Article published In: Continuative and contrastive discourse relations across discourse domains: Cognitive and cross-linguistic approaches
Edited by Matthias Klumm, Anita Fetzer and Evelien Keizer
[Functions of Language 30:1] 2023
► pp. 92–109
Contrast marking variation in Romance and Germanic languages
Crosslinguistic and intralinguistic comparison through task-elicited speech
Published online: 19 January 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22018.and
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22018.and
Abstract
In research on information structure and discourse cohesion, contrast has been defined in different ways,
depending on the pragmatic/semantic relation established between the propositions involved in the contrast, on the text types and
on other discourse conditions. As a whole, despite – or possibly because of – its vagueness, contrast has proved to be a useful
heuristic tool for characterizing discourse cohesion phenomena. This paper focuses on results from our research concerning
cohesion phenomena in elicited discourse in Romance (Italian, French) and Germanic (German, Dutch) languages and aims to offer a
more precise characterization of contrast against several variation parameters. We take into consideration earlier work on three
tasks (Finite Story, Polarity-Switch Dialogues, Map Task) and add a new one
(Spot the Difference). The comparison between the results allows us to disentangle the following variables:
information units involved in the contrast relation; discourse conditions (monologue vs. dialogue); speakers’ access to
information (shared vs. non-shared); effect of contrast on information in the common ground (alternative maintained vs. rejected).
The aim is to achieve a more fine-grained definition of contrast relations, which allows us to identify and characterize the
divergent behavior of Romance and Germanic languages, and to relate intra- and crosslinguistic differences revealed by speakers’
preferences in speech with structural specificities of the two language groups.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The notion of contrast and parameters for its variation
- 3.Contrastive relations in different tasks
- 3.1The Finite Story: Contrast on entity or polarity?
- 3.2Polarity-Switch Dialogues: Polarity contrast
- 3.3A modified version of the Map Task: A different case of polarity contrast
- 3.4Spot the Difference: Contrast on entities and/or locations
- 4.Discussion and conclusion
- Notes
References
References (22)
Andorno, Cecilia & Claudia Crocco. 2018. In search for polarity contrast marking in Italian: A contribution from echo replies. In Christine Dimroth & Stefan Sudhoff (eds.), The grammatical realization of polarity contrast, 256–287. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Andorno, Cecilia & Giuseppina Turco. 2015. Embedding additive particles in the sentence information structure: How L2 learners find their way through positional and prosodic patterns. Linguistik Online 71(2). 57–79.
Benazzo, Sandra & Cecilia Andorno. 2010. Discourse cohesion and topic discontinuity in native and learner production. Changing topic entities on maintained predicates. In Leah Roberts, Martin Howard, Muiris Ó Laoire & David Singleton (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 101, 92–118. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Benazzo, Sandra, Cecilia Andorno, Cedric Patin & Grazia Interlandi. 2012. Perspective discursive et influence translinguistique: Exprimer le contraste d’entité en français et en italien L2. Language, Interaction, and Acquisition 3(2). 173–201.
Cruschina, Silvio. 2021. The greater the contrast, the greater the potential: On the effects of Focus in syntax. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1). 1–30.
Dimroth, Christine. 2002. Topics, assertions, and additive words: How L2 learners get from information structure to target-language syntax. Linguistics 40(4). 891–923.
Dimroth, Christine, Cecilia Andorno, Sandra Benazzo & Josie Verhagen. 2010. Given claims about new topics. How Romance and Germanic speakers link changed and maintained information in narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42(12). 3328–3344.
Fetzer, Anita. 2018. The encoding and signalling of discourse relations in argumentative discourse: Evidence across production formats. In María de los Ángeles Gómez González & J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds.), The construction of discourse as verbal interaction, 13–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fetzer, Anita & Augustin Speyer. 2012. Discourse relations in English and German discourse: Local and not-so-local constraints. Intercultural Pragmatics 9(4). 413–452.
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1998. La grammaticalisation de l’interaction ou Pour une approche polysémique de l’adverbe bien. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 41. 111–138.
Hohle, Tilman. 1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Joachim Jacobs (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Caroline Féry & Manfred Krifka (eds.), The notions of information structure 61, 13–55. Potsdam: Universität Potsdam.
Molnar, Valéria. 2002. Contrast from a contrastive perspective. In Hilde Hasselgård, Stig Johansson, Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective, 147–161. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Poletto, Cecilia & Raffaella Zanuttini. 2013. Emphasis as reduplication: Evidence from sì che/no che sentences. Lingua 1281. 124–141.
Repp, Sophie. 2010. Defining ‘contrast’ as an information-structural notion in grammar. Lingua 120(6). 1333–1345.
Sudhoff, Stefan (2012): Negation der Negation. Verumfokus und die niederländische Polaritätspartikel wel. In: Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 181, 105–136.
Turco, Giuseppina. 2014. Contrasting opposite polarity in Germanic and Romance languages. Nijmegen: MPI Series in Psycholinguistics.
Turco, Giuseppina, Bettina Braun & Christine Dimroth. 2014. When contrasting polarity, the Dutch use particles, Germans intonation. Journal of Pragmatics 621. 94–106.