Article published in:
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
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.6.10tor
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, and Mara Frascarelli
2010 “Is Topic a Root Phenomenon?” Iberia 2 (1): 43-88.Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano
2013 The Syntax-Prosody Interface: A cartographic perspective with evidence from Italian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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). http://​www​.praat​.org/ (14 July 2010).Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo
2000 ‘Doubling Structures and Reconstruction.’ Probus 12 (1): 93-126. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara
2000 The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus.” The Linguistic Review 20(1): 37-78. CrossrefGoogle 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

Cited by 1 other publications

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 04 july 2022. 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.