Cover not available
Article published In:
Revue Romane
Vol. 58:2 (2023) ► pp.246–277
articles linguistiques

Alternating Italian thetic and sentence-focus constructions

A case study

| Ghent University
| Ghent University
ORCID logo | Ghent University
In this article we study the alternation between the two most prominent Italian thetic and sentence-focus constructions, viz. the Syntactic Inversion Construction (henceforth: SIC), e.g. Arriva il treno (‘The train is arriving’), and the Presentational Cleft (henceforth: PC), e.g. C’è il treno che arriva (‘The train is arriving’). Based on the existing literature on the two constructions and drawing inspiration from a number of cognitive-functional hypotheses pertaining to constraints on the amount of referentially new constituents that can be conveyed in a single clause, we put forward the hypothesis that Italian language users are more likely to prefer the PC over the SIC if the utterance involves a high number of referentially new constituents. To assess this hypothesis, we constructed a pilot experiment consisting of a 100-split forced choice task that was administered by means of an online questionnaire to 66 native speaker participants. The results of the experiment indicate that the preference for the PC indeed increases if the number of referentially new constituents is higher. This is however not the only factor involved in the alternation and the preference of the language users seems not only to be determined by the number of referentially new constituents, but also by their syntactic status.
Keywords: alternating constructions, theticity, sentence-focus, number of constituents, referential givenness, transitivity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1What are thetic and sentence-focus constructions?
    • 2.2Italian thetic and sentence-focus constructions
      • 2.2.1An overview of the constructions involved
      • 2.2.2The syntactic inversion construction
      • 2.2.3The presentational cleft
      • 2.2.4A remark regarding multifunctionality
    • 2.3The alternation between the SIC and the PC
    • 2.4Hypothesis for the alternation between Italian PC and SIC
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Administration of the questionnaire and participant data
    • 3.2The experiment
      • 3.2.1The 100-split task
      • 3.2.2Items used
    • 3.3Statistical analysis
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Results
    • 4.2Discussion
    • 4.3Strengths, limitations and possible avenues for future research
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.16006.bel
References (70)
References
Abraham, W., E. Leiss & Y. Fujinawa. (2020). Thetics and Categoricals ( Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today 262 ). John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baten, K. & L. De Cuypere. (2014). The dative alternation in L2 German: conceptualization transfer from L1 Dutch . Vial-vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 111: 9–40.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (2004). Aspects of the low IP area. In The structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Vol. 2, ed. by L. Rizzi, 16–51. Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Extended doubling and VP periphery. Probus 17(1): 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Revisiting the cartography of (Italian) postverbal subjects from different angles with reference to canonicality considerations. Italian Journal of Linguistics 301: 37–58.Google Scholar
Belligh, T. (2018). The role of referential givenness in Dutch alternating presentational constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 321: 21–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b). Are theticity and sentence-focus encoded grammatical categories of Dutch?, In: Abraham W., E. Leiss & Y. Fujinawa (ed.): Thetics and Categoricals (Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today 262), 33–68. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belligh, T. & K. Willems. (2021). What’s in a code? The code-inference distinction in Neo-Gricean Pragmatics, Relevance Theory, and Integral Linguistics. Language Sciences 83(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belligh, T. & C. Crocco. (2022). Theticity and sentence-focus in Italian: grammatically encoded categories or categories of language use? Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benincà, P. (1988). L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate, in: Renzi, L., G. Salvi & A. Cardinaletti (eds.): Grande grammatica di consultazione, 129–194. Il Mulino, Bologna.Google Scholar
Bentley, D. (2006). Split Intransitivity in Italian. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). On thetic broad focus. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice LXXI/11: 5–23.Google Scholar
Bentley, D., F. M. Ciconte & S. Cruschina. (2015). Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy. Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, D. & S. Cruschina. (2018). The silent argument of broad focus: typology and predictions. Glossa 3(1): 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernini, G. (1995). Verb-subject order in Italian: an investigation of short announcements and telecast news. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 481: 44–71.Google Scholar
Berretta, M. (1995). Come inseriamo elementi nuovi nel discorso/1. Italiano e Oltre 531: 79–105.Google Scholar
Berruto, G. (1986). Un tratto sintattico dell’italiano parlato: il c’è presentativo, in: Lichem, K., E. Mara & S. Knaller (eds.): Parallela 2. Aspetti della sintassi dell’italiano contemporaneo, 61–73. Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, P. (1980). Die Stilistik der Subjektinversion im Italienisch. Italienische Studien 31: 119–131.Google Scholar
Bonvino, E. (2005). Le sujet postverbal en italien parlé: syntaxe, zones et intonation. Ophrys, Paris.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2007). Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation, in: Featherston, S. & W. Sternefeld (eds.): Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base, 77–96. de Gruyter Mouton, Berlin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. & M. Ford. (2010). Predicting syntax: processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86 (1): 168–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax: a Government-binding Approach. Reidel, Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. (2018). On different types of postverbal subjects in Italian. Italian Journal of Linguistics 30(2): 79–106.Google Scholar
Cennamo, M. (1995). Transitivity and VS order in Italian reflexives. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 481: 84–105.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow, in: Tomlin, R. (ed.): Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, 21–52. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: the Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1988). La frase relativa, in: Renzi, L. (ed.): Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. I, 443–503. il Mulino, Bologna.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S. (2012). Focus in existential sentences, In: Bianchi, V. & C. Chesi (eds.): Enjoy Linguistics! Papers Offered to Luigi Rizzi on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, 77–107. CISCL Press, Siena.Google Scholar
(2015). Focus structure, in: Bentley, D., F. Ciconte & S. Cruschina (eds.): Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy, 43–98. Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Setting the boundaries: presentational ci-sentences in Italian. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 321: 53–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cesare, A.-M. (2007). Sul cosidetto ‘c’è presentativo’. Forme e funzioni, in: De Cesare, A.-M. & A. Ferrari (eds.): Lessico, grammatica e testualità, tra italiano scritto e parlato, 127–153. University of Basel, Basel.Google Scholar
De Mauro, T., F. Mancini, M. Vedovelli & M. Voghera. (1993). Lessico di frequenza dell’italiano parlato. Etas, Milano.Google Scholar
De Vaere, H., J. Kolkmann & T. Belligh. (2020). Allostructions revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 1701: 96–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. (1980). Beyond definiteness: the trace of identity in discourse, in: Chafe, W. (ed.): The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, 203–274. Norwood, Ablex.Google Scholar
(1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63 (4): 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003a). Discourse and grammar, in: Tomasello, M. (ed.): The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, 47–87. Erlbaum, Mahwah.Google Scholar
(2003b). Argument structure: grammar in use, in: Du Bois, J. W., L. E. Kumpf & W. J. Ashby (eds.): Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function, 11–60. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997). The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fiorentino, G. (2005). La presentatività: Sulle tracce di una nozione. Book review. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (7): 1135–1139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, M. & J. Bresnan. (2013). Studying syntactic variation using convergent evidence from psycholinguistics and usage, in: Krug, M. & J. Schlüter (eds.): Research Methods in Language Variation and Change, 295–312. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forker, D. (2014). A canonical approach to the argument/adjunct distinction. Linguistic Discovery 121: 27–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1975). Focus and the scope of assertion. Studies in African Linguistics 6 (2): 185–205.Google Scholar
(1983). Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-language Study. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. (1988 [1974]). The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. Garland Publishing Company, New York.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. & T. Fretheim. (2004). Topic and focus, in: Horn, L. & G. Ward (eds.): The Handbook of Pragmatics, 175–196. Blackwell, Malden.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. & S. Thompson. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 561: 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karssenberg, L., S. Marzo, K. Lahousse & D. Gugliemo. (2017). There’s more to Italian c’è clefts than expressing all-focus. Italian Journal of Linguistics 29(2): 57–85.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (2008). Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 551: 243–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lahousse, K. & B. Lamiroy. (2012). Word order in French, Spanish and Italian: a grammaticalization account. Folia Linguistica 21: 387–415.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1987). Sentence-focus, information structure, and the thetic-categorical distinction. Berkeley Linguistics Society 131: 366–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). When subjects behave like objects. Studies in Language 241: 611–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marty, A. (1918). Gesammelte Schriften. Max Niemeyer Verlag, Halle.Google Scholar
Marzo, S. & C. Crocco. (2015). Tipicità delle costruzioni presentative per l’italiano neostandard. Revue Romane 501: 30–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matić, D. (2003). Topics, Presuppositions, and Theticity: An Empirical Study of Verb-Subject Clauses. Doctoral Dissertation. Universität Köln, Cologne.
Meulleman, M. (2012). Les localisateurs dans les constructions existentielles: approche comparée en espagnol, en français et en italien. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradisi, E. (1997). La radiocronaca calcistica come un testo. La struttura informativa, in: AA.VV (ed.): Gli italiani trasmessi: la radio, 148–165. Accademia della Crusca, Firenze.Google Scholar
Pinto, M. (1997). Licensing and Interpretation of Inverted Subjects in Italian. UiL OTS Dissertation series, Utrecht.
Sasse, H.-J. (1987). The thetic /categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 251: 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). ‘Theticity’ and VS Order: a Case Study, in: Matras, Y. & H.-J. Sasse (eds.): Verb-subject Order and Theticity in European Languages, 3–31. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Theticity, in: Bernini, G. & M. Schwartz (eds.): Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe, 255–308. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 761: 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sornicola, R. (1995). Theticity, VS order and the interplay of syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 481: 72–83.Google Scholar
Ulrich, M. (1985). Thetisch und Kategorisch: Funktionen der Anordnung von Satzkonstituenten: am Beispiel des Rumänischen und anderer Sprachen. Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Venier, F. (2002). La presentatività. Sulle tracce di una nozione. Edizioni dell’Orso, Alessandria.Google Scholar
Wandruszka, U. (1981). Typen romanischer Subjektinversion, in: Geckeler, H., B. Schlieben-Lange, J. Trabant & H. Weydt (eds.): Logos semantikos. Studia linguistica in honorem Eugenio Coseriu, 369–380. de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
(1982). Studien zur italienischen Wortstellung. Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Ward, G. (1999). A comparison of postposed subjects in English and Italian, in: Kamio, A. & K.-I. Takami (eds.): Function and Structure, 3–21. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, S. (2014). Arguments and adjuncts cross-linguistically: a brief introduction. Linguistic Discovery 12(2): 1–2. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Belligh, Thomas & Klaas Willems
2022. Epistemological challenges in the study of alternating constructions. Lingua 280 ► pp. 103425 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.