Chapter 4. From focus marking to illocutionary modification

2020 ◽  
pp. 112-131
Author(s):  
Marco Favaro
Keyword(s):  
Focus Marking

Prosodic focus marking in Bai-Mandarin sequential bilinguals’ Mandarin

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zenghui Liu ◽  
Aoju Chen ◽  
Hans Van de Velde
Keyword(s):  
Focus Marking ◽  
Prosodic Focus

Audiovisual congruence and pragmatic focus marking

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Wollermann ◽  
Bernhard Schröder ◽  
Ulrich Schade
Keyword(s):  
Focus Marking

Syntax-Pragmatik-Schnittstelle am Beispiel der Fokussierung im Spanisch-Erwerb deutschsprachiger Lerner

2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 315-350
Author(s):  
Julia Schirnhofer
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Spanish Language ◽  
Test Results ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Proficiency Level ◽  
German Speaking ◽  
Syntactic Properties ◽  
Information Focus ◽  
Focus Marking

Abstract As a phenomenon at the syntax-pragmatics interface, focus marking can cause particular difficulties in adult L2 acquisition and may never be fully acquired, whereas native-like competence can be achieved with formal syntactic properties. The present study examines this so-called Interface Hypothesis by analysing the strategies that monolingual German-speaking learners use to mark information focus in Spanish. Analyses of the test results show that around 97 % of the test subjects prefer to maintain the unmarked constituent order and mark focus in situ, irrespective of their proficiency level. In comparison with Spanish natives (Gabriel 2010, Heidinger 2014), the results show a divergence from the behaviour of native speakers, as the latter use various strategies. This indicates that the German-speaking learners do not make use of the variation of focus marking strategies the Spanish language provides, but rather adhere to in situ focalization, which is also the dominant focus-marking strategy in German. Furthermore, the results of the present study highlight that strategies for marking focus are scarcely taken into account in language teaching classes.

scholarly journals Focus Marking and Prosodic Boundary Strength in French

Phonetica ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 244-267
Author(s):  
Amandine Michelas ◽  
James S. German
Keyword(s):  
Prosodic Boundary ◽  
Focus Marking ◽  
Boundary Strength

scholarly journals Lack of Syllable Duration as a Post-Lexical Acoustic Cue in Spanish in Contact with Maya

Languages ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 84
Author(s):  
Nuria Martínez García ◽  
Melanie Uth
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Mixed Effects ◽  
Mixed Effects Models ◽  
Yucatec Maya ◽  
Linear Mixed Effects Models ◽  
Linear Mixed Effects ◽  
Contrastive Focus ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Syllable Duration ◽  
Focus Marking

This paper focuses on the duration of stressed syllables in broad versus contrastive focus in Yucatecan Spanish and examines its connection with Spanish–Maya bilingualism. We examine the claim that phonemic vowel length in one language prevents the use of syllable duration as a post-lexical acoustic cue in another. We study the duration of stressed syllables of nouns in subject and object position in subject-verb-object (SVO) sentences (broad and contrastive focus) of a semi-spontaneous production task. One thousand one hundred and twenty-six target syllables of 34 mono- and bilingual speakers were measured and submitted to linear mixed-effects models. Although the target syllables were slightly longer in contrastive focus, duration was not significant, nor was the effect of bilingualism. The results point to duration not constituting a cue to focus marking in Yucatecan Spanish. Finally, it is discussed how this result relates to the strong influence of Yucatec Maya on Yucatecan Spanish prosody observed by both scholars and native speakers of Yucatecan Spanish and other Mexican varieties of Spanish.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document