Cover not available

In:When Data Challenges Theory: Unexpected and paradoxical evidence in information structure
Edited by Davide Garassino and Daniel Jacob
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 273] 2022
► pp. 39–56

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

Distinguishing psychological Given/New from linguistic Topic/Focus makes things clearer

 | Università Roma Tre
Published online: 22 February 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.273.01val
Abstract
The paper suggests that there is no contradiction in cleft sentences focalizing information which was already introduced by the preceding context, because being already active in discourse (i.e., Given) is not the same as being linguistically encoded as a Topic, and Given information can be focalized in discourse. Clefts should be explained precisely as constructions devoted mainly to focalizing already active information. A side-effect of the analysis is to assess that the role of syntax in expressing Information Structure is a secondary one, because syntactic triggers of Information Structure only work when accompanied by prosodic triggers, whereas prosodic means can work alone.
Article outline
  • 1.Two concepts of topic, and some useful definitions
  • 2.Non-prototypical clefts?
  • 3.Is syntax the real thing?
  • 4.Information structure is independent on semantic content
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (36)
References
Brunetti, Lisa. 2009. On links and tails in Italian. Lingua 119(5): 756–781. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, Russell Tomlin (ed), 21–51. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. Information flow in speaking and writing. In The Linguistics of Literacy, Pamela Downing, Susan D. Lima & Michael Noonan (eds), 17–29. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela. 2000. Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2017. Cleft constructions. In Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, Elisabeth Stark & Andreas Dufter (eds), 536–568. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. This volume. To be or not to be focus adverbials? A corpus-driven study of It. anche in spontaneous spoken Italian. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds), Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Declerck, Renaat. 1984. The pragmatics of it-clefts and wh-clefts. Lingua 64(4): 251–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-clefts. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dufter, Andreas. 2009. Clefting and discourse organization: Comparing Germanic and Romance. In Focus and Background in Romance Languages, Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 83–121. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2003. Topicalizzazione e ripresa clitica. Analisi sincronica, confronto diacronico e considerazioni tipologiche. In Italia linguistica anno Mille. Italia linguistica anno Duemila, Nicoletta Maraschio & Nicoletta Maraschio Teresa (eds), 547–562. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Dislocations and Framings. In Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, Andreas Dufter & Elisabeth Stark (eds), 472–501. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garassino, Davide. This volume. Translation as a source of pragmatic interference? An empirical investigation of French and Italian cleft sentences. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Garassino, Davide & Jacob, Daniel. 2018. Polarity focus and non-canonical syntax in Italian, French and Spanish. Clitic left dislocation and sì che/ sí que-constructions. In The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast. Theoretical, Empirical, and Typological Approaches, Christine Dimroth & Stefan Sudhoff (eds), 227–254. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. This volume. When data challenges theory: The analysis of information structure and its paradoxes. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hedberg, Nancy & Fadden, Lorna. 2007. The information structure of it-clefts, wh-clefts and reverse wh-clefts in English. In The Grammar-Pragmatics Interface: Essays in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel, Nancy Hedberg & Robert Zacharski (eds), 49–76. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacob, Daniel. 2015. Anaphorische Spaltsätze im Französischen: Grammatik – Text – Rhetorik. In Informationsstrukturen im Kontrast, Séverine Adam, Michael Schecker & Daniel Jacob (eds), 101–122. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena. 2016. French il y a clefts, existential sentences and the Focus-Marking hypothesis. Journal of French Language Studies 27(3): 405–430. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Non-prototypical Clefts in French. A Corpus Analysis of “il y a” Clefts. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena & Lahousse, Karen. 2018. The information structure of French il y a & c’est clefts: A corpus-based analysis. Linguistics 56(3): 513–548. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lahousse, Karen. This volume. Is focus a root phenomenon? In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39(3): 463–516. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre. This volume. The curious case of the rare focus movement in French. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo. 1996. A simple test for Theme and Rheme in clause complexes. Language Sciences 17(4): 357–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001a. La teoria come separatrice di fatti di livello diverso. L’esempio della struttura informativa dell’enunciato. In Dati empirici e teorie linguistiche, Rosanna Sornicola, Eleonora Stenta Krosbakken & Carolina Stromboli (eds), 151–173. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Positional effects of prosodic prominence in spoken Italian. Normas. Revista de Estudios Lingüísticos Hispánicos 7: 99–112.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. The “exaptation” of linguistic implicit strategies. SpringerPlus 5/1: 1106.
. 2019. La lingua disonesta. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Masia, Viviana. This volume. Remarks on Information Structure marking asymmetries: The epistemological view on the micropragmatic profile of utterances. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Matić, Dejan & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2018. From polarity focus to salient polarity: From things to processes. In The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast. Theoretical, Empirical, and Typological Approaches, Christine Dimroth & Stefan Sudhoff (eds), 9–53. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54: 883–906. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter Frederick. 1964. Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria 30(2): 96–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Giunta, Giulia, Maria Roccaforte, Nausicaa Pouscoulous & Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri
2025. Presupposition: accepted information or embraced beliefs? The role of informative function and trigger type in separating two levels of accommodation. Folia Linguistica 59:3 ► pp. 839 ff. DOI logo
Giunta, Giulia & Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri
2024. Teaching to manage implicit linguistic meanings. In Persuasion in Specialized Discourse [Argumentation in Context, 22], ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Garassino, Davide & Daniel Jacob
2022. When data challenges theory. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lahousse, Karen
2022. Is focus a root phenomenon?. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 147 ff. DOI logo
Masia, Viviana
2022. Remarks on information structure marking asymmetries. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo
Rosemeyer, Malte, Daniel Jacob & Lars Konieczny
2022. How alternatives are created. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue