Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T08:50:22.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do contrastive topics exist?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2012

ELENA TITOV
ELENA TITOV*
Affiliation:
University College London
*
Author's address: Research Department of Linguistics, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, Chandler House, 2 Wakefield Street, London WC1N 1PF, UKe.titov@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates a phenomenon that has been referred to in the linguistic literature as contrastive topic. Traditionally, contrastive topic is analyzed as an independent information-structural notion that is linked to a particular interpretation and intonation. The paper, however, argues that the information-structural notion of contrastive topic is redundant and can be reduced to that of contrastive focus. The apparent dissimilarity between contrastive topics and contrastive foci is attributed to a difference in the structures that contain them rather than any particular difference between the associated information-structural notions themselves. The structures that host contrastive topics and contrastive foci are claimed to be distinct due to the nature of an additional focused element obligatorily present in the sentence. Contrastive topics and contrastive foci themselves, in contrast, are shown to be associated with identical interpretations, which results in their identical syntactic distribution, strongly suggesting that they in fact represent one and the same information-structural phenomenon in two different types of construction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , July 2013 , pp. 413 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

Material from this paper was presented at the workshop on New Approached to Russian Syntax that took place on 2 June 2010 at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen as part of the TABU Dag conference. I would like to thank the audience for useful comments. I would also like to thank Klaus Abels, Nathan Klinedinst, Rob Truswell, Hans van de Koot and Reiko Vermeulen, as well as three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees, for detailed comments on this paper. This research is supported by the AHRC.

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, Stephen R. 1969. West Scandinavian vowel systems and the ordering of phonological rules. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John F. 2001. On scrambling: A reply to Bošković and Takahashi. Linguistic Inquiry 32.4, 635–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailyn, John F. 2004. Generalized inversion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1961. Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language 37.1, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brun, Dina. 2001. Information structure and the status of NP in Russian. Theoretical Linguistics 27, 109–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryzgunova, Elena. 1971. O smyslorazlichitel'nyh vozmozhnostyah russkoj intonatsii. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4, 42–51.Google Scholar
Bryzgunova, Elena. 1981. Zvuk i intonatsija russkoj rechi. Moscow: Russkij Yazyk.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans and B-accents. Linguistics & Philosophy 26.5, 511–545.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel & Katharina, Hartmann. 2001. The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language & Linguistics Theory 19.2, 229–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van (ed.). 2009. Alternatives to cartography. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, Fred J. 1972. Contrastive statements. The Philosophical Review 81, 411–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katalin, É. Kiss. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74.2, 245–273.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English – Parts 1 & 2. Journal of Linguistics 3, 37–81, 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hara, Yurie & Rooij, Robert van. 2007. Contrastive topics revisited: A simpler set of topic-alternatives. Presented at North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 38, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9, 183–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ionin, Tania. 2001. Scope in Russian: Quantifier movement and discourse function. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Irurtzun, Aritz. 2007. The grammar of focus at the interfaces. Ph.D. dissertation, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
King, Tracy H. 1995. Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 93–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Interpreting focus: Presupposed or expressive meanings? A comment on Geurts and van der Sandt. Theoretical Linguistics 30, 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55, 243–276.Google Scholar
Krylova, Ol'ga & Khavronina, Serafima. 1988. Word order in Russian. Moscow: Russkij Yazyk.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Chungmin. 2003. Contrastive topic and/or contrastive focus. In McClure, William (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12, 352–364. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Molnár, Valéria. 2002. Contrast from a contrastive perspective. In Hasselgård, Hilde, Johansson, Stig, Behrens, Bergljot & Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine (eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective, 147–161. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Titov, Elena. 2009. Focus, contrast, and stress in Russian. Linguistic Inquiry 40.3, 514–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, Titov, Elena, van de Koot, Hans & Vermeulen, Reiko. 2009. A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In van Craenenbroeck, (ed.), 15–51.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Koot, Hans van de. 2008. Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11, 137–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Koot van de, Hans. 2012. Theta theory: In defence of Plan B. Ms., University College London.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Vermeulen, Reiko. 2012a. The syntactic expression of information structure. In Neeleman, & Vermeulen, (eds.), 1–38.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Vermeulen, Reiko (eds.). 2012b. The syntax of topic, focus and contrast: An interface-based approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2000. Topic and focus as linear notions: Evidence from Italian and Russian. Ms., McGill University.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2008. Can A-scrambling reorder DPs? Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael S. & Culicover, Peter W.. 1990. English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2005. Contrastive topic: A reductionist approach. Ms., ZAS, Berlin.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7, 141–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titov, Elena. 2007. Pragmatic effects on Russian word (dis)order: Evidence from syntactic and semantic reconstruction. Ms., University College London.Google Scholar
Titov, Elena. 2012. Encoding focus and contrast in Russian. In Neeleman, & Vermeulen, (eds.), 119–155.Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2010. A scope theory of contrastive topics. Iberia 2, 113–130.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2008. A compositional analysis of contrastive topics. In Abdurrahman, Muhammad, Schardl, Anisa & Walkow, Martin (eds.), The North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 39, 1–14. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2009. Focus, topic, and word order: A compositional view. In van Craenenbroeck, (ed.), 53–86.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. To appear. Contrastive topics decomposed. Semantics and Pragmatics.Google Scholar
Yabushita, Katsuhiko. 2008. A new approach to contrastive topic: Partition semantics and pragmatics. In Friedman, Tova & Ito, Satoshi (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 18, 747–764. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Yokoyama, Olga. 1986. Discourse and word order. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar