Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On D-Trees, Beans, And B-Accents

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive pragmatic theory ofcontrastive topic and its relation to focus in English.In discussing various constructions involving contrastive topics,it argues that they make reference to complex, hierarchicalaspects of discourse structure. In this, it follows and spellsout a proposal sketched in Roberts (1996, p. 121ff),using the formal tools found in Büring (1994,1997b). It improves on existing accounts in the accuracy with which it predicts the non-occurrence of the accent patterns associated with focus and contrastive topic, and locates the analysis of contrastive topicswithin a broader picture of discourse and information structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Article Open access 20 May 2019

Stefano Predelli

REFERENCES

  • Bosch, Peter and Rob van der Sandt: 1994, Focus and Natural Language Processing, 3 Volumes, IBM Deutschland GmbH.

  • Bosch, Peter and Rob van der Sandt: 1999, Focus – Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, Cambridge University Press.

  • Büring, Daniel: 1994, ‘Topic’, in Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt (1994), pp. 271–280 (revised version in Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt (1999), pp. 142–165).

  • Büring, Daniel: 1997a, ‘The Great Scope Inversion Conspiracy’, Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 175–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büring, Daniel: 1997b, The Meaning of Topic and Focus – The 59th Street Bridge Accent, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büring, Daniel: 1998, ‘Topic and Focus in a Complex Model of Discourse’, manuscript, Cologne University.

  • Carlson, Lauri: 1983, Dialog Games – An Approach to Discourse Analysis, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • É. Kiss, Katalin: 1998, ‘Scope Inversion in Hungarian’, manuscript.

  • Gazdar, Gerald: 1979, Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, J., Z. Khasidashvili, C. Vogel, J. J. Levy and E. Vallduví, eds.: 1998, The Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation: Selected Papers, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gussenhoven, Carlos: 1983, ‘Focus, Mode, and the Nucleus’, Journal of Linguistics 19, 377–417. Reprinted as Chapter 1 in C. Gussenhoven (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gussenhoven, Carlos: 1984, On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gussenhoven, Carlos: 1999, ‘On the Limits of Focus Projection in English’, in Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt (1999), pp. 43–55.

  • Jackendoff, Ray: 1972, Semantics in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Joachim: 1991/2a, Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen (= Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 4).

  • Jacobs, Joachim: 1991/2b, ‘Neutral Stress and the Position of Heads’, in Joachim Jacobs (1991/2a), pp. 220–244.

  • Jacobs, Joachim: 1992, Integration, Technical Report 14, SFB 282, Köln &; Wuppertal, Düsseldorf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Joachim: 1997, ‘I-Topikalisierung’, Linguistische Berichte 169, 91–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Joachim: 1999, ‘Informational Autonomy’, in Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt (1999), pp. 56–81.

  • Kanerva, Jonni M. and Leslie A. Gabriele: 1996, ‘Intonation and Focus Layers’, in Proceedings of NELS 26, 335–346.

  • Klein, Wolfgang and Christiane von Sutterheim: 1987, ‘Quaestio und referentielle Bewegung in Erzählungen’, Linguistische Berichte 109, 163–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika: 1981, ‘The Notional Category of Modality’, in Hans Jürgen Eikmeyer and Hannes Rieser (eds.), New Approaches in World Semantics, Words, Worlds, and Contexts, Walter de Gruyter, New York/Berlin, pp. 38–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred: 1991/2, ‘A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions’, in Joachim Jacobs (1991/2a), pp. 17–53.

  • Krifka, Manfred: 1998, ‘Scope Inversion under the Rise-Fall Pattern in German’, Linguistic Inquiry 29(1), 75–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, Robert D.: 1980, The Structure of Intonational Meaning, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Chungmin: 1999, ‘Contrastive Topic: A Locus of Interface – Evidence from Korean and English’, in Ken Turner (1999), pp. 317–342.

  • McNally, Louise: 1998, ‘On Recent Formal Analyses of Topic’, in J. Ginzburg et al. (1998), pp. 147–160.

  • O'Connor, J. D. and G. F. Arnold: 1973, Intonation of Colloquial English, 2nd edn, Longmans, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierrehumbert, Janet: 1980, The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation, Ph.D. thesis, MIT.

  • Pierrehumbert, Janet and Julia Hirschberg: 1990, ‘The Meaning of Intonational Contours in the Interpretation of Discourse’, in P. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. Pollock (eds.), Intentions in Communications, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 271–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya: 1982, ‘Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics’, Philosophica 27, 53–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Craige: 1996, ‘Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics’, in J. H. Yoon and Andreas Kathol (eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics, pp. 91–136.

  • Rochemont, Michael: 1986, Focus in Generative Grammar, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, Mats: 1985, Association with Focus, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, Mats: 1992, ‘A Theory of Focus Interpretation’, Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild, Roger: 1999, ‘GiVENness, AvoidF and Other Constraints on the Placement of Accent’, Natural Language Semantics 7(2), 141–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth: 1984, Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth: 1995, ‘Sentence Prosody: Intonation, Stress, and Phrasing’, in John A. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, Blackwell, London, pp. 550–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, Robert C.: 1978, ‘Assertion’, in Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics – Syntax &; Semantics, Vol. 9, Academic Press, New York, pp. 315–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, Mark: 2000, ‘Information Structure and the Syntax-Phonology Interface’, Linguistic Inquiry 31, 649–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, Ken, ed.: 1999, The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View, Elsevier.

  • Uechi, Akihiko: 1996, ‘The Discourse Function of Wa-Marking in Japanese’, in Proceedings of NELS 12, No. 14, in the University of Washington Working Papers.

  • Vallduví, Enric: 1990, The Informational Component, Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania (published by Garland, 1992).

  • Vallduví, Enric: 1993, Information Packaging: A Survey, Technical Report, Edinburgh.

  • Vallduví, Enric and Elisabeth Engdahl: 1996, ‘The Linguistic Realization of Information Packaging’, Linguistics 34, 459–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kuppevelt, Jan: 1991, Topic en Comment: Expliciete en Impliciete Vraagstellingen in Discourse, Ph.D. thesis, University of Nijmegen.

  • van Kuppevelt, Jan: 1995, ‘Discourse Structure, Topicality and Questioning’, Linguistics 31, 109–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kuppevelt, Jan: 1996a, ‘Directionality in Discourse: Prominence Differences in Subordination Relations’, Journal of Semantics 13, 363–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kuppevelt, Jan: 1996b, Inferring from Topics’, Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 393–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, Arnim: 1989, Focusing and Backgrounding Operators, Technical Report 6, Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.

  • Williams, Edwin: 1997, ‘Blocking and Anaphora’, Linguistics Inquiry 28, 577–628.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, UCLA, 3125 Campbell Hall, Box 951543, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1543

    Daniel Büring

Authors
  1. Daniel Büring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Büring, D. On D-Trees, Beans, And B-Accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26, 511–545 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025887707652

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025887707652

Keywords

Search

Navigation