• Language and Information
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.47-70
• /
• 2010

This study investigates the semantic and prosodic properties of the so-called contrastive topic. We posit two informational primitives, namely, topical feature [+-T] and focal feature [+-F], from which four different informational categories, i.e., [+T, +F], [+T, -F], [-T, +F], and [-T, -F], are yielded. It is proposed that the informational category of contrastive topic has focal property [+F] as well as topical property [+T]. Based on the semantic approach that regards the function of [+F] as identificational predication and that of [+T] as forming a semantic conditional clause, it is shown that the semantic function of contrastive topic, which is specified as [+T, +F], is the combination of these two functions, i.e., identificational predication in a semantic conditional clause. This is supported by a scrutinized exploration of the prosodic pattern of English contrastive topic.

• Language and Information
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.1-20
• /
• 2008

This paper examines the effects of focus types on case ellipsis in Korean. A number of previous studies have suggested that accusative case markers in Korean and Japanese cannot be dropped when the object they mark is contrastively focused (Masunaga, 1988; Yatabe, 1999; Ko, 2000; Lee, 2002). Using experimental evidence, we argue against the view that case ellipsis in Korean is sensitive to the distinction between contrastive vs. non-contrastive focus. An alternative analysis is proposed which accounts for the phenomenon of variable case marking in terms of the interaction between the contrastive strength and the discourse accessibility of focused object NPs. By viewing patterns of case ellipsis as the result of balancing between these two forces, such an analysis can correctly predict the gradient pattern of case ellipsis shown by the three types of focused objects tested in the experiment (contrastive replacing focus, contrastive selecting focus and non-contrastive, informational focus), while at the same time offering an explanation for why subtypes of focus exert distinct influences on case ellipsis.

• Language and Information
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.62-70
• /
• 2000

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Language and Information Conference
• /
• 2000.06a
• /
• pp.62-70
• /
• 2000

• Phonetics and Speech Sciences
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.119-128
• /
• 2009

Many researchers have argued about the relationship between information structure and intonation. Their results can be summarized in three main points: the intonation of topic and focus in English information structures is implemented as i) a pitch accent, ii) a tune (a pitch accent + (an) edge tone(s)), or iii) a boundary tone. The purpose of this paper is to study various intonational patterns of topic and focus in English information structures, using natural conversations. In this paper, the types of topics and foci are divided, based on contrastiveness. The topics are classified as five non-contrastive and four contrastive topics. The foci are classified as neutral focus, informational focus, and contrastive focus. The results show that the intonation of the topic in English information structures is mainly implemented as a pitch accent, except for the type of the pronoun topic (Lp) which is not implemented as a pitch accent or a tune. However, the intonation of the focus is implemented as a tune in the neutral focus (Fn) and as a pitch accent or a tune in the informational focus (Fi) and the contrastive focus (Fe). In our discussion and conclusion, we suggest that it is not always true that for the meaning of contrast, the topic or the focus is represented as a $L+H^{\ast}$ pitch accent, which has been the main contrastive intonation from earlier studies.

• Korean Journal of Cognitive Science
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.69-92
• /
• 2005

A brief survey of linguistic studies on the nature of contrastive information in discourse was Presented first, and an attempt was also made to incorporate the Linguistic theories and concepts about contrast in discourse into a psychological framework. A tentative model of processing of contrastive information in discourse was Proposed, and eight experimental studies on the effects of contrastive information on comprehension and memory of short and ions discourses were reviewed. Experimental results showed that contrastive sentences took more time to process at encoding, and yet were recognized faster and cued-recalled in greater amount than noncontrastive sentences. It was also found that levels of contrast in the discourse structure have some effects on encoding time. It was further found that the sentence immediately following the contrastive sentence was processed slowly regardless of whether it does or does not resolve the contrast. The implications of the results of empirical studies were discussed in relation to developing a research framework that integrate coherence studies and contrast studies urns the two disciplines of linguistics and cognitive psychology.

• Language and Information
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.57-74
• /
• 2001

In this paper, I propose syntactic, semantic and pragmatic restrictions on the distribution of the contrastive topic marker‘-(n)un’in Korean. A contrastive topic is associated with another focus. The association with focus is subject to syntactic islands. On the other hand, there is no syntactic restriction between a phrase attached with‘-(n)un’and a focused expression within the ‘-(n)un’phrase itself. In this area there is a semantic requirement that the alternatives generated by a focused expression be maintained up to the phrase attached with‘-(n)un’. Finally, when‘-(n)un’is used in an embedded clause, the whole sentence becomes natural when the contrastive topic introduced by‘-(n)un’and its alternative contrastive topic, which is presupposed by the contrastive topic marker, jointly constitute a more complex topic which is related to the whole context. And exclusiveness facilitates the formation of the whole complex context.

• Proceedings of the KSPS conference
• /
• 2005.11a
• /
• pp.179-184
• /
• 2005

The aim of this paper is to analyze the phonetic features of the lexical contrastive focus and the segmental contrastive focus. In this paper, I made two variables to study the realization of the contrastive focus. One is the three phonation types of the Korean plosive, a lenis, a fortis and an aspirate. The other is the positions of the segmental contrastive focus syllable in a word. I examined pitch, duration, intensity, VOT, formant, and so on. The realization of focus is different by the phonation types and the positions of the focused syllable.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Language and Information Conference
• /
• 2007.11a
• /
• pp.259-267
• /
• 2007

This paper sets forth the phenomenon of Contrastive Reduplication (CR) in English relevant to the notion of contrastive focus (CF). CF differs from other reduplicative patterns in that rather than the general intensive function, denotation of a more prototypical and default meaning of a lexical item appears from the reduplicated form resulting as a semantic contrast with the meaning of the non-reduplicated word. Thus, CR is in concordance with CF under the concept of contrastivity. However, much of the previous works on CF associated contrastivity with a manufacture of a set of alternatives taking a semantic approach. We claim that a recent discourse-pragmatic account takes advantage of explaining the vague contrast in informativeness of CR. Zimmermann's (2006) Contrastive Focus Hypothesis characterizes contrastivity in the sense of speaker's assumptions about the hearer's expectation of the focused element. This approach makes possible adaptation to CR and recovers the possible subsets of meaning of a reduplicated form in a more refined way showing contrastivity in informativeness. Additionally, CR in other languages along with similar set-limiting phenomenon in various languages will be introduced in general.

• Speech Sciences
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.149-163
• /
• 2002

Focal parts of utterance can be determined by new/contrastive information, a focus particle, a contrastive topic marker, or a nominative case marker in Busan Korean. Among these factors, new or contrastive information is the most important element in determining the intonational nucleus of an utterance. However, unlike Seoul Korean, when a focus particle, a topic marker, or a case marker contributes to the placement of the most prominent peak of an utterance, the peak is on the noun to which they are attached. Moreover, the case marker-ga shows more prominent pitch on the preceding noun than the noun followed by the topic marker-nun when-ga is used as emphatic or contrastive. This is one of the major problems for Busan Korean users in commanding natural and fluent Seoul Korean intonation even if they use standard written form of Seoul Korean in their speech.