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. 203–238
To be or not to be focus adverbials?
A corpus-driven study of It. anche in spontaneous spoken Italian
Published online: 22 February 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.273.07de
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.273.07de
Abstract
The goal of this study is to cast new light on one of the
main defining properties of focus adverbials, namely their
interaction with the focus structure of the sentence. Following the
framework known as Language into Act Theory, we
describe the interaction between It. anche and
focal information, considered in relation to the accomplishment of a
speech act. The results of a corpus-driven study of spontaneous
spoken Italian allow proposing a more detailed definition of focus
adverbials, which takes into account two layers of information
structure: the semantico-presuppositional layer and the
pragmatic-illocutionary layer. We claim that association with focus
is a stable feature of focus adverbials only in relation to the
first layer of information structure.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Focus adverbs and focus structure
- 2.1Focus of FAs or ‘domain of association’
- 2.2Focus of the sentence and information structure
- 2.3FAs as focus-binders
- 3.The information distribution of It. anche in
utterances produced in spoken Italian: A corpus-driven analysis following the Language into
Act Theory
- 3.1General characterization of the Language into Act
Theory (L-AcT)
- 3.1.1Main pragmatic reference units: Utterance, information units and Commentxs
- 3.1.2Topic-Comment according to L-AcT
- 3.2Overview of the information distribution of It.
anche in the spoken utterances of
DB-IPIC
- 3.2.1Distribution of anche in textual and dialogic IUS
- 3.2.2Distribution of anche in textual IUs: Absolute and relative frequencies
- 3.3The information distribution of anche in the
textual IUs: A qualitative analysis
- 3.3.1It. anche in Comment (COM)
- 3.3.2It. anche in Topic (TOP)
- 3.3.3It. anche in Parenthesis (PAR)
- 3.3.4It. anche in Appendix (APC and APT)
- 3.4Conclusions on the information distribution of It. anche in spontaneous speech
- 3.1General characterization of the Language into Act
Theory (L-AcT)
- 4.Interaction between anche and focal
information: A description based on the Language into Act
theory
- 4.1It. anche interacts with the C-focus
- 4.1.1Defining C-focus in L-AcT
- 4.1.2C-focus on anche’s DA and anche in Comment
- 4.1.3C-focus on anche’s DA and anche in Appendix
- 4.1.4C-focus on anche alone in the Comment
- 4.2It. anche interacts with the T-focus
- 4.2.1Defining T-focus in L-AcT
- 4.2.2T-focus on anche’s DA and anche in Topic
- 4.2.3T-focus on anche
- 4.3It. anche does not interact with a
focus
- 4.3.1It. anche + DA in Parenthesis or Appendix
- 4.3.2It. anche + DA in Topic
- 4.4Conclusions on the interaction between It. anche and focal information as defined in L-AcT
- 4.1It. anche interacts with the C-focus
- 5.General concluding remarks
Acknowledgments Notes References
References (45)
Andorno, Cecilia. 1999. Avverbi
focalizzanti in italiano. Parametri per
un’analisi. Studi Italiani di
Linguistica Teorica e
Applicata 28(1): 43–83.
. 2000. Focalizzatori
fra connessione e messa a fuoco. Il punto di vista delle
varietà di
apprendimento. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Andorno, Cecilia & De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2017. Mapping
additivity through translation: From French
aussi to Italian anche
and back in the Europarl-direct
corpus. In Focus
on Additivity. Adverbial Modifiers in Romance, Germanic and
Slavic Languages, Anna-Maria De Cesare & Cecilia Maria Andorno (eds), 157–200. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness,
contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point
of
view. In Subject
and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed), 25–55. New York: Academic Press.
. 2005. Notes
on lexical strategy, structural strategies and surface
clause indexes in the C-Oral-Rom spoken
corpora. In C-ORAL-ROM.
Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance
Languages, Emanuela Cresti & Massimo Moneglia (eds), 209–256. Amsterdam-Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
. 2011. The
Definition of Focus in Language into Act Theory
(LAcT). In Pragmatics
and Prosody. Illocution, Modality, Attitude, Information
Patterning and Speech
Annotation, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi & Tommaso Raso (eds), 39–82. Firenze: Firenze University Press.
. 2018. The
illocution-prosody relationship and the Information Pattern
in spontaneous speech according to the Language into Act
Theory (L-AcT). Linguistik
Online 88(1): 33–62.
. 2020. The
pragmatic analysis of speech and its illocutionary
classification according to the Language into Act
Theory. In In
Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language: A Corpus-Driven
Approach, Shlomo Izre’el, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi, Tommaso Raso (eds), 181–219. Amsterdam-New York: John Benjamins.
Cresti, Emanuela & Moneglia, Massimo (eds). 2005. C-ORAL-ROM.
Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance
Languages. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 2010. Informational
patterning theory and the corpus-based description of spoken
language. The compositionality issue in the topic-comment
pattern. In Bootstrapping
Information from Corpora in a Cross-Linguistic
Perspective, Massimo Moneglia & Alessandro Panunzi (eds), 13–45. Firenze: Firenze University Press.
De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2004. L’avverbio
anche e il rilievo informativo del
testo. In La
lingua nel testo, il testo nella
lingua, Angela Ferrari (ed), 191–218. Torino: Istituto dell’Atlante Linguistico Italiano.
. 2008. Gli
avverbi
paradigmatizzanti. In L’interfaccia
lingua-testo. Natura e funzioni dell’articolazione
informativa dell’enunciato, Angela Ferrari, Luca Cignetti, Anna-Maria De Cesare, Letizia Lala, Magda Mandelli, Claudia Ricci & Carlo Enrico Roggia, 340–361. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.
. 2010. On
the focusing function of focusing adverbs. A discussion
based on Italian
data. Linguistik
Online 44(4): 99–116.
. 2011. Dato-Nuovo,
Struttura. Enciclopedia
dell’italiano, Raffaele Simone (ed), 338–343. Roma: Treccani.
. 2015a. Defining
Focusing Modifiers in a cross-linguistic perspective. A
discussion based on English, German, French and
Italian. In Adverbs –
Functional and Diachronic
Aspects [Studies in Language
Companion
Series 170], Karin Pittner, Daniela Elsner & Fabian Barteld (eds), 47–81. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins.
. 2015b. Additive
focus adverbs in canonical word orders: A corpus-based study
of
It. anche,
Fr. aussi and E. also in
written news. Linguistik
Online 71(2): 31–56.
. 2016. Per
una tipologia semantico-funzionale degli avverbiali. Uno
studio basato sulla distribuzione informativa degli avverbi
(in -mente) negli enunciati dell’italiano
parlato. Linguistica e
Filologia 36: 27–68.
. 2018. French
Adverbial cleft sentences: Empirical and theoretical
issues. Belgian Journal of
Linguistics 32: 86–120.
De Cesare, Anna-Maria & Borreguero Zuloaga, Margarita. 2014. The
contribution of the Basel Model to the description of
polyfunctional discourse markers. The case of It.
anche, Fr. aussi and
Sp.
también. In Discourse
Segmentation in Romance
Languages [Pragmatics and Beyond
New
Series 250], Salvador Pons Bordería (ed), 55–94. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ferrari, Angela, Cignetti, Luca, De Cesare, Anna-Maria, Lala, Letizia, Mandelli, Magda, Ricci, Claudia & Roggia, Enrico. 2008. L’interfaccia
lingua-testo. Natura e funzioni dell’articolazione
informativa
dell’enunciato. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.
Firbas, Jan. 1995. A
contribution on a panel discussion on
Rheme. In Thematic
Development in English Texts, Mohsen Gadessy (ed), 213–222. London-New York: Pinter.
Frosali, Fabrizio. 2008. Il
lessico degli Ausili
Dialogici. In Prospettive
nello studio del lessico italiano. Atti del IX Congresso
SILFI (Firenze, 14–17 giugno
2006), Emanuela Cresti (ed), 417–424. Firenze: Firenze University Press.
Garassino, Davide & Jacob, Daniel. 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.
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The
Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative
Perspective. London-New York: Routledge.
La Forgia, Francesca. 2006. Alcune
osservazioni sui
focalizzatori. Studi italiani
di linguistica teorica e
applicata 35(2): 359–385.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information
Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus and the Mental
Representations of Discourse
Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo. 2009a. La
struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati
linguistici. Roma: Carocci.
. 2009b. “Appendix”
or “postposed Topic”: Where does the difference
lie? In Information
Structure and its Interfaces, Lunella Mereu (ed), 387–411. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Matić, Dejan. 2015. Information
structure in
linguistics. In International
Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 2nd
edn., James D. Wright (ed), 95–99. Oxford: Elsevier.
. This
volume. Alternatives to
information
structure. In When
Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence
in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Matić, Dejan & Wedgwood, Daniel. 2013. The
meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation
based category in crosslinguistic
analysis. Journal of
Linguistics 49: 127–163.
Nølke, Henning. 2006. La
focalisation: une approche
énonciative. In La
Focalisation dans les langues, Hélène Wlodarczyk & André Wlodarczyk (eds), 59–80. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Panunzi, Alessandro & Gregori, Lorenzo. 2011. DB-IPIC.
An XML Database for the Representation of Information
Structure in Spoken
Language. In Pragmatics
and Prosody. Illocution, Modality, Attitude, Information
Patterning and Speech
Annotation, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi & Tommaso Raso (eds), 133–150. Firenze: Firenze University Press.
Pons Bordería, Salvador. 2014. Models
of discourse segmentation in Romance
languages. In Discourse
Segmentation in Romance
Languages, Salvador Pons Bordería (ed), 1–21. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward
a taxonomy of given-new
information. In Radical
Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed), 223–255. New York: Academic Press.
1992. The
ZPG letter: subjects, definiteness, and
information-status. In Discourse
Description. Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising
Text. William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 295–325. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language. London: Longman.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics
and linguistics. An analysis of sentence
topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.
Ricca, Davide. 1999. Osservazioni
preliminari sui focalizzatori in
italiano. In Grammatica
e discorso. Studi sull’acquisizione dell’italiano e del
tedesco, Norbert Dittmar & Giacalone Ramat, Anna (eds), 146–164. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Riester, Arndt & Baumann, Stefan. 2013. Focus
triggers and focus types from a corpus
perspective. Dialogue and
Discourse 4(2): 215–248.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association
with Focus. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of
Massachusetts at
Amherst.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Alfano, Iolanda
Garassino, Davide & Daniel Jacob
2022. When data challenges theory. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 1 ff.
Masia, Viviana
2022. Remarks on information structure marking asymmetries. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 57 ff.
Vallauri, Edoardo Lombardi
2022. Distinguishing psychological Given/New from linguistic
Topic/Focus makes things clearer. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 39 ff.
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.
