Formal Pragmatics: The Case of Contrastive Topic
Katsuhiko Yabushitayabuchan@naruto-u.ac.jp
Department of English
Naruto University of Education
形式語用論
形式化からみえること
The 87th General Meeting of the English Literary Society of Japan
Rissho University
May 23-24, 2015

Table of Contents
1. Review of the Two Existing Approaches to Contrastive
Topic
CT as an information-structural discourse-regulating
device (Roberts 1996, Büring 1999, Kadmon 2001)! CT as a focus-sensitive operator (Hara 2006, Hara & van
Rooij 2007, Lee 1999, 2006, Oshima 2002)!

2. Alternative Approach to Contrastive Topic
Review of Partition Semantics of Question and Answer(Groenendijk 1999, Groenendijk & Stokhof 1984)! Proposal of Partition Semantics and Pragmatics ofContrastive Topic!

2

Crosslinguistic realizations of CT:!
As a morpheme: Japanese –wa, Korean –nun!
Prosodically:! ‘B-accent’ as opposed to ‘A-accent’ in English(Jackendoff 1972)! H*LH% or L+H*LH% in English (Pierrehumbert
1980)
•
•
•

In the following, a contrastive topic-marked
constituent is subscripted with ‘CT’.
3

1.1 CT as an information-structural discourse-regulating device(Roberts 1996, Büring 1999, Kadmon 2001)
1.1.1 Roberts (1996): CT as a “strategy of inquiry” to resolve QUD
Roberts (1996) proposed to model the structure of a discourse, among whose
constructs the most relevant one here is that of QUESTION UNDERDISCUSSION (QUD). QUD is a question to be resolved at a given point in a
discourse. Sometimes QUD is not directly resolved; instead, a “sub-question” ismade into an immediate question as a “strategy of inquiry” to facilitate theresolution of the original QUD.

4

Example Discourse Involving a CT-sentence(1)

a. Who kissed whom?
b. Well, who did Larry kiss?
c. [Larry]CT kissed [Nina]Fc´. #[Larry]F kissed [Nina]CT.

Observation: the questions and the answer are congruent with each other as theyoccur in the order in which they do. To use Robert’s terms, the congruence can be
described as follows: (1c) directly answers (1b), and (1b) is a sub-question of (1a),or, (1b) is part of “strategy of inquiry” aimed at answering (1a).
It is clear that the configuration of contrastive topic and focus has something to dowith the congruence.

5

Japanese Counterpart Example(1)´

a. Dare-ga
dare-nikisu-owho-Nom who-Dat kiss-Acc‘Who kissed who(m)?’shi-tado-Pastb. Dewa, Rarii-wa
dare-nikisu-owell
Larry-CT
who-Dat kiss-Acc‘Well, who(m) did LarryCT kiss?’

no/ka.
Q
shi-tado-Pastc. Rarii-wa
Niina-ni
Larry-CT
Nina-Dat‘LarryCT kissed NinaF.’

kisu-okiss-Acc

shi-tado-Pastc´. #Rarii-ga
Niina-ni-wa
Larry-Nom Nina-Dat-CT‘LarryF kissed NinaCT.’

kisu-okiss-Acc

shi-tado-Past6

no/ka.
Q

Question:
What should the meaning or the function of CT be liketo account for the congruence in question?

7

1.1.2 Büring (1999): Topic Semantic Value
Based on Rooth’s (1985, 1991) focus semantic value of a sentence, Büring
proposed a (contrastive) topic phrase induces another yet different kind of semantic
value called “topic semantic value”:(2) Topic Semantic Values = Sets of Focus Semantic Values

8Notational Conventions:

