Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2018: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 32, Utrecht
Edited by Sergio Baauw, Frank Drijkoningen and Luisa Meroni
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 357] 2021
► pp. 49–70

Chapter 3
Focus fronting vs. wh-movement

Evidence from Sardinian

| University of Helsinki
It is commonly held that focus fronting exhibits similar properties to wh-movement. The syntactic parallelism between the two types of movement has been supported by the semantic analyses of wh-questions that assume that when wh-words function as interrogative operators, they are inherently focal. The main goal of this paper is to challenge this highly attractive picture of the relationship between wh-words, focus, and movement, and to claim that wh-phrases are not inherently focal. The results of a prosodic production experiment on the distribution of the nuclear pitch accent in Sardinian wh-questions, together with the syntactic properties related to the asymmetry between direct and indirect wh-questions, form the empirical basis of this study.
Keywords: focus fronting, wh-question, nuclear pitch accent, Sardinian, production experiment
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.FF vs. wh-movement in Sardinian
  • 3.The distribution of the ‘nuclear pitch accent’ in wh-questions
    • 3.1The prosodic patterns of wh-questions
    • 3.2The NPA in Sardinian wh-questions
  • 4.Sardinian wh-questions: The prosodic experiment
    • 4.1The experimental material and procedure
    • 4.2Results
  • 5.The asymmetry between direct and indirect wh-questions
  • 6.Analysis: Interrogative wh-words are not inherently focal
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.357.03cru
References (47)
References
Aboh, Enoch O. & Roland Pfau. 2010. What’s a wh-word got to do with it? In Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds.), Mapping the left periphery. The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 5, 91–124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, Theodora & Mary Baltazani. 2012. Focus in Greek wh-questions. In Ivona Kučerová & Ad Neeleman (eds.), Information structure: Contrasts and positions, 206–246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Artstein, Ron. 2002. Parts of words: Compositional semantics for prosodic constituents. Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14. 1–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E., Julia Hirschberg & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2005. The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Sun- Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 9–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Giuliano Bocci & Silvio Cruschina. 2017. Two types of subject inversion in Italian wh-questions. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 62(3). 233–252.Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano & Silvio Cruschina. 2018. Postverbal subjects and nuclear pitch accent in Italian wh-questions. In Roberto Petrosino, Pietro Cerrone & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), From sounds to structures. Beyond the veil of Maya, 467–494. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano & Lucia Pozzan. 2014. Questions (and experimental answers) about Italian subjects. Subject positions in main and indirect question in L1 and attrition. In Carla Contemori & Lena Dal Pozzo (eds.), Inquiries into linguistic theory and language acquisition. Papers offered to Adriana Belletti, 28–44. Siena: CISCL Press.Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano, Luigi Rizzi & Mamoru Saito. 2018. On the incompatibility of wh and focus. Gengo Kenkyui – Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan 154. 29–51.Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano, Valentina Bianchi & Silvio Cruschina. 2021. Focus in wh-questions: Evidence from Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39. 405–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano, Silvio Cruschina & Luigi Rizzi. 2021. On some special properties of why in syntax and prosody. In Gabriela Soare (ed.), Why is ‘why’ unique? Its syntactic and semantic properties, 293–316. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Brody, Michael. 1995. Focus and checking theory. In Istvan Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian 5: Levels and structures, 29–43. Szeged: JATEPress.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 511–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2. 303–352.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2007. Inherent focus on wh-phrases. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11. 209–228.Google Scholar
Frota, Sónia, Marisa Cruz, Flaviane Svartman, Gisela Collischonn, Aline Fonseca, Carolina Serra, Pedro Oliveira & Marina Vigário. 2015. Intonational variation in Portuguese: European and Brazilian varieties. In Sónia Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Intonational variation in Romance, 235–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Jacqueline Guéron. 1999. English grammar: A generative perspective. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio & Pilar Prieto. 2015. Intonational variation in Spanish: European and American varieties. In Sónia Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Intonational variation in Romance, 350–391. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Michael A. 1993. Sardinian syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2013. Fronting, focus and illocutionary force in Sardinian. Lingua 134. 75–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. For a structured account of questions and answers. In Caroline Féry & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur vox sapientiae. A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 287–319. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 243–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Questions. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics. An international handbook of natural language meaning, Volume 2, 1742–1758. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. Manuscript. Focus and contrastive topics in question and answer acts. Humboldt-Universität Berlin & Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS) Berlin. 2017.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Second edn. in 2008).Google Scholar
Marotta, Giovanna. 2001. I toni accentuali nelle interrogative aperte (wh-) dell’italiano di Lucca. In Camilla Bettoni, Antonio Zampolli & Daniela Zorzi (eds.), Atti del II congresso di studi dell’Associazione Italiana di linguistica applicata, 175–194. Perugia: Guerra Edizioni.Google Scholar
Muntendam, Antje & Francisco Torreira. 2016. Focus and prosody in Spanish and Quechua: Insights from an interactive task. In Meghan E. Armstrong, Nicholas Hendriksen & Maria del Mar Vanrell (eds.), Intonational grammar in Ibero-Romance: Approaches across linguistic subfields, 69–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prieto, Pilar, Joan Borràs-Comes, Teresa Cabré, Verònica Crespo-Sendra, Ignasi Mascaró, Paolo Roseano, Rafèu Sichel-Bazin & Maria del Mar Vanrell. 2015. Intonational phonology of Catalan and its dialectal varieties. In Sónia Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Intonational variation in Romance, 9–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reich, Ingo. 2002. Question/answer congruence and the semantics of wh-phrases. Theoretical Linguistics 28. 73–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1991. Echo-w-Sätze und Echo-w-Fragen. In Marga Reis & Inger Rosengren (eds.), Fragesätze und Fragen. Referate Anlässlich der 12. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Saarbrücken 1990, 49–76. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. On the analysis of echo questions. Tampa Papers in Linguistics 3. 1–24.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook of 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. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Jae-Hak Yoon & Andreas Kathol (eds.), Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 49. Papers in Semantics, 91–136. Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
. 2012. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5. 1–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sichel-Bazin, Rafèu, Carolin Buthke & Trudel Meisenburg. 2012. The prosody of Occitan-French bilinguals. In Kurt Braunmüller & Christoph Gabriel (eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies, 349–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas. 1990. On the syntax of English echo questions. Lingua 81. 141–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Echo questions and the Minimalist Program. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 131–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and Prominence. Ph.D. Dissertation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar & Olga Fernández-Soriano. 2013. Variation at the interfaces in Ibero-Romance. Catalan and Spanish prosody and word order. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 12. 253–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Language variation at the prosody-syntax interface. Focus in European Spanish. In Marco García García & Melanie Uth (eds.), Focus realization in Romance and beyond, 33–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar, Francesc Ballone, Carlo Schirru & Pilar Prieto. 2015. Sardinian intonational phonology: Logudorese and Campidanese varieties. In Sónia Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Intonational variation in Romance, 317–349. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, María-Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2016. Nuclear stress and information structure. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 165–184. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, María-Luisa & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 2005. Phrasal stress, focus, and syntax. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The syntax companion, 522–556. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar