of a resumptive pronoun occurring in a jo–construction (26a), as opposed to a Left Dislocation construction (26b), in which there is leftward movement.

    1. (26)
    1. a.
    1.   Jo↑,
    2.   I
    1. l’examen
    2. the-exam
    1. ens
    2. cl.1ppl
    1. ha
    2. has
    1. sortit
    2. exited
    1. malament
    2. badly
    1. a
    2. to
    1. mi
    2. me
    1. i
    2. and
    1. a
    2. to
    1. ella.
    2. her
    1.   ‘Neither she nor I felt we did well in the test.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *A
    2.   to
    1. mi
    2. me
    1. l’examen
    2. the-exam
    1. ens
    2. cl.1ppl
    1. ha
    2. has
    1. sortit
    2. exited
    1. malament
    2. badly
    1. i
    2. and
    1. a
    2. to
    1. ella.
    2. her
    1. (adapted from Villa-García 2023: 274, exs. (18a, b))

In sum, in this section we have argued that jo↑ in the jo–construction introduces a (kind of) hanging topic. While jo↑ obeys the properties in (15), it should be highlighted that, unlike regular hanging topics, the jo–construction only introduces a first person strong pronoun at the highest left periphery position, resumed by an item (a first person null or overt strong pronoun or a weak pronoun), inside the co-occurring sentence.

3 The semantics of the jo–construction

In this section we focus on the core semantic properties that characterize the construction here under study. First, we show that jo↑ introduces a subjective statement by means of which an experiencer (Bylinina 2017), instantiated as the speaker, is performing a speech act. Subjective statements introduced by jo↑ are argued to be distinct from subjective sentences containing predicates of personal taste and psychological predicates: whereas in the jo–construction the experiencer is the speaker (which can be resumed by a first person judge; i.e. the individual on which the evaluation of p depends), in constructions with verbs of personal taste and the like the judge is expressed by first, second or third person pronouns, or even by full DPs. Second, we show that such subjective statements differ from sentences containing sentence topics followed by assertions (Reinhart 1981), in that only the latter add propositions to the context set of propositions accepted as true in a given discourse. Third, we show that jo↑ introduces an act of declaration, in the sense that the speaker at the time of uttering this construction is performing a subjective declaration speech act (cf. Krifka 2023; 2024a; 2024b). Finally, sentences preceded by jo↑ are shown to introduce an interpretive puzzle, since they appear to contribute to both the not-at-issue and the at-issue contents. The solution to this puzzle will come in Section 4.

3.1 Experiencers: speakers and judges

We here show that sentences preceded by jo↑ are distinct from sentences containing predicates of personal taste (as well as psychological predicates and verbs of propositional attitude). We show that, while the experiencer of the jo–construction can have multiple roles, as speaker (jo↑ ‘I’) and judge (the resumptive overt subject jo ‘I’, the opinion-holder PP per mi ‘as for me’, or the double dative a mi ‘to me’), and must be animate or sentient, the judge of predicates of personal taste (and the like) does not have to be.

First, consider the incompatibility of jo↑ with so-called predicates of personal taste (e.g., fun, tasty; Lasersohn 2005: 643, adapted from ex. (1)).12

    1. (27)
    1. a.
    1. Les
    2. the.pl
    1. muntanyes
    2. mountain.pl
    1. russes
    2. Russian.pl
    1. són
    2. are
    1. divertides.
    2. fun.pl
    1. ‘Roller coasters are fun.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. {Per
    2. for
    1. mi,
    2. me
    1. per
    2. for
    1. tu,
    2. you
    1. per
    2. for
    1. als
    2. the.pl
    1. visitants,
    2. visitors
    1. per
    2. for
    1. a
    2.  
    1. l’ajuntament},
    2. the-townhall
    1. les
    2. the.pl
    1. muntanyes
    2. mountain.pl
    1. russes
    2. Russian.pl
    1. són
    2. are
    1. divertides.
    2. fun.pl
    1. ‘{For me, for you, for the visitors, for the townhall}, roller coasters are fun.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. *Jo↑, les muntanyes russes són divertides.
    1.  
    1. d.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. les
    2. the.pl
    1. muntanyes
    2. mountain.pl
    1. russes
    2. Russian.pl
    1. em
    2. cl.1psg
    1. diverteixen.
    2. amuse.3ppl
    1. ‘Roller coasters amuse me.’

Example (27b) shows that opinion-holders (i.e., ‘judge’ PPs) can be second and third person nominal expressions. Thus, while the expressions per mi / per tu / per als visitants / per a l’ajuntament introduce an individual parameter (the judge) with respect to which the truth of the sentence is evaluated and relativized, jo↑ is not a mere instantiation of the judge. The contribution of jo↑ is higher than the levels where the truth of p is evaluated. Furthermore, (27c) shows explicitly that, even though one might infer that it is the speaker of the utterance ‘Roller coasters are fun’ in a specific context who finds roller coasters fun, an explicit instantiation of the first person inside the sentence (i.e., the clitic em ‘me’) is required to make the sequence well-formed, as illustrated in (27d).

A similar paradigm is illustrated in (28) with an adjectival predicate of the ‘tasty’ class. The ill-formedness of (28c) is due to the absence of a first person element to resume jo↑, a problem solved in (28d) by a first person affix on the verb and in (28e) by a first person clitic affixed to a psychological verb.

    1. (28)
    1. a.
    1. Aquesta
    2. this
    1. cervesa
    2. beer
    1. és
    2. is
    1. deliciosa.
    2. delicious
    1. ‘This beer is delicious.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. {A
    2. to
    1. mi,
    2. me
    1. em;
    2. cl.1psg.cl
    1. a
    2. to
    1. la
    2. the
    1. meva
    2. my
    1. parella,
    2. partner
    1. li}
    2. cl.3psg
    1. sembla
    2. seems
    1. que
    2. that
    1. aquesta
    2. this
    1. cervesa
    2. beer
    1. és
    2. is
    1. deliciosa.
    2. delicious
    1. ‘{To me, to my partner} it seems that this beer is delicious.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. *Jo↑, aquesta cervesa és deliciosa.
    1.  
    1. d.
    1. Joi↑,
    2. I
    1. proi
    2.  
    1. troboi
    2. find.1psg
    1. deliciosa
    2. delicious
    1. aquesta
    2. this
    1. cervesa.
    2. beer
    1. ‘I find this beer to be delicious.’
    1.  
    1. e.
    1. Joi↑,
    2. I
    1. mi’agrada
    2. me.like.3psg
    1. aquesta
    2. this
    1. cervesa.
    2. beer
    1. ‘I like this beer.’

The conclusion is that jo↑, as an instantiation of the speaker, can combine with verbs of personal taste only when inside the sentence there is a resumptive item instantiating a first person judge.

3.2 Jo↑ is incompatible with assertions

In Section 2.2 we argued that jo↑ is a kind of hanging topic. Here we show that hanging topics differ from sentence topics (the overt subject pronoun jo ‘I’, the opinion-holder per mi ‘as for me’, and the quirky subject em ‘me’ of psychological verbs) in that sentence topics precede assertions, correspond to topics of declarative sentences (used as assertions), and introduce a relation between an argument and a proposition relative to a context (Reinhart 1981). Consider the discourse in (29):

    1. (29)
    1. A.
    1. Que
    2. that
    1. hi
    2. there
    1. ha
    2. has
    1. cerveses
    2. beers
    1. a
    2. in
    1. la
    2. the
    1. nevera?
    2. fridge
    1. ‘Are there any beers in the fridge?’
    1.  
    1. B.
    1. Jo
    2. I
    1. he
    2. have
    1. estat
    2. been
    1. treballant
    2. working
    1. tota
    2. whole
    1. la
    2. the
    1. tarda.
    2. afternoon
    1. ‘I’ve been working the whole afternoon.’ (Payrató 1996: 46, exs. (14)–(15))

By uttering (29B) the speaker makes an assertion from which the proposition that they do not know whether there are any beers left in the fridge should be inferred. In (29B) jo is a sentence topic that precedes a new assertion: a proposition to be added to the context set of a given discourse (Stalnaker 1978). In this sense sentence topics combine with assertions that add information about what is the matter of current interest or concern and can be analyzed in terms of truth conditions.

The use of jo↑ instead of jo in (29B) would be inappropriate, since this subjective statement would not satisfy the informative requirements of the conversational exchange initiated by the question in (29A). Therefore, the hypothesis we postulate is that by means of the jo–construction the speaker is performing an act of declaration, although of a specific kind – as we argue, which may be hidden.

Most commonly, declarations differ from assertions in that they have no truth value (Krifka 2024b: 56). To illustrate this claim, consider the conversational exchanges in (30) and (31). While (30A) introduces an assertion with respect to which a reaction such as That’s not true is acceptable, (31A) does not allow a similar reaction.13

    1. (30)
    1. A.
    1.   Em
    2.   me
    1. sembla
    2. seems
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. vindré.
    2. come.1psg
    1.   ‘I think I will not come.’
    1.  
    1. B.
    1.   Això
    2.   that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. és
    2. is
    1. veritat.
    2. true
    1. Saps
    2. know
    1. perfectament
    2. perfectly
    1. que
    2. that
    1. vindràs.
    2. come.2psg
    1.   ‘That’s not true. You know you will come.’
    1. (31)
    1. A.
    1.   Jo↑,
    2.   I
    1. em
    2. me
    1. sembla
    2. seems
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. vindré.
    2. come.1psg
    1.   ‘I think I will not come.’
    1.  
    1. B.
    1. #Això
    2.   that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. és
    2. is
    1. veritat.
    2. true
    1.  
    1. B’.
    1.   Això
    2.   that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. pot
    2. can
    1. ser.
    2. be
    1. Hauries
    2. should.2psg
    1. de
    2. of
    1. venir.
    2. come
    1.   ‘That can’t be the case. You should come.’

These examples show that while (30A) can be falsified, (31A) cannot. Against (31A) the addressee can only express disagreement (31B’), by means of which the interlocutor’s declaration is rejected. Thus, (30A) differs significantly from (31A). The jo–construction introduces a declaration speech act, which directly changes a situation once it has been uttered. This is possible because the speaker creates a new fact by their utterance, and crucially the contribution of jo↑ is at a level of representation higher than the levels where the truth of p is evaluated.

The hypothesis that the jo–construction serves the speaker to perform an act of declaration conveys the prediction that the speaker does not make any public commitment to the truth of p, since declarations differ from assertions in that they do not convey the social commitment characteristic of assertions (Krifka 2024b). Evidence supporting this claim is provided by the incompatibility of jo↑ with expressions that appear to modify the commitment to the truth of p, such as: veritablement ‘truly’, vertaderament ‘truthfully’, de veritat ‘for real’, positivament ‘positively’, sens dubte ‘no doubt’, amb certesa ‘with certainty’. Consider the data in (32), which exemplify that what the speaker adds to the common ground by means of the jo–construction is not a contribution to the truth-conditions of the sentence.

    1. (32)
    1. a.
    1. Veritablement,
    2. truly
    1. hi
    2. there
    1. ha
    2. has.3psg
    1. gent
    2. people
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. l’entenc.
    2. cl.3psg-understand.1psg
    1. ‘Truly, there are people that I don’t understand.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. hi
    2. there
    1. ha
    2. has.3psg
    1. gent
    2. people
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. l’entenc.
    2. cl.3psg-understand.1psg
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. *Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. veritablement
    2. truly
    1. hi
    2. there
    1. ha
    2. has.3psg
    1. gent
    2. people
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. l’entenc.14
    2. cl.3psg-understand.1psg

Likewise, the jo–construction is incompatible with exclamatives, the reason being that exclamatives introduce a commitment to a psychological state s (of surprise or annoyance) with respect to p (Villalba 2024).15 Notice that the exclamative in (33a) contains a first person judge PP. Therefore, the ill-formedness of (33b) must be due to the incompatibility between jo↑ and exclamatives.

    1. (33)
    1. a.
    1. Que
    2. that
    1. car
    2. expensive
    1. que
    2. that
    1. és
    2. is
    1. aquest
    2. this
    1. cotxe
    2. car
    1. per
    2. to
    1. mi!
    2. me
    1. ‘How expensive is this car to me!
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. *Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. que
    2. that
    1. car
    2. expensive
    1. que
    2. that
    1. és
    2. is
    1. aquest
    2. this
    1. cotxe
    2. car
    1. per
    2. to
    1. mi!
    2. me

Two caveats are in order here. First, from a crosslinguistic perspective it is unclear which modifiers are precisely commitment modifiers. Thus, while German sicherlich ‘certainly’ is analyzed as a judgment modifier in Krifka (2023), the data in (32) apply equally to Catalan amb certesa / certament ‘certainly’, thus suggesting that these expressions are commitment modifiers: ‘it is certain that p’.

Second, while according to Krifka (2024b) declarations are claimed not to allow for epistemic and evidential modifiers, (34) shows that the Catalan jo–construction is compatible with judgment (epistemic, evidential, evaluative) modifiers.

    1. (34)
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. {possiblement,
    2. possibly
    1. evidentment,
    2. obviously
    1. afortunadament},
    2. fortunately
    1. (jo)
    2. I
    1. marxo
    2. leave.1psg
    1. a
    2. to
    1. fer
    2. do
    1. el
    2. the
    1. doctorat
    2. doctorate
    1. a
    2. at
    1. l’estranger.
    2. the-abroad
    1. ‘{Possibly, obviously, fortunately}, I’ll leave to do my doctorate abroad.’

To sum up, in this section we have argued that jo–constructions differ from assertions in that they cannot be evaluated for truth and they resemble declarations in not allowing commitment modifiers. However, in contrast to Krifka’s (2024a; 2024b) analysis of declarations, jo–constructions admit judgment modifiers; jo–constructions are incompatible with certainty operators but are compatible with operators that express the speaker’s uncertainty towards p, which suggests that in their act of declaration the speaker declares that p is a fact relative to the worlds they know.

3.3 Jo↑ introduces an act of subjective declaration

Semantically speaking, although most commonly no explicit performative is expressed by means of the jo–construction, jo↑ always introduces a declaration speech act at the time of the utterance act itself (Krifka 2023; 2024a; 2024b), no matter whether a performative predicate declare is overt, as illustrated in (35), or covert.

