Strategies of inquiry: Focus and contrastive topic in polar questions

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 133-139
Author(s):  
Shumian Ye
Keyword(s):  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heete Sahkai ◽  
Meelis Mihkla
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beste Kamali ◽  
Manfred Krifka

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.


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

Author(s):  
Shobhana Chelliah

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