Topic and focus in a formal framework

Peregrin, Jaroslav

doi:10.1075/z.78.25per

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Principle (24) allows us to derive the same presuppositions that were derived in Borschev and Partee (1998a) from the correlation of greater presuppositionality with the Theme of the sentence (Hajièová 1973, 1984, Peregrin 1995, Sgall et al 1986. In particular, from this principle it will follow that the nominative subjects in NDS's are normally presupposed to exist, whereas in NES's, only the LOCation is normally presupposed to exist, and the perspectival structure does not provide any existence presupposition for the THING.…”

Section: (24) Perspectival Center Presuppositionmentioning

confidence: 73%

The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences

Borschev¹,

Partee²

2002

Prague Linguistic Circle Papers / Travaux Du Cercle Linguistique De Prague N.S.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arrived-M.SG answer-NOM.M.SG from regiment 'There was an answer from the regiment.' The affirmative ADS and AES sentences differ (obligatorily) in the order of subject and verb, while in the negative sentences, where the difference between NDS and NES is marked by case, the word order can vary; we return to this important point later. Here are some more standard examples. 5 (3) a. NDS: Stok talyx vod ne nabljudalsja. Runoff-NOM.M.SG melted water NEG was.observed-M.SG 'No runoff of thawed snow was observed.' 6 b. NES: Stoka talyx vod ne nabljudalos'. Runoff-GEN.M.SG melted water NEG was.observed-N.SG 'No runoff of thawed snow was observed.' (= There was no runoff.) (4) a. NDS: Moroz ne èuvstvovalsja. Frost-NOM.M.SG NEG be.felt-M.SG 'The frost was not felt.' (E.g. we were dressed warmly). b. NES: Moroza ne èuvstvovalos'. Frost-GEN.M.SG NEG be.felt-N.SG 'No frost was felt (there was no frost).' (5) a. NDS: *(#) Somnenija ne byli. 7 Doubts-NOM.N.PL NEG were-N.PL b. NES: Somnenij ne bylo. Doubts-GEN.N.PL NEG were-N.SG 'There were no doubts.' (6) a. NDS: Lena ne pela. Lena-NOM.F.SG NEG sang-F.SG 'Lena didn't sing.' b. NES: *(#) Leny ne pelo. Lena-GEN.F.SG NEG sang-N.SG 10 The most common term in Russian corresponding to Babby's "existential sentences" is bytijnye predloženija; see Arutjunova (1976, 1997), Arutjunova and Širjaev (1983). The contrasting term "declarative" is not widespread in the English-language literature, and is perhaps not the best choice. The Russian alternative preferred by Arutjunova and Paduèeva is "sobytijnye" predloženija, 'eventive sentences'.

show abstract

Section: (24) Perspectival Center Presuppositionmentioning

confidence: 73%

The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences

Borschev¹,

Partee²

2002

Prague Linguistic Circle Papers / Travaux Du Cercle Linguistique De Prague N.S.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Topic and comment, for example, focusing on the notion of aboutness, are familiar labels in American linguistics and are used in the writings of Dahl (1974aDahl ( , 1974b, Sgall (1974Sgall ( , 1975, Szépe (1974a, 1974b), Bates (1976) and Sgall and Hajičová (1977), among others. Other variations include topic-focus (Hajičová, 1994;Lambrecht, 1994;Peregrin, 1996;Koktová, 1996) and topic-dominance (Erteschik-Shir, 1988).…”

Section: The Hallidayan Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The inference-boundary model

Ping

2000

Language Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(Weil, 1978: 29) The point of departure and enunciation of the clause are known today by a host of names and are interpreted in diverse ways. The more common labels include topic and comment (Dahl, 1974a(Dahl, , 1974bSgall, 1974Sgall, , 1975Szépe, 1974a, 1974b;Bates, 1976;Sgall and Hajičová, 1977), topic and focus (Hajičová, 1994;Lambrecht, 1994;Peregrin, 1996;Koktová, 1996), and topic and dominance (Erteschik-Shir, 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Talking themes: the thematic structure of talk

Ping

2005

Discourse Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C T This article examines the thematic structure and progression of an extract of a spontaneous conversation using the inference-boundary model (an amended version of the Hallidayan theme-rheme framework) and the thematic progression framework of Daneš. This article argues that equal attention should be paid to both thematic and rhematic progression. Insofar as rheme carries the body of the message, it would be tremendously helpful for us to gain an understanding of the patterned behaviour of the rhematic element and how theme and rheme together shape the message in the unfolding discourse. The article also examines the different patterns of theme-rheme development in the extract. The boxed, gapped, holistic, and multiple developments, including their variant forms, are presented and discussed.K E Y W O R D S : conversation, inference-boundary model, rheme, thematic progression, theme A RT I C L E 701Discourse Studies

show abstract

Topic and focus in a formal framework

Cited by 14 publications

References 17 publications

The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences

The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences

The inference-boundary model

Talking themes: the thematic structure of talk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About