Cover not available
Part of
Discourse Segmentation in Romance Languages
Edited by Salvador Pons Bordería
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 250] 2014
► pp. 219–241

The topologic hypothesis of prominence as a cue to information structure in Italian

| Dipartimento di Linguistica — Università Roma Tre
The article proposes a strictly structural hypothesis on the marking of information structure (IS) by means of prosodic prominence, based on experimental data from spoken Italian. Main prominence can be conceived of in a “topological” way, where its location effects demarcation between different units, rather than their identification and culmination. This may suffice to explain much of the process by which speakers interpret the IS of utterances in discourse. In addition, actual utterances do not always express the distribution of Topic and Focus clearly. Acoustically, many remain underspecified in this respect. This is especially true for the distinction between Topic-Focus and Broad Focus, which often allows a certain degree of ambiguity.
Keywords: Demarcation, Information Structure, Italian speech, Prominence
Published online: 14 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.250.08lom
References (58)
References
Albano Leoni, Federico. 2003. “Tre progetti per l’italiano parlato.” In Italia linguistica anno Mille, Italia linguistica anno Duemila, ed. by Nicoletta Maraschio, e Teresa Poggi Salani, 675–683. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Avesani, Cinzia. 2000. “Costruzioni marcate e non marcate in italiano. Il ruolo dell’intonazione.” In Atti delle X giornate di studio del GFS, “Il parlante e la sua lingua”, ed. by Donatella Locchi, Antonella Giannini, and Massimo Pettorino, 1–14. Napoli: Istituto Orientale.Google Scholar
Avesani, Cinzia, and Mario Vayra. 2004. “Focus ristretto e focus contrastivo in italiano.” In Il parlato italiano, ed. by Federico Albano Leoni, Francesco Cutugno, Massimo Pettorino, and Savy Renata, 1–20. Napoli: M.D’Auria - CIRASS (CD-ROM).Google Scholar
. 2005. “Quale informazione codificare per la sintesi dell’intonazione?” In Italia linguistica. Discorsi di scritto e di parlato. Nuovi studi di linguistica italiana per Giovanni Nencioni, ed. by Biffi Marco, Salibra Luciana, and Calabrese Omar, 235–248. Siena: Protagon.Google Scholar
Avesani, Cinzia, Mario Vayra, Claudio Zmarich, Rachele Paggiaro, and Daniela Sperandio. 2007. “Le basi articolatorie della prominenza accentuale in italiano.” In Scienze vocali e del linguaggio. Metodologie di valutazione e risorse linguistiche, ed. by Veronica Giordani, Valentina Bruseghini, and Piero Cosi, 185–200. Torriana (RN): EDK.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E., Julia Hirshberg, and Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2005. “The Original ToBI System and the Evolution of the ToBI Framework.” In Prosodic Models and Transcription: Towards Prosodic Typology, ed. by Sun-Ah Jun, 9–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano, and Cinzia Avesani. 2006. “Focus Contrastivo nella periferia sinistra della frase: un solo accento, ma non solo un accento.” In Analisi Prosodica. Teorie. Modelli e sistemi di annotazione, ed. by Renata Savy, and Claudia Crocco (eds), 111–141. Torriana (RN): EDK.Google Scholar
Bonvino, Elisabetta. 2004. “Fenomeni prosodici in relazione al soggetto postverbale.” In Il parlato italiano, ed. by Federico Albano Leoni, Francesco Cutugno, Massimo Pettorino, and Savy Renata, B06. Napoli: M.D’Auria - CIRASS (CD-ROM).Google Scholar
. 2005. Le sujet postverbal. Une étude sur l’italien parlé. Paris: OPHRYS.Google Scholar
Breen, Mara, Evelina Fedorenko, Michael Wagner, and Edward Gibson. 2010. “Acoustic Correlates of Information Structure.” Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 1044–1098. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. “Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow.” In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, ed. by Tomlin, Russell, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. “Information Flow in Speaking and Writing.” In The Linguistics of Literacy, ed. by Pamela Downing, Susan D. Lima, and Noonan Michael, 17–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela. 1987. “L’articolazione dell’informazione nel parlato.” In Gli italiani parlati, ed. by VVAA, 27–90. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
. 1992. “Le unità d’informazione e la teoria degli atti linguistici.” In Atti del XXIV Congresso internazionale di studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana. Linguistica e pragmatica, ed. by Giovanni Gobber, 501–529. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
. 2000. Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Clitics and Anaphoric Relations in Informational Patterning: A Corpus-driven Research in Spontaneous Spoken Italian (C-ORAL-ROM).” In Information Structure and its Interfaces, ed. by Lunella Mereu, 75–104. Berlin - New York: Mouton De Gruyter:.Google Scholar
Daneš, František. 1967. “Order of Elements and Sentence Intonation.” In Studies to Honor Roman Jakobson, ed. by VV. AA., 499–512. The Hague-Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1974. “Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of the Text.” In Papers on Functional Sentence Persepctive, ed. by František Daneš, 106–128. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
D’Imperio, Mariapaola. 1997. “Breadth of Focus, Modality and Prominence Perception in Neapolitan Italian.” The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics - Papers from the Linguistics Laboratory, Vol. 50, ed. by K. Ainsworth-Darnell, and D’Imperio, Mariapaola: 19–39.Google Scholar
. 2002a. “Language-specific and Universal Constraints on Tonal Alignment: the Nature of Targets and “Anchors.” In Speech Prosody 2002. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Speech Prosody, ed. by Bernard Bel, and Isabel Marlien, 101–106. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.Google Scholar
. 2002b. “Italian Intonation: An Overview and Some Questions.” Probus 14 (1): 37–69.Google Scholar
Face, Timothy L., and Mariapaola D’Imperio. 2005. “Reconsidering a Focal Typology: Evidence from Spanish and Italian.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 17: 271–289.Google Scholar
Ferrari, Angela, Luca Cignetti, Anna-Maria De Cesare, Letizia Lala, Magda Mandelli, Claudia Ricci, and Enrico Roggia. 2008. L’interfaccia lingua-testo. Natura e funzioni dell’articolazione informativa dell’enunciato. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline, and Manfred Krifka. 2008.“Information Structure. Notional Distinctions, Ways of Expression.” In Unity and Diversity of Languages, ed. by Piet van Sterkenburg, 123–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1966. “On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Analysis”. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1: 267–280.Google Scholar
. 1987. “On the Delimitation of the Theme in Functional Sentence Perspective.” In Functionalism in Linguistics, ed. by René Dirven, and Vilém Fried, 137–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). “Degrees of Communicative Dynamism and Degrees of Prosodic Prominence (weight).” Brno Studies in English 18: 21–66.Google Scholar
Firenzuoli, Valentina. 2003. “Le forme intonative di valore illocutivo dell’italiano parlato. Analisi sperimentale di un corpus di parlato spontaneo (LABLITA).” Ph.D. dissertation, Università di Firenze: Dipartimento di Linguistica.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 1999. “The Prosody of Focus in Italian (and the Syntax-Phonology Interface).” Probus 11: 209–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 50]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “L’interpunzione del focus e la portata degli operatori sintattici.” In Il parlato italiano, ed. by Federico Albano Leoni, Francesco Cutugno, Massimo Pettorino, and Savy Renata, B06. Napoli: M.D’Auria - CIRASS (CD-ROM).Google Scholar
Frascarelli Mara, and Roland Hinterhölzl. 2007. “Types of Topics in German and Italian.” In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, ed. by Susanne Winkler, and Kerstin Schwabe, 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagliardi, Gloria, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri, and Fabio Tamburini. 2012a. “La prominenza in italiano: demarcazione piu’ che culminazione.” In La voce nelle applicazioni, ed. by Mauro Falcone, and Andrea Paoloni, 255–270. Roma: BulzoniGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. “A Topologic View of Topic and FOCUS MARKING in Italian.” In Proceedings 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation - LREC 2012, ed. by Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Uğur Doğan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, and Stelios Piperidis, 948–955. Istanbul: LREC.Google Scholar
Gili Fivela Barbara. 2002.“Tonal Alignment in Two Pisa Italian Peak Accents.” In Speech Prosody 2002. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Speech Prosody, ed. by Bernard Bel, and Isabel Marlien, 339–342. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. 1989. Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1978. The Structure of Intonational Meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Yong-cheol, and Yi Xu. 2010. “Phonetic Realization of Contrastive Focus in Korean.” In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010, 100033: 1–4. Chicago: ISBN: 978-0-557-51931-6.Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo. 2001a.“La teoria come separatrice di fatti di livello diverso. L’esempio della struttura informativa dell’enunciato.” In Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche. Atti del XXXIII Congresso SLI, Albano Leoni Federico, Eleonora Stenta Krosbakken, Rosanna Sornicola, and Carolina Stromboli, 151–173. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
. 2001b. “The Role of Discourse, Syntax and the Lexicon in Determining Focus Nature and Extension.” Linguisticae Investigationes XXIII (2): 229–252.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Appendix or Postposed Topic: where does the Difference Lie?” In Information Structure and its Interfaces, ed. by Lunella Mereu, 387–411. Berlin – New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2009. La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “What can Japanese -wa tell us about the function of Appendixes”. Faits de Langues 43: 61–86.Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo, and Fabio Tamburini. 2012. Topic and Focus marking in an Italian corpus: Some Results of Algorithmic Measurement and Structural Interpretation.” In Proceedings of the VII GSCP International Conference 2012 (Belo Horizonte): Speech and Corpora, ed. by Heliana Mello, Massimo Pettorino, and Tommaso Raso, 191–196.Google Scholar
Marotta, Giovanna. 2008. “Phonology or Non Phonology? That is the Question (in Intonation).” EFE (Estudios de Fonética Experimental) 17: 177–206.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1987. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Pitrelli John F., Mary E. Beckman, and Julia Hirshberg. 1994.“Evaluation of Prosodic Transcription Labelling Reliability in the ToBI Framework.” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 1994) , Vol. 2, 123–126. Yokohama.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Sgall, Petr. 1975. “Conditions of the Use of Sentences and a Semantic Representation of Topic and Focus.” In Formal Semantics of Natural Language, ed. by Edward Keenan, 297–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sgall, Petr, Eva Hajicová, and Eva Benesová. 1973. Topic, Focus and Generative Semantics. Kronberg, Taunus: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter Frederick. 1964. “Identifying Reference and Truth-values”. Theoria 30(2): 96–118. Reproduced in Logico-Linguistic Papers, 75–95. London: Methuen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Syrdal, A., and J. McGorg 2000. “Inter-transcriber Reliability of ToBi Prosodic Labeling.” In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 2000) , Vol. 3, 235–238. Beijing.
Tamburini, Fabio. 2003. “Automatic Prosodic Prominence Detection in Speech using Acoustic Features: An Unsupervised System.” In Proceedings of Eurospeech 2003 , 129–132, Geneva.
2005. Fenomeni prosodici e prominenza: un approccio acustico. Bologna: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Reliable Prominence Identification in English Spontaneous Speech.” In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006 , Dresden, PS1–9–19.
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Masia, Viviana
2022. Remarks on information structure marking asymmetries. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 58 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Sociobiological Bases of Information Structure [Advances in Interaction Studies, 9], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.