Chapter published in:
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
  • References
Published online: 30 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.249.09and
References
Anagnostopoulou, Elena
2006 Clitic doubling. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Martin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds), 519–581. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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 Crossref.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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 The acquisition of negation in Italian L2. In The Structure of Learner Varieties, Henriette Hendricks (ed.), 315–353. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Constructions with preposed infinitive: Typological and pragmatic notes. In Information Structure and its Interfaces, Lunella Mereu (ed.), 105–128. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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. http://​www​.praat​.org/ (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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crocco, Claudia
2013 Is Italian clitic right dislocation grammaticalised? A prosodic analysis of yes/no questions and statements. Lingua 133: 30–52.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara
2000 The Syntax-phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N.
1992 Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Zanuttini, Raffaella
2013 Emphasis as reduplication: Evidence from ‘sì che’/‘no che’ sentences. Lingua 128: 124–141.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Prosodic and lexical marking of contrast in L2 Italian. Second Language Research 31(4): 465–491.CrossrefGoogle Scholar