No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Contrast, Verum Focus and Anaphora: The Case of et pourtant si/non in French
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2020
Abstract
This study examines the anaphoric status of the sequence et pourtant si/non in French. This sequence displays some properties not only of TP-Ellipsis but also of propositional anaphora. Consequently, the antecedent of this sequence can be recovered by means of either type of anaphoric process. I argue that the salient and relevant antecedent is constrained by the presence of a modalized environment. I claim that the discursive marker pourtant is assimilated to a modal operator (Jayez 1988, Martin 1987) expressing discourse contrast between two propositions anchored in two possible worlds that are not contradictory. Polarity Particles (POLPARTS) involved in this sequence are analyzed as emphasizing the truth of a proposition. As such, they are conveying semantic contrast between two polarities, that of a salient and accessible discourse antecedent and that of the missing part after et pourtant si/non. This is how POLPARTS upgrade the Common Ground. I develop a focus-based account for Verum Focus, building on alternatives along the lines of Hardt & Romero (2004). I suggest that the scope of an epistemic operator (Romero & Han 2004) and the conditions of use are relevant in order to reconstruct the adequate antecedent, which is not possible in an analysis based solely on lexical insertion and upgrading the Question Under Discussion (qud) by conditions governing the felicitous use of et pourtant si/non.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Footnotes
This paper has benefited from the comments of a number of people. In particular, it owes much to Christian Bassac for his key input, for his criticism, comments, suggestions and advice, which have all been essential throughout the paper. Parts of this paper were presented at several seminars in Paris, Toulouse and Bordeaux. I would like to thank the participants of those meetings, and especially Pascal Amsili, Anne Abeillé and Anne Dagnac. I would like to thank too Nicolas Guilliot and Daniel Hardt for their constructive criticism on an earlier draft of the paper. Finally, I am grateful to the three reviewers of JoL for their insightful comments and suggestions, which have all been taken into account and have improved the final version of this paper. None of these people are responsible for the use I have made of their remarks, and I remain responsible for any error or unclarity the paper contains.
References
Anscombre, Jean-Claude. 1983. Pour autant, pourtant (et comment): à petites causes, grands effets. Cahiers de linguistique française 5, 37–84.Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude. 2002. Mais/pourtantdans la contreargumentation directe: raisonnement, généricité, et lexique. Linx 46.1, 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Ducrot, Oswald. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas, Hardt, Daniel & Busquets, Joan. 2001. Discourse parallelism, ellipsis, and ambiguity. Journal of Semantics 18.1, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Authier, J.-Marc. 2011. A movement analysis of french modal ellipsis. Probus 23, 175–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Authier, J.-Marc. 2013. Phase-edge features and the syntax of polarity particles. Linguistic Inquiry 44.3, 345–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1971. A note on the notion ‘identity of sense anaphora’. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 589–597.Google Scholar
Busquets, Joan & Denis, Pascal. 2001. L’ellipse modale en français: le cas de pouvoir et devoir. Cahiers de Grammaire 26, 55–74.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus. The 59th street bridge accent (Studies in German Linguistics 3), London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo & Percus, Orin. 2006. When we do that and when we don’t: A contrastive analysis of vp-ellipsis and vp-anaphora. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 71–105. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagnac, Anne. 2010. Modal ellipsis in french, spanish and italian: Evidence for a tp-deletion analysis. In Arregi, Karlos, Fagyal, Zsuzsanna, Montrul, Silvina & Tremblay, Annie (eds.), Romance linguistics: Interactions in romance, 157–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Darlrymple, Mary, Shieber, Stuart & Pereira, Fernando. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14.4, 399–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 2006. Information packaging in questions. In Bonami, Olivier & Cabredo-Hofherr, Patricia (eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 6, 93–111; Papers from CSSP 2005. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6.Google Scholar
Escandell, Maria Victoria. 2009. La expresión del verum focus en español. Español Actual 92, 11–46.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 2010. The grammar of polarity particles in romanian. In Di Sciullo, Anna Maria & Hill, Virginia (eds.), Edges, heads, and projections: Interface properties, 87–124. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gettrup, Harald & Nølke, Henning. 1984. Stratégies concessives: Une étude de six adverbes français. Revue Romane 19.1, 3–47.Google Scholar
Goodhue, Daniel. 2018. On asking and answering biased polar questions. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, McGill University.Google Scholar
Grevisse, Maurice. 2011. Le bon usage: grammaire française 75 ans, 15e éd. (1e éd.1936). Bruxelles/Paris: De Boeck-Duculot.Google Scholar
Grinder, John & Postal, Paul M.. 1971. Missing antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry 2.3, 269–3112.Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara J. & Sidner, Candace L.. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12, 175–204.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2017. Modal particles ≠ modal particles (= modal particles). In Bayer, Josef & Struckmeier, Volker (eds.), Discourse particles: Formal approaches to their syntax and semantics, 144–172. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel & Castroviejo, Elena. 2011. The dimensions of verum. In Bonami, Olivier & Hofherr, P. Cabredo (eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7, 143–165. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel, Hartmann, Katharina & Matthewson, Lis. submitted. Verum focus is verum, not focus: Cross-linguistic evidence. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 391–426.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2018. The role of (historical) pragmatics in the use of response particles. The case of french. Functions of Language 27.2, To appear.Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel & Romero, Maribel. 2004. Ellipsis and the structure of discourse. Journal of Semantics 21.4, 375–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernanz, Maria-Lluisa. 2007. From polarity to modality: some (a)symmetries between bien and síin spanish. In Eguren, Luis & Fernández-Soriano, Olga (eds.), Coreference, modality, and focus, 133–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman. 1992. Über verum-focus im deutschen. In Jacobs, Joachim (ed.), Informationstructur und grammatik, vol. 4, 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2011. Anglo-norman and the ‘plural history’ of french: The connectives pourtantand à cause que. Linguistiques. Revue française de linguistique appliquée 16, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. 2004. The pragmatics of polarity. In Horn, Laurence & Ward, Gergory (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 701–723. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jayez, Jacques. 2003. Modal attachment for discourse markers. In Beyssade, Claire, Bonami, Olivier, Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo & Corblin, Francis (eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics, vol. 4, 309–327. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2001. Oui non si: un trio célèbre et méconnu. Marges Linguistiques 2, 95–119.Google Scholar
Kertz, Laura. 2013. Verb phrase ellipsis: The view from information structure. Language 89, 390–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Ruth & Rawlins, Kyle. 2011. Polarity particles: an ellipsis account. In Lima, Suzi, Mullin, Kevin & Smith, Brian (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 39 (NELS 39), vol. 1, 479–492. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In Féry, Caroline & Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Audiatur vox sapientia. a festschrift for arnim von stechow (= studia grammatica 52), 287–319. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2013. Response particles as propositional anaphors. In Snider, Todd (ed.), Proceedings of salt, vol. 23, 1–18. California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2017. Negated polarity questions as denegations of assertions. In Lee, Chungmin, Kiefer, Ferenc & Krifka, Manfred (eds.), Contrastiveness in information structure, alternatives and scalar implicatures, 359–398. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projection. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Letoublon, Françoise. 1983. Pourtant, cependant, quoique, bien que: dérivation des expressions de l’opposition et de la concession. Cahiers de linguistique française 5, 85–110.Google Scholar
Lindschouw, Jan. 2011. Étude des modes dans le système concessif en français du 16e au 20e siècle et en espagnol moderne. evolution, assertion et grammaticalisation. Danemark: Etudes Romanes 61.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst. 2016. Verum focus. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The oxford handbook of information structure, 290–313. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 2008. Le principe de surprise annoncée: grammaticalisation et paradigmaticalisation de pourtantconcessif (13e-16e s.). L’Information Grammaticale 118, 5–10.Google Scholar
Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 2009. Grammaticalisation et pragmaticalisation des connecteurs de concession en français: cependant, toutefois, pourtant. L’Information Grammaticale 54.1, 7–20.Google Scholar
Martin, Fabienne. 2005. Les deux lectures de faillir + inf. et les verbes présupposant l’existence d’un événément. In Shyldkrot, H. Bat-Zeev & Querler, N. Le (eds.), Les périphrases verbales, 455–472. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Robert. 1983. Remarques sur la logique de la relation concessive. In Valentin, Paul (ed.), Actes du colloque tenu les 3 et 4 décembre 1982 par le département de linguistique de l’université de paris-sorbonne, 5–12. Paris: Linguistica palatina, Colloquia.Google Scholar
Martin, Robert. 1987. Langage et croyance. Les univers de croyance dans la théorie sémantique, Bruxelles, Pierre Mardaga editeur.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Jim. 2017. Ellipsis, polarity, and the cartography of verb-initial orders in irish. In Aboh, Enoch O., Puskàs, Genoveva & Shönenberger, Manuela (eds.), Elements of comparative syntax, 99–152. Boston/Berlin: Walter De Gruyter: Mouton.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and identity in ellipsis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques & de Spengler, Nina. 1981. Quand même: De la concession à la réfutation. Cahiers de Linguistique française 2, 93–112.Google Scholar
Morel, Mary-Annick. 1996. La concession en français. Paris: Ophrys (Collection l’Essentiel Français).Google Scholar
Nølke, Henning. 1994. La dilution linguistique des responsabilités. essai de description polyphonique des marqueurs évidentiels il semble queet il paraît que. Langue française 102, 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasquereau, Jérémy. 2017. An asymmetry in responses to questions and assertions in european french: the view from embedded yes/no particles. Talks given in UCL, London, UK, and UCSC, CA, USA. https://jeremy-pasquereau.jimdo.com/app/download/16494519725/UCL:UCSC2017.pdf?t=1510191192.Google Scholar
Plantin, Christian. 1982. Ouiet non sont-ils des pro-phrases? Le Français Moderne 3, 252–265.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2010. The syntax of focus negation. In Vedovato, Diana (ed.), Atti della xv giornata di dialettologia, 39–61. Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt, 10.Google Scholar
Ramat, Anna Giacalone & Mauri, Caterina. 2012. Gradualness and pace in grammaticalization: The case of adversative connectives’. Folia Linguistica 46.2, 438–512.Google Scholar
Rapp, Irene & von Stechow, Arinim. 1999. Fast ‘almost’ and the visibility parameter for functional adverbs. Journal of Semantics 16, 149–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Yoon, J. & Kathol, A. (eds.), Osu working papers in linguistics 49: Papers in semantics, 91–136. Ohio: C Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Roberts, Graige. 1989. Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 683–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez, Raquel González. 2007. Sintaxis y semántica de la partícula de polaridad sí. Revista Española de Lingüística 37, 311–336.Google Scholar
Roelofsen, Floris & Farkas, Donka. 2015. Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language 91, 359–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel & Han, Chung-Hye. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 609–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992a. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Hestvik, A. & Berman, S. (eds.), Proceedings of stutgart ellipsis workshop. arbeitspapiere des sonderforschungsbereichs 340, 91–136. Germany, Heidelberg: Bericht Nr. 29.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992b. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roulet, Eddy, Auchlin, Antoine, Moeschler, Jacques, Rubattel, Christian & Schelling, Marianne. 1985. L’articulation du discours en français contemporain. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Salkie, Raphael & Oates, Sarah Louise. 1999. A contrast and concession in french and english. Languages in Contrast 2, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samko, Bern. 2016. Syntax & information structure: The grammar of english inversions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Schwarzchild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, avoid f and other constraints on the placement of focus. Natural Language Semantics 7.2, 141–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soutet, Olivier. 1992. La concession dans la phrase complexe en français. des origines au xvi siècle. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Cole, P. (ed.), Pragmatics, syntax and semantics, vol. 9, 315–322. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1988. Eléments de syntaxe structurale, 2e éd. revue et corrigée. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Txurruca, Isabel G. 2003. The natural language conjunction and. Linguistics and Philosophy 26, 255–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veltman, Frank. 1996. Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25.3, 221–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuillaume, Marcel. 2009. La frontière notionnelle en langue et en discours ‘faillir + infinitif’ et ‘il s’en est fallu de peu + complétive’. Cahiers de praxématique 53, 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilmet, Marc. 1976. Oui, siet non en français moderne. Le français moderne 44, 229–251.Google Scholar