Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations

Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.001

Cited by 77 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The students were not informed about the intent of the experiment or the hypotheses and had one or two introductory linguistics courses as background. They were trained to find contrasts on a small subset of the completions (around 25 items), using syntactic techniques based on Izutsu (2008) and Kehler (2001) plus semantic judgment. Specifically, each student was asked to decide whether the sentence did have at least one pair of contrasting words or phrases on either side of the conjunction, in which case it should sound fine with in contrast after but .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Izutsu (2008)’s discussion of opposition relations distinguishes three uses of this conjunction: contrast, concessive, and corrective (though since correctives have a syntactic structure inconsistent with those in this study, they will not be considered further). In Izutsu’s contrast relation, the clauses joined by but must be comparable in structure, and also have distinct compared items or phrases which can contrast with each other because they are mutually exclusive but within the same cognitive/semantic domain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…This project will follow Kehler (2001) and Izutsu (2008) in considering but to be used in at least two different discourse patterns. It is outside the purview of this work whether or not these need distinct semantic treatments (see Toosarvandani (to appear), though).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Predicting contrast in sentences with and without focus marking

Carlson

2014

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do we know when a contrast is coming? This study explores the prediction of parallel contrastive phrases, especially NPs, in sentences with and without overt focus marking. A written sentence-completion questionnaire with clauses followed by the conjunction “but” compared unmarked initial clauses to ones with the focus marker “only” on the subject or object. Both conditions with “only” elicited more contrasts overall than the condition without focus marking, and many of the contrasts were with the focus-marked NP. While the baseline (no-only) condition had full clauses for half of the completions, subject focus increased clausal completions and object focus increased negative ellipsis completions (“not”+NP structures), both changes in syntax which make a contrast with the marked NP easy. The production of negative ellipsis sentences primarily in the object-focus condition suggests that the object bias of these sentences in comprehension could relate to their being used more frequently with this meaning. Finally, the overall pattern of results shows that overt marking of contrastive focus increases continuations with contrasts, and the conjunction “but” does not reliably predict explicitly-stated contrasts within a sentence without overt focus marking.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predicting contrast in sentences with and without focus marking

Carlson

2014

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the statements in each sentence is positive and the other one is negative, however the overall sentiment of the two sentences differs. This is achieved by the fact that concessive relations have an expectation in the first component and deny that expectation in the second (Izutsu, 2008). This denial of expectation puts argumentative emphasis on the second part of the sentence, making the second judgment of the sentence stronger.…”

Section: Breaking Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Breaking Sentiment Analysis of Movie Reviews

Staliūnaitė¹,

Bonfil²

2017

Proceedings of the First Workshop on Building Linguistically Generalizable NLP Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, the Basque standard marker baino has a noncomparative use as an adversative coordinator. As discussed in Izutsu (2008), there is still no consensus on the classification of adversative relations and adversative markers. In the terminology employed in this paper, adversativity is the property that controls the use of the adversative particle/conjunction but and similar particles in other languages that enter in a relation that involves some sense of opposition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Smaller than small comparatives: the case of Basque

Vela-Plo¹

2018

Borealis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adjectival comparatives like txiki baino txikiago ‘smaller than small’ in Basque exhibit some striking properties that present a challenge for previous analyses of inequality comparatives. The research on this unstudied type of adjectival comparatives in Basque – henceforth small comparatives – is especially interesting due to the rich morphology and freedom of word order that Basque displays. These two properties are vital for the testing of the hypotheses on the structure of these comparatives. First, the examination of the underlying structure of the standard of comparison reveals that these adjectival modifiers are inequality comparatives with a phrasal standard. Second, the study of the extraction constraints of the standard and the particular distribution of small comparatives evidence the fact that the standard marker in these comparatives behaves as a coordinating conjunction, and that these modifiers can appear inside a Determiner Phrase, in contrast with previously analysed adjectival comparatives. These properties are explained by assuming the functional analysis of adjectives and comparative markers (-ago ‘-er, more’), and proposing a coordination analysis of these phrasal comparatives. The study of small comparatives hence shows that the coordination analysis of comparative structures is necessary not only for clausal comparatives (Napoli & Nespor 1983 for Italian; Sáez 1992 for Spanish; and Lechner 2004 for English and German) but also for phrasal comparatives such as small comparatives.

show abstract

Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations

Cited by 77 publications

References 16 publications

Predicting contrast in sentences with and without focus marking

Predicting contrast in sentences with and without focus marking

Breaking Sentiment Analysis of Movie Reviews

Smaller than small comparatives: the case of Basque

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About