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.
2013Descriptive Typology and Linguistics Theory: A Study in the Morphosyntax of Relative Clauses. Stanford CA: CSLI.
2006The Intonation of Givenness. Berlin: De Gruyter.
2013Evidentiality, 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.
2010Given claims about new topics. How Romance and Germanic speakers link changed and maintained information in narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42(12): 3328–3344.
2007Aspects of Vietnamese clausal structure: Separating tense from assertion. Linguistics 45(4): 765–814.
2013On polarity emphasis, assertion and mood in Vietnamese and English. Lingua 137: 248–270.
É. Kiss, Katalin
2002The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: CUP.
2012Discourse 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.
Egg, Markus & Zimmermann, Malte
2012Stressed 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.
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen
2009The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–492.
2002Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
Friedman, Victor A.
1986Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian and Albanian. In Evidentiality. The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Johanna Nichols & Wallace Chafe (eds), 168–187. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
Goldberg, Adele E.
2009The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1): 93–127.
Goldberg, Adele E. & Ackerman, Farrell
2001The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language 77(4): 798–814.
2014German ‘doch’: An element that triggers a contrast presupposition. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 46(1): 163–177.
2016Information structure and discourse particles. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 336–358. Oxford: OUP.
Güldemann, Tom & Fiedler, Ines
2013Verb fronting in Bantu in typological perspective. Paper presented at the Workshop on Information Structure in Bantu Languages, Humboldt University Berlin. [URL] (5 November 2016).
1983Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19(2): 377–417.
2007Types 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.
2010Betonte Modalpartikeln und Verumfokus. In 40 Jahre Partikelforschung, Elke Hentschel & Theo Harden (eds), 119–138. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
2016Verum focus. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 290–313. Oxford: OUP.
2001Yukaghir Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2003Tundra Yukaghir. Munich: Lincom.
2003Topics, Presuppositions, and Theticity: An Empirical Study of VS Clauses in Albanian, Modern Greek, and Serbo-Croat. PhD dissertation, University of Cologne.
2009On the variability of focus meanings. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Linguists, Seoul 2008. Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea.
2010Discourse 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.
2015Tag 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.
Matić, Dejan & Nikolaeva, Irina
2008Predicate focus and the particle mə(r)= in Tundra Yukaghir. Paper presented at Predicate Focus Workshop, University of Potsdam.
Matić, Dejan & Nikolaeva, Irina
2014Realis mood, focus, and existential closure in Tundra Yukaghir. Lingua 150: 202–231.
Matić, Dejan & Wedgwood, Daniel
2013The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49(1): 127–163.
1981Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.
2014Lying at the Semantics-pragmatics Interface. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Merin, Arthur & Nikolaeva, Irina
2008Exclamative as a universal speech act category: A case study in decision-theoretic semantics and typological implications. Ms. [URL] (20 November 2016).
Nevins, Andrew, Pesetsky, David & Rodrigues, Carlos
2009Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85(2): 355–404.
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
2007Linguistic typology requires crosslinguistic formal categories. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 133–157.
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon
1994Verb-initial patterns in Basque and Breton. Lingua 94: 125–153.
2012It is not so: Nominal and ‘emphatic’ negation in colloquial Burmese. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale 42(2): 219–285.
2014The System of Information Packaging in Colloquial Burmese. PhD dissertation, La Trobe University.
2007Beyond the CG: The semantics and pragmatics of epistemic modals. Paper presented at: International Congress of Linguists, Seoul. [URL] (29 October 2016).
1998On 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.
2013Common 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.
Rett, Jessica & Murray, Sarah E.
2013A semantic account of mirative evidentials. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 23: 453–472.
2009On the (un)suitability of semantic categories. Linguistic Typology 13(1): 95–104.
Romero, Maribel & Han, Chung-hye
2004On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5): 609–658.
2016Alternative semantics. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Ishihara Shinichiro (eds), 19–40. Oxford: OUP.
2014The Variables of VP Ellipsis. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.
2015Polarity-driven inversion in British English and beyond. Ms. [URL] (31 October 2016).
2015The emphatic interpretation of English VP preposing. Paper presented at: The 89th Annual Meeting of the LSA. [URL] (15 October 2016).
2016Verum focus in alternative semantics. Paper presented at: The 90th Annual Meeting of the LSA. [URL] (15 October 2016).
2014Contrasting Opposite Polarity in Germanic and Romance Languages: Verum Focus and Affirmative Particles in Native Speakers and Advanced L2 Learners. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.
2013Intonational means to mark Verum focus in German and French. Language and Speech 56(4): 460–490.
Watters, John R.
1979Focus in Aghem. In Aghem Grammatical Structure, Larry Hyman (ed.), 137–197. Los Angeles CA: University of Southern California.
2006Shifting the Focus: From Static Structures to the Dynamics of Interpretation. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
2013English ‘emphatic do’. Lingua 128: 142–171.
2008‘So’-inversion as polarity focus. In Proceedings of WECOL 38, Michael Grosvald & Dianne Soares (eds), 304–317. Davis: UC Davis.
2014Affirmative 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.
2008Contrastive focus and emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4): 347–360.
Zimmermann, Malte & Hole, Daniel
2008Predicate focus, verum focus, verb focus: Similarities and differences. Paper presented at: Predicate Focus Workshop, University of Potsdam.
Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar
2011Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121(11): 1651–1670.
2021. Multifactorial Information Management (MIM): summing up the emerging alternative to Information Structure. Linguistics Vanguard 7:1
2020. Operator focus in discourse and grammar: The two perfectives in Kakabe. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 41:1 ► pp. 99 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 november 2023. 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.