Cover not available
Part of
Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective
Edited by Alessandra Barotto and Simone Mattiola
[Studies in Language Companion Series 227] 2023
► pp. 337–368

Chapter 12
On the topic-marking function of left dislocations and preposings

Variation across spoken and written Italian and English

| Università degli Studi di Salerno
This chapter is devoted to the functional variation of Left Marked Structures (LMSs) – namely, Left Dislocations (LDs) and Preposings (PRs) –, which are generally described as topic-marking discourse strategies. Results from a corpus-based and multi-level investigation demonstrate that in spoken and written Italian and English the claimed iconic relation between LMS’s syntactic form and information structure does not hold. Moreover, at the discourse level, LMSs impact not only the topical, but also the logico-semantic dimension of texts. The study proposes a reinterpretation of the general function of LDs and PRs in terms of textual prominence, showing how a corpus-based and multilevel analysis method could guide and in turn benefit from a typological investigation of LMSs’ inter- and intra-linguistic variation.
Keywords: Left Marked Structures, Discourse functions, Italian, English, Textual Promince
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Left dislocations and preposings in Italian and English
    • 2.1Definitions
    • 2.2Topicality of the left marked constituent
    • 2.3Discourse functions
  • 3.Method of analysis
    • 3.1The utterance level: LMSs’ syntax and information structure
      • 3.1.1Syntactic partition
      • 3.1.2Information partition
    • 3.2Discourse level: LMSs’ interaction with the left and right co-texts
      • 3.2.1Givenness
      • 3.2.2Thematic progression and topic dynamism
      • 3.2.3Logical dimension
  • 4.Data basis for the analysis
    • 4.1Corpus resources
    • 4.2Data
  • 5.Analyses and results
    • 5.1Correlation between syntactic and information partition in Italian and English LDs and PRs
    • 5.2Discourse functions of Italian and English LDs and PRs
      • 5.2.1Informationally partitioned LMSs: Topicalizing and counter-expectative functions
      • 5.2.2Informationally non-partitioned LMSs: Presentative function and emphatic use
    • 5.3The textual prominence hypothesis
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion: Towards a typological perspective
    • 6.1Disproving the topic-marking hypothesis in a typological perspective
    • 6.2The textual approach for discourse-sensitive typology
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.227.12cim
References (78)
References
Bally, Charles. 1932. Linguistique générale et linguistique francaise. Paris: Leroux.Google Scholar
Barotto, Alessandra & Mattiola, Simone. 2023. Discourse phenomena in typological perspective: An overview. Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective [Studies in Laguage Companion Series 227], Alessandra Barotto & Simone Mattiola (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumann, Stefan & Riester, Ardnt. 2012. Referential and lexical givenness: Semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects. In Prosody and Meaning, Elordieta Gorka & Prieto Pilar (eds), 119–162. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berretta, Monica. 1990. Catene anaforiche in prospettiva funzionale: Antecedenti difficili. Rivista di Linguistica 2(1): 91–120.Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano. 1985. Dislocazioni a sinistra’ e ‘grammatica’ dell’italiano parlato. In Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana d’uso. Teorie e applicazioni descrittive, Annalisa Franchi De Bellis & Maria Savoia Leonardo (eds), 59–82. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Also published as Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 2021. Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J. & Ward, Gregory. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 40]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano. 2013. The Syntax-prosody Interface from a Cartographic Perspective: Evidence from Italian [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 204]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonomi, Ilaria. 2002. L’italiano giornalistico. Dall’inizio del ’900 ai quotidiani on line. Firenze: Cesati.Google Scholar
Campione, Estelle, Véronis, Jean & Deulofeu, José. 2005. The French corpus. In C-ORAL-ROM. Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 15], Emanuela Cresti & Massimo Moneglia (eds), 111–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cavalcante, Frederico Amorim. 2015. The Topic Unit in Spontaneous American English. A Corpus-based Study. PhD dissertation, UFMG, Belo Horizonte.
