scholarly journals The Interpretation of Focus Ambiguity in Sentences with English Focus Particle only

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-45
Author(s):  
김소영
Keyword(s):  
Focus Particle

Syntax of the Focus Particle tol’ko i

2019 ◽  
pp. 7-30
Author(s):  
Ahti Nikunlassi ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Focus Particle

Developments in negative and polarity-sensitive contexts from Latin to Romance

2018 ◽  
pp. 202-288
Author(s):  
Chiara Gianollo
Keyword(s):  
Building Block ◽  
Old French ◽  
Negative Concord ◽  
Focus Particle ◽  
End Point ◽  
Determining Factors ◽  
Polarity Sensitive

This chapter explores some determining factors for the development of indefinites participating in Negative Concord from Latin to Romance (with special attention to Old French and Old Italian). In particular, the discussion concentrates on the subclass of Romance n-words formed with the negative morpheme ne- / ni- < Latin nec. In its role as building block of the new indefinites, nec is a negative scalar focus particle meaning ‘even not’ (a use that first emerges in Post-Classical Latin); the cardinal numeral unus provides the scalar end point. With nec specific syntactic patterns are observed that quite systematically result in the redundant expression of negation, this occurring already in Classical Latin. These structures are easily prone to reanalysis once the prerequisites for Negative Concord are present. The chapter provides a reconstruction of how the facts emerging from Latin may help toward an improved understanding of optional Negative Concord in Early Romance.

The Biblical Hebrew Particle

2009 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 266-283
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Biblical Hebrew ◽  
Focus Particle ◽  
Patterns Of Use ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Near Synonyms

AbstractIt may be argued that current lexica provide "translation values" for most of the nuances that can be expressed by. However, these resources provide very little or no criteria for establishing when a translation value x, y or z should be opted for. Descriptions of the most typical use of or the difference between and in other linguistic works are also not substantiated by means of empirical evidence. In this study the syntax and semantics of each instance of is investigated, and the most prototypical patterns of use are described and compared with those of. It is established that, although the two lexemes are sometimes near-synonyms, the former is prototypically a conjunctive adverb and the latter a focus particle. As far as the semantic potential of is concerned, five semantic-pragmatic polysemically-related categories (the most typical which are labelled as "noteworthy addition" and "affirmation) are distinguished, as well as the syntactic constructions and translation values that could be associated with each category of use.

From a focus particle to a conjunction: Diachronic and synchronic analysis of German zumal

Language ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. e66-e96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ira Eberhardt
Keyword(s):  
Focus Particle

Focus Identification during Sentence Comprehension: Evidence from Eye Movements

2007 ◽  
Vol 60 (10) ◽  
pp. 1423-1445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin B. Paterson ◽  
Simon P. Liversedge ◽  
Ruth Filik ◽  
Barbara J. Juhasz ◽  
Sarah J. White ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Reading Time ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Double Object ◽  
Time Effects ◽  
Particle Position ◽  
Indirect Object ◽  
Focus Particle ◽  
On Line

Three eye movement experiments investigated focus identification during sentence comprehension. Participants read dative or double-object sentences (i.e., either the direct or indirect object occurred first), and a replacive continuation supplied a contrast that was congruous with either the direct or the indirect object. Experiments 1 and 2 manipulated focus by locating only adjacent to either the direct or indirect object of dative (Experiment 1) or double-object (Experiment 2) sentences. Reading-time effects indicated that the surface position of the focus particle influenced processing. In addition, Experiment 1 reading times were longer when the replacive was incongruous with the constituent that only adjoined, and particle position modulated a similar effect in Experiment 2. Experiment 3 showed that this effect was absent when only was omitted. We conclude that the surface position of a focus particle modulates focus identification during on-line sentence comprehension.

scholarly journals focus particle in Kîîtharaka

2006 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Klaus Abels ◽  
Peter Muriungi
Keyword(s):  
Ex Situ ◽  
Focus Particle ◽  
Entailment Relations

In this paper we argue that Kîîıtharaka in situ and ex situ object focus constructions are exhaustive. Sentences with a preverbal focus marker are argued to be nonexhaustive. Our conclusions are based on felicity in mention-some contexts, simple and multiple questions and entailment relations.  

Grammaticalization of the Lithuanian comparative -jau(s)

2018 ◽  
Vol 123 (1) ◽  
pp. 273-292
Author(s):  
Norbert Ostrowski
Keyword(s):  
17Th Century ◽  
The Other ◽  
1 Corinthians ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Focus Particle ◽  
Right Hand ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Comparative Constructions

Abstract When analysing Old Lithuanian texts from the 16th and the first half of the 17th century, one can notice that comparatives with the -jaussuffix tend to appear in comparative constructions with connectives containing negation, e.g. Bet eschdaugiaus dirbau / neig kursai isch yũ‘but I laboured more abundantly than they all’ (VEE 102: 16-17; 1 Corinthians 15: 10). This is the “particle comparative” in Stassen’s terms (1985; 2001). On the other hand, authors avoided comparatives with the -jaus suffix in other types of comparative constructions (with the preposition užand the genitive). Philological and etymological analysis of neg(i)and nei(gi)‘than’ shows that these connectives developed out of former sentence negations. This sheds some light on the syntactic environment in which the grammaticalization of the comparative suffix -jausoccurred. The Lithuanian comparative suffix -jaũ (OLith. -jau-s, e.g. geriaus‘better’) goes back to the postposed focus particle -jaũ, which functions as a marker of emphatic assertion of identity (König 1991). The primary contrastive function of the ‑jau-ssuffix can be compared to Ancient Greek -τερος (Sanskrit -taraḥ) in such usages as δεξίτερος ‘right(-hand)’. The grammaticalization of the focus marker jau(s)has occurred in sentences consisting of juxtaposed and contrasted clauses - the “conjoined comparative” in Stassen’s terms (1985: 38, 44), and in these sentences, -jausfilled the role of pragmatic marker and focalizer, emphasizing one of two compared, oppositional items.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document