Frenchil y aclefts, existential sentences and the Focus-Marking Hypothesis

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
LENA KARSSENBERG
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Corpus Analysis ◽  
Existential Sentences ◽  
Il Y A ◽  
Focus Marking ◽  
Structure Properties

ABSTRACTThis article presents the results of a corpus analysis of the information structure properties ofil y aclefts (e.g.Il y a Claude qui chante‘There is Claude who is singing’ / ‘Claude is singing’). I will show thatil y aclefts and existential sentences introduced byil y acan express the same three information structure articulations. Furthermore, it will be argued thatil y aclefts and existential sentences function as focus markers, and that this hypothesis is further supported by psycholinguistic findings concerning constructions related toil y a.

Clause structure, case and agreement in Polish existential, possessive and locative sentences: A phase-based account

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 637-696
Author(s):  
Joanna Błaszczak
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Clause Structure ◽  
External Argument ◽  
Case Alternation ◽  
Crucial Question ◽  
Existential Sentences ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Event Variable

Abstract In this paper it will be argued that the difference between existential and locative sentences is primarily structurally encoded at the vP/VP level (at the first phase of a derivation). The crucial question is which argument of the verb BE (the Location or the nominal argument (“Theme”)) is projected as the “external argument”, i.e., which argument is the subject of inner predication. In the case of existential sentences it is the Location argument which is the subject of inner predication, and in the case of locative sentences it is the nominal argument. The subject of inner predication becomes by default also the subject of outer predication, i.e., the topic of the sentence. Hence, in the case of locative sentences the nominal argument is the subject of outer predication, i.e., the topic of the sentence, and in the case of existential sentences it is the Location which becomes the topic. (Or, alternatively, the actual topic (the subject of outer predication) might be the situational/ event variable, and the Location functions as a restriction on it.) However, the actual arrangement of constituents in the sentences under discussion, as in any other Polish sentence, is determined by the pragmatic/communicative principles. Given this, it is reasonable to think that the NOM/GEN case alternation in negated existential/locative sentences is primarily a matter of syntax, and not one of information structure or scope of negation. The analysis will be modeled in accordance with the phasal model of Chomsky (2000 et seq.).

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.

Information Structure and Presupposition

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjell Johan Sæbø
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
The Core ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Focus Marking ◽  
Core Points ◽  
The Relationship

This article surveys and discusses the core points of contact between notions of information structure and notions of presupposition. Section 1 is devoted to the ‘weak’ presuppositional semantics for focus developed by Mats Rooth, describing its properties with regard to verification and accommodation and showing that it can successfully account for a wide range of phenomena. Section 2 examines the stronger thesis that focus–background structures give rise to existential presuppositions, and finds the counterarguments that have been raised to carry considerable weight. Section 3 looks into the relationship between Givenness and run-of-the-mill presuppositions, finding that this relationship is looser than might be expected, mainly because a presupposition may be in need of focus marking instead of givenness marking.

What Sort of Theme is there?

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Mauranen
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Contrastive Analysis ◽  
Interesting Issue ◽  
Parallel Corpus ◽  
Existential Sentences ◽  
Discourse Functions ◽  
Adaptive Role ◽  
Original Information

Non-referential there has been widely discussed as part of existential sentences, and as an organiser of information in the sentence. Much less attention has been paid to its roles in discourse. As an item without a direct equivalent in many languages, it offers an interesting issue for contrastive analysis: how are its various roles handled in translation? This paper explores uses of thematic there on the basis of a parallel corpus with two-way translations between English and Finnish, focusing on two questions: how translators deal with the information structure of there constructions, and what discourse functions thematic non-referential there is used for. Overall, translators tended to maintain the original information structure, particularly its main focus, without translating word by word, and showing sensitivity to the text level. Pre-topical orienting themes played an adaptive role in focus maintenance. In discourse, there constructions play an important role in organising information: they prospect and introduce new items, new points, topics, and conclusions. In contrast, Finnish appears to use more orienting themes, new topical themes and verb-initial clauses signalling a change of tack in discourse. The findings throw into sharp relief sentences without topic or theme, and question the universality of both phenomena.

Focus, exhaustivity and existence in Akan, Ga and Ngamo

Linguistics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 221-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mira Grubic ◽  
Agata Renans ◽  
Reginald Akuoko Duah
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Academic Press ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
African Languages ◽  
Information Focus ◽  
Focus Marking ◽  
Crosslinguistic Variation ◽  
Background Construction ◽  
Focus Strategies

Abstract This paper discusses the relation between focus marking and focus interpretation in Akan (Kwa), Ga (Kwa), and Ngamo (West Chadic). In all three languages, there is a special morphosyntactically marked focus/background construction, as well as morphosyntactically unmarked focus. We present data stemming from original fieldwork investigating whether marked focus/background constructions in these three languages also have additional interpretative effects apart from standard focus interpretation. Crosslinguistically, different additional inferences have been found for marked focus constructions, e.g. contrast (e.g. Vallduví, Enric & Maria Vilkuna. 1997. On rheme and kontrast. In Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax (Syntax and semantics 29), 79–108. New York: Academic Press; Hartmann, Katharina & Malte Zimmermann. 2007b. In place – Out of place: Focus in Hausa. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 365–403. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.; Destruel, Emilie & Leah Velleman. 2014. Refining contrast: Empirical evidence from the English it-cleft. In Christopher Piñón (ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 10, 197–214. Paris: Colloque de syntaxe et sémantique à Paris (CSSP). http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss10/), exhaustivity (e.g. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2). 245–273.; Hartmann, Katharina & Malte Zimmermann. 2007a. Exhaustivity marking in Hausa: A re-evaluation of the particle nee/cee. In Enoch O. Aboh, Katharina Hartmann & Malte Zimmermann (eds.), Focus strategies in African languages: The interaction of focus and grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic (Trends in Linguistics 191), 241–263. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.), and existence (e.g. Rooth, Mats. 1999. Association with focus or association with presupposition? In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 232–244. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.; von Fintel, Kai & Lisa Matthewson. 2008. Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 25(1–2). 139–201). This paper investigates these three inferences. In Akan and Ga, the marked focus constructions are found to be contrastive, while in Ngamo, no effect of contrast was found. We also show that marked focus constructions in Ga and Akan trigger exhaustivity and existence presuppositions, while the marked construction in Ngamo merely gives rise to an exhaustive conversational implicature and does not trigger an existence presupposition. Instead, the marked construction in Ngamo merely indicates salience of the backgrounded part via a morphological background marker related to the definite determiner (Schuh, Russell G. 2005. Yobe state, Nigeria as a linguistic area. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31(2). 77–94; Güldemann, Tom. 2016. Maximal backgrounding=focus without (necessary) focus encoding. Studies in Language 40(3). 551–590). The paper thus contributes to the understanding of the semantics of marked focus constructions across languages and points to the crosslinguistic variation in expressing and interpreting marked focus/background constructions.

scholarly journals Re-evaluating the importance of discourse-embedding for specificational and predicative clauses

Pragmatics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wout Van Praet
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Separate Layer ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Definition Of Information ◽  
Focus Marking

Abstract This paper studies the discourse-embedding of specificational clauses, in contrast with predicative ones. Specificational clauses – which express a variable – value relation – are assumed to have a ‘fixed’ information structure. This follows from the widespread definition of information structure in terms of a presupposition – focus contrast, which is often conflated with the variable – value contrast, on the one hand, and with a given – new contrast, on the other. Against these conflations, this study demonstrates that the specification is a separate layer of meaning, which not only shows variation in terms of focus-marking (Van Praet and O’Grady 2018), but also in terms of its embedding in specific contexts of use. These findings urge us to revisit not only the basis for distinguishing specificational clauses from predicative ones, but also to separate out the different layers of coded and pragmatic meaning that have been conflated under the header of ‘information structure’.

The information structure of French il y a clefts and c’est clefts: A corpus-based analysis

Linguistics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 513-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena Karssenberg ◽  
Karen Lahousse
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Corpus Study ◽  
Il Y A

AbstractThis article investigates the distributional and information structural (IS) properties ofil y a‘there is’ clefts in comparison withc’est‘it is’ clefts in French.Il y aclefts, which are prototypically said to be “presentational” or express all-focus, are relatively under-researched with respect toc’estclefts. We present the results of an extensive corpus study ofil y aclefts in three different registers, revealing that these clefts most often express an all-focus articulation, but also quite often express a focus-background articulation, which has not been acknowledged often in the linguistic literature. Moreover, the corpora contain contrastiveil y aclefts (displaying properties of both all-focus and topic-comment sentences), which to our knowledge have not been noticed before. It follows from these data that althoughc’estandil y aclefts can both express all-focus and focus-background, they clearly differ with respect to the topic-comment articulation and have specialized for different functions. Finally, several syntactic and pragmatic factors are presented that may account for the (distributive) differences between the two cleft types, e.g., the impossibility of non-(pro)nominal clefted elements inil y aclefts, genre differences, and the implication of exhaustivity.

Dislocations and Information Structure

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis López
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Core Structure ◽  
Phrase Boundary ◽  
The Core ◽  
Structure Properties

Dislocations are constituents in the periphery of the clause—or, depending on the analysis, outside the structure of the clause proper. In the canonical cases, they are doubled by a functional bundle and they are separated from the core clause by an intonational phrase boundary. In many languages we find that dislocations come in two classes: a class of dislocations that are syntactically linked to a position in the core structure (D-type) and a second class of dislocations that are connected only in the process of interpretation (H-type). This grammatical distinction maps onto a difference in the information structure properties: D-type dislocations are given, H-type dislocations signal topic promotion. Some languages seem to have only H-type dislocations, which take over the functions of both D-type and H-type dislocations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document