Why-questions and focus in Italian

IF 0.7 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Francesco Beltrame, C. Chesi
{"title":"Why-questions and focus in Italian","authors":"Francesco Beltrame, C. Chesi","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2021-2079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this study we argue that the appropriateness of an answer to a why-question, potentially bearing on multiple contrast classes, is mainly influenced by the focalized argument, which identifies the relevant reference set. The focalization structure, however, interacts in a non-trivial way with the thematic structure and its accessibility, suggesting a general (independent) prominence of the direct object (DO) over the indirect one (IO). In correlation to that, we also observed that DO appears more resistant to extraction compared to IO, while it seems felicitous in a post-IO focalized low position (light NP-shifting). These contrasts are obtained by running five distinct experiments in Italian targeting various dislocation configurations: Four forced choice tasks manipulating leftward dislocation (i) clefting versus (ii) fronting versus (iii) clitic left dislocation and (iv) postverbal reordering (canonical DO IO order vs. IO DO) in ditransitive predicates. Then (v) an acceptability judgment study was administered to assess the difficulty in figuring out a licensing context coherent with the argument ordering, provided in the why-question. To minimize the interacting factors, all sentences included null subjects and a context was provided for each experimental item in the forced choice tasks, introducing the relevant contrast classes.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"38 1","pages":"687 - 726"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2021-2079","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In this study we argue that the appropriateness of an answer to a why-question, potentially bearing on multiple contrast classes, is mainly influenced by the focalized argument, which identifies the relevant reference set. The focalization structure, however, interacts in a non-trivial way with the thematic structure and its accessibility, suggesting a general (independent) prominence of the direct object (DO) over the indirect one (IO). In correlation to that, we also observed that DO appears more resistant to extraction compared to IO, while it seems felicitous in a post-IO focalized low position (light NP-shifting). These contrasts are obtained by running five distinct experiments in Italian targeting various dislocation configurations: Four forced choice tasks manipulating leftward dislocation (i) clefting versus (ii) fronting versus (iii) clitic left dislocation and (iv) postverbal reordering (canonical DO IO order vs. IO DO) in ditransitive predicates. Then (v) an acceptability judgment study was administered to assess the difficulty in figuring out a licensing context coherent with the argument ordering, provided in the why-question. To minimize the interacting factors, all sentences included null subjects and a context was provided for each experimental item in the forced choice tasks, introducing the relevant contrast classes.
为什么用意大利语提问和焦点
摘要在这项研究中,我们认为,为什么问题的答案的适当性,可能与多个对比类有关,主要受到焦点化论点的影响,焦点化论点确定了相关的参考集。然而,聚焦结构以一种非琐碎的方式与主题结构及其可及性相互作用,表明直接宾语(DO)比间接宾语(IO)普遍(独立)突出。与此相关,我们还观察到,与IO相比,DO似乎更难提取,而在IO后聚焦的低位(轻度NP移位)似乎更合适。这些对比是通过在意大利语中针对各种位错配置进行五个不同的实验获得的:四个操纵向左位错的强迫选择任务(i)劈离与(ii)前方与(iii)集团左位错,以及(iv)双及物谓词中的语后重排序(规范DO-IO顺序与IO-DO)。然后(v)进行了一项可接受性判断研究,以评估在找出与论证顺序一致的许可上下文方面的困难,如为什么问题中所述。为了最大限度地减少交互因素,所有句子都包括空主题,并为强迫选择任务中的每个实验项目提供上下文,引入相关的对比类别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Linguistic Review
Linguistic Review Multiple-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Linguistic Review aims at publishing high-quality papers in syntax, semantics, phonology, and morphology, within a framework of Generative Grammar and related disciplines, as well as critical discussions of theoretical linguistics as a branch of cognitive psychology. Striving to be a platform for discussion, The Linguistic Review welcomes reviews of important new monographs in these areas, dissertation abstracts, and letters to the editor. The editor also welcomes initiatives for thematic issues with guest editors. The Linguistic Review is a peer-reviewed journal of international scope.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信