Setting the boundaries Presentational ci-sentences in Italian

Starting from the question of the extension of the focus in existential constructions, this paper primarily aims to draw up a classification of both genuine and spurious types of existential sentences in Italian. Four major types will be identified: (I) existential sentences, (II) inverse locatives, (III) deictic locatives, and (IV) presentational sentences. It will be shown that this classification may shed new light on the apparent differences between Italian and other languages, such as English, with regard to well-known phenomena and restrictions such as the definiteness effects. The pragmatic, semantic, and syntactic properties of the elements occurring in this construction will be examined with respect to each type of sentence identified. Following the cartographic approach, the existence of particular structures in Italian (types II and III) will be analysed in terms of discourse-related syntactic operations associated with designated functional projections within the clause, such as the focalization of postverbal subjects and the dislocation of old-information constituents. Type IV, instead, will be argued to be the result of a process of grammaticalization peculiar to Italian and, at least synchronically, unrelated to genuine existential sentences. A Luigi, a cui sono sinceramente grato e riconoscente per tutto ciò che mi ha trasmesso e insegnato

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 2017

This paper discusses the semantics of O(bject) omission with divalent verbs in Italian, in relation to (i) the interplay of the inherent and structural aspects of verb meaning with the degree of thematic specification of the subject (i.e., agentivity/control); (ii) the inherent characteristics of the O argument (e.g., animacy); (iii) the degree of semantic implication between the verb and O; (iv) the role played by the linguistic and extra-linguistic context. It is shown that object omission in Italian is highly sensitive to the event structure template of verbs (e.g., the low degree of aspectual specification of verbs) and the elements of meaning lexicalized in the verb, interacting, in turn, with other semantic and discoursepragmatic parameters. Whereas the constraints on Indefinite Null Instantiation appear to be similar to those at work in other languages (e.g, English and French), those applying to Definite Null Instantiation display more variability.

Essays on Language Function and Language Type, 1997

It is a commonly held view that, in the absence of an overt locative or temporal phrase, broad focus subject inversion in Romance requires a null locative in preverbal position, thus being comparable to locative inversion (Benincà 1988 and subsequent work). The (in)compatibility of a number of verbs and verb classes with this construction, however, has not yet received a principled explanation. Analysing the event structure of the predicates that occur in bare broad focus subject inversion in Italian, we argue that this construction requires a covert Subject of Predication, and this requirement can be satisfied by a thematic goal argument of the verb or a non-thematic situational argument that is inferred when a bounded eventuality is predicated. We explain which predicates take which type of Subject of Predication, and we make falsifiable predictions on the relative compatibility of different verb classes with the construction under investigation. Our predictions are cogent in the null-subject SVO languages that allow broad focus in VS order and rule it out in VOS/VSO order (Leonetti 2017). With our study, we shed light on the lexical-semantic underpinnings of this restriction. Following Bianchi (1993) and Bianchi & Chesi (2014), we propose that this is a thetic construction, in which the postverbal DP remains in its first-merged thematic position. In our analysis, the silent Subject of Predication takes Cardinaletti's (2004) SubjP position, satisfying Rizzi's (2005) Subject Criterion.

The aim of this contribution is twofold: first, to describe the link between information structure and the discourse functions of Italian and English Cleft sentences; second, to examine the specific functions displayed by Cleft sentences within journalistic texts in Italian and English. Both goals will be achieved through a corpus-based inquiry. One of the main issues in pursuing a contrastive pragmatic study of clefts is that it relies on an accurate model of information structure. My proposal is based on two distinct but interacting criteria: referential givenness and focus / background, which will be used to identify several types of clefts according to their different information properties. In addition to a qualitative analysis, I will provide quantitative data to show the distribution of different types of clefts in the two languages. Referring to quantitative data while discussing the functions of Cleft sentences, I will also reveal similarities and differences between Italian and English.

Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 2011

In this paper we reconsider the interpretation of indefinite singular generics and definite plural generics in Italian. We show that these two types of statements cannot be associated with the traditional distinction between definitional vs. accidental generalizations. In particular we argue that indefinite generic statements are associated with a variety of interpretations that can be unified by reconstructing a hidden abilitative verbal operator triggered by the imperfective interpretation of the present tense. We distinguish between two types of abilities as well as between the overt abilitative modal and the covert one. We correctly derive the prediction that indefinite singular generics cannot be combined with accidental properties, which are perfective in nature. We analyze definite plurals as entering the logical form with a situation variable that is responsible for the fact that definite plural generics are compatible with accidental properties.

Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale 55: 87–116, 2021

In this article the different functions of Italian poi are described and analysed from a cartographic perspective. We show that in addition to its use as a temporal adverb (after, then), poi can be used as a temporal or logical connective adverb, as a discourse marker and as a modal particle. These functions can be correlated with different positions in the clause and with differences in the internal structure of the element itself. Finally, we identify the syntactic environments and sentence types in which poi occurs in its function as a modal particle, as well as the special interpretations that are associated with its presence.

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.

2013

Studia Linguistica, 2021

This paper discusses root phenomena in imperative clauses, assuming as diagnostics conversational dynamics and the type of discourse categories that are admitted in their Cdomain, through a systematic comparative interface investigation in three languages (English, Italian and Spanish) based on an original experimental work. This novel perspective sheds new light on the syntax-semantic mapping and the interface (syntax-prosody) properties of imperative clauses, embedding the relevant proposal in a cartographic framework of analysis. Based on a twofold distinction of root phenomena-those which are widely allowed in Common Ground-active (Type I) contexts and those which can occur in non-Common Ground-active contexts (Type II)-it is proposed that imperatives are non-Common Groundactive propositions with no update potential, thus allowing only Type II root phenomena. Syntactically, imperative clauses are dominated by a super-ordinate Speech Act Phrase, including the SPEAKER and the ADDRESSEE as co-arguments, which explains the blocking effects identified in imperatives. * Earlier versions of this paper have been presented at the "Cambridge Comparative Syntax Meeting" (UK), the "26 th Generative Linguistics in the Old World" in Gottingen (Germany), the 24 th "Colloquium on Generative Grammar" in Madrid (Spain) and the 1 st International Workshop on the "Interface of Information Structure and Argument Structure" in Seville (Spain). We are very grateful to the audiences there. We also thank two anonymous STUL reviewers for their precious comments and suggestions. The research here has been partially funded by research project PGC2018-093774-B-I00 of Spain's Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities (MICINN). The order of authors is strictly alphabetical, so both of us are first authors. However, the empirical puzzle emerges when we are confronted with imperatives which do permit topics in their left periphery, as in (2), also from Haegeman (2012: 64): (2) a. The tie give to Bob, the aftershave give to Don. (Van der Wurff 2007) b. Anything you don't eat put back in the fridge. (Huddleston & Pullum 2002) This raises the question as to what properties imperatives must satisfy in order to license or not certain types of discourse categories. A plausible solution to this problem can be offered if we assume a distinction between different types of Topics. In this respect, Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl (2007) propose a typology of topics based on the systematic correlation between their formal properties and their function in discourse, which is encoded in dedicated functional projections in the left periphery of the sentence. The authors thus produce substantial evidence for the existence of (at least) three types of Topics, namely Aboutness-Shift (A-)Topics, Contrastive (C-)Topics and Familiar/Given (G-)Topics (cf. §3 below for details; see Cardinaletti 2009 and Menza 2006 for the distinction between A-and G-Topics in different constructions). Based on this distinction, a preliminary observation can immediately lead to the conclusion that shifting (i.e. A-)Topics can hardly be associated with the imperative mood. Consider for instance (3a-b) below, from Italian: 1 1 The list of abbreviations and symbols used in the article is the following: ALL = allocutive, AT = Aboutness-Shift Topic, CL = clitic (pronoun), CLLD = clitic left dislocation, CF = Corrective Focus, CG = Common Ground, CGr = Control Group, CT = Contrastive Topic, DIR = directive feature, DP = determiner phrase, F = feminine, FINP = Finiteness phrase, F 0 = Fundamental frequency, FORCEP = Force phrase, GT = Given Topic, IMP = imperative, IMPERS = impersonal, IND = indicative, IP = Inflectional phrase, IRR = interface root restriction, JUSS = jussive, LD = left dislocation, MF = Mirative Focus, NEG = negative, PL = plural, PST = past tense, REFL = reflexive, SAP = Speech act phrase, SG = singular, SUB = subordinate clause, SUBJ = subjunctive, TBU = tone bearing unit, TOP = topicalization, TP = Tense phrase, vP = Verb phrase. The present tense is assumed as deafult and, as such, it is not indicated in the glosses. Notice that throughout the paper, the same gloss will be provided for Italian and Spanish sentences when these are identical; otherwise, a different gloss will be given for each language. However, as translations show, English appears to provide some cross-linguistic differences. Cormany (2013) argues that non-contrastive topics are not allowed in English 2 and, in general, left-peripheral arguments are often unacceptable (from Jensen 2007), as illustrated in (1) above. Nevertheless, this is not absolute. The cases considered in (2a-b) and (the translations in) (4) show that a contrastive interpretation for the topic constituents, obtain acceptable results; hence, C-Topics can be realized in English imperative clauses. As for sentence (5), the translation shows that 'the ball' would be left in situ by speakers in this context. As a matter of fact, la palla/la pelota cannot be considered an A-Topic, because its mention is not used to introduce (or shift) the sentence Topic. Indeed, 'the ball' can be considered a background/given element in the context of a soccer game. Hence, it is a G-Topic in the framework assumed in this work and G-Topics are not dislocated in English, but rather realized through in situ destressing (as is argued in Bianchi & Frascarelli 2010). Similar to Topics , different types of Foci have been argued to exist in the literature, with different formal and discourse properties (cf., among others, Kiss 1998, Aboh, Hartmann & Zimmermann 2007, Frascarelli 2010a, Cruschina 2011, Bianchi, Bocci & Cruschina 2015). In particular, Bianchi & Bocci 2012 argue for a syntactic and semantic distinction between Mirative and Corrective Foci and, interestingly, the realization of these two Focus types in imperative clauses also obtains different results at a first observation. As for Mirative Focus (MF), the contrast between the declarative sentence (6a) and sentence (6b) immediately show that MF 'clashes' with the imperative mood (for reasons that 2 Cormany (2013:100-101) specifically argues that in English only contrastive topics are allowed in imperative clauses, in clear contrast with declaratives (in which both contrastive and non-contrastive topics are licensed), as is illustrated in (i)-(ii): (i) a. The book, John bought ___. b. *The book, buy ___! (ii) a. These stocks, the broker bought immediately. b. These stocks, buy immediately! (Those avoid at all costs!) This contrast is adduced to a relatively poor left periphery in imperative clauses (similar to Haegeman's 2004 notion of 'truncation'). As we will see in Section 5 and 6, however, a truncationbased analysis cannot account for cross-linguistic data. In addition, truncation cannot account for the grammaticality difference of examples in (1)-(2) showing that, under certain circumstances, topics can occur in the left periphery of imperatives. 3 The nature and properties of the relevant 'root operator' is not specified in Bianchi & Frascarelli (2010). Nevertheless, considering the formal and discourse properties of an A-Topic (cf. Section 2 below), this can be identified with Krifka's (1995) Assert Operator insofar as it has the function of updating the common ground by asserting a proposition that is informative, non-contradictory and implies alternatives. As this Operator is encoded in a functional projection in the C-domain (cf. also Meinunger 2004), it is perfectly in line with the present syntax-prosody-semantic interface approach 'Speak!' 'Speak (2PL)!' (35) a. No hables! b. No habléis! not speak.SUBJ.2SG not speak.SUBJ.2PL 'Don't speak!' 'Don't speak (2PL)!'