Books by Vieri Samek-Lodovici
The most comprehensive study to date of Italian contrastive focalization, Right Dislocation, Left... more The most comprehensive study to date of Italian contrastive focalization, Right Dislocation, Left Dislocation, and Destressing in Situ.
Provides scholars with the analytical tools to accurately determine which linguistic effects pertain to focalization and which to discourse givenness.
Presents new empirical arguments and data. Most data are supplied together with the discourse context in which they were elicited.
Papers by Vieri Samek-Lodovici
De Gruyter eBooks, May 21, 2024
Oxford University Press eBooks, Sep 1, 2015
Oxford University Press eBooks, Sep 1, 2015
Linguistic Inquiry
Binding into right-dislocated categories is generally possible in Italian but fails when the bind... more Binding into right-dislocated categories is generally possible in Italian but fails when the binder is a direct object and the right-dislocated constituent an indirect object or a PP doubled by ci, even though direct objects binding into indirect objects or PPs is otherwise acceptable. These data fall into place once it is recognized that cliticization of an indirect object or a PP gives rise to a scope-freezing effect (on a par with English double-object constructions). We develop our account using a biclausal analysis of right dislocation but explore to which extent monoclausal analyses can capture the data as well.
Oxford University Press eBooks, Sep 1, 2015
Marginalization 2.1 Introduction The term 'marginalization' distinguishes discourse-given phrases... more Marginalization 2.1 Introduction The term 'marginalization' distinguishes discourse-given phrases that are destressed in situ, examined in this chapter, from discourse-given phrases that are rightdislocated above TP, examined in Chapter 4. 1 It is hard to overemphasize the importance of this distinction for a proper understanding of the syntax of Italian and especially for the analysis of Italian focus. The syntactic properties of focus, including its position, must often be inferred from the properties of the constituents surrounding it. Since Italian focused constituents can be followed by both marginalized and right-dislocated phrases, as explained in Chapters 3 and 4, an accurate identification of these phrases as marginalized or right-dislocated is necessary to avoid invalid conclusions. Yet, few studies examine this aspect, most works usually incorrectly assume that the constituents following focus occur in situ. Similarly, some studies of right dislocation, too, fail to distinguish genuinely right-dislocated phrases from marginalized phrases, assigning the properties of one type of phrase to the other.
Oxford University Press eBooks, Sep 1, 2015
The role of prosody 6.1 Introduction The properties of Italian contrastive focalization uncovered... more The role of prosody 6.1 Introduction The properties of Italian contrastive focalization uncovered in the previous chapters raise the question of why they are as they are. We now know that contrastive foci generally occur in situ, but not why they do so. We know that discourse-given constituents generated lower than focus can raise above it (an operation henceforth labeled 'left-shift'), but not why they can do so, nor why the same movement is unavailable if focus is absent or the lower constituent is itself focused. We know that evacuated foci do not occur in situ, but not why such apparent exceptions to in-situ focalization are possible rather than ungrammatical. This chapter addresses these questions.
Oxford University Press eBooks, Sep 1, 2015
Contrastive focus and right dislocation 5.1 Introduction As we have seen in the previous chapters... more Contrastive focus and right dislocation 5.1 Introduction As we have seen in the previous chapters, Italian discourse-given phrases can remain in situ (Chapter 2) or be right-dislocated to a position above TP (Chapter 4). We have also seen that contrastive focalization remains in situ whenever right dislocation is absent (Chapter 3). This chapter pulls together these results to provide a comprehensive analysis of the entire distribution of contrastive focalization in Italian, showing that it is directly affected by right dislocation. The distribution will be shown to be partitioned into two distinct cases depending on what constituents are targeted by right dislocation, with different consequences for focalization.
Oxford University Press eBooks, Sep 1, 2015
I biscotti, li ha mangiati GIANNI F. The biscuits, them has eaten John 'JOHN ate the biscuits.' (... more I biscotti, li ha mangiati GIANNI F. The biscuits, them has eaten John 'JOHN ate the biscuits.' (2) I biscotti, li ha mangiati GIANNI F , non Maria. The biscuits, them has eaten John, not Mary 'JOHN ate the biscuits, not Mary.' (3) Q: Li ha mangiati MARIA F , i biscotti? Them has eaten Mary, the biscuits 'Did MARY eat the biscuits?' A: No. Li ha mangiati GIANNI F. No. Them has eaten John 'No. JOHN ate the biscuits.' Most of the evidence for in-situ focalization discussed in this chapter is obtained by closely examining the distribution of postverbal focused phrases relative to marginalized constituents. Given a discourse-given constituent A and a contrastively focused constituent B generated lower than A as in (4)(a), raising focus to a higher projection would place B above A as in (4)(b) whenever A is marginalized in situ. In contrast, in-situ focalization would leave A before B as in (4)(a) and predict the order in (4)(b) to be ungrammatical.
This 24min-long, cum-audio, presentation addresses the remarkable alternation involving frontable... more This 24min-long, cum-audio, presentation addresses the remarkable alternation involving frontable and unfrontable contrastive foci first examined in Bianchi (2013). The talk argues for focalization in-situ as a default, claiming that a left-peripheral FocusP anaysis is unable to account for the alternation. It also provides arguments in favour of Samek-Lodovici's (2015) analysis of focus fronting as well as a discussion of Bianchi et al's (2015) characterization of the properties of non-corrective, merely contrastive, foci.
European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1990
This paper concerns negative subjects occurring in the non-canonical postverbal position, where t... more 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.
Lingua, Sep 1, 2007
This brief introduction to the volume compares models of grammaticality based on the simultaneous... more This brief introduction to the volume compares models of grammaticality based on the simultaneous satisfaction of all UG constraints (e.g. Principles and Parameters, Minimalism) with models based on constraint conflict (e.g. Optimality Theory). It examines the consequences that these alternative definitions have on the analysis of crosslinguistic variation, economy of movement, and the conflict between economy of movement and economy of structure. In particular it shows how the desire to keep a simple definition of grammaticality (i.e. one based on simultaneous constraint satisfaction) is paid by the hidden complexity of economy principles and the theory-internal split separating the theoretical components addressing variation from those addressing linguistic universals, making variation accidental. In contrast, defining grammaticality on the base of constraint conflict roots variation into UG while keeping constraint complexity at check. A brief survey of the articles collected in this volume completes this introduction.
Equinox eBooks, 2013
as Chomsky notes (2000:41), is a research program-not a theory-investigating to what extent the l... more as Chomsky notes (2000:41), is a research program-not a theory-investigating to what extent the language faculty provides an optimal design for the satisfaction of conditions at the interface with the sensory-motor system (PF) and the system of thought (LF). It is thus possible to pursue an OT-perspective of human grammar while maintaining minimalist goals, a fact highlighted by many contributors to the DEAL 2005 conference at ZAS (Berlin) on the relation between OT and Minimalism and also explicitly pointed out by Chomsky (2000:141). In this paper I argue that an OT-approach to grammar is actually essential to minimalist investigations, because it dramatically widens the set of linguistic properties potentially reducible to interface conditions while at the same time dispensing with interface-external language specific provisos. The discussion will hopefully also dispel some common misconceptions about OT. 2 Crosslinguistic Variation One of the most evident empirical properties of human language is its crosslinguistic variation. Current minimalist theorizing-e.g. Chomsky (1995, 2000)
Oxford University Press eBooks, Sep 1, 2015
Contents General preface xii Acknowledgments xiii List of abbreviations xiv 1 Introduction 1.1 Hi... more Contents General preface xii Acknowledgments xiii List of abbreviations xiv 1 Introduction 1.1 Historic context and related issues 1.2 Main claims 1.2.1 Focalization in situ 1.2.2 Right dislocation determining apparent leftward focus movement 1.2.3 Right dislocation causing focus evacuation 1.3 Deepening the analysis 1.4 Marginalization and right dislocation 1.5 Layout 1.6 A methodological point 2 Marginalization 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Italian basic word order 2.3 In situ marginalization 2.3.1 Evidence from the ordering of negative phrases and NPIs 2.3.2 Evidence from anaphoric and quantifier binding 2.3.3 Evidence from agreement loss in regional Italian 2.3.4 Evidence from past participle preposing 2.3.5 Evidence from the ordering of lower adverbs 2.4 Conclusions 3 Contrastive focus and marginalization 3.1 Introduction 3.2 In-situ vs. left-peripheral focalization of postverbal foci 3.3 In-situ focalization vs. raising to an intermediate focus projection 3.3.1 Postverbal subjects and objects 3.3.2 Experiencer objects and infinitival complements 3.3.3 Postverbal subjects and infinitival complements 3.3.4 Floating quantifiers 3.3.5 Summary 3.4 Rightmost focus 3.4.1 Discourse-given phrases raising above higher foci 3.4.2 The role of focalization 3.4.3 Problems affecting the intermediate focus projection analysis 3.5 Further evidence for in-situ focalization and rightmost focus 3.5.1 Evidence from lower adverbs 3.5.2 Binding relations between postverbal focus and discourse-given phrases 3.5.2.1 Divergent binding relations with the universal quantifier 'ogni' 3.6 Conclusions 4 Right dislocation viii Contents 4.4.7.4 Wh-extraction from RD + phrases 4.4.7.5 Evidence from López (2009) and Villalba (2000) 4.4.8 Summary 4.5 Alternative analyses of right dislocation and related issues 4.5.1 Clause-internal analyses 4.5.1.1 Problematic aspects of clause-internal analyses 4.5.1.1.1 NPI-licensing 4.5.1.1.2 Interaction with clause-wide focus 4.5.1.1.3 Reconstruction effects 4.5.1.2 Cecchetto's arguments against clause-external analyses 4.5.1.2.1 Right-roof effects 4.5.1.2.2 Proper binding 4.5.1.3 Other potential issues from Villalba (2000) and López (2009) 4.5.1.3.1 Condition C 4.5.1.3.2 Relativized minimality effects 4.5.1.3.3 Pronominal binding by quantified phrases 4.5.1.3.4 Interactions between CLLD and RD 4.5.2 Clause-external analyses 4.5.2.1 Potential issues from Frascarelli (2004) 4.6 Crosslinguistic variation 4.6.1 Variation in position 4.6.2 Variation with respect to movement 4.6.3 Summary 4.7 Conclusions 5 Contrastive focus and right dislocation Contents ix 5.3.3.1 Focused negative phrases 5.3.3.2 Unfocused negative phrases following evacuated foci 5.3.3.3 The distribution of the neg-marker 'non' 5.3.3.4 Problems raised by NPI-licensing to analyses positing fixed focus projections 5.3.4 The discourse status of constituents following evacuated left-peripheral foci 5.3.4.1 Evidence for the right-dislocated status of post-focus phrases 5.3.4.1.1 Preposition dropping 5.3.4.1.2 Epithet licensing 5.3.4.1.3 Sensitivity to strong islands 5.3.4.1.4 Contrastivity 5.3.4.1.5 Absence of clitic doubling 5.3.4.1.6 Availability of bare NPs 5.3.4.2 Clitic-doubled post-focus phrases 5.3.4.3 Free word order after evacuated focus 5.3.4.4 Conclusion 5.3.5 Existing analyses of post-focal phrases 5.3.5.1 PF-phrases are not focused-Benincà (2001) and Benincà and Poletto (2004) 5.3.5.2 Word order and prosodic contour-Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl (2007) 5.3.5.3 Contrastive and corrective foci-Bianchi (2012) and Bianchi and Bocci (2012) 5.3.6 Parasitic gaps 5.3.7 A brief note on Müller's principle of unambiguous domination 5.3.8 Summary 5.4 On the co-occurrence of focus and wh-phrases 5.4.1 Wh-chain outside right-dislocated phrases 5.4.2 Wh-chain across a right-dislocated phrase 5.4.3 Wh-chain contained in a right-dislocated phrase 5.4.4 Subordinate interrogative clauses 5.4.5 An aside on the position of right dislocation 5.4.6 Summary 5.5 Conclusions 6 The role of prosody 6.1 Introduction 6.2 General assumptions 6.3 Prosody shaping the distribution of Italian focus x Contents 6.3.1 Constraints 6.3.2 Marginalization and raising of lower unfocused phrases 6.3.3 Lack of movement when constituents share the same discourse status 6.3.4 Interaction with other constraints 6.3.5 Summary 6.4 Two interesting issues 6.4.1 Optionality 6.4.2 Movement vs. flexible base-generation 6.5 Additional syntactic patterns determined by prosodic constraints 6.5.1 Focused clauses 6.5.2 Left-shift above unfocused constituents that contain a focus 6.5.3 Left-shift outside VP 6.6 Prosodic phrasing shaping the distribution of left-shift 6.6.1 The relation between structure and movement 6.6.2 The different prosodic phrasing of specifier and head structures 6.6.2.1 The projection of pp-phrasing 6.6.3 How prosodic phrasing constrains left-shift 6.6.3.1 Specifier structures 6.6.3.2 Head structures 6.6.4 Post-focal quantified DPs 6.7 Right dislocation and focus evacuation 6.7.1 Constraints and assumptions 6.7.2 Right dislocation of constituents not containing a focus 6.7.3 Focus evacuation from right-dislocating constituents containing a focus 6.8 Conclusions Appendix A: Distribution and licensing of Italian N-words 1 Main properties 2 Licensing under c-command Appendix B: Evidence for leftward right dislocation Appendix C: Irrelevance of pp-phrasing for the analysis of marginalization and left-shift References Index Contents xi This book grew out of a desire to provide a comprehensive and unified analysis of the entire distribution of contrastive focus in Italian. I am particularly indebted to Klaus
Lingua, Jun 1, 2006
This study investigates the syntactic status of post-focus constituents in Italian, examining the... more This study investigates the syntactic status of post-focus constituents in Italian, examining their properties with respect to binding, negative polarity licensing, clitic resumption, wh-extraction, and fragmental answers among others. All these properties converge in showing that post focus constituents are right-dislocated outside the main clause, against the clause-internal analyses à la Cecchetto. This result is used to show that Italian contrastive focus, including its clause-initial and clause-internal instances, always occurs rightmost in a sentence modulo right dislocation. The properties of post-focus constituents are also shown to be incompatible with a left-peripheral analysis of Italian focus à la Rizzi, strongly supporting a focus-less split-CP.
This book provides an in-depth investigation of contrastive focalization in Italian, showing that... more 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.
Uploads
Books by Vieri Samek-Lodovici
Provides scholars with the analytical tools to accurately determine which linguistic effects pertain to focalization and which to discourse givenness.
Presents new empirical arguments and data. Most data are supplied together with the discourse context in which they were elicited.
Papers by Vieri Samek-Lodovici
Provides scholars with the analytical tools to accurately determine which linguistic effects pertain to focalization and which to discourse givenness.
Presents new empirical arguments and data. Most data are supplied together with the discourse context in which they were elicited.