Cover not available
Part of
The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast: Theoretical, empirical, and typological approaches
Edited by Christine Dimroth and Stefan Sudhoff
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 249] 2018
► pp. 227–254

Polarity focus and non-canonical syntax in Italian, French and Spanish

Clitic left dislocation and sì che / sí que-constructions

| University of Zurich
| University of Freiburg
Unlike in Germanic languages, in the Romance family the prosodic realization of polarity focus is strongly restricted. Instead, we observe a wealth of formal means that involve other language domains, such as the lexicon and non-canonical syntax. In this article, we provide a fine-grained analysis of the contribution of marked syntax to the expression of polarity focus in French, Italian and Spanish, by examining two constructions: clitic dislocation and sì che / sí que. Our main goals are to understand the distribution of these structures and their cross-linguistic differences on the basis of data gathered from the Direct Europarl corpus. Based on a Question Under Discussion model, we identify the main contexts of use to which clitic dislocation and sì che / sí que appear to be a good fit thanks to their functional properties; in particular, we recognize the framing function of clitic left dislocation as one of the most relevant features justifying the affinity between these structures and the expression of polarity focus. Finally, we explain the profound asymmetry observed in the distribution of clitic dislocation and sì che / sí que in our dataset on the basis of inherent grammatical grounds (related to the absence vs. presence of a system of clitic subject pronouns in the three languages), as well as the typology of information structure within the Romance family, as put forward by Leonetti (cf. Leonetti 2010, 2014) in his recent works.
Keywords: non-canonical syntax, corpus linguistics, clitic dislocation, Romance languages, Question Under Discussion
Article outline
  • 0.Introduction
  • 1.A definition of polarity focus
  • 2.Strategies for realizing polarity focus in Italian, French and Spanish
    • 2.1Lexical means for marking polarity focus in Italian, French and Spanish
    • 2.2Syntactic strategies for marking polarity focus in Italian, French and Spanish
    • 2.3 Sì che / sí que in Italian and Spanish
    • 2.4Clitic dislocation and polarity focus
  • 3.Polar Left dislocation and sì che / sí que-clefts in the corpus
    • 3.1Left dislocation and polarity focus in French and Italian
    • 3.2Polarity focus and the sí que-construction in Spanish
  • 4.Conclusions and further remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.249.08gar
References (58)
References
Anthony, Laurence. 2014. AntConc, version 3.4.3. Tokyo: Waseda University. <[URL]> (9 January 2018).
Bach, Emmon. 1981. On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 63–81. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baranzini, Laura & Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo. 2015. ‘È vero – perché è vero’: Un caso di ‘verum focus’ in italiano. In Aspetti prosodici e testuali del raccontare: Dalla letteratura orale al parlato dei media, Antonio Romano, Matteo Rivoira & Ilario Meandri (eds), 207–217. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Batllori, Montserrat & Hernanz, M. Lluïsa. 2013. Emphatic polarity particles in Spanish and Catalan. Lingua 128: 9–30.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benazzo, Sandra & Dimroth, Christine. 2015. Additive Particles in Romance and Germanic Languages: Are they really similar? Linguistik Online 71(2). <[URL]> (9 January 2018).
Benincà, Paola, Salvi, Giampaolo & Frison, Lorenza. 1988. L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. I, Lorenzo Renzi (ed.), 115–194. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Bernini, Giuliano. 1995. Le profrasi. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. III, Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi & Anna Cardinaletti (eds), 175–222. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano. 1985. ‘Dislocazioni a sinistra’ e ‘grammatica’ dell’italiano parlato. In Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana d’uso. Teorie e applicazioni descrittive, Annalisa Franchi De Bellis & Leonardo Maria Savoia (eds), 59–82. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
. 1986. La dislocazione a destra in italiano. In Tema-Rema in italiano, Harro Stammerjohann (ed.), 55–69. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Brianti, Giovanna. 2014. Cleft sentences. A translation perspective on Italian and French. In Frequency, Forms and Functions of Cleft Constructions in Romance and Germanic. Contrastive, Corpus-based Studies, Anna-Maria De Cesare (ed.), 277–321. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Brunetti, Lisa. 2009. On links and tails in Italian. Lingua 119(5): 756–781.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On d-trees, beans, and b-accents. Linguistics & Philosophy 26(5): 511–545.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cartoni, Bruno & Meyer, Thomas. 2012. Extracting directional and comparable corpora from a multilingual corpus for translation studies. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Uğur Doğan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds), 2132–2137. Paris: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A′-bar Dependencies. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crocco, Claudia. 2013. La dislocazione a destra tra italiano comune e variazione regionale. In La comunicazione parlata III. Atti del terzo congresso internazionale del Gruppo di Studio sulla Comunicazione Parlata, Vol. 2, Massimo Pettorino, Antonella Giannini & Francesca M. Dovetto (eds), 191–210. Napoli: Università degli Studi di Napoli L’Orientale.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1966. The logical form of action sentences. In Essays on Actions and Events, Donald Davidson (ed.), 105–121. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
De Cat, Cécile. 2007. French Dislocation. Interpretation, Syntax, Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2014. Subject dislocations in contemporary Italian and in a contrastive perspective with French. In Tra romanistica e germanistica: lingua, testo, cognizione e cultura / Between Romance and Germanic: language, text, cognition and culture, Iørn Korzen, Angela Ferrari & Anna-Maria De Cesare (eds), 35-54. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C., Hoffmann, Maria E., de Jong, Jan R., Dijang, Sie Ing, Stroomer, Harry J. & de Vries, Lourens. 1981. On the typology of focus phenomena. In Perspectives on Functional Grammar, Teun Hoekstra, Harry van der Hulst & Michael Moortgat (eds), 41–74. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dimroth, Christine, Andorno, Cecilia, Benazzo, Sandra & Verhagen, Josje. 2010. Given claims about new topics. How Romance and Germanic speakers link changed and maintained information in narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3328–3344.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria & Leonetti, Manuel. 2009. La expresión del verum focus en español. Español Actual 92: 11–46.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, Marrero Aguiar, Victoria & Pérez Ocón, Pilaz. 2014. Prosody, information structure and evaluation. In Evaluation in Context, Geoff Thompson & Laura Alba-Juez (eds), 153–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2003. Topicalizzazione e ripresa clitica. Analisi sincronica, confronto diacronico e considerazioni tipologiche. In Italia linguistica anno Mille. Italia linguistica anno Duemila, Nicoletta Maraschio & Teresa Poggi Salani (eds), 547–562. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Garassino, Davide. 2014. Reverse pseudo-clefts in Italian and English: A contrastive analysis. In Tra romanistica e germanistica: lingua, testo, cognizione e cultura / Between Romance and Germanic: Language, text, cognition and culture, Iørn Korzen, Angela Ferrari & Anna-Maria De Cesare (eds), 55–74. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine, Lohnstein, Horst, Röhr, Christine T., Baumann, Stefan & Dewald, Anika. 2012. The intonation of verum focus and lexical contrast. Paper presented at Phonetik und Phonologie8, 12 October 2012, Jena.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2012. Verum – Fokus – Verum-Fokus? Fokus-basierte und lexikalische Ansätze. In Wahrheit – Fokus – Negation, Hardarik Blühdorn & Horst Lohnstein (eds), 67–103. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel & Castroviejo Miró, Elena. 2011. The dimensions of VERUM. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), 143–165. Paris: CSSP.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Intonation and Grammar in British English. Den Haag: Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 1988. Vorwort und Nachwort zu Verumfokus. Sprache und Pragmatik 5 (1): 1–7.Google Scholar
1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed), 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacob, Daniel. 2015. Anaphorische Spaltsätze im Französischen: Grammatik – Text – Rhetorik. In Informationsstrukturen im Kontrast, Séverine Adam, Michael Schecker & Daniel Jacob (eds), 101–122. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stieg. 2001. The German and Norwegian correspondences to the English construction type ‘that’s what’. Linguistics 39(3): 583–605.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Rohrer, Christian. 1983. Tense in texts. In Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von Stechow (eds), 250–269. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2001. ‘Oui’, ‘non’, ‘si’: un trio célèbre et méconnu. Marges Linguistiques 2(1): 95–119.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 2006. On finiteness. In Semantics in Acquisition, Veerle van Geenhoven (ed.), 245–272. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang & von Stutterheim, Christiane. 1987. ‘Quaestio’ und referentielle Bewegung in Erzählungen. Linguistische Berichte 108: 163–183.Google Scholar
Koehn, Philipp. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. Machine Translation Summit 10: 79–86.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate. 2012. Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In The Expression of Information Structure, Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds), 1–44. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, Catherine. 2012. Rises All the Way Up: The Interpretation of Prosody, Discourse Attitudes and Dialogue Structure. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. Dislocation. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, Vol. 2, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1050–1078. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 2010. La expresión de la estructura informativa en la sintaxis: Un parámetro de variación en las lenguas románicas. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 61: 338–355.Google Scholar
. 2014. Spanish VSX. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, Karen Lahousse & Stefania Marzo (eds), 37–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2016. On non-focal fronting in Italian and Spanish. In Current Issues in Italian, Romance and Germanic Non-canonical Word Orders. Syntax – Information Structure – Discourse Organization, Anna-Maria De Cesare & Davide Garassino (eds), 15–36. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel & Escandell-Vidal, Maria Victoria. 2009. Fronting and ‘verum focus’ in Spanish. In Focus and Background in Romance Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 112], Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 155–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst. 2016. Verum Focus. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 290–313. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2016. Polarity focus across languages: Processes vs. Things. Paper presented at The grammatical realization of polarity, DGfS 38, Konstanz, Universität Konstanz, 24–26 February.
Onea, Edgar. 2016. Potential Questions at the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. Leiden: Brill.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2013. Emphasis as reduplication: Evidence from ‘sì che’/‘no che’ sentences. Lingua 128: 124–141.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riester, Arndt. 2015. Analyzing questions under discussion and information structure in a Balinese narrative. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Information Structure of Austronesian Languages, 1–26. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Riester, Arndt & Baumann, Stefan. 2013. Focus triggers and focus types from a corpus perspective. Dialogue & Discourse 4(2): 215–248.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996/2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5: 1–69.Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel & Han, Chung-hye. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5): 609–658.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sedano, Mercedes. 2013. La dislocación a la derecha en el español escrito. Spanish in Context 10 (1): 30–52.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simone, Raffaele. 1997. Une interprétation diachronique de la ‘dislocation à droite’ dans le langues romanes. Langue Française 115: 48–61.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turco, Giuseppina. 2014. Contrasting Opposite Polarity in Germanic and Romance Languages: Verum Focus and Affirmative Particles in Native Speakers and Advanced L2 Learners. PhD dissertation, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Turco, Giuseppina, Dimroth, Christine & Braun, Bettina. 2013. Intonational means to mark ‘verum focus’ in German and French. Language and Speech 56(4): 460–490.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Velleman, Leah & Beaver, David. 2016. Question-based models of information structure. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 86–107. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 2013. English ‘emphatic’ do. Lingua 128: 142–171.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Cimmino, Doriana
2023. Chapter 12. On the topic-marking function of left dislocations and preposings. In Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 227], ► pp. 337 ff. DOI logo
Garassino, Davide & Daniel Jacob
2022. Introduction. When data challenges theory. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
2022. Distinguishing psychological Given/New from linguistic Topic/Focus makes things clearer. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Thaler, Verena
2020. Sí queals polyphone Struktur im gesprochenen Spanisch. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 71:1 ► pp. 305 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.