CRITERIAL POSITIONS AND LEFT PERIPHERY IN ITALIAN:
EVIDENCE FOR THE SYNTACTIC ENCODING OF CONTRASTIVE FOCUS*
Giuliano Bocci
University of Siena

1.

Introduction

The main goal of this paper is to investigate the relation between the Contrastive Focus
prosody and its syntactic encoding in Italian. I will discuss two Italian constructions:Contrastively Focalized Left Dislocation (see Bocci 2004) and focalized subjects in preverbal
position. Although these constructions could be apparently analyzed as a case of merely
prosodic contrastive focalization, I will show that in both cases Contrastive Focus prosody
and interpretation cannot be assigned independently of the left peripheral syntactic projection
FocP, i.e. the projection in which the feature of Contrastive Focus is encoded (Rizzi 1997,
2004c). This conclusion leads to reject the idea that a prosodic focalization strategy regardlessof the syntactic configurations is always available. Furthermore, the empirical data and theanalyses will provide convergent evidence for the cartographic idea that the scope-discourse
properties are encoded in distinct and dedicated functional projections (Cinque 2001, Rizzi
2004a, Belletti 2004b)
Regarding syntax, prosody and interpretation, Italian consistently distinguishes between
the Focus-Presupposition articulation, on the one hand, and the Topic-Comment articulation,on the other (Benincà 1988, Cinque 1990, Rizzi 1997). However, Benincà (1988) andBenincà & Poletto (2004) point out a singular construction (see (18c)), which I nameContrastively Focalized Left Dislocation (CLFD). Apparently, CFLD seems to be an
exception to the sharp and systematic distinction between Focus and Topic in Italian, since it
seems to pair the syntactic property characterizing Clitic Left Dislocated Topics (see Cinque1990) with the prosody and interpretation of Contrastive Focus (see Benincà & Poletto 2004).
If so, CLFD could be conceived of as a counterexample to the idea that different discoursescope properties are encoded in distinct projections. However, I will show that the
distribution of CFLD strictly depends on the local availability of the syntactic focus
projection in the left periphery of the clause. The empirical data strongly suggest that theContrastive Focus prosody and interpretation cannot be assigned without the mediation of the*

I wish to thank Luigi Rizzi, Adriana Belletti, Andrea Calabrese, Cinzia Avesani and Valentina
Bianchi, for their valuable and insightful comments. Thanks are due to Željko Bošković, Ur Shlonsky,
Sandra Miglietta, Vincenzo Moscati, Simona Matteini, Elisa Di Domenico, Mamoru Saito, Keiko
Murasugi, Tomohiro Fujii and the audience at the Connecticut-Nanzan-Siena Joint Workshop on
Linguistic Theory and Language Acquisition 2007. All errors are mine.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1, 35-70© 2007 Giuliano Bocci

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

specific syntactic projection, in which the relevant features are encoded. Accordingly, CFLD
does not constitute an exception to the Split CP model, but it provides convergent evidence
for this model. Along these lines, I will propose an analysis of CFLD in terms of complex
head formation fully compatible with the criterial approach (Rizzi 2004c).
The second issue that I will discuss concerns the subjects focalized in preverbal position.
If a subject could be focalized in situ in the high IP-internal subject position (Cardinaletti2004), then it would be focalized by means of a merely prosodic strategy in which the focus
projection in the left periphery does not play any role. In this case, Italian would have two
disjointed mechanisms to assign Contrastive Focus: a syntactic mechanism, in which theContrastive Focus feature is encoded in the projection FocP in the left periphery and a purely
prosodic mechanism independent of FocP. Through different arguments, I will show that a
subject focalized in preverbal position cannot occupy the IP-internal position, but it isobligatory fronted to the focus projection in the left periphery with a quanficational
movement, which takes place directly from a predicate-internal position and skips the high IP
internal subject position, as expected under the Criterial framework and the Subject Criterion
proposed by Rizzi & Shlonsky (2004).
The paper is organized as follows. In 2. I briefly discuss the properties of the left
periphery of the clause in Italian and the criterial approach proposed by Rizzi (1997, 2004c).
In 3.1-3.4 I discuss the properties of the CFLD construction and the theoretical problems it
raises (Benincà & Poletto 2004, Bocci 2004). In 3.5 I show that the distribution of CFLD
follows on from the distribution of FocP and, on the basis of this conclusion, in 3.6 I propose
an analysis of CFLD in terms of complex head. In 3.7 I discuss a convergent piece ofevidence in favor of this analysis and in 3.8 I briefly sum up the results of the investigation.
In 4.1 I discuss the issues raised by the subjects focalized in preverbal position formulating
two hypotheses. In 4.2 these hypotheses are reformulated by taking into consideration the
Subject Criterion proposed by Rizzi (2004c). Furthermore, I discuss data from Rural
Florentine (Brandi & Cordin 1981) in 4.3, the results of the “ne”-cliticization test in standard
Italian in 4.4, WCO effects in 4.5, Principle C and reconstruction effects in 4.6. In 4.7 I
briefly sum up the results of the discussion on focalized subject. Finally, in 5 I review theresults of the investigation on CFLD and focalized subjects, speculating on its theoreticalsignificance.
2.

Background2.1. Criterial Positions in the Left Periphery
Rizzi (1997) argues that CP is to be split into different layers consisting in distinct andordered functional heads and their projections. In his model, the CP domain is closed upwardby the head of Force and downward by the head of Finiteness. Force encodes the features
responsible for the sentence type (question, declarative, imperative, …), while Finitenesssums up the inflectional properties of the IP domain. Between these boundaries, Rizzi locates-36-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)a system of heads dedicated to express specific scope-discourse properties, i.e. the heads ofTopic and Focus. The model proposed by Rizzi (1997) with particular reference to Italian is
sketched in (1) (the * mark indicates recursive projections).
(1)

Force … Top(ic)* … Foc(us) …. Top(ic)* … Fin(iteness)(from Rizzi 1997)

The scope-discourse features encoded in these dedicated positions are regulated byCriteria (Rizzi 1997 and 2004b). The Criteria are a special class of principles which require
spec-head agreement with respect to the features of the relevant class (wh, top, foc... forquestions, Topic, Focus…). A functional head endowed with a certain scope-discoursefeature, acting as criterial probe, attracts a phrase bearing the same feature (criterial goal) into
its specifier. The local spec-head agreement satisfies the pertinent Criterion. As a first
approximation, the format of the Criteria is defined as in (2).
(2)

F Criterion
XPF and ZF must be in a spec-head configuration, for F=Q, Top, Foc and so on…
– formulation from Rizzi (2004c), then redefined in Rizzi & Shlonsky (2004) –In this way, an element hosted in the specifier of a Topic head is interpreted as Topic,
whereas the complement of this head is interpreted as Comment (see (3)). Likewise, a phrase
hosted in the specifier of the Focus head is interpreted as focalized, while its complement isinterpreted as Presupposition (see (4)). In this view, an element is first merged in the positionin which it is semantically selected. Then, it may be merged again in a position dedicated toexpress its scope-discourse properties. The first merge position and the criterial one reflect
the duality of semantics as discussed by Chomsky (2001, 2005).
(3)

(4)
TopP

FocP

XP

ZP
Top°
+TopicYP

Foc°+FocusXP = TopicYP = Comment

WP

ZP = Focus
WP = Presupposition

In this model, a phrase can never pick up discourse properties from an intermediate
position in an A’ chain. The “Criterial Freezing” principle proposed by Rizzi (2004c), blocks
a phrase in the position where it satisfies a Criterion (see (5)).
(5)

Criterial Freezing (from Rizzi 2004c)
A phrase meeting a Criterion is frozen in place.

As a result of the “Criterial Freezing” Principle, a phrase can be endowed with thediscursive properties picked up only from one position. Nevertheless, the operation of head--37-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

to-head movement can generate clusters of discursive properties by creating complex heads,
which are assumed not to be syntactic primitives (Rizzi 2004b:7-8). In this way, a phrase canpick up distinct discursive properties without violating the Criterial Freezing restriction.
2.2. Topic and Focus in the Left Periphery of the Clause
In contrast to English, Italian sharply distinguishes between the Topic-Comment
articulation, on the one hand, and the Focus-Presupposition one on the other. The two
articulations consistently differ in interpretation, prosody and syntax.
Looking at the left peripheral focus properties in Italian, we can observe that this focus
projection cannot merely express new information, but it is specialized to convey Contrastive
Focus (CF). In the exchange in (6), Speaker B’s utterance in (6b) is not an appropriate answer
to Speaker A’s genuine question. The new information phrase “Maria” cannot be moved to
the left periphery, but must appear in postverbal position, as in (6c). Adopting Belletti’s(2004b) analysis, we can assume that the new information phrase in (6c) is hosted in the low
IP-internal Focus position reserved for new information focus.
(6)a.

-A: Chi hai incontrato?
Who did you meet?

b.

-B: # Maria ho incontrato.
Mary [I] metc.

-B’: Ho incontrato Maria.
[I] met Mary.

As illustrated by the contrast between (6b) and (7b), a phrase can be moved to the left
peripheral focus position only if it is characterized by Contrastive Focus interpretation.1 In
Italian, however, contrastively focalized phrases can also appear in situ as in (7c). Following
a traditional view (Chomsky 1976, Rizzi 1997 and Krika 2006, among many others), I
assume that a contrastively focalized phrase can covertly move to the specifier of FocP. Or, interms of the Criterial approach, the Focus Criterion can be satisfied at LF.
(7)a.

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

b.

-B: VERONICA ho incontrato Domenica (, non Lucia)!2
VERONICA [I] met[on] Sunday (, not Lucy)!

1

Accordingly, the featural content of the left peripheral Foc head – dedicated to express Contrastive
Focus – and the one of the low IP-internal Focus projection must be kept distinct. Even thoughalternative approaches based on featural compositionality are plausible, I will assume for the sake ofconcreteness that Foc° is endowed with the feature [+Contrastive Focus].
2

I use capital letters to indicate an element which bears the nuclear pitch accent L+H*. This pitchaccent is systematically associated with the elements in Contrastive Focus. See further discussion.

-38-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)c.

-B’: Ho incontrato VERONICA Domenica (, non Lucia)[I] metVERONICA [on] Sunday (, not Lucia)!

In the exchange in (7), the Presupposition of Contrastive Focus is interpreted as an open
sentence containing a variable bound by the Contrastively Focalized constituent. Speaker B
asserts a proposition where the element in CF holds for the predicate phrase, namely the
Presupposition. But at the same time, he denies that the same predicate phrase holds for adifferent and alternative element contextually identified (Calabrese 1992, Drubig 2003, Kiss
1998, Vallduví & Vilkuna 1998). Even if the negative tag representing the denied element isomitted, it is necessarily implicit.
When the Contrastive Focus projection in the left periphery is activated, a specific set ofphonological properties – the “prosody of contrast focus” – consistently characterizes thewhole Focus-Presupposition articulation (Bocci & Avesani 2005). The last lexically stressedsyllable of the CFed phrase is associated with a L+H* nuclear pitch accent followed by a Lphrase accent.3 The Presupposition is completely deaccented since no postfocal pitch accentis admitted in “standard” Italian (Bocci & Avesani 2005 and references cited therein). The
intonational contour of (7b) is sketched in (8) (see also (27)).
L+H*

(8)

L-

L%

VERONICA ho incontrato Domenica!
VERONICA [I] met[on] Sunday!

In Italian, and more generally in Romance, the Topic-Comment articulation is typicallyrealized by the Clitic Left Dislocation (ClLD) construction (Benincà 1988, Cinque 1990,
Cecchetto 2000, Benincà & Poletto 2004).4 Consider, for instance, (9).
(9)

a.

-A: Ho ricevuto una lettera dalle sorelle di Gianni la settimana scorsa.
I got
a letter from Gianni’s sisters last week.

b.

-B: Veronica, l’ho incontrata Domenica.
Veronica, [I] her- met[on] Sunday.
‘As for Veronica, I met her on Sunday.’A clitic left dislocated Topic is old information selected from the common ground andmade salient with respect to the predication expressed in the Comment. Looking at (9), forinstance, we are led to assume that Veronica is one of Gianni’s sisters by the fact that
3

Even when the Contrastive Focus phrase appears in situ, it is associated with the L+H* nuclear
pitch accent (or the allotone H+H*). See Avesani & Vayra (2003).
4

ClLD is a construction distinct from Hanging Topic, independently available in Italian (Benincà
1988, Cinque 1990, Benincà & Poletto 2004).

-39-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

Veronica is clitic left dislocated in Speaker B’s reply. In this sense, Veronica would be an
instance of Partial Topic (see Büring 1997).
Unlike Contrastive Focus, a clitic left dislocated Topic can be associated with different
typologies of pitch accents, for instance L*+H or H+L*, and it can be delimited by a L or H
boundary tone. Moreover, unlike Presupposition, Comment is never deaccented. In any case,it must carry a nuclear pitch accent (Bocci & Avesani 2005). Following Büring (1997:57), we
can informally and provisionally adopt the idea that what is in Topic is not focalized (for a
relevant exception, see the case of the CFLD construction analyzed in 3.). If we assume that asentence must express focus (Büring 1997), focal information will be typically expressed
within the Comment. Accordingly, a nuclear pitch accent associated with Focus occurs in
Comment (Bocci 2005). A potential intonational contour of (9b) is sketched in (10).
(10)

L*+H

H-

H+L*

H+L*

L-L%

Veronica, l’ho incontrata Domenica.
Veronica, [I] her- met [on] Sunday.
As for syntax, in Italian Contrastive Focus and Clitic Left Dislocation differ in a numberof respects in Italian. In this section, I will mention just three differences among the several
ones proposed mainly by Benincà (1988), Cinque (1990) Rizzi (1997) and Benincà & Poletto(2004). In the first place, a very clear difference is observable in case of fronted direct
objects. A Clitic Left Dislocated Topic can involve a resumptive clitic within its Comment. If
the topicalized constituent is a direct object, the clitic is obligatory. Note that if object clitic
and past participle cooccur, the latter obligatorily agrees in gender and number with theformer. The lack of clitic after the topicalized direct object in (11c) involves a straightforward
degradation.
(11) a.

-A: Quando hai incontrato le sorelle di Gianni?
When did you meet Gianni’s sisters?

b.

-B: Veronica, l’ho incontrata Domenica.
Veronica, [I] her- met [on] Sunday.

c.

-B’:*Veronica, ho incontrato Domenica.
Veronica, [I] Ø- met[on] Sunday.

In contrast, a direct object focalized in the left periphery cannot be resumed by a clitic,
as illustrated in (12).
(12) a.

VERONICA ho incontrato Domenica (, non Lucia)!
VERONICA [I] Ø- met[on] Sunday (, not Lucy)!

-40-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)

b. * VERONICA l’ho incontrata Domenica (, non Lucia)!
VERONICA [I] her- met[on] Sunday (, not Lucy)!
Comparing (11) and (12), we can observe that the clitic occurrence is incompatible with
Contrastive Focus, while it is mandatory in case of Clitic Left Dislocation. The judgments
about sentences like the ones in (11) and (12) are very sharp, in such a way that one canconclude that the clitic occurrence in case of fronted direct objects is the most distinctive
syntactic clue to distinguish between Topic and Contrastive Focus.
In the second place, another important difference between Topic and Focus is the factthat the A’ dependencies involved by Contrastive Focus are quantificational, whereas theones involved by Clitic Left Dislocation are nonquantificational. As shown in the contrast
between (13) and (14), the former are sensitive to WCO effects, while the latter are not.
??

(13)

(14)

GIANNIi suai madre ha sempre apprezzato!
GIANNIi hisi mother always appreciated!
O(bject) S(ubject)
V(erb)
Giovannii, suai madre lo ha sempre apprezzato.
Giovannii, hisi mother always him-appreciated.
OS
cl(itic)-V

Finally, it is worth reminding that many ClLDed topics can easily cooccur in the sameclause, while just one constituent can be contrastively focalized, as respectively illustrated in(15) and (16). By the way, many Topic projections can be activated along with the Focus
layer, as shown in (17).
(15) a.

b.

A Giovanni, Lucia l’ho presentata Domenica.
To Giovanni, Lucia [I] to-him-her-introduced [on] Sunday
Il libro credo che a Carlo sia sicuro che non glielo daranno mai.5
The book, [I] think that to Carlo it is certain that [they] to him-it- will never give.
‘I think that it is certain that they will never give the book to Carlo.’(16)* A GIOVANNI VERONICA ho presentato Domenica.
TO GIOVANNI VERONICA [I] introduced Sunday‘I introduced VERONICA TO GIOVANNI on Sunday.’(17) Credo che Domenica QUESTO a Gianni i tuoi amici avrebbero dovuto spiegargli.
...
FORCE
TOP FOCTOPS
V-clitic.
I believe that Sunday THIS
to Gianni your friends should have to-him explained.

5

Adapted from Cinque (1990:63).

-41-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

3.

Contrastively Focalized Left Dislocation

3.1. Contrastively Focalized Left Dislocation: An Unusual CaseAs briefly discussed in the preceding section, Italian consistently distinguishes between
Topic and Focus with respect to interpretation, prosody and syntax. However, despite thisclear picture, there is a singular exception constituted by the construction which I nameContrastively Focalized Left Dislocation (CFLD) (see Benincà 1988, Benincà & Poletto 2004
and Bocci 2005). In a special echo-context (see below) a direct object fronted to the left
periphery and characterized by interpretation and prosody of Contrastive Focus canunexpectedly be resumed by a clitic. The relevant example of CFLD is (18c) and it should becompared with (18b) which is a typical instance of Contrastive Focus. Note that in (18c) the
past participle agrees with the object, as always observed when the object clitic and the past
participle cooccur.
(18) a.

-A: Ha detto che il tappeto l’ha comprato l’anno scorso.
[S/he] said that the carpet [s/he] it-bought last year.

b.

-B: No, ti sbagli. Ha detto che LA POLTRONA ha comprato l’anno scorso (, nontappeto)!
No, you are wrong. [S/he] said that THE ARMCHAIR [s/he] bought last year(, not the carpet)!

c.

-B’: No, ti sbagli. Ha detto che LA POLTRONA ha l’comprata l’anno scorso(, non tappeto)!
No, you are wrong. [S/he] said that THE ARMCHAIR [s/he] it- bought lastyear (, not the carpet)!

It is worth underlining that the instance of CFLD in (18c) does not sound as ametalinguistic contradiction, but as a genuine and natural case of Contrastive Focus. As I will
briefly discuss in 2.3, CFLD and CF are characterized by the analogous interpretive andprosodic properties. As mentioned in the previous section, the occurrence of the resumptive
clitic is obligatory in case of a topicalized direct object, while it results into a straightforward
degradation in case of Contrastive Focus, as illustrated in (12). However, in the special casesof CFLD as (18), whose availability will be discussed in detail (see also Bocci 2005), a
fronted direct object characterized by interpretation and prosody of Contrastive Focus can be
felicitously followed by a resumptive clitic, which is the most distinctive syntactic property
disambiguating between Focus and Topic, as observed in (11) and (12). Therefore, CFLD
seems to mix the interpretative and prosodic properties of Contrastive Focus and the syntactic
ones of ClLDed topic. Apparently, the data in (18) could be viewed as an exception or even acounterexample to the assumption that the left periphery hosts distinct syntactic positions
dedicated to the expression of specific discourse properties. In contrast, I will show that at a
closer investigation ClLD can be accounted for within the split-CP model. Moreover, theanalysis of ClLD that I propose, provides evidence in favor of the existence of distinct and-42-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)

dedicated projections of Topic and Focus and in favor of the view that the syntactic
projection of Focus is necessary to the assignment of the interpretative and prosodic
properties of Contrastive Focus.
3.2. Contexts for CFLD
The availability of CFLD is very restricted. A fronted direct object characterized byContrastive Focus interpretation and prosody can be resumed by a clitic only if three
conditions are met, otherwise the clitic occurrence involves a severe degradation as in (12b).
Firstly, an element must be clearly “given” both for speaker and hearer in order toappropriately occur as CFLD. Secondly, this construction is acceptable only if it is asserted asa reply to an utterance in which a clitic left dislocated object is used, and only if the contrast
concerns the left dislocated element, as in (18). Only in echo contexts we can find Contrastive
Focus and CFLD without distinction, as illustrated in the comparison between (18) and (19).
It is worth emphasizing that in (19) “la poltrona” (the armchair) is mentioned by Speaker A,
but it is not clitic left dislocated. This context, accordingly, is not able to license CFLD.
(19) a.

-A: L’anno prossimo compra il tappeto, ma non ha ancora presso una decisione
per la poltrona.
Next year [s/he] will buy the carpet, while [s/he] has not taken a decision
WRT the armchair yetb.

-B: Ti sbagli! LA POLTRONA compra l’anno prossimo (, non il tappeto!)
You are wrong. THE ARMCHAIR [s/he] Ø will buys next year (, notthe carpet!)c.

-B’:*No, ti sbagli! LA POLTRONA la compra l’anno prossimo (non il tappeto!)
You are wrong! THE ARMCHAIR [s/he] it-buys next year (, not the carpet!)

As third constraint, only definite elements can properly occur in CFLD, while
indefinites, even if specific (in the sense of Enç 1991), involve degradation (see Bocci 2004).
CFLD is ungrammatical in (20c) where the direct object is specific indefinite, but
grammatical in (20d) where the object is definite. By contrast, an element in Contrastive
Focus can be an indefinite as in (20e) or even a bare quantifier (Cinque 1990, Rizzi 1997).
Finally, it is worth underlining that a specific indefinite element can be easily clitic left
dislocated, as in (20b).
(20) a.

b.

-B: È da un pezzo che nessuno non scarta un carico!
It has been a long time since anyone has discarded a trump!
-A: Un asso, Gianni l’ha scartato all’inizio della seconda mano.
An ace, Gianni it-discarded at the beginning of the second hand.

-43-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1c.

-B:*UNA FIGURA l’ha scartata all’inizio della seconda mano (, non un asso)!
A COAT-CARD [he] it-discarded at the beginning of the second hand(, not an ace)!

d.

-B’: LA DONNA DI PICCHE l’ha scartata all’inizio della seconda mano(, non un asso)!
THE QUEEN OF SPADES [he] it-discarded at the beginning of the second …!

e.

-B’’: UNA FIGURA ha scartato all’inizio della seconda mano (, non un asso)!
A COAT-CARD [he] discarded at the beginning of the second hand(, not an ace)!

f.

-B’’’: LA DONNA DI PICCHE ha scartato all’inizio della seconda mano(, non un asso)!
THE QUEEN of SPADES [he] discarded at the beginning of the second hand …!

3.3. CFLD, Contrastive Topic and Contrastive Focus in Italian
If we compare CFLD with Contrastive Focus and Contrastive Topic, we can conclude
that, in spite of the clitic occurrence, CFLD cannot be assimilated to a case of Contrastive
Topic (I refer the reader to Bocci 2004 for a detailed discussion). Indeed, CFLD ischaracterized by the same interpretative and prosodic properties as CF. Despite the common
and misleading term “contrastive”, we have to distinguish two types of “contrast”, one proper
to Contrastive Focus and CFLD, and the other associated with Contrastive Topic, whateverits theoretical status. 6 As described in Büring (1999), the current notion of Contrastive Topic(CT) refers to a particular Topic used to “move the conversation away from an entity given in
the previous discourse”, as exemplified in (21). In (21b) Speaker B does not answer thequestion asked by A, but another question, related to the former. It is worth pointing out, that
Speaker B does not state anything about “la macchina” (the car), as shown by A’s reply in(21c). At most, Contrastive Topic can trigger an implicature.
(21) a.

-A: Saise Gianni ha venduto la macchina ieri mattina?
Do you know if Gianni soldthe caryesterday morning?

b.

-B: La moto l’ha venduta quattro giorni fa.
The motorbike [he] it-sold four days ago.

c.

-A: Si, ma la macchina? L’ha venduta ieri mattina o no?
But what about the car? Did [he] it-sell yesterday morning or not?

The kind of “contrast” involved in CT is completely different from the one involved in
6

Recall that Büring (1997 and 1999) denies that Contrastive Topic is characterized by a specificsemantic definition. On the contrary, he conceives of CT, as well as Partial Topic, as a convenientdescriptive label “without any theoretical significance” (Büring 1997: 57).

-44-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)

CF and CFLD. Compare (21) and (22). In (22), Speaker B can reply to Speaker A uttering
indifferently a sentence with CFLD ((22b-c)) or with CF ((22d-e)). Each sentence from b to e
involves the same meaning: Speaker B (implicitly or explicitly) denies that the predicate
phrase holds for “la macchina” (the car), as proposed by Speaker A. Note that the negative
tag can follow CF as well as CFLD. As a matter of fact, this tag is necessarily entailed even if
it does not occur overtly.
(22) a.

-A: La macchina Gianni l’ha venduta ieri mattina.
The car
Gianni it-soldyesterday morning.

b.

-B: LA MOTO
l’ha venduta ieri mattina!
THE MOTORBIKE [he] it- sold yesterday morning!

c.

-B’: LA MOTO
l’ha venduta ieri mattina,
non la macchina!
THE MOTORBIKE [he] it- sold yesterday morning, not the car!

d.

-B’’: LA MOTO
ha venduto ieri mattina!
THE MOTORBIKE [he] sold yesterday morning!

e.

-B’’’: LA MOTO
ha venduto ieri mattina,
non la macchina!
THE MOTORBIKE [he] sold yesterday morning, not the car!

To reinforce how CFLD and CF are interpretatively similar, consider (23). Theinterpretative properties of CF in (23c) and the ones of CFLD in (23b) clearly prevent us fromregarding “Franca” as Gianni’s schoolmate. Since the negative tag “not his schoolmates” isnecessarily entailed in (23b-c); a contradiction would emerge, if “Franca” were one ofGianni’s schoolmates. Indeed, the particle “solo” (only) is necessary in order to regard“Franca” as belonging to the set of Gianni’s schoolmates.
(23) a.

-A: Le sue compagne di scuola, Gianni le ha invitate per le cinque.
His schoolmates,
Gianni them-has invited by five o’clockb.

-B: FRANCA l’ha invitata per le cinque!
FRANCA [he] her-has invited by five o’clock!

c.

-B’: FRANCA ha invitato per le cinque!
FRANCA [he] has invited by five o’clock!

Moreover, Contrastive Focus and CFLD can cooccur neither with another element inContrastive Focus, as shown in (24), nor with a wh-element, as shown in (25). By contrast,
many Contrastive Topics can cooccur without any degradation, as shown in (26).7

7

Note that Contrastive Topics can be indefinite, as shown in (ib), while CFLDed elements must be
definite, as observed above.

-45-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(24) a.

-A: A Franco i compagni di golf Maria li ha presentati alla festa.
To Franco the golf mates Maria them-introduced at the partyb.

-B: * A LUCA I COLLEGHI Maria li ha presentati alla festa(, non a Franco i compagni di classe)!!
TO LUCA THE COLLEAGUES Maria them- introduced at the party(, not to Franco the classmates)!

c.

-B’: *A LUCA I COLLEGHI Maria ha presentato alla festa(, non a Franco i compagni di classe)!
TO LUCA THE COLLEAGUES Maria introduced at the party(, not to Franco the classmates)!

(25) a.

-A: I Rossi, chi li ha invitati?
The Rossis, who them-has invited?

b.

-B: * I BIANCHI chi li ha invitati (, non i Rossi)?
THE BIANCHIS who them- has invited (, not the Rossis)?

c.

-B’: * I BIANCHI chi ha invitato (, non i Rossi)?
THE BIANCHIS who has invited (, not the Rossis)?!

(26) a.

b.

-A: Franco, a Maria, che le ha raccontato?
Franco, (to) Maria, what her-has told?
-B: Luca, a Elena, le ha detto raccontato la versione di Gianni.
Luca, to Elena, her-has told Gianni’s version.
‘Luca has told Elena Gianni’s version.’

As observed with reference to the interpretative properties, CFLD and CF arecharacterized by the same prosodic properties, as intuitively pointed out by Benincà & Poletto(2004). Conversely, ClLD contrasts with both CFLD and Contrastive Focus. Even when clitic
left dislocation is used as Contrastive Topic, its Comment must be associated with a nuclear
pitch accent marking focus (Bocci & Avesani 2005, Bocci 2004). In (27), (28) and (29) it ispossible to compare the pitch contours of minimal examples, extracted from a pilot study.

(i)

a.

-A: Ma almeno una celebrità, l’ha vista da vicino?
But at least a celebrity has [s/he] seen-him from close up?

b.

-B: Una guardia del corpo, l’ha fotografata.
A bodyguard, [s/he] has taken a photo of-him-46-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)

(27)
CF

VERONICA ho incontrato Domenica!
VERONICA [I] met[on] Sunday
(28)
CFLD

VERONICA l’ho incontrata Domenica!
VERONICA [I] her-met[on] Sunday
(29)
ClLD

Veronica, l’ho incontrata Domenica!
Veronica, [I] her-met[on] Sunday
3.4. CFLDed Elements as Topics Prosodically Focalized in situ?
So far, I have described CFLD as a construction where a fronted direct object ischaracterized by prosody and interpretation of CF, but followed by the resumptive clitic,
which is the distinctive syntactic signature of the ClLDed topics. According to Benincà &Poletto (2004), CFLD can be analysed as a special case of ClLDed Topic prosodically
focalized in situ. On the basis of the resumptive clitic occurrence and of the discursive
property of “giveness” or “topichood”, they argue that CFLD is a syntactic ClLDed Topic,
focalized by means of an autonomous prosodic strategy in which the syntactic Focus head-47-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

does not play a role. Note that the discourse properties of ClLDed topics described in 3.1 andthe ones of CF, although clearly distinct, are not a priori incompatible, since an element inContrastive Focus can be either new or given.
In order to support the analysis in terms of focalization in situ, Benincà & Poletto (2004)
argue that CFLD, as well as ClLD topics, does not involve a quantificational chain, unlike CF
which involves a genuine operator-variable dependency. Since they assume WCO sensitivity
to be a reliable sign of the focus projection activation, they exclude FocP from being involvedin CFLD on the basis of examples as (30b).
(30) a.

-A:

Marioi, i suoii genitori non lo vedono mai.8
Marioi, hisi parents do not him-see ever.

b.

-B: Sbagli! GIANNIi i suoii genitori non lo vedono mai (, non Mario)!
You are wrong! GIANNIi hisi parents do not him- see ever (, not Mario!)c.

-B’:?? Sbagli! GIANNIi i suoii genitori non vedono mai (, non Mario)!
You are wrong! GIANNIi hisi parents do not see ever (, not Mario!)

Even if it could be plausible to conclude that CFLD is insensitive to Weak Cross Overon the basis of the contrast between (25b) and (25c), this possibility must be consideredwith caution. The elements in CFLD are definite, given and intrinsically D-linked and,furthermore, a resumptive clitic occurs. As a consequence, the validity of the WCO test is
weakened. Likewise, there are several difficulties in comparing CFLD with Contrastive focus
regarding extraction across weak islands and parasitic gaps (Bocci 2004).
The analysis in terms of prosodic focalization in situ accounts for CFLD in a simply andelegant way. However, note that this analysis does not come “for free”, since it is not true that
the Contrastive Focus prosody can be imposed on whatever element independently of thesyntactic structure. The so called Right Dislocation (RD) topicalization is quite close to Clitic
Left Dislocation, even though there are several subtle syntactic and interpretative differences(Cecchetto 2000, Benincà & Poletto 2004). Interestingly, a RDed Topic cannot be
contrastively focalized, not even in echoic contexts, as illustrated by the sharp
ungrammaticality of (31b) (Bocci 2004). Accordingly, even if we wanted to assume aprosodic focalization strategy, such a mechanism should be constrained by syntax or, at least,by the interpretative properties syntactically encoded.
(31) a.

