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
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

Cited by 2 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.