1

Luigi Rizzi (2013): “The functional structure of the sentence, and Cartography”, M. den
Dikken, (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, Cambridge University
Press, 425-457.

(Chomsky 1986a:4), the assumed clausal structure was something like the following:

(4) Gianni incontr+era` Maria

Gianni meet+FUT Maria
Here, as in many other cases, linguists have followed an intuition of uniformity, and
formulated the hypothesis that the syntactic representation of (4) is essentially
identical to (1), i.e., in terms of tree structure:

In order to meet morphological well-formedness, the lexical root moves to I, creating

the complex word incontr+era
 2

12.6 Cartographic projects

Around the mid-1980s, syntactic studies had assumed clausal representations like the
following, based on the idea that all categories are headed and uniform X-bar
schemata are projected by both lexical and functional elements.

The aim of drawing realistic maps of syntactic structures, doing justice to the richness
and articulation of syntactic representations, gave rise to the cartographic projects.
Such guidelines do not preclude the possibility of complex heads expressing
conglomerates of properties, such as verbs inflected for tense, agreement, and other
properties, nouns carrying number, gender, and case morphology, etc.; but such
complex entities do not come out already assembled from the lexicon, they are
assembled through the syntactic operation of head movement. If the elementary
heads that enter into syntactic computations are simple, the assembly of their
projections also respects basic principles of simplicity and uniformity.
The guiding assumption then is that syntactic structures respect conditions of optimal
local simplicity: complex words and syntactic configurations are created through
syntactic computations, with the recursive application of Merge and Move. The
optimal satisfaction of local simplicity thus leads to a higher global complexity of
syntactic representations, with rich functional structures, reiterated applications of
Merge, movement of heads and phrases.

12.8 The cartography of the left periphery: the Force-Fin system

The traditional approach to the complementizer system assumed a single X-bar layer
headed by C. Elementary distributional considerations suggest that this view is
oversimplified (see also Chapter 11): different ‘complementizer-like’ elements clearly
occupy distinct structural positions. For instance, prepositional complementizers
introducing control infinitives like di in Italian, de in French, etc. are considered the
nonfinite counterpart of finite complementizers (Kayne 1984: Chapter 5):
(46) a. ho deciso che partiro`
‘I decided that I will leave’
b. ho deciso di partire
‘I decided di to leave’

In the system first presented in Rizzi (1997) it is proposed that the complementizer
system is a rich structural zone delimited by two heads and their projections: the
upward delimitation is provided by Force, expressing the illocutionary force, or, more
neutrally, the clausal type (as in Cheng 1991) of the sentence. Force expresses the
information that a higher selector needs: whether the sentence is a declarative, or an
 3

interrogative, or an exclamative, etc. The downward delimitation is provided by

Fin(iteness), a head expressing the finite or non-finite character of the clause. The
space delimited by Force and Fin can be used to host positions dedicated to expressing
properties of scope and discourse semantics: the scope of interrogative, relative,
exclamative, comparative, etc. operators, and positions dedicated to discourse-related
properties such as topicality and focus. Often, only one of the two positions is
lexicalized. In finite clauses in Romance and Germanic, Force is typically lexicalized by
elements such as che, que, that, dass, dat, at, etc. (with Fin lexicalized by the
prepositional complementizers di, de, etc. in Romance, for in English, etc.).

12.10 The criterial approach to topic, focus and scope-discourse semantics

In much current work in theoretical syntax, A0 movement has a clear functional
motivation: it is a way to express properties of scope-discourse semantics in
configurational terms (see also Section 3.3.3). More precisely, an A0 chain is a way to
associate two kinds of interpretive properties to an element: properties of argumental
semantics (theta-roles for arguments or, more generally, s-selectional properties), and
properties of scope-discourse semantics (Chomsky 2004), the scope of operators,
topicality, and focus. So, in a question like which book did you read?, the expression
which book is interpreted both as the thematic patient of read, and as a wh-operator
with scope over the main clause, hence yielding a main interrogative.
Topic and focus structures can then be assumed to involve the following syntactic
configurations, triggering the interpretive routine indicated under each elementary
tree:

It is important here to disentangle two related but distinct issues which arise in the
study of the interface between syntax and pragmatics. One has to do with the question
whether there are structurally defined positions which are interpreted at the interface
as expressing certain discourse-related functions. The other issue relates to the nature
of the syntactic labels of the dedicated heads and projections.
 4

Criterial positions can co-occur, respecting ordering constraints that can vary to some
extent from language to language. Italian and other Romance languages permit a
multiplicity of topics, both preceding and following a unique focus position:

(64) credo che, nella riunione di oggi, QUESTO, al direttore, gli dovreste
dire, non qualcos’altro
‘I believe that in today’s meeting, THIS, to the director, you should
say, not something else’
So we have the following representation, in the system of Rizzi (1997):

12.13 Conclusion
The study of the functional structure of the clause has considerably changed the
theoretical and descriptive study of natural language syntax. First, it has renewed the
study of the interface between inflectional morphology and syntax, through the
systematic implementation of a program which has its roots in Syntactic Structures
(Chomsky 1957); second, it has drawn new attention to the analysis of adverbs and
adverbial positions, which is now fully integrated in the study of the clausal structure;
third, it has renewed the study of the interface between syntax and pragmatics, with a
detailed analysis of the syntactic positions dedicated to particular discourse-related
functions. The structural maps of the different zones of the clause have also provided a
model for pursuing on a large scale and on a fully systematic basis the project of a
detailed cartography of syntactic structures, also encompassing the other types of
phrasal categories (e.g., Cinque, 2002 on DPs, Cinque and Rizzi 2010b on PPs).