Discourse, sentence grammar and the left periphery of the clause

  • Alessandra GiorgiEmail author
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 18)


The term left periphery refers to that area on the left of the subject, in the syntactic representation of a clause, where the relationships with the context are encoded. In this work I propose a syntactic analysis that goes beyond mere sentence grammar and integrates prosodic and discourse features as well. On the one hand, this move accounts for some observations previously not fully understood, such as the anomalous syntactic properties of Clitic Left Dislocation and Hanging Topic, their differences with respect to Focus and their similarities with parentheticals. On the other, it aims at providinga theory of grammar able to encode the relationships between sentence grammar, context and bigger units such as discourses.


Clitic left dislocation Hanging Topic Focus parentheticals contexts discourse syntax 


  1. Aboh, E. O. (2007). Focused versus non-focus wh-phrases. In E. Aboh, K. Hartmann, & M. Zimmermann (Eds.), Focus in African languages (pp. 287–314). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  2. Benincà, P., & Poletto, C. (2004). Topic focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The structure of CP and IP (pp. 52–75). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brunetti, L. (2004). A unification of focus. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
  4. Cecchetto, C., & Chierchia, G. (1999). Reconstructionin dislocation constructions and the syntax/semantics interface. In S. Blake, E. Kim, K. Shahin (a cura di), Proceedings of the XVII West Coast conference in formal linguistics (pp. 132–146). CSLI publications, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Reading in English transformational grammar (pp. 184–221). Waltham: Ginn.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1976). Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis, 2, 303–351.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  9. Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A-bar dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cinque, G. (2008). Two types of nonrestrictive relative clauses. In O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7 (pp. 99–137). Paris: University of Paris.Google Scholar
  11. D’Alessandro, R. (To appear). The null subject parameter: Where are we and where are we headed? In A. Fábregas, J. Mateu, & M. Putnam (Eds.), The linguistic handbook of parameters. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  12. De Vries, M. (2007). Invisible constituents? Parentheticals as b-merged adverbial phrases. In N. Dehé & Y. Kavalova (Eds.), Parentheticals (Linguistik aktuell/Linguistics today 106) (pp. 203–234). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Dehé, N. (2009). Clausal parentheticals. Journal of Linguistics, 45, 569–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dehé, N., & Kavalova, Y. (Eds.). (2007). Parentheticals (Linguistik aktuell/ Linguistics today 106). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  15. Frascarelli, M. (2000). The syntax- phonology interface in focus and topic constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frascarelli, M., & Hinterhölzl, R. (2007). Types of topics in German and Italian. In S. Winkler & K. Schwabe (Eds.), On information structure, meaning and form (pp. 87–116). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giorgi, A. (2014). Prosodic signals as syntactic formatives in the left periphery. In A. Cardinaletti, G. Cinque, & E. Yoshio (Eds.), On peripheries (pp. 161–188). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Giorgi, A. (2015). Discourse and the syntax of the left periphery: Clitic left dislocation and hanging topic. In J. Bayer, R. Hinterhölzl, & A. Trotzke (Eds.), Discourse-oriented syntax (pp. 229–250). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giorgi, A. (2016). Integrated parentheticals in quotations and free indirect discourse. In A. Capone et al. (Eds.), Indirect Reports and Pragmatics, Perspectives, Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 471–488). Cham: Springer Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giorgi, A., & Haroutyunian, S. (2016). Word order and information structure in Modern Eastern Armenian. In Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies (JSAS) (Vol. 25, pp. 75–95). Fresno: California State University.Google Scholar
  21. Guéron, J. (2015). Subjectivity and free indirect discourse. In J. Guéron (Ed.), Sentence and discourse (pp. 256–270). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holmberg, A. (2015). Verb second. In T. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Syntax, theory and analysis: An international handbook (pp. 342–382). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. In Linguistic inquiry monograph 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Krifka, M. (2007). Basic notions of information structure. In C. Fery & M. Krifka (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies of information structure (Vol. 6, pp. 13–56). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
  26. Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  27. Postal, P. (1971). Crossover phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  28. Potts, C. (2002). The syntax and semantics of as-parentheticals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20(3), 623–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rizzi, L. (2001). On the position of Int(errogative) in the left periphery of the clause. In G. Cinque & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax (pp. 287–296). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  32. Safir, K. (To appear). Weak crossover. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Blackwell companion to syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Samek-Lodovici, V. (2015). The interaction of focus, givenness, and prosody. A study of Italian clause structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schlenker, P. (2003). A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26(1), 29–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schlenker, P. (2004). Context of thought and context of utterance. Mind and Language, 19, 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Selkirk, E. (2005). Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In Sónia Frota, Marina Vigário, & Maria J. Freitas (eds.), Prosodies. With special reference to Iberian languages (pp. 11–58). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. Sharvit, Y. (1999). Resumptive pronouns in relative clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17(3), 587–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sharvit, Y. (2004). Free indirect discourse and de re pronouns. In R. Young (Ed.), SALT XIV proceedings (pp. 305–322). Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  39. Shlonsky, U. (1992). Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(3), 443–468.Google Scholar
  40. Sportiche, D. (2007). Reconstruction, binding, and scope. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ca’ Foscari University of VeniceVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations