Cover not available
Article published In:
Non-prototypical clefts
Edited by Lena Karssenberg, Karen Lahousse, Béatrice Lamiroy, Stefania Marzo and Ana Drobnjakovic
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 32] 2018
► pp. 53–85

Setting the boundaries

Presentational ci-sentences in Italian

| University of Vienna
Constructions that are typically used to introduce a new referent into the discourse may extend this function so as to introduce a new event or situation. In this paper, I examine the case of presentational ci-sentences in Italian, which have developed exactly this new function out of existential sentences. Despite being superficially similar to existential sentences, as well as to clefts, presentational ci-sentences must be kept separate from both sentence types, and must be treated as an independent construction with distinct structural and functional properties. Unlike existentials, presentational ci-sentences assert the existence of an event or situation and involve a predicational structure characterized by a CP (the relative clause) that functions as the predicate of the DP. Unlike clefts, which are typically used to mark narrow focus, presentational ci-sentences display a sentence-focus structure whereby the event is presented as all new. A contrastive analysis of presentational ci-sentences against existentials and clefts will thus allow us not only to understand the exact boundaries between these constructions, but also to identify more precisely the distinctive characteristic properties of each sentence type.
Keywords: presentational, cleft, existential, locative, focus, Italian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1PCS as non-prototypical clefts
    • 1.2Aims and structure of the paper
  • 2.Types of ci-sentences in Italian
    • 2.1 Ci as pro-argument
    • 2.2 Ci as pro-predicate
    • 2.3Presentational ci
  • 3.A comparison with existential and locative ci-sentences
    • 3.1The existential basis
    • 3.2Existentials and locatives with a CP
  • 4.The functions of the PCS construction
    • 4.1The focusing function of PCSs: A comparison with clefts
    • 4.2Pragmatic functions and uses of PCSs
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00016.cru
References (69)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 1992. “Definiteness, existentials, and the ‘list’ interpretation.” In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory II1, ed. by Chris Barker, and David Dowty, 1–16. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
. 1993. “A pragmatic account of the Definiteness Effect in existential sentences.” Journal of Pragmatics 191: 39–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Delia, and Silvio Cruschina. 2016. “Existential Constructions”. In Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance, ed. by Susann Fischer, and Christoph Gabriel, 487–516. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Delia, Francesco Maria Ciconte, and Silvio Cruschina. 2015. Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2004. “Definiteness effects: evidence from Sardinian”. Transactions of the Philological Society 102 (1): 57–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Sui costrutti esistenziali sardi. Effetti di definitezza, deissi, evidenzialità.” Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie 127 (1): 111–140.Google Scholar
Berretta, Monica. 1995. “Come inseriamo elementi nuovi nel discorso/1: ‘C’è il gatto che ha fame’.” Italiano e Oltre 101: 212–217.Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano. 1986. “Un tratto sintattico dell’italiano parlato: il c’è presentativo.” In Parallela 2. Aspetti della sintassi dell’italiano contemporaneo, ed. by Klaus Lichem, Edith Mara, and Susanne Knaller, 61–73. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Giuliano Bocci, and Silvio Cruschina. 2015. “Focus fronting and its implicatures.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2013: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Amsterdam 2013, ed. by Enoch Aboh, Jeannette Schaeffer, and Petra Sleeman, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and evaluative implicatures.” Semantics and Pragmatics 9 (3): 1–54.Google Scholar
Bicler, Chris, and Kristin Davidse. 2008. “It-clefts in casual conversational English: The weakening of their specificational meaning”. In Distinctions in English Grammar. Offered to Renaat Declerck, ed. by Bert Cappelle, and Naoaki Wada, 260–277. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. “A look at equations and cleft sentences”. In Studies for Einar Haugen Presented by his Friends and Colleagues, ed. by Evelyn Scherabon Firchow, Kaaren Grimstad, Nils Hasselmo, and Wayne O’Neill, 96–114. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir, and Barbara Partee. 2001. “The Russian genitive of negation in existentials sentences: The role of Theme-Rheme structure reconsidered.” In Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague, vol. 41, ed. by Eva Hajičová, Petr Sgall, Jiři Hana, and Tomáš Hoskovec, 185–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Casalicchio, Jan. 2013. Pseudorelative, gerundi e infiniti nelle varietà romanze: somiglianze (solo) superficiali e corrispondenze strutturali. München: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter C. 1992. “Cleft existentials in English”. Language Sciences 14(4): 419–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2012a. “Focus in Existential Sentences.” In Enjoy Linguistics! Papers Offered to Luigi Rizzi on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, ed. by Valentina Bianchi, and Cristiano Chesi, 77–107. Siena: CISCL Press, <[URL]>.
. 2012b. Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Existential and locative constructions in Italo-Romance”. l’Italia Dialettale 751: 55–80.Google Scholar
. 2015a. “Patterns of variation in existential constructions”. Isogloss. A journal on variation of Romance and Iberian languages 1(1): 33–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. “Focus Structure”. In Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy, Delia Bentley, Francesco Maria Ciconte, and Silvio Cruschina, 43–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015c. “Some notes on clefting and fronting.” In Structures, Strategies and Beyond. Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini, 181–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Pseudo-existentials and Definiteness Effects in Italian.” In Definiteness Effects: Bilingual, Typological and Diachronic Variation, ed. by Susann Fischer, Tanja Kupisch, and Esther Rinke, 120–148. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 1999. “The semantics of cardinal versus enumerative existential constructions”. Cognitive Linguistics 10(3): 203–250.Google Scholar
. 2014. “On specificational there-clefts”. Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics 151: 1–34.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, and Ditte Kimps. 2016. “Specificational there-clefts: Functional structure and information structure”. English Text Construction 9(1): 115–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2007. “Sul cosidetto ‘c’è presentativo’. Forme e funzioni.” Lessico, grammatica e testualità, tra italiano scritto e parlato, ed. by Anna-Maria De Cesare, and Angela Ferrari, 127–153. Basel: University of Basel.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Cleft constructions”. In Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, ed. by Andreas Dufter, and Elisabeth Stark, 536–568. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Cleſts and Pseudo-clefts. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald P. 1995. “The inferential construction”. Pragmatics 5(3): 341–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. “Discourse functions of inferential sentences”. Linguistics 39(3): 517–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delahunty, Gerald P., and Laura Gatzkiewicz. 2000. “On the Spanish inferential construction ser que ”. Pragmatics 10(3): 301–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny, Georges Rebuschi, and Annie Rialland. 2004. “Cleft Sentences”. In Handbook of French Semantics, ed. by Francis Corblin, and Henriëtte de Swart, 529–552. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dufter, Andreas. 2009. “Clefting and discourse organization: Comparing Germanic and Romance.” In Focus and Background in Romance Languages, ed. by Andreas Dufter, and Daniel Jacob, 83–121. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francez, Itamar. 2007. Existential Propositions. PhD Dissertation, Stanford.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Context dependence and implicit arguments in existentials.” Linguistics and Philosophy 33(1): 11–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara, and Francesca Ramaglia. 2013. “(Pseudo)clefts at the syntax-prosody-discourse interface.” In Cleft Structures, ed. by Katharina Hartmann, and Tonjes Veenstra, 97–137. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “The interpretation of clefting (a)symmetries between Italian and German.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2012. Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ Leuven 2012, ed. by Karen Lahousse, and Stefania Marzo, 65–89. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., and Thorstein Fretheim. 2004. “Topic and focus”. In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn, and Gregory L. Ward, 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hazout, Ilan. 2004. “The syntax of existential constructions.” Linguistic Inquiry 351: 393–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy Ann. 1990. Discourse Pragmatics and Cleft Sentences in English. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Multiple focus and cleft sentences”. In Cleft Structures, ed. by Katharina Hartmann, and Tonjes Veenstra, 227–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy. 2000. “The referential status of clefts.” Language 761: 891–920. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1937. Analytic Syntax. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena. 2018. Non-Prototypical Clefts in French: A corpus analysis of il y a clefts [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 424]. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena, and Karen Lahousse. 2018. “The information structure of French il y a clefts and c’est clefts: a corpus-based analysis”. Linguistics 56(3): 513–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena, Stefania Marzo, Karen Lahousse, and Daniela Guglielmo. 2017. “There’s more to Italian c’è clefts than expressing all-focus”. Italian Journal of Linguistics 29(2): 57–85.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena. 2017. “French il y a clefts, existential sentences and the focus-marking hypothesis”. Journal of French Language Studies 27(3): 405–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1999. “The English Cleft Construction as a Focus Phrase.” In Boundaries of Morphology and Syntax, ed. by Lunella Mereu, 217–229. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 2008. “The topic situation”. In Empirische Forschung und Theoriebildung: Beiträge aus Soziolinguistik, Gesprochene-Sprache- und Zweitspracherwerbsforschung: Festschrift für Norbert Dittmar, ed. by Bernt Ahrenholz, Ursula Bredel, Wolfgang Klein, Martina Rost-Roth, and Romuald Skiba, 287–305. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. “Basic notions of information structure.” In The Notions of Information Structure, ed. by Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow, and Manfred Krifka, 13–55. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Lahousse, Karen, and Marijke Borremans. 2014. “The distribution of functional-pragmatic types of clefts in adverbial clauses”. Linguistics 52(3): 793–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1988. “Presentational cleft constructions in spoken French.” In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by John Haiman, and Sandra Thompson, 135–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions.” Linguistics 39(3): 463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Topic, focus, and secondary predication. The French Presentational Relative Construction.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000, ed. by Claire Beyssade, Reineke Bok-Bennema, Frank Drijkoningen, and Paola Monachesi, 171–212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 2008. “Definiteness effects and the role of the coda in existential constructions.” In Essays on Nominal Determination, ed. by Henrik Høeg Müller, and Alex Klinge, 131–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marten, Lutz. 2013. “Structure and interpretation in Swahili existential constructions.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 251: 45–73.Google Scholar
Marzo, Stefania, and Claudia Crocco. 2015. “Tipicità delle costruzioni presentative per l’italiano neostandard.” Revue Romane 50(1): 30–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1997. A Semantics for the English Existential Construction. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Existential sentences.” In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 21, ed. by Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, 1829–1848. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary L. 1979. Existential Sentences in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara, and Vladimir Borschev. 2002. “Genitive of negation and scope of negation in Russian existential sentences.” In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting 2001 (FASL 10), ed. by Jindrich Toman, 181–200. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Existential sentences, BE, and the genitive of negation in Russian.” In Existence: Semantics and Syntax, ed. by Ileana Comorovski, and Klaus von Heusinger, 147–190. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1978. “A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse”. Language 54(4): 883–906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roggia, Carlo Enrico. 2009. Le frasi scisse in italiano. Struttura informativa e funzioni discorsive. Geneva: Slatkine.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. “A theory of focus interpretation.” Natural Language Semantics 11: 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna. 2010. “La rappresentazione delle strutture locativo-esistenziali in un corpus di italiano. Uno studio sull’analizzabilità strutturale del discorso parlato.” Vox Romanica 691: 111–140.Google Scholar
Villalba, Xavier. 2013. “Eventive existentials in Catalan and the topic-focus articulation.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 251: 147–173.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Lena, Ludovica
2024. Encoding indefinite human reference without indefinite pronouns: the case of Chinese presentationals. Folia Linguistica 0:0 DOI logo
Agulló, Jorge
2023. Existential Constructions, Definiteness Effects, and Linguistic Contact: At the Crossroads between Spanish and Catalan. Languages 9:1 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Belligh, Thomas, Ludovic De Cuypere & Claudia Crocco
2023. Alternating Italian thetic and sentence-focus constructions. Revue Romane. Langue et littérature. International Journal of Romance Languages and Literatures 58:2 ► pp. 246 ff. DOI logo
Carlier, Anne & Karen Lahousse
2023. Chapter 5. Presentational clefts, existentials and information structure. In Existential Constructions across Languages [Human Cognitive Processing, 76], ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Sarda, Laure & Ludovica Lena
2023. Chapter 1. Existential constructions. In Existential Constructions across Languages [Human Cognitive Processing, 76], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Belligh, Thomas & Claudia Crocco
2022. Theticity and sentence-focus in Italian: grammatically encoded categories or categories of language use?. Linguistics 60:4 ► pp. 1241 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Yong
2021. Entity- vs. event-existentials: A new typology. Australian Journal of Linguistics 41:2 ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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.