Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2012: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' Leuven 2012
Edited by Karen Lahousse and Stefania Marzo
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 6] 2014
► pp. 199–222

‘Rippled’ low topics

A phonological approach to postfocal topics in Italian

This paper is concerned with low topics in the sentential left periphery. It builds on two main assumptions: (1) postfocal material is right-dislocated (Samek-Lodovici 2006); (2) fronted focus in Italian triggers a phonological process called ‘ripple effect of focus’ (Zubizarreta 2010). First, I will provide experimental evidence in favor of the second assumption and I will claim that a syntactic account of low topics is not tenable. Then, I will show that the free word order exhibited by postfocal constituents and the occurrence of low topics arise as side effects of the ripple effect of focus. This line of investigation argues in favor of a prosodic account of the phenomena at stake.
Published online: 18 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.6.10tor
References (39)
References
Benincá, Paola, and Cecilia Poletto. 2004. “Topic, Focus, and V2. Defining the CP Sublayers.” In The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, ed. by L. Rizzi, 52-72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2012. “On focus movement in Italian.” In Information Structure and Agreement, ed. by M.V. Camacho-Taboada, A. Jiménez Fernández, J. Martín-Gonzáles, and M. Reyes-Tejedor, 193-216. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, and Mara Frascarelli. 2010. “Is Topic a Root Phenomenon?” Iberia 2 (1): 43-88.Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano, and Cinzia Avesani. 2011. “Phrasal prominences do not need pitch movements: postfocal phrasal heads in Italian.” In Proceedings of INTERSPEECH 2011 , Florence, Italy, August 27-31 2011.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2009. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 5.1). [URL] (14 July 2010).Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo. 2000. ‘Doubling Structures and Reconstruction.’ Probus 12 (1): 93-126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. ‘‘A null theory of phrase and compound stress.’’ Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239-297.Google Scholar
. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Costa, João. 2004. Subject Positions and Interfaces: The Case of European Portuguese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Discourse-related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalcher Villafaña, Christina. 2006. “Consonant Weakening in Florentine Italian. An acoustic study of gradient and variable sound change.” Doctoral Dissertation, Georgetown University.
Ferreira, Fernanda. 1993. “Creation of prosody during sentence production.’’ Psychological Review 100 (2): 233-253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2000. The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghini, Marco. 1993. “ϕ-formation in Italian: A new proposal.” Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 41-77.Google Scholar
Giannelli, Luciano, and Leonardo M. Savoia. 1978. “L’indebolimento consonantico in Toscana.” Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 2: 25-58.Google Scholar
Göbbel, Edward. 2013. “Extraposition of relative clauses: Phonological solutions.” Lingua 136: 77-102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos, and Toni Rietveld. 1992. “Intonation contours, prosodic structure and pre-boundary lengthening.” Journal of Phonetics 20: 283-303.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2004. ‘‘Topicalization, CLLD and the left periphery.’’ In ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35: Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, ed. by Claudia Maienborn, Werner Frey, and Benjamin Shaer, 157-192. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland, and Diana Pili. 2004. “Argument shift across language types.” In Proceedings of the XXVIII IGG, ed. P. Bottari. Lecce: Congedo Editore.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 2005. “Prosodic Typology.” In Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, ed. by Sun-Ah Jun, 430-457. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kanerva, Jonni. 1990. “Focusing on phonological phrases in Chichewa.” In The Phonology-Syntax Connection, ed. by Sharon Inkelas, and Draga Zec, 145–161. Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 2010. “Is free postverbal order in Hungarian a syntactic or a PF phenomenon?” In The Sound Patterns of Syntax, ed. by Nomi Erteschik-Shir, and Lisa Rochman, 53-71. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, and Hans van de Koot. 2008. “Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11: 137-189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. ‘‘The fine structure of the left-periphery.” In Elements of Grammar, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. “Constraints on variables in syntax.” Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. “When right dislocation meets the left periphery. A unified analysis of Italian non-final focus.” Lingua 116: 836-873. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandalo, Filomena, and Hubert Truckenbrodt. 2002. “Some notes on phonological phrasing in Brazilian Poroguese.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 42: 285-310.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. “The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing.” In Prosody: Theory and experiment. Studies presented to Gosta Bruce, ed. by M. Horne, 231-261. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkrik, Elizabeth. 2005. “Comments on Intonational Phrasing in English.” In Prosodies, ed. by S. Frota, M. Vigario, and M.J. Freitas, 11-58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Szendröi, Kriszta. 2002. “Stress-focus correspondence in Italian.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000, ed. by C. Beyssade, R. Bok-Bennema, F. Drijkoningen and P. Monachesi, 287-303. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus.” The Linguistic Review 20(1): 37-78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torregrossa, Jacopo. 2012. “Encoding topic, focus and contrast: Informational notions at the interfaces.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Verona.
. Under review. “Postfocal Topics in Italian and Spanish: A Phonological Account.”
Vallduví, Eric. 1992. The Informational Component. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Focus, Prosody and Word Order. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. ‘‘The Syntax and Prosody of Focus: The Bantu-Italian Connection.” Iberia 2 (1): 131-168.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Cruschina, Silvio
2022. Topicalization, Dislocation and Clitic Resumption. Studia Linguistica 76:2 ► pp. 354 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 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.