Advertisement

Topic, Focus and Local Relevance

  • Arnim Von Stechow
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Language Library book series (SLAP, volume 13)

Summary

T. Reinhart (80) has claimed that the naive identification of topic information with old information and of focus information with new information is inconsistent.

I shall try to reconstruct the old versus new information approach in such a way that no inconsistency can arise.

My topic information will be what Chomsky (71) calls presupposition. The focus information of a sentence will be the material implication between its topic information and its content (its truth-conditions). The focus-information is ‘the meaning’ of the sentencequa focus-structure.

The usefulness of these concepts is illustrated because they are needed to show claims like the following.
  1. 1.

    Different focus assignment does not affect the truth conditions of a sentence, but it is responsible for the fact that the same sentence expresses different assertions, if it has different foci.

     
  2. 2.

    Topichood is one essential notion for the definition of the concept of the ‘local relevance’ of one utterance for another.

     
  3. 3.

    The relation between answers and questions should be described in terms of local relevance. Such an approach will provide a much more general account of the relation of being an answer to a question than commonly found in the literature.

     
  4. 4.

    Negative sentences with different foci express diffferent assertions although they have the same truth-conditions. It makes a difference whether the negation belongs to the focus or not. The phenomena to be discussed can’t be explained by differences in the scope of the negation.

     
  5. 5.

    We are able to explain the difference between questions like ‘Who called, JOHN or MARY?’ or ‘Did JOHN call or did MARY call?’ on the one hand and the corresponding alternative question without focus, ‘Did John or Mary call?’ on the other hand.

     

The approach developed in this paper belongs to truth-conditional semantics. It is assumed that propositions determine truth-conditions. But we argue for something more: Propositions should be regarded as structured entities. They should at least have a topic-focus structure.

Keywords

Common Ground Topic Information Negative Sentence Sentence Topic Information Approach 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. R. Bäuerle: 1979, ‘Questions and answers’, in Bäuerle et al.Google Scholar
  2. R. Bäuerle, U. Egli and A. v. Stechow (eds.): 1979,Semantics from Different Points of View, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, Springer.Google Scholar
  3. J. Bayer: 1980, ‘Comments on Tanya Reinhart’sPragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics; Manuscript, Konstanz.Google Scholar
  4. M. Bierwisch: 1966, ‘Regeln für die Intonation deutscher Sätze’, inStudio Grammatica 7, 99 - 201.Google Scholar
  5. N. Chomsky, 1971, ‘Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation’, inSemantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy; D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (eds.).Google Scholar
  6. M. Cresswell: 1973,Logics and Languages, London, Methuen.Google Scholar
  7. M. Cresswell: 1980, ‘A highly impossible scene. The semantics of visual contradictions’, manuscript, Wellington.Google Scholar
  8. U. Egli: 1974,Zur Integration der Semantik in die Grammatik, Kronberg/Tr, Scriptor.Google Scholar
  9. E. Engdahl: 1980,The Syntax and Semantics of Questions in Swedish, PhD-dissertation, Amherst (Mass.).Google Scholar
  10. G. Gazdar: 1976,Formal Pragmatics for Natural Language, PhD-Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
  11. L. Hamblin: 1976, ‘Questions in Montague English’, inMontague Grammar, B. Partee (ed.), New York etc. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. R. S. Jackendoff: 1972,Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, M. I. T. Press, Cambridge (Mass.).Google Scholar
  13. A. G. Hatcher: 1956, ‘Syntax and the sentence’,Word 12, 234–50.Google Scholar
  14. I. Heim: 1980, ‘Reference and open propositions’, Part I (July); Part I I ( October); unpublished manuscript, Amherst (Mass.).Google Scholar
  15. T. N. Höhle: 1979,Normalbetonung’ und ‘Normale Wortstellung’: eine pragmatische Explikation. Katholieke Universität Leuven, Voorlopige Publikatie Nr. 66, October.Google Scholar
  16. D. Kaplan: 1977,Demonstratives. An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstrations. Unpublished manuscript, March.Google Scholar
  17. L. Karttunen and S Peters: 1979,Conventional Implicature. InSyntax and Semantics, Vol. II:Presupposition. Academie Press.Google Scholar
  18. L. Karttunen and S. Peters: 1980, Interrogative Quantifiers; inTime, Tense and Quantifiers’, Ch. Rohrer (ed. ), Tübingen.Google Scholar
  19. W. Klein: 1980, ‘Ellipsis and intonation’, manuscript, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  20. A. Kratzer: 1978,Semantik der Rede, Kronberg, Scriptor.Google Scholar
  21. D. Lewis: 1972, ‘General semantics’, in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.),Semantics of Natural Language, Dordrecht, Reidel.Google Scholar
  22. D. Lewis: 1977, ‘Index, context and content’, manuscript.Google Scholar
  23. D. Lewis: 1979, ‘Score-keeping in a language game’, in R. Bäuerle et al.Google Scholar
  24. M. Libermann: 1975,The Intonational System of English, PhD-dissertation, M. I. T.Google Scholar
  25. R. Manor, 1980, ‘Answers and other reactions’, manuscript.Google Scholar
  26. R. Manor: 1980, ‘Dialogues and the logics of questions and of answers’, manuscript to appear inLinguistische Berichte.Google Scholar
  27. R. Manor: 1980, ‘Positive and negative sentences and their use’, manuscript.Google Scholar
  28. R. Montague: 1974,Formal Philosophy, R. H. Thomason (ed.).Google Scholar
  29. T. Reinhart: 1980, ‘Pragmatics and linguistics. An analysis of sentence topics’, to appear inPhilosophia.Google Scholar
  30. M. Reis: 1977,Präsuppositionen und Syntax, Tübingen, Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. P. Sgall, E. Hajivocá and E. Benesová: 1973,Topic, Focus and Generative Semantics; Kronberg/Ts.Google Scholar
  32. R. Stalnaker: 1974, ‘Pragmatic presupposition’, in: Munitz, M. K. and Unger P. M. (eds.):Semantics and Philosophy, New York Univ. Press, N. Y.Google Scholar
  33. R. Stalnaker: 1975, ‘Assertion’, manuscript.Google Scholar
  34. A. v. Stechow: 1978, ‘Presupposition and context’,Working papers of the SFB 99, Konstanz. To appear inAspects of Philosphical Logic; U. Mönnich (ed.).Google Scholar
  35. A. v. Stechow: 1980, ‘Modification of noun phrases. A challenge for compositional semantics’,Working Papers of the SFB 99, Konstanz. To appear inTheoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
  36. A. v. Stechow: 1980, ‘Notes on topic and focus of interrogatives and indicatives’,Working Papers of the SFB 99, Konstanz.Google Scholar
  37. D. Wunderlich: 1976, ‘Fragesätze und Fragen’, in D. Wunderlich,Studien zur Sprechakttheorie, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  38. D. Wunderlich: 1979,Fragen und Antworten. 1979. To appear inEnergeia.Google Scholar
  39. D. Wunderlich: 1980, Fragen und Antworten, manuscript, Nijmegen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnim Von Stechow

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations