In:Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 31, Bucharest
Edited by Alexandru Nicolae and Adina Dragomirescu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 355] 2021
► pp. 73–90
On focal and wh-projections, indirect wh-questions, and quantificational chains
Published online: 1 December 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.355.04bon
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.355.04bon
Abstract
In this chapter, I investigate the cartography of focus using novel data from non-standard Italian (non-StandIT) and Trevigiano, a Venetan dialect. I argue that focus is less constrained in indirect wh-questions in these varieties than in Standard Italian (StandIT). Indeed, in Trevigiano both focalised objects and adverbials are felicitous in constructions with a lower wh-phrase. Using Featural Relativized Minimality, I argue that in the case of direct objects, the problem of crossing chains is circumvented using an IP-internal clitic that absorbs the [+N] feature of the direct object. Then, I explain the behaviour of focalised adverbials in these varieties claiming that they are externally-merged directly in the Left Periphery, hence create a high focus-chain that does not interfere with the creation of the lower wh-chain.
Keywords: syntax, cartography, focus, peripheries,
wh-phrases,
wh-movement, clitic doubling, chain formation, Romance
Article outline
- 1.Focal projections in the cartographic enterprise
- 1.1The left periphery of the clause
- 1.2The low periphery of the clause
- 2.Foci and wh-phrases
- 2.1On Foc>Wh
- 2.1.1Trevigiano and non-standard Italian
- 2.1On Foc>Wh
- 3.An analysis of clitic-doubled foci
- 3.1Enter featural relativized minimality
- 3.2Left peripheral external-merge
- 3.3Division of labour between the focalised NP and its doubling clitic
- 3.3.1Cl-DF are real foci
- 3.3.2On the role of the clause-internal clitic
- 4.Further thoughts on chain-formation and the peripheries
- 4.1On ‘mild’ feature relations
- 4.2Peripheral focal- and wh-projections
- 5.Conclusions
Acknowledgments Notes References
References (32)
Antinucci, Francesco & Guglielmo Cinque. 1977. Sull’ordine delle parole in italiano: L’emarginazione. Studi di grammatica italiana 6. 121–146.
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP, Volume 2, 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bianchi, Valentina, Giuliano Bocci & Silvio Cruschina. 2017. Two types of subject inversion in Italian wh-questions. Revue roumaine de linguistique 62. 233–252.
Bocci, Giuliano. 2013. The syntax–prosody interface. A cartographic perspective with evidence from Italian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bonan, Caterina. 2018. On insituness and (very) low wh-positions. The case of Trevigiano. GG@G: Generative Grammar in Geneva 11. Special Issue: Proceedings of the 1st SynCart workshop “From maps to principles”, edited by Giuseppe Samo, Karen Martini & Giuliano Bocci, 21–41.
. 2019. On clause-internally moved wh-phrases. Wh-to-Foc, nominative clitics, and the theory of northern Italian wh-in situ. Doctoral dissertation, Université de Genève.
Bosković, Željko. 1997. Superiority effects with multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian. Lingua 102(1). 1–20.
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2002. Against optional and null clitics: Right dislocation vs. marginalization. Studia Linguistica 58. 29–57.
Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi. 2010. The cartography of syntactic structures. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 65–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Crousaz, Isabelle & Ur Shlonsky. 2003. The distribution of a subject clitic pronoun in a Franco-Provençal dialect and the licensing of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3). 413–442.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1990. Clitic doubling, wh-movement, and quantification in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry 21(3). 351–397.
Friedman, Nama, Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi. 2009. Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119(1). 67–88.
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2001. On wh-questions in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics / Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 46(1/2). 41–51.
Kato, Mary. 2013. Deriving “wh-in-situ” through movement in Brazilian Portuguese. In Victoria Camacho-Taboada, Ángel L. Jiménez Fernández, Javier Martín-González & Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds), Information structure and agreement, 175–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Manzini, Maria Rita. 2014. Grammatical categories: Strong and weak pronouns in Romance. Lingua 150. 171–201.
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3). 365–424.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook on generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
. 2001. On the position ‘Int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 287–296. Leiden: Brill.
. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 3, 3–15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 2005. On some properties of subjects and topics. In Laura Brugè, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, Walter Schweikert & Giuseppina Turano (eds.), Proceedings of the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, 203–224. Venice: Cafoscarina.
Rizzi, Luigi & Giuliano Bocci. 2017. The left periphery of the clause – primarily illustrated for Italian. In Martin Everaert & Henk C. Van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, Volume 2, 1–30. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Rizzi, Luigi & Ur Shlonsky. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 115–160. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2015. The interaction of focus, givenness, and prosody. A study of Italian clause structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1996. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance’. Linguistic Inquiry 26(1). 79–123.
