Contrastive Topic and proposition structure

Lee, Chungmin

doi:10.1075/la.57.16lee

Cited by 21 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests that the CPs/AdvPs marked by (n)un or wa cannot be pure topics, which is reinforced by suprasegmental phonemes-tones. The contrastive topic markers (n)un and wa and their corresponding pure topic markers are marked by different tones: 44 Lee (2003) reports that the contrastive markers are marked by L+H*LH%-a high tone, whereas the pure topic markers are marked by a neutral tone. 44 All the topic markers in (126-129) are obligatorily accompanied by a high tone, whereas the ones in (121-125) are not.…”

Section: Pure Topic and Contrastive Topicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Movement paradoxes are not paradoxes: A raising approach

Kim

2011

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Pure Topic and Contrastive Topicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Movement paradoxes are not paradoxes: A raising approach

Kim

2011

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The same applies for markers of contrast, such as the contrastive marker -nun in Korean, illustrated in (12), which originates from a copula according to Lee (2003). 12 (12) Korean (Lee 2003: 351) Jeonja jepum-un Samsung jeonja-ka choiko-i-ya electronic products-CONTR Samsung Electronics-NOM best-be-DEC 'As for electronic products, Samsung Electronics is the best.…”

Section: Subjectification Towards Topic and Focus Markersmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Lee 2003), but according to Kim (2012) and Vermeulen (2012) is better analysed as a marker of contrast. A similar debate continues on the Japanese marker -wa, which Radetzky (2002) argues to have developed from a locative marker first to a contrastive marker (involving subjectification, page 41), and later taking on the additional function of topic marker (which can be seen as intersubjectification).…”

Section: Subjectification Towards Topic and Focus Markersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information structure, (inter)subjectivity and objectification

Wal

2014

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022226714000541How to cite this article: Jenneke van der Wal Information structure, (inter)subjectivity and objectication.This paper discusses how information structure can be seen as a subjective and intersubjective concept in Verhagen's (2005) and Breban's (2010) definitions, though less so in Traugott's (2010) use of the terms. More difficult is the question of whether MARKERS of information structure can be characterised as (inter)subjective; this is more easily determined for morphological markers than for prosody or word order. For unambiguous markers of information structure, I suggest that their emergence (e.g. copula > focus marker) is typically accompanied by (inter)subjectification, whereas their further development (e.g. topic marker > subject marker) displays objectification. The paper not only shows that grammatical items can undergo an increase as well as a decrease in (inter)subjectivitythus denying strict unidirectionality -but also confirms that these processes are independent of grammaticalisation.

show abstract

“…I argue that the cantrastviness in (53) is a sort of contrastive topic and laysa functions as its particle. Fintel (1994), Molnár (1998), and Lee (2003) define contrastive topic as a combined effect of topicality and focusing "in the sense that it comes from a potential Topic and somewhat focal in the sense that the choice of the particular part is not known to the hearer" (Lee 2003: 155). In (54), the hearer thought that Zaid didn't come to the party, whereas Khalid did.…”

Section: Free Focusmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Negation and Focus in Standard Arabic: Interface-based Approach

Al-Horais¹

2017

J. Univers. Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the interface between syntax and information structure by interpreting focus under negation. To this end, data will be examined from the Arabic negative marker laysa, which exhibits interesting focus features that broaden our knowledge of syntactic and semantic aspects of negation and deepen our understanding of what information structural effects play a role at the interface. Focus typology can be expressed by laysa in its two major types, namely the information focus and contrastive focus, resulting in three different ways in which negation and focus can interact at the Syntax-Information Structure Interface. These ways  I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Qassim University for supporting this work. I am very grateful to Anders Holmberg and Abdelkader Fassi Fehri for many interesting discussions we have had about syntax in general and Minimalism in particular. Special thanks are forwarded to Ahmed Alkuraydis for helping me with the bibliographies. I am solely responsible for any mistakes or inadequacy.Nasser Al-Horais Arabic Language Department, Qassim University P.O.Box 6611, Buraidah 51425, Saudi Arabia Email: nasser.alhorais@gmail.com Received 11 February, 2017; Revised 13 March, 2017; Accepted 17 March, 2017 2 On Negation and Focus in Standard Arabic: An Interface-based Approach are of three different readings of focus (wide, bound, and free). Each of these foci involves a different derivation which reflects how the autonomous notions of information structure -topic, focus, and contrast -interact in systematic ways with syntax as shown by the proposed minimalist analysis for each type.

show abstract

Contrastive Topic and proposition structure

Cited by 21 publications

References 10 publications

Movement paradoxes are not paradoxes: A raising approach

Movement paradoxes are not paradoxes: A raising approach

Information structure, (inter)subjectivity and objectification

On Negation and Focus in Standard Arabic: Interface-based Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About