Thesis Chapters by Stefano F Castiglione
In this dissertation, I investigate the role of contrast in syntax, especially with regards to It... more In this dissertation, I investigate the role of contrast in syntax, especially with regards to Italian. I adopt a Cartographic Approach to the syntax of the Left Periphery and assume that each functional feature is represented by a projection in the Complementizer system. Based on this, I attempt to construct a model in which contrast, understood as a discourse feature, is the head of a projection that interacts with the left-peripheral topic and focus projections to give rise to contrastive topics (CTop) and foci (CFoc) with their specific syntactic and interface properties. A CTop is roughly understood as a topic that is opposed to some other topic. A CFoc is a fronted elements that corrects some previous information. After introducing the basic notions of topic, focus and contrast, as well as the main theoretical principles (Cartography and featural Relativized Minimality), I move on to discuss some of the main works in the field that are considered to be relevant for the purposes of this thesis. I start with Rizzi’s (1997) analysis of the structure of the LP, according to which a focus projection is sandwiched between two recursive topic position (the LP focus, in Italian, is contrastive, while topics are freely distributed). Then I consider other works that have attempted to refine Rizzi’s analysis. One is Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl (2007), who argue that topics in German and Italian occupy different positions depending on their type. In particular, CTops are base-generated, according to their argument, in a position below Aboutness topics and, possibly, in the same position of the C-domain where foci are moved to. Although they argue that this position is unique, since they have no evidence that a CTop and a CFoc may co-occur, this possibility is indeed attested for Italian. This will bear consequences for the hypothesis to be proposed in the thesis. Another relevant work is Cruschina’s (2011), who argues for two distinct focus positions in the LP: one for contrastive focus and one for informational focus. There is enough evidence that topics and foci may or may not be contrastive, therefore it is reasonable to argue that contrast is an Information Structure notion
independent from both topic and focus. Molnár (2002) stipulates that there is a hierarchy of conditions for contrast, and that different contrastive elements satisfy different conditions. On the basis of data from Finnish, she proposes an independent KontrP where either a CTop or a CFoc may end up. The syntactic role of contrast is also confirmed by Lahousse et al. (2014), who show that, if contrast is analyzed as an independent feature, it may explain why locality constraints are alleviated in certain contexts. Assuming that Lahousse et al.’s proposal is a valid one, I attempt to find a synthesis of the previously mentioned works in order to construct a model that can explain the behavior of contrastive elements in Italian. Ideally, this model features a ContrP that hosts the syntactic [contrast] feature, which, in turn, enters into some sort of relation with the lower topic and focus projections. I discuss some aspects regarding the issue of contrast, in particular:
1. Its status as an operator feature. Here, opinions in the literature are heterogeneous, and it is not entirely clear whether the relevant feature of contrastive element interacts with other operator features. Therefore, more research should be carried out, e.g. with grammaticality judgments, in order to verify the status of contrast and its behavior in terms of locality.
2. The recursivity of contrast. If a language like Italian allows for more than one contrastive element (e.g. the sequence CTop > CFoc, or two CTops), and if each element carries a [contrast] feature, then one may assume that ContrP in Italian should be recursive. This may be a matter of parametrization.
3. How contrast interacts with topic and focus. Assuming a relatively high ContrP in the LP, I discuss three potential explanations for how both the topic/focus and the contrast features may be checked in the C-system: head-to-head movement, feature movement, and Agree.
Without aiming to reach a definite conclusion on these issues, I suggest that it may be possible to argue that a ContrP exists in the LP which encodes contrast syntactically, and that the [contrast] feature in this projection, in Italian, enters in an Agree relation with the goals in TopP or FocP. This allows us to support the idea that each morphosyntactic
feature is syntactically represented as a projection, while also defending the independence of contrast as an Information Structure concept. Finally, I argue that future research should incorporate the syntactic and the interface aspects of contrast, extending the scope to other languages and try to explain the different behavior of contrastive elements appearing in the C-system with respect to those appearing in situ, e.g., the fact that in situ CTops seem not to exist.
Uploads
Thesis Chapters by Stefano F Castiglione
independent from both topic and focus. Molnár (2002) stipulates that there is a hierarchy of conditions for contrast, and that different contrastive elements satisfy different conditions. On the basis of data from Finnish, she proposes an independent KontrP where either a CTop or a CFoc may end up. The syntactic role of contrast is also confirmed by Lahousse et al. (2014), who show that, if contrast is analyzed as an independent feature, it may explain why locality constraints are alleviated in certain contexts. Assuming that Lahousse et al.’s proposal is a valid one, I attempt to find a synthesis of the previously mentioned works in order to construct a model that can explain the behavior of contrastive elements in Italian. Ideally, this model features a ContrP that hosts the syntactic [contrast] feature, which, in turn, enters into some sort of relation with the lower topic and focus projections. I discuss some aspects regarding the issue of contrast, in particular:
1. Its status as an operator feature. Here, opinions in the literature are heterogeneous, and it is not entirely clear whether the relevant feature of contrastive element interacts with other operator features. Therefore, more research should be carried out, e.g. with grammaticality judgments, in order to verify the status of contrast and its behavior in terms of locality.
2. The recursivity of contrast. If a language like Italian allows for more than one contrastive element (e.g. the sequence CTop > CFoc, or two CTops), and if each element carries a [contrast] feature, then one may assume that ContrP in Italian should be recursive. This may be a matter of parametrization.
3. How contrast interacts with topic and focus. Assuming a relatively high ContrP in the LP, I discuss three potential explanations for how both the topic/focus and the contrast features may be checked in the C-system: head-to-head movement, feature movement, and Agree.
Without aiming to reach a definite conclusion on these issues, I suggest that it may be possible to argue that a ContrP exists in the LP which encodes contrast syntactically, and that the [contrast] feature in this projection, in Italian, enters in an Agree relation with the goals in TopP or FocP. This allows us to support the idea that each morphosyntactic
feature is syntactically represented as a projection, while also defending the independence of contrast as an Information Structure concept. Finally, I argue that future research should incorporate the syntactic and the interface aspects of contrast, extending the scope to other languages and try to explain the different behavior of contrastive elements appearing in the C-system with respect to those appearing in situ, e.g., the fact that in situ CTops seem not to exist.
independent from both topic and focus. Molnár (2002) stipulates that there is a hierarchy of conditions for contrast, and that different contrastive elements satisfy different conditions. On the basis of data from Finnish, she proposes an independent KontrP where either a CTop or a CFoc may end up. The syntactic role of contrast is also confirmed by Lahousse et al. (2014), who show that, if contrast is analyzed as an independent feature, it may explain why locality constraints are alleviated in certain contexts. Assuming that Lahousse et al.’s proposal is a valid one, I attempt to find a synthesis of the previously mentioned works in order to construct a model that can explain the behavior of contrastive elements in Italian. Ideally, this model features a ContrP that hosts the syntactic [contrast] feature, which, in turn, enters into some sort of relation with the lower topic and focus projections. I discuss some aspects regarding the issue of contrast, in particular:
1. Its status as an operator feature. Here, opinions in the literature are heterogeneous, and it is not entirely clear whether the relevant feature of contrastive element interacts with other operator features. Therefore, more research should be carried out, e.g. with grammaticality judgments, in order to verify the status of contrast and its behavior in terms of locality.
2. The recursivity of contrast. If a language like Italian allows for more than one contrastive element (e.g. the sequence CTop > CFoc, or two CTops), and if each element carries a [contrast] feature, then one may assume that ContrP in Italian should be recursive. This may be a matter of parametrization.
3. How contrast interacts with topic and focus. Assuming a relatively high ContrP in the LP, I discuss three potential explanations for how both the topic/focus and the contrast features may be checked in the C-system: head-to-head movement, feature movement, and Agree.
Without aiming to reach a definite conclusion on these issues, I suggest that it may be possible to argue that a ContrP exists in the LP which encodes contrast syntactically, and that the [contrast] feature in this projection, in Italian, enters in an Agree relation with the goals in TopP or FocP. This allows us to support the idea that each morphosyntactic
feature is syntactically represented as a projection, while also defending the independence of contrast as an Information Structure concept. Finally, I argue that future research should incorporate the syntactic and the interface aspects of contrast, extending the scope to other languages and try to explain the different behavior of contrastive elements appearing in the C-system with respect to those appearing in situ, e.g., the fact that in situ CTops seem not to exist.