    1. (35)
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. per
    2. by
    1. aquest
    2. this
    1. mitjà,
    2. means
    1. et
    2. you
    1. declaro
    2. declare.1psg
    1. el
    2. the
    1. meu
    2. my
    1. legítim
    2. rightful
    1. hereu.
    2. heir
    1. ‘I, hereby, declare you my rightful heir.’

The act of uttering (35) is an act of declaration because by means of it the speaker does not merely say something but enforces an index change at the time of uttering the sentence (Szabolcsi 1982); the speaker declares p and has the authority to perform that change. Most importantly, this is the case whenever jo↑ precedes an utterance, even in the absence of an explicit performative, as illustrated in all the examples presented so far.

Jo↑ is the instantiation of a hanging topic projection whose head encodes an indexical feature [spk] (for speaker) that constrains the interpretation of the co-occurring statement as a declaration of the speaker’s subjective point of view. Therefore, as expected, in a jo–construction jo↑ is compatible with and must precede speaker-oriented modifiers (Schreiber 1972), whereas in regular assertions the adverb must precede the subject. This property follows from the hypothesis that speaker-oriented adverbs modify the speech act layer, whereas the contribution of jo↑ is at a higher hanging topic projection. Consider the minimal pair in (36).

    1. (36)
    1. a.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. personalment,
    2. personally
    1. espero
    2. hope.1psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. siguem
    2. be.subj1ppl
    1. més
    2. more
    1. solidaris.
    2. supportive
    1. ‘Personally, I hope that we become more supportive.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Personalment,
    2. personally
    1. jo
    2. I
    1. espero
    2. hope.1psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. siguem
    2. be.subj1ppl
    1. més
    2. more
    1. solidaris.
    2. supportive
    1. ‘Personally, I hope that we become more supportive.’

In (36b) the strong pronoun jo is not any longer a hanging topic but corresponds to an overt subject (see footnote 3).

The examples in (36) and (37) constitute an additional argument in support of our hypothesis that jo↑ at the syntax-pragmatics interface sits in a syntactic position different from the one assigned to judge expressions (nominatives (36b), datives (37b) and opinion-holders (37c)).

    1. (37)
    1. a.
    1. ??/*Personalment,
    2. personally
    1. jo↑,
    2. I
    1. espero
    2. hope.1psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. siguem
    2. be.subj1ppl
    1. més
    2. more
    1. solidaris.
    2. supportive
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Francament,
    2. frankly
    1. a
    2. to
    1. mi,
    2. me
    1. els
    2. the
    1. jutges
    2. judges
    1. em
    2. me
    1. sembla
    2. seems
    1. que
    2. that
    1. ens
    2. us
    1. prenen
    2. take
    1. el
    2. the
    1. pèl.
    2. hair
    1. ‘Frankly, the judges seem to me that they complicate our lifes.’
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. Honestament,
    2. honestly
    1. per
    2. for
    1. mi,
    2. me
    1. millor
    2. better
    1. que
    2. that
    1. l’extrema
    2. the-extreme
    1. dreta
    2. right
    1. perdi
    2. lose
    1. les
    2. the
    1. eleccions.
    2. elections
    1. ‘Honestly, for me, it’s better that the extreme right lose the elections.’

Before we close Section 3, let us present an interpretive puzzle.

3.4 Constraints to the not-at-issue meaning and to the at-issue meaning

The previous sections support the hypothesis that sentence-initial jo↑ is an experiencer non-argumental expression that introduces a subjective declaration speech act compatible with judgment modifiers. These properties, together with the fact that jo↑ does not contribute to the truth conditions of p, appear to suggest that the strong pronoun jo↑ contributes to not-at-issue meaning (Potts 2005). Example (38), repeated from (1a), can only be interpreted as a declaration by the speaker that they believe they will not come, thus showing that jo↑ is out of the scope of negation. The same applies to the neg-raising construction in (38b).

    1. (38)
    1. a.
    1. [We were thinking of going out for dinner]
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. crec
    2. believe.1psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. vindré.
    2. come.futind1psg
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. no
    2. not
    1. crec
    2. believe.1psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. vingui.
    2. come.pressubj1psg
    1. ‘I think I’m not going to come.’

Can jo↑ be questioned? The answer is negative as well. The jo–construction can only precede declarative sentences that are declarations, which excludes requests and commands. Accordingly, the possibility of finding examples such as (39) is discarded.

    1. (39)
    1. *Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. vinc
    2. come.presind1psg
    1. a
    2. to
    1. casa
    2. house
    1. teva?
    2. yours

Likewise, the sequence in (40) shows that jo↑ cannot co-occur and combine with a command.16

    1. (40)
    1. *Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. marxa!
    2. go-away

All together these properties suggest that jo↑ contributes to (or constrains) the not-at-issue meaning.

However, we have repeatedly shown that jo↑ requires a resumptive first person pronoun within the sentence, supporting the hypothesis that the representation of the speaker is part of syntax. Furthermore, the previous discussion supports that jo↑ is part of ‘what is said’ (Grice 1975), a claim to which we add that jo↑ does not contribute to implicatures (its meaning cannot be cancelled without introducing contradiction, and its meaning is independent of the utterance in which it occurs), which suggests that jo↑ constrains the at-issue content of the sentence.

The solution to this puzzle is given in Section 4 where we present an analysis of the jo–construction at the syntax-pragmatics interface that consists in postulating a Hanging Topic Phrase with a [spk] head, and a Speech Act Phrase with a declare operator head.

To sum up this section, firstly we have argued that the jo–construction instantiates a kind of subjective statement headed by a non-argumental experiencer. Secondly, we have argued that the strong pronoun jo↑ instantiates the experiencer role of speaker, to be distinguished from the experiencer role of judge that is instantiated either by means of nominative and dative expressions or by judge PPs. Thirdly, we have argued that jo↑ indicates that the speaker is performing an act of subjective declaration compatible with judgment modifiers, neither an assertion nor a default (objective) declaration. Finally, we have shown that the jo–construction introduces a semantic puzzle, for jo↑ appears to contribute to / constrain the not-at-issue content as well as to the at-issue meaning.

4 The analysis of the jo–construction

In this section we aim to provide an analysis of the jo–construction at the syntax-pragmatics interface that is able to account for the syntactic and semantic properties discussed in the previous sections. In particular, we address (i) that jo↑ is not fully integrated with the rest of the sentence; (ii) that it behaves like a special (kind of) hanging topic reduced to the first person; and, finally, (iii) that by means of the jo–construction the speaker is performing a subjective declaration speech act, which may be hidden.

To account for these phenomena we support a particular version of how syntax interfaces with pragmatics.17 Following Speas and Tenny’s (2003) idea that high in the tree structure syntax encodes information that assists in the performance of speech acts and that sentience (i.e., animacy, subjectivity or experiencer-hood) plays an interesting role in grammar, Krifka (2019; 2023; 2024a; 2024b) also postulates a model for the syntax-pragmatics interface that includes a representation of sentience. However, Krifka’s approach differs from Speas and Tenny’s model in that he provides a more fine-grained analysis of different types of speech acts, including assertions, declarations, exclamations, declarative questions, among others (wishes and reminders). Moreover, besides keeping Speas and Tenny’s Speech Act Phrase, Krifka introduces two additional projections: Commitment Phrase (ComP) and Judgment Phrase (JP). ActP is the projection related to the speaker’s performance of a speech act, ComP is the projection that maps the speaker’s social commitment to act on p, and JP is the projection that encodes the speaker’s subjective epistemic and evidential attitude or private judgement about p. Consider the structure in (41) where the dot symbol corresponds to an assert operator, the turnstile ⊢ is used to notate the public commitment to the truth of a proposition p, and J– is used to notate a private judgment of the speaker towards p.

    1. (41)
    1. [ActP [Act' [Act˚ •] [ComP [Com' [Com˚ ⊢ ] [JP [J' [J˚ J– ] [TP p ]]]]]]]assertion
    2. (adapted from Krifka 2023, (10))

This structure contrasts with the one in (42), which corresponds to a declaration speech act, whose main characteristic is that it lacks both ComP and JP.

    1. (42)
    1. [ActP [Act' [Act˚ •] [TP p ]]]declaration
    2. (adapted from Krifka 2024b: 56, (23))

According to Krifka (2024a), whereas an assertion introduces both a performative and an informative update of the common ground: the speaker is committed to the truth of p, and the addressee must incorporate this p to the common ground, a declaration such as the one in (31A) only introduces a performative update: the speaker by uttering the speech act makes a declaration and induces this specific change in the world without adding any p to a body of information about the world. As a consequence of this speech act, there are no side effects on the addressee such that they also believe p.18

With these antecedents in mind, the analysis we postulate of the jo–construction at the syntax-pragmatics interface provides syntactic positions for ActP and JP. We thus account for the fact that in the jo–construction (i) the speaker is the sentient individual whose point of view is reflected in the declarative sentence; and (ii) jo↑, as a special kind of hanging topic, constrains the illocutionary force of the sentence (see also Frey & Meinunger 2019) by introducing a subjective declaration speech act. By means of this act of declaration the speaker performs a common ground update at the time of uttering the sentence relative to the worlds they know, without expecting the addressee to accept the truth of that p. The analysis we postulate also allows the representation of different instantiations of judges (nominative and dative arguments of psychological verbs and verbs of propositional attitude, as well as prepositional opinion-holders, so-called judge PPs) at the layer of JP. Hence, we support Krifka’s claim that declaration speech acts are structurally simpler than assertions. However, while for Krifka (2024a; 2024b) declarations lack JP and ComP, the analysis we offer of the jo–construction postulates JP, as argued for in Section 3.2.

In what remains of this section we provide support for the structure in (43):19

    1. (43)
    1. [HTopP [HTop' [HTop˚ [spk]] [ActP [Act' [Act˚ declare ] [JP [J' [J˚ J– ] [TP p ]]]]]]]

In the next two sections we show what the syntactic positions for judges and judge modifiers are (Section 4.1), and what the syntactic position for speech act modifiers is (Section 4.2).

4.1 External Merge positions for judges and judge modifiers

We have already shown that the jo–construction, being an instantiation of a subjective sentence, may contain various coindexed instances of an affected experiencer (Bosse et al. 2012) at different layers. Consider the data in (44), which illustrates that when jo↑ is explicitly stated, the opinion-holder PP and the judge must be first person too.20

    1. (44)
    1. a.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. {per
    2. for
    1. mi,
    2. me
    1. *per
    2. for
    1. ell }
    2. he
    1. no
    2. not
    1. cal
    2. need
    1. que
    2. that
    1. vinguis.
    2. come.2psg
    1. ‘There is no need for you to come.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. {a
    2. to
    1. mi,
    2. me
    1. em
    2. me
    1. /
    2.  
    1. *a
    2. to
    1. ell,
    2. he
    1. li }
    2. him
    1. dol
    2. hurts.3psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. estiguis
    2. are.2psg
    1. trista.
    2. sad
    1. ‘It upsets me / him that you’re sad.’

The syntactic structure we postulate for these examples is given in (45):

    1. (45)
    1. [HTopP joi↑[spk] [ActP declare [JP per mii [JP a mii [TP …T1P … ]]]]]

This structure combines a hanging topic with various sentential topics. The lowest a mii corresponds to the expression of the judge, when TP contains a psychological verb or a verb of propositional attitude. JP holds the constituent with respect to which the truth of the proposition is relativized (Lasersohn 2005; Stephenson 2007; among others). This constituent can take either the form of nominative or dative case. The intermediate per mii corresponds to the expression of the opinion-holder, usually introduced by means of the preposition per ‘as for’ (see the term judge-PP, Bylinina 2017; Perspective Phrase, Dayal 2023). The highest jo↑ corresponds to the expression of the speaker, which is the trigger of an act of subjective declaration. The structure in (45) requires that the speaker and the judge must agree in person, but not in case and number.

The structures in (43) and (45) also make explicit that speakers and judges are part of ‘what is said’ and because of this they must be represented in syntax. However, recall (Section 3.4) that jo↑ appears not to be part of the at-issue meaning, since it cannot be questioned or negated, and it does not contribute to the ‘truth-conditional content’. On the other hand, jo↑ imposes first person resumption with some constituent within the sentence, expressed either in the JP layer, in the TP layer, or on both, and this is precisely its contribution to the at-issue content. Therefore, the puzzle we presented in Section 3.4 is solved at the time we represent the jo–construction in syntax, since jo↑ in (43) and (45) – as a hanging topic – sits in a projection higher than ActP, while it is resumed by another first person element within JP or TP.

Let us now consider how the structure in (45) is altered at the time the hanging topic jo↑ interacts with judgement modifiers, as described in Section 3.2. Consider first the evidential and epistemic modifiers in (46), which are represented in the structure in (47).21

    1. (46)
    1. a.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. evidentment,
    2. obviously
    1. (jo)
    2. I
    1. no
    2. not
    1. faré
    2. make.1psg
    1. cap
    2. any
    1. pas.
    2. step
    1. ‘Obviously, I won’t take a step.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. probablement,
    2. probably
    1. (jo)
    2. I
    1. marxo
    2. leave.1psg
    1. a
    2. to
    1. fer
    2. do
    1. el
    2. the
    1. doctorat
    2. doctorate
    1. a
    2. at
    1. l’estranger.
    2. the-abroad
    1. ‘Probably, I’ll leave to do the doctorate abroad.’
    1. (47)
    1. [HTopP joi↑[spk] [ActP declare [JP {evidentment, probablement} [JP joi [TP …T1P … ]]]]]

In the next section we consider the External Merge position for speech act modifiers that may co-occur with the jo–construction.

4.2 External Merge position for speech act modifiers

Consider the speaker-oriented adverbs in (48), represented in the structure in (49).

