[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-291121-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-291121-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","morphological-vs-phonological-contrastive-topic-marking-paper","Morphological vs. phonological contrastive topic marking - Paper","","Morphological vs. phonological contrastive topic (CT) marking is examined across languages, focusing on the claim that CTs are morphologically marked in Japanese and Korean but phonologically/tonally marked in other languages such as English. The paper argues that information-structure-based analyses used for CT contours cannot be applied to CT morphemes. It reviews Roberts (1996) and Büring (2003), shows key assumptions fail for CT morphemes, then proposes a semantic analysis where CT morphemes contribute an antonymous meaning relative to the additive particle “also,” and tests whether a unified treatment for CT morphemes and CT contours is feasible.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/morphological-vs-phonological-contrastive-topic-marking-paper/291121/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/morphological-vs-phonological-contrastive-topic-marking-paper/291121.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Genevieve","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-17",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",12,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the central question of the paper?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The paper asks whether contrastive topics are marked morphologically or phonologically/tonally across languages, and how CTs should be analyzed semantically and structurally.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why can Roberts (1996) and Büring (2003) approaches not be applied to CT morphemes?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The paper argues that crucial assumptions those approaches rely on for CT contours do not hold for CT morphemes, making the analysis incompatible.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What semantic contribution does the paper propose for CT morphemes?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The paper proposes that the semantic contribution of a CT morpheme is antonymous to that of the additive particle “also.”","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},291121,1790612720,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":145,"read_time":146,"preview_page_count":4},1374391974585,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","Morphological vs. phonological contrastive topic marking  \nDavid Y. Oshima  \nStanford University  \n1 Introduction  \nIn recent studies, several authors have claimed that a contrastive topic (CT; also known as topic-focus, contrastive focus, etc.) is morphologically marked in languages like Japanese (Hara in press) and Korean (Lee 1999a,b), while it is phonologically (tonally) marked in other languages.  \nIn English, for example, it is said that a contrastive topic is marked with the so-called B-accent (fall-rise tone; (L+)H*L-H%), while a focus is marked with the A-accent (fall tone; H*L-L%) (Jackendoff 1972; Büring 2003; Kadmon 2001):  \n(1) A: Well, what about FRED? What did HE eat?  \nB: \\ / \\  \n[FRED]CT ate the [BEANS]F.  \nA: Well, what about BEANS? Who ate THEM?  \nB: \\ \\ /  \n[FRED]F ate the [BEANS]CT.  \nAuthors like Hara (in press) and Lee (1999a,b) claim that contrastive topics in Japanese and Korean are marked with a particle, i.e. wa in Japanese and nun in Korean:  \n(2) a. FRED-WA mame-o tabe-ta.  \nFred-CT beans-Acc eat-Past  \n‘[Fred]CT ate [beans]F.’  \nb. MAME-WA Fred-ga tabe-ta.  \nbeans-CT Fred-Nom eat-Past  \n‘[Fred]F ate [beans]CT.’  \nTraditionally, these particles have been said to have a function to indicate a contrast (Numata 1986; Choi 1999, among others) .  \nIn this paper, I argue that information structure-based analyses of CTcontours (e.g. English B-accent) along the lines of Büring (2003) and Roberts (1996) cannot be applied to CT-morphemes, and propose an alternative semantic analysis of CT-morphemes.1 The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, I briefly review the analysis developed by Roberts (1996) and Büring (2003) . In  \n1 All the data in this paper are taken from English and Japanese. I speculate that the arguments drawn on these two languages apply by and large to a larger class of“CT-contour languages”(like German and French) and “CT-morpheme languages”(like Korean) .  \nSection 3, I discuss that Roberts-Büring’s analysis cannot be applied to CTmorphemes, demonstrating that certain crucial assumptions that it makes about CT-contours do not hold for CT-morphemes. In Section 4, I propose an alternative analysis of CT-morphemes; I argue that the semantic contribution of a CT-morpheme is antonymous to that of the additive particle ‘also’. In Section 5, I examine whether the proposed analysis can be extended to CT-contours, so that CT-morphemes and CT-contours can be given a uniform analysis.  \n2 CT-contours: Information structure-based analyses  \n2.1 Roberts’(1996) discourse model  \nRoberts (1996) proposes to model conversation/discourse as a sort of cooperative game, whose goal is to discover the information about the world, or more technically, to make the context set (the intersection of all propositions in the common ground) smaller and ultimately reduce it to the singleton set whose member is the actual world.  \nWhen a question is asked and accepted by the interlocutors, it becomes the (immediate) question under discussion. The next move by the interlocutors must be either (i) to answer it (or to conclude that it is practically unanswerable), or (ii) to divide it into more manageable [form i.e. to](form i.e. to) pose a subquestion of the question under discussion, which becomes the next question under discussion.2  \nThe set of as-yet unanswered questions at a given point in a discourse is modelled using a push down store (the QUD stack). At any point in the discourse, the question on the top of the stack is the question under discussion. The question under discussion is removed from the stack when it is answered or all of its subquestions are answered.  \nIn (4), a sample discourse D0 (Roberts 1996:101) is illustrated with the QUD stack after each move (D0 presupposes a model with only two individuals, Hilary and Robin, and two kinds of food, bagels and tofu; the “top” of the stack is the rightmost member):  \n2 The definition of subquestion/superquestion is as follows: for any pair of quest","cbCaipAXxOENrhTJ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipAXxOENrhTJ","pdf",299238,14,"English","# Introduction\n# CT-contours: Information structure-based analyses\n## Roberts’ discourse model\n## CT-congruence","[{\"question\":\"What is the central question of the paper?\",\"answer\":\"The paper asks whether contrastive topics are marked morphologically or phonologically/tonally across languages, and how CTs should be analyzed semantically and structurally.\"},{\"question\":\"Why can Roberts (1996) and Büring (2003) approaches not be applied to CT morphemes?\",\"answer\":\"The paper argues that crucial assumptions those approaches rely on for CT contours do not hold for CT morphemes, making the analysis incompatible.\"},{\"question\":\"What semantic contribution does the paper propose for CT morphemes?\",\"answer\":\"The paper proposes that the semantic contribution of a CT morpheme is antonymous to that of the additive particle “also.”\"}]","Morphological vs. phonological contrastive topic marking - Paper | PDF",1789643512,35]