|
Article Excerpt
ABSTRACT. It is commonly assumed in the literature (e.g. Rochemont 1986, E. Kiss 1998, Zubizarreta 1998, Belletti 2004, among others) that two distinct FOCI exist: a Focus that expresses new information and a Focus that expresses exhaustivity or contrast. The two Foci not only would have a different interpretation but also a different prosody and a different syntactic structure.
The aim of this paper is to prove that, at least in Italian, Focus is a single phenomenon. I show that E. Kiss's (1998) arguments in favor of a distinction between two Foci in Hungarian and English do not hold for Italian and that focal stress is always of the same type and is assigned by the same rule whatever the position and interpretation Focus has. Finally, I demonstrate that Focus expressing new information can move to the left periphery and that the apparent unavailability of movement is the result of contextual constraints on ellipsis. **
INTRODUCTION. A focused constituent in Italian either occupies a low position in the clause, as in 1, or moves and fills a high position, as in 2 (the focused constituent is written within square brackets indexed with subscript F).
(1) Gianni ha vinto [[la maglietta].sub.F] Gianni have.3SG won the T-shirt. 'Gianni won the T-shirt' (2) [[La maglietta].sub.F] ha vinto Gianni the T-shirt have.3SG won Gianni 'It is the T-shirt that Gianni won'
Focus in 1 can either express new information or be used in contrast/correction contexts as the exchanges in 3 and 4 show respectively.
(3) a. Che cosa ha vinto Gianni? what thing have.3SG won Gianni 'What did Gianni win?' b. Gianni ha vinto [[la maglietta].sub.F] Gianni have.3SG won the T-shirt 'Gianni won the T-shirt' (4) a. Gianni ha vinto la felpa Gianni have.3SG won the sweatshirt 'Gianni won the sweatshirt' b. No, Gianni ha vinto [[la maglietta].sub.F] no Gianni have.3SG won the T-shirt 'No, Gianni won the T-shirt'
According to most of the current literature (e.g. Rizzi 1997, E. Kiss 1998, Zubizarreta 1998, Belletti 2004), Focus in 2 cannot express new information; it must always occur in contrast/correction contexts as shown by the unacceptability of 5b versus the acceptability of 6b.
(5) a. Che cosa ha vinto Gianni? what thing have.3SG won Gianni 'What did Gianni win?' b. ??[[La maglietta].sub.F] ha vinto Gianni the T-shirt have.3SG won Gianni 'Gianni won the T-shirt' (6) a. La felpa, l'ha vinta Gianni the sweatshirt it-have.3SG won Gianni 'As for the sweatshirt, Gianni won it' b. No, [[la maglietta].sub.F] ha vinto Gianni no the T-shirt have.3SG won Gianni 'No, Gianni won the T-shirt'
In other words, these authors claim that two distinct Foci exist in Italian: one Focus that has a contrastive interpretation and can move to the left periphery, and one Focus that simply expresses new information and cannot move to the left periphery. (1)
The aim of this paper, on the other hand, is to show that Focus in Italian is uniform both at the interfaces (interpretive and prosodic) and in the syntax and, therefore, that the difference between 5b and 6b is only apparent.
1. E. Kiss (1998). By taking into account data from Hungarian and English, E. Kiss (1998) proposes that two distinct Foci exist, which she calls IDENTIFICATIONAL FOCUS and INFORMATION FOCUS. In Hungarian, Identificational Focus moves to the Spec of a F(ocus)P in the left periphery; in English, it is performed by a cleft. E. Kiss also suggests that a contrastive Focus in Italian corresponds to Identificational Focus in Hungarian; however, in Italian, Focus either moves to the left overtly (see 2) or covertly (see 1). In the following sections I make a comparison of Italian data with Hungarian (and English) and show that E. Kiss's distinction cannot hold for Italian Focus. (2)
E. Kiss (1998) proposes that the IDENTIFICATIONAL FOCUS and the INFORMATION FOCUS differentiate in the following respects.
(7) a. The Identificational Focus expresses exhaustive identification; the Information Focus merely conveys nonpresupposed information.
b. Universal quantifiers, also-phrases, even-phrases, some-phrases cannot function as Identificational Focus; the type of constituents that can function as Information Focus is not restricted.
c. The Identificational Focus--does the Information Focus does--not-take scope.
d. The Identificational Focus involves movement; the Information Focus does not.
e. An Identificational Focus must be an XP available for movement; an Information Focus can be either smaller or larger.
f. An Identificational Focus can be iterated; an Information Focus can project.
The first three points concern Focus interpretation, E. Kiss claims that an Identificational Focus expresses exhaustive identification while an Information Focus merely expresses nonpresupposed information. I discuss Focus interpretation in Sections 1.1 to 1.4. Focus projection, which is a property related to the prosody, and other prosodic differences will be treated in Section 2. The syntactic differences between the two Foci are discussed in Section 3.
1.1. EXHAUSTIVE IDENTIFICATION. A first test E. Kiss (1998) provides in order to show that Identificational Focus expresses exhaustive identification consists of comparing the following two exchanges. (3)
(8) a. Mari [[EGY KALAPOT].sub.F] nezett ki maganak Mary a hat.ACC picked out herself.DAT 'It was a hat that Mary picked for herself' b. Nero, egy kabatot is ki nezett No a coat.ACC also out picked 'No, she picked a coat, too' (9) a. Mari ki nezett maganak [[egy kalapot].sub.F]. Mary out picked herself.DAT a hat.ACC 'Mary picked herself a hat' b. # Nem, egy kabatot is ki nezett no a coat.ACC also out picked # 'No, she picked a coat, too'
In 8, the identificationally focused object represents the only thing Mary picked for herself. In 9, where the object is informationally focused, a hat is just one of the possible things Mary could have picked for herself. The sentence in 8b and 9b denies that Mary picked only one thing. Therefore, it is appropriate only if it follows a sentence that asserts that Mary picked only one thing. In English, the same results are obtained when the sentence in 8a and 9a is a cleft.
Consider now the Italian example corresponding to 9.
(10) a. [[Un cappello].sub.F] ha comprato Maria a hat have.3SG bought Maria 'Maria bought a hat' b. #No, ha comprato anche un cappotto no have.3SG bought also a coat 'No, she bought a coat too'
10a cannot be followed by a sentence like 10b. Therefore, the moved Focus in 10a does not express exhaustive identification. The unacceptability of the exchange in 10 is even clearer if we compare it with an exchange where the first sentence contains a Focus associated with solo 'only'. Only-phrases inherently express exhaustive identification, so the exchange should be perfect in this case. This is in fact born out by the example below.
(11) a. Maria ha comprato solo [[un cappello].sub.F] Maria have.3SG bought only a hat 'Maria bought only a hat' b. No, ha comprato anche un cappotto no have.3SG bought also a coat 'No, she bought a coat too'
The exchange in 11 is as good as the Hungarian one in 8. The sentence in lla excludes the possibility that Mary bought something else apart from a hat.
1.2. LEXICAL RESTRICTIONS. According to E. Kiss (1998), further evidence that Identificational Focus expresses exhaustive identification comes from some lexical restrictions concerning Identificational Focus but not Information Focus. She argues that, while Identificational Focus performs a semantic operation characterized as 'exclusion by identification' (249), the expressions above perform identification without exclusion. Therefore, their meaning is incompatible with the meaning of Identificational Focus.
Let us put existential quantifiers aside for the moment, and consider E. Kiss's examples in 12-14.
(12) * Mari [[MINDEN KALAPOT].sub.F] nezett ki maganak Mary every hat.ACC picked out herself.DAT * 'It was every hat that Mary picked for herself' (13) * Mari [[EGY KALAPOT IS].sub.F] nezett ki maganak Mary a hat.ACC also picked out herself.DAT * 'It was also a hat that Mary picked for herself' (14) * Mari [[MEG EGY KALAPOT].sub.F] is nezett ki maganak Mary even a hat.ACC also picked out herself.DAT * 'It was even a hat that Mary picked for herself'
Both in Hungarian and in English the sentences in 12-14 are ungrammatical. In Italian, the same expressions can function as preverbal contrastive Foci. The sentences in 15 are fully grammatical.
(15) a. [[Ogni proposta].sub.F] ho preso in considerazione every proposal have.1SG taken into account 'I took into account every proposal' b. [[Anche un cappello].sub.F] gli ha comprato Maria also a hat him.DAT have.3SG bought Maria 'Maria bought him also a hat' c. [[Persino un cappello].sub.F] gli ha comprato Maria even a hat him.DAT have.3SG bought Maria 'Maria bought him even a hat'
As for existential quantifiers, E. Kiss acknowledges that, even in Hungarian, an existential quantifier is bad even when it functions as Information Focus. The same happens in Italian as you can see in 16. Therefore, the incompatibility of an existential quantifier with Focus doesn't say anything about the difference between the two types of Focus.
(16) a. Chi stai aspettando? who stay.2SG waiting.for 'Who are you waiting for?' b. # Sto aspettando [[qualcuno].sub.F] stay.1SG waiting.for someone 'I am waiting for someone'
I believe that the problem with an existential quantifier is its poor informative content, which doesn't make it a good candidate to represent the informative part of a sentence. This is confirmed by the fact that the quantifier is accepted as Focus if it can be informative enough as in 17.
(17) a. Stai aspettando l'autobus? stay.2SG waiting.for the.bus 'Are you waiting for the bus?' b. No, sto aspettando [[qualcuno].sub.F]. no stay.1SG waiting.for someone 'No, I am waiting for someone'
The quantifier is informative because it indicates that I am waiting for a person, not for a means of transportation. Otherwise, the quantifier can be sufficiently informative if it is included in a broader Focus so that it does not constitute the only informative part of the sentence. This is shown in 18b.
(18) a. Che cosa stai facendo? what thing stay.2SG doing 'What are you doing?' b. [[Sto aspettando qualcuno].sub.F]. stay.1SG waiting.for someone 'I am waiting for someone'
An anonymous reviewer points out that the incompatibility of an existential quantifier with a Focus position might be due to the incompatibility between an existential quantifier and REFERENTIALITY (see, e.g. Cinque 1990) induced by the preceding sentence. If the sentence is a question like 16a, chi 'who' presumes a referential argument in the answer. If the preceding sentence is in contrast with the following one, the existential quantifier must refer to some specific individual to be contrasted with the individual of the preceding sentence. Evidence comes from the example the reviewer gives, reported below, where the context does not induce referentiality, and the existential quantifier can, in fact, be focused.
(19) a. Tutti i tuoi amici si sono sposati. E tu? Cosa all the your friends REFL be.3PL married and you thing aspetti? wait.for.2SG 'Your friends all got married. And you? What are you waiting for?' b. Aspetto [[qualcuno]saub.F]! wait.for.1SG someone 'I'm waiting...
|
