Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 511–545 | Cite as

On D-Trees, Beans, And B-Accents

  • Daniel Büring


This paper presents a comprehensive pragmatic theory ofcontrastive topic and its relation to focus in English.In discussing various constructions involving contrastive topics,it argues that they make reference to complex, hierarchicalaspects of discourse structure. In this, it follows and spellsout a proposal sketched in Roberts (1996, p. 121ff),using the formal tools found in Büring (1994,1997b). It improves on existing accounts in the accuracy with which it predicts the non-occurrence of the accent patterns associated with focus and contrastive topic, and locates the analysis of contrastive topicswithin a broader picture of discourse and information structure.


Artificial Intelligence Information Structure Computational Linguistic Discourse Structure Broad Picture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bosch, Peter and Rob van der Sandt: 1994, Focus and Natural Language Processing, 3 Volumes, IBM Deutschland GmbH.Google Scholar
  2. Bosch, Peter and Rob van der Sandt: 1999, Focus – Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Büring, Daniel: 1994, ‘Topic’, in Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt (1994), pp. 271–280 (revised version in Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt (1999), pp. 142–165).Google Scholar
  4. Büring, Daniel: 1997a, ‘The Great Scope Inversion Conspiracy’, Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 175–194.Google Scholar
  5. Büring, Daniel: 1997b, The Meaning of Topic and Focus – The 59th Street Bridge Accent, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  6. Büring, Daniel: 1998, ‘Topic and Focus in a Complex Model of Discourse’, manuscript, Cologne University.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson, Lauri: 1983, Dialog Games – An Approach to Discourse Analysis, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  8. É. Kiss, Katalin: 1998, ‘Scope Inversion in Hungarian’, manuscript.Google Scholar
  9. Gazdar, Gerald: 1979, Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Ginzburg, J., Z. Khasidashvili, C. Vogel, J. J. Levy and E. Vallduví, eds.: 1998, The Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation: Selected Papers, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Gussenhoven, Carlos: 1983, ‘Focus, Mode, and the Nucleus’, Journal of Linguistics 19, 377–417. Reprinted as Chapter 1 in C. Gussenhoven (1984).Google Scholar
  12. Gussenhoven, Carlos: 1984, On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  13. Gussenhoven, Carlos: 1999, ‘On the Limits of Focus Projection in English’, in Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt (1999), pp. 43–55.Google Scholar
  14. Jackendoff, Ray: 1972, Semantics in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Jacobs, Joachim: 1991/2a, Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen (= Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 4).Google Scholar
  16. Jacobs, Joachim: 1991/2b, ‘Neutral Stress and the Position of Heads’, in Joachim Jacobs (1991/2a), pp. 220–244.Google Scholar
  17. Jacobs, Joachim: 1992, Integration, Technical Report 14, SFB 282, Köln &; Wuppertal, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
  18. Jacobs, Joachim: 1997, ‘I-Topikalisierung’, Linguistische Berichte 169, 91–133.Google Scholar
  19. Jacobs, Joachim: 1999, ‘Informational Autonomy’, in Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt (1999), pp. 56–81.Google Scholar
  20. Kanerva, Jonni M. and Leslie A. Gabriele: 1996, ‘Intonation and Focus Layers’, in Proceedings of NELS 26, 335–346.Google Scholar
  21. Klein, Wolfgang and Christiane von Sutterheim: 1987, ‘Quaestio und referentielle Bewegung in Erzählungen’, Linguistische Berichte 109, 163–183.Google Scholar
  22. Kratzer, Angelika: 1981, ‘The Notional Category of Modality’, in Hans Jürgen Eikmeyer and Hannes Rieser (eds.), New Approaches in World Semantics, Words, Worlds, and Contexts, Walter de Gruyter, New York/Berlin, pp. 38–74.Google Scholar
  23. Krifka, Manfred: 1991/2, ‘A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions’, in Joachim Jacobs (1991/2a), pp. 17–53.Google Scholar
  24. Krifka, Manfred: 1998, ‘Scope Inversion under the Rise-Fall Pattern in German’, Linguistic Inquiry 29(1), 75–112.Google Scholar
  25. Ladd, Robert D.: 1980, The Structure of Intonational Meaning, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  26. Lee, Chungmin: 1999, ‘Contrastive Topic: A Locus of Interface – Evidence from Korean and English’, in Ken Turner (1999), pp. 317–342.Google Scholar
  27. McNally, Louise: 1998, ‘On Recent Formal Analyses of Topic’, in J. Ginzburg et al. (1998), pp. 147–160.Google Scholar
  28. O'Connor, J. D. and G. F. Arnold: 1973, Intonation of Colloquial English, 2nd edn, Longmans, London.Google Scholar
  29. Pierrehumbert, Janet: 1980, The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation, Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  30. Pierrehumbert, Janet and Julia Hirschberg: 1990, ‘The Meaning of Intonational Contours in the Interpretation of Discourse’, in P. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. Pollock (eds.), Intentions in Communications, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 271–311.Google Scholar
  31. Reinhart, Tanya: 1982, ‘Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics’, Philosophica 27, 53–94.Google Scholar
  32. Roberts, Craige: 1996, ‘Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics’, in J. H. Yoon and Andreas Kathol (eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics, pp. 91–136.Google Scholar
  33. Rochemont, Michael: 1986, Focus in Generative Grammar, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  34. Rooth, Mats: 1985, Association with Focus, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  35. Rooth, Mats: 1992, ‘A Theory of Focus Interpretation’, Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.Google Scholar
  36. Schwarzschild, Roger: 1999, ‘GiVENness, AvoidF and Other Constraints on the Placement of Accent’, Natural Language Semantics 7(2), 141–177.Google Scholar
  37. Selkirk, Elisabeth: 1984, Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  38. Selkirk, Elisabeth: 1995, ‘Sentence Prosody: Intonation, Stress, and Phrasing’, in John A. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, Blackwell, London, pp. 550–569.Google Scholar
  39. Stalnaker, Robert C.: 1978, ‘Assertion’, in Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics – Syntax &; Semantics, Vol. 9, Academic Press, New York, pp. 315–332.Google Scholar
  40. Steedman, Mark: 2000, ‘Information Structure and the Syntax-Phonology Interface’, Linguistic Inquiry 31, 649–689.Google Scholar
  41. Turner, Ken, ed.: 1999, The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View, Elsevier.Google Scholar
  42. Uechi, Akihiko: 1996, ‘The Discourse Function of Wa-Marking in Japanese’, in Proceedings of NELS 12, No. 14, in the University of Washington Working Papers.Google Scholar
  43. Vallduví, Enric: 1990, The Informational Component, Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania (published by Garland, 1992).Google Scholar
  44. Vallduví, Enric: 1993, Information Packaging: A Survey, Technical Report, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  45. Vallduví, Enric and Elisabeth Engdahl: 1996, ‘The Linguistic Realization of Information Packaging’, Linguistics 34, 459–519.Google Scholar
  46. van Kuppevelt, Jan: 1991, Topic en Comment: Expliciete en Impliciete Vraagstellingen in Discourse, Ph.D. thesis, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  47. van Kuppevelt, Jan: 1995, ‘Discourse Structure, Topicality and Questioning’, Linguistics 31, 109–147.Google Scholar
  48. van Kuppevelt, Jan: 1996a, ‘Directionality in Discourse: Prominence Differences in Subordination Relations’, Journal of Semantics 13, 363–395.Google Scholar
  49. van Kuppevelt, Jan: 1996b, Inferring from Topics’, Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 393–443.Google Scholar
  50. von Stechow, Arnim: 1989, Focusing and Backgrounding Operators, Technical Report 6, Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
  51. Williams, Edwin: 1997, ‘Blocking and Anaphora’, Linguistics Inquiry 28, 577–628.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Büring
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUCLALos Angeles

Personalised recommendations