Focus and focus positions: the case of Perugino *

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

2019

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 Beninca (1988:137-139 and 2001) and Beninca and Poletto (2004), which seems to mix up the interpretative and prosodic properties of contrastive focus and the syntactic ones of ClLDed topics (Beninca 1988, Cinque 1990, Rizzi 1997). In (1)b, the fronted direct object (henceforth DO) is characterized by contrastive focus prosody and interpretation and it is resumed by a clitic.

Lingua, 2019

This paper investigates the realization of subjects in Broad and Narrow Focus constructions, from both an acquisitional and a theoretical perspective. Specifically, NF structures include Information (IF) and Corrective (CF) subjects and the study concerns Italian children (4-9 y.o.). Data are collected through an original experiment, based on spontaneous answers to (recorded) questions associated to scene settings. It is shown that the SV strategy is the most frequently used, independent of either Focus or verb type (considering transitive, unaccusative and unergartive verbs). Importantly, however, prosodic analysis shows that the SV order is systematically associated to distinct contours according to Focus types. As for the VS order, it appears as a late acquisition (around 7 y.o.) for both NF and BF constructions and is always associated with a downgrading contour. In a cartographic approach, these results lead to the conclusion that focus-related discourse and p-features are merged in dedicated projections and trigger movement to be valued and interpreted at Spell-Out. Consequently, p-features are uninterpretable at PF in the VS order. Finally, since the realization of postverbal subjects is part of the Null Subject Parameter, VS late emergence supports the hypothesis that the discourse-related competences connected with its acquisition are managed after 7 y.o.

CLS, 1997

When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, 2022

The goal of this study is to cast new light on one of the main defining properties of focus adverbials, namely their interaction with the focus structure of the sentence. Following the framework known as Language into Act Theory, we describe the interaction between It. anche and focal information, considered in relation to the accomplishment of a speech act. The results of a corpus-driven study of spontaneous spoken Italian allow proposing a more detailed definition of focus adverbials, which takes into account two layers of information structure: the semantico-presuppositional layer and the pragmatic-illocutionary layer. We claim that association with focus is a stable feature of focus adverbials only in relation to the first layer of information structure.

In this squib I compare the properties of arbitrary plural pro in subject position in Italian with those of the implicit external argument of a 'short passive'. I show that the two types of null arbitrary arguments display the same quantificational variability, but differ crucially with respect to inclusiveness: the arbitrary null subject of an active clause only allows for an exclusive interpretation, i.e. excluding the speaker and hearer(s), whereas the implicit agent of a short passive readily allows for an inclusive interpretation. I hypothesize that this is due to the fact that in active clauses, the null arbitrary subject checks a [person] feature against the phi-complete T probe; in short passives, instead, the null agent, even if syntactically realizedas proposed by Collins (2005) cannot Agree with a phi-complete probe endowed with [person]: this underspecification explains why its interpretation is not restricted so as to exclude speaker and hearer(s).

Provided the relevant pragmatic and prosodic conditions are satisfied, wh-phrases and contrastive foci do co-occur in Italian clauses, including the left-periphery of Italian clauses. As this handout shows, their possible co-occurrence and, crucially, the properties they display, support the focalization in-situ hypothesis proposed in Samek-Lodovici (2015). The same observations appear instead incompatible with the presence of a high dedicated focus projection shared by wh-phrases and contrastive foci.

This paper sets out a comparison between modern and old Italo-Romance varieties with the aim of understanding the mechanisms that characterize the syntactic operations associated with the information structure of the sentence, as well as identifying their triggering factors. In particular, this study concentrates on the process of focalization and the movement operations related to it: constituent fronting and verb movement. In light of the synchronic variation found in modern Italo-Romance varieties, it is argued that most of the properties generally attributed to a V2 system found in the languages in question are instead associated with discourse-related features and functional projections. A distinction between a higher, left peripheral FocP and a lower, clause-internal FocP provides the basis for an account of both synchronic and diachronic variation, the analysis of which rests on a correlation between word order changes in diachrony, discourse-related features, and functional projections.

2010

"This paper investigates the semantics of Information focus and Contrastive focus in Italian. Throughout the literature, there have been some recent attempts to show that they both have the same semantic representation at LF. After arguing against these theories, I propose a semantic model for the interpretation of Information Focus and Contrastive Focus, according to which the latter is a subtype of the former, specified for exhaustivity. The model aims to bring together the theoretical advantages of both Rooth’s theory for the interpretation of focus and Horvath’s proposal about the intervention of an exhaustivity operator in the derivation of Hungarian Contrastive Foci. The purported differences between Italian and Hungarian are explained in terms of constraints on the type of objects which can enter in the domain of application of the exhaustivity operator."

1998

Journal of Pragmatics, 2008

This article deals with the position and the identification of Focus constituents in Latin, a 'free' constituent language known only through written texts. Three instances are analysed: entities that are newly introduced into the discourse, and obligatory arguments of the verbs ''to leave'' (proficiscor) and ''to send'' (mitto) in classical Latin prose (Caesar, Civil war and Sallust, The Iugurthine War) in order to observe whether constituents are positioned according to the principle of 'communicative dynamism' as described by Firbas (1992) and claimed for Latin by Panhuis (1982). Latin examples are compared with their translations into Czech, a modern 'free' constituent order Slavic language obeying the above-mentioned principle. The confrontation reveals several differences between Latin and Czech concerning not only the position of Focus constituents but also their anaphoric continuation and the position of anaphoric pronouns in the sentence.

Ampersand: An International Journ al of General and Applied Linguistics, 2015

In this work I explore the different discourse-syntax interface properties of focus fronting in Standard Spanish (SS) and Southern Peninsular Spanish (SPS) including Andalusian and Extremaduran varieties. In SS it is taken for granted that in focus fronting the verb is obligatorily adjacent to the preposed constituent. I show that this is not the case in SPS, where this condition is optional. I carry out an analysis of three types of foci which involve movement to the left periphery (contrastive focus, mirative focus and quantifier fronting) and one type of topic (resumptive preposing). Discourse, syntactic, and semantic properties are taken into account to illustrate this typology. Crucially, only contrastive and mirative focus contexts allow for preverbal subjects in SPS, which are proposed to be Given Topics in this variety. On the other hand, resumptive preposing is shown to entail a case of topic fronting. I use different experiments with empirical data and judgements by native speakers to test my proposal that focus-verb (or topic-verb) adjacency is subject to microparametric variation in Spanish. Keywords: contrastive focus, mirative focus, resumptive preposing, quantifier fronting, preverbal subjects, topics

Probus, 1999

In the recent literature, a number ofphonologicalpapers have addressed the question of the relation between Focus and prosodic domains and how Focus determines phonological phrasing (