For a given expression α, the ordinary meaning, the focus
meaning, and the topic meaning of α are denoted asfollows:!α"o: the ordinary meaning of α!α"f: the focus meaning of α!α"t: the topic meaning of α9(3)a. !(1c)"f = ![Larry]CT kissed [Nina]F"f; (Focus meaning)
λp∃x[p = KISSED(larry, x)], where x ∈ {Nina, Sue, Mary, …} :{‘Larry kissed Nina’, ‘Larry kissed Sue’, ‘Larry kissed Mary’,…}b. !(1c)"t = ![Larry]CT kissed [Nina]F"t; (Topic meaning)
λ℘∃y∃p[℘(p) = 1 & ∃x[p = KISSED(y, x)]], where y ∈ {Larry, John,
Tom, …}, and x ∈ {Nina, Sue, Mary, …}:{{‘Larry kissed Nina’, ‘Larry kissed Sue’, ‘Larry kissed Mary’},{‘John kissed Nina’, ‘John kissed Sue’, ‘John kissed Mary’},{‘John kissed Nina’, ‘John kissed Sue’, ‘John kissed Mary’},…}

10

1.1.3 Kadmon (2001): Exposition of CT as a “strategy of inquiry”
based on Topic Semantic Value!

Topic Semantic Values = Sets of Focus Semantic Values= Sets of Questions;on the assumption that the meaning of an interrogative, a question is theset of possible answers, a focus semantic value.
!(1c)"f = ![Larry]CT kissed [Nina]F"f; (Focus meaning)
λp∃x[p = KISSED(larry, x)], where x ∈ {Nina, Sue, Mary, …}:{‘Larry kissed Nina’, ‘Larry kissed Sue’, ‘Larry kissed Mary’,…}= !(1b)"o = !‘Who does Larry kiss?’"o11!

That the focus meaning of (1c) is identical to the meaning of (1b)accounts for the congruence between (1b) and (1c), i.e. that (1c) is adirect answer to (1b); !(1c)"f = !(1b)"o!

That (1b) is an element of the topic meaning of (1c), i.e. the set of“subquestions” of (1a) accounts for the intuition that (1c) answers (1b)as “part of inquiry” aimed at answering (1a);!(1b)"o ∈ !(1c)"t & ∪!(1c)"t = !(1a)"o(1)a. Who kissed whom?
b. (Well,) who did Larry kiss?
c. [Larry]CT kissed [Nina]Fc´. #[Larry]F kissed [Nina]CT.
12

(4) “Discourse Tree” (Büring, 2003) for (1)! QUD: (1a)"o = ∪!(1c)"t!subq1: (1b)"o = !(1c)"f ∈ !(1c)"t, subq2: “Who does John kiss?”, …, subqn!(1c)"o ∈ !(1b)"o = !(1c)"f ∈ !(1c)"t, “Lary kissed Sue”, …
(1)

a. Who kissed whom?
b. (Well,) who did Larry kiss?
c. [Larry]CT kissed [Nina]F
13

Schematic Summary of Roberts-Büring-Kadmon Analysis of CT[… WHα …WHβ …]: QUD
partiallyanswers[… α … WHβ ...]: sub-question of QUD
directly(/totally) answers[… αCT … βF …]

The function of a sentence, [… αCT … βF …] is to signal the (explicit or
implicit) existence of a question (denoted by) [… WHα …WHβ …] as QUD andindicate that the sentence is not a direct answer to the QUD, but to one of its
sub-questions.

14

1.1.4 Empirical Problems with Roberts-Büring-Kadmon Line of Analysis
The line of analysis in question seems to have for consideration, only examples ofexactly one instance of contrastive topic phrase and focus phrase each. However,there are plainly examples in which more than one instance of CT and no (explicit)
instance of focus occur, like (5).
(5)

Jon-wa Mearii-wa Biru-ni-wa shookai-shi-ta.
John-CT Mary-CT Bill-to-CT introduction-do-Past‘JohnCT introduced MaryCT to BillCT.’• It is not clear how the current line of analysis could be extended to“non-canonical” examples like (5).
What should the topic semantic value of (5) be like? (For detailed arguments
against the topic-semantic-value analysis of CT, see Constant (2014).)• They do not address the implicational features of CT that will be reviewed
in the following.
15

1.2 CT as a focus-sensitive operator (Hara 2006, Hara &van Rooij 2007, Lee 1999, 2006, Oshima 2002)

Thesis: CT-marker is a focus-sensitive operator on a par withparticles like English even, only, and also, or their counterparts in	 other languages.

16

1.2.1 Lee 1999, Hara 2006: RPI as a conventional implicature
Lee (1999, 2006) and Hara (2006) argued that Reversed Polarity
Interpretation (RPI) was a conventional implicature, which is notcancellable; furthermore, it was a scalar implicature:(6)

Semantics and Pragmatics of CTa. CT( 〈β, α〉), where 〈β, α〉 is a structured meaning composed of
the background and the focus. (von Stechow 1991, Krifka 2001)
b. β(α) (assertion)c. ∃y[y ≠ α ∧ α < y ∧ ¬[β(y)]] (conventional implicature)

17

(7)

(8)

Jon-wa paatii-ni kita ga, Meari-wa ko-naka-tta.
John-CT party-to came but Mary-CT come-not-Past‘[John]CT came to the party, but [Mary]CT did not.’a. John [touched]CT Bill(, but didn’t hit him).
touch < hitb. Jon-wa Biru-ni fure-wa
shi-taJohn-Top Bill-Dat touching-CT do-Past(ga, tataki-wa shi-naka-tta).
but hitting-CT do-Neg-Past

18

Problem: there are obvious counterexamples in which the alleged
conventional implicature is canceled, or does not simply hold like (9) and
(10).
(9)

Jon-wa kita ga, sonohokano hito
nikanshitewa shira-nai.
John-CT came but the-otherpeople aboutknow-not‘[John]CT came, but as for the other people, I don’t know whether theycame.’(10) Jon-wa Biru-ni fure-wa
shi-ta ga,
John-Top Bill-Dat touching-CT do-Past but
tatai-ta kadooka wa shira-nai.
hit-Past whether Top know-not‘John touched Bill, but (I) don’t know whether he hit him or not.’19

1.2.2 Oshima (2002)

Oshima (2002) proposed the following interpretation rule for a Japanese CT
marker wa as an operator taking a structured proposition as its argument:(11) a. CT (〈β, α〉)
b. β(α) (assertion)c. ∃x[x ≠ α ∧ −[β(x)]] (presupposition), where − is a weaknegation in three-valued logic. (‘− p’ means ‘It is not known
that p is the case’.)Problem: It is doubtful that ‘∃x[x ≠ α ∧ −[β(x)]]’ is a presupposition for‘CT (〈β, α〉)’ to be felicitous.

20(12) Q: Dare-ga paatii-ni ki-mashi-taka.
who-Nom party-to come-Polite-Past Q‘Who came to the party?’
A: Jon-wa ki-mashi-ta(kedo).
John-CT come-Polite-Past (but)‘JohnCT came.’
Simply, (12A) can be used perfectly felicitously in contexts where it is notpresupposed that someone other than John is not known to have come to theparty; for example, it is not necessary for the questioner to assume thatsomeone other than John is not known to have come to the party.

21

1.2.3 Hara & van Rooij (2007)

Hara & van Rooij (2007) proposed an interpretation rule for CT that is very
similar to Oshima’s proposed independently:(13) a. CT (〈β, α〉)
b. β(α) (assertion)c. ∃x[x ≠ α ∧ ¬Ksp[β(x)]] (implicature), where Ksp is an epistemic
operator and ‘¬Kspφ’ reads ‘The speaker doesn’t knows φ’.
Problem: It is doubtful that ‘∃x[x ≠ α ∧ ¬Ksp[β(x)]]’ is an implicature of(the utterance) of CT (〈β, α〉).

22Consider the following scenario. A test was administered to a class of pupils, theteacher knows of all the pupils who passed the test or not and the father of Mary, apupil, who is rather nosy asks the teacher who passed the test. To the question, theteacher can answer perfectly felicitously as in (14).
(14) Mary-wa
Mary-CTgoukakushimashi-ta
pass (the test)-Past

ga,
but

(hokano seito
nikanshite-wa
iemase-n.)otherpupils as-to-CT
can-tell-not‘MaryCT passed the test, (but I can’t tell as to the others if they passed it ornot).’
In (14), the speaker, i.e. the teacher knows of all the students including Mary if theypassed the test or not, but she can felicitously utter “MaryCT passed the test”, whichis incompatible with Hara & van Rooij’s analysis. The use of CT in (14) is not somuch characterized as ignorance on the part of the speaker as confidentiality, or
secrecy.
23

“Non-canonical” examples of CT like (5) is problematic to the current
approach as well.
(5)

Jon-wa Mearii-wa Biru-ni-wa shookai-shi-ta.
John-CT Mary-CT Bill-to-CT introduction-do-Past‘JohnCT introduced MaryCT to BillCT.’

Question: What would the following alleged semantic representationfor (5) mean and presuppose/implicate?
CT(〈λx.CT(〈λy.CT(〈λz.INTRDUCED-TO(x, y, z), bill〉), mary〉), john〉)

24

2 Alternative Approach: Partition Semantics and Pragmatics ofContrastive Topic
2.1 Partition Semantics and Pragmatics of Question and Answer: Groenendijk(1999), Groenendijk & Stokhof (1984)(15)

Definition (Context)

A context is an equivalence relation on a subset of the set of possible worlds, or
equivalently, a partition of the subset.
(16)

Definition (Abstract, or Predicate Meaning of an Interrogative)

The abstract meaning of an interrogative sentence is a lambda abstract binding
the variables substituted for the wh-phrases in the interrogative sentence.

25

N.B. The abstract meaning of an interrogative sentence corresponds to thebackground meaning of a sentence in the structured-meaning approach to focus on
the assumption that a wh-phrase is (inherently) focused.
E.g.
Interrogative Sentence

Abstract Meaning

Did John come to the party?

came-to-the-party´(j)Who came to the party?

λx.came-to-the-party´(x)Who bought what?

λyλx.bought´(x, y)

Who ate what at which place?

λzλyλx.ate-at´(x, y, z)

N.B. When the number of wh-phrase instances in an interrogative sentence is n,
the abstract meaning is an n-place predicate; notably, the abstract meaning of a
Yes-No question sentence is a zero-place predicate, i.e. a proposition.
26• Questions partition the context into (mutually exclusive) blocks.
(17) Definition (Context Update by Interrogatives)!
Suppose that λxφ is the abstract meaning of an interrogative and C is a!
context. The update of C by the interrogative, denoted C + λxφ is defined asfollows:!
! %w " ! %w´"
C + λxφ = {〈w, w´〉 ∈ C: #$ λxφ &' = #$ λxφ &' }.
An illustration:(18)

A context consisting of three possible worlds, w1, w2, w3:⎧ w ,w⎪⎪ 1 1
C = ⎨ w1 ,w 2⎪⎪⎩ w1 ,w 3

w 2 ,w1
w 2 ,w 2
w 2 ,w 3

w 3 ,w1 ⎫⎪⎪
w 3 ,w 2 ⎬⎪w 3 ,w 3 ⎪⎭27

Suppose that John came to the party in worlds, w1 and w2.
(19)

C + came-to-the-party´(j) ‘Did John come to the party?’⎧ w ,w⎪⎪ 1 1= ⎨ w1 ,w 2⎪⎪⎩

w 2 ,w1
w 2 ,w 2⎫⎪⎪⎬ (= C´)⎪w 3 ,w 3 ⎪⎭In the form of partition:C´ =(the set of possible worlds where)
John came to the party.
(the set of possible worlds where)
John didn’t come to the party
NB: Each block corresponds to a complete and exhaustive answer.
28

!

Indicatives eliminate blocks in which they are false from the context.

(20)

Definition (Context Update by Indicatives)

Suppose that ψ is the meaning of an indicative and C is a context. The updateof C by the indicative, denoted C + ψ is defined as follows:
w ! $w´!
$
C + ψ = {〈w, w´〉 ∈ C: "# ψ %& = "# ψ %& = 1}.

An illustration:(21)

C´ + ‘Yes, he came to the party’ (came-to-the-party´(j))⎧ w ,w⎪⎪ 1 1= ⎨ w1 ,w 2⎪⎪⎩

w 2 ,w1
w 2 ,w 2

⎫
⎪⎪
⎬
⎪
⎪⎭
29

=

(the set of possible worlds where)
John came to the party.

In the following, we will use only the partition format for the ease of illustration.
Another example:(22)

C + ‘Who came to the party?’ (λx.came-to-the-party´(x))

Suppose Mary and John are the only relevant people to consider whether they cameto the party.

30

(23)

C´=

{Mary, John}{Mary}{John}∅	 In the partition, the block with {a1, a2, …, an} represents the one for the set of
possible worlds in which a1, a2, …, an and only a1, a2, …, an came to the party.
(24)

Meari to Jon ga ki-mashi-ta.
Mary and John Nom come-Polite-Past‘Mary and John came.’(25)

Jon gaki-mashi-ta.
John Nom come-Polite-Past‘John came.

31

(26)
{Mary, John}{John}{Mary}∅+ (24)+ (25)

Another example:(27)

C + (28) (‘Who ate what?) (λyλx.ate´(x, y))(28)Dare ganani otabe-mashi-ta ka.
who Nom what Acc eat-Polite-Past Q‘Who ate what?’

32{Mary, John}{John}

Suppose that the relevant domain for the eater is John and Mary and that for theeatee is hamburger and salad.
(29)〈j, {h, s}〉,〈m, {h, s}〉 〈j, {h}〉,〈m, {h, s}〉 〈j, {s}〉,〈m, {h, s}〉 〈j, ∅〉〈, m, {h, s}〉〈j, {h, s}〉,〈m, {h}〉 〈j, {h}〉,〈m, {h}〉〈j, {s}〉,〈m, {h}〉〈j, ∅〉,〈m, {h}〉〈j, {h, s}〉,〈m, {s}〉 〈j, {h}〉,〈m, {s}〉〈j, {s}〉,〈m, {s}〉〈j, ∅〉,〈m, {s}〉〈j, {h, s}〉,〈m, ∅〉〈j, {s}〉,〈m, ∅〉〈j, ∅〉,〈m, ∅〉〈j, {h}〉,〈m, ∅〉33

Definitions of “Complete Answer”, “Partital Answer”, and “Sub-question”
Suppose that S is an indicative sentence, ⟦S⟧ is the proposition denoted by S, Q andQ´ are the abstract meanings of interrogative sentences, and W is the set of possible
worlds.
(1)

Total Answer
S is a total answer to Q iff ⟦S⟧ ∈ W+Q. (⟦S⟧ is identical to one of the blocks
of W+ Q.)

(2)

Partial Answer
S is a partial answer to Q iff ⟦S⟧ ≠ ∅ and there is an X ⊂ W+ Q such that⟦S⟧ = ∪X. (⟦S⟧ is a union of more than one block of partition W+ Q.)(3)

Sub-question
Q is a sub-question of Q´ iff a total answer to Q is a partial answer to Q´. (Qpartitions W more coarsely than Q´.)
34

2.2 Partition Semantics and Pragmatics of Contrastive Topic(30) Semantics of CT
Suppose that(i)γ is a sentence with CT marked phrases,(ii) ?-γ is the interrogative sentence directly corresponding to γ in that only
the focused phrases are replaced by the corresponding wh-phrases andif there are no focused phrase, ?-γ is a polar interrogative sentence.
(iii) the semantic representations for the CT-marked
phrases and the!
!
corresponding variables for the wh-phrases are t , and x , respectively,!
(iv) the abstract meaning of ?-γ is λx .R, and(v) wh-γ is the interrogative sentence resulting from€ γ by replacing the CT€
marked phrases as well as the focused phrases if any with the€corresponding wh-phrases,
35

(vi) the variables of the wh-phrases corresponding to the CT marked!
phrases are y . Then,! !
! ! ! !
(vii) the abstract meanings! of wh-γ !is λyλx .R[ t / y ], where R[ t / y] is theresult of replacing t in R with y.
€
(31)

€€
€€
€
Pragmatics of CT€€
Sentence γ explicitly or implicitly“presupposes” interrogative sentence wh-γ
as QUD; however, the answerer, or the utterer of γ opts to answer ?-γ insteadof wh-γ for some reason.

36

Roberts’ (1996) Insight of CT as a Discourse-Regulating Device
Captured Free from the “Non-Canonical Example” Problem
Given γ, ?-γ, and wh-γ as defined above, the following hold:(i) γ is a total answer to ?-γ,(ii) γ is a partial answer to wh-γ, and(iii) ?-γ is a sub-question of wh-γ.
The analysis is equally applicable to the so-called “non-canonical”, ormultiple-CT examples, for the types of semantic values involved are
constant no matter how many CT-marked phrases appear in a sentence.

37

An illustration of the current analysis: γ: (32), wh-γ: (33), ?-γ: (34)
(32)

γ:

Jon-wa paatii-ni ki-mashi-ta.
John CT party-to
come-Polite-Past‘JohnCT came to the party.’(33)

wh-γ: Dare-ga
paatii-ni ki-mashi-takaka
who-Nom party-to come-Polite-Past Q‘Who came to the party?’; λx.came-to-the-party´(x)

(34)

?-γ:

Jon-wa paatii-ni ki-mashi-takakaJohn-CT party-to
come-Polite-Past Q‘Did John come to the party?’; came-to-the-party´(j)According to the current analysis, the utterance of (32) “presupposes” interrogative
sentence (33), or question denoted by it as QUD; however, instead of directly
answering the question, the speaker answers interrogative sentence (34) for somereason.
38

In terms of partition semantics of questions and answers, instead of answering thequestion represented by the partition in (35), the speaker opts to answer that in (36).
(35){Mary, John}{Mary}{John}∅	 {Mary, John}{Mary}{John}∅	
 (36)

The question is why.

39

Possible Reason 1 (Lack of Information)
As for John, the speaker knows for sure that he came to the party, but for otherpeople, in this case, Mary, she doesn’t know if they came to the party. So she
restricts her assertion only to that John came, shying away from the issue as towhether the other people came to the party or not. This will nicely account for thecontinuation displayed in (37).
(37)

Jon-wa paatii-ni kita ga, sonohokanohito nikanshitewa shira-nai.
John-CT party-to came but the-other-people aboutknow-not‘JohnCT came to the party, but I don’t know about the other people.’

This feature of CT, i.e. that it can be used when the speaker doesn’t have enoughinformation to resolve the original question under consideration, is what Oshima’s
analysis, (9) and Hara & van Rooij’s, (13) captured.

40

If the answerer uttered (38) instead of (37), she would be taken by the hearer to
imply that the other people did not come to the party due to the exhaustification
mechanism (See van Rooij & Schulz 2006 for a formal formulation), which would
violate the Maxim of Quality.
(38)

Jon-ga paatii ni ki-mashi-ta.
John Nom party to come-Polite-Past‘John came to the party.’41

Possible Reason 2 (Secrecy)
When the answerer wants to keep it secret whether the other people than John cameto the party or not, she answers question (34), whose partitional meaning is (36). Its
blocks are specified with respect to whether John came to the party or not, but notfor the other people. The proposed use of CT in conjunction of secrecy is motivatedby the natural continuation observed between the first and the second sentences inexamples like (39).
(39)

Jon-wa/?gapaatii-ni ki-ta
ga,
John CT/Nom party-to come-Past but
sonohoka-no hito
nikanshite-wa ie-nai
the-other-of people about cantell-not‘JohnCT came to the party, but I can’t tell about the other people.’42

Possible Reason 3 (Extension Specification by Positive and Negative Instances)
When the extension of a one-place predicate is asked by an interrogative sentence
like (33), one way to specify the extension is to specify the positive instances of theextension and let the exhaustification imply that the rest of the domain is in thenegative extension of the predicate. Another way is to specify both the positive andthe negative instances of the extension. Specifically, for the positive instances ofthe predicate, the answerer specifies that it is true that they are in the extension of
the predicate, and for the negative instances, she specifies that it is not true thatthey are in the extension the predicate. This can be seen as she answers awh-question by answering two Yes-No questions. To use (32) as an example, in ourcurrent analysis, (32) can be seen as the part of specifying the positive instances byanswering the (implicit) question ‘Did John come to the party?’ in the two-part wayof specifying the extension of the predicate under discussion. Then, (32) is
expected to be followed by a sentence specifying some of the negative instances.

43

In terms of partition,(40){Mary, John}{Mary}{John}∅	 Suppose that John, but not Mary came to the party. To specify who came to theparty, instead of choosing the right-upper block of the partition of (40) induced by(33), the speaker can adopt a two-stage specification; first, choosing the upper
block of the (coarser-grained) partition, (41) by (42) and then, choosing theright-hand block of the partition, (43) by (44).
(41){Mary, John}{Mary}{John}
∅	
 

44

(42)

Jon-wa ki-ta.
John-CT come-Past‘JohnCT came.’(43){Mary, John}{Mary}(44){John}∅	 Meari-wa ko-naka-tta.
Mary-CT come-not-Past

This feature of CT, i.e., the specification of the extension of the predicate underquestion by specifying the positive instances and the negative instances separately
is considered to be the property of CL which has been traditionally described as
Reversed Polarity Implicature (RPI) in the literature.

45

Conclusions• We have reviewed two representative approaches to Contrastive Topicand have pointed out empirical problems.
• We have proposed CT should be analyzed in terms of partition semantics
of questions and answers.
• We have proposed that a CT-marked phrase “presuppose” thewh-question, but instead of answering the question directly, for somereason, the speaker answer a question minimally different from thepresupposed question in that the wh-phrase’s value is fixed to that of theCT-marked phrase.
• We have seen that the proposed analysis is free from the empiricalproblems for the existing approaches; especially, it is applicable tosentences with more than one instance of CT-marked phrase.
• We have demonstrated that the current analysis captures the insights ofboth of the two existing approaches to CT; i.e. CT as a discourse46

regulator for question answering and CT as a conventional-implicatureinducing operator; specifically,
the “immediately corresponding” question is a sub-question of the“presupposed” question, i.e. QUD, andwhat has been described as “conventional implicatures” of CT in theliterature is now analyzed as conversational implicatures due to thevarious reasons why the speaker answers a sub-question instead of the
QUD.
• In the above sense, the current analysis can be said to have the best ofboth worlds of the two existing approaches to CT and more.
"

"

47

Thank you very much!

48

References
Büring, D. (1999) "Topic". In: Bosch, Peter & Rob van der Sandt (eds) Focus -- Linguistic, Cognitive,
and Computational Perspectives. CUP. 142-165.
Büring, D. (2003) “On D-trees, Beans, and B-accents”. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5): 511-545.
Constant, N. (2014) Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations. Ph.D. thesis. University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Groenendijk, J. (1999) “The Logic of Interrogation” In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on
Semantics and Linguistic Theory
Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1984) Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics ofAnswers. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
Hara, Y. (2006) “Implicature Unsuspendable: Japanese Contrastive wa”. In Proceedings of Texas
Linguistics Society 8 , Cascadilla Press.
Hara, Y. & R. van Rooij (2007) “Contrastive Topics Revisited: a Simpler Set of Topic-Alternatives”.
Talk given at NELS 38.
Jackendoff, R.S. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kadmon, N. (2001) Formal Pragmatics. Blackwell Publisher.
Krifka, M. “For a structured meaning account of questions and answers” (revised version). In C. Fery &W. Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientia. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, Akademie
Verlag (= studia grammatica 52), Berlin 2001, 287-319.
Lee, C. (1999) “Contrastive Topic: A Locus of the Interface—Evidence From Korean and English”. In
K. Turner (ed) The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View (CRiSPI 1),
Elsevier Science.
49Lee, C. (2006) “Contrastive Topic/Focus and Polarity in Discourse”. in K.von Heusinger and K. Turner(eds.), Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics, CRiSPI 16, Elsevier. 381-420.
Oshima, D. (2002) “Contrastive topic as a paradigmatic operator”. Handout for Workshop on
Information Structure in Context. Universität Stuttgart, November 2002.
Pierrehumbert, J.B. (1980) The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
Roberts, C. (1996) “Information Structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics”. In Jae
Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol (eds.) OSUWPL Volume 49: Papers in Semantics The Ohio State
University Department of Linguistics.
Rooij, R. van & K. Schulz (2006) “Pragmatic Meaning and Non-monotone Reasoning: The Case of
Exhaustive Interpretation”. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 205-250.
Rooth, M. (1985) Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rooth, M. (1992) “A Theory of Focus Interpretation”. Natural Language Semantics 1(1):75-116.
Stechow von, A. (1991) “Focusing and background operators” In Werner Abraham (ed.), Discourse
Particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic
properties of discourse particles in German. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

50