Cover not available
Part of
Brazilian Portuguese, Syntax and Semantics: 20 years of Núcleo de Estudos Gramaticais
Edited by Roberta Pires De Oliveira, Ina Emmel and Sandra Quarezemin
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 260] 2020
► pp. 87–106

Chapter 3
Left- and Right-Dislocation and the speaker’s perspective

| Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
In Italian, topics appear in left- or right-dislocated position and are doubled by clause-internal clitic pronouns. In this paper, the syntax and the contribution to discourse of left- and right-dislocated topics are discussed. We focus on Familiar Topics, the only topic which can appear in either position. It is shown that Familiar Topics do not only involve the retrieval of given information, as is currently assumed, but also contribute to the conversational dynamics by adding the speaker’s perspective on shared information. It is also shown that left and right-dislocated topics have different properties, confirming that Left Dislocation is not the mirror image of Right Dislocation. The discussion includes the comparison between Italian Left and Right Dislocation and German modal particles.
Keywords: Left Dislocation, Right Dislocation, Familiar Topics, speaker, Common Ground
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Left-peripheral topics
  • 3.Left vs. Right Dislocation
    • 3.1On the syntactic analysis of Right Dislocation
  • 4.Types of topics and discourse properties
  • 5.Dislocations, Familiarity, and the speaker’s perspective
    • 5.1Dislocations
    • 5.2Left vs. Right Dislocation
  • 6.German “familiar” particles doch and ja and their Italian counterparts
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.260.03car
References (54)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1991. Discourse particles in German: How does their illocutive force come about? In Discourse Particles [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 203–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 2012. From modal particle to interrogative marker: A study of German den. In Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 7, Laura Brugè, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro & Cecilia Poletto (eds), 13–28. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 16–51. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2009. Pronouns and the edge of the clause. In Structures and Strategies, Chapter 11. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 1988/2001. L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. 1, Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi & Anna Cardinaletti (eds), 129–208. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. Topic, Focus, and V2: Defining the CP Sublayers. In The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 52–75. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina & Frascarelli, Mara. 2010. Is topic a root phenomenon? Iberia 2(1): 43–88.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2001. A second thought on emarginazione: Destressing vs. “Right Dislocation”. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds), 117–135. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. 2002. Against optional and zero clitics. Right Dislocation vs. Marginalization. Studia Linguistica 56: 29–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. On a (wh-)moved Topic in Italian, compared to Germanic. In Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 141], Artemis Alexiadou, Jorge Hankamer, Thomas McFadden, Justin Nuger & Florian Schäfer (eds), 3–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. German and Italian modal particles and clause structure. The Linguistic Review 28: 493–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. What do you do if you don’t have modal particles? In Charting the Landscape of Linguistics: Webschrift for Josef Bayer, Ellen Brandner, Anna Czypionka, Constantin Freitag & Andreas Trotzke (eds), 16–21. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
. 2016. Some new observations on the cartography of Topic and Focus. RGG. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 38: 45–63.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo. 1999. A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Romance. Studia Linguistica 53(1): 40–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1977. The movement nature of Left Dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 397–412.Google Scholar
. 1983. ‘Topic’ constructions in some European languages and ‘Connectedness’. In Connectedness in Sentence, Discourse and Text, Konrad Ehlich & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 7–41. Tilburg: Katholieke Hogeschool (reprinted in 1997, Materials on Left Dislocation, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Henk van Riemsdijk & Frans Zwarts (eds), 93–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins).Google Scholar
. 1990. Types of A’ Dependencies. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2008. Modal particles in Italian. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 91–129.Google Scholar
. 2009. Deutsche Modalpartikeln in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. In Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 191–221. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2011. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The fine structure of Force: On the interaction of modal particles with illocutionary Force and clause type. In On Peripheries. Exploring Clause Initial and Clause Final Positions, Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque & Yoshio Endo (eds), 103–140. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco & Zegrean, Iulia. 2012. Splitting up Force: Evidence from discourse particles. In Main Clause Phenomena. New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 229–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2007. Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro. An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 691–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Generalizations across languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], Susanne Winkler & Kerstin Schwabe (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra. 2010. About the Speaker: Towards a Syntax of Indexicality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2015. Discourse and the syntax of the left-periphery: Clitic Left Dislocation and Hanging Topic. In Discourse-oriented Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 226], Josef Bayer, Roland Hinterhölzl & Andreas Trotzke (eds), 229–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Crosslanguage Study [Typological Studies in Language 3], Talmy Givón (ed.), 5–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Patrick. 2014. German doch: An element that triggers a contrast presupposition. In CLS 46: Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Rebekah Baglini, Timothy Grinsell, Jonathan Keane, Adam Roth Singerman & Julia Thomas (eds), 163–177. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2004. Topicalization, CLLD and the left periphery. In ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35: Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, Claudia Maienborn, Werner Frey & Benjamin Shaer (eds), 157–192. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
. 2006. Argument Fronting in English, Romance CLLD, and the left Periphery. In Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture: Cross-Linguistic Investigations, Raffaella Zanuttini, Héctor Campos, Elena Herburger & Paul H. Portner (eds), 27–52. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery, The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 8. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Helling, Christa. 1983. Deutsche Modalpartikeln und ihre italienischen Entsprechungen. In Parallela. Akte des 2. österreichisch-italienischen Linguistentreffens, Maurizio Dardano, Wolfgang U. Dressler & Gudrun Held (eds), 376–386. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1991. On the semantics of modal particles. In Discourse Particles [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 141–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karagjosova, Elena. 2001. Towards a comprehensive meaning of German “doch”. In Proceedings of the Sixth ESSLLI 2001 Session Helsinki, 131–142.Google Scholar
. 2004. German “doch” as a marker of given information. Sprache & Datenverarbeitung 28: 71–78.Google Scholar
. 2008. Contrast and underspecification. The semantics of aber and doch. In Proceedings of SuB12 Oslo, 287–302. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure, Vol. 6, Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds), 13–55. Potsdam: ISIS, Working Papers of the SFB 632, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindner, Katrin. 1991. “Wir sind ja doch alte Bekannte.” The use of German ja and doch as modal particles. In Discourse Particles [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 163–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masi, Stefania. 1996. Deutsche Modalpartikeln und ihre Entsprechungen im Italienischen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ormelius-Sandblom, Elisabet. 1997. Die Modalpartikeln ja, doch und schon. Zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 223–256. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the Left Periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldor. 2004. The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Rivista di Linguistica/Italian Journal of Linguistics 16: 219–251.Google Scholar
Speas, Peggy & Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. 1: Syntax and Semantics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 57]. Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. 1964. Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria 30: 96–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamborra, Annalisa. 2001. Particelle modali tedesche e frasi italiane ad ordine marcato. MA thesis, SSLMIT Forlì.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2004a. Zum wohl: Diskurspartikeln als Satztypmodifikatoren. Linguistische Berichte 199: 1–35.Google Scholar
. 2004b. Discourse particles in the Left Periphery. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35(2): 543–566.Google Scholar