In this article we address the remnant movement analysis of wh- in situ in Northern Italian varieties (Pollock, Munaro and Poletto 1999, 2001, Poletto and Pollock 2004a, 2004b, 2009), beginning with a review of the empirical evidence that it has been taken to account for. Based on data from Lombard varieties, we argue that wh-in situ is not necessarily restricted to root contexts (section 2.1) and it does not necessarily display sensitivity to islands (section 2.2). When it comes to wh-doubling (section 2.3), while wh-clitics are restricted to the left periphery, non-clitic wh-phrases equally distribute at the left periphery and in situ. We conclude that remnant movement is (at best) unnecessary to account for such evidence. Therefore we propose that the parameter between wh-in situ and wh-movement in Northern Italian varieties is the classical one between overt scope (i.e., wh-movement) and scope construal (i.e., wh-in situ). As for wh-doubling we conclude that it is restricted to pairs of bare whelements, of which the lower bears Focus properties, while the higher one is the scope marker. No role, even a descriptive one, is played by the notion of “weak” wh-pronouns.

Wh-in situ & wh-doubling in Northern Italian Varieties: against Remnant Movement / M.R. Manzini; L.M. Savoia. - In: LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS. - ISSN 0098-9053. - STAMPA. - 37, 1-2:(2011), pp. 79-113.

Wh-in situ & wh-doubling in Northern Italian Varieties: against Remnant Movement

MANZINI, MARIA RITA;SAVOIA, LEONARDO MARIA
2011

Abstract

In this article we address the remnant movement analysis of wh- in situ in Northern Italian varieties (Pollock, Munaro and Poletto 1999, 2001, Poletto and Pollock 2004a, 2004b, 2009), beginning with a review of the empirical evidence that it has been taken to account for. Based on data from Lombard varieties, we argue that wh-in situ is not necessarily restricted to root contexts (section 2.1) and it does not necessarily display sensitivity to islands (section 2.2). When it comes to wh-doubling (section 2.3), while wh-clitics are restricted to the left periphery, non-clitic wh-phrases equally distribute at the left periphery and in situ. We conclude that remnant movement is (at best) unnecessary to account for such evidence. Therefore we propose that the parameter between wh-in situ and wh-movement in Northern Italian varieties is the classical one between overt scope (i.e., wh-movement) and scope construal (i.e., wh-in situ). As for wh-doubling we conclude that it is restricted to pairs of bare whelements, of which the lower bears Focus properties, while the higher one is the scope marker. No role, even a descriptive one, is played by the notion of “weak” wh-pronouns.
2011
37, 1-2
79
113
M.R. Manzini; L.M. Savoia
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
LinguisticAnalysisWH-insitu.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: articolo principale
Tipologia: Pdf editoriale (Version of record)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione 405.89 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
405.89 kB Adobe PDF

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/485256
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact