Cover not available

In:Beyond Meaning
Edited by Elly Ifantidou, Louis de Saussure and Tim Wharton
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 324] 2021
► pp. 29–42

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

Contrastive stress in English

Meaning, expectations and ostension

 | Kingston University London
Published online: 10 November 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.324.c2
Abstract
In this chapter I consider where contrastive stress fits within the relevance-theoretic model of utterance interpretation. In particular, I focus on contrastive stress as a cue to ostension which layers on top of the ostensive act of producing an utterance and which guides inferential processes. Stress patterns, however, only act as a cue to ostension when they are unexpected. It is the disconfirmation of expectations that puts the hearer to more effort and prompts the search for extra interpretive effects. The discussions in this chapter build on existing work on both prosody and pragmatics and the conclusions drawn have implications for our understanding of inferential processes, procedural meaning, and ostensive communication more generally.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Contrastive stress, interpretation and natural highlighting
  • 3.Relevance, ostension and the role of expectations
  • 4.Contrastive stress as a cue to ostension
  • 5.Contrastive stress and procedural meaning
  • Notes
  • References
References (30)
References
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. “Accessibility Theory: An Overview.” In Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects, ed. by Ted J. Sanders, Joost Schliperoord, and Wilbert Spooren, 29‒97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. “Indicators and Procedures: Nevertheless and but.” Journal of Linguistics 36: 463‒486. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Billy. 2012. “The Relevance of Tones: Prosodic Meanings in Utterance Interpretation and in Relevance Theory.” The Linguistic Review 29 (4): 643‒661. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Procedures and Prosody: Weak Encoding and Weak Communication.” In Beyond Words: Content, Context, and Inference, ed. by Frank Liedtke, and Cornelia Schulze, 151‒181. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein. 2002. “Intonation as a Constraint on Inferential Processing.” In Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference, Aix-en-Provence, France, ed. by Bernard Bell, and Isabelle Marlien, 59‒64.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, Alison. 2007. “Do Discourse Markers Encode Concepts or Procedures?” Lingua 111 (1): 149‒174. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
House, Jill. 2006. “Constructing a Context with Intonation.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (10): 1542‒1558. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Imai, Kunihiko. 1998. “Intonation and Relevance.” In Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications, ed. by Robyn Carston, and Seiji Uchida, 69‒86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iten, Corinne. 2005. Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance: The Case of Concessives. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsui, Tomoko. 2000. Bridging and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sax, Daniel J. 2011. “Sentence Stress and the Procedures of Comprehension.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspective, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 349‒381. Bingley: Emerald. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, Kate. 2017. “Prosody, Procedures and Pragmatics.” In Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed. by Ilse Depraetere, and Raphael Salkie, 323‒341. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Referring Expressions, Pragmatics and Style: Reference and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, Kate, and Rebecca Jackson. 2020. “When Everything Stands Out, Nothing Does: Typography, Expectations and Procedures.” In Relevance Theory, Figuration and Continuity in Pragmatics, ed. by Agnieszka Piskorska, 167‒192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 2006. English Intonation: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wharton, Tim. 2003. “Interjections, Language, and the Showing/Saying Continuum.” Pragmatics and Cognition 11 (1): 39‒91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Pragmatics and Non-verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. “The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspective, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 3‒31. Bingley: Emerald. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Reassessing the Conceptual-Procedural Distinction.” Lingua 175 (6): 5‒19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2019. “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-propositional Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics 145: 31‒38. .
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Tim Wharton. 2006. “Relevance and Prosody.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (10): 1559‒1579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Helganger, Line Sjøtun & Ingrid Lossius Falkum
2023. Intonational production as a window into children’s early pragmatic competence: The case of the Norwegian polarity focus and two jo particles. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Madella, Pauline & Tim Wharton
2023. Nonverbal Communication and Context: Multimodality in Interaction. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context, ► pp. 419 ff. DOI logo
Scott, Kate
2021. Memes as multimodal metaphors. Pragmatics & Cognition 28:2 ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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