Abstract
The notion of kontrast, or the ability of certain linguistic expressions to generate a set of alternatives, originally proposed by Vallduví and Vilkuna (1998) as a clause-level concept, is re-analyzed here as connecting the level of information packaging in the clause and the level of discourse structure in the following way: kontrast is encoded at the clausal level but has repercussions for discourse structure. This claim is supported by evidence from the distribution properties of three colloquial Russian particles -to, že, andved' which are analyzed as unambiguous markers of kontrast. Both the placement of these particles at the clausal level and their role in discourse are viewed as consequences of the type of the kontrast set and the cognitive status of information marked by each particle.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bitextin, A.B., 1994, “Časticy-to, že, ved' i vvodnye konstrukcii tipa kak izvestno kak sredstva ukazanija na izvestnost' propozicional'nogo soderžanija predloženija slušajuščemu,” AKD, Moskovskij Gosudarstvennyj Universitet.
Bonnot, C. and Kodzasov, C.B., 1998, “Semantičeskoe var'irovanie diskursivnyx slov i ego vlijanie na linearizaciju i intonirovanie (Na primere častic ŽE i VED'),” pp. 382–443 in Diskursivnye Slova Russkogo Jazyka: Opyt Kontekstno-Semantičeskogo Opisanija, K. Kiseleva and D. Paillard, eds., Moscow: Metatekst.
Büring, D., 2000, “On D-trees, beans, and B-accents,” Ms. Thesis, UCLA.
Chafe, W.L., 1976, “Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view,” pp. 25–55 in Subject and Topic, C.N. Li, ed., New York: Academic Press.
Feldman, A., 2001, “Discourse markers – Accessing 'hearer-old' information: The case of the Russian že,” pp. 186–201 in Proceedings of the 27th LACUS Forum, A. Melby et al., eds., Chapel Hill, NC: The Linguistic Assocation of Canada and the United States.
Ginzburg, J., 1996, “Interrogatives: Questions, facts and dialogue,” pp. 385–422 in The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, S. Lappin, ed., Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Grimshaw, J., 1979, “Complement selection and the lexicon,” Linguistic Inquiry 10, 279–326.
Gundel, J.K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R., 1993, “Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse,” Language 69, 274–307.
Gundel, J.K., Hegarty, M., and Borthen, K., 2001, “Information structure and pronominal reference to clausally introduced referents,” pp. 37–52 in Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics, ESSLLI 2001 Workshop Proceedings, I. Kruijff-Korbayová and M. Steedman, eds., Helsinki: The University of Helsinki.
Hagstrom, P. and McCoy, S., 2002, “Presuppositions, wh-questions, and discourse particles: Russian že,” Paper presented at Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL-11), University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
Hamblin, C.L., 1958, “Questions,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 36, 159–168.
Hamblin, C.L., 1973, “Questions in Montague English,” Foundations of Language 10, 41–53.
Kanerva, J.M. and Gabriele, L.A., 1995, “Intonation and focus layers,” pp. 335–346 in Proceedings of the Northeast Linguistic Society 25 (NELS 25), Vol. 1, Papers from the Main Session, J.N. Beckman, ed., University of Pennsylvania.
Karagjosova, E., 2001a, “Modal particles and the common ground: Meaning and functions of German ja, doch, eben/halt and auch,” pp. 201–209 in BI-DIALOG 2001, P. Kühnlein, H. Reiser, and H. Zeevat, eds.
Karagjosova, E., 2001b, “Towards a comprehensive meaning of the German doch,” pp. 131–141 in Proceedings of the Sixth ESSLLI Student Session, K. Striegnitz, ed., Helsinki: The University of Helsinki.
Karttunen, L., 1977, “Syntax and semantics of questions,” Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3–44.
Krifka, M., 1991–1992, “A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions,” Linguistische Berichte, Suppl. 4, 17–53.
Kruijff-Korbayová, I. and Webber, B., 2001, “Information structure and the semantics of 'otherwise',” pp. 67–83 in Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics, ESSLLI 2001 Workshop Proceedings, I. Kruijff-Korbayová and M. Steedman, eds., Helsinki: The University of Helsinki.
Les Particules Enonciatives en Russe Contemporain, Vol. 1 (1986), Vol. 2 (1987), Vol. 3 (1988), Paris: Institut d'Études Slaves.
Liberman, M. and Sag, I., 1974, “Prosodic form and discourse function,” pp. 416–427 in Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 10, M.W. LaGaly, R. Fox and A. Bruck, eds., Chicago Linguistic Society.
McCoy, S., 2001, “Colloquial Russian particles-to, že, and ved' as set-generating (“kontrastive”) markers: A unifying analysis,” Ph.D. Thesis, Boston University.
Molnár, V., 2001, “Contrast from a contrastive perspective,” pp. 99–114 in Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics, ESSLLI 2001 Workshop Proceedings, I. Kruijff-Korbayová and M. Steedman, eds., Helsinki: The University of Helsinki.
Parrott, L., 1997, “Discourse organization and inference: The usage of the Russian particles že and ved',” Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University.
Pierrehumbert, J. and Hirschberg, J., 1990, “The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse,” pp. 271–312 in Intentions in Communication, P.R. Cohen et al., eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Portner, P. and Zanuttini, R., 2000, “The force of negation in wh exclamatives and interrogatives,” pp. 193–231 in Negation and Polarity: Syntactic and Semantic Perspectives, L.R. Horn and K. Yasuhiko, eds., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, C., 1996, “Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics,” pp. 91–136 in OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics, J. H. Yoon and A. Kathol, eds., Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Rooth, M., 1985, “Association with focus,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Rooth, M., 1992, “A theory of focus interpretation,” Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.
Steedman, M., 2001, “Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface,” Linguistic Inquiry 34, 649–689.
Umbach, C., 2001, “Relating contrast and contrastive topic: A focus-semantic analysis of 'but',” pp. 175–188 in Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics, ESSLLI 2001 Workshop Proceedings, I. Kruijff-Korbayová and M. Steedman, eds., Helsinki: The University of Helsinki.
Vallduví, E., 1992, The Informational Component, New York: Garland.
Vallduví, E. and Vilkuna, M., 1998, “On rheme and kontrast,” Syntax and Semantics 29 (The Limits of Syntax), 79–108.
van Kuppevelt, J., 1995, “Discourse structure, topicality and questioning,” Linguistics 31, 109–147.
van Kuppevelt, J., 1996a, “Directionality in discourse: Prominence differences in subordination relations,” Journal of Semantics 13, 363–395.
van Kuppevelt, J., 1996b, “Inferring from topics,” Linguistics & Philosophy 19, 393–443.
Vasilyeva, A.N., 1972, Particles in Colloquial Russian: Manual for English-Speaking Students of Russian, Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Yokoyama, O.T., 1986, Discourse and Word Order, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Zanuttini, R. and Portner, P., 1999, “Types of clauses: A Case study in exclamatives,” Ms. Thesis, Georgetown University.
Zeevat, H., 2000, “Discourse particles as speech act markers,” LDV Forum, 74–91.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McCoy, S. Connecting Information Structure and Discourse Structure through ``Kontrast'': The Case of Colloquial Russian Particles -TO, ŽE, and VED' . Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12, 319–335 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024110711090
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024110711090