Cover not available

In:The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast: Theoretical, empirical, and typological approaches
Edited by Christine Dimroth and Stefan Sudhoff
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 249] 2018
► pp. 1–8

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

The grammatical realization of polarity contrast

Introductory remarks

 | University of Münster
 | Utrecht University
Published online: 30 November 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.249.00dim
Article outline
  • Do polarity contrast markers interact with layers of meaning beyond negation/affirmation?
  • What is the relation between polarity contrast and focus?
  • Are affirmative particles and prosodic markings equivalent expressions of polarity contrast?
  • How is affirmative and negative polarity represented in syntax and semantics and what impact does polarity have on other elements of grammatical structure?
  • How does polarity contrast relate to discourse structure?
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (32)
References
Batllori, Montserrat & Hernanz, M. Lluïsa. 2013. Emphatic polarity particles in Spanish and Catalan. Lingua 128: 9–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik. 2012. Faktizität, Wahrheit, Erwünschtheit: Negation, Negationsfokus und „Verum“-Fokus im Deutschen. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 137–170.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik & Lohnstein, Horst. 2012. Verumfokus im Deutschen: Versuch einer Synthese. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 171–261.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danckaert, Lieven & Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. Conditional clauses, main clause phenomena and the syntax of polarity emphasis. In Comparative Germanic Syntax: The State of the Art [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 191], Peter Ackema, Rhona Alcorn, Caroline Heycock, Dany Jaspers, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd (eds), 133–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dimroth, Christine. 2004. Fokuspartikeln und Informationsgliederung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dimroth, Christine, Andorno, Cecilia, Benazzo, Sandra & Verhagen, Josje. 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2012. Verum – Fokus – Verum-Fokus? Fokus-basierte und lexikalische Ansätze. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 67–103.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel, Hartmann, Katharina & Matthewson, Lisa. 2017. Verum focus is verum, not focus. Cross-linguistic evidence. <[URL]> (1 May 2018).
Hogeweg, Lotte. 2009. The meaning and interpretation of the Dutch particle ‘wel’. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 519–539.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2013. The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish. Lingua 128: 31–50.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kandybowicz, Jason. 2013. Ways of emphatic scope-taking: From emphatic assertion in Nupe to the grammar of emphasis. Lingua 128: 51–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 2006. On finiteness. In Semantics in Acquisition, Veerle van Geenhoven (ed.), 245–272. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang & von Stutterheim, Christiane. 2002. Quaestio and L-perspectivation. In Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse [Human Cognitive Processing 9], Carl Friedrich Graumann & Werner Kallmeyer (eds), 59–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1999. Additive particles under stress. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 8: 111–128.
. 2017. Negated polarity questions as denegations of assertions. In Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures, Chungmin Lee, Ferenc Kiefer & Manfred Krifka (eds), 359–398. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasser, Ingeborg. 2002. The roots of root infinitives: Remarks on infinitival main clauses in adult and child language. Linguistics 40 (4): 767–796.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lipták, Anikó. 2013. The syntax of emphatic positive polarity in Hungarian: Evidence from ellipsis. Lingua 128: 72–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst. 2012. Verumfokus – Satzmodus – Wahrheit. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 31–67. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Verum Focus. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 290–313. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst & Blühdorn, Hardarik (eds). 2012. Wahrheit – Fokus – Negation. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martins, Ana Maria. 2013. Emphatic polarity in European Portuguese and beyond. Lingua 128: 95–123.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics 5: 1–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel & Han, Chung-hye. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5): 609–658.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stommel, Hildegard. 2012. Verum-Fokus als Kontrast-Fokus. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 15–29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sudhoff, Stefan. 2010a. Focus particles and contrast in German. Lingua 120(6): 1458–1475.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010b. Focus Particles in German: Syntax, Prosody, and Information Structure [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 151]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Negation der Negation: Verumfokus und die niederländische Polaritätspartikel ‘wel’. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 105–136.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turco, Giuseppina. 2014. Contrasting opposite polarity in Germanic and Romance languages: Verum focus and affirmative particles in native speakers and advanced L2 learners. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turco, Giuseppina, Braun, Bettina & Dimroth, Christine. 2014. When contrasting polarity, the Dutch use particles, Germans intonation. Journal of Pragmatics 62: 94–106.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turco, Giuseppina, Dimroth, Christine & Braun, Bettina. 2013. Intonational means to mark Verum focus in German and French. Language and Speech 56 (4): 460–490.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 2013. English ‘emphatic do’. Lingua 128: 142–171.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue