Cover not available
Part of
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

The grammatical realization of polarity contrast

Introductory remarks

| University of Münster
| Utrecht University
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
Published online: 30 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.249.00dim
References
Batllori, Montserrat & Hernanz, M. Lluïsa
2013 Emphatic polarity particles in Spanish and Catalan. Lingua 128: 9–30.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik
2012 Faktizität, Wahrheit, Erwünschtheit: Negation, Negationsfokus und „Verum“-Fokus im Deutschen. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 137–170.Google Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik & Lohnstein, Horst
2012 Verumfokus im Deutschen: Versuch einer Synthese. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 171–261.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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimroth, Christine
2004 Fokuspartikeln und Informationsgliederung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel
2012 Verum – Fokus – Verum-Fokus? Fokus-basierte und lexikalische Ansätze. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 67–103.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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N.
1992 Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders
2013 The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish. Lingua 128: 31–50.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kandybowicz, Jason
2013 Ways of emphatic scope-taking: From emphatic assertion in Nupe to the grammar of emphasis. Lingua 128: 51–71.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang
2006 On finiteness. In Semantics in Acquisition, Veerle van Geenhoven (ed.), 245–272. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle 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
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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasser, Ingeborg
2002 The roots of root infinitives: Remarks on infinitival main clauses in adult and child language. Linguistics 40 (4): 767–796.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipták, Anikó
2013 The syntax of emphatic positive polarity in Hungarian: Evidence from ellipsis. Lingua 128: 72–94.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst
2012 Verumfokus – Satzmodus – Wahrheit. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 31–67. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
2016 Verum Focus. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 290–313. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst & Blühdorn, Hardarik
(eds) 2012 Wahrheit – Fokus – Negation. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Martins, Ana Maria
2013 Emphatic polarity in European Portuguese and beyond. Lingua 128: 95–123.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige
2012 Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics 5: 1–69.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel & Han, Chung-hye
2004 On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5): 609–658.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stommel, Hildegard
2012 Verum-Fokus als Kontrast-Fokus. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 15–29.Google Scholar
Sudhoff, Stefan
2010a Focus particles and contrast in German. Lingua 120(6): 1458–1475.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b Focus Particles in German: Syntax, Prosody, and Information Structure [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 151]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Negation der Negation: Verumfokus und die niederländische Polaritätspartikel ‘wel’. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 105–136.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
Turco, Giuseppina, Braun, Bettina & Dimroth, Christine
2014 When contrasting polarity, the Dutch use particles, Germans intonation. Journal of Pragmatics 62: 94–106.DOI logoGoogle 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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilder, Chris
2013 English ‘emphatic do’. Lingua 128: 142–171.DOI logoGoogle Scholar