8-A: L’ha comprato ieri, il libro (, ma non ha preso ancora una decisione per larivista).
[S/he] it- bought yesterday, the book (, but [s/he] has not taken a decision
about the magazine yet).

Adapted from Benincà & Poletto (2004).

-48-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)b.

-B:* L’ha comprata ieri, LA RIVISTA (, non il libro)!
[S/he] it- bought yesterday, the magazine (, not the book)!

The analysis of CFLD in terms of free prosodic focalization has undesirable theoreticalconsequences, since, in this case, two different and unrelated mechanisms would assign theContrastive Focus properties in Italian. In the first case, the Contrastive Focus properties
would be assigned by means of syntactic encoding of features, whereas, in the second one,
syntax would not play any role. In case of CFLD an element in criterial position, that is in thespecifier of a Topic projection, would obtain discourse properties without the activation of therelevant projection in which those properties are syntactically encoded. As a result, thisanalysis weakens the idea of the cartographic approach that different discourse-scope
properties are encoded in distinct functional positions (Rizzi 1997, Cinque 1999 & 2002,
Benincà & Poletto2004, Belletti 2004b). On the contrary, I will show that CFLD depends on
the local availability of the Focus projection in the left periphery. As a consequence, CFLD
cannot be adequately accounted for in terms of prosodic focalization, but it should beanalyzed as involving the activation of the syntactic projection where the Contrastive Focus
features are encoded.
3.5. Focus, Topic and CFLD in Reduced Left Peripheries
Haegeman (2004) argues that certain subordinate clauses are characterized by reduced
left peripheries where the topics projections are preserved, but the focus projection FocP is
structurally unavailable. As shown in the following paradigms adapted from Haegeman(2004), in the peripheries of subject clauses, if-clauses, and infinitival control clauses,
ClLDed Topics can appear without any degradation (independently of their use as Contrastive
Topics), while focalization involves a degradation, even though sometimes the judgments are
subtle.
(32) a.

b.

Se l’esame scritto non lo supera, non otterrà il diploma.
If the written exam [s/he] does not it-pass, [s/he] will not get the diploma.
??

(33) a.

Se LA PROVA ORALE non supera, non otterrà il diploma!
If THE ORAL EXAM [s/he] does not pass, [s/he] will not get the diploma!
Che Giovanni lo vogliano premiare, sembra incredibile.
That Giovanni [they] him-want to award, seems unbelievable.

b. ?/?? Che LUCA vogliano premiare, sembra incredibile!
That LUCA [they] want to award, seems unbelievable.
(34) a.

b.

Gli sembra, il tappeto, di averlo venduto.
[It] to him-seems, the carpet, to have-it sold.
??

Gli sembra LE SEDIE di aver venduto (, non il tappeto)!
[It] to him-seems THE CHAIRS to have sold (, not the carpet)!

-49-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

Let us focus on the case of infinitival control clauses, which are the most interesting withrespect to CFLD. Comparing (34b) with (35a-b), we can observe that the direct object of theinfinitival clause can be contrastively focalized both in thematic position, i.e. in situ, and in
the left periphery of the matrix clause, as illustrated by (35a-b). The only banned position for
the focalized element is the one in the left periphery of the infinitival clause as in (34b). By
contrast, ClLDed Topics can felicitously occur in both embedded and matrix clauses, as
shown respectively in (34a) and (36).
(35) a.

Gli sembra di aver venduto LE SEDIE (, non il tappeto)!
[It] to him-seems to have sold THE CHAIRS (, not the carpet)!

b.

LE SEDIE gli sembra di aver venduto (, non il tappeto)!
THE CHAIRS [it] to him-seems to have sold (, not the carpet)!

(36) Il tappeto, gli sembra di averlo venduto.
The carpet, [it] to him-seems to have sold.
If we analyze CFLD as a case of Clitic Left Dislocation prosodically focalized in situ
without the focus projection activation, we have to expect that CFLD can occur without
degradation in each case in which Clitic Left Disclocation is available. Nevertheless, as
shown in (37)-(39), this prediction is not borne out, even if the requirements on echo context
and definiteness are met.
(37) a.

-A: Se l’esame scritto non lo supera, non otterrà il diploma.
If the written exam, [s/he] does not it-pass, [s/he] will not get the diploma.

b.

-B:??Se LA PROVA ORALE non la supera, non otterrà il diploma!
If the ORAL EXAM [s/he] does not it-pass, [s/he] will not get the diploma!

(38) a.

b.

(39) a.

b.

-A: Che Giovanni lo vogliano premiare, sembra incredibile.
That Giovanni [they] him-want to award, seems unbelievable.
-B:??Che LUCA lo vogliano premiare, sembra incredibile!
That LUCA [they] him-want to award, seems unbelievable!
-A: Gli sembra, il tappeto, di averlo venduto ieri.
[It] to him-seems, the carpet, to have-it sold yesterday-B:?? Gli sembra LE SEDIE di averle venduto ieri (, non il tappeto)!
[It] to him-seems THE CHAIRS to have-them sold yesterday (, not thecarpet)!

Considering the paradigms (37), (38) and (39), we can observe that CFLD has the same
distribution as CF. CFLD is not grammatical in reduced left peripheries exactly as CF, even if
ClLD is perfectly grammatical. Let us turn our attention again on the case of infinitival-50-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)

control clauses. (34) and (39) show that neither Contrastive Focus nor CFLD can appear in
the reduced left periphery of infinitival control clauses, while clitic left dislocation iscompletely grammatical. Anyway, when the object is fronted to the left periphery of matrix
clause as in (40), both Contrastive Focus (in b) and CFLD (in c) are grammatical.
(40) a.

-A: Il tappeto, gli sembra di averlo venduto ieri.
The carpet, it to him-seems to have-it sold yesterday.

b.

-B: LE SEDIE gli sembra di aver venduto (, non il tappeto)!
THE CHAIRS [it] to him-seems to have sold yesterday (, not the carpet)!

c.

-B’: LE SEDIE gli sembra di averle vendute (, non il tappeto)!
CHAIRS [it] to him-seems to have-them sold yesterday (, not the carpet)!

Assuming the analysis of CFLD in terms of topics focalized in situ by means of a nonsyntactic strategy, CFLD should be available in the same contexts as ClLD. By contrast, theprevious paradigms show that CFLD does not follow the distribution of ClLD, but the one of
CF. Moreover the examples in (40) with movement to the matrix clause show that it is notplausible to assume that a ClLDed element cannot be focalized in situ in reduced left
peripheries because of its own semantic properties. In contrast, the focus interpretation isunavailable in those specific positions because of the “deficiency” of these subordinatesclauses which cannot encode focus, lacking a focus “anchoring” device independent of thematrix clause (Haegeman 2004). In conclusion, the distribution of CFLD indicates thatavailability of this construction is correlated with the local availability of the CF projection(Bocci 2004).
3.6. Analysis of CFLD: Head Movement from Top° to Foc°
The behaviour of CFLD in embedded left peripheries discussed in the previous section
show that the Contrastive Focus interpretation/intonation is not freely available for phrases
dislocated in the left periphery, but depends on the local availability of the syntactic focus
projection. The empirical data suggest hence that there is not a purely prosodic focalization
mechanism, but that the syntactic focus projection must be involved in an adequate analysis
of CFLD. In other words, the syntactic focus projection where the Contrastive Focus features
are encoded, is necessary in order to assign the Contrastive Focus prosody and interpretation.
It is worth emphasizing that this conclusion is the most relevant point in the present
discussion and it is independent of the analysis that I will propose.
As first attempt, one could assume XP-movement from the specifier of the Topic
projection located under the focus projection to the specifier of FocP. In this way, thequantificational variable would be so high to be able to c-command the subject in preverbal
position and the lack of WCO effects pointed out by Benincà & Poletto (2004) would be
expected. However, this account is unsatisfactory and problematic for several reasons.
Among other things, the quantificational variable would be located in an A’ position,-51-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

violating various definitions of variable (among others, Cinque 1990 and Lasnik & Stowell1991). In addition, the specifier of Topic is a criterial position and therefore any movementfrom this position would induce a Criterial Freezing violation. Accordingly, under theCriterial approach adopted here, some sort of formal feature should be postulated in order tolegitimate this movement. This kind of difficulties indicates that this approach is notadequate.
The account of CFLD which I propose is inspired by Rizzi’s (2001b) analysis
concerning the extraction of D-linked Wh elements across weak islands. Rizzi (2001b) argues
that D-linked wh-phrases involve a feature [+Topic] and the activation of a Topic position in
the left periphery, so that they can establish dependencies that survive across weak islands.
Although the implementation of this idea provided in Rizzi (2001b) is not directly compatible
with the Criterial framework assumed here, the core of this proposal can be reformulated interms of a movement between Topic and Focus, as Rizzi himself suggests (Rizzi 2004c: fnn.
4 and 8). Likewise, I propose to account for CFLD in terms of a complex head endowedwith both Topic and Contrastive Focus features, conceiving of CFLD as the D-linked version
of Contrastive Focus.
In Rizzi’s criterial approach, a phrase can pick up discourse properties from only one
position because of Criterial Freezing. However the operation of head-to-head movement cangenerate clusters of discursive properties by creating complex heads, which are assumed not
to be syntactic primitives (Rizzi 2004b). Given the structure of the left periphery in (1),repeated in (41) for convenience, I assume that in the adequate dialogical and pragmatic
context previously described, the Topic head situated below FocP moves to the head of focus,
as sketched in (42).
(41) Force … Top(ic)*… Foc(us) …. Top(ic)* … Fin(iteness)(42)

ForceP
FocP
Foc’

(1)

CFLDed XP

(4)

Foc°

(5) ’
(6)

Top’

(2) ’
Foc°

+Top

TopP

(3)

c°
+CFocus

FinP
Top°

ast

Since Top° and Foc° are respectively endowed with the [+Topic] and [+C(ontrastive)
Focus] features, the resulting complex head will be exceptionally characterized at the sametime by the features [+Topic; +CFocus]. In this way, we can capture the interpretative
properties characterizing the CFLDed elements, namely “giveness” and Contrastive Focus-52-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)

interpretation. CFLDed elements move to the specifier of the complex head and, in that
position, they establish the spec-head agreement picking up the relevant discursive properties
from the complex head. The Criteria associated with the features in question are satisfied allat the same, so that no Criterial Freezing violation is involved.
Assuming a complex head that is endowed with the cluster of features [+Topic: +CFocus] and created through head movement, allow us to account simply for the distributionof CFLD. Because of the strongly local character of head movement, due to the Head
Movement Constraint or to Relativized Minimality (Roberts 2001), the complex head can becreated only if the Topic head and the focus one are adjacent. Consider again the distributionof CFLD and CF in case of infinitival control clauses.
(43) a. ?? Gli sembra LE SEDIE di aver venduto (, non il tappeto)!
[It] to him-seems THE CHAIRS to have sold yesterday (, not the carpet)!
b. ?? Gli sembra LE SEDIE di averle vendute (, non il tappeto)!
[It] to him-seems THE CHAIRS to have sold-them yesterday (, not the carpet)!
(44) a.

