Emphasis, from Greek emphaínein ‘to exhibit, to indicate’, is a complex phenomenon. Historically it has its roots in ancient rhetoric, where it refers to the exceptional force, intensity or otherwise unusual form of expression on the part of speakers or writers which serves to indicate or attract attention to special meaning, importance, or prominence of their words, feelings or actions. The nature of the particular meaning, importance or prominence in any specific instance of use has to be inferred. Emphasis fulfils two main functions. Firstly, to aid recipients in better comprehending utterances and texts. Secondly, to facilitate the audience’s adoption of certain opinions, beliefs and desires. Thus, cognition and affect are involved, and the two main communicative strategies of informing and persuading or influencing (Schirren 1994). Emphasis is also a topic in literary and general stylistics, as well as in linguistic stylistics (Crystal & Davy 1969; Leech & Short 1981; Enkvist 1987; Esser 1993; Selting 1994). It has been studied in Prague School functional linguistics (Mathesius 1964), and in systemic functional linguistics (Halliday 1994). In linguistics emphasis is associated with information structure (Halliday 1994), prosody (Cutler & Ladd 1983; Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg 1990), markedness (Levelt 1991), and salience (Levelt 1991; Giora 2002) – topics that are dealt with in other entries in this Handbook. Although these aspects have become particularly relevant for cognitive science and automatic speech processing, these fields will not be dealt with here (but cf. Special Issue on Dialogue and prosody of Speech Communication 36, 2002; Hirschberg 2002; Shriberg et al. 1998). Due to its implicit nature, an account of emphasis will also have to refer to models of inference, for instance those formulated by Grice (1975) and Sperber & Wilson (1995).
1984Our masters’ voices. Methuen.
1971Discourse typology. In L. Matejka & K. Pomorska (eds.) Readings in Russian poetics: formalist and structuralist views: 176–196. MIT Press.
(ed.)2000Multimodality and multimediality in the distance learning age. Palladino Editore.
1972Steps to an ecology of mind. Aaronson Inc.
1989A typology of English texts. Linguistics 27: 3–43.
1979More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.): 19–45. BoP
Blum-Kulka, S., M. Blondheim & G. Hacohen
2002Traditions of dispute: from negotiations of talmudic texts to the arena of political discourse in the media. Journal of Pragmatics 34(10–11): 1569–1594. BoP
1972Accent is predictable (if you’re a mind reader). Language 48: 633–644. BoP
Caffi, C. & R.W. Janney
1994Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics 22(3/4): 325–373. BoP
1994On reporting reporting: the representation of speech in factual and factional narratives. In M. Coulthard (ed.) Advances in written text analysis: 295–308. Routledge.
1988Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social problems 35: 474–492.
Crystal, D. & D. Davy
1969Investigating English style. Longman.
Cutler, A. & D.R. Ladd
(eds.)1983Prosody: Models and Measurements. Springer. BoP
1988Discourse representation in media discourse. Sociolinguistics 17: 125–139.
1992Discourse and text: linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse and society 3(2): 193–217. BoP
Ford, C.E. & S.A. Thompson
1996Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (eds.) Interaction and grammar: 134–184. Cambridge University Press.
1981Footing. In Forms of talk: 124–157. Blackwell. BoP
Goodwin, M.H., C. Goodwin & M. Yaeger-Dror
2002Multi-modality in girls’ game disputes. Journal of Pragmatics 34(10–11): 1621–1649.
1975Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and semantics, vol 3: speech acts: 41–58. Academic Press. BoP
2002On our mind. Salience, context and figurative language. Oxford University Press. MetBib
1982Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press. BoP
1992Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds.) Rethinking context. Language as an interactive phenomenon: 229–252. Cambridge University Press.
1970A course in spoken English: intonation. Oxford University Press. BoP
1994Introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold. BoP
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan
1985Language, context and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Deakin University Press.
Heritage, J. & D. Greatbatch
1986/87Generating applause: a study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences. American Journal of Sociology 92: 110–157.
2002Communication and prosody: functional aspects of prosody. Speech Communication 36: 31–43. BoP
2000Evaluation and the planes of discourse: status and value in persuasive texts. In G. Thompson & S. Hunston (eds.): 176–207.
2002Negation and prosody in British English: a study based on the London-Lund Corpus. Journal of Pragmatics 34(10–11): 1473–1494. BoP
Klewitz, G. & E. Couper-Kuhlen
1999Quote-unquote? The role of prosody in the contextualization of reported speech sequences. Pragmatics 9: 459–485.
(ed.)1988Das Gelächter der Geschlechter. Humor und Macht in Gesprächen von Frauen und Männern. Fischer.
Kress, G. & T. Van Leeuwen
1996Reading images. The grammar of visual design. Routledge. BoP
1971Presupposition and relative well-formedness. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (eds.) Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology: 63–72. Cambridge University Press. BoP
1993The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.): 202–251. BoP
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson
1980Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. BoP
Leech, G. & M. Short
1981Style in fiction. Longman.
1991On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20(3): 441–458.
1991Speaking. From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
Levelt, W.J.M. & A. Cutler
1983Prosodic marking in speech repair. Journal of Semantics 2: 202–217.
1979Activity types and language. Linguistics 17(5): 365–399. BoP