    1. (48)
    1. a.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. honestament,
    2. honestly
    1. jo
    2. I
    1. opino
    2. think.1psg
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. té
    2. has
    1. raó.
    2. reason
    1. ‘Honestly, I think {s/he, you [formal]}{is, are} not right.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. personalment,
    2. personally
    1. a
    2. to
    1. mi
    2. me
    1. em
    2. me
    1. sembla
    2. looks-like
    1. que
    2. that
    1. hauríem
    2. should.1ppl
    1. de
    2. of
    1. ser
    2. be
    1. més
    2. more
    1. solidaris.
    2. supportive
    1. ‘Personally, I feel we should be more supportive.’
    1. (49)
    1. [HTopP joi↑ [ActP {honestament, personalment} [Act˚ declare] [JP {joi, a mii} [TP …T1P … ]]]]

As pointed out in Section 3.3 the ill-formedness of sequences in which the hanging topic follows the speaker-oriented adverb is accounted for by postulating that: (i) jo↑ merges in a position higher than ActP, and (ii) speaker-oriented adverbs merge in ActP.

We are now left with the meaning associated with the structure in (43). We hold with Krifka (2024a; 2024b) that an act of declaration uttered in a context c conveys the performative update of c with the proposition expressed by the declarative sentence it is based on. The speaker of a declaration speech act changes the indices of the context (Szabolcsi 1982) and causes a common ground update at the very moment the utterance is produced, but crucially the speaker is not involved in a social commitment nor makes the addressee accept the truth of that p. This means that in declaration speech acts the speaker is the only one responsible for the performative update and does not trigger an informative update of c on the side of the addressee. That is, declarations (in Krifka’s sense) are assumed to be simpler than assertions (see (41)) and, accordingly, they lack ComP in their formal structure (see (42)). Besides, the structure in (43) differs from the one in (42) by including a reference to the speaker above ActP and a reference to the judge below ActP, in JP, which makes it a subjective declaration.

The distinction between declarations (that only involve a performative update) and assertions (that involve both informative and performative updates) accounts for the meaning differences observed between (30A) and (31A) of Section 3.2, repeated here for convenience as (50) and (52), with their corresponding structures in (51) and (53).

    1. (50)
    1. Em
    2. me
    1. sembla
    2. seems
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. vindré.
    2. come.1psg
    1. ‘I think I will not come.’
    1. (51)
    1. [ActP [Act˚ • ] [ComP [Com˚ ⊢ ] [JP [J˚ J– ] [TP em sembla que no vindré ]]]]
    1. (52)
    1. Jo↑,
    2. I
    1. em
    2. me
    1. sembla
    2. seems
    1. que
    2. that
    1. no
    2. not
    1. vindré.
    2. come.1psg
    1. ‘I think I will not come.’
    1. (53)
    1. [HTopP joi↑[spk] [Act˚ declare ] [JP [J˚ J– ] [TP em sembla que no vindré ]]]

The example in (50), an assertion, conveys a performative update followed by a perlocutionary effect on the addressee, by means of which (s)he is informed that the proposition ‘I will not come’ is true and restricts an input context c to a new output context set c’. In (52), a subjective declaration, jo↑ hosts an indexical reference to the speaker, who directly serves to indicate that the utterance conveys a performative update. Its meaning is such that it changes indices of the context c so that the proposition Em sembla que no vindré holds at a new index i’, once the declaration has been uttered. Thus, the jo–construction introduces a declaration, as represented in (53), by which the speaker believes p and there are no side effects on the hearer such that he also believes p.

5 Conclusion

In this paper, we have focused on a special kind of syntactic construction that to our knowledge has received little attention in the literature on Catalan and other Romance (pro-drop and partial pro-drop) languages, but which is particularly interesting for the study of the left periphery and the syntax-pragmatics interface. This construction, dubbed as the ‘jo ‘I’ – construction’, contains a first person strong pronoun that is pronounced with a special intonation: a rising pitch accent on the stressed syllable followed by a high boundary tone. We have argued that, syntactically, this pronoun is a (kind of) hanging topic that, like ordinary hanging topics, requires resumption in the sentence; in this case, a first person resumptive element in the clause. Furthermore, this construction is special, as it encodes overtly in syntax the speaker of the act of declaration. Semantically, this construction introduces a subjective sentence that focuses on the speaker’s point of view but must be distinguished from other sentences that simply introduce an individual judge parameter (such as an opinion-holder or a judge nominative/dative). Finally, we have shown that by means of the jo–construction the speaker performs an act of subjective declaration, usually hidden, which accounts for its compatibility with judgment modifiers. The analysis here postulated for the jo–construction at the syntax-pragmatics interface also predicts its incompatibility with commitment modifiers, with exclamatives, requests and commands.

Abbreviations

1psg = first person singular, 2psg = second person singular, 3psg = third person singular, 1ppl = first person plural, 3ppl = third person plural, pl = plural, cl = clitic, neut = neuter, poss = possessive, infl = inflection, fut = future, subj = subjunctive, futind = future indicative, pressubj = present subjunctive, HTopP = Hanging Topic Phrase, ActP = Act Phrase, ComP = Commitment Phrase, JP = Judgment Phrase, spk = speaker

Funding information

We acknowledge financial support from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (PID2020-112801GB-100 and PID2023-150347NB-I00); the Generalitat de Catalunya (2021SGR787); the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq-Brazil, 303015/2022-5); the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP-Brazil, 2023/04610-0); and the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT-Portugal, DOI: https://doi.org/10.54499/2023.07609.CEECIND/CP2891/CT0009).

Acknowledgements

We thank the three reviewers of Glossa for their detailed and positive comments on the manuscript. We are extremely grateful to the judgments of various linguists and native speakers of Catalan (namely, M. Llobet, M. Pons, G. Rigau, S. Tubau, I. Vallès and X. Villalba), as well as to the audiences of the Workshop on Functional Categories, Dimensions of Meaning, and Expletiveness (Bellaterra, 2024) and the Workshop on Speech Act Related Operators (Berlin, 2024).