Cavalcante, Frederico Amorim & Couto Ramos, Adriana. 2016. The American English spontaneous speech minicorpus. Architecture and comparability. CHIMERA: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies 3(2): 99–124.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
. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cimmino, Doriana. 2014. Fronting constructions and discursive antecedents. An Italian-English contrastive analysis. In Tra romanistica e germanistica: Lingua, testo, cognizione e cultura / Between Romance and Germanic: Language, Text, Cognition and Culture, Angela Ferrari, Iørn Korzen & Anna-Maria De Cesare (eds), 139–158. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2017. La topicalizzazione in italiano in prospettiva contrastiva con l’inglese: Il caso della scrittura giornalistica online. PhD dissertation, University of Basel.
Cimmino, Doriana & Panunzi, Alessandro. 2017. La variazione funzionale delle strutture marcate a sinistra in italiano. Uno studio su corpora tra parlato e scritto. Studi di Grammatica Italiana 36: 117–179.Google Scholar
Coleman, John, Baghai-Ravary, Ladan, Pybus, John & Grau Sergio. 2012. Audio BNC: The audio edition of the Spoken British National Corpus. Oxford: Phonetics Laboratory, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela. 2000. Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela & Moneglia, Massimo. 2010. The informational patterning theory and the corpus-based description of spoken language. The compositional issue in topic-comment pattern. In Proceedings of 3rd International LABLITA Work-Shop in Corpus Linguistics. Bootstrapping Information from Corpora in a Cross Linguistic Perspective, Massimo Moneglia & Alessandro Panunzi (eds), 13–46. Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
. 2018a. The definition of the TOPIC within language into Act Theory and its identification in spontaneous speech corpora. Revue Romane 53(1): 30–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. Prosodic segmentation and functional correlations: The case of Japanese. Journal of Speech Sciences 7(2): 31–50.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2021. Topicalization in the Romance languages. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. [URL] (19 April 2021). DOI logo
Daneš, František. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organisation of the text. In Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, František Daneš (ed), 106–128. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2019. CONTRAST-IT e COMPARE-IT. Due nuovi corpora per l’italiano contemporaneo. CHIMERA. Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies 6: 43–74.Google Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria & Ferrari, Angela. 2010. The interface language-text: The example of Thematic progression. In Bootstrapping Information from Corpora in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Massimo Moneglia & Alessandro Panunzi (eds), 47–71. Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria, Garassino, Davide, Agar Marco, Rocío, Albom, Ana & Cimmino, Doriana. 2016. Sintassi marcata dell’italiano dell’uso medio in prospettiva contrastiva con il francese, lo spagnolo, il tedesco e l’inglese. Uno studio basato sulla scrittura dei quotidiani online. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro & Ochs, Elinor. 1979. Left dislocation in Italian conversation. In Discourse and Syntax, Talmy Givón (ed), 377–418. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, Angela. 2003. Le ragioni del testo. Aspetti sintattici e interpuntivi dell’italiano contemporaneo. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
. 2014. The Basel Model for paragraph segmentation: The construction units, their relationships and linguistic indication. In Discourse Segmentation in Romance Languages [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 250], Salvador Pons Borderia (ed), 23–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. In preparation. Linguistica do texto. Princípios, fenômenos, estruturas, translated from Linguistica del testo. Principi, fenomeni, strutture (Zucchi, Angela, Brasile).
Ferrari, Angela & De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2009. La progressione tematica rivisitata. Vox Romanica 68: 98–128.Google Scholar
Ferrari, Angela, Cignetti, Luca, De Cesare, Anna-Maria, Lala, Letizia, Mandelli, Magda, Ricci, Claudia & Roggia, Enrico. 2008. L’interfaccia lingua-testo. Natura e funzioni dell’articolazione informativa dell’enunciato. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Ferrari, Angela & Borreguero Zuloaga, Margarita. 2015. La interfaz lengua-texto. Un modelo de estructura informativa. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.Google Scholar
Firenzuoli, Valentina & Signorini, Sabrina. 2003. L’unità informativa di topic: correlati intonativi. In La coarticolazione. Atti delle XIII giornate di studio del Gruppo di Fonetica Sperimentale, 28–30 nov. 2002, Giovanna Marotta & Nadia Nocchi (eds), 177–184. Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2017. Dislocations and framings. In Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, Andreas Dufter & Elisabeth Stark (eds), 472–501. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara, & Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garassino, Davide & Jacob, Daniel. 2018. Polarity focus and non-canonical syntax in Italian, French and Spanish: Clitic left dislocation and sì che / sí que-constructions. In The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrasts: Theoretical, Empirical, and Typological Approaches [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 249], Christine Dimroth & Stefan Sudhoff, 227–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 273]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez-González, María A. 1997. On theme, topic and givenness: The state of the art. Moenia 3: 135–155.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part I. Journal of Linguistics 3: 37–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
’t Hart, Johan, Collier, René, Cohen, Antonie. 1990. A Perceptual Study on Intonation. An Experimental Approach to Speech Melody. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1): 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus & Schumacher, Petra B. 2019. Discourse prominence: Definition and application. Journal of Pragmatics 154: 117–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York NY: The Macmillan Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakubíček, Miloš, Kilgarriff, Adam, Kovář, Vojtěch, Rychlý, Pavel, & Suchomel, Vít. 2013. The TenTen corpus family. In 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference CL, 125–127.Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2012. Is there anyone out there who is interested in the speaker? Language and Dialogue 2(2): 285–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Baisa, Vít, Bušta, Jan, Jakubíček, Miloš, Kovář, Vojtěch, Michelfeit, Jan, Rychlý, Pavel & Suchomel, Vít. 2014. The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography 1: 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreyer, Rolf. 2006. Inversion in Modern Written English: Syntactic Complexity, Information Status and the Creative Writer. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Dislocation. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, Vol. 2, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkeard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1050–1078. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Manetta, Emily. 2007. Unexpected left dislocation: An English corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics 39(5): 1029–1035. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Philippe. 2018. Winpitch W10. Pitch Instruments.Google Scholar
Masini, Francesca & Mattiola, Simone. 2019. Come fare tipologia con categorie non tradizionali? In CLUB – Working Papers in Linguistics 3, Chiara Gianollo & Caterina Mauri (eds), 282–294. Bologna: AMS-Acta.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Wedgwood, Daniel. 2013. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49(1): 127–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattiola, Simone. 2020. Tipologia e ambiguità verso una tipologia orientate al discorso. Quaderni di Semantica S1: 197–222.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Mairi. 2011. When written is spoken: Dislocation and the oral code. Journal of French Language Studies 21(2): 209–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Nouns Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolás, Carlota & Lombán, Marina. 2018. Mini-corpus del español para DB-IPIC. Chimera: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies 5(2): 95–113.Google Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel. 2018. Tracing the sources of Information Structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics 138: 77–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Multifactorial Information Management (MIM): summing up the emerging alternative to Information Structure. Linguistics Vanguard 7(1): 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panunzi, Alessandro. 2015. Perspectives on the semantic variation of copular sentences. Lingue e Linguaggio 1(2): 163–78.Google Scholar
Panunzi, Alessandro & Gregori, Lorenzo. 2012. DB-IPIC. An XML database for the representation of Information Structure in spoken language. In Pragmatics and Prosody, Illocution, Modality, Attitude, Information Patterning and Speech Annotation, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi & Tommaso Raso. 133–150, Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
Pekarek-Doehler, Simona, De Stefani, Elwys & Anne-Sylvie Horlacher. 2015. Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 28]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Topicalization, Focus-movement, and Yiddish-movement: A pragmatic differentiation. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Danny K. Alford (ed), 249–264. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
. 1984. Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional analysis. In Discourses in Reading and Linguistics [Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 433], Sheila J. White & Virginia Teller (eds), 213–225. New York NY: The New York Academy of Sciences. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization. In Syntax and Semantics 29: The Limits of Syntax, Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds), 281–302. San Diego CA: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Raso, Tommaso & Mello, Heliana (eds). 2014. Spoken Corpora and Linguistic Studies [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 61], Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topic. Philosophica 27: 53–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Scarano, Antonietta. 2009. The prosodic annotation of C-ORAL-ROM and the structure of information in spoken language. In Information Structures and its Interfaces, Lunella Mereu (ed), 51–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna. 1981. Sul parlato. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
. 2006. Topic and comment. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 12 (2nd edn), Keith Brown (ed), 766–773. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarze, Christoph. 2009. Grammatica della lingua italiana. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Tizón-Couto, David. 2012. Left Dislocation in English: A Functional-discoursal Approach. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory L. 1988. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Preposing. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Westbury, Josh. 2016. Left dislocation: A typological overview. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 50: 21–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar