Cover not available

Article published In: Cognitive Linguistic Aspects of Information Structure and Flow
Edited by Wei-lun Lu and Jirí Lukl
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:2] 2020
► pp. 381–415

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Emphatic italics and the information structure of a prose text

 | Masaryk University
Published online: 1 October 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00062.luk
Abstract
The emphatic function of italics has largely been ignored by linguists despite the value its understanding clearly has for written discourse studies. This paper aims to fill this gap. It is inspired by the types of relationship between the degrees of communicative dynamism and the degrees of prosodic prominence which the theory of functional sentence perspective has established for spoken language and applies them to written communication. At the same time, it maintains the distinction between the two modes of communication and suggests that it is only through covert prosody that any real parallels may be sought. The study uses two versions of a small corpus of written fiction. In the first version the original emphatic italics are preserved. In this instance the author’s intended covert prosody is partially accessible to the reader. The second version is one from which emphatic italics were removed. In this case the reader can only rely on their own covert prosody for interpretation. The versions were analyzed separately, and the analyses were then compared. Three relational types between the plain and italicized versions are identified: typographically amplifying, typographically revaluating, and typographically disambiguating. The paper concludes by suggesting some further avenues of research.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Terminology
  • 3.Review of relevant literature
  • 4.Overview of the theory of functional sentence perspective
  • 5.Data
  • 6.Methodology and preliminary discussion
  • 7.Results
    • 7.1Formal characteristics
    • 7.2Information structure
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Data
References (33)
References
Adam, M. (2009). Functional macrofield perspective: A religious discourse analysis based on FSP. Brno: Masaryk University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14(4), 367–381. Retrieved from [URL]
Bolinger, D. L. (1952). Linear modification. PMLA, 67(7), 1117–1144. Retrieved from [URL]
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.) Subject and topic (pp. 25–56). New York/London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). Punctuation and the prosody of written language. Written Communication, 5(4), 396–426. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Douglas, P. (2009). Encoding intonation: The use of italics and the challenges for translation. Corpus Linguistics conference, 5th Corpus Linguistics conference, 2009, 20–23 July 2009. University of Liverpool. Retrieved from [URL]
Firbas, J. (1954). Anglická větná interpunkce: Pokus o její lingvistický výklad. Časopis pro moderní filologii, 361, 152–164.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985). Thoughts on functional sentence perspective, intonation and emotiveness. Brno Studies in English, 161, 11–49. Retrieved from [URL]
(1987). Thoughts on functional sentence perspective, intonation and emotiveness: Part two. Brno Studies in English, 171, 9–49. Retrieved from [URL]
(1989). Degrees of communicative dynamism and degrees of prosodic prominence (weight). Brno Studies in English, 181, 21–66 (and 10 pp. of appendix). Retrieved from [URL]
(1992). Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Can the functional perspective of a spoken sentence be predicted from that of its written counterpart? Brno Studies in English, 201, 23–49. Retrieved from [URL]
(1995). Retrievability span in functional sentence perspective. Brno Studies in English, 211, 17–45. Retrieved from [URL]
Fowler, H. W. (1965/1987). A dictionary of modern English usage (2nd ed., rev. by E. Gowers). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction (Vol. II1, 2nd ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hajičová, E., Partee, B., & Sgall, P. (1998). Topic-focus articulation, tripartite structures, and semantic content. Amsterdam: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Irving, J. (2013, 29 May). Heiko Tietze posted this question to Mr. Irving [Facebook status update]. Retrieved from [URL]
Kalbertodt, J., Primus, B., & Schumacher, P. B. (2015). Punctuation, prosody and discourse: Afterthought vs. right dislocation. Frontiers in psychology, 6: 1803. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klégr, A. (2009). “The Fifth element”: A remark on the FSP factors. Brno Studies in English, 35(2), 53–60. Retrieved from [URL]
Lu, W.-L., & Verhagen, A. (2016). Shifting viewpoints: How does that actually work across languages? An exercise in parallel text analysis. In B. Dancygier, W.-L. Lu & A. Verhagen (Eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning. Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities (pp. 169–190). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Modern Language Association. (2016). MLA handbook (8th ed.). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pratt, M. W., Krane, A. R., & Kendall, J. R. (1981). Triggering a schema: The role of italics and intonation in the interpretation of ambiguous discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 18(3), 303–315. Retrieved from [URL]
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saldanha, G. (2011). Emphatic italics in English translations: Stylistic failure or motivated stylistic resources? Meta, 56(2), 424–442. Retrieved from [URL]
Simpson, P. (2004). Stylistics. A resource book for students. London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stehlíková, L. (2016). Contextual disengagement in functional sentence perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Masaryk University, Brno. Retrieved from [URL]
Svoboda, A. (1968). The hierarchy of communicative units and fields as illustrated by English attributive constructions. Brno Studies in English, 71, 49–101.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). Functional perspective of the noun phrase. Brno Studies in English, 171, 61–86. Retrieved from [URL]
Šlancarová, D. (1998). On the use of italics in English and Czech (Unpublished MA thesis). Masaryk University, Brno.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Data
Irving, J. (1999/2010). A widow for one year. London: Random House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue