Focus, Neg-concord, and Negative Postverbal Subjects

This paper concerns negative subjects occurring in the non-canonical postverbal position, where their distribution diverges from that of non-negative postverbal subjects (in contrast, both negative and non-negative subjects may occur in the canonical pre-auxiliary position frequently identified as SpecTP). The paper examines negative postverbal subjects with respect to contrastive focalization, right-dislocation, and neg-concord, showing how the constraints on these three operations fully determine their postverbal distribution. This achievement is dependent on an in situ analysis of postverbal contrastive foci. For this reason, the paper also examines the position of postverbal foci, providing several arguments in support of in situ focalization

The interaction of Focus and Givenness in Italian clause structure

This book provides an in-depth investigation of contrastive focalization in Italian, showing that its syntactic expression systematically interacts with the syntactic expression of discourse-given phrases. Vieri Samek-Lodovici disentangles the properties genuinely associated with contrastive focalization from those determined by highly productive operations affecting discourse given phrases in Italian, namely right dislocation and marginalization. Based on a vast aggregate of evidence, he shows that in the default case contrastive focalization occurs in situ and that left-peripheral focalization patterns arise from the interaction with right dislocation and generalize well beyond the familiar cases examined in Rizzi (1997) and most literature since. In the final chapter, the author examines how the key properties unveiled in the previous chapters, such as focalization in situ, follow from the prosodic constraints governing stress placement, thus reinterpreting and extending Zubizarreta's (1998) insight about the role of prosody in shaping syntax

In need of mediation: The relation between syntax and information structure

This paper defends the view that syntax does not directly interact with information structure. Rather, information structure affects prosody, and only the latter has an interface with syntax. We illustrate this point by discussing scrambling, focus preposing, and topicalization. The position entertained here implies that syntax is not very informative when one wants to narrow down the interpretation of terms such as “focus”, “topic”, etc

Integrated parentheticals in quotations and free indirect discourse

Free Indirect Discourse and Quotations are introduced by a special kind of parentheticals, minimally constituted by a subject and a predicate of saying, thinking etc. I propose that these parentheticals are represented in a syntactic structure integrated with that of the reported sentence. The phrases hosting the parentheticals are projected by prosody oriented heads, i.e., heads which do not express a lexical content, but are read at the syntax-phonology interface as special instructions for realizing the peculiar intonation associated to parentheticals, the so-called comma intonation. I show that this approach offers several advantages, contributing in solving some long standing problems connected with the syntactic status of parentheticals in general.In this chapter I consider the syntactic properties of a particular kind of parentheticals, those introducing Quotations – henceforth, QU – and Free Indirect Discourse – henceforth, FID. Consider the following examples: (1) I will leave tomorrow, said John (2) The new ration did not start till tomorrow and he had only four cigarettes left, thought Winston (adapted, from Orwell 1984). Example (1) is a QU structure and the parenthetical in question is said John. Example (2) is a FID construction and the parenthetical is thought Winston. As already well known, they have special properties from an interpretive, syntactic and phonological point of view. QU and FID parentheticals are alike under many points of view, even if the two constructions must be kept separate, especially with respect to the interpretation of pronouns and verbal forms. For the purposes of this work, I will in general consider them alike. Observe now the following paradigm: (3) John said that Mary left (4) John said: “Mary left” (5) Maria, said John, left. It seems to me that the most important goal for a syntactic analysis is to provide a coherent analysis of the similarities and differences among the constructions in (3)- (5). At first sight, these structures seem very much alike, both from the point of view of their meaning and their syntax – to the extent that some scholars have proposed a direct syntactic derivation (Emonds 1973; Ross 1973), for instance of (5) starting from (3). I will show here that the situation is indeed much more complex than that. In particular, in this paper I show that example (5) is closer to (4) than to (3). The approach I will develop here is an integrated view of parentheticals, complying with Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA)

Discourse, sentence grammar and the left periphery of the clause

The term left periphery refers to that area on the left of the subject, in the syntactic representation of a clause, where the relationships with the context are encoded. In this work I propose a syntactic analysis that goes beyond mere sentence grammar and integrates prosodic and discourse features as well. On the one hand, this move accounts for some observations previously not fully understood, such as the anomalous syntactic properties of Clitic Left Dislocation and Hanging Topic, their differences with respect to Focus and their similarities with parentheticals. On the other, it aims at providing a theory of grammar able to encode the relationships between sentence grammar, context and bigger units such as discourses

Contrast, Contrastive Focus, and Focus Fronting

This paper compares the definitions of contrast in Krifka (2008) and Neeleman and Vermeulen (2012) carefully establishing whether they predict contrast to be present or absent across five classes of conversational exchanges: open questions, closed questions, and corrective, confirmative, and additive exchanges. Using focus fronting in British English as a cue for the presence of contrast, it shows that Neeleman and Vermeulen’s definition better fits the distribution of contrast across the examined exchanges. The paper also shows that focus à la Rooth (1992) plus contrast à la Neeleman and Vermeulen is sufficient to model focalization across the five exchange classes examined here, thus providing evidence against treating the examined exchanges as eliciting different types of focalization

Prosody-Driven Scrambling in Italian

Italian displays a scrambling pattern where the structure of the constituent following a postverbal focus affects which of its components can scramble before the focus . The actual governing factor is the prosodic phrasing pro-jected by the postfocal constituent. Scrambling is only possible when it im-proves the stress alignment with the right boundary of the intonational phrase wrapping the sentence. This study provides further evidence that the classic T-model where syntax feeds prosody needs to be replaced by a new model where prosody and syntax interact. As this study shows, OT provides a possi-ble model for such interaction that entirely dispenses with interface-related stipulations