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. 9–54

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

From polarity focus to salient polarity

From things to processes

 | University of Münster
 | SOAS University of London
Published online: 30 November 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.249.01mat
Abstract
The paper provides arguments against the denotational approach to polarity focus (also known as Verum), which treats it as a distinct denotation contributed by the dedicated grammatical structures. It shows that the purported category of polarity focus is routinely defined on the basis of faulty analytical procedures, reification of inferential interpretations and suppression of variation. As a result, this approach cannot account for the full range of usages of those grammatical structures that are standardly assumed to instantiate polarity focus. As an alternative to the denotational accounts, the paper proposes an interpretational approach that disposes of the idea of a discrete denotation defining a linguistic category. To emphasize the difference between these two understandings of linguistic meaning, the term salient polarity is introduced. Salient polarity is understood as an interpretive effect stemming from the speaker’s intention to draw the hearer’s attention to the truth value of the proposition. This interpretive effect comes about through different inferential mechanisms and for various communicative reasons, and can be derived from completely unrelated denotations. Thus, salient polarity is not a traditional linguistic category if the latter is defined based on the correspondence between a linguistic form and a denotation, but is rather to be conceived of as a fuzzy set of family resemblances unified by shared communicative intentions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Salient polarity and accented verbs
    • 2.1Identifying salient polarity
    • 2.2Against form-meaning correspondence
      • 2.2.1Auxiliary constructions
      • 2.2.2Other structures in question-answer contexts
      • 2.2.3Underspecification
    • 2.3Conclusion
  • 3.Salient polarity and interpretive effects
    • 3.1Accented verbs and all-given propositions
    • 3.2Conventionalized interpretations
    • 3.3Other salient polarity structures
    • 3.4Source denotations
      • 3.4.1Existential quantifiers
      • 3.4.2Miratives, evidentials, and epistemic stance
      • 3.4.3Other source denotations and a summary
  • 4.Final remarks
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (88)
References
Abraham, Werner & Conradi, C. Jac. 2001. Präteritumschwund und Diskursgrammatik. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2013. Descriptive Typology and Linguistics Theory: A Study in the Morphosyntax of Relative Clauses. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baumann, Stefan. 2006. The Intonation of Givenness. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behrens, Leila. 2013. Evidentiality, modality, focus, and other puzzles. In Practical Theories and Empirical Practice: A Linguistic Perspective [Human Cognitive Processing 40], Andrea C. Schalley (ed.), 185–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Birner, Betty & Ward, Gregory. 1998. Information Status and Non-canonical Word Order in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 40]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2010. Towards a typology of focus realization. In Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives, Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds), 177–205. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Intonation and Meaning. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creswell, Cassandres. 2000. The discourse function of verum focus in wh-questions. In Proceedings of NELS 30, Masako Hirotani, Andries Coetzee, Nancy Hall & Ji-Yung Kim (eds), 165–180. Amherst MA: GLSA.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
Davies, Eirlys. 1986. The English Imperative. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1(1): 33–52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C., Hoffmann, Maria E., de Jong, Jan R., Dijang, Sie Ing, Stroomer, Harry J. & de Vries, Lourens. 1981. On the typology of focus phenomena. In Perspectives on Functional Grammar, Teun Hoekstra, Harry van der Hulst & Michael Moortgat (eds), 41–74. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dimroth, Christine, Andorno, Cecilia, Benazzo, Sandra & Verhagen, Josie. 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
Duffield, Nigel. 2007. Aspects of Vietnamese clausal structure: Separating tense from assertion. Linguistics 45(4): 765–814.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. On polarity emphasis, assertion and mood in Vietnamese and English. Lingua 137: 248–270.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egg, Markus. 2012. Discourse particles at the semantics-pragmatics interface. In Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 297–333. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egg, Markus & Zimmermann, Malte. 2012. Stressed out! Accented discourse particles – The case of ‘DOCH’. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, Vol. 1, Ana Aguilar Guevara, Anna Chernilovskaya & Rick Nouwen (eds), 225–238. Utrecht: UiL-OTS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–492.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor A. 1986. Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian and Albanian. In Evidentiality. The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Johanna Nichols & Wallace Chafe (eds), 168–187. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2009. The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1): 93–127.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & Ackerman, Farrell. 2001. The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language 77(4): 798–814.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick. 2014. German ‘doch’: An element that triggers a contrast presupposition. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 46(1): 163–177.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Information structure and discourse particles. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 336–358. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom & Fiedler, Ines. 2013. Verb fronting in Bantu in typological perspective. Paper presented at the Workshop on Information Structure in Bantu Languages, Humboldt University Berlin. <[URL]> (5 November 2016).
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19(2): 377–417.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Types of focus in English. In Topic and Focus: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation, Chungmin Lee, Matthew Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds), 83–100. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2010. Betonte Modalpartikeln und Verumfokus. In 40 Jahre Partikelforschung, Elke Hentschel & Theo Harden (eds), 119–138. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Verum – Fokus – Verum-Fokus? Fokus-basierte und lexikalische Ansätze. In Wahrheit – Fokus – Negation, Horst Lohnstein & Hardarik Blühdorn (eds), 67–103. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel & Castroviejo Miró, Elena. 2011. The dimensions of VERUM. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), 143–165. Paris: CSSP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Parts 1–2. Journal of Linguistics 3(1–2): 37–81, 177–274.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(4): 663–687.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
Hyman, Larry & Watters, John R. 1984. Auxiliary focus. Studies in African Linguistics 15(3): 233–273.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. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klima, Eduard S. 1964. Negation in English. In The Structure of Language, Jerry Fodor & Jerold Katz (eds), 246–323. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4): 243–276.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurilov, Gavril. 2005. Fol’klor jukagirov. Novosibirsk: Nauka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational Phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lai, Catherine. 2012. Rises all the way up: The Interpretation of Prosody, Discourse Attitudes and Dialogue Structure. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1994. On the Syntax of Negation. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.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 Wahrheit – Fokus – Negation, Horst Lohnstein & Hardarik Blühdorn (eds), 31–67. 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
Maslova, Elena. 2001. Yukaghir Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Tundra Yukaghir. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan. 2003. Topics, Presuppositions, and Theticity: An Empirical Study of VS Clauses in Albanian, Modern Greek, and Serbo-Croat. PhD dissertation, University of Cologne.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. On the variability of focus meanings. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Linguists, Seoul 2008. Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea.
. 2010. Discourse and syntax in linguistic change: Ratified topics in Serbian/Croatian. In Diachronic Studies on Information Structure, Gisella Ferraresi & Rosemarie Lühr (eds), 117–142. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Tag questions and focus markers: Evidence from the Tompo dialect of Even. In Information Structure and Spoken Language in a Cross-linguistic Perspective, Jocelyne M. M. Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (eds), 167–189. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2008. Predicate focus and the particle mə(r)= in Tundra Yukaghir. Paper presented at Predicate Focus Workshop, University of Potsdam.
. 2014. Realis mood, focus, and existential closure in Tundra Yukaghir. Lingua 150: 202–231.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Wedgwood, Daniel. 2013. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49(1): 127–163.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2014. Lying at the Semantics-pragmatics Interface. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merin, Arthur & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2008. Exclamative as a universal speech act category: A case study in decision-theoretic semantics and typological implications. Ms. <[URL]> (20 November 2016).
Mišković-Luković, Mirjana. 2010. Markers of conceptual adjustment. Serbian particles ‘baš’ and ‘kao’. In South Slavic Discourse Particles [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 197], Mirjana Mišković-Luković & Mirjana Dedaić (eds), 65–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, Pesetsky, David & Rodrigues, Carlos. 2009. Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85(2): 355–404.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2007. Linguistic typology requires crosslinguistic formal categories. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 133–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1994. Verb-initial patterns in Basque and Breton. Lingua 94: 125–153.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel. 2012. It is not so: Nominal and ‘emphatic’ negation in colloquial Burmese. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale 42(2): 219–285.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. The System of Information Packaging in Colloquial Burmese. PhD dissertation, La Trobe University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2007. Beyond the CG: The semantics and pragmatics of epistemic modals. Paper presented at: International Congress of Linguists, Seoul. <[URL]> (29 October 2016).
Prince, Ellen. 1998. On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization. In Syntax and Semantic 29: The Limits of Syntax, Peter W. Culicover & Louise McNally (eds), 281–302. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2013. Common ground management: Modal particles, illocutionary negation and VERUM. In Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-conditional Meaning, Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 231–274. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica & Murray, Sarah E. 2013. A semantic account of mirative evidentials. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 23: 453–472.
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2009. On the (un)suitability of semantic categories. Linguistic Typology 13(1): 95–104.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
Rooth, Mats. 2016. Alternative semantics. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Ishihara Shinichiro (eds), 19–40. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sailor, Craig. 2014. The Variables of VP Ellipsis. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Polarity-driven inversion in British English and beyond. Ms. <[URL] (31 October 2016).
Samko, Bern. 2015. The emphatic interpretation of English VP preposing. Paper presented at: The 89th Annual Meeting of the LSA. <[URL]> (15 October 2016).
. 2016. Verum focus in alternative semantics. Paper presented at: The 90th Annual Meeting of the LSA. <[URL]> (15 October 2016).
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
Watters, John R. 1979. Focus in Aghem. In Aghem Grammatical Structure, Larry Hyman (ed.), 137–197. Los Angeles CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wedgwood, Daniel. 2006. Shifting the Focus: From Static Structures to the Dynamics of Interpretation. Oxford: Elsevier Science.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
Wood, Jim. 2008. ‘So’-inversion as polarity focus. In Proceedings of WECOL 38, Michael Grosvald & Dianne Soares (eds), 304–317. Davis: UC Davis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Affirmative semantics with negative morphosyntax: Negative exclamatives and the New England ‘So AUXn’t NP/DP’ construction. In Micro-syntactic Variation in North American English, Raffaella Zanuttini & Laurence R. Horn (eds), 71–114. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2008. Contrastive focus and emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4): 347–360.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Hole, Daniel. 2008. Predicate focus, verum focus, verb focus: Similarities and differences. Paper presented at: Predicate Focus Workshop, University of Potsdam.
Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121(11): 1651–1670.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Simmul, Carl Eric
2024. Information structure of converb constructions: Estonian -des, -mata and -maks constructions. Folia Linguistica 58:1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Garassino, Davide & Daniel Jacob
2022. When data challenges theory. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Matić, Dejan
2022. Alternatives to information structure. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Vallauri, Edoardo Lombardi
2022. Distinguishing psychological Given/New from linguistic Topic/Focus makes things clearer. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo
Ozerov, Pavel
2021. Multifactorial Information Management (MIM): summing up the emerging alternative to Information Structure. Linguistics Vanguard 7:1 DOI logo
Vydrina, Alexandra
2020. Operator focus in discourse and grammar: The two perfectives in Kakabe. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 41:1 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue