Cover not available
Part of
Information-Structural Perspectives on Discourse Particles
Edited by Pierre-Yves Modicom and Olivier Duplâtre
[Studies in Language Companion Series 213] 2020
► pp. 111–132

Chapter 4
From focus marking to illocutionary modification

Functional developments of Italian solo ‘only’

| University of Turin | Humboldt University of Berlin
This paper investigates the polyfunctionality of the Italian adverb solo ‘only’. Beside its prototypical use as an exclusive focus particle, the adverb solo has developed some secondary uses which have not yet been investigated: connective uses (uses as a conjunctional adverb and as a discourse marker) and illocutive uses (use as an illocutionary operator tied to specific speech-act types). By analyzing the different contexts of occurrence and possible paths of semantic change, the meaning variation of solo is described and a synchronic categorization is laid out. Particular attention has been devoted to its illocutive uses, the meaning of which displays a complex interrelationship between features pertaining to the information structure level (focus marking, common ground management) and features connected to the speech-act domain (marking of the illocutionary force and speech-act specification in an interpersonal perspective).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Basic notions of information structure
  • 3.Solo as a focus particle
    • 3.1Focus particles and information structure
    • 3.2The meaning of solo
  • 4.Functional developments of solo: Connective uses
  • 5.Functional developments of solo: Illocutive uses
    • 5.1Directive speech acts
    • 5.2Assertive speech acts
    • 5.3A possible bridging context for solo in assertive speech acts
    • 5.4Illocutive uses of solo: Summary
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Corpora
Published online: 4 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.213.04fav
References (47)
References
Andorno, Cecilia. 1999. Avverbi focalizzanti in italiano. Parametri per un’analisi. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 28(1): 43–83.Google Scholar
. 2000. Focalizzatori fra connessione e messa a fuoco. Il punto di vista delle varietà di apprendimento. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Andorno, Cecilia & De Cesare Greenwald, Anna-Maria. 2017. Mapping additivity through translation. From French aussi to Italian anche and back in the Europarl-direct corpus. In De Cesare Greenwald & Cecilia Andorno (eds), 157–200.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter & Günthner, Susanne. 2005. Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung? In Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, Torsten Leuschner & Tanja Mortelmans (eds), 335–362. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate. 2017. Just a suggestion. just/e in French and English. In Fedriani & Sansò (eds), 459–480.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1998. The flowers are lovely; only, they have no scent: The evolution of a pragmatic marker. In Anglistentag 1997 Giessen. Proceedings, Raimund Borgmeier, Herbert Grabes & Andreas H. Jucker (eds), 9–33. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Cerruti, Massimo. 2009. Strutture dell’italiano regionale. Morfosintassi di una varietà diatopica in prospettiva sociolinguistica. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 27–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 11], Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2010. On the focusing function of focusing adverbs. A discussion based on Italian data. Linguistik Online 44(4): 99–116.Google Scholar
De Cesare Greenwald, Anna-Maria. 2015. Defining Focusing Modifiers in a cross-linguistic perspective. A discussion based on English, German, French and Italian. In Adverbs. Functional and Diachronic Aspects [Studies in Language Companion Series 170], Karin Pittner, Daniela Elsner & Fabien Barteld (eds), 47–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cesare Greenwald, Anna-Maria & Andorno, Cecilia (eds). 2017. Focus on Additivity. Adverbial Modifiers in Romance, Germanic and Slavic Languages [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 278]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert & Pietrandrea, Paola (eds). 2013. Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 234]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Gévaudan, Paul. 2017. Insubordination, Abtönung, and the next move in interaction. Main-clause-initial puisque in French. In Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers. New Issues in the Study of Language Change, Salvador Pons Bordería & Óscar Loureda Lamas (eds), 304–333. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard. 2009. Diachronic pathways and pragmatic strategies: Different types of pragmatic particles from a diachronic point of view. In Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics, Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen & Jacqueline Visconti (eds), 43–61. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance, Susann Fischer & Christoph Gabriel (eds), 635–657. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2013. Same same but different – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Degand, Cornillie & Pietrandrea (eds), 19–46.Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1984. Le dire et le dit. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Favaro, Marco. 2017. Usi non focalizzanti di solo. Evoluzione semantica e pragmatica. MA thesis, Università degli Studi di Torino.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara & Sansò, Andrea (eds). 2017. Pragmatic markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. New Perspectives [Studies in Language Companion Series 186]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1998. The Function of Discourse Particles. A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 53]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues. A Study with Special Reference to the French Phasal Adverbs. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, Lachlan J. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar. A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles. A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Focus particles. In Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung/An international Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), 978–987. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2017. Syntax and semantics of additive focus markers from a crosslinguistic perspective: A tentative assessment of the state of the art. In De Cesare Greenwald & Andorno (eds), 23–43.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3): 243–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroon, Caroline. 1995. Discourse Particles in Latin: A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at. Amsterdam: Gieben. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin & Parry, Mair. 1997. The Dialects of Italy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Modicom, Pierre-Yves & Duplâtre, Olivier. 2018. Nicht nur Fokuspartikel: Geschichte und Varianz von nur im Deutschen. In Diskursive Verfestigungen. Schnittstellen zwischen Morphosyntax, Phraseologie und Pragmatik im Deutschen und im Sprachvergleich, Laurent Gautier, Pierre-Yves Modicom & Hélène Vinckel-Roisin (eds), 73–92. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramat, Paolo & Ricca, Davide. 1994. Prototypical adverbs: On the scalarity/radiality of the notion ADVERB. Rivista di Linguistica 6(2): 289–326.Google Scholar
. 1998. Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Johan van der Auwera (ed.), 187–275. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reich, Uli. 2018. Presupposed modality. In Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond [Studies in Language Companion Series 201], Marco García García & Melanie Uth (eds), 203–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ricca, Davide. 1999. Osservazioni preliminari sui focalizzatori in italiano. In Grammatik und Diskurs/Grammatica e discorso. Studien zum Erwerb des Deutschen und des Italienischen/Studi sull’acquisizione dell’italiano e del tedesco, Norbert Dittmar & Anna Giacalone Ramat (eds), 145–163. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2017. Meaning both ‘also’ and ‘only’? The intriguing polysemy of Old Italian pure. In De Cesare Greenwald & Cecilia Andorno (eds), 45–76.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. & Waltereit, Richard. 2010. Presupposition accommodation and language change. In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 75–102. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Squartini, Mario. 2013. From TAM to discourse via information structure: North-Western Italian già ‘already’ and its Fench Cognate déjà. In Degand, Pietrandrea & Cornillie (eds), 163–190.Google Scholar
. 2017. Italian non-canonical negations as modal particles. Information state, polarity and mirativity. In Fedriani & Sansò (eds), 203–228.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jaisser & Helen Singmaster (eds), 389–405. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (Inter)subjectification: A Reassessment. In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 29–71. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2001. Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech-act theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1391–1417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Abtönung. Zur Pragmatik und historischen Semantik von Modalpartikeln und ihren funktionalen Äquivalenten in romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. On the origins of grammaticalization and other types of language change in discourse strategies. In Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections [Studies in Language Companion Series, 130], Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems, & Tanja Mortelmans (eds), 51–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpora
LIP = De Mauro, Tullio, Mancini, Federico, Vedovelli, Massimo & Voghera, Miriam. 1993. Lessico di frequenza dell’italiano parlato. Milano: ETAS Libri. <[URL]>
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Jasionytė-Mikučionienė, Erika
2021. Chapter 7. The Lithuanian focus particles net ‘even’ and tik ‘only’ and clause peripheries. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.