Cover not available

In:L1 Acquisition and L2 Learning: The view from Romance
Edited by Larisa Avram, Anca Sevcenco and Veronica Tomescu
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 65] 2021
► pp. 259–288

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

Chapter 10
Combining Focus VS and Topic constructions

The acquisition of discourse and conversational dynamics strategies in child Italian

 | University of Roma Tre
 | University of Venice Ca’ Foscari
Published online: 17 November 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.65.10fra
Abstract
This study focuses on the association between postverbal Focus subjects and the realization of left/right topicalization in the same sentence. Based on data collected with Italian children aged 3 to 9, evidence is provided for the existence of significant associations between VS, Topics and verb types in specific age groups, also identifying some turning points in the acquisition of discourse-related managing competences. In particular, a crucial interaction can be found between information structures and conversational dynamics, so that the Focus types affecting the common ground management are mainly associated with Topics that only refer to the common ground content. On the other hand, the VSO/OVS alternation is not affected by verb types, except motion verbs, plausibly calling for a distinction within the unaccusative class.
Article outline
  • 1.Background and objectives of analysis
  • 2.Background: Focus, Topic and Information Structure
    • 2.1The notion of Focus
    • 2.2Different Focus types
    • 2.3The notion of Topic
    • 2.4Different Topic types
  • 3.The acquisition and use of focused postverbal subjects in Italian
    • 3.1Background and objectives
    • 3.2The experimental design and the questions for analysis
  • 4.The VS order for subject Focus in association with Topic and verb types
    • 4.1Overall considerations on answering strategies across age groups
    • 4.2Statistical correlations between word orders and age groups
    • 4.3Trendlines in the association between the VSO order and Focus types
    • 4.4Trendlines in the association between the OVS order and Focus types
    • 4.5Trendlines in the association between VSO/OVS, Focus strategies and verb types
  • 5.Conclusions and final proposals
  • Notes
  • References
References (40)
References
Aboh, E. O., Hartmann, K., & Zimmermann, M. (Eds.). (2007). Focus strategies in African languages. The interaction of Focus and grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Antinucci, F., & Cinque, G. (1977). Sull’ordine delle parole in italiano: L’emarginazione. Studi di Grammatica Italiana, 6, 121–146.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2008). Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (1988). The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 1–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Answering strategies. A view from acquisition. In S. Baauw, F. Drijkoningen, & M. Pinto (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory (pp. 19–38). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Answering strategies: New information subjects and the nature of clefts. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and strategies (pp. 242–265). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, A., & Bianchi, V. (2016). Definiteness effect and unaccusative subjects: An overview and some new thoughts. In S. Fischer, T. Kupisch, & E. Rinke (Eds.), Definiteness effects: Bilingual, typological and diachronic variation (pp. 14–65). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, V., & Bocci, G. (2012). Should I stay or should I go? Optional Focus movement in Italian. In C. Piñón (Ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, 9 (pp. 1–16). Retrieved from [URL]
Bianchi, V., & Frascarelli, M. (2010). Is topic a root phenomenon? Iberia, 2, 43–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I., & Sheehan, M. (Eds.). (2010). Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, D. (2003). On D-trees, beans, and B-Accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 511–545. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax. A government-binding approach. Reidel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, G., & Rizzi, L. (2010). The cartography of syntactic structures. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 65–78). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corpina, B. (2018). Comprensione e interpretazione del soggetto nullo all’interfaccia tra sintassi e prosodia. Uno studio evolutivo e longitudinale (3–9 anni) (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Roma Tre.
Emonds, J. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax: Root, structure- preserving and local transformations. Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. In D. Adger, C. de Cat, & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects (pp. 75–120). Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M. (2000). The syntax-phonology interface in focus and topic constructions in Italian. Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro. An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25(4), 691–734. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). The interpretation of pro in consistent and partial NS languages: A comparative interface analysis. In F. Cognola & J. Casalicchio (Eds.), Null-subjects in generative grammar. A synchronic and diachronic perspective (pp. 211–239). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M., & Carella, G. (2019). Topic chains and the interpretation of null subjects: The acquisition of discourse-related strategies in Italian. The Linguistic Review, 36(4), 637–674. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M., & Hinterhölzl, R. (2007). Types of topics in German and Italian. In S. Winkler & K. Schwabe (Eds.), On information structure, meaning and form (pp. 87–116). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M., & Stortini, T. (2019). Focus constructions, verb types and the SV/VS order in Italian: An acquisitional study from a syntax-prosody perspective. Lingua, 227, 102690 (online). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definiteness and indefiniteness (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Massachusetts.
Heycock, C. (2006). Embedded root phenomena. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (pp. 174–209). Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (2001). Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 1–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Basic notions of information structure. In C. Féry, G. Fanselow, & M. Krifka (Eds.), The notions of information structure. Special issue of Interdisciplinary studies on information structure, 6, 13–55.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965). Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language (Unpublished PhD dissertation). MIT.
(1972). The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language, 9, 153–185.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Leusen, N. (2004). Incompatibility in context: A diagnosis of correction. Journal of Semantics, 21, 415–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S., & Saito, M. (Eds.). (2008). Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1982). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 501–557.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook in generative syntax (pp. 281–337). Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2003). Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 287–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sasse, H.-J. (1987). The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics, 25, 511–580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue