Topic, Focus and Local Relevance
- 108 Downloads
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.
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.
Topichood is one essential notion for the definition of the concept of the ‘local relevance’ of one utterance for another.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsCommon Ground Topic Information Negative Sentence Sentence Topic Information Approach
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- R. Bäuerle: 1979, ‘Questions and answers’, in Bäuerle et al.Google Scholar
- R. Bäuerle, U. Egli and A. v. Stechow (eds.): 1979,Semantics from Different Points of View, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, Springer.Google Scholar
- J. Bayer: 1980, ‘Comments on Tanya Reinhart’sPragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics; Manuscript, Konstanz.Google Scholar
- M. Bierwisch: 1966, ‘Regeln für die Intonation deutscher Sätze’, inStudio Grammatica 7, 99 - 201.Google Scholar
- N. Chomsky, 1971, ‘Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation’, inSemantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy; D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (eds.).Google Scholar
- M. Cresswell: 1973,Logics and Languages, London, Methuen.Google Scholar
- M. Cresswell: 1980, ‘A highly impossible scene. The semantics of visual contradictions’, manuscript, Wellington.Google Scholar
- U. Egli: 1974,Zur Integration der Semantik in die Grammatik, Kronberg/Tr, Scriptor.Google Scholar
- E. Engdahl: 1980,The Syntax and Semantics of Questions in Swedish, PhD-dissertation, Amherst (Mass.).Google Scholar
- G. Gazdar: 1976,Formal Pragmatics for Natural Language, PhD-Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
- L. Hamblin: 1976, ‘Questions in Montague English’, inMontague Grammar, B. Partee (ed.), New York etc. Academic Press.Google Scholar
- R. S. Jackendoff: 1972,Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, M. I. T. Press, Cambridge (Mass.).Google Scholar
- A. G. Hatcher: 1956, ‘Syntax and the sentence’,Word 12, 234–50.Google Scholar
- I. Heim: 1980, ‘Reference and open propositions’, Part I (July); Part I I ( October); unpublished manuscript, Amherst (Mass.).Google Scholar
- T. N. Höhle: 1979,Normalbetonung’ und ‘Normale Wortstellung’: eine pragmatische Explikation. Katholieke Universität Leuven, Voorlopige Publikatie Nr. 66, October.Google Scholar
- D. Kaplan: 1977,Demonstratives. An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstrations. Unpublished manuscript, March.Google Scholar
- L. Karttunen and S Peters: 1979,Conventional Implicature. InSyntax and Semantics, Vol. II:Presupposition. Academie Press.Google Scholar
- L. Karttunen and S. Peters: 1980, Interrogative Quantifiers; inTime, Tense and Quantifiers’, Ch. Rohrer (ed. ), Tübingen.Google Scholar
- W. Klein: 1980, ‘Ellipsis and intonation’, manuscript, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
- A. Kratzer: 1978,Semantik der Rede, Kronberg, Scriptor.Google Scholar
- D. Lewis: 1972, ‘General semantics’, in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.),Semantics of Natural Language, Dordrecht, Reidel.Google Scholar
- D. Lewis: 1977, ‘Index, context and content’, manuscript.Google Scholar
- D. Lewis: 1979, ‘Score-keeping in a language game’, in R. Bäuerle et al.Google Scholar
- M. Libermann: 1975,The Intonational System of English, PhD-dissertation, M. I. T.Google Scholar
- R. Manor, 1980, ‘Answers and other reactions’, manuscript.Google Scholar
- R. Manor: 1980, ‘Dialogues and the logics of questions and of answers’, manuscript to appear inLinguistische Berichte.Google Scholar
- R. Manor: 1980, ‘Positive and negative sentences and their use’, manuscript.Google Scholar
- R. Montague: 1974,Formal Philosophy, R. H. Thomason (ed.).Google Scholar
- T. Reinhart: 1980, ‘Pragmatics and linguistics. An analysis of sentence topics’, to appear inPhilosophia.Google Scholar
- P. Sgall, E. Hajivocá and E. Benesová: 1973,Topic, Focus and Generative Semantics; Kronberg/Ts.Google Scholar
- 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
- R. Stalnaker: 1975, ‘Assertion’, manuscript.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- A. v. Stechow: 1980, ‘Notes on topic and focus of interrogatives and indicatives’,Working Papers of the SFB 99, Konstanz.Google Scholar
- D. Wunderlich: 1976, ‘Fragesätze und Fragen’, in D. Wunderlich,Studien zur Sprechakttheorie, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
- D. Wunderlich: 1979,Fragen und Antworten. 1979. To appear inEnergeia.Google Scholar
- D. Wunderlich: 1980, Fragen und Antworten, manuscript, Nijmegen.Google Scholar