Cover not available
Part of
Existential Constructions across Languages: Forms, meanings and functions
Edited by Laure Sarda and Ludovica Lena
[Human Cognitive Processing 76] 2023
► pp. 139–179

Chapter 5
Presentational clefts, existentials and information structure

A comparative perspective on French and Italian

ORCID logo | Sorbonne Université, Unité de recherche STIH, France
ORCID logo | KU Leuven, Belgium
Presentational c’è / il y a clefts in Italian and French have been argued to differ from the existential and locative constructions they derive from by their syntactic, semantic and information-structural properties: they would invariably convey sentence-focus. In the present study, we argue for a unitary treatment of all c’è / il y a constructions, whose meaning is locational-existential, and whose discourse function is to present the nominal argument as non-topical. This analysis de-particularizes presentational clefts with respect to locative and existential c’è / il y a constructions and accounts for the fact that, rather than conveying invariably sentence-focus, they present the same variety of information structure articulations as the non-cleft c’è / il y a constructions.
Keywords: cleft sentences, existential predication, French, information structure, Italian, location, presentational sentences
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Semantic and pragmatic properties of existential sentences
    • 2.1A semantic approach of the relationships between existence, possession and location
    • 2.2Labeling of categories and relationships between categories: Some problems
    • 2.3Towards a semantic-pragmatic approach of the relationships between existence, possession and location
    • 2.4Towards a more accurate account of information structure
  • 3.Cruschina’s classification of c’è sentences in Italian (Cruschina 2012, 2015, 2018)
    • 3.1Four types of c’è sentences
    • 3.2Again on labels and delimitation of categories
    • 3.3The locative pronoun ci and its relationship with the locative coda
  • 4.Decomposing a hybrid typology
    • 4.1The referential properties of the pronoun ci
    • 4.2The semantic features of location, existence and presentation
    • 4.3The (in)definiteness of the pivot or locatum and the nature of the coda
    • 4.4Information-structural properties of the constructions
  • 5.C’è/il y a sentences and information structure
    • 5.1Sentence-focus
    • 5.2Narrow focus on the pivot
    • 5.3Double contrast
    • 5.4Our proposal: Three information-structural (IS) articulations, one semantic location-existence zone
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • List of abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 5 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.76.05car
References (79)
References
Abbott, B. 1992. Definiteness, existentials, and the ‘list’ interpretation. In C. Barker, & D. Dowty (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory II (1–16). Columbus: Ohio State University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences. Journal of Pragmatics 19(1), 39–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Achard, M. 1998. Representation of Cognitive Structures: Syntax and semantics of French Sentential Complements. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, D., Francez, I. & Levinson, D. 2006. Bad subject. (Non-)canonicality and NP distribution in existentials. In E. Georgala, & J. Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 15 (19–43). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 1988. L’ordine degli elementi della frase. Costruzioni con ordinemarcato degli elementi. In L. Renzi (Ed.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. Volume 1: La frase. I sintagmi nominale e preposizionale (129–194). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Bentley, D. 2004. Definiteness effects: evidence from Sardinian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102(1), 57–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Subject canonicality and definiteness effects in Romance there-entences. Language 89(4), 675–712. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, D., Ciconte, F. M., & Cruschina, S. 2015. Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, D., & Cruschina, S. 2018. The silent argument of broad focus: Typology and predictions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1), 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berretta, M. 1995. Come inseriamo elementi nuovi nel discorso /1. “C’è il gatto che ha fame”. Italiano e Oltre, 53, 79–105.Google Scholar
Berruto, G. 1986. Un tratto sintattico dell’italiano parlato: Il c’è presentativo. In K. Lichem, E. Mara, & S. Knaller (Eds.), Parallela 2. Aspetti della sintassi dell’italiano contemporaneo (61–73). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1977. Meaning and Form. New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlier, A. 2005. « Ce sont des anglais »: un accord avec l’attribut? (Seconde partie). L’Information Grammaticale, 104, 4–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casalicchio, J. 2013. The pseudo-relatives and other correspondent constructions in the Romance languages. In I. Windhaber, & P. Anreiter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Austrian Students’ Conference of Linguistics (64–84). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Clark, E. 1978. Locationals. Existential, locative and possessive constructions. In: J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Human Language (85–126). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Corr, A. 2016. Wide-focus subject-verb inversion in Ibero-Romance: A locative account. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(11), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coy, C. 2016. Existentials in relative clauses. A contrastive corpus study of Spanish haber and French y avoir. In C. De Benito Moreno, & A. S. O. De Toledo y Huerta (Eds.), En torno a haber: Construcciones, usos y variación desde el latín hasta la actualidad (191–207). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Creissels, D. 2019. Inverse-locational predication in typological perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 31(2), 37–106.Google Scholar
This volume. Existential predication and have-possessive constructions in the languages of the world. In Sarda, L. & Lena, L. (Eds.), Existential constructions across languages: Forms, meanings and functions (34–67). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cruschina, S. 2012. Focus in Existential Sentences. In V. Bianchi, & C. Chesi (Eds.), Enjoy Linguistics! Papers offered to Luigi Rizzi on the occasion of his 60th birthday (77–107). Siena: CISCL Press.Google Scholar
2015. Focus structure. In D. Bentley, F. M. Ciconte, & S. Cruschina (Eds.), Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy (43–98). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Setting the boundaries. Presentational ci-sentences in Italian. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 32, 53–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidse, K. 2014. On specificational there-clefts. Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics, 1–34.Google Scholar
Davidse, K. & Kimps, D. 2016. Specificational there-clefts: Functional structure and information structure. English Text Construction 9(1), 115–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidse, K. & Lahousse, K. 2014. Specificational existential clefts in French and English. Round Table on Communicative Dynamism. Cardiff, UK: 4–5 September 2014.Google Scholar
De Cesare, A.-M. 2007. Sul cosidetto ‘c’è presentativo’. Forme e funzioni. In A.-M. De Cesare, & D. Garassino. 2016. (Eds.), Current Issues in Romance Non-Canonical Word Orders. Syntax – Information Structure – Discourse Organization. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
De Cesare, A.-M., Garassino, D., Agar Marco, R., Albom, A., & Cimmino, D. 2016. (Eds.), 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. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., & Beyssade, C. 2004. Définir les indéfinis. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Dufter, A. 2006. Zwischen Kompositionalität und Konventionalisierung. Satzspaltung mit c’est im Französischen der Gegenwart. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 57, 31–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. On explaining the rise of c’est-clefts in French. In U. Detges, & R. Waltereit (Eds.), The Paradox of Grammatical Change. Perspectives from Romance (31–56). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Clefting and discourse organization. Comparing Germanic and Romance. In A. Dufter, & D. Jacob (Eds.), Focus and Background in Romance Languages (83–121). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Francez, I. 2007. Existential Propositions. PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Giry-Schneider, J. 1988. L’interprétation événementielle des phrases en il y a. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 12(1), 85–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hazout, I. 2004. The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 393–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K. 1992. Non-Verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, T., & Helasvuo, M.-L. 2015. On the subject of subject in Finnish. In M.-L. Helasvuo and T. Huumo (Eds.), Subjects in Constructions: Canonical and Non-Canonical Constructional Approaches to Language 16 (13–41). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. A. 1993. Sardinian Syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jullien, S. 2007. Prosodic, syntactic and semantico-pragmatic parameters as clues for projection. The case of il y a. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française, 28, 279–297.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, L. 2016a. French il y a clefts, existential sentences and the focus-marking hypothesis. Journal of French Language Studies 27(3), 405–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b. Il n’y a que Superman qui porte le slip par-dessus le pantalon. Les clivées en il n’y a que x qui. 5e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française 27 (1–14). Les Ulis: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, L., Marzo, S., Lahousse, K. & Guglielmo, D. 2017. There’s more to Italian c’è clefts than expressing all-focus. Italian Journal of Linguistics 29(2), 57–86.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, L. 2018. Non-prototypical Clefts in French: A Corpus Analysis of “il y a” Clefts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karssenberg, L., & Lahousse, K. 2018. On the different interpretations of sentence-initial ainsi ‘so’ and the competition between three types of verb–subject order. Folia Linguistica 52(1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, P. 2012. Location, existence, and possession: A constructional-typological exploration. Linguistics, 50, 533–603. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
La Fauci, N., & Loporcaro, M. 1993. Grammatical relations and syntactic levels in Bonorvese morphosyntax. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Syntactic Theory and the Dialects of Italy (155–203). Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Lahousse, K. 2006. NP subject inversion in French. Two types, two configurations. Lingua 116(4), 424–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Implicit stage topics. A case study in French. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique, 1, 1–18.Google Scholar
2011. Quand passent les cigognes: Le sujet nominal postverbal en français moderne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1986. Pragmatically motivated syntax. Presentational cleft constructions in spoken French. In A. M. Farley, P. T. Farley, & K.-E. McCullough (Eds.), 22nd Conference of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory (115–126). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1988. Presentational cleft constructions in spoken French. In J. Haiman, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse (135–179). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: 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
Léard, J.-M. 1992. Les gallicismes. Étude syntaxique et sémantique. Paris & Leuven: Duculot. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M. 2008. Definiteness effects and the role of the coda in existential constructions. In H. H. Müller, & A. Klinge (Eds.), Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management (131–162). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1967. A Note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3(4), 390–396.Google Scholar
Marzo, S., & Crocco, C. 2015. Tipicità delle costruzioni presentative per l’italiano neostandard. Revue Romane 50(1), 30–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meulleman, M. 2012. Degrees of grammaticalization in three Romance languages: A comparative analysis of existential constructions. Folia Linguistica 46(2), 417–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milsark, G. L. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis, 3, 1–29.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 38 (178–189). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinto, M. 1997. Licensing and Interpretation of Inverted Subjects in Italian. Utrecht: UiL OTS Dissertation series.
Pitavy, C. 2009. “Y a-t-il un chien qui aboie … dans les didascalies ?” Theatrical discourse and enunciation. Review of Interdisciplinary Centre for Studies of Contemporary Discursive Forms, 4, 123–146.Google Scholar
Rando, E., & Napoli, D. J. 1978. Definites in there-sentences. Language 54(2), 300–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, M. 2006. The EPP and Null Subjects in Romance. Newcastle: University of Newcastle dissertation.
2010. ‘Free’ inversion in Romance and the Null Subject Parameter. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts, & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in Minimalist Theory (231–262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2016. Subjects, null subjects and expletives in Romance. In S. Fischer, & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance (329–362). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Tortora, C. 1997. The Syntax and Semantics of the Weak Locatives. Newark, DE: University of Delaware dissertation.
2001. Evidence for a null locative in Italian. In G. Cinque, & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi (313–326). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2014. A Comparative Grammar of Borgomanerese. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verwimp, L., & Lahousse, K. 2016. Definite il y a-clefts in spoken French. Journal of French Language Studies 27(3), 263–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villalba, X. 2013. Eventive existentials in Catalan and the topic-focus articulation. Italian Journal of Linguistics 25(1), 147–173.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1984. There-insertion. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 131–53.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lena, Ludovica
2024. Encoding indefinite human reference without indefinite pronouns: the case of Chinese presentationals. Folia Linguistica DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 september 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.