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Notes

  1. The first author owes the awareness of this construction to M.T. Ynglès (p.c.). Some examples contained in this paper replicate radio interviews she recorded in the 1990s. The remaining examples are either our own (double checked with other native speakers) or are taken from the Corpus Oral de Conversa Col·loquial (Alturo & Payrató 2002; available at https://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/handle/2445/10411). See also Payrató (1988; 19963). This construction can also be extracted from the Corpus Textual Informatitzat de la Llengua Catalana (IEC 1985; 2015; available at: https://ctilc.iec.cat/scripts/IniPresentacio.asp). Some examples in Italian, Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese are given in (i).
      1. (i)
      1. a.
      1. Io↑,
      2. I
      1. mi
      2. me
      1. sa
      2. think
      1. che
      2. that
      1. non
      2. not
      1. vengo.                                                                                                         (Italian)
      2. come
      1. ‘I think I’m not coming.’ (P. Morosi, p.c.)
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. Yo↑,
      2. I
      1. las
      2. the
      1. playas
      2. beaches
      1. de
      2. of
      1. Canarias
      2. Canary-islands
      1. me
      2. me
      1. encantan.                                                                (Spanish)
      2. charm
      1. ‘I love the beaches of the Canary Islands.’ (adapted from Villa-García 2023: 266, ex. (1c))
      1.  
      1. c.
      1. Eu↑,
      2. I
      1. eu
      2. I
      1. creio
      2. think
      1. que
      2. that
      1. não
      2. not
      1. vou
      2. go
      1. vir.                                                                                                     (Brazilian Portuguese)
      2. come
      1. ‘I don’t think I’m going to come.’
    Despite their many shared features, it seems that Catalan contrasts with other languages that also show this construction in being more permissive when it comes to allowing the jo–construction with impersonal sentences and in combination with psychological predicates, or even with a first person plural pronoun (1b). Note also that, even though some speakers tend to translate sentences of the type in (1) into English by using “as for me, …” (see Villa-García’s 2023 translations of examples such as the one in (ib)), the first person strong pronoun in (1) cannot be replaced by any other pronoun or nominal expression, while opinion-holders and judge PPs (Bosse et al. 2012; Bylinina 2017) can refer to either the first, the second or a third person. Therefore, we defend that they instantiate different constructions. We come back to this issue in Section 3.1. [^]
  2. See McCready’s (2009; 2012) studies on the contrast between sentence-initial use and sentence-final use of the particle man in English. [^]
  3. An additional difference between (1) and (2) at Spell-Out is the activation of phonological processes such as vowel deletion for initial shwa or gliding for an initial back close vowel. As the following examples illustrate, vowel deletion of the initial schwa applies only in (ib) and gliding in (iib).
      1. (i)
      1. a.
      1. Jo↑,
      2. I
      1. espero …
      2. hope
      1. [‘ʒɔəs’peɾu…]
      2.  
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. Jo
      2. I
      1. espero …
      2. hope
      1. [ʒɔs’peɾu…]
      2.  
      1. (ii)
      1. a.
      1. Jo↑,
      2. I
      1. opino …
      2. think
      1. [‘ʒɔu’pinu…]
      2.  
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. Jo
      2. I
      1. opino …
      2. think
      1. [ʒɔw’pinu…]
      2.  
    [^]
  4. We thank F. Torres-Tamarit for discussion on the intonational differences between (1a) and (2a), and for providing us Figures 1 and 2. [^]
  5. See Rigau (1988) for the initial proposal that a sentence such as (ia) with a strong pronoun in nominative case should be analyzed as in (ib), where jo occupies a peripheral position distinct from the subject one.
      1. (i)
      1. a.
      1. Jo
      2. I
      1. estimo
      2. love
      1. la
      2. the
      1. Maria.
      2. Maria
      1. ‘I love Maria.’
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. [S Joi [S proi Infl estimo la Maria ]]
    [^]
  6. Duarte (1995) shows that these constructions look like Left Dislocation, but she remarks that this phenomenon is exclusively found in non-pro-drop languages like French. Interestingly, Duarte (1995: 103–104) reports the findings of Barnes (1985), who used a recorded corpus of oral conversation of French and showed that the construction occurs in informal speech:
      1. (i)
      1. Nancy
      2. Nancy
      1. elle
      2. she
      1. aimairait
      2. would-love
      1. beaucoup
      2. a lot
      1. ça.
      2. this
      1. ‘Nancy would love this a lot.’(Barnes 1985: 33, ex. (30))
    [^]
  7. See Espinal and Giusti (2024) for discussion of the claim that, unlike Italian, Catalan tends to rule out hanging topic structures without an overt marker (e.g., a ‘to’ in (16)). [^]
  8. We thank a reviewer for this minimal pair. [^]
  9. There have been some recent works that show that certain syntactic operations in Hindi (Keyne 2017) and in Georgian (Thivierge 2021) also obey the A-over-A principle (see also Rackowski & Richards 2005; Halpert 2019). [^]
  10. Consider (i), where the resumption of the hanging topic by means of a third person DP is not subject to the A-over-A principle.
      1. (i)
      1. En
      2. D
      1. Joan,
      2. Joan
      1. [el
      2. the
      1. seu
      2. poss.3psg
      1. ordinador]
      2. computer
      1. s’ha
      2. cl-has
      1. espatllat.
      2. broken
      1. ‘John, his computer broke down’.
    Hanging topics may be first person plural, as in the example below:
      1. (ii)
      1. Tu
      2. you
      1. i
      2. and
      1. jo,
      2. I
      1. (nosaltres)
      2. we
      1. treballem
      2. work.1ppl
      1. molt.
      2. a lot
      1. ‘You and I, we work a lot.’
    However, notice that a sentence with a first person plural hanging topic as in (iii) is also ruled out by the A-over-A principle, since the first person plural possessive is precluded from referring to the hanging topic due to the intervening third person DP.
      1. (iii)
      1. *[Tu
      2.   you
      1. i
      2. and
      1. jo1pl, [DP3rd
      2. I
      1. els
      2. the
      1. nostres1pl
      2. our
      1. ordinadors]
      2. computers
      1. s’han
      2. cl-have
      1. espatllat.
      2. broken
    [^]
  11. Default case (Schütze 2001) is the form that pronouns take in elliptical contexts and in postcopular position: nominative (Catalan, Spanish, Italian, Brazilian Portuguese), accusative (English), and oblique / dative (French).
      1. (i)
      1. Q.
      1. Who wants to try this game?
      1.  
      1. R.
      1. Jo / Yo / Io / Eu.
      2. Me.
      1. Moi.
      1. (ii)
      1. a.
      1. Sóc jo / Soy yo / Sono io / Sou eu.
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. It’s me.
      1.  
      1. c.
      1. C’est je. > C’est moi. (Hatcher 1948).
    [^]
  12. Lasershon (2005) adds a judge to the index of evaluation of a sentence, which becomes a triple <w,t,j>. See Stephenson (2007) for an extension of Lasershon’s system to epistemic modals and Saebø (2009) for an extension to propositional attitude verbs. See Bylinina (2017) for an analysis of judge PPs as experiencer arguments of predicates of personal taste. [^]
  13. From this point on in the text, we do not represent the resumptive null pronoun pro, whose first person is morphologically expressed on the verb in sentences as (31A), but we assume the analysis presented in the previous sections. [^]
  14. It is interesting to observe the contrast between example (32c) in the main text and (i) with a sentence-final jo, which strengthens the commitment of the speaker with respect to p. See McCready’s (2009; 2012) strenthening effect of sentence-final man in English.
      1. (i)
      1. Veritablement,
      2. truly
      1. hi
      2. there
      1. ha
      2. has
      1. gent
      2. people
      1. que
      2. that
      1. no
      2. not
      1. l’entenc
      2. cl.3psg-understand.1psg
      1. jo.
      2. I
      1. ‘Truly, there are people that I don’t understand.’
    Note also that whereas opinion-holders (e.g., per mi ‘for me’) are compatible both with jo↑ and with commitment modifiers (ii a,b), the sequence in (ii c) is ill-formed, reinforcing once more the claim that jo–constructions are incompatible with statements that are assertions.
      1. (ii)
      1. a.
      1. Certament,
      2. certainly
      1. per
      2. for
      1. mi,
      2. me
      1. aquest
      2. this
      1. hotel
      2. hotel
      1. és
      2. is
      1. massa
      2. too
      1. car.
      2. expensive
      1. ‘Certainly, for me, this hotel is too expensive.’
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. Jo↑,
      2. I
      1. per
      2. for
      1. mi,
      2. me
      1. aquest
      2. this
      1. hotel
      2. hotel
      1. és
      2. is
      1. massa
      2. too
      1. car.
      2. expensive
      1. ‘This hotel is very expensive.’
      1.  
      1. c.
      1. *Jo↑, certament, per mi, aquest hotel és massa car.
    [^]
  15. See also Trotzke and Giannakidou (2024) for discussion of the claim that emotive content is what wh-exclamatives assert. [^]
  16. Semantically speaking, even though more research is required to identify the restrictions on complex speech acts, it is intuitively not surprising that one cannot find complex speech acts of the kind declare•request or declare•command. See Asher and Lascarides (2001), Reese and Asher (2009), and Dayal (2023) for the hypothesis that tag questions convey complex speech acts of the sort assert•ask. [^]
  17. We acknowledge the existence of different approaches that formalize Speech Act related information within the syntactic representation of a sentence or utterance. This syntactization of Speech Act related information already starts with the classical works of Ross (1970) and Speas and Tenny (2003) and follows with many relevant studies: Miyagawa (2012; 2017; 2022), Haegeman and Hill (2023), Wiltschko and Heim (2016), Wiltschko (2014; 2017; 2021; 2022), and Dayal (2023), among others. [^]
  18. In a different line of analysis some syntacticians (Rizzi 1997; 2004a; 2004b; Cinque 1999; 2002; 2006; Cinque & Rizzi 2016; among others) have developed the so-called Split CP field hypothesis, by means of which the Complementizer is not an atomic constituent, but appears to have a split structure of the sort exemplified in (i) (in one of its multiple variants):
      1. (i)
      1. Cᵒ = …Forceᵒ > (Topᵒ > Focᵒ > Topᵒ) > Finᵒ …
  19. Krifka (2024a: 3–4) defines informative and performative updates as in (i) and (ii), respectively.
      1.  
      1. (i)
      2. (ii)
      3.  
      4.  
      1. c + inform(φ)
      2. c + perform(φ)
      3.  
      4.  
      1. = {i ∈ c | φ(i)} = {i | i ∈ c ∧ φ(i) = true} = c'
      2. = {i + φ | i ∈ c }
      3. = {i' | $i [i ∈ c ∧ i £ i' is identical to i except for φ(i')]}
      4. = c'
    Informing that a proposition φ is true simply restricts an input context c to an output context c’. By contrast, performing a proposition φ basically involves that φ is true at a new index i’ that is equal or later than i. See also Szabolcsi (1982). [^]
  20. Notice that this structure differs from those postulated in Krifka (2024b) in that in (43) the topic phrase above ActP is a functional Hanging Topic Phrase whose head encodes a representation of the speaker (Giorgi 2010); (ii) the head of ActP is a declare operator; and (iii) the structure hosts a JP projection. [^]
  21. Notice that this claim is further confirmed by the fact that jo↑ is incompatible with vocatives (see Hill 2007; 2014; Espinal 2013; Stavrou 2014; among others), which refer to the second person:
      1. (i)
      1. *Jo↑,
      2. I
      1. {tu,
      2. you
      1. Joan}
      2. Joan
      1. vine!
      2. come.2ps
    [^]
  22. Other adverbs that may occur in between the HT jo↑ and the subject jo are subject-oriented adverbs (e.g. intentionally, deliberately; Jackendoff 1972). We would like to postulate that these adverbs should also be adjoined to JP, since they express additional information about the subject of the sentence. [^]

