Part of
Beyond MeaningEdited by Elly Ifantidou, Louis de Saussure and Tim Wharton
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 324] 2021
► pp. 29–42
Edited by Elly Ifantidou, Louis de Saussure and Tim Wharton
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 324] 2021
► pp. 29–42
Contrastive stress in English
Meaning, expectations and ostension
In this chapter I consider where contrastive stress fits within the
relevance-theoretic model of utterance interpretation. In
particular, I focus on contrastive stress as a cue to ostension
which layers on top of the ostensive act of producing an utterance
and which guides inferential processes. Stress patterns, however,
only act as a cue to ostension when they are unexpected. It is the
disconfirmation of expectations that puts the hearer to more
effort and prompts the search for extra interpretive effects. The
discussions in this chapter build on existing work on both prosody
and pragmatics and the conclusions drawn have implications for our
understanding of inferential processes, procedural meaning, and
ostensive communication more generally.
Keywords: ostension, procedural meaning, prosody, contrastive stress, cues to ostension, intonation, expectations, relevance theory
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Contrastive stress, interpretation and natural highlighting
- 3.Relevance, ostension and the role of expectations
- 4.Contrastive stress as a cue to ostension
- 5.Contrastive stress and procedural meaning
-
Notes -
References
References (30)
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing
Noun Phrase
Antecedents. London: Routledge.
. 2001. “Accessibility
Theory: An Overview.” In Text
Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic
Aspects, ed.
by Ted J. Sanders, Joost Schliperoord, and Wilbert Spooren, 29‒97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic
Constraints on
Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
. 2000. “Indicators
and Procedures: Nevertheless and
but
.” Journal of
Linguistics 36: 463‒486.
. 2002. Relevance
and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of
Discourse
Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts
and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit
Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Clark, Billy. 2012. “The
Relevance of Tones: Prosodic Meanings in Utterance
Interpretation and in Relevance
Theory.” The Linguistic
Review 29 (4): 643‒661.
. 2013. “Procedures
and Prosody: Weak Encoding and Weak
Communication.” In Beyond
Words: Content, Context, and
Inference, ed.
by Frank Liedtke, and Cornelia Schulze, 151‒181. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
. 2013. Relevance
Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fretheim, Thorstein. 2002. “Intonation
as a Constraint on Inferential
Processing.” In Proceedings
of the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference, Aix-en-Provence,
France, ed.
by Bernard Bell, and Isabelle Marlien, 59‒64.
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies
in the Way of
Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The
Phonology of Tone and
Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, Alison. 2007. “Do
Discourse Markers Encode Concepts or
Procedures?” Lingua 111 (1): 149‒174.
House, Jill. 2006. “Constructing
a Context with
Intonation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 38 (10): 1542‒1558.
Imai, Kunihiko. 1998. “Intonation
and Relevance.” In Relevance
Theory: Applications and
Implications, ed.
by Robyn Carston, and Seiji Uchida, 69‒86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Iten, Corinne. 2005. Linguistic
Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance: The Case of
Concessives. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Matsui, Tomoko. 2000. Bridging
and
Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sax, Daniel J. 2011. “Sentence
Stress and the Procedures of
Comprehension.” In Procedural
Meaning: Problems and Perspective, ed.
by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 349‒381. Bingley: Emerald.
Scott, Kate. 2017. “Prosody,
Procedures and
Pragmatics.” In Semantics and
Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed.
by Ilse Depraetere, and Raphael Salkie, 323‒341. Berlin: Springer.
. 2020. Referring
Expressions, Pragmatics and Style: Reference and
Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, Kate, and Rebecca Jackson. 2020. “When
Everything Stands Out, Nothing Does: Typography,
Expectations and
Procedures.” In Relevance
Theory, Figuration and Continuity in
Pragmatics, ed.
by Agnieszka Piskorska, 167‒192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance:
Communication and Cognition. 2nd
ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wells, John C. 2006. English
Intonation: An
Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wharton, Tim. 2003. “Interjections,
Language, and the Showing/Saying
Continuum.” Pragmatics and
Cognition 11 (1): 39‒91.
. 2009. Pragmatics
and Non-verbal
Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. “The
Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and
Future.” In Procedural
Meaning: Problems and Perspective, ed.
by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 3‒31. Bingley: Emerald.
. 2016. “Reassessing
the Conceptual-Procedural
Distinction.” Lingua 175 (6): 5‒19.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2019. “Pragmatics
and the Challenge of ‘Non-propositional
Effects.” Journal of
Pragmatics 145: 31‒38. .
.Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning
and
Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Tim Wharton. 2006. “Relevance
and Prosody.” Journal of
Pragmatics 38 (10): 1559‒1579.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Helganger, Line Sjøtun & Ingrid Lossius Falkum
2023. Intonational production as a window into children’s early pragmatic competence: The case of the Norwegian polarity focus and two jo particles. Frontiers in Psychology 14 
Madella, Pauline & Tim Wharton
2023. Nonverbal Communication and Context: Multimodality in Interaction. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context, ► pp. 419 ff.
Scott, Kate
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.