The paper provides arguments against the denotational approach to polarity focus (also known as Verum), which treats it as a distinct denotation contributed by the dedicated grammatical structures. It shows that the purported category of polarity focus is routinely defined on the basis of faulty analytical procedures, reification of inferential interpretations and suppression of variation. As a result, this approach cannot account for the full range of usages of those grammatical structures that are standardly assumed to instantiate polarity focus. As an alternative to the denotational accounts, the paper proposes an interpretational approach that disposes of the idea of a discrete denotation defining a linguistic category. To emphasize the difference between these two understandings of linguistic meaning, the term salient polarity is introduced. Salient polarity is understood as an interpretive effect stemming from the speaker’s intention to draw the hearer’s attention to the truth value of the proposition. This interpretive effect comes about through different inferential mechanisms and for various communicative reasons, and can be derived from completely unrelated denotations. Thus, salient polarity is not a traditional linguistic category if the latter is defined based on the correspondence between a linguistic form and a denotation, but is rather to be conceived of as a fuzzy set of family resemblances unified by shared communicative intentions.
Ackerman, Farrell & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2013. Descriptive Typology and Linguistics Theory: A Study in the Morphosyntax of Relative Clauses. Stanford CA: CSLI.
Baumann, Stefan. 2006. The Intonation of Givenness. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Behrens, Leila. 2013. Evidentiality, modality, focus, and other puzzles. In Practical Theories and Empirical Practice: A Linguistic Perspective [Human Cognitive Processing 40], Andrea C. Schalley (ed.), 185–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Büring, Daniel. 2010. Towards a typology of focus realization. In Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives, Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds), 177–205. Oxford: OUP.
Büring, Daniel. 2016. Intonation and Meaning. Oxford: OUP.
Creswell, Cassandres. 2000. The discourse function of verum focus in wh-questions. In Proceedings of NELS 30, Masako Hirotani, Andries Coetzee, Nancy Hall & Ji-Yung Kim (eds), 165–180. Amherst MA: GLSA.
Danckaert, Lieven & Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. Conditional clauses, main clause phenomena and the syntax of polarity emphasis. In Comparative Germanic Syntax: The State of the Art [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 191], Peter Ackema, Rhona Alcorn, Caroline Heycock, Dany Jaspers, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd (eds), 133–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davies, Eirlys. 1986. The English Imperative. London: Croom Helm.
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1(1): 33–52.
Dik, Simon C., Hoffmann, Maria E., de Jong, Jan R., Dijang, Sie Ing, Stroomer, Harry J. & de Vries, Lourens. 1981. On the typology of focus phenomena. In Perspectives on Functional Grammar, Teun Hoekstra, Harry van der Hulst & Michael Moortgat (eds), 41–74. Dordrecht: Foris.
Dimroth, Christine, Andorno, Cecilia, Benazzo, Sandra & Verhagen, Josie. 2010. Given claims about new topics. How Romance and Germanic speakers link changed and maintained information in narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42(12): 3328–3344.
Duffield, Nigel. 2007. Aspects of Vietnamese clausal structure: Separating tense from assertion. Linguistics 45(4): 765–814.
Duffield, Nigel. 2013. On polarity emphasis, assertion and mood in Vietnamese and English. Lingua 137: 248–270.
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: CUP.
Egg, Markus. 2012. Discourse particles at the semantics-pragmatics interface. In Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 297–333. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Egg, Markus & Zimmermann, Malte. 2012. Stressed out! Accented discourse particles – The case of ‘DOCH’. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, Vol. 1, Ana Aguilar Guevara, Anna Chernilovskaya & Rick Nouwen (eds), 225–238. Utrecht: UiL-OTS.
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–492.
Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
Friedman, Victor A.1986. Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian and Albanian. In Evidentiality. The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Johanna Nichols & Wallace Chafe (eds), 168–187. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
Goldberg, Adele E.2009. The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1): 93–127.
Goldberg, Adele E. & Ackerman, Farrell. 2001. The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language 77(4): 798–814.
Grosz, Patrick. 2014. German ‘doch’: An element that triggers a contrast presupposition. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 46(1): 163–177.
Grosz, Patrick. 2016. Information structure and discourse particles. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 336–358. Oxford: OUP.
Güldemann, Tom & Fiedler, Ines. 2013. Verb fronting in Bantu in typological perspective. Paper presented at the Workshop on Information Structure in Bantu Languages, Humboldt University Berlin. <[URL]> (5 November 2016).
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19(2): 377–417.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2007. Types of focus in English. In Topic and Focus: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation, Chungmin Lee, Matthew Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds), 83–100. Heidelberg: Springer.
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2010. Betonte Modalpartikeln und Verumfokus. In 40 Jahre Partikelforschung, Elke Hentschel & Theo Harden (eds), 119–138. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2012. Verum – Fokus – Verum-Fokus? Fokus-basierte und lexikalische Ansätze. In Wahrheit – Fokus – Negation, Horst Lohnstein & Hardarik Blühdorn (eds), 67–103. Hamburg: Buske.
Gutzmann, Daniel & Castroviejo Miró, Elena. 2011. The dimensions of VERUM. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), 143–165. Paris: CSSP.
Halliday, Michael A. K.1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Parts 1–2. Journal of Linguistics 3(1–2): 37–81, 177–274.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(4): 663–687.
Höhle, Tilman N.1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Hyman, Larry & Watters, John R.1984. Auxiliary focus. Studies in African Linguistics 15(3): 233–273.
Kandybowicz, Jason. 2013. Ways of emphatic scope-taking: From emphatic assertion in Nupe to the grammar of emphasis. Lingua 128: 51–71.
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge.
Klima, Eduard S.1964. Negation in English. In The Structure of Language, Jerry Fodor & Jerold Katz (eds), 246–323. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4): 243–276.
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational Phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.
Lai, Catherine. 2012. Rises all the way up: The Interpretation of Prosody, Discourse Attitudes and Dialogue Structure. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Laka, Itziar. 1994. On the Syntax of Negation. New York NY: Garland.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP.
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Lipták, Anikó. 2013. The syntax of emphatic positive polarity in Hungarian: Evidence from ellipsis. Lingua 128: 72–94.
Matić, Dejan. 2003. Topics, Presuppositions, and Theticity: An Empirical Study of VS Clauses in Albanian, Modern Greek, and Serbo-Croat. PhD dissertation, University of Cologne.
Matić, Dejan. 2009. On the variability of focus meanings. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Linguists, Seoul 2008. Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea.
Matić, Dejan. 2010. Discourse and syntax in linguistic change: Ratified topics in Serbian/Croatian. In Diachronic Studies on Information Structure, Gisella Ferraresi & Rosemarie Lühr (eds), 117–142. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Matić, Dejan. 2015. Tag questions and focus markers: Evidence from the Tompo dialect of Even. In Information Structure and Spoken Language in a Cross-linguistic Perspective, Jocelyne M. M. Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (eds), 167–189. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Matić, Dejan & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2008. Predicate focus and the particle mə(r)= in Tundra Yukaghir. Paper presented at Predicate Focus Workshop, University of Potsdam.
Matić, Dejan & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. Realis mood, focus, and existential closure in Tundra Yukaghir. Lingua 150: 202–231.
Matić, Dejan & Wedgwood, Daniel. 2013. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49(1): 127–163.
Matthews, Peter. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.
Meibauer, Jörg. 2014. Lying at the Semantics-pragmatics Interface. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Merin, Arthur & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2008. Exclamative as a universal speech act category: A case study in decision-theoretic semantics and typological implications. Ms. <[URL]> (20 November 2016).
Nevins, Andrew, Pesetsky, David & Rodrigues, Carlos. 2009. Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85(2): 355–404.
Newmeyer, Frederick J.2007. Linguistic typology requires crosslinguistic formal categories. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 133–157.
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1994. Verb-initial patterns in Basque and Breton. Lingua 94: 125–153.
Ozerov, Pavel. 2012. It is not so: Nominal and ‘emphatic’ negation in colloquial Burmese. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale 42(2): 219–285.
Ozerov, Pavel. 2014. The System of Information Packaging in Colloquial Burmese. PhD dissertation, La Trobe University.
Portner, Paul. 2007. Beyond the CG: The semantics and pragmatics of epistemic modals. Paper presented at: International Congress of Linguists, Seoul. <[URL]> (29 October 2016).
Prince, Ellen. 1998. On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization. In Syntax and Semantic 29: The Limits of Syntax, Peter W. Culicover & Louise McNally (eds), 281–302. New York NY: Academic Press.
Repp, Sophie. 2013. Common ground management: Modal particles, illocutionary negation and VERUM. In Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-conditional Meaning, Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 231–274. Leiden: Brill.
Rett, Jessica & Murray, Sarah E.2013. A semantic account of mirative evidentials. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 23: 453–472.
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2009. On the (un)suitability of semantic categories. Linguistic Typology 13(1): 95–104.
Romero, Maribel & Han, Chung-hye. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5): 609–658.
Rooth, Mats. 2016. Alternative semantics. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Ishihara Shinichiro (eds), 19–40. Oxford: OUP.
Sailor, Craig. 2014. The Variables of VP Ellipsis. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.
Sailor, Craig. 2015. Polarity-driven inversion in British English and beyond. Ms. <[URL] (31 October 2016).
Samko, Bern. 2015. The emphatic interpretation of English VP preposing. Paper presented at: The 89th Annual Meeting of the LSA. <[URL]> (15 October 2016).
Samko, Bern. 2016. Verum focus in alternative semantics. Paper presented at: The 90th Annual Meeting of the LSA. <[URL]> (15 October 2016).
Turco, Giuseppina. 2014. Contrasting Opposite Polarity in Germanic and Romance Languages: Verum Focus and Affirmative Particles in Native Speakers and Advanced L2 Learners. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Turco, Giuseppina, Braun, Bettina & Dimroth, Christine. 2014. When contrasting polarity, the Dutch use particles, Germans intonation. Journal of Pragmatics 62: 94–106.
Turco, Giuseppina, Dimroth, Christine & Braun, Bettina. 2013. Intonational means to mark Verum focus in German and French. Language and Speech 56(4): 460–490.
Watters, John R.1979. Focus in Aghem. In Aghem Grammatical Structure, Larry Hyman (ed.), 137–197. Los Angeles CA: University of Southern California.
Wedgwood, Daniel. 2006. Shifting the Focus: From Static Structures to the Dynamics of Interpretation. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Wilder, Chris. 2013. English ‘emphatic do’. Lingua 128: 142–171.
Wood, Jim. 2008. ‘So’-inversion as polarity focus. In Proceedings of WECOL 38, Michael Grosvald & Dianne Soares (eds), 304–317. Davis: UC Davis.
Wood, Jim. 2014. Affirmative semantics with negative morphosyntax: Negative exclamatives and the New England ‘So AUXn’t NP/DP’ construction. In Micro-syntactic Variation in North American English, Raffaella Zanuttini & Laurence R. Horn (eds), 71–114. Oxford: OUP.
Zimmermann, Malte & Hole, Daniel. 2008. Predicate focus, verum focus, verb focus: Similarities and differences. Paper presented at: Predicate Focus Workshop, University of Potsdam.
Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121(11): 1651–1670.
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
Simmul, Carl Eric
2024. Information structure of converb constructions: Estonian -des, -mata and -maks constructions. Folia Linguistica 58:1 ► pp. 29 ff.
2021. Multifactorial Information Management (MIM): summing up the emerging alternative to Information Structure. Linguistics Vanguard 7:1
Vydrina, Alexandra
2020. Operator focus in discourse and grammar: The two perfectives in Kakabe. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 41:1 ► pp. 99 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.