References

Alturo, Núria & Payrató, Lluís. 2002. Corpus Oral de Conversa Col·loquial. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. https://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/handle/2445/10411

Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex. 2001. Indirect speech acts. Synthese 128(1–2). 183–228. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010340508140

Barnes, Betsy. 1985. The Pragmatics of Left Detachment in Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/pb.vi.3

Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6(3). 291–352. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133902

Benincà, Paola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. Topic, focus and V2: defining the CP sublayers. In Rizzi, Luigi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, 52–76. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0003

Bosse, Solveig & Bruening, Benjamin & Yamada, Masahiro. 2012. Affected experiencers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30. 1185–1230. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9177-1

Bylinina, Lisa. 2017. Judge-Dependence in Degree Constructions. Journal of Semantics 34. 291–331. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffw011

Carrilho, Ernestina. 2008. Beyond doubling: overt expletives in European Portuguese dialects. Syntax and Semantics 36. 301–323. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1163/9781848550216_012

Catasso, Nicholas. 2022. Looking at the periphery from the suburbs: An information-structurally based taxonomy of Hanging Topics in German. Linguistik Online 116(4). https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=664572716002. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.13092/lo.116.8888

Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A-bar Dependencies. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1997. Topic constructions in some European languages and ‘connectedness’. In Agnostoupoulou, Elena & van Riemsdijk, Henk & Zwarts, Frans (eds.), Materials on Left Dislocation, 93–118. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/la.14.08cin

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001

Cinque, Guglielmo. 2002. Mapping functional structure: a project. In Cinque, Guglielmo (ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, 3–11. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195148794.003.0001

Cinque, Guglielmo. 2006. On the order of clausal functional heads. In Freidin, Robert & Lasnik, Howard (eds.), Syntax. Critical Concepts in Linguistics, 274–324. London: Routledge.

Cinque, Guglielmo & Rizzi, Luigi. 2016. The cartography of syntactic structures. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 51–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0003

Costa, João. 2010. PB e PE: orientação para o discurso importa? Estudos da Língua(gem) 8(1). 123–143. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.22481/el.v8i1.1117

Costa, João & Duarte, Inês & Silva, Cláudia. 2004. Construções de redobro em português brasileiro: sujeitos tópicos vs. soletração do traço pessoa. Revista Leitura 33. 135–145. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.28998/0103-6858.2004v1n33p135-145

Dayal, Veneeta. 2023. The Interrogative Left Periphery: How a Clause becomes a Question. Linguistic Inquiry 1–50. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00507

Demonte, Violeta. 1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7. 5–30. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5

Duarte, Maria Eugenia Lammoglia. 1995. A Perda do Princípio “evite pronome” no Português Brasileiro. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas. (Doctoral dissertation.)

