Abstract
In this article, we propose an analysis of the so-called echo wh-questions in situ in Italian at syntax–prosody interface. We conduct a prosodic analysis under an experimental approach, showing that a focalized wh-word in echo wh-questions shows its own peculiar properties, different from informative and corrective focus, so that we can analyze it as an instance of Mirative focus. We demonstrate that the wh-word in echo wh-questions occupies a focus position in the low periphery of the clause. We also argue that this position has syntactic properties that, interlaced together with the prosodic properties, lead us to define the projection as a dedicated focus projection for Mirative focus. Crucially, the focus position within the low periphery activated in an echo wh-question, has different syntactic, prosodic and interpretive properties with respect to the informational focus, and to the corrective focus. Therefore, at a general level, our analysis strengthens the idea that partly different intonations and interpretations are associated to positions within the low periphery as opposed to the positions in the left periphery.
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to the two anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments and suggestions helped us to improve the paper substantially. We are also grateful to the Journal editor for his encouragement. We wish to thank Adriana Belletti for the inspiring discussions and for her comments on an earlier draft. This paper has been presented at the Séminaire de Recherche en Linguistique of the University of Geneva. We thank the audience for the stimulating feedback. Although every part of the paper has been written together, Linda Badan takes responsibility for Sections 1–3 and Claudia Crocco of Sections 4 and 5. All errors are ours.
References
Ashby, William. J. 1994. An acoustic profile of right-dislocations in French. Journal of French Language Studies 4. 127–145.10.1017/S0959269500002192Search in Google Scholar
Badan, Linda, Stella Gryllia & Gaetano Fiorin. 2017. Italian echo-questions at the interface. Studia Linguistica 71. 207–240.10.1111/stul.12048Search in Google Scholar
Bartels, Christine. 1999. The intonation of English statements and questions. New York & London: Garland.Search in Google Scholar
Belletti, A. & Ur Shlonsky. 1995. The order of verbal complements. A comparative study. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 489–526.10.1007/BF00992739Search in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2001. Inversion as focalization. In Afke Hulk & Jean Yves Pollock (eds.), Subject inversion in romance and the theory of universal grammar, 60–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures 3. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2005. Extended doubling and VP periphery. Probus 17. 1–35.10.1515/prbs.2005.17.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 2001. The position of topic and focus in the left periphery. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 39–64. Amsterdam: Elsevier-North Holland.10.1163/9780585473949_005Search in Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 2004. The left periphery of medieval romance. Studi Linguistici e Filologici Online 2. 243–297. http://www.humnet.unipi.it/slifo/Search in Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola & Cecilia Poletto. 2004. Topic, focus and V2. Defining the CP sublayers. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures 2, 52–75. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina & Giuliano Bocci. 2012. Should I stay or should I go? Optional focus movement in Italian. In C. Pinon (ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 9. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss9/eiss9_bianchi-and-bocci.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Giuliano Bocci & Silvio Cruschina. 2015. Focus fronting and its implicatures. In Enoch Aboh, A. Hulk, Jannette Schaeffer & P. Sleeman (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2013: Selected papers from going romance, Amsterdam 2013. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/rllt.8.01biaSearch in Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina & Mara Frascarelli. 2010. Is topic a root phenomenon? Iberia 2. 43–88.Search in Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano. 2013. The syntax-prosody interface from a cartographic perspective: Evidence from Italian. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.204Search in Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David. Weenink 2016. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.21. http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 25 September 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Brunetti, Lisa. 2009. On the pragmatics of post-focal material in Italian left periphery focus looked from the other side. In D. Apothéloz, B. Combettes & F. Neveu (eds.), Les Linguistiques du Détachement, Actes du Colloque de Nancy, June 7–9, 151–162. Berne: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Canepari, Luciano. 1999. Manuale di pronuncia italiana. Bologna: Zanichelli.Search in Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2001. A second thought on emarginazione: Destressing vs ‘Right Dislocation’. In Guglielmo Cinque & G.P. Salvi (eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 117–135. Amsterdam: North Holland.10.1163/9780585473949_008Search in Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2002. Against optional and null clitics. right dislocation vs. marginalization. Studia Linguistica 56. 29–57.10.1111/1467-9582.00086Search in Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Henk Van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110804010.145Search in Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo. 1999. A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Romance. Studia Linguistica 53. 40–67.10.1111/1467-9582.00039Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Crocco, Claudia. 2013. Is Italian clitic right dislocation grammaticalised? A prosodic analysis of YN-questions and statements. Lingua 133. 30–52.10.1016/j.lingua.2013.03.003Search in Google Scholar
Crocco, Claudia. 2017. Every everyone has an accent. Standard Italian and regional pronunciation. In Massimo Cerruti, Claudia Crocco & Stefania Marzo (eds.), Towards a new standard. Theoretical and empirical studies on the restandardization of Italian, 89–117. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9781614518839-004Search in Google Scholar
Crocco, Claudia & Linda Badan. 2016. L’hai messo dove, il focus? Un’analisi prosodica delle domande eco wh-. In Renata Savy & Iolanda Alfano (eds.), La fonetica nell’apprendimento delle lingue / Phonetics and Language Learning, Collana Studi AISV 2. Milano: Officina 21.Search in Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Discourse-related features and functional projections. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio, Ion Giurgea & Eva-Maria Remberger. 2015. Focus Fronting between declaratives and exclamatives. In Jenneke van der Wal, Adina Dragomirescu & Alexandru Nicolae (eds.), Syntactic variation. Special issue of Revue roumaine de linguistique. 60 (2–3). 257–275.Search in Google Scholar
Csirmaz, Aniko. 2005. Semantics and phonology in syntax. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1. 33–52.10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33Search in Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. 2001. The mirativity and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 369–382.10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1Search in Google Scholar
D’Imperio, Mariapaola, Gorka Elordieta, Sónia Frota, Pilar Prieto & Vigário. Marina. 2005. Intonational phrasing in Romance: The role of syntactic and prosodic structure. In Sónia Frota, Marina Vigário & Maria João Freitas (eds.), Prosodies, 59–98. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Downing, Bruce Theodore. 1970. Syntactic structure and phonological phrasing in English. Austin: University of Texas PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2000. The prosody of focus in Italian (and the Syntax-Phonology Interface). Probus 11(2). 209–238.10.1515/prbs.1999.11.2.209Search in Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2007. Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro. An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 691–734.10.1007/s11049-007-9025-xSearch in Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2008. The fine structure of the Topic field. In Cécile De Cat & Katherine Demuth (eds.), The Bantu-Romance connection, 261–292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.131.15fraSearch in Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2017. Dislocations and framings. In Elisabeth Stark & Andreas Dufter (eds.), Manual of romance morphosyntax and syntax, 472–501. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110377088-013Search in Google Scholar
Frota, Sonia, D’Imperio Mariapaola, Elordieta Gorka, Prieto Pilar & Vigario Marina. 2007. The phonetics and phonology of intonational phrasing in Romance. In Pilar Prieto (ed.), Segmental and prosodic issues in Romance phonology, 131–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.282.10froSearch in Google Scholar
Frota, Sónia & Pilar Prieto (eds.). 2015. Intonational variation in romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685332.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Gili-Fivela, Barbara, Avesani Cinzia, Barone Marco, Bocci Giuliano, Crocco Claudia, D’Imperio Mariapaola, Giordano Rosa, Marotta Giovanna, Savino Michelina & Sorianello Patrizia. 2015. Varieties of Italian and their intonational phonology. In Sónia Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Intonational variation in romance, 140–197. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685332.003.0005Search in Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A. 2001. IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55(1). 39–75.10.1111/1467-9582.00074Search in Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel. 2015. Towards a typology of focus: Subject position and microvariation at the discourse-syntax interface. Ampersand 2. 49–60.10.1016/j.amper.2015.03.001Search in Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. & Shigeru Miyagawa. 2014. A feature-inheritance approach to root phenomena and parametric variation. Lingua 145. 276–302.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.008Search in Google Scholar
Ladd, Robert D. 2008[1996]. Intonational phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808814Search in Google Scholar
Marotta, Giovanna. 2002. L’Intonation des Énoncés Interrogatifs Ouverts dans l’Italien Toscan. I [The intonation of open interrogative sentences in Tuscan Italian]. In Bernard Bel & Isabelle Marlien (eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference on speech prosody 2002, 475–478. Aix-en-Provence, France: Université de Provence.Search in Google Scholar
Ndayiragije, Juvénal. 1999. Checking economy. Linguistic Inquiry 30(3). 399–444.10.1162/002438999554129Search in Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Tanya Reinhart. 1998. Scrambling and the PF interface. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Gueder (eds.), The projection of arguments, 309–353. Stanford: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina. 1993. Fonologia. Bologna: Il Mulino.Search in Google Scholar
Paoli, S. 2009. Contrastiveness and new information: A new vies on Focus. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 34. 137–161.Search in Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar, Mariapaola D’Imperio & Barbara Gili-Fivela. 2005. Pitch accent alignment in Romance: Primary and secondary associations with metrical structure. Language and Speech 48(8). 359–396.10.1177/00238309050480040301Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1993. Argument-Adjunct (A)symmetries. Proceedings of NELS 22, Amherst, Massachusetts, 365–381. A revised version in Cinque et al. (ed.), Paths Towards Universal Grammar, Georgetown University Press, Washington, 1994, pp. 361–376.10.4324/9780203461785-12Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 287–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier North-Holland.10.1163/9780585473949_016Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2013. Focus, topic and the cartography of the left periphery. In Claudia Parodi & Silvia Luraghi (eds.), The bloomsbury companion to syntax, 436–451. London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Adriana Belletti. 2017. On the syntax and pragmatics of some clause-peripheral positions. In Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman & Christopher Laenzlinger (eds.), Formal models in the study of language, 33–48. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-48832-5_3Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Giuliano Bocci. forthcoming. The left periphery of the clause. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The companion to syntax, 2nd edn Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Rossi, Fabio. 1999. Non lo sai che ora è? Alcune considerazioni sull’intonazione e sul valore pragmatico degli enunciati con dislocazione a destra. Studi di grammatica italiana 18. 144–193.Search in Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. When right dislocation meets the left periphery: A unified analysis of Italian non-final focus. Lingua 116(6). 836–373.10.1016/j.lingua.2005.04.001Search in Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2015. The interaction of focus, givenness and prosody. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198737926.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax, the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT press.Search in Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In Merle Horne (ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiments, 231–262. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-9413-4_9Search in Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2005. Comments on intonational phrasing. In Sonia Frota, Marina Vigario & Maria Joao Freitas (eds.), Prosodies, 11–58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The Syntax-Phonology Interface. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan Yu (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., 435–484. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781444343069.ch14Search in Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2007. The syntax phonology interface. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 435–456. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486371.019Search in Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2012. On the prosody of German wh-questions. In Gorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Prosody and meaning, 73–118. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110261790.73Search in Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2013. An analysis of prosodic F-effects in interrogatives: Prosody, syntax and semantics. Lingua 124. 131–175.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.06.003Search in Google Scholar
Watson, D. & E. Gibson. 2004. The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 19. 713–755.10.1080/01690960444000070Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
