Chapter published in:
The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast: Theoretical, empirical, and typological approachesEdited 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
Cecilia Andorno | University of Turin
Claudia Crocco | 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 -
References
Published online: 30 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.249.09and
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.249.09and
References
Anagnostopoulou, Elena
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
Andorno, Cecilia
Andorno, Cecilia & Rosi, Fabiana
Badan, Linda & Crocco, Claudia
Benazzo, Sandra & Andorno, Cecilia
Benazzo, Sandra, Andorno, Cecilia, Patin, Cedric & Interlandi, Grazia
Benincà, Paola, Salvi, Giampaolo & Frison, Lorenza
Bernini, Giuliano
Bianchi, Valentina & Bocci, Giuliano
Bocci, Giuliano
Bocci, Giuliano & Avesani, Cinzia
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David
2016 Praat: Doing phonetics by Computer (computer software), version 6.0.22. http://www.praat.org/ (15 November 2016).
Brunetti, Lisa
Büring, Daniel & Gunlogson, Christine
Carletta, Jean, Isard, Amy, Isard, Stephen, Kowtko, Jacqueline, Doherty-Sneddon, Gwyneth & Anderson, Anne
Cecchetto, Carlo
Crocco, Claudia
Dimroth, Christine
Dimroth, Christine, Andorno, Cecilia, Benazzo, Sandra & Verhagen, Josje
Elordieta, Gorka
Féry, Caroline & Krifka, Manfred
Frascarelli, Mara
Gili-Fivela, Barbara, Avesani, Cinzia, Barone, Marco, Bocci, Giuliano, Crocco, Claudia, D‘Imperio, Mariapaola, Giordano, Rosa, Marotta, Giovanna, Savino, Michelina & Sorianello, Patrizia
Grice, Martine, D‘Imperio, Mariapaola, Savino, Michelina & Avesani, Cinzia
Grice, Martine & Savino, Michelina
Gutzmann, Daniel
Heritage, John
Höhle, Tilman N.
Krifka, Manfred
Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate
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.
Poletto, Cecilia & Zanuttini, Raffaella
Repp, Sophie
Romero, Maribel
Scarano, Antonietta
Selkirk, Elisabeth
Turco, Giuseppina
Turco, Giuseppina, Braun, Bettina & Dimroth, Christine