Cover not available

In:Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond
Edited by Marco García García and Melanie Uth
[Studies in Language Companion Series 201] 2018
► pp. 173–200

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

Chapter 6
Distinguishing contrast and focus at PF

A view from Italian

 | University of Hamburg
Published online: 28 November 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.201.06tor
Abstract
This paper argues in favor of the hypothesis that contrast and focus are two independent categories of information structure (Neeleman & Vermeulen 2012). After showing that contrast and focus have a different semantics (Torregrossa 2015), I investigate whether they are associated with different prosodic representations. In particular, I will present the results of a production experiment targeting the prosodic realization of in-situ contrast and focus constituents in the variety of Italian spoken in Rionero, in the Basilicata region. The data shows that contrast and focus are expressed by different prosodic means, involving the choice of a specific pitch contour or the modulation of phonetic variables (e.g., duration of stressed syllable or alignment of tonal targets).
Article outline
  • 1.Topic, focus and contrast in Italian sentences
  • 2.Focus and contrast: Two notions or the same notion?
  • 3.The prosody of focus and contrast in some Italian varieties
  • 4.The Experiment: Focus and contrast in Rionero Italian
    • 4.1Methodology
    • 4.2Results
      • 4.2.1Phonological strategy: Differences in the type of pitch contour (M1)
      • 4.2.2Mixed strategy: Type of pitch accent and tonal target alignment (F1)
      • 4.2.3Phonetic strategy: Different durations of the stressed syllables (F2)
  • 5.General discussion and conclusions: A different prosodic representation of contrast and focus
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (32)
References
Bianchi, Valentina. 2012. On focus movement in Italian. In Information Structure and Agreement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 197], Victoria Camacho-Taboada, Ángel Jiménez Fernández, Javier Martín-Gonzáles & Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds), 193–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano. 2013. The Syntax-Prosody Interface: A cartographic Perspective with Evidence from Italian [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 204]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2009. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (version 5.1). <[URL]>
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5): 511–545.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Imperio, Mariapaola. 2002. Italian intonation: An overview and some Questions. Probus 14: 37–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2000. The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
, 2004. L’interpretazione del Focus e la portata degli operatori sintattici. In Il parlato italiano. Atti del Convegno Nazionale di Napoli (13–15 febbraio 2003), Federico Albano Leoni, Francesco Cutugno, Massimo Pettorino & Renata Savy (eds). Napoli: M. D’Auria Editore.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], Susanne Winkler, Susanne & Kerstin Schwabe (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Ramaglia, Francesca. 2013. ‘Phasing’ contrast at the interfaces. A feature compositional approach to Topics. In Information Structure and Agreement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 197], Victoria Camacho-Taboada, Ángel Jiménez-Fernández, Javier Martín-González & Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds), 55–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frota, Sónia, D’Imperio, Mariapaola, Elordieta, Gorka, Prieto, Pilar & Vigário, Marina. 2007. The phonetics and phonology of intonational phrasing in Romance. In Segmental and Prosodic Issues in Romance Phonology [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 282], Pilar Prieto, Joan Mascaró & Maria-Josep Solé (eds), 131–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gili Fivela, Barbara, Avesani, Cinzia, Barone, Marco, Bocci, Giuliano, Crocco, Claudia, D’Imperio, Mariapaola, Giordano, Rosa, Marotta, Giovanna, Savino, Michelina & Sorianello, Patrizia. 2015. Intonational phonology of the regional varieties of Italian. In Intonation in Romance, Sónia Frota & Pilar Prieto (eds). Oxford: OUP Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giordano, Rosa. 2008. On the phonetics of rhythm of Italian: patterns of duration in pre-planned and spontaneous speech. In Proceedings of the 4th Speech Prosody Conference, Plinio A. Barbosa & Sandra Madureira, César Reis. Campinas, Brazil.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Martine, D’Imperio, Mariapaola, Savino, Michelina & Avesani, Cinzia. 2005. Strategies for intonation labelling across varieties of Italian. In Prosodic Typology: An Approach through Tone and Break Indices, Jun Sun-Ah (ed.), 362–389. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundation of Language 10: 41–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1998. Identificational focus versus informational focus. Language 74: 245–273.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Working Papers of the SFB632, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 6, Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow, & Manfred Krifka (eds), 13–56. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Molnár, Valeria. 2002. Contrast from a contrastive perspective. In Information Structure in a Cross-linguistic Perspective, Hilde Hasselgard, Stig Johansson, Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds), 147–161. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Vermeulen, Reiko. 2012. The syntactic expression of information structure. In The Syntax of Topic, Focus and Contrast. An Interface-Based Approach, Ad Neeleman & Reiko Vermeulen (eds.), 1–38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Niebuhr, Oliver, D’Imperio Mariapaola, Gili Fivela, Barbara & Cangemi, Francesco. 2011. Are there ‘shapers’ and ‘aligners’? Individual differences in signaling pitch accent category. In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Wai-Sum Lee & Eric Zee (eds), 120–123. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pellegrini, Giovan Battista, 1977. Carta dei Dialetti d’Italia. Pisa: Pacini editore.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar. 2009. Tonal alignment patterns in Catalan nuclear falls. Lingua 119: 865–880.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence Topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2010. Defining ‘contrast’ as an information-structural notion in grammar. Lingua 120(6): 1333–1345.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 2008. Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of ‘discourse-new’. Acta Hungarica Linguistica 55(3–4): 331–346.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2009. Contrastive topics operate on speech acts. In Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological and Experimental Perspectives, Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds), 115–138. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torregrossa, Jacopo. 2012. Encoding Topic, Focus and Contrast: Informational Notions at the Interfaces. PhD dissertation, University of Verona.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Towards a phonological account of contrast in Italian: a pilot-study on contrastive topics. In Proceedings of the 24th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Esa Anttikoski & Jani-Matti Tirkkonen (eds), 90–104. Joensuu: Publications of the University of Eastern Finland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Putting ‘contrast’ on the Table. In Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL32). Ulrike Steindl, Thomas Borer, Huilin Fang, Alfredo García Pardo, Peter Guekguezian, Brian Hsu, Charlie O’Hara & Iris Chuoying Ouyang (eds.), 201–207. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vermeulen, Reiko. 2008. Topics in Japanese. A unified analysis of contrastive and non-contrastive topics. Ms, UCL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 2010. The syntax and prosody of focus: The Bantu-Italian connection. Iberia 2(1): 131–168.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Garassino, Davide & Daniel Jacob
2022. When data challenges theory. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 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