Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 15: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 30, Frankfurt
Edited by Ingo Feldhausen, Martin Elsig, Imme Kuchenbrandt and Mareike Neuhaus
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 15] 2019
► pp. 177–196

Chapter 9
Prosody-driven scrambling in Italian

ORCID logo | University College London
In Italian, the syntactic layout of the constituent following a postverbal focus affects whether its internal components may scramble above the preceding focus. The governing factor is the phonological phrasing projected by the constituent. Scrambling is only possible when it improves stress alignment with the right boundary of the intonational phrase wrapping the sentence. This study provides further evidence that the classic T-model where syntax feeds prosody needs to be amended and allow for prosody-syntax interaction. As this study shows, OT provides a possible model for such interaction that entirely dispenses with interface-related stipulations.
Keywords: prosody, syntax, interface, focus, scrambling, Italian, OT
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Prosody-driven scrambling
    • Case I (independent phrases)
    • Case II (head-complement)
  • 3.Detailed analysis
    • 3.1Case I – Independent phrases can scramble
      • Input A1
      • Input A2
      • Input A3
      • Input A4
    • 3.2Case II – Complements of overt lexical heads cannot scramble
      • Input A1 and A2
      • Input A3
      • Input A4
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 9 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.15.09sam
References (48)
References
Belletti, Adriana, and Ur Shlosnky. 1995. “The Order of Verbal Complements: A Comparative Study.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3 (13): 489–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano. 2008. On the Syntax-Prosody Interface: An analysis of the prosodic properties of postfocal material in Italian and its implications. Nanzan Linguistics 5. 13–42.Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano, and Cinzia Avesani. 2005. Focus Contrastivo nella Periferia Sinistra della Frase: un Solo Accento, Ma Non Solo un Accento. In Analisi Prosodica: Teorie, Modelli, e Sistemi di Annotazione, ed. by Renata Savy, and Claudia Crocco, 111–141. Rimini: EDK Editore.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulalia. 1990. “Subjects in Catalan.” MITWPL 13: 1–26.Google Scholar
Bouma, Gerlof, and Helen de Hoop. 2008. “Unscrambled Pronouns in Dutch.” Linguistic Inquiry 39: 669–677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2001. Let’s Phrase It! Focus, Word Order, and Prosodic Phrasing in German. In Competition in syntax, ed. by Gereon Müller and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 69–105. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. What Do Definites Do that Indefinites Definitely Don’t? In Audiator Vox Sapientiae – A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, ed. by Caroline Féry and Wolfgang Sternefeld, Vol. 52, 70–100. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Focus Projection and Default Prominence.” In The Architecture of Focus, ed. by Valéria Molnár, and Susanne Winkler, 321–346. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel, and Rodrígo Gutiérrez-Bravo. 2002. Focus-related word order variation without the NSR. A prosody-based crosslinguistic analysis. Syntax at Santa Cruz 3: 41–58. Santa Cruz: ICSC.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2002. “Against Optional and Null Clitics. Right Dislocation vs. Marginalization”. Studia Linguistica 56: 29–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa and Laura Downing. 2009. Where’s the topic in Zulu? The Linguistic Review 26(2–3): 207–238.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa, and Laura Downing. 2012. “Against focusP: arguments from Zulu.” In: Contrast and Positions in Information Structure, ed. by Ivona Kučerová, and Ad Neeleman, 247–266. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. “On Phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–66. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, João. 1998. Word Order Variation. A constraint-based approach. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2004. “On the order of objects in Icelandic double object constructions.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics. London: UCL.Google Scholar
. 2005. “The Optimal Placement of up and ab – A Comparison.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8, 185–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, Laura. 2006. “The prosody and syntax of focus in Chitumbuka.” Papers in Bantu Grammar and Description, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43: 55–79.Google Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka. 2008. An overview of theories of the syntax-phonology interface. Anuario Del Seminario de Filología Vasca ‘Julio de Urquijo’ 42(1): 209–286.Google Scholar
Etxepare, Ricardo, and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 2005. “In-situ wh-phrases in Spanish: locality and quantification.” Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 33, 9–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldhausen, Ingo, and Maria Del Mar Vanrell Bosch. 2014. “Prosody, Focus and Word Order in Catalan and Spanish: An Optimality Theoretic Approach”. Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar on Speech Production (ISSP), Köln (Germany), 122–125.
Féry, Caroline. 2007. “Wide Focus Object Fronting.” Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 8.Google Scholar
. 2013. Focus as prosodic alignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31 (3): 683–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2000. The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodriguez. 2002. “Focus, Word Order Variation and Intonation in Spanish and English.” In Romance Phonology and Variation, ed. By Caroline Wiltshire, and Joaquim Camps, 39–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima. 2008. Focus, contrast, and the syntax-phonology interface: the case of French cleft-sentences. In Current Issues in Unity and Diversity of Languages. Collection of the papers selected from the 18th International Congress of Linguists. Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar
. 2011. “On the role of phonology and discourse in Francilian French wh-questions.” Journal of Linguistics 47, 129–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harford, Carolyn, and Katherine Demuth. 1999. Prosody outranks syntax: An Optimality approach to subject inversion in Bantu relatives. Linguistic Analysis 29: 46–68.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1993. Generalized Alignment. Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 2007. Prosodic Phonology With a New Foreword, 2nd edition. Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Technical Report No. 2 234. Rutgers University: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 1996. Constraints on Subjects. An Optimality-Theoretic Analysis. PhD Thesis. Rutgers University.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Prosody-Syntax Interaction in the Expression of Focus”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 687–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. The Interaction of Focus, Givenness, and Prosody. A Study of Italian Clause Structure. (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Constraint Conflict and Information Structure. In Handbook of Information Structure, ed. by Caroline Féry, and Shinichiro Ishihara, 203–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, Tanja, and Ralf Vogel. 2004. Dialectal Variation in German 3-Verb Clusters: A Surface-Oriented Optimality Theoretic Account. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7(3): 235–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Sentence Prosody: Intonation, Stress, and Phrasing”. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed. by John Goldsmith, 550–569. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Comments on Intonational Phrasing in English.” In Prosodies, ed. by Sonia Frota, Marina Vigario, and Maria J. Freitas, 11–58. The Hague: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Szendröi, Kriszta. 2001. Focus and the Syntax-Phonology Interface. PhD Thesis. University College London.Google Scholar
. 2002. Stress-Focus correspondence in Italian. In Romance Language and Linguistic Theory 2000, ed. by Claire Beyssade, Reineke Bok-Bennema, Frank Drijkoningen, and Paola Monachesi, 287–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20, 37–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases – their relation to syntax, focus, and prominance. PhD Thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
. 1999. “On the Relation between Syntactic Phrases and Phonological Phrases.” Linguistic Inquiry 30 (2): 219–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine. 2006. Expression of information structure in the Bantu language Northern Sotho. Berlin: ZAS Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. Luisa. 2010. The Syntax and Prosody of Focus: the Bantu-Italian Connection. IBERIA: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2(1). 131–168.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Roseano, Paolo & Francesco Rodriquez
2023. Tune-text accommodation in Optimality Theory: an account of Southern Valencian Catalan yes-no questions. Folia Linguistica 57:1 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
ÖZGEN, Murat
2021. Negative Polarity Items, DPs and Phase Sliding. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 38:1 ► pp. 18 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.