Corrective and Exhaustive Foci

A Comparison Between Italian and French

Bibliographic Data

ID5901100
AuthorsMarco Casentini (0000-0001-6091-8321), Tania Stortini (0000-0002-4513-661X)
Year2025
Volume10
Issue7
Pages157
Publication date2025-06-26
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueLanguages (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2226-471X • E-ISSN: 2226-471X
PublisherMDPI AG (PUBLISHER • IT)
DOI10.3390/languages10070157
OpenAlexW4411670209
LanguageEN
References cited50

This paper investigates the acceptability of focused Objects with [+corrective, +exhaustive] features in Italian and French, considering the role of syntactic rigidity, Exhaustivity Markers (EMs), and argument structure. We conducted two parallel acceptability judgment experiments (one per language), testing focused Objects in three positions: (i) in situ, (ii) fronted (FF), and (iii) clefted (CC). Each sentence was also presented with and without an explicit EM, and the verb type was controlled across three categories: transitive, unergative, and unaccusative verbs. Results reveal key cross-linguistic differences: (i) FF is the least acceptable strategy in both languages, contradicting the assumption that Italian tolerates FF more than French; (ii) Italian speakers prefer in situ Focus with an explicit EM, whereas French speakers rate in situ and CC Focus equally acceptable, favoring implicit exhaustivity; (iii) verb type does not significantly impact Focus acceptability, except in French, where intervention effects may reduce FF acceptability in transitive/unergative contexts; (iv) CC remains a viable alternative to in situ Focus in French, possibly acting as a repair strategy. These findings suggest that, as far as [+corrective, +exhaustive] Focus is concerned, Italian does not appear to be less syntactically rigid than French

Political science · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Linguistic Studies and Language Acquisition · Psychology · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation · History

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access