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. 255–288

In search for polarity contrast marking in Italian

A contribution from echo replies

| University of Turin
| Ghent University
This paper examines polarity contrast marking in Italian, analyzing replies to questions and assertions in Map Task dialogues and read speech. We examine the frequency of echo replies, their syntactic and prosodic properties, and the frequency of verum focus. The results show that echo replies are recurrent, and even preferred, when a correction is involved. Narrow and verum focus are attested, although the latter is not common, and can also be due to morpho-syntactic manipulations such as clitic right dislocation. The results confirm the instability of polarity contrast marking in Italian and suggest that the use of marking devices is sensitive to pragmatic factors, especially in connection with the different functions of polarity contrast in discourse.
Keywords: polarity contrast, echo reply, verum focus, dislocation, Italian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Polarity, focus, and contrast: Terminological distinctions
    • 2.2Polarity contrast marking from a comparative perspective
    • 2.3Polarity contrast markers in Italian
      • 2.3.1Prosodic encoding
      • 2.3.2Lexical and syntactic encoding
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Corpora, methods and research questions
    • 3.2Results
      • 3.2.1Frequency of clausal and echo replies (Corpus 1)
      • 3.2.2Corpus 1: Syntactic format of echo replies
      • 3.2.3Prosodic analysis of echo replies: Corpus 1
      • 3.2.4Corpus 2: Prosodic analysis of verbal echo replies
  • 4.Discussion and final remarks
  • Notes
  • Appendix
  • References
Published online: 30 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.249.09and
References (51)
References
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2006. Clitic doubling. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Martin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds), 519–581. Oxford: Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Anne H., Bader, Miles, Gurman Bard, Ellen, Boyle, Elizabeth, Doherty, Gwineth, Garrod, Simon, Isard, Stephen, Kowtko, Jaqueline, McAllister, Jan, Miller, Jim, Sotillo, Catherine, Thompson, Henry S. & Weinert, Regina. 1991. The HCRC map task data. Language and Speech 34(4): 351–366.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andorno, Cecilia. 2000. Focalizzatori fra connessione e messa a fuoco. Il punto di vista delle varietà di apprendimento. Milano: Angeli.Google Scholar
Andorno, Cecilia & Rosi, Fabiana. 2015. Short replies in Italian: ‘Sì / no’ and other markers between polarity and agreement. Journal of Pragmatics 87: 105–126.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Badan, Linda & Crocco, Claudia. 2018. Focus in Italian echo wh-questions: An analysis at syntax prosody interface. Probus, 0(0), pp. –. Retrieved 17 Jul. 2018, from DOI logo.Google Scholar
Benazzo, Sandra & Andorno, Cecilia. 2010. Discourse cohesion and topic discontinuity in native and learner production: Changing topic entities on maintained predicates. In EUROSLA Yearbook 10, Leah Roberts, Martin Howard, Muiris Ò Laoire & David Singleton (eds), 92–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Benazzo, Sandra, Andorno, Cecilia, Patin, Cedric & Interlandi, Grazia. 2012. Perspective discursive et influence translinguistique: Exprimer le contraste d’entité en Français et en Italien L2. Language, Interaction, and Acquisition 3(2): 173–201.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
. 2003. The copula in learner Italian. Finiteness and verbal inflection. In Information Structure and the Dynamics of Language Acquisition [Studies in Bilingualism 26], Christine Dimroth & Marianne Starren (eds), 159–185. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. The acquisition of negation in Italian L2. In The Structure of Learner Varieties, Henriette Hendricks (ed.), 315–353. Berlin: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Constructions with preposed infinitive: Typological and pragmatic notes. In Information Structure and its Interfaces, Lunella Mereu (ed.), 105–128. Berlin: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina & Bocci, Giuliano. 2012. Should I stay or should I go? Optional focus movement in Italian. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9: 1–18.Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano. 2013. The Syntax-prosody Interface: A Cartographic Perspective with Evidence from Italian [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 204]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano & Avesani, Cinzia. 2006. Focus contrastivo nella periferia sinistra della frase: Un solo accento, ma non solo un accento. In Proceedings of AISV 2005, Renata Savy & Claudia Crocco (eds), 111–141. Torriana: EDK Editore.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2016. Praat: Doing phonetics by Computer (computer software), version 6.0.22. <[URL]> (15 November 2016).
Bonvino, Elisabetta. 2005. Le sujet postverbal: Une étude sur l’italien parlé. Paris: Orphrys.Google Scholar
Brunetti, Lisa. 2009. Discourse functions of fronted foci in Italian and Spanish. In Focus and Background in Romance Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 112], Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 43–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel & Gunlogson, Christine. 2000. Aren’t positive and negative polar questions the same? Ms, UCSC/UCLA.Google Scholar
Carletta, Jean, Isard, Amy, Isard, Stephen, Kowtko, Jacqueline, Doherty-Sneddon, Gwyneth & Anderson, Anne. 1996. HCRC Dialogue Structure Coding Manual (HCRC/TR-82). Edinburgh: HCRC, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo. 1999. A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Romance. Studia Linguistica 53(1): 40–67.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crocco, Claudia. 2013. Is Italian clitic right dislocation grammaticalised? A prosodic analysis of yes/no questions and statements. Lingua 133: 30–52.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimroth, Christine. 2002. Topics, assertions, and additive words: how L2 learners get from information structure to target-language syntax. Linguistics 40(4): 891–923.DOI logoGoogle 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(12): 3328–3344.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka. 2014. The word in phonology. In To Be or Not to Be a Word: New Reflections on the Definition of Word, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano & José-Luis Mendívil-Giró (eds), 6–68. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Information structure: Notional distinctions, ways of expression. In Unity and Diversity of Languages, Piet van Sterkenburg (ed.), 123–135. Amsterdam: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2000. The Syntax-phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gili-Fivela, Barbara, Avesani, Cinzia, Barone, Marco, Bocci, Giuliano, Crocco, Claudia, D‘Imperio, Mariapaola, Giordano, Rosa, Marotta, Giovanna, Savino, Michelina & Sorianello, Patrizia. 2015. Varieties of Italian and their intonational phonology. In Intonation in Romance, Sóna Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds), 140–197. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Martine, D‘Imperio, Mariapaola, Savino, Michelina & Avesani, Cinzia. 2005. Towards a strategy for labelling varieties of Italian. In Prosodic Typology, Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), 55–83. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Martine & Savino, Michelina. 2004. Information structure and questions – Evidence from task-oriented dialogues in a variety of Italian. In Regional Variation in Intonation, Peter Gilles & Jörg Peters (eds), 161–187. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19(2): 377–417.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2012. Verum – Fokus – Verum-Fokus? Fokus-basierte und lexikalische Ansätze. In Wahrheit – Fokus – Negation, Horst Lohnstein & Hardarik Blühdorn (eds), 67–103. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2002. The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 34(10–11): 1427–1446.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N.. 1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In The Notions of Information structure, Caroline Féry & Manfred Krifka (eds), 13–55. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
. 2017. Negated polarity questions as denegations of assertions. In Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures, Chungmin Lee, Ferenc Kiefer & Manfred Krifka (eds), 359–398. Berlin: Springer.DOI logoGoogle 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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1981. A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 17: 164–171.
. 2008. Intonational Phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.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
Reese, Brian. 2007. Bias in Questions. PhD dissertation, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2010. Defining ‘contrast’ as an information-structural notion in grammar. Lingua 120(6): 1333–1345.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Common ground management: Modal particles, illocutionary negation and VERUM. In Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-conditional Meaning, Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 231–274. Leiden: Brill.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel. 2005. Two approaches to biased yes/no questions. In Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, John Alderete (ed.), 352–360. Sommerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Scarano, Antonietta. 2003. Les constructions de syntaxe segmentée: Syntaxe, macrosyntaxe et articulation de l’information. In Macrosyntaxe et pragmatique. L‘analyse linguistique de l’oral, Antonietta Scarano (ed.), 183–201. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1996. The prosodic structure of function words. In Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition, James Morgan & Katherine Demuth (eds), 187–212. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn, John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan Yu (eds), 435–483. Oxford: Blackwell.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 University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Turco, Giuseppina, Braun, Bettina & Dimroth, Christine. 2014. When contrasting polarity, the Dutch use particles, Germans intonation. Journal of Pragmatics 62: 94–106.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Prosodic and lexical marking of contrast in L2 Italian. Second Language Research 31(4): 465–491.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Andorno, Cecilia, Sandra Benazzo & Christine Dimroth
2023. Contrast marking variation in Romance and Germanic languages. Functions of Language 30:1 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.