LE SEDIE gli sembra di aver venduto (, non il tappeto)!
THE CHAIRS [it] to him-seems to have sold yesterday (, not the carpet)!

b.

LE SEDIE gli sembra di averle vendute (, non il tappeto)!
CHAIRS [it] to him-seems to have sold-them yesterday (, not the carpet)!

When CFLD occurs in the left periphery of infinitival control clauses as in (43b), thecomplex head cannot be created, since there is no Focus head in that position and the matrix
Focus head is to far. As a consequence, the CF prosody and interpretation cannot be pickedup and the sentence is degraded. Even if we assume that a phrase can satisfy the Focus
Criterion by means of covert movement, (43b) is ruled out. A phrase cannot reach covertly
the Focus projection in the matrix periphery moving from the specifier of the TopP in theembedded clause, since the Criterial Freezing principle prevents a phrase from moving fromcriterial positions. By contrast, in matrix clauses as (44b), the head movement can felicitously
take place creating the complex head [+Topic; +CFocus] since the Topic and Focus head are
adjacent. In this way the phrase moved to the specifier of the complex head can pick up atonce the discourse properties resulting from these features, satisfying the relevant Criteria
without violating the Criterial Freezing Principle.9

9

Even if the analysis proposed here can account for the observed empirical data, its formulation
strictly depends on the assumptions concerning the mock-up of the left periphery and on theconception of the functional heads and their features (see Bayer 2001). Accordingly a finer descriptionof the left periphery could lead to a reformulation of the analysis. However, the most important
conclusion in the present discussion is the fact that the syntactic focus projection is necessarily
involved in the CFLD construction and this point is partially independent of the proposed analysis.

-53-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

3.7. CFLD and Definiteness Requirement
A marginal point provides convergent support for the analysis of CFLD in terms of head
movement. As described in 2.2, only definite elements can appear in CFLD. I will argue that
this definiteness requirement is not a primitive property of CFLD, but that it comes directlyfrom the proposed analysis.
On the basis of sentences like (45a-b), Benincà & Poletto (2004) propose to revise thestructure of the left periphery sketched by Rizzi (1997) by eliminating the Topic projection(s)between Focus and Finiteness. According to their proposal, the left periphery would be
structured in uniform fields and all the Topic projections would be located above FocP.
(45) a. * A GIANNI, un libro di poesie lo hanno regalato (, non a Carlo)!
TO GIANNI, a book of poems [they] it-have given (, not to Carlo)b.

Un libro di poesie, A GIANNI lo hanno regalato (, non a Carlo)!
A book of poems TO GIANNI [you] [they] it-have given (, not to Carlo)!

However, note that (46a) contrasts minimally with (45a). This contrast is quite sharp andappears to be systematic. Therefore, I conclude that a direct object can be ClLDed in
postfocal position only if it is definite (Bocci 2004). Note that this Definiteness requirement
is a property characterizing the Topics in postfocal position. Indefinite specific topicalized
direct objects are fully acceptable if the focus projection is not filled, as in (20b), or if theyoccur in prefocal position.
(46) a.

A GIANNI, il libro di poesie lo hanno regalato (, non a Carlo)!
TO GIANNI, the book of poems [they] it-have given (, not to Carlo)b.

Il libro di poesie, A GIANNI lo hanno regalato (, non a Carlo)!
The book of poems TO GIANNI [they] it-have given (, not to Carlo)!

Since I have assumed that CFLD is obtained through head movement of the downstairs
Top° to Foc°, it follows that the complex head inherits the properties of the downstairs Topic
and, hence, the definiteness requirement. Comparing (20d) and (45a), we can see that thesame observed restriction on postfocal topics applies to CFLD as well. Whatever the natureof this requirement, it concerns both CFLD and postfocal ClLD. The analysis of CFLD interms of head movement lets us capture this fact.
3.8. Final Remarks on CFLDAt first glance, CFLD appears to be an exception, or even a counterexample, to the sharp
distinction between Topic and Focus in Italian. CFLD apparently combines the syntactic
properties of ClLDed topics and the Contrastive Focus prosody and interpretation.
Consequently, it seems to weaken the cartographic idea that different discourse-scope
properties are encoded in different functional projections (Rizzi 1997 and 2004c, Cinque-54-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)

1999, Benincà & Poletto 2004, Belletti 2004a & b). If the CFLDed elements were clitic left
dislocated topics focalized in situ by means of a prosodic process independent of the focus
head, then the focus projection would not be necessary to assign the relevant discourse-scopefeatures. As a consequence, the Contrastive Focus properties could be assigned by means of
two disjointed mechanisms: on the one hand, the spec-head agreement with the functional
head where the focus features are encoded, and, on the other, a prosodic focalization
independent of the syntactic configuration.
Nevertheless, the distribution of CFLD indicates straightforwardly that this construction
depends on the local availability of the syntactic focus projection, and therefore, an analysis
in terms of prosodic focalization in situ is not empirically adequate. The data I have discussed
indicate, independently of the analysis of CFLD proposed here, that Contrastive Focus
prosody and interpretation cannot be assigned without the mediation of the syntactic
projection where the relevant features are encoded. In this view, CFLD does not constitute an
exception to the Split CP model and the Criterial approach, but it finds a satisfactory accountwithin this framework. According to the analysis that I propose, CFLD occupies the specifierof a complex head obtained through head-movement and endowed with the features [+Topic;+CFocus]. By assuming this analysis formulated within the criterial approach, it is possible toaccount for the interpretative properties of CFLD, the definiteness requirement and, above all,the syntactic contexts where it is available.
4.

Contrastively Focalized Subjects in Preverbal Position

4.1. Can a Preverbal Subject be Focalized in situ within the IP Domain?
The analysis of focalized subjects in preverbal position leads to conclusions consistent
with the results of the investigation of CFLD. In this part of the paper, I will argue that a
subject cannot be contrastively focalized in situ in the high IP-internal subject position. By
contrast, subjects focalized in preverbal position are necessarily fronted to the focus
projection in the left periphery moving from a postverbal position and involving aquantificational dependency, as well as wh-interrogative subjects. These facts are completely
expected under the criterial approach and, in particular, Rizzi’s (2004c) Subject Criterion.
The pieces of evidence which I will provide concern data on the verbal agreement in Rural
Florentine discussed by Brandi & Cordin (1981), the results of the “ne”-cliticization
diagnostic (Rizzi 1982) and the binding effects with respect to Principles B and C. In
conclusion, subjects cannot be focalized by means of a purely prosodic strategy, but theContrastive Focus prosody and interpretation can be assigned only by the mediation of thesyntactic projection of FocP, as argued for the case of the CFLD construction.
The focus position in the left periphery has been argued for mainly on the basis of the
focalization of direct objects and prepositional phrases. Nevertheless, subjects can becontrastively focalized on the left hand as well, independently of the argumental structure of
the verb. As experimentally shown by Avesani & Bocci (2004), from a prosodic point of-55-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1view Contrastive Focus consistently involves the same properties for subjects and direct
objects focalized in preverbal position. The question that becomes relevant at this point
concerns the syntactic position occupied by the focalized subjects in preverbal position. Can
be the prosodic and interpretative properties of Contrastive Focus assigned independently of
the Focus projection in the left periphery? We can formulate two mutually exclusive
hypotheses. If the Contrastive Focus interpretation and prosody can be assigned by means ofa purely prosodic strategy independent of the syntactic configuration, a preverbal subject canbe focalized standing in its IP-internal position without involving the syntactic projection of
Focus in the left periphery. This claim will constitute the I Hypothesis.
(47) I Hypothesis
A subject can contrastively focalized in situ in the nonquantificational IP-internal
subject position, that is the same one occupied by nonfocalized preverbal subjects.
By contrast, if we observe that a focalized subject in preverbal position is necessarily
moved to the specifier of FocP, then we will be forced to reject the I Hypothesis and toassume the opposite one that states that the syntactic projection of FocP is necessary to
express interpretation and prosody of Contrastive Focus.10(48) II Hypothesis (provisional formulation)
A contrastively focalized subject in preverbal position is obligatorily moved to thespecifier of FocP in the left periphery, namely in an A’ position, involving a genuine
operator variable dependency.
The II Hypothesis, however, can be decomposed in two more restrictive sub-hypotheses
by taking the Subject Criterion proposed by Rizzi (2004c) into consideration. In this way, we
will be able to test at the same time two aspects. On the one hand, if a subject can be
focalized without the mediation of FocP and, on the other, if the predictions of the criterial
approach are born out.
4.2. Subject Criterion and Focus Criterion
Within the GB framework, Rizzi (1982) argues that the well-known Subject/Object
asymmetries must be ascribed to EPP and ECP, which prevent the subjects from being
extracted from their preverbal position. According to Rizzi, the lack of these asymmetries in
10Note that focalized subjects can undergo long distance focalization movement as in (i) or precede
ClLD topics and wh-elements in indirect interrogatives as in (ii). Therefore it is clear that subjects canmove to the focus position in the left periphery (see Bocci 2005, but also Cinque 1990). But the point
at issue concerns the obligatoriness of the movement to FocP.
(i)

LEO i superiori hanno deciso che debba presentare la relazione (, non Marco)!
LEO the bosses have established that has to illustrate the report (, not Marco)!

(ii)

Si domandano LEO dove sia andato (, non Marco)!
[They] wonder LEO where has gone (, not Marco)!

-56-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)

Null Subject Languages is due to the availability of the null pronoun pro which permits EPP
and ECP to be satisfied, so that the lexical subject can be extracted from its postverbal
position. Through several tests, as for example the ne-cliticization test, Rizzi shows that whmovement extracts the subject from its postverbal position in Italian so that neither that-trace
nor ECP/EPP violations are involved.
Following the core idea of Cardinaletti’s (2004) proposal about subject positions, Rizzi(2004c) reformulates the previous analysis of Subject/Object asymmetries in the light of theCriterial approach. The (highest) subject projection within the IP domain is assumed to be acriterial projection which is responsible for the interpretative Subject-Predication
articulation.11 The Subject Criterion associated with the Subj head (and the relevant feature
which characterizes this head) attracts the subject to the specifier of SubjP, in order toestablish the required spec-head agreement. Since SubjP is a Criterial position, subjects
moved to the specifier of SubjP are frozen and resist further movement. Languages, therefore,
have to adopt different strategies to make subjects satisfy higher criteria than the Subject
Criterion (Rizzi & Shlonsky 2004). In a Null Subject Language as Italian, where the expletive
pro is available, pro can formally satisfy the Subject Criterion and the thematic subject is free
to move from a predicate-internal position in order to satisfy, for instance, the Wh Criterion.
At this point, one should ask which is the exact predicate-internal position from which
subjects are extracted. Even if different analyses could be proposed, I will assume for the sakeof concreteness that wh-subjects are extracted directly from the thematic position, skipping
SubjP.12
Assuming the Subject Criterion, we must expect that if the subject has to reach thespecifier of FocP in the left periphery to comply with the Focus Criterion, it can only movedirectly from a predicate-internal and noncriterial position since in this way the subject canskip SubjP and avoid the criterial freezing effect.13 The predictions of the Subject Criterion
can be tested by restating the II Hypothesis in (48) in two alternative sub-hypothesis.
11

Note that the Subject-Predication articulation is assumed to be distinct from the Topic-Commentone (Rizzi 2004c).
12

The exact identification of the projection from which the subjects are extracted is an importantquestion. The possible answers are related to the analysis of the low IP area and of the postverbal
subject that one assumes (see Belletti 2004 and Cardinaletti 2002). The evidence presented here
indicates that the extraction site of CFed subjects is not higher than the downstairs domain of IP andthat it has the same properties as the extraction site of wh-subjects. As for binding phenomena, I willargue that the extraction site of fronted wh- or focalized subjects has properties similar to the ones of a
subject occurring (overtly) in postverbal position. However, this does not necessarily mean that overt
postverbal subject position and the extraction site of wh- and focalization movement are the same. Fora brief discussion I refer the reader to Bocci (2004:39-40).
13

Remember that the Criterial Freezing effect applies at any level. As a consequence, even if we
assume that the Focus Criterion can be fulfilled through covert movement, we conclude that subjects
cannot reach FocP with covert movement from SubjP.

-57-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(49) II Hypothesis (final formulation)
A contrastively focalized subject in preverbal position is obligatorily moved to thespecifier of FocP in the left periphery in order to comply with the Focus Criterion. This
movement creates a quantificational dependency.
- sub-hypothesis A
Focus movement extracts the subject from SubjP. Since the quantificational
movement takes place from the specifier of SubjP, the variable is located in avery high position within the IP domain.
- sub-hypothesis B
Focus movement extracts the subject directly from the thematic position,
skipping SubjP, as expected assuming the Subject Criterion. Since thequantificational movement takes place from the thematic position, the variable islocated in a very low postverbal position.
On the basis of different empirical data, I will argue that the I Hypothesis has to be
rejected. This leads to the conclusion that Contrastive Focus prosody and interpretation
cannot be assigned in situ by an interpretative-prosodic mechanism independent of syntax. By
contrast, the evidence presented here fully supports the II Hypothesis, showing that the
specific syntactic projection where the CF features are syntactically encoded is necessary toassign Contrastive Focus prosody and interpretation. Moreover, I will show that the subjhypothesis B is correct and that the subject must move to FocP from a low postverbal position
skipping FocP and leaving the variable in a very low position, as expected assuming the
Subject Criterion.
4.3. Contrastive Focalization in Rural Florentine
Brandi & Cordin (1981) show that in Rural Florentine verb and subject clitic, which
obligatory occurs in this dialect, must agree in number and gender with the lexical subject
only if the lexical subject is preverbal. If the subject occurs in postverbal position, verb andclitic do not agree with the lexical subject, but they necessarily display the default
morphology (3 person singular masculine), as shown in (50) (adapted from Brandi & Cordin
1981).
(50) a.

c.

Le su’ sorelle le son venute.
His sisters they-have come fem

b. *Le su’ sorelle gl’è venuto.
His sisters it-has come mascGl’è venuto le su’ sorelle.
It-has come masc. his sisters

d. *Le son venute le su’ sorelle.
They-have come fem. his sisters

Since preverbal and postverbal subjects are characterized by different types of agreementon the verb and the subject clitic, Brandi & Cordin (1981) argue convincingly that in mainand indirected wh-interrogatives, the wh-subjects are not moved from (or located in) the
preverbal subject position, but they are extracted from the postverbal subject position andfronted to the CP area, as illustrated in (51)-(52) (adapted from Brandi & Cordin 1981: (63a--58-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)b) and (64a-b)). If the subject moved across the high IP domain as expected under the II-a
Hypothesis, it would trigger the verbal and clitic agreement. But this is not the case.
(51) a.

Quante ragazze gl’è ito via?
How many girls it-has gone away?

b. * Quante ragazze l’enno ite via?
How many girls they-have gone away?
(52) a.

Quante ragazze tu pensi ch’e sia venuto?
How many girls do you think that it-has comeb. * Quante ragazze tu pensi che le siano venute?
How many girls do you think that they-haveIII pl comeAs for Contrastive Focus, Brandi & Cordin (1981) provide the examples in (53) and(54). Since the subjects focalized in preverbal position are characterized by lack of verbal
agreement and the occurrence of the default clitic as the postverbal subjects are, Brandi &Cordin conclude that focalization is analogous to wh-movement: the subject must be
extracted from the postverbal position.
(53) a.

LA MARIA gl’è venuto, no la Carla!
Maria it-has come, not Carla!

b. * LA MARIA l’è venuta, no la Carla!
Maria she-has come, not Carla!
(54) a.

LA MARIA gl’ha parlato alla riunione, no la Carla!
Maria it-has spoken at the meeting, not Carla!

b. * LA MARIA l’ha parlato alla riunione, no la Carla.
Maria she-has spoken at the meeting, not Carla!
The most remarkable aspect of these data is the ungrammaticality of the sentences (53b)and (54b). If the subject could reach the left periphery moving through SubjP, it would trigger
the verbal and clitic agreement. By contrast, the prosodic properties of Contrastive Focus areinconsistent with the agreement pattern which characterizes the preverbal (nonfocalized)
subjects. Accordingly, these data are sufficient to discard the I Hypothesis and to conclude
that the II-b Hypothesis is correct. The preverbal subject cannot receive the Contrastive Focus
prosody standing in the high subject position in the IP domain. The focalized subjects inpreverbal position are necessarily moved to the left periphery directly from the postverbal
position skipping SubjP.
4.4. “Ne” Cliticization Test
The “ne” cliticization test in “standard” Italian leads to the same conclusions we have-59-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

drawn for Rural Florentine. Rizzi (1982) proposes the “ne”-cliticization as diagnostic
criterion to locate the extraction site of wh-subjects in Italian. A subject of an unaccusative
verb which is constituted by an indefinite quantifier and its lexical restriction can undergo
two opposite processes of pronominalization exemplified in (55) (adapted from Rizzi
1982:150 (91)). When the subject occupies a postverbal position as in (55b), the lexical
restriction can be pronominalizated with the clitic “ne” (of it/of them), whereas the simple
omission of the lexical restriction is ungrammatical. On the other hand, if the subject occupies
the preverbal position, the lexical restriction can be omitted and the clitic “ne” cannot occur.
(55) a.

Alcune pietre sono cadute in mare‘Some stones have fallen down into the sea’b. * (Ne) sono cadute alcune __.
Of them-have fallen down somec.
Alcune __ (*ne) sono cadute in mare.
Some have fallen down.
Since the mechanism of the “ne” cliticization is preserved under wh-movement, Rizzi
argues that the “ne”-cliticization constitutes a diagnostic test to decide the position of whextraction of the subject. The compulsoriness of the “ne” occurrence in (56) and (57) (fromRizzi 1982:151-152) leads to the conclusion that the wh-subjects must be extracted from thepostverbal position.
(56) Quante *(ne) sono cadute?
How many *(of them-)have fallen down?
(57) Quante hai detto che *(ne) sono cadute?
How many have you said that *(of them-)have fallen down?
As for Contrastive Focus, Cinque (1990:69-71) points out that a contrastively focalized
subject visibly fronted to the left periphery of a matrix clause behaves like a wh-subject inrequiring necessarily the occurrence of “ne”, as illustrated by (58b) (from Cinque 1990:70(33)).
(58) a.

-A: Sono arrivate dieci lettere.
Ten letters have arrived.

b.

-B: No, QUATTRO pare che *(ne) siano arrivate, non dieci!
No, FOUR [it] appears that *(of them-) have arrived, not ten!

c.

-B’: *No, QUATTRO sono arrivate, non dieci!
No, FOUR have arrived, not ten!

d.

-B’’: No, QUATTRO ne sono arrivate, non dieci!
No, FOUR of them- have arrived, not ten!

-60-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)

Crucially, the “ne” occurrence is mandatory also in sentences where the subject is not
visibly fronted as shown by (58c) and (58d) (adapted from Bocci 2004) If the subject could
receive the Contrastive Focus intonation in situ occupying the specifier of SubjP in the IP
domain (I Hypothesis), the lexical restriction could be simply omitted as in the case of nonfocalized preverbal subjects (see (55c)). By contrast, since “ne” must occur, we are lead toconclude that if a subject in preverbal position is endowed with the Contrastive Focus
prosody, it is not hosted in the IP domain, but it is necessarily moved to the left peripheryfrom the postverbal position skipping the IP-internal subject position. In this way, the “ne”cliticization test substantiates the II-b Hypothesis.
4.5. Focalized Subjects are Sensitive to WCO
The evidence provided so far indicates that the focalized subjects in preverbal position
do not behave as nonfocalized preverbal subjects, but as postverbal subjects. This fact
supports the II Hypothesis, according to which the subjects focalized in preverbal position are
not hosted within the IP domain, but extracted directly from the postverbal position andmoved to the focus projection in the left periphery. Since the movement to FocP creates
quantificational dependencies, as we have observed in the case of focalized direct objects (see(13)), the II-b Hypothesis predicts that a genuine operator-variable dependency is involved
between the surface subject position and the postverbal one. In this section, I will show thatthe subjects focalized in preverbal position are sensitive to WCO effects and, hence, involve
quantificational dependencies, unlike nonfocalized preverbal subjects.
Through several arguments, Cecchetto (2000, 2001) argues that a ClLDed DO is
compulsory reconstructed in an intermediate internal IP position within the IP domain which
is different from the VP-internal thematic position. This reconstruction site (FP) is higher
than the position occupied by a postverbal subject, but lower than the one occupied by anonfocalized preverbal subject (whatever kind of subject: referential DP, pro, quantified
expression). As a consequence, FP is c-commanded by a subject in preverbal position, i. e. in
SubjP, but it c-commends a subject in postverbal position. As shown by (59) and (60), a
pronoun contained in a ClLDed object can be bound by preverbal subjects, but not by
postverbal subjects. Furthermore, since the ClLDed direct objects undergo necessarily thereconstruction process, an R-expression embedded in a ClLDed direct object cannot becoindexed with a subject in preverbal position because of Principle C, as illustrated in (61).
By contrast, Principle C is not violated in (62) where the same R-expression is coindexedwith a subject pronoun in postverbal position, since the ClLDed object is reconstructed in aposition higher than the postverbal subject.
(59) La suai relazione, ogni segretariai l’ha consegnata Lunedì.
Heri report, every segretaryi it-has handed in [on] Monday.
(60) *La suai relazione, l’ha consegnata ogni segretariai.
Heri report, it-has handed in every segretaryi.

-61-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(61) ??L’opera prima di uno scrittorei, luii la capisce veramente.
The first work of a writeri,hei it-understands really(62) L’opera prima di uno scrittorei, la capisce veramente luii.
The first work of a writeri,
it-understands really hei
Keeping in mind the compulsory reconstruction of ClLDed DOs argued for by Cecchetto(2000, 2001), consider now the sharp contrast between (59), repeated in (63) for convenience,and (64). In (64) the nonfocalized subject, occupying the SubjP in the high zone of the IP
domain, appropriately c-commands the ClLDed object reconstructed in FP. But if thepreverbal subject is contrastively focalized as in (64), then the coindexation between the
focalized subject and the pronoun within the ClLD direct object gives rise to a degradation
which I analyze as due to a WCO configuration.
(63) La suai relazione, ogni segretariai l’ha consegnata Lunedì.
Heri report, every segretaryi it-has handed in [on] Monday(64) ??La suai relazione, OGNI SEGRETARIAi l’ha consegnata Lunedì!
Heri report, EVERY SEGRETARYi it-has handed in [on] Monday!
By putting together Rizzi’s (1982) analysis of subject extraction and the behaviour of
ClLD with respect to reconstruction, I conclude that in (64) the focalized subject cannot be
hosted in SubjP, but it is necessarily extracted directly from a very low position across thereconstruction site of the ClLDed direct object and moved to FocP, creating a quantificational
dependency between the postverbal extraction site and FocP. As sketched in (65) and (66)(irrelevant details are omitted), the movement to FocP gives rise to the prototypical WCO
configuration where the pronoun is c-commanded by the operator, but not by the variable.14
If a subject could receive the Contrastive Focus prosody in SubjP without involving an
operator-variable dependency, the WCO effect would be avoided and (64) would be as
acceptable as (63). Likewise, if the quantificational movement to FocP could take place from
SubjP, as expected under the II-a Hypothesis, the variable would be located in SubjP, so that
it would be high enough to c-command the pronoun and to avoid the WCO configuration. As
14

One could speculate that (64) is degraded because of some kind of pragmatic principle which
prevents coindexation between a pronoun within a Topic and a focalized or wh subject. However, thishypothesis appears to be contradicted by the case of the Right Dislocated topics. As shown by (i) and(ii), a pronoun contained in within a Right Dislocated direct object can be properly c-commanded andbound by a focalized or wh- subject. This fact suggest that the degradation observed for ClLD in (64)is due to the syntactic configuration created by the mechanism of focalization, rather than due to a
pragmatic violation (see Bocci 2004:50-51).
(i)

OGNI SEGRETARIAi l’ha consegnata, la suai relazione (, non ogni assistente)!
EVERY SEGRETARYi it-has handed in heri report (, not every assistent)!

(ii)

Chi i l’ha consegnata, la sua i relazione?
Whoi it-has handed in his i report?

-62-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)

a consequence, the contrast between (63) and (64) leads to the conclusion that moving to
FocP is necessary to obtain the prosody and interpretation of Contrastive Focus and that thequantificational movement must leave the variable in a very low position. In this way, thesensitivity to WCO characterizing the subjects focalized in preverbal positions supports the
II-b Hypothesis.
(65) La suai relazione, OGNI SEGRETARIAi <[La sua relazione]> l’ha consegnata Lunedì!
i

(66)
TopP
Top’
la suai relazione Top°
heri report

FP = reconstruction site of ClLDed DOs(Cecchetto 2000)

FocP
Foc’
Foc°

SubjP

OGNI SEGRETARIAi
EVERY SECRETARYi
pro

Subj’
Subj°

<la

FP

…
suai relazione>
heri report

VP

ti

…

t
c-commands

WCO configuration

If the analysis proposed for (66) is correct, the same WCO effect observed in the case of
focalized subjects should be found also in interrogative clauses with wh-subjects. Thisprediction is borne out, as shown by (67) and (68). Once again, wh-movement andfocalization show the same properties. When a subject has to reach a projection higher than
SubjP to comply with some criterion, it moves directly from a low position skipping SubjPand the criterial freezing effect which that projection triggers.
(67) ??La suai relazione, chii l’ha consegnata Lunedì?
Hisi report, whoi it-has handed in [on] Monday(68) ??La suai relazione, chii credi che l’abbia consegnata Lunedì?
Hisi report, whoi do [you] think that it-has handed in [on] Monday!
4.6. Focalized Subjects, Principle C and Reconstruction
Convergent evidence in favor of the II-b Hypothesis is provided by Principle C effects.
As mentioned above, Cecchetto (2000) argues that the contrast between (61) and (62),-63-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

repeated in (69) and (70) for convenience, is due to a Principle C violation. Since the ClLDed
direct object is reconstructed in an intermediate position within the IP domain, it is ccommanded by preverbal but not by postverbal subjects. As a consequence, Principle C isviolated in (70), because the preverbal subject is coindexed with a DP contained in the
ClLDed object reconstructed within the c-domain of the pronoun, as sketched in (71).
Conversely, the coindexation with the subject in postverbal position in (70) does not give rise
to a violation, since, in this case, the referential expression is reconstructed above the cdomain of the postverbal pronominal subject, as indicated in (72). Note that if the subject in
SubjP in (69) could be reconstructed in a lower position, (69) would be grammatical as (70)is. Consequently (69) leads to the conclusion that a nonfocalized subject in preverbal
position, i.e. a subject in SubjP, cannot be reconstructed in a lower position.
(69) ??L’opera prima di uno scrittorei, luii la capisce veramente.
The first work of a writeri,hei it-understands really(70) L’opera prima di uno scrittorei, la capisce veramente luii.
The first work of a writeri,
it-understands really hei(71) L’opera prima di uno scrittorei, luii < l’opera prima di uno scrittorei > la capisce
veramente.
The first work of a writeri,hei < the first work of a writeri> it-understands really(72) L’opera prima di uno scrittorei, < l’opera prima di uno scrittorei > la capisce veramenteluii.
The first work of a writeri,< the first work of a writeri> it-understands really hei
Cecchetto (2000), however, points out that the violation of Principle C (at least partially)
disappears if the preverbal pronominal subject is contrastively focalized as in (73). Onceagain, a subject focalized in preverbal position behaves as postverbal subjects do. Thisobservation suggests that a focalized preverbal subject is not hosted in SubjP, but it is moved
to FocP from the postverbal subject position where it can be reconstructed, as sketched in(74). If this is the case, it is the possibility of reconstruction which enables the focalized
preverbal subject to obviate Principle C in (73). In order to substantiate this idea, we have toverify if a focalized phrase in left periphery can undergo reconstruction.
(73) L’opera prima di uno scrittorei, LUIi la capisce veramente (, non il pubblico)!
The first work of a writeri,
HEi it-understands really (, not the readers)!
(74) L’opera prima di uno scrittorei, LUIi < l’opera prima di uno scrittorei > la capisce
veramente <LUIi>
The first work of a writeri,HEi < the first work of a writeri> it-understands
really <HEi>
It is generally assumed that a fronted wh-phrase can be reconstructed in its intermediate
positions or at the base of chain with regard to binding phenomena. Analogously, it is usually-64-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)

assumed that focus movement involves the same type of quantificational dependency whichcharacterizes wh-movement. Therefore, it is natural to suppose that focus movement canundergo reconstruction as well as wh-movement can. The examples (75)-(79) support thisconclusion, showing that a focalized phrase in the left periphery can be reconstructed in orderto satisfy Principle A and B. In particular, (76) shows that the reconstruction process (at least
marginally) can take place after successive cyclic movement, activating the intermediate
copies.
(75) I PROPRIi GENITORI Luciai ha invitato!
Herselfi’s parents
Luciai has invited!
(76) I PROPRIi GENITORI Luciai crede che la polizia abbia arrestato (, non i Rossi)!
Herselfi’s parents
Luciai believes that the police has arrested (, not the Rossis)!
(77) I PROPRIi GENITORI la bibbia dice che ogni uomoi deve onorare(, non i vicini di casa)!
Oneselfi’s parents the Bible says that every mani must honor (, not the neighbors)!
(78) IL LAVORO DEI SUOIi GENITORI ogni uomoi deve continuare!
The occupation of hisi parents
every mani must continue!
(79) IL LAVORO DEI SUOIi GENITORI lo Zar dice ogni uomoi deve continuare!
The occupation of hisi parents
the Tzar says that every mani must continue!
Since focus movement, as well as wh-movement, can undergo reconstruction, theconjecture is validated. As shown by (69) and (73), a DP contained within a ClLDed DO anda preverbal pronominal subject can be coindexed only if the subject is focalized. We canaccount for these facts assuming that the focalized subject is moved to FocP directly from its
postverbal position, creating a quantificational dependency which can undergo reconstructionin postverbal position. In this way, a focalized preverbal subject can avoid violating Principle
C. If the focalized subject moved to FocP through SubjP, it could not be reconstructed in a
postverbal position, because SubP seems to prevent the reconstruction process, as shown by
the fact that a nonfocalized preverbal subject in SubjP gives rise to Principle C violation, as in(69).15 In conclusion, the argument based on the Principle C effects shows that focalized
subjects can be moved to FocP from the postverbal position skipping SubjP, as predicted by
the Subject Criterion.

15

It is worth emphasizing that the argumentation based on the Principle C effects discussed in thissection does not state anything about the availability of a mere prosodic focalization strategy in situ.
However, the proposed analysis, if correct, shows that the focalized preverbal subjects can be moved
to FocP from the postverbal position skipping SubjP. In this sense, this argument provides aconvergent piece of evidence in favor of the II-b Hypothesis, but not sufficient to reject the I
Hypothesis.

-65-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

4.7. Final Remarks on Preverbal Subject Focalization
The evidence that we have discussed show that the subject cannot be focalized in its
high IP-internal position, i. e. in the specifier of SubjP, and, therefore, the I Hypothesis must
be rejected. In other words, a preverbal subject cannot be focalized in situ by means of amerely prosodic strategy in which syntax does not play any role. By contrast, the data from
Rural Florentine, the results of the “ne”-cliticization test, and the WCO and Principle C
effects with regard to ClLDed directs objects substantiate the II-b Hypothesis.
In conclusion, a subject focalized in preverbal position is necessarily moved to thespecifier of the focus projection in the left periphery, i. e. FocP, involving a quantificational
dependency. The quantificational focus movement can take place only from the postverbal
subject position, leaving the variable in this low, predicate-internal position. This conclusion
substantiates the Subject Criterion proposed by Rizzi (2004c) and Rizzi & Shlonky (2004),
according to which the preverbal position is responsible of the interpretative subject-predicate
articulation and, hence, it is a criterial position. As a consequence, Criterial Freezing prevents
any further (criterial) movement from SubjP. If the subject must comply with a higher
Criterion, as in the case of Wh or Focus movement, then it is forced to move from a
predicate-internal position.
5.

Concluding remarks

In this paper, I have investigated two empirical problems, the case of Contrastively
Focalized Left Dislocation and the status of the focalized subjects in preverbal position,
confronting them with the Criterial approach and the Split CP hypothesis. The empirical data
have led to the same conclusion for both cases. The Contrastive Focus interpretation andprosody cannot be assigned - at least to the elements in criterial positions (ClLDed Topics
and preverbal subjects) - independently of the syntactic projection where the Contrastive
Focus feature is encoded. Accordingly, this conclusion is sufficient to discard the idea that inany case there is a prosodic focalization strategy which is regardless of the syntactic
configuration and able to impose the Contrastive Focus interpretation.
In conclusion, the present investigation provides evidence in favor of the cartographic
idea that different discourse properties are encoded in distinct and dedicated syntactic
projections. At this point, it is worth speculating which is the theoretical significance of thisconclusion. We can translate the cartographic approach in two different versions, a radical
formulation and a weak formulation (see also Benincà & Poletto 2004). According to theradical formulation, not only syntax provides a system of dedicated criterial projections to
express specific scope-discourse properties at the interfaces, but the scope-discourse
properties can be assigned at the interfaces exclusively by means of the relevant syntactic
configuration. In this case, the Contrastive Focus interpretation and prosody could be
assigned exclusively by means of the syntactic projection FocP where the Contrastive Focus
feature is encoded. Consequently, it is to be rejected the idea that there is a purely prosodic-66-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)

strategy able to impose the prosody of Contrastive Focus. This tallies exactly with what I
have concluded from the cases of CFLD and focalized subjects. However, it is possible toobject that the cases of CFLD and of focalized subjects in preverbal positions cannot provide
sufficient evidence in favor of this radical formulation, since these constructions involve per
se criterial features, as the ones responsible for “topichood” and for the subject-predicate
articulation.
As a matter of fact, it is possible to object that syntax provides a dedicated projection tosignal the discourse-scope properties of Contrastive Focus at the interfaces, and, at the sametime, that there is also a prosodic focalization strategy partially independent of syntax(Benincà & Poletto 2004). According to this second model, any element which occupies acriterial position is specified for some scope-discourse property which must be appropriatelyinterpreted by the interfaces. So, the prosodic focalization strategy cannot apply to preverbal
subjects in SubjP or to the elements in TopP, because the interfaces must interpret theproperties syntactically encoded in those positions, i.e. the properties of “subject” of thepredication and of “topic”. Conversely, when an element is not in a criterial position, as adirect object in situ, it is not specified with reference to discourse-scope properties in syntax
and, hence, the prosodic strategy can apply without giving rise to a clash of properties. Thissecond model cannot be rejected by means of the arguments based on the CFLD
constructions and focalized subjects, because these constructions involve per se criterialfeatures, as mentioned above. However, it is worth underlining that even this second modelcannot be but cartographic, since it assumes that there are syntactic positions dedicated toexpress scope-discourse properties at the interfaces. As a matter of fact, even if a purely
prosodic focalization strategy existed, it should be sensitive to and constrained by syntax, as
shown by the conclusion drawn from the properties of CFLD and focalized subjects. So, we
can refer to the second model as the weak formulation of the cartographic idea. For the time
being, I leave open the discussion concerning the most adequate implementation of the
cartographic approach, but I hope to address this issue in future work.

References
Avesani, C. and M. Vayra (2003) “Broad, Narrow and Contrastive Focus in Florentine Italian.”
Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.
Banchi, V. and R. Zamparelli (2004) “Edge Coordinations: Focus and Conjunction Reduction.” In D.
Adger, C. De Cat and G. Tsoulas, eds., Peripheries. Syntactic Edges and their Effects,
Kluwer, Dordrecht, 125-154.
Bayer, J. (2001) “Asymmetry in Emphatic Topicalization.” In C. Féry & W. Sternefeld, eds., Audiatur
Vox Sapientiae, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 15-47.
Belletti, A. (2001) “Inversion as Focalization.” In A. Hulk & J.Y. Pollock, eds., Subject Inversion in
Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Oxford University Press, New York, 60-90.

-67-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

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.
Belletti, A. (2004b) ed., Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Belletti, A. and U. Shlonsky (1995) “The Order of Verbal Complements: A Comparative Study.”
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13.3, 489-526.
Benincà, P. (1988) “Costruzioni con Ordine Marcato Degli Elementi.” In L. Renzi, ed., GrandeGrammatica Italiana di Consultazione I, il Mulino, Bologna, 129-145.
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.
Bocci, G. (2004) “Contrastive Focalization on Topics and Preverbal Subjects in Italian.” Rivista di
Grammatica Generativa.
Bocci, G. and C. Avesani (2005) “Focus Contrastivo nella Periferia Sinistra della Frase: Un SoloAccento, ma non Solo un Accento.” Proceedings of 2° Convegno Nazionale Associazione
Italiana di Scienze della Voce.
Bošković, Ž. (2007) “On Successive Cyclic Movement and the Freezing Effect of Feature Checking.”
unpublished ms., University of Connecticut.
Brandi, L. and P. Cordin (1981) “Dialetti e Italiano: Un Confronto sul Parametro del Soggetto nullo.”
Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 6, 33-87.
Brunetti, L. (2003) A Unification of Focus, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florence.
Büring, D. (1997) The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent, Routledge,
London.
Büring, D. (1999) “Topic.” In P. Bosch, and R. van der Sandt, eds., Focus - Linguistic, Cognitive, andComputational Perspectives, Oxford University Press, New York, 142-165.
Calabrese, A. (1992) “Some Informal Remarks on Focus and Logical Structures in Italian.” In S.
Kuno & H. Thrainsson, eds., Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. I, 91-127.
Cardinaletti, A. (2001) “A Second Thought on Emarginazione: Destressing vs. Right Dislocation.” In
G. Cinque and G. Salvi, eds., Current Studies in Italian Syntax, Essays Offered to Lorenzo
Renzi, Elsevier Publisher, Amsterdam, 117-135.
Cardinaletti, A. (2004) “Toward a Cartography of the Subject Positions.” In L. Rizzi ed., The
Structure of IP and CP. The cartography of Syntactic Structures, Oxford University Press,
New York, 115-165.
Cecchetto, C. (2000) “Doubling Structures and Reconstruction.” Probus 12, 93-126.
Cecchetto, C. (2001) “Syntactic or Semantic Reconstruction? Evidence from Pseudoclefts and Clitic
Left Dislocation.” In C. Cecchetto, G. Chierchia and M. T. Guasti, eds., Semantic Interfaces,
CSLI publications, Stanford Ca., 90-144.
Chomsky N. (1976). “Conditions on Rules of Grammar.” Linguistic Analysis 2, 303–351.
Chosmky, N. (2001) “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy.” In A. Belletti, ed., Structures and Beyond. The
Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, Oxford University Press, New York.
Cinque, G. (1990) Types of A’ Dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Cinque, G. (2002) ed. The Structure of DP and IP, The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 1,
Oxford University Press, New York.

-68-

Criterial Positions and Left Periphery in Italian (G. Bocci)

Drubig, H.B. (2003) “Toward a Typology of Focus and Focus constructions.” Linguistics 41, 1-50
Enç, M. (1991) “The Semantics of Specificity.” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1-25.
Frascarelli, M. (2000) The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian,
Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Grewendorf, G. (2002) “Left Dislocation as Movement.” In S. Mauck and J. Mittelstaedt, eds.,
Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, vol. 2, Georgetown University, 31-81.
Haegeman, L. (2003) “Notes on Long Adverbial Fronting in English and the Left Periphery.”
Linguistic Inquiry 34, 640-649.
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.
Kiss, É. (1998) “Identificational Focus Versus Information Focus.” Language 74, 245-273.
Krifka, M. (2006) “Association with Focus Phrases.” In V. Molnar and S. Winkler, eds., The
Architecture of Focus, Mouton de Gruyter, New York, 105-136.
Lasnik, H. and T. Stowell (1991) “Weakest Crossover.” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 687-720.
Munaro, N. and C. Poletto (2002) “Ways of Clausal Typing.” Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 27,
87-106.
Obenauer, H.G. and C. Poletto (2000) “Rhetorical Wh-phrases in the Left Periphery of the Sentence.”
University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 10.
Poletto, C. (2000) “The Higher Functional Field.” Oxford University Press, New York.
Poletto, C. and J. Y. Pollock (2004) “On the Left Periphery of Some Romance Wh-questions.” In L.
Rizzi, ed., The Structure of CP and IP – The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol.2,
Oxford University Press, New York, 251-296.
Rizzi, L. (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.
Rizzi, L. (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” In L. Haegeman, ed., Elements ofGrammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 281-337.
Rizzi, L. (2001a) “On the Position Interrogative in the Left periphery of the Clause.” In G. Cinque and
G. Salvi, eds., Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 70-107.
Rizzi, L. (2001b) “Reconstruction, Weak Island Sensitivity and Agreement.” In C. Cecchetto, G.
Chierchia and M. T. Guasti, eds., Semantic Interfaces, CSLI publications, Stanford
University, Stanford, Ca., 145-177.
Rizzi, L. (2004a) ed. 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 CP
and IP – The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol.2, Oxford University Press, New
York, 3-15.
Rizzi, L. (2004c) “On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects.” unpublished ms.,
University of Siena.
Roberts, I. (2001) “Head Movement.” In M. Baltin and C. Collins, eds., A Handbook of Contemporary
Syntactic Theory, Blackwell, Oxford, 113-147.
Vallduví, E. and M. Vilkuna (1998) “On Rheme and Contrast.” In P. Culicover, and L. McNally, eds.,.
The Limits of Syntax, Syntax and Semantics 29, Academic Press, New York, 79-108.

-69-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

Vilkuna, M. (1995) “Discourse Configurationality in Finnish.” In K. É. Kiss, ed., Discourse
Configurational Languages, Oxford University Press, New York, 244-268.
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998) Prosody, Focus, and Word Order, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

-70-