Intonation of Contrastive Topic in Estonian

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heete Sahkai ◽  
Meelis Mihkla
Keyword(s):  
Contrastive Topic

scholarly journals Focus and contrastive topic in questions and answers, with particular reference to Turkish

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beste Kamali ◽  
Manfred Krifka
Keyword(s):  
Algebraic Representation ◽  
Similar Role ◽  
Discourse Coherence ◽  
Dynamic Interpretation ◽  
Contrastive Topic ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Alternative Questions

AbstractMuch recent research has recognized the importance of focus and contrastive topic in assertions for discourse coherence. However, with few exceptions, it has been neglected that focus and contrastive topic also occur in questions, and have a similar role in establishing coherence. We propose a framework of dynamic interpretation based on the notion of Commitment Spaces that show that a uniform interpretation of focus and contrastive topic is possible. The algebraic representation format is rich enough so that a separate introduction of discourse trees is not necessary. The paper discusses these phenomena for Turkish, a language with an explicit focus marker for polar and alternative questions, which distinguishes focus from contrastive topic.

Should I move for focus or for contrastive topic?

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 89-102
Author(s):  
Deniz Özyıldız
Keyword(s):  
Contrastive Topic

Ergativity in Tibeto-Burman

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shobhana Chelliah
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Contrastive Focus ◽  
Contrastive Topic ◽  
Alignment Analysis ◽  
Focus Marking

A number of Tibeto-Burman languages exhibit morphological ergative alignment, while others clearly do not. In these languages, matters of information structure determine core argument marking. Specifically, both A and S marking may be used to indicate topic, contrastive topic, broad focus, and/or contrastive focus. It is most often A or S, not P, that is assigned such status and between A and S, it is most often A that takes marking. Preference for topic or focus marking on A creates the impression of ergative alignment, but an ergative alignment analysis is untenable as S may be marked under the same conditions and with the same morpheme as A. Considerations of discourse-level clause interpretation in Tibetan, Meitei, and Burmese show that information structure not transitivity determines A and S marking. The presence or absence of marking based on information structure is characterized as “unique differential marking”, distinguishing it from the differential marking observed in ergative and accusative alignment systems.

scholarly journals Clause Intertwining and Word Order in Ancient Greek

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rutger J. Allan
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Complex Sentences ◽  
Narrow Focus ◽  
Contrastive Topic ◽  
Pragmatic Function ◽  
Left Dislocation ◽  
Complement Clause

AbstractIn Ancient Greek complex sentences consisting of a main and complement clause, constituents which semantically and syntactically belong to the complement clause can be placed in a position preceding or interrupting the main clause. This phenomenon is referred to as clause or sentence intertwining. This paper examines the pragmatic factors involved in the preposing of contituents in sentences containing an in initival complement clause. It will be argued that the specific pragmatic function of the preposed constituents is Theme (left dislocation), new/contrastive topic or narrow focus. Preposing can be analyzed as a device to pragmatically highlight the involved constituents. The paper also addresses the position of new, contrastive and given topics and of adverbs and clauses with Setting function.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document