  It is well-known that big-step semantics is not able to distinguish stuck and
non-terminating computations. This is a strong limitation as it makes very
difficult to reason about properties involving infinite computations, such as
type soundness, which cannot even be expressed. We show that this issue is only
apparent: the distinction between stuck and diverging computations is implicit
in any big-step semantics and it just needs to be uncovered. To achieve this
goal, we develop a systematic study of big-step semantics: we introduce an
abstract definition of what a big-step semantics is, we define a notion of
computation by formalising the evaluation algorithm implicitly associated with
any big-step semantics, and we show how to canonically extend a big-step
semantics to characterise stuck and diverging computations. Building on these
notions, we describe a general proof technique to show that a predicate is
sound, that is, it prevents stuck computation, with respect to a big-step
semantics. One needs to check three properties relating the predicate and the
semantics and, if they hold, the predicate is sound. The extended semantics are
essential to establish this meta-logical result, but are of no concerns to the
user, who only needs to prove the three properties of the initial big-step
semantics. Finally, we illustrate the technique by several examples, showing
that it is applicable also in cases where subject reduction does not hold,
hence the standard technique for small-step semantics cannot be used.
