Focus Affecting Neg-Concord Licensing in Italian

2004

In this paper, I will confront the split CP model (Rizzi 1997 and subsequent work) and the criterial framework proposed by Rizzi (2004c) with two empirical problems. Firstly, I will consider a peculiar Italian construction (see (1)b), previously described and analysed by Benincà (1988:137-139 and 2001) and

2013

concerning focalization in Perugino, a Central Italian Dialect. In this language all focalized constituents appear low in clause structure, and may be followed by the focus marker ’nco. I will argue that they are focalized in the low, clause internal focus position proposed by Belletti (2001; 2004). Two exceptions to this generalized pattern will also be considered, their relevance lying in the fact that they show that under particular circumstances the left peripheral focus position ( Rizzi, 1997) can be activated in Perugino. The data are then interpreted in relation to the more general frame of a clause structure endowed with two focus positions. A Luigi, che fa sembrare il lavoro linguistico un’impresa agile, leggera ed elegante come l’andatura di due lepri che giocano a rincorrersi 1.

Oxford University Press eBooks, 2015

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.

2003

It is well established that focus may have prosodic reflexes in various languages. Previous data on Florentine Italian showed that broad focus and late narrow-contrastive focus utterances are marked by different pitch accents. With the present experiment we address the question whether a three way contrast exists in the intonational realization of broad, narrow-semantic and narrow-contrastive focus. Results show that while focus type (contrastive vs. noncontrastive) is signalled by different pitch accents, differences in focus scope (broad vs. narrow) are not.

Methodological Perspectives on Second Language Prosody. Papers from ML2P 2012., 2012

This study analyses the prosodic variation of pitch accents in broad and narrow-contrastive focus conditions in sentence-initial position as produced in L2 English by North-East Italian speakers, and compares them with similar productions in native Italian and native English. Our aim is to understand how the phonetic properties of accent (alignment, pitch scaling, duration) are modulated to mark differences in focus in the two native languages, and to compare the use of these properties in the productions in non-native English by Italian speakers. Preliminary results show that the most remarkable difference between native Italian and native English is in the use of the pitch height: native Italian speakers use lower pitch range and pitch span in contrastive focus, while English speakers do not. Italian speakers producing English show a strong influence of the native system and a systematic lowering of peaks in initial accents of contrastive focus sentences.

Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 2004

UN ARTICOLO lo scrivo in una settimana. 'A PAPER, [I] it-write in a week. c.-B': ?? UNA LISTA DELLA SPESA la scrivo in una settimana. A LIST OF EXPENDITURE, [I] it-write in a week. ii. a.-A: Un libro, l'ha scritto in una settimana. 'A BOOK, [s/he] it-has written in a week. b.-B: ?? UN ARTICOLO l'ha scritto in una settimana 'A PAPER, [s/he] it-has written in a week. iii. a.-A: Un cane lo potrebbero adottare. 'A dog they it-could adopt.' b.-B: ?? UN GATTO lo potrebbero adottare. 'A CAT they it-could adopt.' c.-B': UN GATTO potrebbero adottare. 'A CAT they could adopt.' 'A TIE [we] it-have given to Carlo.' (8) a.-B: È da un pezzo che nessuno non scarta un carico! 'It has been a long time since anyone has discarded a trump' b.-A: Un asso, Gianni l'ha scartato all'inizio della seconda mano. 'An ace, Gianni it-has discarded at the beginning of the second hand' c.-B': *UNA FIGURA l'ha scartata all'inizio della seconda mano (, non un asso)! 'A COAT-CARD [he] it-has discarded at the beginning of the second hand (, not an ace)!' d.-B'': LA DONNA DI PICCHE l'ha scartata all'inizio della seconda mano (, non un asso)! 'THE QUEEN OF SPADES [he] it-has discarded at the beginning of the second hand (, not an ace)!' e.-B''': UNA FIGURA ha scartato all'inizio della seconda mano (, non un asso)! 'A COAT-CARD [he] has discarded at the beginning of the second hand (, not an ace)!' f.-B'''': LA DONNA DI PICCHE ha scartato all'inizio della seconda mano (, non un asso)! 'THE QUEEN of SPADES [he] has discarded at the beginning of the second hand (, not an ace)!' (69) a.-A: Due studenti sono già venuti. 'Two students have already come' b.-B: No, sbagli! QUATTRO STUDENTI sono venuti! 'No, you are wrong! FOUR STUDENTS have come!' c.-B': *QUATTRO sono venuti! 'FOUR have come' d.-B'': QUATTRO ne sono venuti! ' FOUR of them-have come' (70) *(Ne) sono venuti quattro. '*(Of them-) have come four' (71) a.-A: Tre pietre sono cadute. 'Three stones have fallen' b.-B: CINQUE *(ne) sono cadute 'FIVE *(of them-) have come' (72) Quanti *(ne) sono venuti? 'How many *(of them-) have come?' (73) Quattro (*ne) sono venuti. 'Four (of them-) have come'

This paper examines several aspects of the distribution of contrastive focalization in Italian that are not captured by current analyses maintaining that contrastive foci must raise to a fixed left-peripheral FocP focus projection. From an empirical perspective, it shows that contrastive focalization successfully applies to constituent classes seldom discussed in the focalization literature and inherently unable to move to FocP, such as hanging topics (particularly interesting because requiring clitic doubling even when focused), interrogative clauses, and verbal heads. The paper also examines multiple foci, nested foci, and the co-occurrence of focus and wh-phrases that are incompatible with the assumed uniqueness of FocP. Based on these data, the paper argues that focalization in situ for unmoved foci, together with focus evacuation for fronted foci, provide a better model of the full distribution of contrastive focalization in Italian.

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 2018

In the current paper, we examine polarity contrast marking in Italian in contexts where a contrast in polarity (polarity maintenance or switch) is the main information to be conveyed. We analyze and compare two kinds of data: elicited speech from Map Task dialogues and read speech focusing on clausal replies echoing (part of) the prompt. We tackle the questions how frequently do speakers of Italian use echo replies when confirming or correcting the polarity of a negatively biased question; what are the syntactic and prosodic properties of Italian echo replies in these contexts, and how often speakers produce verum focus when no other option is available for marking a contrast in polarity. The results confirm that the marking of polarity contrast, and in particular, prosodic encoding through verum focus, is possible although not a preferred option in Italian. Polarity contrast can also be left unspecified. This result supports earlier findings about the instability of polarity marking in Italian. In addition to this, the results indicate that verum focus readings can also emerge as a result of morpho-syntactic manipulations, such as the use of clitic right dislocation. In this case, the prosodic highlighting of the verb can be seen as an effect of a syntactic operation.

Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2015

During awake surgery, picture-naming tests are administered to identify brain structures related to language function (language mapping), and to avoid iatrogenic damage. Before and after surgery, naming tests and other neuropsychological procedures aim at charting naming abilities, and at detecting which items the subject can respond to correctly. To achieve this goal, sufficiently large samples of normed and standardized stimuli must be available for preoperative and postoperative testing, and to prepare intraoperative tasks, the latter only including items named flawlessly preoperatively. To discuss design, norming and presentation of stimuli, and to describe the minimal standardization setting used to develop two sets of Italian stimuli, one for object naming and one for verb naming, respectively. The setting includes a naming study (to obtain picture-name agreement ratings), two on-line questionnaires (to acquire age-of-acquisition and imageability ratings for all test items), a...

In: M. V. Camacho-Taboada, A. Jiménez Fernández, J. Martín-Gonzáles, M. Reyes-Tejedor (eds.), Information Structure and Agreement. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins., 2013

"""In this paper I discuss optional movement of focus constituents to the left periphery of the clause in Italian. Restricting my discussion to corrective exchanges – where focus occurs in a reply that denies the preceding assertion – I show that the fronted position and the ‘low’ position are not completely equivalent, in that certain contexts disallow the former, but allow the latter. I sketch out a characterization of two distinct interpretations for the focus structure: a truly corrective interpretation, and a merely contrastive one."""

2019

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.

1999

This paper reports on a comparative analysis of accentuation strategies within Italian and Dutch NPs. Accent-patterns were obtained in a (semi-)spontaneous way via a simple dialogue-game with 8 Dutch speakers and 4 Italian ones. In this way, target descriptions of all speakers were obtained in the following four contexts: all new, single contrast in the adjective, single contrast in the noun, and double contrast. It was found that the two languages both signal information status prosodically, but in a rather different way. In Dutch, accent distribution is the main discriminative factor: new and contrastive information are accented, while given information is not. Newness and contrastive accents were not intonationally different, yet a post-hoc test revealed that listeners could distinguish a contrastive intonation from a newness one, because contrastive accents generally were the sole accent in the phrase and always had the shape of a nuclear accent even in non-default positions. In Italian, distribution is not a significant factor, since within the elicited NPs both adjective and noun are always accented, irrespective of the status of the information. However, there is a gradient difference in that "given accents" are perceived as less prominent than the other two, while there is no overall perceptual difference between contrastive and newness accents.

Neurological Sciences - NEUROL SCI, 2005

Clinical neurolinguistics still lacks consolidated and standardised tools for the assessment of impairments of pragmatics of verbal communication. In the present paper we present norms of the Italian version of the Right Hemisphere Language Battery (Batteria del Linguaggio dell’Emisfero Destro, BaLED) [1] originally devised by Bryan [2]. The normative study has been conducted with the recruitment of 440 healthy subjects. The battery of tests was not intended to be cognitively oriented, by providing evidence of the cognitive impairments underpinning verbal pragmatic deficits; on the contrary, it permits the detection of the presence/absence of impairments in processing the main pragmatic features of verbal communication traditionally associated with right hemisphere lesions. Thus, apart from being a clinical tool for diagnosing pragmatic impairments of verbal communication, the BaLED represents a useful initial battery of tests for clinical assessment and for selecting specific popul...