Exhaustivity operators and fronted focus in Italian
In this contribution we present an original analysis of Fronted Focus in Italian (contrastive/corrective focus in the terminology of Belletti 2004), based on the insight that Fronted Focus can be decomposed into Contrast and the Exhaustivity Operator involved in the computation of grammaticalized implicatures. We argue that the different varieties of alleged Contrastive Focus in Italian are amenable to an analysis according to which the trigger for movement is an attracting Q-feature in the clausal left-periphery, as with focus-movement in Hungarian. The difference between Italian and Hungarian can be derived from the properties of lexical endowment of the Exhaustivity Operator Exh, together with the fact that the latter ‘associates’ with Focus in Hungarian and with Contrast in Italian.
References (27)
References
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In The Structure of CP and IP, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 16–51. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Belletti, Adriana. 2008. The CP of clefts. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 33: 191–204.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bianchi, Valentina. 2013. On focus movement in Italian. In Information Structure and Agreement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 197], María Victoria Camacho-Taboada, Ángel Jiménez-Fernández, Javier Martín-Gonzáles & Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds), 193–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bianchi, Valentina & Bocci, Giuliano 2012. Should I stay or should I go? Optional focus movement in Italian. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9, Christopher Piñon (ed.), 1–18. <[URL]>![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. Special issue.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bocci, Giuliano & Avesani, Cinzia. 2006. Focus contrastivo nella periferia sinistra della frase: Un solo accento, ma non solo un accento. In Teorie, modelli e sistemi di annotazione. Atti del II Convegno Nazionale AISV, Associazione Italiana di Scienze della Voce, Renata Savy & Claudia Crocco (eds), 1–30. Padova: EDK Editore.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5): 511–545. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chierchia, Gennaro, Fox, Danny & Spector, Benjamin. 2010. Hurford’s constraint and the theory of scalar implicatures. Evidence for embedded implicatures. Ms. Harvard University, MIT and Institut Jean-Nicod.
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus informational focus. Language 74: 245–273. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölz, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], Susanne Winkler & Kerstin Schwabe (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1973. Questions in Montague Grammar. Foundations of Language 10: 42–53.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Horvath, Julia. 2010. Discourse features, syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua 120: 1346–1369. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jacobs, Joachim. 1983. Fokus und Skalen. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikel im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 17–53. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In The Architecture of Focus, Valerie Molnar & Susanne Winkler (eds), 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Neeleman, Ad, Titov, Elena, van de Koot, Hans & Vermeulen, Reiko. 2009. A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In Alternatives to Cartography, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.), 15–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface Strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left-periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sauerland, Uli. 2004. On embedded implicatures. Journal of Cognitive Science 5: 107–137.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sauerland, Uli. 2010. Embedded implicatures and experimental constraints: A reply to Geurts & Pouscoulous and Chemla. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(2): 1–13. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sauerland, Uli. 2012. The computation of scalar implicatures: Pragmatic, lexical or grammatical? Language and Linguistics Compass, 36–49. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Torregrossa, Jacopo. 2012. Encoding Topic, Focus and Contrast. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Verona.
Vallduví, Enric & Vilkuna, Maria. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. In The Limits of Syntax [Syntax & Semantics 29], Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds), 79–108. San Diego CA: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Rizzi, Luigi & Giuseppe Samo
2022.
Introduction: On the Role of Romance in Cartographic Studies.
Probus 34:1
► pp. 1 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Dal Farra, Chiara
2018.
Towards a Fine-Grained Theory of Focus.
Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale :1
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. 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.