Abstract
In this work we deal with two structures that have a very similar pragmatic function in Italian and have been claimed to have similar semantic and syntactic properties, namely clefts and left peripheral focus. Since Chomsky (1977. On wh-movement. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.) they have been both considered as instances of A’-movement and should therefore behave alike. Here we investigate their prosody and their syntax on the basis of three experimental studies and show that while the prosodic patterns found are indeed very similar, their syntax is less homogenous than expected if we apply general tests that have been traditionally used to distinguish A- from A’-movement. In particular, we will discuss three of these tests, namely parasitic gaps, weak crossover and anaphoric binding and show that the two constructions yield quite different results. We analyse the differences within the framework of featural relativized minimality originally proposed in Rizzi (2004. Locality and the left periphery. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3, 223–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.) and subsequent work. On this basis, we conclude that there is no one to one match between prosodic and syntactic properties, since we observe differences in the syntactic behaviour of the two constructions that do not surface in the prosodic patterns. Indirectly, this study sheds new light on the interface between prosody and syntax and is a confirmation of a modular theory of the components of grammar: some specific syntactic properties have no reflex in other components of grammar and can only be detected through purely syntactic tests.
References
Beckman, Mary E. & Janet B. Pierrehumbert. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology 3. 255–309.10.1017/S095267570000066XSearch in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2008. Answering strategies: New information subjects and the nature of clefts. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and strategies, 242–265. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2015. The focus map of clefts extraposition and predication. In Ur Shlonsky (ed.), Beyond functional sequences, The cartography of syntactic structures 10, 42–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210588.003.0003Search in Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2015. Focus fronting and the syntax-semantics interface. In Ur Shlonsky (ed.), Beyond functional sequences, The cartography of syntactic structures 10, 60–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210588.003.0004Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2008. Two types of nonrestrictive relatives. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7. 99–137.Search in Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2013. Typological Studies. Word order and relative clauses. New York/London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert & van Riemsdijk Henk. 1994. Studies on scrambling: Movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomena. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110857214Search in Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2013. Predication and specification in the syntax of cleft sentences. In Katarina Hartmann & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Cleft structures, Linguistik Aktuell, vol. 208, 35–70. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/la.208.02dikSearch in Google Scholar
Fivela, Gili, Cinzia Avesani Barbara, Marco Barone, Giuliano Bocci, Claudia Crocco, Mariapaola D’Imperio, Rosa Giordano, Giovanna Marotta, Michelina Savino & Patrizia Sorianello. 2015. Varieties of Italian and their intonational phonology. In Sonia Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Intonation in romance, 140–197. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685332.003.0005Search in Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Francesca Ramaglia. 2013. (Pseudo)clefts at the syntax-prosody-discourse interface. In Katarina Hartmann & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Cleft structures, Linguistik Aktuell, vol. 208, 97–138. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/la.208.04fraSearch in Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Roland Hinterhölzl. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, Linguistik Aktuell, vol. 100, 87–116. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/la.100.07fraSearch in Google Scholar
Grice, Martine, Mariapaola D’Imperio, Michelina Savino & Cinzia Avesani. 2005. Towards a strategy for ToBI labelling varieties of Italian. In Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic typology. The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 362–389. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249633.003.0013Search in Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74. 245–273.10.1353/lan.1998.0211Search in Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 1998. A monoclausal structure for (pseudo-)cleft sentences. In Pius Ngwa Tamanji & Kiyomi Kusumoto (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 28, 283–298. Amherst: GLSA.10.1177/002204269802800202Search in Google Scholar
Munaro, Nicola & Jean-Yves Pollock. 2005. Qu’est-ce que (qu)-est-ce-que? A case study in comparative romance interrogative syntax. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard Kayne (eds.), The oxford handbook of comparative syntax, 542–606. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pinelli, Maria Cristina, Cinzia Avesani & Cecilia Poletto. in press. Is it prosody that settles the syntactic issue? An analysis of Italian cleft sentences. In Alessandro Vietti, Lorenzo Spreafico, Daniela Mereu & Vincenzo Galatà (eds.), Il parlato nel contesto naturale /speech in the natural context. Milano: Officinaventuno-AISV.Search in Google Scholar
Poletto, C. & J.-Y. Pollock. 2004. On the left periphery of some romance wh-questions. In L. Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP, 251–296. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Jean-Yves Pollock. 2009. Another look at wh-questions in romance: The case of Mendrisiotto and its consequences for the analysis of French wh- in situ and embedded interrogatives. In Daniele Torck & Leo Wetzels (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory, 199–258. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/cilt.303.12polSearch in Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Emanuela Sanfelici. 2018. On relative complementizers and relative pronouns. Linguistic Variation 18(2). 265–298.10.1075/lv.16002.polSearch in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and the left periphery. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures 3, 223–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2018. Intervention effects in grammar and language acquisition. Probus 30(2). 339–367.10.1515/probus-2018-0006Search in Google Scholar
Villata, Sandra, Luigi Rizzi & Julie Franck. 2016. Intervention effects and relativized minimality: New experimental evidence from graded judgments. Lingua 179. 76–96.10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.004Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