Espinal, M.Teresa. 2011. Pragmatic particles at the syntax-cognition interface. In Payrató, Lluís & Cots, Josep M. (eds.), The Pragmatics of Catalan, 49–79. Berlin: Mouton Series in Pragmatics, MSP 10. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238693.49

Espinal, M.Teresa. 2013. On the structure of vocatives. In Sonnenhauser, Barbara & Noel, Patricia (eds.), Vocative!, 109–132. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9783110304176.109

Espinal, M.Teresa & Giusti, Giuliana. 2024. On the property-denoting clitic ne and the determiner de/di. A comparative analysis of Catalan and Italian. Linguistics 62(2). 457–489. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2022-0084

Fernández-Soriano, Olga. 1999. Two types of impersonal sentences in Spanish: locative and dative subjects. Syntax 2(2). 201–140. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00017

Frey, Werner & Meinunger, André. 2019. Topic marking and illocutionary force. In Molnár, Valéria & Egerland, Verner & Winkler, Susanne (eds.), Studies in Generative Grammar [SGG] 136, 95–138. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504488-004

Giorgi, Alessandra. 2010. About the Speaker. Towards a Syntax of Indexicality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571895.001.0001

Grice, Herbert P. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41–58. Leiden: Brill. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003

Haegeman, Liliane & Hill, Virginia. 2023. The syntactization of discourse. In Folli, Raffaella & Sevdali, Christina & Truswell, Robert (eds.), Syntax and its Limits, 370–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683239.003.0018

Halpert, Claire. 2019. Raising, unphased. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37. 123–165. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9407-2

Hatcher, Anna Granville. 1948. From Ce Suis Je to C’est Moi (The Ego as Subject and as Predicative in Old French). PMLA/Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 63(4). 1053–1100. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.2307/459607

Hill, Virginia. 2007. Vocatives and the pragmatics-syntax interface. Lingua 117. 2077–2105. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.002

Hill, Virginia. 2014. Vocatives: How Syntax Meets with Pragmatics. Leiden/Boston: Brill. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1163/9789004261389

Hinzelin, Marc-Oliver & Kaiser, Georg. 2007. El pronombre ello en el léxico del español dominicano. In Mihatsch, Wiltrud & Sokol, Monika (eds.), Language Contact and Language Change in the Caribbean and Beyond [Lenguas en Contacto y Cambio Lingüístico en el Caribe y Más Allá], 171–188. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Kato, Mary. 1999. Strong que weak pronominals in the null subject parameter. Probus 11. 1–37. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1999.11.1.1

Keyne, Stefan. 2017. Agreement and vP phases. In LaCara, Nicholas & Moulton, Keir & Tessier, Anne-Michelle (eds.), A Schrift to fest Kyle Johnson, 177–185. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7275/R57D2S95

Krifka, Manfred. 2019. Commitments and beyond. Theoretical Linguistics 45(1–2). 73–91. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0006

Krifka, Manfred. 2023. Layers of assertive clauses: propositions, judgements, commitments, acts. In Hartmann, Jutta M. & Wöllstein, Angelika (eds.), Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich / Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research : Theorie und Empirie / Theoretical and Empirical Issues. Studien zur deutschen Sprache 84, 116–183. Tübingen: Narr.

Krifka, Manfred. 2024a. Performative updates and the modeling of speech acts. Synthese 203. 1–31. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04359-0

Krifka, Manfred. 2024b. Structure and interpretation of declarative sentences. Journal of Pragmatics 226. 51–63. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.04.002

Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28. 643–86. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x

López, Luis. 2016. Dislocations and information structure. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 402–421. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.003

Masullo, Pascual. 1993. Two types of quirky subjects: Spanish vs. Icelandic. NELS 23. 303–317.

McCready, Eric. 2009. What man does. Linguistics and Philosophy 31. 671–724. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9052-7

McCready, Eric. 2012. Formal approaches to particle meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(12). 777–795. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.360

Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2012. Agreements that Occur Mainly in Main Clauses. In Aelbrecht, Lobke & Haegeman, Liliane & Nye, Rachel (eds.), Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons, 79–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/la.190.04miy

Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2017. Agreement Beyond Phi. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10958.001.0001

Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2022. Syntax in the Treetops. Ms. MIT. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14421.001.0001

Payrató, Lluís. 1988, 19963. Català Col·loquial. Aspectes d’Ús Corrent de la Llengua Catalana. València: Universitat de València.

Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273829.001.0001

Rackowski, Andrea & Richards, Norvin. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 565–599.  http://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464368

Reese, Brian & Asher, Nicholas. 2009. Biased questions, intonation, and discourse. In Zimmermann, Malte & Féry, Caroline (eds.), Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford Scholarship Online. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0007

Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27(1). 53–94. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82606

Rigau, Gemma. 1988. Strong pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3). 503–511. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25164908

Rigau, Gemma. 1999. Relativized impersonality: deontic sentences in Catalan. In Treviño, Esthela & Lema, José (eds.), Semantic Issues in Romance Syntax, 193–229. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.173.13rig

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7

Rizzi, Luigi. 2004a. Locality and left periphery. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structures and Beyond, 223–251. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0008

Rizzi, Luigi. 2004b. On the cartography of syntactic structures. In Rizzi, Luigi (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, 3–15. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0001

Ross, John. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 222–272. Waltham (MA)/Toronto/London: Ginn and Company- AXerox College Publishing.

Saebø, Kjell Johan. 2009. Judgement ascriptions. Linguistic and Philosophy 32. 327–352. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9063-4

Schreiber, Peter. 1972. Style disjuncts and the performative analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3). 321–347. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177716

Schütze, Carson. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4(3). 205–238. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00044

Speas, Peggy & Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Di Sciullo, Anna Marie (ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar. Syntax and Semantics, 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/la.57.15spe

Sigurdsson, Halldor Armann. 1992. The case of quirky subjects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax. Vol. 49. Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.

Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, 315–332. New York: New York Academic Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_013

Stavrou, Melita. 2014. About the vocative. In Schürcks, Lilia & Giannakidou, Anastasia & Etxeberria, Urtzi (eds.), The Nominal Structure in Slavic and Beyond, 299–342. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512790.299

Stephenson, Tamina. 2007. Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 30. 487–525. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9023-4

Szabolcsi, Anna. 1982. Compositionality in Focus. Folia Linguistica 15. 141–162. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1981.15.1-2.141

Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of Human Language (vol.4): Syntax, 625–649. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge MA: MIT. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001

Thivierge, Sigwan. 2021. Phasehood and Phi-intervention. College Park: University of Maryland. (Doctoral dissertation.)

Todolí, Júlia. 2002. Els pronoms. In Solà, Joan & Lloret, Maria-Rosa & Mascaró, Joan & Pérez Saldanya, Manuel (eds.), Gramàtica del Català Contemporani, 1337–1433. Empúries/Grup 62: Barcelona.

Trotzke, Andreas & Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2024. Exclamation, intensity, and the assertion of emotion. Theoretical Linguistics. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2024-2022

Villa-García, Julio. 2023. Hanging Topic Left Dislocations as extrasentential constituents: toward a paratactic account. Evidence from English and Spanish. The Linguistic Review 40(2). 265–310. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2023-2003

Villalba, Xavier. 2024. Expressive commitments: A normative approach to exclamations. International Review of Pragmatics 16. 87–108. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01601004

Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The Universal Structure of Categories: Towards a Formal Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139833899

Wiltschko, Martina. 2017. Response particles beyond answering. In Bailey, Laura R. & Sheehan, Michelle (eds.), Order and Structure in Syntax I: Word Order and Syntactic Structure, 241–279. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1117726

Wiltschko, Martina. 2021. The Grammar of Interactional Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1017/9781108693707

Wiltschko, Martina. 2022. What is the syntax-pragmatics interface. In Bîlbîie, Gabriela & Crysmann, Berthold & Schaden, Gerhard (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 14, 273–308. Paris: CSSP. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss14/. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.11wil

Wiltschko, Martina & Heim, Johannes. 2016. The syntax of confirmationals. A neo-performative analysis. In Kaltenböck, Gunther & Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituent, 303–340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  http://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.11wil