Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 31, Bucharest
Edited by Alexandru Nicolae and Adina Dragomirescu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 355] 2021
► pp. 73–90

On focal and wh-projections, indirect wh-questions, and quantificational chains

| University of Cambridge
In this chapter, I investigate the cartography of focus using novel data from non-standard Italian (non-StandIT) and Trevigiano, a Venetan dialect. I argue that focus is less constrained in indirect wh-questions in these varieties than in Standard Italian (StandIT). Indeed, in Trevigiano both focalised objects and adverbials are felicitous in constructions with a lower wh-phrase. Using Featural Relativized Minimality, I argue that in the case of direct objects, the problem of crossing chains is circumvented using an IP-internal clitic that absorbs the [+N] feature of the direct object. Then, I explain the behaviour of focalised adverbials in these varieties claiming that they are externally-merged directly in the Left Periphery, hence create a high focus-chain that does not interfere with the creation of the lower wh-chain.
Keywords: syntax, cartography, focus, peripheries, wh-phrases, wh-movement, clitic doubling, chain formation, Romance
Article outline
  • 1.Focal projections in the cartographic enterprise
    • 1.1The left periphery of the clause
    • 1.2The low periphery of the clause
  • 2.Foci and wh-phrases
    • 2.1On Foc>Wh
      • 2.1.1Trevigiano and non-standard Italian
  • 3.An analysis of clitic-doubled foci
    • 3.1Enter featural relativized minimality
    • 3.2Left peripheral external-merge
    • 3.3Division of labour between the focalised NP and its doubling clitic
      • 3.3.1Cl-DF are real foci
      • 3.3.2On the role of the clause-internal clitic
  • 4.Further thoughts on chain-formation and the peripheries
    • 4.1On ‘mild’ feature relations
    • 4.2Peripheral focal- and wh-projections
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.355.04bon
References (32)
References
Antinucci, Francesco & Guglielmo Cinque. 1977. Sull’ordine delle parole in italiano: L’emarginazione. Studi di grammatica italiana 6. 121–146.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP, Volume 2, 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus 17(1). 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Giuliano Bocci & Silvio Cruschina. 2017. Two types of subject inversion in Italian wh-questions. Revue roumaine de linguistique 62. 233–252.Google Scholar
Bonan, Caterina. 2018. On insituness and (very) low wh-positions. The case of Trevigiano. GG@G: Generative Grammar in Geneva 11. Special Issue: Proceedings of the 1st SynCart workshop “From maps to principles”, edited by Giuseppe Samo, Karen Martini & Giuliano Bocci, 21–41.Google Scholar
. 2019. On clause-internally moved wh-phrases. Wh-to-Foc, nominative clitics, and the theory of northern Italian wh-in situ. Doctoral dissertation, Université de Genève.Google Scholar
Bosković, Željko. 1997. Superiority effects with multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian. Lingua 102(1). 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2002. Against optional and null clitics: Right dislocation vs. marginalization. Studia Linguistica 58. 29–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A-bar dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compund stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 239–298.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi. 2010. The cartography of syntactic structures. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 65–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Crousaz, Isabelle & Ur Shlonsky. 2003. The distribution of a subject clitic pronoun in a Franco-Provençal dialect and the licensing of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3). 413–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1990. Clitic doubling, wh-movement, and quantification in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry 21(3). 351–397.Google Scholar
. 1994. The syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Nama, Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi. 2009. Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119(1). 67–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2001. On wh-questions in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics / Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 46(1/2). 41–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kato, Mary. 2013. Deriving “wh-in-situ” through movement in Brazilian Portuguese. In Victoria Camacho-Taboada, Ángel L. Jiménez Fernández, Javier Martín-González & Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds), Information structure and agreement, 175–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22(4). 647–686.Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita. 2014. Grammatical categories: Strong and weak pronouns in Romance. Lingua 150. 171–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3). 365–424.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook on generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. On the position ‘Int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 287–296. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 3, 3–15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. On some properties of subjects and topics. In Laura Brugè, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, Walter Schweikert & Giuseppina Turano (eds.), Proceedings of the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, 203–224. Venice: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Giuliano Bocci. 2017. The left periphery of the clause – primarily illustrated for Italian. In Martin Everaert & Henk C. Van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, Volume 2, 1–30. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Ur Shlonsky. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 115–160. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2015. The interaction of focus, givenness, and prosody. A study of Italian clause structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1996. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance’. Linguistic Inquiry 26(1). 79–123.Google Scholar
Villata, Sandra, Julie Franck & Luigi Rizzi. 2016. Intervention effects and relativized minimality: New experimental evidence from graded judgments. Lingua 179. 76–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2012. Contrastive topics decomposed. Semantics & Pragmatics 5. 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar