Chapter 5
Presentational clefts, existentials and information structure
A comparative perspective on French and Italian
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.
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
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Abbott, B. 1993. A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences. Journal of Pragmatics 19(1), 39–55. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Achard, M. 1998. Representation of Cognitive Structures: Syntax and semantics of French Sentential Complements. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bentley, D. 2004. Definiteness effects: evidence from Sardinian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102(1), 57–101. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bentley, D. 2013. Subject canonicality and definiteness effects in Romance there-entences. Language 89(4), 675–712. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bentley, D., Ciconte, F. M., & Cruschina, S. 2015. Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bickerton, D. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bolinger, D. 1977. Meaning and Form. New York: Longmans.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carlier, A. 2005. « Ce sont des anglais »: un accord avec l’attribut? (Seconde partie). L’Information Grammaticale, 104, 4–14. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Creissels, D. 2019. Inverse-locational predication in typological perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 31(2), 37–106.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Creissels, D. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cruschina, S. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davidse, K. 2014. On specificational there-clefts. Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics, 1–34.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., & Beyssade, C. 2004. Définir les indéfinis. Paris: CNRS.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dufter, A. 2006. Zwischen Kompositionalität und Konventionalisierung. Satzspaltung mit c’est im Französischen der Gegenwart. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 57, 31–59. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erteschik-Shir, N. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Francez, I. 2007. Existential Propositions. PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Hazout, I. 2004. The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 393–430. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, B. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hengeveld, K. 1992. Non-Verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jones, M. A. 1993. Sardinian Syntax. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Karssenberg, L. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Karssenberg, L. 2018. Non-prototypical Clefts in French: A Corpus Analysis of “il y a” Clefts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Koch, P. 2012. Location, existence, and possession: A constructional-typological exploration. Linguistics, 50, 533–603. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lahousse, K. 2006. NP subject inversion in French. Two types, two configurations. Lingua 116(4), 424–461. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lahousse, K. 2008. Implicit stage topics. A case study in French. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique, 1, 1–18.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lahousse, K. 2011. Quand passent les cigognes: Le sujet nominal postverbal en français moderne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrecht, K. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39(3), 463–516. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Léard, J.-M. 1992. Les gallicismes. Étude syntaxique et sémantique. Paris & Leuven: Duculot. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lyons, J. 1967. A Note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3(4), 390–396.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meulleman, M. 2012. Degrees of grammaticalization in three Romance languages: A comparative analysis of existential constructions. Folia Linguistica 46(2), 417–451. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Milsark, G. L. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis, 3, 1–29.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Perlmutter, D. M. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 38 (178–189). ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rando, E., & Napoli, D. J. 1978. Definites in there-sentences. Language 54(2), 300–313. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sheehan, M. 2006. The EPP and Null Subjects in Romance. Newcastle: University of Newcastle dissertation.
Sheehan, M. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sheehan, M. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tortora, C. 1997. The Syntax and Semantics of the Weak Locatives. Newark, DE: University of Delaware dissertation.
Tortora, C. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tortora, C. 2014. A Comparative Grammar of Borgomanerese. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verwimp, L., & Lahousse, K. 2016. Definite il y a-clefts in spoken French. Journal of French Language Studies 27(3), 263–290. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Villalba, X. 2013. Eventive existentials in Catalan and the topic-focus articulation. Italian Journal of Linguistics 25(1), 147–173.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Williams, E. 1984. There-insertion. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 131–53.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 0:0
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.