In:Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 15: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 30, Frankfurt
Edited by Ingo Feldhausen, Martin Elsig, Imme Kuchenbrandt and Mareike Neuhaus
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 15] 2019
► pp. 177–196
Chapter 9Prosody-driven scrambling in Italian
Published online: 9 October 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.15.09sam
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.15.09sam
Abstract
In Italian, the syntactic layout of the
constituent following a postverbal focus affects whether its
internal components may scramble above the preceding focus. The
governing factor is the phonological phrasing projected by the
constituent. Scrambling is only possible when it improves stress
alignment with the right boundary of the intonational phrase
wrapping the sentence. This study provides further evidence that the
classic T-model where syntax feeds prosody needs to be amended and
allow for prosody-syntax interaction. As this study shows, OT
provides a possible model for such interaction that entirely
dispenses with interface-related stipulations.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Prosody-driven scrambling
- Case I (independent phrases)
- Case II (head-complement)
- 3.Detailed analysis
- 3.1Case I – Independent phrases can scramble
- Input A1
- Input A2
- Input A3
- Input A4
- 3.2Case II – Complements of overt lexical heads cannot
scramble
- Input A1 and A2
- Input A3
- Input A4
- 3.1Case I – Independent phrases can scramble
- 4.Conclusions
Acknowledgements Notes References Appendix
References (48)
Belletti, Adriana, and Ur Shlosnky. 1995. “The
Order of Verbal Complements: A Comparative
Study.” Natural Language and
Linguistic
Theory 3 (13): 489–520.
Bocci, Giuliano. 2008. On
the Syntax-Prosody Interface: An analysis of the prosodic
properties of postfocal material in Italian and its
implications. Nanzan
Linguistics 5. 13–42.
Bocci, Giuliano, and Cinzia Avesani. 2005. Focus
Contrastivo nella Periferia Sinistra della Frase: un Solo
Accento, Ma Non Solo un
Accento. In Analisi
Prosodica: Teorie, Modelli, e Sistemi di
Annotazione, ed.
by Renata Savy, and Claudia Crocco, 111–141. Rimini: EDK Editore.
Bouma, Gerlof, and Helen de Hoop. 2008. “Unscrambled
Pronouns in
Dutch.” Linguistic
Inquiry 39: 669–677.
Büring, Daniel. 2001. Let’s
Phrase It! Focus, Word Order, and Prosodic Phrasing in
German. In Competition
in syntax, ed.
by Gereon Müller and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 69–105. Berlin: De Gruyter.
. 2002. What
Do Definites Do that Indefinites Definitely
Don’t? In Audiator
Vox Sapientiae – A Festschrift for Arnim von
Stechow, ed.
by Caroline Féry and Wolfgang Sternefeld, Vol. 52, 70–100. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
. 2006. “Focus
Projection and Default
Prominence.” In The
Architecture of Focus, ed.
by Valéria Molnár, and Susanne Winkler, 321–346. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Büring, Daniel, and Rodrígo Gutiérrez-Bravo. 2002. Focus-related
word order variation without the NSR. A prosody-based
crosslinguistic
analysis. Syntax at Santa
Cruz 3: 41–58. Santa Cruz: ICSC.
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2002. “Against
Optional and Null Clitics. Right Dislocation vs.
Marginalization”. Studia
Linguistica 56: 29–57.
Cheng, Lisa and Laura Downing. 2009. Where’s
the topic in Zulu? The
Linguistic
Review 26(2–3): 207–238.
Cheng, Lisa, and Laura Downing. 2012. “Against
focusP: arguments from
Zulu.” In: Contrast
and Positions in Information
Structure, ed.
by Ivona Kučerová, and Ad Neeleman, 247–266. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 2008. “On
Phases.” In Foundational
Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger
Vergnaud, ed.
by Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–66. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Costa, João. 1998. Word
Order Variation. A constraint-based
approach. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Dehé, Nicole. 2004. “On
the order of objects in Icelandic double object
constructions.” UCL Working
Papers in
Linguistics. London: UCL.
. 2005. “The
Optimal Placement of up and ab – A
Comparison.” Journal of
Comparative Germanic
Linguistics 8, 185–224.
Downing, Laura. 2006. “The
prosody and syntax of focus in
Chitumbuka.” Papers in Bantu
Grammar and Description, ZAS Papers in
Linguistics 43: 55–79.
Elordieta, Gorka. 2008. An
overview of theories of the syntax-phonology
interface. Anuario Del
Seminario de Filología Vasca ‘Julio de
Urquijo’ 42(1): 209–286.
Etxepare, Ricardo, and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 2005. “In-situ
wh-phrases in Spanish: locality and
quantification.” Recherches
linguistiques de
Vincennes 33, 9–34.
Feldhausen, Ingo, and Maria Del Mar Vanrell Bosch. 2014. “Prosody,
Focus and Word Order in Catalan and Spanish: An Optimality
Theoretic
Approach”. Proceedings of
the 10th International Seminar
on Speech Production
(ISSP), Köln
(Germany), 122–125.
Féry, Caroline. 2007. “Wide
Focus Object
Fronting.” Interdisciplinary
Studies on Information Structure
8.
Frascarelli, Mara. 2000. The
Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions
in
Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodriguez. 2002. “Focus,
Word Order Variation and Intonation in Spanish and
English.” In Romance
Phonology and Variation, ed.
By Caroline Wiltshire, and Joaquim Camps, 39–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hamlaoui, Fatima. 2008. Focus,
contrast, and the syntax-phonology interface: the case of
French
cleft-sentences. In Current
Issues in Unity and Diversity of Languages. Collection of
the papers selected from the 18th International Congress of
Linguists. Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea.
. 2011. “On
the role of phonology and discourse in Francilian French
wh-questions.” Journal of
Linguistics 47, 129–162.
Harford, Carolyn, and Katherine Demuth. 1999. Prosody
outranks syntax: An Optimality approach to subject inversion
in Bantu
relatives. Linguistic
Analysis 29: 46–68.
McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1993. Generalized
Alignment. Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.
Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 2007. Prosodic
Phonology With a New Foreword, 2nd
edition. Boston: De Gruyter.
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality
Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative
Grammar. Technical Report No.
2 234. Rutgers University: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality
Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative
Grammar. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 1996. Constraints
on Subjects. An Optimality-Theoretic
Analysis. PhD
Thesis. Rutgers University.
. 2005. “Prosody-Syntax
Interaction in the Expression of
Focus”. Natural Language and
Linguistic
Theory 23: 687–755.
. 2015. The
Interaction of Focus, Givenness, and Prosody. A Study of
Italian Clause
Structure. (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 2016. Constraint
Conflict and Information
Structure. In Handbook
of Information Structure, ed.
by Caroline Féry, and Shinichiro Ishihara, 203–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmid, Tanja, and Ralf Vogel. 2004. Dialectal
Variation in German 3-Verb Clusters: A Surface-Oriented
Optimality Theoretic
Account. The Journal of
Comparative Germanic
Linguistics 7(3): 235–274.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology
and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and
Structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
. 1995. “Sentence
Prosody: Intonation, Stress, and
Phrasing”. In The
Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed.
by John Goldsmith, 550–569. Cambridge: Blackwell.
. 2005. “Comments
on Intonational Phrasing in
English.” In Prosodies, ed.
by Sonia Frota, Marina Vigario, and Maria J. Freitas, 11–58. The Hague: De Gruyter.
Szendröi, Kriszta. 2001. Focus
and the Syntax-Phonology
Interface. PhD
Thesis. University College London.
. 2002. Stress-Focus
correspondence in
Italian. In Romance
Language and Linguistic Theory
2000, ed.
by Claire Beyssade, Reineke Bok-Bennema, Frank Drijkoningen, and Paola Monachesi, 287–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological
phrases – their relation to syntax, focus, and
prominance. PhD
Thesis, MIT.
. 1999. “On
the Relation between Syntactic Phrases and Phonological
Phrases.” Linguistic
Inquiry 30 (2): 219–55.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Roseano, Paolo & Francesco Rodriquez
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 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.
