Cover not available

In:Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2018: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 32, Utrecht
Edited by Frank Drijkoningen, Sergio Baauw and Luisa Meroni
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 357] 2021
► pp. 49–70

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 3
Focus fronting vs. wh-movement

Evidence from Sardinian

 | University of Helsinki
Published online: 17 December 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.357.03cru
Abstract
It is commonly held that focus fronting exhibits similar properties to wh-movement. The syntactic parallelism between the two types of movement has been supported by the semantic analyses of wh-questions that assume that when wh-words function as interrogative operators, they are inherently focal. The main goal of this paper is to challenge this highly attractive picture of the relationship between wh-words, focus, and movement, and to claim that wh-phrases are not inherently focal. The results of a prosodic production experiment on the distribution of the nuclear pitch accent in Sardinian wh-questions, together with the syntactic properties related to the asymmetry between direct and indirect wh-questions, form the empirical basis of this study.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.FF vs. wh-movement in Sardinian
  • 3.The distribution of the ‘nuclear pitch accent’ in wh-questions
    • 3.1The prosodic patterns of wh-questions
    • 3.2The NPA in Sardinian wh-questions
  • 4.Sardinian wh-questions: The prosodic experiment
    • 4.1The experimental material and procedure
    • 4.2Results
  • 5.The asymmetry between direct and indirect wh-questions
  • 6.Analysis: Interrogative wh-words are not inherently focal
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (47)
References
Aboh, Enoch O. & Roland Pfau. 2010. What’s a wh-word got to do with it? In Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds.), Mapping the left periphery. The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 5, 91–124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, Theodora & Mary Baltazani. 2012. Focus in Greek wh-questions. In Ivona Kučerová & Ad Neeleman (eds.), Information structure: Contrasts and positions, 206–246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Artstein, Ron. 2002. Parts of words: Compositional semantics for prosodic constituents. Ph.D. Dissertation: Rutgers University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14. 1–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E., Julia Hirschberg & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2005. The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Sun- Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 9–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Giuliano Bocci & Silvio Cruschina. 2017. Two types of subject inversion in Italian wh-questions. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 62(3). 233–252.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano & Silvio Cruschina. 2018. Postverbal subjects and nuclear pitch accent in Italian wh-questions. In Roberto Petrosino, Pietro Cerrone & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), From sounds to structures. Beyond the veil of Maya, 467–494. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano & Lucia Pozzan. 2014. Questions (and experimental answers) about Italian subjects. Subject positions in main and indirect question in L1 and attrition. In Carla Contemori & Lena Dal Pozzo (eds.), Inquiries into linguistic theory and language acquisition. Papers offered to Adriana Belletti, 28–44. Siena: CISCL Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano, Luigi Rizzi & Mamoru Saito. 2018. On the incompatibility of wh and focus. Gengo Kenkyui – Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan 154. 29–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano, Valentina Bianchi & Silvio Cruschina. 2021. Focus in wh-questions: Evidence from Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39. 405–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano, Silvio Cruschina & Luigi Rizzi. 2021. On some special properties of why in syntax and prosody. In Gabriela Soare (ed.), Why is ‘why’ unique? Its syntactic and semantic properties, 293–316. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Brody, Michael. 1995. Focus and checking theory. In Istvan Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian 5: Levels and structures, 29–43. Szeged: JATEPress.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 511–545. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2. 303–352.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2007. Inherent focus on wh-phrases. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11. 209–228.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frota, Sónia, Marisa Cruz, Flaviane Svartman, Gisela Collischonn, Aline Fonseca, Carolina Serra, Pedro Oliveira & Marina Vigário. 2015. Intonational variation in Portuguese: European and Brazilian varieties. In Sónia Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Intonational variation in Romance, 235–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Jacqueline Guéron. 1999. English grammar: A generative perspective. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio & Pilar Prieto. 2015. Intonational variation in Spanish: European and American varieties. In Sónia Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Intonational variation in Romance, 350–391. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, Michael A. 1993. Sardinian syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Fronting, focus and illocutionary force in Sardinian. Lingua 134. 75–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. For a structured account of questions and answers. In Caroline Féry & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur vox sapientiae. A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 287–319. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 243–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Questions. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics. An international handbook of natural language meaning, Volume 2, 1742–1758. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. Manuscript. Focus and contrastive topics in question and answer acts. Humboldt-Universität Berlin & Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS) Berlin. 2017.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Second edn. in 2008).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marotta, Giovanna. 2001. I toni accentuali nelle interrogative aperte (wh-) dell’italiano di Lucca. In Camilla Bettoni, Antonio Zampolli & Daniela Zorzi (eds.), Atti del II congresso di studi dell’Associazione Italiana di linguistica applicata, 175–194. Perugia: Guerra Edizioni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muntendam, Antje & Francisco Torreira. 2016. Focus and prosody in Spanish and Quechua: Insights from an interactive task. In Meghan E. Armstrong, Nicholas Hendriksen & Maria del Mar Vanrell (eds.), Intonational grammar in Ibero-Romance: Approaches across linguistic subfields, 69–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar, Joan Borràs-Comes, Teresa Cabré, Verònica Crespo-Sendra, Ignasi Mascaró, Paolo Roseano, Rafèu Sichel-Bazin & Maria del Mar Vanrell. 2015. Intonational phonology of Catalan and its dialectal varieties. In Sónia Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Intonational variation in Romance, 9–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reich, Ingo. 2002. Question/answer congruence and the semantics of wh-phrases. Theoretical Linguistics 28. 73–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1991. Echo-w-Sätze und Echo-w-Fragen. In Marga Reis & Inger Rosengren (eds.), Fragesätze und Fragen. Referate Anlässlich der 12. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Saarbrücken 1990, 49–76. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. On the analysis of echo questions. Tampa Papers in Linguistics 3. 1–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative Syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Jae-Hak Yoon & Andreas Kathol (eds.), Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 49. Papers in Semantics, 91–136. Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5. 1–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sichel-Bazin, Rafèu, Carolin Buthke & Trudel Meisenburg. 2012. The prosody of Occitan-French bilinguals. In Kurt Braunmüller & Christoph Gabriel (eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies, 349–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas. 1990. On the syntax of English echo questions. Lingua 81. 141–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Echo questions and the Minimalist Program. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 131–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and Prominence. Ph.D. Dissertation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar & Olga Fernández-Soriano. 2013. Variation at the interfaces in Ibero-Romance. Catalan and Spanish prosody and word order. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 12. 253–282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Language variation at the prosody-syntax interface. Focus in European Spanish. In Marco García García & Melanie Uth (eds.), Focus realization in Romance and beyond, 33–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar, Francesc Ballone, Carlo Schirru & Pilar Prieto. 2015. Sardinian intonational phonology: Logudorese and Campidanese varieties. In Sónia Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Intonational variation in Romance, 317–349. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, María-Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Nuclear stress and information structure. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 165–184. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, María-Luisa & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 2005. Phrasal stress, focus, and syntax. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The syntax companion, 522–556. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Samek-Lodovici, Vieri
2025. On corrective questions and the position of focus. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 43:3 ► pp. 1899 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue