Part of
Beyond MeaningEdited by Elly Ifantidou, Louis de Saussure and Tim Wharton
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 324] 2021
► pp. 29–42
Edited by Elly Ifantidou, Louis de Saussure and Tim Wharton
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 324] 2021
► pp. 29–42
Contrastive stress in English
Meaning, expectations and ostension
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.
Keywords: ostension, procedural meaning, prosody, contrastive stress, cues to ostension, intonation, expectations, relevance theory
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)
Ariel, Mira
1990 Accessing
Noun Phrase
Antecedents. London: Routledge.
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. 
Blakemore, Diane
1987 Semantic
Constraints on
Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
2000 “Indicators
and Procedures: Nevertheless and
but
.” Journal of
Linguistics 36: 463‒486.
2002 Relevance
and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of
Discourse
Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, Robyn
2002 Thoughts
and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit
Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Clark, Billy
2012 “The
Relevance of Tones: Prosodic Meanings in Utterance
Interpretation and in Relevance
Theory.” The Linguistic
Review 29 (4): 643‒661.
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.
2013 Relevance
Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Grice, H. Paul
1989 Studies
in the Way of
Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gussenhoven, Carlos
2004 The
Phonology of Tone and
Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, Alison
2007 “Do
Discourse Markers Encode Concepts or
Procedures?” Lingua 111 (1): 149‒174.
House, Jill
2006 “Constructing
a Context with
Intonation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 38 (10): 1542‒1558.
Imai, Kunihiko
1998 “Intonation
and Relevance.” In Relevance
Theory: Applications and
Implications, ed.
by Robyn Carston, and Seiji Uchida, 69‒86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Iten, Corinne
2005 Linguistic
Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance: The Case of
Concessives. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Matsui, Tomoko
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.
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.
2020 Referring
Expressions, Pragmatics and Style: Reference and
Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
1986/1995 Relevance:
Communication and Cognition. 2nd
ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wells, John C
2006 English
Intonation: An
Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wharton, Tim
2003 “Interjections,
Language, and the Showing/Saying
Continuum.” Pragmatics and
Cognition 11 (1): 39‒91.
2009 Pragmatics
and Non-verbal
Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
2016 “Reassessing
the Conceptual-Procedural
Distinction.” Lingua 175 (6): 5‒19.
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.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Tim Wharton
2006 “Relevance
and Prosody.” Journal of
Pragmatics 38 (10): 1559‒1579.
Cited by (3)
Cited by 3 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 
Madella, Pauline & Tim Wharton
2023. Nonverbal Communication and Context: Multimodality in Interaction. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context, ► pp. 419 ff.
Scott, Kate
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.