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
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