ON THE SYNTAX-PROSODY INTERFACE:
AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROSODIC PROPERTIES OF POSTFOCAL MATERIALIN ITALIAN AND ITS IMPLICATIONS*
Giuliano Bocci
University of Siena

1.

Introduction

In this paper, I discuss some properties of the prosodic system of Tuscan Italian argued
for in Bocci & Avesani (2005, 2008) and their implications for a model of the syntax-prosodyinterface. Building on the cartographic approach (Cinque 1999, Rizzi 2004a, 2006), I argue
for a model in which scope-discourse properties such as topic and focus are encoded asfeatures in the syntactic representation starting from the numeration (Aboh 2007). In such aview, a direct link between LF and PF is dispensed with, in compliance with the T-model ofgrammar and current minimalist assumptions. I argue that the syntactic output where scopediscourse properties are explicitly encoded (Rizzi 2004b), is converted at spell-out into theprosodic representation by two interacting sets of mapping rules: default rules and marked
feature-sensitive rules (see Selkirk 2007). Building on Bocci & Avesani’s (2008) prosodic
analysis of postfocal material in Tuscan Italian, I argue that, even if discourse features (andthe syntactic structure) feed the prosodic computation, the application of mapping rules (ininteraction with structural requirements) does not guarantee isomorphism either between the
prosodic representation and the syntactic structure, or between the prosodic representation andthe informational properties. I argue that such a conclusion is expected to the extent to which
prosody is part of the morpho-phonological component.
The paper is organized as follows. In 2.1., I briefly introduce the cartographic approachand defend the idea that focus is encoded in syntax as a feature (contra Szendröi 2001, a.o.).
Building on Aboh (2004, 2007), I assume that the information structure of a linguistic
expression is predetermined in the numeration, where discourse-related functional heads areinserted as lexical items endowed with optional formal features. In this way, discoursefeatures can drive the syntactic computation similarly to case and φ-features and the T-modelof grammar is preserved in accordance with current minimalist framework. In section 2.2, I
sketch the format of the syntax-prosody interface, arguing in favor of the idea that syntactic*

I would like to thank Andrea Calabrese, Cinzia Avesani, Luigi Rizzi, Adriana Belletti and Valentina
Bianchi, for their illuminating comments and encouraging support. Special thanks go to Elisabeth
Selkirk for her seminal and invaluable comments at the beginning of my research. Thanks are due also
to Mamoru Saito, Keiko Murasugi, Tomohiro Fujii, Kensuke Takita, Hiroshi Aoyagi, Niccolò Berni,
Lucia Pozzan, Angela Castellarin and the audience at the Siena-Tsinghua-Nanzan Joint Workshop on
Linguistic Theory and Language Acquisition 2008, where a version of this paper was presented. Allerrors are mine.

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5, 13-42© 2008 Giuliano Bocci

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

representations are converted in prosodic representations by two sets of mapping rules:
default mapping rules and marked feature-sensitive mapping rules (Selkirk 2007).
In section 3, I discuss specific properties of the prosodic system of Tuscan Italian. In 3.1,
I present the results of Avesani & Vayra (2003), which show that contrastive focus and new
information focus associate with distinctive pitch accents (PAs) in Florentine Italian. Such a
result leads to conclude that the notion of focus cannot be eliminated and derived from
Schwartzchild’s (1999) notion of Givenness (Bader 2001), or from the one of Presupposition(Sauerland 2005). I then argue that contrastive and new information focus are both marked
with features (contra Selkirk 2007). In 3.2, I introduce the proposals presented in Bocci &Avesani (2008). According to their analysis, postfocal material in Tuscan Italian is in no way
extrametrical (as assumed by Szendröi 2001, a.o.), but it is fully prosodically represented: it isphrased, stressed, and intonationally specified. Bocci & Avesani argue that postfocal material
in Tuscan Italian is forced to associate with a L* pitch accent. L* is not inserted as a correlateof any discourse property (either Givenness, (back)-ground or tail in the sense of Vallduvì
1992), but rather as a special marker to define the right-hand side of the focus phrased bymarking postfocal material as non-focus. L*-association in Tuscan Italian is ruled by the
Focus Defining Rule which requires that the focal pitch accent (i.e. the pitch accent fromwhich the focus projection is computed) is the rightmost accent in the utterance able toconvey focus. In such a view, L*-association is non-locally triggered by the occurrence of a
focus feature. I then discuss some consequences of this analysis for the distinction between
focus and topic. In 3.3, I provide convergent evidence for Bocci & Avesani’s proposals,
basing on the metrical properties of the postfocal material and the properties of wh-questions.
Showing that postfocal material is not extra-metrical, I argue that in case of focus in non-final
position marked mapping rules override default rules leading to the formation of intonational
phrases whose metrical head is not aligned with the rightmost element, as shown by Frota(2000) with regard to European Portuguese.
In section 4, I argue that prosody is not isomorphic either to the syntactic structure or to
the discourse properties. I show that syntactic elements consistently endowed with certain
discourse properties receive different prosodic interpretations in accordance with the position
occupied within the prosodic structure. This is the case, for instance, of right dislocated topics
which associate with different pitch accents according to their positions, although invariantly
count as tail in the sense of Vallduvì (1992). Moreover, I discuss the consequences ofassuming that focus always is associated by overt syntactic movement as proposed by Kayne(1998) and Belletti (2004a). I argue that even if this assumption can lead to a reformulation of
the domain of the L*-association in terms of syntactic configuration, such a reformulation
does not guarantee isomorphism between prosody and syntax.

-14-

On the Syntax-prosody Interface (G. Bocci)

2.

Background Assumptions

2.1. Topic and Focus in Syntax
According to the cartographic approach (Cinque 1999, Rizzi 2004a), scope-discourse
properties are assumed to be encoded as features in dedicated and ordered functional
projections and to play a role in the syntactic computation. In this view, syntax presents to theinterfaces representations in which discourse-scope properties are transparently mapped. So,
discourse properties like focus or “topichood” can be directly read off the syntactic output andbe interpreted by the external components, i.e. the interpretative component and phonology.
In such an approach, hence, there is no need to postulate a direct connection between theinterpretative component and phonology, in compliance with the T-model of grammar.
With regard to the left periphery of the clause, Rizzi (1997) proposes that CP is to be
split in different layers, containing distinct focus and topic projections. A phrase endowedwith a certain scope-discourse feature enters in a probe-goal relation with the appropriate
functional head endowed with the pertinent feature. In this way, an element hosted in theSpecifier of a topic projection is interpreted as Topic, while a phrase occupying the Specifierof the focus projection is interpreted as focused. Such positions where scope-discourse featureare encoded are called criterial positions.
In the current minimalist framework, a linguist expression is conceived of as a pair <π,λ> consisting of a PF representation associated with a LF representation. The computational
system maps some array of lexical choices composing the initial numeration N to the pair (<π,λ>). Chomsky (1995: 228) proposes that a Condition of Inclusiveness (IC) applies to thecomputation from N to LF: “any structure formed by the computation […] is constituted ofelements already present in the lexical items selected for N; no new objects are added in thecourse of the computation apart from rearrangements of lexical properties […].”
It has been observed by several scholars (Zubizarreta 1998, Szendröi 2001, Brunetti
2004, Reinhart 2006, a.o.) that assuming a focus feature would lead to violate InclusivenessCondition, since it is neither obvious how focus can be a property of a lexical item, nor clear
how it could drive the syntactic computation within Chomsky’s feature-checking mechanism.
In the light of such considerations, Zubizarreta (1998) proposes a weakened formulation of IC
which allows that a focus feature plays a role in the syntactic computation. By contrast,
building on Reinhart (1995), Szendröi (2001, 2002) argues that the existence of a focus
feature in syntax must be rejected and that focus is encoded in prosody by means of the main
prominence. The correspondence between prosodic prominence and focus is made possible bya direct link between LF and PF. In such a view, focus does not play any role in syntax: focus
movement cannot be feature driven, nor are there distinct positions of topic and focus.
Rejecting the T-model of grammar, she proposes an architecture – couched within the
Optimal Theoretical framework – in which LF and PF communicate directly. The
Inclusiveness Condition principle is preserved at the cost of dismissing the T-model ofgrammar.

-15-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

With regard to Hungarian, Szendröi (2001) proposes that focus fronting is not featuredriven, but it results from the need to align the focus phrase with the location where theprosodic component assigns the main prominence by means of its own independent
mechanism: the focus phrase moves in preverbal position to receive the phrasal prominence
assigned by the prosodic system of Hungarian invariantly to the leftmost element. Italian,nevertheless, exhibits leftward focus movement, even though prosodic phrasal prominences
are assigned to the rightmost element. Given that in her model focus movement cannot befeature driven, Szendröi advances the proposal that focus fronting in Italian is (part of) amarked strategy to allow d-linked material to be extrametrical and hence unstressed asprescribed by a “Anaphoric Interpretation Principle”. Such a principle, assumed as universal
by Szendröi, requires that material is discourse-linked if it is unstressed. Some aspects of thisanalysis will be discussed in sections 3.2 and 3.3.
A different answer to the issue posed by Inclusiveness Condition is discussed by Aboh(2007). Aboh (2004) provides a comprehensive analysis of Gungbe, a SVO language of theGbe group spoken in Niger-Congo. Gungbe, and Gbe languages in general, transparently spellout the backbone of the left periphery, providing sharp evidence in favor of the split CP
hypothesis (Rizzi 1997). Aboh (2004, 2007) shows that in Gungbe, focus and topic phrases
must be fronted in a specific space between the complementizer and the subject as shown in
(1).
(1)

Ùn sè
 xwé l yàKòfi
I heard that house Det TOP° KofiwAsiba gba-
FOC° Asiba build-3sg‘I heard that, as for the house, for KOFI Asiba built it.’na
for(from Aboh 2007: (23))

Indeed, the left periphery of the clause in Romance Languages and in Gungbe hasbasically the same structure and shares a striking number of properties, except for the fact that
Romance languages, unlike Gungbe, never lexicalize the functional heads of topic and focus
by means of particles. As shown in (1), topic and focus phrases in Gungbe are respectively
followed by specific particles, which Aboh analyzes as the lexicalization of the topic andfocus heads: a Topic is invariantly followed by the particle “yà” and a focus phrase by theparticle “w”. Such discourse-markers do not have any lexical meaning apart from indicatingthat what precedes them is a topic or focus phrase. Moreover, Gungbe does not allow any
focalization in situ strategy, being focus movement mandatory. Phrases cannot be fronted
without the appropriate particles and particles can never appear in situ. Remarkably, Abohobserves that focus in Gungbe does not associate with any prosodic special prominence: what
unambiguously signals focus is only the segmental morpheme “w”.
Aboh (2004, 2007) shows that discourse particles determine the syntactic structure in
Gungbe. He argues, indeed, that there is no clear reason to conclude that question particles
project in syntax, as currently accepted, while topic and focus particles do not. Accordingly,
he proposes that, given a sentence containing a topic, a focus phrase or an interrogative
expression <π, λ>, its numeration N must include topic, focus or interrogative lexical choices-16-

On the Syntax-prosody Interface (G. Bocci)

which are then manipulated by syntax (e.g. feature matching, displacement). In such a view,
hence, the numeration N pre-determines the information structure of a linguistic expression.
Looking at Gungbe from this perspective, the Inclusiveness Condition itself requires that
discourse particles, i.e. the head of topic or focus, are included in the numeration. Abohproposes that the discourse particles are endowed with optional formal features of topic andfocus added as lexical items enters in the numeration, similarly to case and φ-features.1 In thisway, the heads of topic and focus drive the syntactic computation undergoing featurechecking and triggering movement.
In conclusion, the account proposed by Aboh (2007) complies with the current
minimalist assumptions, and, in particular, with the Inclusiveness Condition and the T-modelof grammar. At the same time, it is explicitly cartographic: informational properties are
encoded in syntax starting from the numeration and drive the syntactic derivation. In this view,
what syntax hands over to the external components at Spell-Out are indeed representations
where relevant discourse properties are transparently indicated (Rizzi 2004b: 7). Building on
the cartographic approach, I will sketch a model of the syntax-prosody interface in which
prosody accesses only to the syntactic output. Prosodic mapping rules can read not only the
X-bar schema, but also the discourse-scope features encoded in the syntactic representation sothat a direct link between prosody and LF is dispensed with.
2.2. Background Assumptions Concerning the Syntax-Prosody Interface
After spell out, the prosodic component maps the syntactic representation into a prosodic
representation. Building on Selkirk (1984, 1995) and Nespor & Vogel (1986), I assume thatthe prosodic hierarchy is neither recursive (although it might allow iteration)2, nor binary.
Moreover, I will argue in section 4. that the prosodic structure does not need to be isomorphic
to the syntactic one. As observed by Chomsky, prosody intrinsically violates Inclusivenesscondition: “Let us assume that this condition [Inclusiveness Conditions] holds (virtually) of
the computation from N to LF […]: standard theories take it to be radically false for thecomputation to PF” (Chomsky 1995: 228).
I assume that the prosodic representation is built by the interaction of two distinct classes
1

An alternative proposal concerning the syntactic encoding of focus is put forth by Brunetti (2004).
She proposes that focus is an intonational morpheme lexically included in the numeration and it takes
the focus phrase as its complement. Brunetti’s proposal complies with Inclusiveness Condition and the
T-model of grammar. However, this account suggests that intonational properties in general are to beconceived of as lexical morphemes included in the numeration. This sort of lexicalist view ofintonation, nevertheless, is not compatible with the analysis of the Italian intonation I argue for. In
particular, I show in section 3.2 that in Italian the pitch accent L* cannot be included in the initial
numeration because it is inserted only in virtue of a morpho-phonological rule. See also section 4.

2

Some sort of iteration is assumed in different prosodic models: Nespor & Vogel’s (1986)
phonological phrase restructuring, Selkirk’s (1995) violable “No-recursion” constraint and Ladd’s(1996) Compound Prosodic Domain Hypothesis.

-17-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5of rules/constraints.3 A first set of rules is not sensitive to discourse features and derives thedefault phrasing and prominence assignment. In this paper, I will not address the issue
concerning the formulation of the default mapping rules. The levels of the prosodic hierarchy
relevant for the current discussion are the phonological phrase (φ), the intonational phrase (ι)
and the utterance (υ). 4 With regard to the prosodic system of Italian, there is widespread
agreement in the literature (Nespor & Vogel 1986, a.o.) that within any level of constituency
above the word level prominences are by default assigned to the rightmost element. I willassume that the default prominence assignment mechanism in Italian is not directly computedon the syntactic representation in accordance to the syntactic embedding (Cinque 1993), butrather on the prosodic constituency. Firstly, if we factor out the role of focus, prominences arealways assigned on the rightmost element and no effect of the argument structure or
asymmetries between complement and adjunct are detectable in Italian, in contrast toGermanic languages (Zubizarreta & Vergnaud 2004, see also Bocci forthcoming).
Accordingly, there is no independent evidence to assume that the syntactic embedding
determines the main stress location. Secondly, an algorithm based on the prosodic boundaries
is able to account for the distribution of prosodic prominences in Italian at any level, while analgorithm based on the syntactic embedding cannot (see Bocci forthcoming). As aconsequence, a prosodic constituency based algorithm must anyway apply.
The second set of rules interacting with the default mapping mechanism is composed ofrules sensitive to discourse features. Assuming this second set of rules is a necessary move as
we consider pitch accent (PA) association rules. According to the model put forth in
Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg (1990), for instance, PA-association is a local process which
directly pairs pragmatic properties with intonational morphemes. Given the approach adopted
here, I assume that the intonation component is sensitive to discourse properties encoded asfeatures in the syntactic representation and that they rule the association of tonal events. This
reformulation ensues naturally from the assumption that intonation is part of the morphophonological component and from assuming the T-model of grammar.5 In section 3.2, I will3

In this paper, I will remain agnostic about the question of whether mapping rules should be
implemented in terms of constraints within the Optimality Theory framework or in terms ofderivational rules. The main proposal concerning the PA association discussed here (i.e. the focus
Defining Rule, see further in the main text), is formulated as a representational rule on the intonational
structure, leaving aside the issue concerning its derivational or OT implementation.
4

Even though the relevance of the Utterance level is often neglected, I argue that this notion isnecessary to deal with focus (and main wh-question) in Italian (see Bocci, forthcoming).
5

If we consider for instance yes/no questions, it is very plausible to conclude that the intonation canbe sensitive to discourse-scope properties in an intonation language such as Italian. Building on Rizzi(2001), I assume that interrogative force is encoded in a functional projection in the high part of theleft periphery: IntP. In some northern varieties of Italian, this projection can trigger subject-auxiliary
inversion which signals interrogative force, while in other dialects (e.g. central Sicilian) the head ofForce can be lexicalized by a clausal typing particle (see Cruschina 2007). In standard Italian, finally,
force typing distinction between declaratives and polar questions is signaled only by prosodic means.

-18-

On the Syntax-prosody Interface (G. Bocci)

argue contra Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg (1990) that PA association is not exclusively
locally driven by the interpretative properties characterizing a phrase. I will propose indeed
that PA selection must refer also to nonlocal properties of the prosodic structure.
3.

Towards a Model of Italian Prosody

3.1. Contrastive Focus and New Information Focus are Distinct at PF
As discussed by Rizzi (1997) and Belletti (2004a), contrastive focus and new
information focus have a different positional distribution in Italian. While contrastive focus
can appear in situ or be fronted to the left periphery of the clause, new information focus canonly appear in postverbal position, as illustrated by contrast between (2b-c) and (3b-c).
Following Belletti (2004a), I assume that in Italian new information focus (NIFoc) isexpressed in a dedicated functional projection in the low area of the IP domain. Moreover, inorder to account for the availability of contrastive focus in situ, I assume that it can belicensed in situ by means of long distant agreement.
(2)

a. -A:Mi hanno detto che hai incontrato Lucia ieri. Come l’hai trovata?
[They] told me that [you] met Lucia yesterday. How did you find her?

b. -B:

c. -B’:MARIA ho incontrato(, non Lucia)!

MARIA [I] met(, not Lucy)!

Ho incontrato MARIA (, non Lucia)!
[I] met MARIA(3)

a. -A:

CFoc ex situ

CFoc in situ(, not Lucy)!

Chi hai incontrato?
Who did you meet?

b. -B: */??Maria ho incontrato.
Mary [I] met
c. -B’:

Ho incontrato Maria.
[I] met Mary.

Taking for granted that contrastive and new information focus occupy different syntactic
positions (Belletti 2004a), a relevant question to ask is whether contrastive focus and new
information focus are distinguished by the prosodic component (see also Drubig 2003).
Avesani & Vayra (2003) carry out a production experiment to investigate the intonational
properties associated to different types of focus occurring in sentence final position. They findthat in Florentine Tuscan Italian new information and contrastive focus are signaled by
distinctive PAs: new information focus - as well as broad focus - is associated with a falling-19-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

accent phonologically transcribed as H+L*, while contrastive focus is associated either with arising pitch accent transcribed as L+H* or with a high plateau transcribed as H+H*.6
Avesani & Vayra’s findings are supported and generalized by Bocci & Avesani (2008)
who investigate the intonational properties associated with focus in Siena Tuscan Italian
carrying out a production experiment (described below). They observe that the (rightmost
lexically stressed syllable of the) focus phrase systematically bears the main prominence inthe utterance and that the PA type associated with that prominence is selected in accordance
to the focus type: new information focus systematically associates with H+L*, while
contrastive focus does with L+H*.7 Moreover, they showed that such PA-associations wereconsistent regardless of the focus position within the utterance. According to their proposal,
the only PA signaling the focus type is the one associated with the rightmost metricalprominence of the focus phrase. When focus is instantiated by a branching long phrase, forinstance, the PAs assigned before the rightmost metrical prominence of the focus phrase
appear to be selected without regard to the focus type.
(4) and (5) are an example of minimal pair taken from Bocci & Avesani (2008) where
the focus phrases precede a right dislocated object. In (4) the new information focus phrase ischaracterized by a fall transcribed as H+L*, while in (5) the contrastive focus phrase ismarked with a rise transcribed as L+H*.
(4)

a. -A: When will you invite Mariangela?
b. -B: La invito
domainMariangela[I] Her-invite tomorrow, Mariangela[I] cl-V[I] her-invite

Adv NIFoc
ORDed Topic[tomorrow ] NIFoc [Mariangela]RDed Topic

L-

(5)

(NIFoc)L*

L- L%

a. -A: Leo mi ha detto che ieri hai invitato Mariangela.
Leo told me that you invited Mariangela yesterday.

6

Ladd & Schepman (2003) question the validity of a phonological distinction between H* andL+H* which, according to Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg (1990) are respectively associated with new
information focus and contrastive focus. Note, however, that the distinction between L+H* (a risingPA) and H+L* (a fall) observed in Tuscan Italian is currently assumed to be phonological within theauto-segmental metrical theory of intonation (Pierrehumbert 1980).
7

The H+H* PA observed in Florentine Italian is not attested as a variant of L+H* in Siena variety of
Italian.

-20-

On the Syntax-prosody Interface (G. Bocci)

b. -B: La invito
DOMANIMariangela.
[I] Her-invite TOMORROW, Mariangela(CFoc)[I] cl-V
Adv CFoc
ORdTopic[I] her-invite [tomorrow ] CFoc [Mariangela]RDed Topic

L-

L*

L- L%

Let us take for granted the intonational opposition between informational and contrastive
focus and consider some implications of such a contrast. Firstly, it strengthens the need forfeature-sensitive mapping rules, since the default mapping rules cannot account for PA
associations. Secondly, this intonational contrast between PAs provides evidence in favor of
the existence of a typology of focus which has been long disputed in the literature (Rooth
1992, Kiss 1998, Belletti 2004a, Brunetti 2004, a.o.). Thirdly, if types of focus arephonologically distinct in Italian, it follows that the approaches to focus which eliminate thenotion of focus from the grammar fail to account for the properties of focus (in Italian).
Building on Schwarzschild (1998), Bader (2001) proposes that focus is not a legitimate
property and that all focus-related prosodic effects in English as in Italian are induced by
Givenness, denying focus any role. On different grounds, Sauerland (2005) argues in favor ofa purely presuppositional account of focus, according to which what is semantically marked
and prosodically interpreted is destressed rather than focused material. Leaving apart otherconsiderations, the distinction between types of focus argued for in Avesani & Vayra (2003)
leads to reject such reductionist approaches where the notion of focus is dismissed andreplaced by Givenness or Presupposition: if focus were just negatively defined as “non-given”,
it would not be possible to differentiate between contrastive and new information focus.
In order to account for the contrast between new information and contrastive focus
observed in Tuscan Italian, it is necessary to assume that at least one of them is identified by apositive mark. Indeed, this is what Selkirk (2007) proposes with regard to English. In her
account, contrastive and new information focus are distinguished by the fact that the former ismarked with a feature +F(ocus), while no feature is assigned to the latter which lacks any
discourse-scope specification. 8 New information focus is further distinguished from given
material since it is not marked with +G(iven), that is the feature characterizing given material.
In principle, such a proposal could account for the accentual opposition between contrastiveand new information focus observed in Tuscan Italian. However, some considerations suggestthat new information and contrastive focus are both positively marked (see Bocci,
8Note however that Selkirk (2007) adopts a definition of contrastive focus built on Rooth (1992),
while I adopt the notion of contrastive focus as proposed by Calabrese (1982), Kiss (1998) and
Vallduví & Vilkuna (1998).

-21-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

forthcoming). In the first place, according to Belletti (2004a), new information focus isexpressed in Italian in a dedicated projection in the low IP area. If this is the case, a featuremust be involved in the syntactic computation in order to account for movement to such afocus position. In the second place, consider that only one focus phrase per utterance isallowed in Italian, regardless of its contrastive or new-informational status, so that contrastive
focus (whether in situ or ex situ) and new information focus are not compatible (see Calabrese
1982, Belletti 2004a and Bocci 2004, forthcoming). If new information focus lacked any
feature specification as in Selkirk’s approach, it would not be clear how to account for theuniqueness requirement on focus. In the third place, Bocci (forthcoming) and Bocci &Avesani (2008) propose that new information focus, contrastive focus and main wh-elements
count similarly at the prosodic interface: they call for the association with the main
prominence overriding the default prominence rules and trigger the association of a L* PA
with material which linearly follows (see the discussion below). In the light of suchconsiderations, I assume that both contrastive and new information focus are encoded asfeatures.
3.2. The Properties of Postfocal Material: Bocci & Avesani’s Focus Defining Rule andthe Role of L* in Tuscan Italian
Bocci & Avesani (2008) carry out a production experiment to investigate the prosodic
correlates of different informational properties and the way they interact each other. Three
native speakers of the Tuscan variety of Italian spoken in Siena read 36 short scripts (from 3
to 6 repetitions for each speakers). The scripts were designed in order to induce in the target
sentences different types of focal structure: contrastive focus in situ and ex situ, newinformation focus in final and nonfinal position and broad focus. Moreover, they combined
the instances of the different focus types with the occurrence of clitic left dislocated topics
and right dislocated topic in both short and complex utterances. The complex utterances wereconstituted by a main and an adjunct clause (in some cases separated by an additional
parenthetical clause) in both linear orders. In such complex utterances, they combined theoccurrence of a right or left dislocated topic in a clause with the occurrence of a focus phrase
in the other. Such a design allowed them to factor out the linear order in which focus andtopics appear and to evaluate the impact of focus on other phrases endowed with discourse
scope properties, such as dislocated topics. The corpus, consisting of 480 utterances wasanalyzed and ToBI-transcribed and data about alignment and scaling of the tonal targets werecollected and analyzed.
Bocci & Avesani (2008) observe that the focus phrases always call for the association
with main prominence of the utterance. When focus is not in sentence-final position, the main
prominence hence fails to align with the rightmost element in the clause violating in this way
the default mapping rules (see 3.3 for a discussion). Moreover, Bocci & Avesani show thatthe pitch contour characterizing postfocal material is systematically realized as low and flat
until the end of the utterance, regardless of the number and length of constituents occurring insuch position. Indeed, in Siena Tuscan Italian, lack of pitch movement characterizes any
element following focus: Presupposition of contrastive focus ex situ, right dislocated topics,-22-

On the Syntax-prosody Interface (G. Bocci)

marginalized elements (in the sense of Antinucci & Cinque 1976). Even parenthetical clauses
occurring after focus are invariantly characterized by a flat and low contour, even though they
are phrased into independent intonational phrases.
In the literature, it has been proposed that Italian requires that elements occurring after
focus are extrametrical. For instance, Szendröi (2001) assumes that postfocal material, being
discourse-given, is extraposed and extrametrical in virtue of a universal “Anaphoric
Interpretation Principle” requiring discourse-given material to be unstressed (see also SamekLodovici 2006).9 If postfocal material were invisible to the prosodic component, it would bepossible to maintain the conclusion that in Italian the main prominence is always assigned to
the rightmost (visible) element. In this way, the default prominence rules would be able per seto account the distribution of the prominences. Moreover, if postfocal elements wereprosodically invisible, the observed lack of intonational prominences on postfocal material
would be consequently accounted for: PAs are not assigned, since there is no metrical head of
the relevant level.
Bocci & Avesani, nevertheless, conclude that postfocal material is not extrametrical.
They argue indeed that even if no intonational prominence after focus is audible, postfocal
material is anyway metrically phrased and that metrical prominences of sentential level are
invariably assigned. Consider the example in (6) from Bocci & Avesani. The main clausecontaining a right dislocated topic occurs in postfocal position. The perceptual and durational
analyses of such examples show that that main clause and the RDd topic are phrased into two
independent intonational phrases and both of them are metrically headed. Consequently,
postfocal material cannot be invisible to the metrical component.
(6)

When arrives PIERANGELOCFoc, [we] her-must inform MariannaRDed Top

Moreover, convergent evidence against the extrametrical status of postfocal material
comes from European Portuguese (Frota 2000) and Southern varieties of Italian (Grice et al.
2005). In these prosodic systems, there is no doubt that postfocal material is not extrametrical:
not only postfocal material is phrased and stressed, as it is in Tuscan Italian, but it also
associates with special downstepped pitch accents. If this is the case, postfocal material must
be visible to both metrical and intonation components.
9

See also section 3.3 and for a discussion of the properties of the prosodic constituency and the
hypothesis of extrametricality.

-23-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

On the light of such considerations, Bocci & Avesani (2008) propose that apparent
deaccenting in postfocal position observed in Tuscan Italian must be analyzed in terms of
association with a L* pitch accent on the postfocal phrasal metrical prominences. In this view,the flat contour is not the result of the lack of intonational events, but indeed the result of aphonological specification. By assuming L* associated with postfocal material, it is possible
to retain a full correspondence between metrical and intonational prominences. If postfocal
phrasal metrical prominences were not associated with tonal events, it would be needed toseparate the prosodic system by divorcing the metrical component from the intonational one.
By contrast, assuming L* guarantees that any phrasal metrical prominence is interpreted byintonation.10 Moreover, the crosslinguistic differences observed between Tuscan Italian andother Romance varieties are reduced to a typological difference in the PA inventory. While
postfocal phrasal prominences associate with !H+L* in European Portuguese (Frota 2000),
Tuscan Italian exploits L* to mark them.
According to Bocci & Avesani’s proposal, L* is neither assigned as the correlate ofGivenness or D-linking nor as the correlate of the background (nor of the tails in the sense of
Vallduvì 1992, as discussed in section 4.). While destressing and deaccenting of given
information is massively attested in Germanic languages (Ladd 1996, German et al. 2004,
Selkirk 2007 a.o.), it has been observed that Romance languages fail to deaccent given
information (Ladd 1996, Zubizarreta 1998, a.o.). Bocci & Avesani argue that in Tuscan
Italian any element preceding linearly focus, irrespectively of Givenness, is always pitchaccented with a PA different from L*. Indeed the L*-association is strictly confined topostfocal contexts in Italian, unlike English where, according to Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg(1990), L* is associated with given and presupposed element independently of the focus
position.
Bocci & Avesani (2008) compare pairs of sentences with focus in situ and focus ex situ thatwere elicited in the same context. Consider the examples (7) and (8) taken from Bocci &Avesani. Focus fronting to the left periphery does not seem to impact in any way on theinterpretative properties of the sentence: neither the focus phrase, nor the rest of the sentence
seem to receive a different interpretation in the two cases. Consequently, it is plausible toassume bona fide that the sentences with focus in situ and focus ex situ share the same focusbackground articulation.11 However, while the focus phrase is consistently associated with thesame PA, the phonological properties of the background are radically different between thetwo cases. In the example with CF in situ in (7), the background preceding focus is accented
with H+L*, while in (8), the background following the focus phrase moved to the left
periphery associates with L*. If we assume that contrastive focus in situ is actually licensed insitu, it is plausible to conclude that L* is not a phonological property which unambiguously
identifies/marks the background. In the section 4, I take into consideration the prosodic
10

I follow Selkirk (2007) in assuming that any phonological phrase head must associate with a PA.

11

See section 4. for a discussion of the prosodic properties of the notion of tail in the sense of
Vallduvì (1992).

-24-

On the Syntax-prosody Interface (G. Bocci)

consequences of the syntactic approach proposed by Belletti (2004a) in which focus always
moves overtly.
(7)
My sisters

have introduced Marinella

TO MICHELANGELOCFoc(8)
TO MICHELANGELOCFoc my sisters have introduced Marinella

Bocci & Avesani (2008) propose that in Tuscan Italian L* is not a correlate of Givenness,
as briefly discussed, but a marker dedicated to set the right-hand side of the focus phrase bymarking the material to its right as non-focal. The focus phrase is not exhaustively marked byprosody, because prosody signals just its right-hand side.12 Bocci & Avesani argue that the
distribution of this marker is ruled by a Focus Defining Rule (FDR). This representational
rule states that the pitch accent from which the focus projection must be computed and which
defines the focus type (call it the focal PA) is the rightmost PA able to express focus. The
accentual inventory of Tuscan Italian includes L* as a specialized marker unable to express
focus, while European Portuguese exploits !H+L*. Moreover, following Selkirk (2007), they
assume a Prosodic Correspondence Rule which requires that any phonological phrase headmust be associated with a PA. This rule guarantees the full correspondence between phrasal
stress and intonational prominence. Given the prosodic correspondence rule and the focus
defining rule, it ensues that L* must be assigned to any relevant metrical prominence
following focus within the application domain of FDR. Moreover, if we consider uniquely the12

Following Büring (2004) and Selkirk (2007), I assume that there is not a special set of rules
responsible for focus projection as the ones proposed by Selkirk (1984). As discussed in Bocci(forthcoming), I assume that focus projection results from the “asymmetric” character of the prosodic
interpretation of the focus feature. In this way, focus projection is derived from the interaction of thesyntactic structure and the prosodic mapping rules. I refer the reader to Bocci (forthcoming) for a
discussion of the syntactic conditions on focus projection in Italian and for a discussion of thedifferences between the types of focus with regards to the focus projection.

-25-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

melodic structure, such approach suggests that what identifies the focal pitch accent among
different PAs typologically suitable to convey focus is only the position that the focal PA
occupies in the prosodic structure.
Following Calabrese (1982), Belletti (2004a) and Bocci (2004), Bocci & Avesaniassume that Italian disallows multiple discontinuous foci, so that only one focus per utterance
is allowed. This uniqueness requirement seems to undergo typological variation and toparallel the availability of multiple wh-questions (Bocci forthcoming). In English, for instance,
multiple foci are allowed (Rooth 1992), while in Gungbe focus uniqueness applies to theclausal level, so that only one focus phrase per clause is admitted, but each clause in complex
utterances can express focus independently (Aboh 2004). In Italian, focus uniqueness applies
to the entire utterance: even if the left peripheries of certain embedded clauses can host focus(Haegeman 2004, Bocci 2004), only one focus per utterance is allowed (Bocci, forthcoming).
The cases of complex utterances in Bocci & Avesani’s corpus fully support their
proposals: 1) L* is inserted as a special marker to define the right-hand side of the focus
phrase, rather than as a correlate of Givenness or D-linking and 2) the application domain of
the focus defining rule is the utterance. Indeed, L* appears to be uniquely ruled by the focus
position: L* is assigned to whatever element occurring after focus until the end of theutterance, regardless of its discourse properties and overriding any other pitch accent
association rule. In simple utterances, where ClLDed Topics usually precede focus, they arephrased into independent prosodic constituents and bear prominent PAs (see also Gili Fivela
1999). Notably, in such contexts they never associate with L*, not even in case of familiar
topics (pace Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl 2007). Let us consider now the pair (9) and (10)extracted from Bocci & Avesani’s corpus.
(9)

H+L* L-L%
H+L*L-L%
L+H*
L-L%)φ]ι [()φ]ι }υ{ [()φ]ι [(
MariannaClLDed TOP la dobbiamo avvisare, quando arriva PIERANGELOCFoc
MariannaClLDed TOP [we] her- must inform, when arrives PIERANGLO CFoc

In (9), the main clause containing a ClLDed topic precedes an adjunct clause where an
instance of contrastive focus occurs. As expected, the ClLDed topic preceding the focus
phrase does not bear L*. Notably, in such example, the topic is phrased into an autonomous
intonational phrase and bears a nuclear pitch accent H+L* able in principle to convey new
information focus as discussed above. Nevertheless, H+L* on the initial topic-26-

On the Syntax-prosody Interface (G. Bocci)

straightforwardly does not legitimate a focal interpretation: what prevents such aninterpretation is the focus defining rule. Since the focal pitch accent is defined as therightmost PA in υ able to convey focus, what counts as focal PA in (9) cannot be but L+H* on“PIERANGELO”.
(10)

…
L+H*
L-L%
L* L-L%L* L-L%{[()φ]ι [()φ]ι
[()φ]ι}υ
Quando arriva PIERANGELOCFoc, MariannaClLDed TOP
la dobbiamo avvisareWhenarrives PIERANGLO CFoc , MariannaClLDed TOP [we] her- must
inform(9) and (10) were elicited in the same context and differ only in the order of the main andadjunct clause. Crucially, such a difference in the order seems bona fide not to involve any
interpretative effect. Nevertheless, even if there is no interpretative difference, the prosodic
properties associated to the main clause and the topic in (10) are completely different from theones in (9). In (10), where the focus phrase precedes the main clause, the clitic left dislocatedtopic and the rest of the main clause are forced to associate with L*: if their metricalprominences were associated with PAs different from L*, the L+H* on “PIERANGELO”
could not be interpreted as focal in accordance with the FDR. Let us assume that ClLDed
Topics, being endowed with discourse features, call for a specific PA association. Even if thisis the case, the FDR overrides any other PA association rule: in postfocal contexts ClLDed
topics, as any other element, associate with L*.
Let us consider now how the FDR impacts on the PAs associated with right dislocatedtopics.13 Right dislocated topics in simple utterance generally follow focus and are phrased
into an independent prosodic constituent characterized by the flat and low contour that I
interpret as L*-accented following Bocci & Avesani (2008). See, for instance, (11b).

13

Notably, the interpretative properties of right dislocated topics in Italian differ from the ones
characterizing clitic left dislocated topics. In particular, RDed Topics cannot be used as contrastive
topics and with “list interpretation” (Benincà & Poletto 2004, Bocci 2004), but just as familiar topics
or “tail” in the sense of Vallduvì (1992). Interestingly, Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg (1990) proposedthat L* is used to mark salient items which are external to the predication and existentiallypresupposed. Adapting their proposal to the terminology used here, hence, L* in English could beconceived of as the mark of familiar topics. As discussed in the main text, this cannot be the case in
Italian.

-27-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5(11)

a. -A: Quando inviterai Mariangela? Lia è molto curiosa.
When will you invite Mariangela? Lia is very curious about it.
H+L* L-L%{[()φ]ι
b. -B: La invito
domani NIFoc,[I] her-invite tomorrowNIFoc,

L*
[(

L-L%
)φ]ι }υ

Mariangela RDed Top
Mariangela RDed Top

At this point, it is interesting to ask whether L* is assigned to right dislocated topics
regardless of the location of focus. Let us consider the pair (12)-(13) from Bocci & Avesani.
(12)

H*

L-L%
L* L-L%L*
L-L%[()φ]ι [()φ]ι}υ
{[()φ]ι
Quando arriva PIERANGELOCFoc la dobbiamo avvisare, MariannaRDed TOP
When arrives PIERANGELO[we]her-must inform,
Marianna
L+H*

In (12), where the focus phrase precedes the topic right dislocated in the main clause,
both the the RDed and the remaining part of the main clause bear L*. Now consider (13)where the order of the main clause and the adjunct clause is inverted without any evident
impact on the informational properties, either on the right dislocated topic “Marianna” or any
other element.14

14

In both cases, for instance, the right dislocated topic “Marianna” cannot be used as contrastive
topics. See also fn. 12, section 4 and fn. 24.

-28-

On the Syntax-prosody Interface (G. Bocci)(13)

H+L* L-L% H+L* L-H%
L+H*
L-L%
{[(
)φ]ι [()φ]ι [()φ]ι}υ
La dobbiamo avvisare, MariannaRDed TOP, quando arriva PIERANGELOCFoc[We] her-must inform,
Marianna,when arrives PIERANGELO

In (13), the right dislocated topic preceding focus is not L*-accented, but bears H+L*.
Since it precedes the focus phrase, the FDR does not impose L*. If L* were just a correlate ofright dislocated topics (or familiar topics in general), it should be assigned in (13) as it is in(11b) and (12). Indeed, in Bocci & Avesani’s corpus RDed Topics preceding focus neverassociate with L*. These results straightforwardly show that right dislocated elements per se
are not extrametrical and that given information in Italian does not undergo the“destress/deaccent given” constraint proposed by Féry & Samek Lodovici (2006) with regard
to English (see also Selkirk 2007). 15 Moreover, it is worth emphasizing that the rightdislocated topic bears a nuclear H+L* pitch accent which could potentially express new
information focus. What prevents such focal interpretation is the FDR: H+L* on the right
topic “Marianna” in (13) is not the rightmost PA able to express focus in υ. In section 4., I
will discuss in more detail the examples of L* on topics, arguing, in particular, that L* cannot
be conceived of as the direct correlate of the notion of tail as elaborated by Vallduvì.
The FDR and the uniqueness requirement on focus predict a principled distinction
between the prosodic properties characterizing utterances with fronted focus phrases on the
one hand and left dislocated topics on the other. Following Büring (1997), let us assume thatwhat is topic is not focus. In other words, topics are a subset of the background, that is of thecomplement of the focus set. Consider now the minimal pair in (14) and (15): the former is an
instance of fronted focus-background articulation and the latter of topic-comment structure.

15

According to Selkirk’s implementation of the constraint “Destress Given” proposed by Féry &Samek-Lodovici (2005), Given(ness) is a feature represented in the syntactic output. Given the modelof syntax-prosody interface depicted here, it is possible to assume that English – where “Destress
Given” is active – and Italian – where it is not – do not differ with regard the encoding of the Given
feature in syntax, while they do in the prosodic computation of such a feature: Givenness triggers
deaccenting in English, while it has not prosodic effect in Italian. Bocci (forthcoming) argues in favorof such an analysis providing evidence from the interaction between destressing and NP-ellipsis in
Italian and English.

-29-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5(14)

TO THE VIROLOGISTCFoc Veronica want to send the analyses.
cf.(16A)(15)
As for the virologistCILDed TOP Veronica want to send the analyses.

cf.(16B)

(16)

A.

B.

400

400

350

350
300

250

Hz

Hz

300
200
150

150
100

100
50

250
200

pre-stressed
σ pre-tonica σstressed
σ tonica σ

post-stressed
σ post-tonica σ

50

pre-stressed
σ pre-tonica σstressed
σ tonica σ

post-stressed
σ post-tonica σ

Pitch contours on pre-stressed, stressed and post-stressed syllables of the rightmost
phrase within the Comment of ClLDed Topics (B. panel, 48 utterances ) and within the
background of fronted CF (A. panel, 101 utterances) in read Tuscan Italian (fromBocci & Avesani 2005). Contours normalized on the duration of each syllable (25sampling points per σ).

In (14), after the fronted contrastive focus phrase, only L* can be assigned as required by the
FDR. In (15), by contrast, the dislocated topics cannot trigger the L*-association. Moreover, if
what is topic is not focus, focus must be expressed in the comment of topic and, hence, thecomment will bear a focal pitch accent. So, as argued by Bocci & Avesani (2005), thebackground of a fronted focus phrase is always L*-accented, while the comment of topic must
express a focal PA (unless a focus phrase precedes the topic-comment articulation as in (10)).
In conclusion, it follows that the prosodic differences between sentences with left dislocatedtopics and left peripheral focus phrases are not restricted to the fronted phrase, but necessarily
involve the prosodic structure of the whole sentence. This conclusion is supported by thefindings in Bocci & Avesani (2005), which compare the intonational properties associatedwith the comment of left dislocated topics and the background of fronted focus phrases inminimal pairs analogous to (14)-(15). They observed that while what follows a fronted focus
phrase is always realized as a flat and low contour (i.e. phonologically transcribed as L*), the-30-On the Syntax-prosody Interface (G. Bocci)

comment of left dislocated Topics bears always a focal pitch accent (H+L* in their corpus).
See the pitch contours in (16) from Bocci & Avesani (2005).16
3.3. Focus and Prosodic Constituency in Italian
According to Bocci & Avesani (2008)’s proposal, postfocal material is visible both to themetrical and intonational subcomponent: material in postfocal position is phrased, stressedand L*-accented. Moreover, the main prominence in υ is consistently assigned to the focus
phrase, independently of the position where focus surfaces. 17 If so, it is worthwhileconsidering how focus interacts with default mapping rules which assign prominences to therightmost element in ι and υ. In approaches in which focus is encoded in syntax, it is plausible
to assume that the focus feature triggers special feature-sensitive rules which ensure thealignment between focus and main prominence outranking the default rules.18
Frascarelli (2000) investigates the effects of focus on the metrical structure taking into
account the application of prosodic rules such as Raddoppiamento fonosintattico, stressretraction and Tuscan “Gorgia” and proposes an articulated model. With regard to contrastive
focus in the left periphery, she argues that left peripheral focus is phrased along with the verb
in the same ι if they are adjacent. Conversely, if an element intervenes between the focus
phrase and the verb (e.g. the subject), an intonational phrase boundary is inserted after focus.
Revising Frascarelli’s (2000) prosodic analysis, Szendröi (2001, 2002) proposes that in Italianany element occurring after focus is extrametrical in the sense that it is not included within the“core” ι. With respect to the prosodic constituency, cases of fronted focus, string-medial focus
and sentence-final focus receive a uniform account: focus in any case occurs as the rightmost
element within the “core” ι, which is the domain of assignment of the main prominence. In
favor of her analysis, Szendröi claims that focus is systematically followed by an intonational
phrase boundary. The same statement is also proposed by Samek-Lodovici (2006) who argues
that any element following focus (regardless of the distinction between left peripheral and16

From a quantitative point of view, the coefficient of variation (and the standard deviation) of thepitch contour on the pre-stressed, stressed and post-stressed syllables of the rightmost element of theutterances was significantly different between the comment of topic and the background of fronted
focus: the application of Mann-Whitney test gives U=360, p>0,001 (from Bocci & Avesani 2005).

17

Note that this claim does not contradict a priori Truckenbrodt’s (1995) Contrastive focus
Prominence Rule (CFPR) which requires that the level of prominence assigned to the focus phrase isrelative to the domain of the focus interpretation operator: within the scope of a focus interpretation
operator, the corresponding F-marked constituent is the most metrically prominent. As Italianuniqueness of focus applies to the utterance (cf. Calabrese 1982), it is plausible to speculate that thefocus operator is always interpreted in the left periphery of the root clause. If that were the case, theassignment of the main utterance prominence to the focus phrase would follow on from the CFPR in
itself.
18

Or, to put it in terms of the Optimality Theoretical model, there is top-ranked focus constraint
requiring that focus bears the highest prominence with the relevant domain which is identified in υ in
Italian (see Truckenbrodt 1995).

-31-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

string-medial) is always right-dislocated and cites as evidence the systematic occurrence of an
intonational phrase boundary after focus. (17) illustrates the prosodic phrasing proposed bySzendröi (2001: 245) for cases of left-hand focus in Italian.
(17)

{[(

)φ]ι}υ
LA PIZZA
THE PIZZA()φ (PietroPietro)φha mangiato
has eaten(from Szendröi 2001: 245)

Bocci & Avesani (2005) discuss the results of a case study on the metrical and intonational
properties of utterances with left peripheral focus in Tuscan Italian. With regard to themetrical constituency, they analyzed and compared minimal pairs of sentences with broad
focus and contrastive focus in the left periphery. The perceptual analysis indicated that afronted focus phrase is phrased in the same ι along with the rest of the clause, independentlyof the adjacency with the main verb. This conclusion is fully supported by quantitative
analyses on segmental durations, as well. Consider the minimal triplet in (18) (from Bocci &Avesani 2005).
(18)

{[(
)φ (
a. Un urologo
vuole sposare
Veronica
A urologist wants to marry Veronica)φ ]ι}υ
(broad focus)

{[(
)φ (
b. UN VIROLOGOCF
vuole sposare
Veronica
A VIROLOGIST
wants to marry Veronica
S(ubject)CFV(erb)O(bject))φ ]ι}υ

{[()φ (c. UN VIROLOGOCF
Veronica
A VIROLOGIST
Veronica
OCF
S)φ ]ι}υ
vuole sposare
wants to marryO

Bocci & Avesani (2005) independently argue that in their corpus the preverbal subject inbroad focus was systematically phrased into an independent φ, as sketched in (18a). Therefore,
they reason that if initial focus were followed by an intonational phrase boundary, thematerial at the end of focus should undergo a lengthening process due to the ι-boundary
occurrence and therefore be significantly longer than the corresponding material at the end of
the subject in broad focus which is followed by a φ-boundary. This prediction was not bornout. The final syllable and vowel of the focus phrase were not significantly longer than thecorresponding elements at the end of a preverbal subject in broad focus, independently of the
focus-verb adjacency.19 Bocci & Avesani (2005) hence conclude that an utterance divided in
19

The comparison with ANOVA of the normalized length of syllables and vowels in pre-boundary
position showed respectively F(1,69)= 0,274 p=0,620 and F(1,69)= 0,274 p=0,602 in case ofadjacency with the verb and F(1,45)= 0,007 p=0,9345 and F(1,45)= 0,525 p=0,4723 in case of nonadjacency. I refer the reader to Bocci & Avesani 2005 for a detailed discussion of the analyses.

-32-

On the Syntax-prosody Interface (G. Bocci)

left peripheral focus and background is phrased as sketched in (18b-c): the left peripheral
focus phrase is not followed by an ι-boundary, but is mapped into a φ contained into the same
ι with the rest of the clause. Since postfocal material is phrased and stressed, they conclude
that prominence alignment with focus can lead to intonational phrases whose head is not
assigned to the rightmost element. This prosodic structure is indeed what is observed inEuropean Portuguese. Frota (2000) convincingly show that in European Portuguese preverbal
focus phrases along with the rest of the clause form an intonational phrase whose metrical ιprominence is aligned to focus on the left-hand and followed by the φ-prominences associatedwith postfocal elements. Prominence alignment to focus can prevent the ι-prominence frombeing assigned to the rightmost element in ι.
Bocci & Avesani’s (2005) experimental results are admittedly weakened by the fact theytested only one speaker. However, the perceptual analyses of Bocci & Avesani’s (2008)
corpus point to the same conclusion. Furthermore, convergent evidence against theextametricality of postfocal elements is provided by the analysis of wh-main questions. As
discussed in Bocci (forthcoming), D-linked wh-elements in main questions behave as focus
phrases with regard to many prosodic properties in Italian.20 In unmarked questions, D-linked
wh-elements call for the assignment of the main prominence and count as focus phrases for
the FDR: they trigger L*-association on whatever element follows. Consider the example in(19) taken from a subset of Bocci and Avesani’s (2008) corpus discussed in Bocci(forthcoming).
(19)

(20)

Who of them has voted in favor of our amendment ?

H* H+L* L({[()φ
Chi di loro

L*

L*

L- H%
)φ ]ι}υ
avrà votato il nostro emendamento?

The pitch contour in (19) straightforwardly shows that the wh-element is associated with a
H+L* PA and after that the pitch contour is low and flat until the final question rise. Notably
no metrical break occurs after the wh-phrase and postfocal material is clearly endowed withphrasal metrical prominences. All evidence points to the conclusion that nothing is

20

Modulo the role of the main verb, also non-D-linked wh-elements count as focus phrases withregard to the prominence assignment and the FDR. I refer the reader to Bocci (forthcoming) for a
discussion of the prosody of wh main question in Italian.

-33-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

extrametrical in (19), but rather that the entire utterance is phrased into a unique intonational
phrase in which the main prominence is assigned to the focus phrase violating the unmarked
prominence assignment to the rightmost element. In other words, the prosodic constituency of
wh-questions as (19) fully parallels the one of declarative utterances with left peripheral focus(18b-c). Notably, however, the examples of wh-questions tell us something more about the
prosodic constituency with respect to focus in declaratives. Building on Frascarelli (2000),
Szendröi (2001) proposes that material following focus (and the main prominence) is
extrametrical in the sense that it is not projected and included within a ι-constituent assketched in (17). In wh-questions, nevertheless, we can observe the typical question rise at theend of the sentence: this means that there must be a high H% boundary tone assigned to a
final intonational phrase boundary, as sketched in (20).21 Indeed all evidence points to theconclusion that Italian allows marked prosodic structures as (24b-c) and (26), where the main
prominence within ι is assigned to focus rather than to the rightmost φ-prominence.
3.4. Summary
Summing up this brief review of Bocci & Avesani’s (2008) proposal, postfocal material
in Tuscan Italian is not invisible to prosody. It is phrased, stressed and intonationally marked
with a special PA: L*. In Tuscan Italian, L* is inserted neither as a correlate of Givenness or
D-linking nor as a correlate of the background (nor of the tail, as discussed in section 4.). By
contrast, L* is inserted just as a special marker exploited to define the right-side of the focus
phrase by marking postfocal material as non-focal. They propose that the distribution of L* isruled by a focus defining rule which identifies the focal pitch accent – the PA from which thefocus projection must be computed and which defines the focus type – as the rightmost PA
able to express focus, where L* in Tuscan Italian is unable to express focus. In this way,
apparent differences across Romance languages on the intonational properties of postfocal
material are traced back to a difference in the intonational inventory: in European Portuguese(Frota 2000), for instance, postfocal prominences associate with !H+L*, while Tuscan Italian
exploits L* to mark them. As Italian allows just one focus per utterance (Calabrese 1982,
Belletti 2004a, Bocci 2004), Bocci & Avesani argue that the focus defining rule applies at theutterance level, so that whatever element occurring after focus must associate with L*. The
21

At first glance, an alternative account could be proposed adapting to Italian Gussenhoven’s (2004:
291) analysis of prosodic encliticized intonational phrases, which is somehow reminiscent ofSzendröi’s account in (23). Gussenhoven proposes that question tags in English are extraposed andenclitized on preceding ιs as sketched in (i). Such enclitic elements can receive a boundary tone, butjust as the result of a tone-copy process from the preceding ι-boudary.
(i)

H%[Shouldn’t we discuss this ]ι

H%
the two of us ?]ι

(adapted from Gussenhoven 2004: 291)

The pitch contour of (24) straightforwardly shows that Gussenhoven’s analysis cannot be extended to
Italian questions. In Italian, indeed, there is no ι-boundary after the main prominence assigned to thewh-element and, above all, there is not H% boundary tone after the main prominence to be copied at
the end of the clause.

-34-

On the Syntax-prosody Interface (G. Bocci)

FDR indeed outranks any other PA association rule and an element occurring in post focal
position, even if it is endowed with a discourse feature which calls for a specific PA
association, must comply with the FDR by associating with L*. Since L*-insertion is driven
by focus, Bocci & Avesani conclude that PA association is not only locally driven, but it isalso ruled by structural requirements on the intonational representation.
4.

On the (Non-)isomorphism between the Intonational Representation and
the Syntactic and Informational Structure

Let us now explore some implication of Bocci & Avesani’s proposals. If their analysis of
the L*-insertion is correct, it follows that the intonational structure cannot be isomorphic
either to the syntactic representation or to the information structure. As previously discussed,
right dislocated topics, for instance, are L*-accented if and only if they lineally follow thefocus phrase, although their interpretative and syntactic properties are consistent andindependent of the linear position in which focus surfaces. That there is not isomorphism
between prosodic and syntactic constituency is indeed a current assumption in the prosodic
phonology literature (Nespor & Vogel 1986, a.o.). By contrast, intonational structure andinformational/pragmatic properties are currently assumed to be isomorphic. According to themodel put forth by Hirschberg & Pierrehumbert (1990), for instance, PA association is astrictly local mechanism, exclusively driven by the informational properties of the element
which a PA is associated with. Since an element endowed with a certain pragmatic property
always surfaces with the PA corresponding to that property, the intonational representation in
their model is isomorphic to the pragmatic/informational properties. By contrast, Bocci &Avesani’s proposal leads to the opposite conclusion: L* in Italian is not inserted as a correlateof any informational property, but rather its association is non-locally triggered by focus andoverrides any other PA association, even if called for by a discourse feature.
However, to the extent to which intonation is part of phonology, non-isomorphism
between intonational representations and syntactic and informational representations isneither an unwelcome or unexpected conclusion. The phonological computation is in factintrinsically different than the computation from the numeration to LF. As Chomsky (1995:229) emphasizes, the Inclusiveness Condition applies to the latter, but not to the former.
As Chomsky points out, it is not plausible to have minimalist expectations with regard tophonology and, therefore, intonation. Let us assume, in compliance with the T-model ofgrammar, that at Spell-Out syntax hands over at to phonology representations in which all the
relevant properties are explicitly contained. After Spell-Out, features in input to the morphophonological component undergo the rules intrinsic to that component, in which the
Inclusiveness Condition does not apply. Given these assumptions, non-isomorphism ofintonation is expected to the extent to which intonation is part of the morpho-phonologicalcomponent. In principle, a certain element (e.g. a CILDed Topic) can be endowed with a
discourse feature which can be interpreted by the morpho-phonologic component by means ofcertain prosodic properties, such as a specific PA, for instance. However, the morpho--35-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

phonological system can prevent such a PA from surfacing because of its position in the
prosodic structure and imposes a different PA (i.e. L*) on that element. Metaphorically, L*association in Italian can be viewed as a phonological dissimilation or a final devoicing rule:
an element present in the input cannot surface by virtue of its position in the phonologicalstructure.
It is worthwhile observing that the claim that intonation is not isomorphic to the syntactic
and informational structure is a conclusion partially independent of the account for L*association proposed by Bocci end Avesani. As briefly discussed above, they show that inpairs of utterances with in situ and ex situ focus, the focus phrase bears the same PA, while
the rest of the clause is characterized by radically different intonational properties between thetwo cases. Since they assume that focus in situ and focus ex situ share the focus-backgroundstructure, the association of L* observed in the latter case is traced back to the FDR, rather
than to a special interpretative property characterizing postfocal material. Therefore, thedifference in intonational properties associated with the background in case of focus in situ
and focus ex situ constitutes an example of non-isomorphism between intonation, on the one
hand, and syntax and informational structure on the other.
Nevertheless, a different approach could be pursued building on Kayne (1998) andBelletti (2004a). Belletti (2004a), in particular, proposes that contrastive focus always moves
overtly to the left periphery. When the focus phrase appears to be in situ, an additional
movement of the remnant IP to a higher projection such as TopicP or GroundP applies, so thatthe basic word order is superficially reestablished.22 An analysis of (21) along these lines issketched in (22).
(21)

Le mie sorelle
My sisters

hanno presentato
have introduced

MARINELLACFoc a Michelangelo
MARINELLACFoc to Michelangelo

22

Belletti (2004) originally proposes that the remnant constituent moves to a topic projection higher
than focusP. However, a prosodic argument suggests that the target projection is GroundP. According
to Bocci & Avesani (2005) and Bocci (forthcoming), focus projection results in the last analysis fromthe fact that prosody marks asymmetrically the focus phrase defining only its right-hand side (see also
fn. 12). Consider now that left peripheral topics are generally phrased into independent intonational
phrases as discussed by Gili Fivela (1999) and Frascarelli (2000). If the remnant movement targeted
TopP, it would be phrased into an intonational phrase and its right-hand side would be marked by a ιboundary. As a consequence, the left-hand side of the focus element would be signaled by the righthand prosodic boundary of the remnant phrase. However, this cannot be the case since it would
prevent the focus projection. A plausible solution is to assume that the target position is GroundP
which would be not mandatorily phrased into an independent intonational phrase.

-36-

On the Syntax-prosody Interface (G. Bocci)

(22)

S

V

OCFoc

PP

GroundP/TopicPIP

L* asciatesos withthe complement of Foc°

FocP
Gr°/Top°S V tO tPP

O

TopP

Foc°

PP

Top°

IP

Given Belletti’s proposal, it would be possible to conclude that the L*-association andconsequently the FDR directly result from the syntactic configuration: L* exhaustively
associates with any element in the domain of the focus head. Modulo a different focus feature,
the same mechanism could be extended to the low new informational focus projection
proposed by Belletti in the low area of IP. Note, however, that this approach, although elegant
and independently possible, does not guarantee in itself full isomorphism between intonationand syntactic and informational structure. Consider once again a case in which RDed Topics
follow/precede focus such as (12) and (13), repeated below as (23) and (24).
(23)

H*

L-L%
{[(
)φ]ι [(
Quando arriva PIERANGELOCFoc
When arrives PIERANGELO(24)

H+L* L-L% H+L*
L-H%)φ]ι [({[()φ]ι [(
La dobbiamo
avvisare, MariannaRDed TOP, quando[We] her-must inform,
Marianna,
when

L+H*

L* L-L%L*
L-L%)φ]ι [()φ]ι}υ
la dobbiamo avvisare,
MariannaRDed TOP[we] her-must inform,
Marianna
L-L%)φ]ι}υ
arriva PIERANGELOCFoc
arrives PIERANGELO
L+H*

Adopting Belletti’s proposal, it follows that “Marianna” must associate with L* by virtue ofbeing within the domain of Foc° in (23), while it cannot in (24) because it is embedded within
the remnant IP moved over FocP.23 Nevertheless, in both cases, the RDed topic “Marianna”
23

Note that in contrast to focus, topics are recursive in Italian, at least in the sense that a topic can benested within another topic. Moreover, it is independently arguable that an inflected clause can be asyntactic topic in Italian. Consider for instance (i). In (i), the object clause is a clitic left dislocatedtopic as shown by the obligatory occurrence of the clitic pronoun, and it contains another ClLD topic:“Maria”. See also fn. 24.

(i)

Che Maria(la)* hanno premiata ieri,me(lo)*That MariaTop [they] (her -)* rewarded
yesterday, pro to me (it-)*‘Luca has told me that they awarded Maria yesterday.’-37-

ha detto Luca
has told Luca

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

occupies the same criterial position within the main clause and is indeed characterized by thesame informational properties: it can be interpreted neither as an instance of aboutness topic
nor of contrastive topic, but just as a tail in the sense of Vallduvì (1992). Consequently, eventhough adopting Belletti’s proposal can lead to a reformulation of the L*-association
mechanism in terms of syntactic configuration, it is independently a valid conclusion that
intonation is not isomorphic to the syntactic and informational structure.24
Finally, examples such as (23) and (24) also lead us to conclude that intonation cannot be
isomorphic to informational properties, even if we assume the division of the (back)groundinto the categories of link and tail as proposed by Vallduvì (1992). According to Vallduvì,right dislocation (right detachment, in his terminology) is to be conceived of as a device tomark the tail and to remove non-focal information from the core clause. Moreover, Vallduvì
notices that right dislocated topics are characterized by a flat contour (which Bocci & Avesani
would transcribe with L* in Tuscan Italian). However, right dislocated topics in Italian are notin principle restricted to occur in postfocal contexts so that they can either precede or follow
focus. In this respect, right dislocation seems to be a mechanism independent of focus (seeBocci forthcoming). In (23), the right dislocated topic “Marianna” must be interpreted as a tailas it must in (24), in which it linearly precedes focus.25 However, while “Marianna” counts as
24

Assuming that prosody is not recursive (Selkirk 1984, Nespor & Vogel 1986), it is plausible toargue that there cannot be a bijective relation between prosodic and informational structures, to theextent to which informational structures allow recursion and nested configurations as syntax (cf. fn.
23).

25

The examples (i) and (ii) further exemplify the uniformity of the properties of the right dislocation
regardless of the focus position. In the example in (i), a right dislocated topic precedes focus andcannot be L*-accented. The example in (iib) shows that such right dislocated topic can only count as
tail and not as a link (e.g. contrastive topic), unlike a clitic left dislocated topic (cf. (iic)).

(i)

a.

A: Ma perché gli hanno presentato Marina?
why to him-have [they] introduced Marinab.

B: Beh,gliel’hanno
presentata, MarinaRDed Top,oh, well, [they] to-him her-have introduced, Marina
perché Leo ha insistito.
because Leo has insisted‘Oh well, they have introduced Marina to him, because Leo insisted.’

(ii)

a.

A: Ma perché gli hanno presentato Marina?
Why to him-have [they] introduced Marinab.

B: # Beh,oh well,perché
becausegliel’hanno
presentata, VeronicaRDed Top,
[they] to-him her-have introduced Veronica,
Leo ha insistito. Per quanto riguarda Marina invece…
Leo has insisted. As forMarina…

‘Oh well, they have introduced Veronica to him, because Leo insisted.
As for Marina…’-38-

On the Syntax-prosody Interface (G. Bocci)

a tail in both cases, it associates with L* only if it follows focus, as prescribed by the FDR. As
a consequence, L* cannot be the prosodic correlate of the notion of tail, leading to conclude
that there is not a direct isomorphism between informational and intonational properties.
5.

Conclusions

In this paper, I have discussed some properties of the prosodic system of Italian andsome aspects of the syntax-prosody interface. Building on the cartographic approach, I havesketched a model in which prosody reads the relevant information off the syntactic
representation, as required by the T-model of grammar. In such a view, mapping rules are
sensitive both to the X-bar relations, as generally assumed (Selkirk 1984, 1995, Nespor &Vogel 1986), and to discourse-features syntactically encoded.
Evidence in favor of the existence of mapping rules sensitive to discourse features isprovided by the intonational distinction between contrastive and new information focus
shown by Avesani & Vayra (2003). Moreover, such distinction, which parallels the syntactic(positional) differences between types of focus (Belletti 2004a), leads to conclude that thenotion of focus cannot be replaced by and derived from either Schwarzschild’s (1999) notionof Givenness, as proposed by Bader (2001), or the notion of Presupposition, as argued for by
Sauerland (2005).
Following Bocci & Avesani (2005, 2008), I have argued that postfocal material in Italian
is not extrametrical, but fully prosodically represented: it is phrased, stressed andintonationally specified. I have argued that the occurrence of focus in non-final positions
leads to intonational phrases (and utterances) whose metrical heads are not assigned to therightmost element. I have thus proposed that the occurrence of a focus feature can trigger
marked feature-sensitive rules which ensure the alignment between focus and the main
prominence, outranking the default metrical rules.
Building on Bocci & Avesani (2008), I have argued that in Tuscan Italian the occurrenceof focus forces prosody to associate L* to any element occurring after focus, overriding anyother possible PA-association. L* in Tuscan Italian is not the prosodic correlate of any
informational/pragmatic property (such as Schwartzchild’s Givenness or (back)ground), but is
uniquely inserted in the prosodic structure as a special marker to define the right-hand side of
the focus phrase. L*-association in Tuscan Italian is ruled by the Focus Defining Rule which
requires that the focal pitch accent is the rightmost accent able to convey focus, where L* isunable to express focus. Modulo the pitch accent inventory, this analysis allows to unify the
analysis of the prosodic properties of postfocal material across romance languages (Frota
2000, Grice et al. 2005). As Italian allows only one focus phrase per utterance, the domain ofc.

B: Beh,VeronicaClLDed Top gliel’ho
presentata,Oh, well, Veronica,[I] to-him her have introduced,
perché
Leo ha insistito. Per quanto riguarda Marina invece…
because Leo has insisted. As forMarina…

-39-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

application of the FDR is shown to be the utterance itself. Given the FDR, it follows a
principled distinction between the intonational properties of sentences with fronted focus
phrases and left dislocated topics: fronted focus phrases trigger L*-association on the remnant
IP, i.e. the Presupposition/background, while topics cannot.
According to Bocci & Avesani’s analysis, L* in Tuscan Italian is inserted in the prosodic
structure just to comply with the FDR, that is a structural requirement on the prosodic
representation. Even if an element is endowed with a discourse feature potentially calling fora specific pitch accent (PA), the FDR imposes L* on postfocal contexts overriding any otherpossible PA-association. From this analysis, it thus follows that PA-selection is not uniquely
driven by the discourse properties of the element which the PA associates with, nor can be astrictly local mechanism, as proposed by Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg (1990).
Building on Bocci & Avesani’s (2008) proposals, I have argued that as PA-associationmust comply with structural requirement intrinsic to the prosodic representation, the prosodic
structure is isomorphic neither to the syntactic structure, nor to informational one. Althoughassuming that focus always associates overly (Kayne 1998, Belletti 2004a) can lead toreformulation of the domain of the L*-association in terms of syntactic configuration, such areformulation does not guarantee the isomorphism with respect to the syntactic structure.
Analogously, I have shown that the domain of the L*-association does not coincide withinformational properties of tails in the sense of Vallduvì (1992). Although lack ofisomorphism between intonational properties and the syntactic and informational structure
could prima facie appear an unwelcome conclusion, such a conclusion is expected to theextent to which intonation is part of the morpho-phonological component.

References
Aboh, E. O. (2004) The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word
Order Patterns in Kwa, Oxford University Press, New York.
Aboh, E. O. (2007) “Information Structuring Begins with the Numeration,” unpublished ms.,
Amsterdam University.
Antinucci, F. and G. Cinque (1977) “Sull’ordine delle Parole in Italiano: L’emarginazione,” Studi diGrammatica Italiana 6, 121-146.
Avesani, C. and M. Vayra (2003) “Broad, Narrow and Contrastive Focus in Florentine Italian,”
Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Science, 1803-1806.
Bader, C. (2001) Givenness, Focus, and Prosody, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Belletti, A. (2004) Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Belletti, A. (2004a) “Aspects of the Low IP Area,” in L. Rizzi, ed., The Structure of IP and CP: The
Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Oxford University Press, New York, 16-51.
Benincà, P and C. Poletto (2004) “Topic, Focus and V2: Defining the CP Sublayers,” in L. Rizzi, ed.,The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Oxford University
Press, New York, 52-75.

-40-

On the Syntax-prosody Interface (G. Bocci)

Bocci, G. (2004) “Contrastive Focalization on Topics and Preverbal Subjects in Italian,” Rivista di
Grammatica Generativa 29, 3-59.
Bocci, G. (forthcoming) Accent on the Word Order: Word Order and Prosody in Italian, PhD.
dissertation, University of Siena.
Bocci, G. and C. Avesani (2005) “Focus Contrastivo Nella Periferia Sinistra della Frase: Un SoloAccento, ma Non Solo un Accento,” Proceedings of 2° Convegno AISV, 111-141.
Bocci, G. and C. Avesani (2008) “Deaccent Given or Define Focus? Where Italian Doesn't Sound Like
English University of Siena,” unpublished ms., presented at 34th Incontro di Grammatica
Generativa, Padua.
Brunetti, L. (2003) A Unification of Focus, Unipress, Padua.
Büring, D. (1997) The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent, Routledge,
London.
Calabrese, A. (1982) “Alcune Ipotesi Sulla Struttura Informazionale della Frase in Italiano e Sul Suo
Rpporto con la Struttura Fonologica,” Rivista di Grammatica Generative 13, 489-526.
Calabrese, A. (1992) “Some Informal Remarks on Focus and Logical Structures in Italian,” in S. Kuno
and H. Thrainsson, eds., Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. I, 91-127.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Cinque, G. (1993) “A Null Theory of Phrase and Compound Stress,” Linguistic Inquiry 24, 239-298.
Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads, Oxford University Press, New York.
Cruschina, S. (2007) “Marking Yes/No Questions,” paper presented at CIDSM 2, Cambridge Italian
Dialect Syntax Meeting 2, University of Cambridge, 26-27/01/2007.
Drubig, H.B. (2003) “Toward a Typology of Focus and Focus Constructions,” Linguistics 41, 1-50.
Féry, C. and V. Samek-Lodovici (2006) “Focus Projection and Prosodic Prominence in Nested Foci,”
Language 82, 131-150.
Frascarelli, M. (2000) The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Frascarelli, M. and R. Hinterhölzl (2007) “Types of Topics in German and Italian,” in S. Winkler. and
K. Schwabe, eds., On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 87-116.
Gili Fivela, B. (1999) “The Prosody of Left-dislocated Topic Constituents in Italian Read Speech,”Eurospeech'99.
Grice, M., M. P. D'Imperio, M. Savino, C. Avesani (2005) “Towards a Strategy for ToBI Labelling
Varieties of Italian,” in S.-A. Jun, ed., Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation andPhrasing, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 55-83.
Gussenhoven, C. (2004) The Phonology of Tone and Intonation, Cambridge University Press, NewYork.
Haegeman, L. (2004) “Topicalization, CLLD and the Left Periphery,” in B. Shaer, W. Frey and C.
Maienborn, eds., Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop ZAS Berlin, November
2003, ZAS, Berlin, 157-192.
Kayne, R. S. (1998) “Overt vs. Covert Movement,” Syntax 1, 128-191.
Kiss, É. (1998) “Identificational Focus Versus Information Focus,” Language 74, 245-273.
Ladd, R. (1996) Intonational Phonology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ladd, R. and A. Schepman (2003) “Sagging Transitions,” Journal of Phonetics 31, 81-112.
Nespor, M. and I. Vogel (1986) Prosodic Phonology, Foris, Dordrecht.

-41-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

Pierrehumbert, J. and J. Hirschberg (1990) “The Meaning of Intonation Contours in the Interpretationof Discourse,” in P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, eds., Intentions in theCommunication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 271-311.
Reinhart, T. (1995) Interface Strategies, Utrecht, OTS Working Papers.
Reinhart, T. (2006) Interface Strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Rizzi, L. (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery,” in L. Haegeman, ed., Elements ofGrammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 281-337.
Rizzi, L. (2001) “On the Position Int(errogative) in the Left periphery of the Clause,” in G. Cinque and
G. Salvi, eds., Current Studies in Italian Syntax Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 70-107.
Rizzi, L. (2004a) The Structure of CP and IP – The Cartography of Syntactic Structures vol.2. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Rizzi, L. (2004b) “On the Cartography of Syntactic Structures,” in L. Rizzi, ed., The Structure of IP
and CP, The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Oxford University Press, New York, 3-15.
Rizzi, L. (2006) “On the Form of Chains,” in L. Cheng and N. Corver, eds., Wh-Movement: Movingon, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 97-134.
Rooth, M. (1992) “A Theory of Focus Interpretation,” Natural Language Semantics 1, 75-116.
Samek-Lodovici, V. (2006) “When Right Dislocation Meets the Left-periphery: A Unified Analysis of
Italian,” Lingua 116, 836-873.
Sauerland, U. (2005) “Don't Interpret Focus: Why a Presuppositional Account of Focus Fails, andHow a Presuppositional Account of Givenness Works,” Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung
9, 370-384.
Schwarzschild, R. (1999) “Giveness, Avoid-F and Other Constraints on the Placement of Accent,”
Natural Language Semantics 7, 141-177.
Selkirk, E. O. (1984) Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Selkirk, E. O. (1995) “Sentence Prosody: Intonation, Stress and Phrasing,” in A. Goldsmith, ed., The
Handbook of Phonological Theory, Blackwell, Oxford, 550-569.
Selkirk, E. O. (2007) “Contrastive Focus, Givenness and Phrase Stress,” unpublished ms., Universityof Massachusetts, Amherst.
Szendröi, K. (2001) Focus and the Syntax-Phonology Interface, Ph.D. dissertation, University College
London.
Szendröi, K. (2002) “Stress-Focus Correspondence in Italian,” Proceedings of Going Romance 2000,
John Benjamins, Utrecht, 287-303.
Truckenbrodt, H. (1995) Phonological Phrases: Their Relation to Syntax, Focus, and Prominence,
Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Vallduví, E. (1992) The Informational Component, Garland, New York.
Vallduví, E. and M. Vilkuna (1998) “On Rheme and Contrast,” in P. Culicover, and L. McNally, eds.,
Syntax and Semantics: The limits of syntax 29, Academic Press, New York, 79-108.
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998) Prosody, Focus, and Word Order, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Zubizarreta, M. L. and J.-R. Vergnaud (2005) “Phrasal Stress and Syntax,” in M. Everaert and H. vanRiemsdijk, eds., The Syntax Companion, Blackwell, 522-568.

-42-