•  
  •  
 

Abstract

It is widely accepted that a notion of 'focus', more or less as conceived of in Jackendoff (1972), must be incorporated into our theory of grammar, as a means of accounting for certain observed correlations between prosodic facts and semantic/pragmatic facts. In this paper, we put forth the somewhat radical idea that the time has come to give up this customary view, and eliminate 'focus' from our theory of grammar. We argue that such a move is both economical and fruitful. Research over the years has revealed that the correlations between prosody, 'focus', and the alleged semantic/pragmatic effects of focus are much less clear and systematic than we may have initially hoped. First we argue that this state of affairs detracts significantly from the utility of our notion of 'focus', to the point of calling into question the very motivation for including it in the grammar. Then we look at some of the central data, and show how they might be analyzed without recourse to a notion of 'focus'. We concentrate on (i) the effect of pitch accent placement on discourse congruence, and (ii) the choice of 'associate' for the so-called 'focus sensitive' adverb only. We argue that our focus-free approach to the data improves empirical coverage, and begins to reveal patterns that have previously been obscured by preconceptions about 'focus'.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

References

Beaver, D. & Clark, B. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Blackwell.

Beaver, D., Clark, B., Flemming, E., Jaeger, T. F. & Wolters, M. 2007. ‘When semantics meets phonetics: Acoustical studies of second occurrence focus’. Language 83.2: 245–76.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0053

Beckman, M. & Hirschberg, J. 1994. ‘The ToBI Annotation Conventions’. Ms.,
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~julia/files/conv.pdf.

Bolinger, D. 1972. ‘Accent is predictable (if you are a mind-reader)’. Language 48.3: 633–44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/412039

Büring, D. 2006. ‘Focus projection and default prominence’. In V. Molnár & S. Winkler (eds.) ‘The Architecture of Focus’, 318–346. Mouton de Gruyter.

Büring, D. 2007. ‘Intonation, Semantics and Information Structure’. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.) ‘The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces’, 445–473. Oxford University Press.

Büring, D. 2008. ‘Been there, marked that – A theory of second occurrence focus’. Ms.,
http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/buring

Chomsky, N. 2007. ‘Deep structure, surface structure and semantics interpretation’. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (eds.) ‘Semantics’, 183–216. Cambridge University Press.

Clark, H. & Haviland, S. 1977. ‘Comprehension and the given-new contrast’. In R. Freedle (ed.) ‘Discourse Production and Comprehension’, 1–40. Ablex.

Cresswell, M. J. & von Stechow, A. 1982. ‘De re belief generalized’. Linguistics and Philosophy 5.4: 503–535.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00355585

Erteschik-Shir, N. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge University Press.

Erteschik-Shir, N. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford University Press.

Féry, C. & Samek-Lodovici, V. 2006. ‘Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci’. Language 82.1: 131–150.

Féry, C. & Shinichiro, I. 2009. ‘The phonology of second occurrence focus’. Journal of Linguistics 45.2: 285–313.

Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M. 1984. ‘Questions and linguistic answers’. In Groenendijk and Stokhof, Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. ‘Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 2’. Journal of Linguistics 3.2: 199–244.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016613

Hamblin, C. L. 1973. ‘Questions in Montague Grammar’. Foundations of Language, 41-53. Reprinted in B. Partee (ed.), Montague Grammar, Academic Press, 1976.

Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Reproduced by the GLSA, Linguistics Department, UMass, Amherst.

Howell, J. 2007. ‘Second occurrence focus and the acoustics of prominence’. In C. B. Chang and H. Haynie (eds.): Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 26).

Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press.

Jacobs, J. 1983. Fokus und Skalen: Zur Syntax und Semantik von Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Niemeyer.

Kadmon, N. 2001. Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition and Focus. Blackwell Publishers.

Kadmon, N. 2011. ‘Accent Placement and Givenness’. Ms., Tel Aviv University.

Krifka, M. 1991. ‘A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions’. In S. Moore and A.Z. Wyner (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 1, Cornell University Working Papers in Linguistics No. 10.

Krifka, M. 1992. ‘A framework for focus-sensitive quantification’. In C. Barker and D. Dowty (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 2, Working Papers in Linguistics No. 40, The Ohio State University.

Krifka, M. 1997. ‘A second look at second occurrence expressions’. In H. Kamp & B. Partee (eds.) ‘Context-dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning. Proceedings of the workshops in Prague and Bad Teinach’, 253–276. Institut fuer maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, University of Stuttgart.

Kumo, S. 1972. ‘Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and English’. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320.

Ladd, R. D. 1980. The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English. Indiana University Press.

Partee, B. H. 1987a. ‘Noun Phrase interpretation and type shifting principles’. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh & M. Stokhof (eds.) ‘Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers’, 115–143. Foris. Reprinted in P. Portner and B. H. Partee (eds.), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings, Blackwell, 2002.

Partee, B. H. 1987b. ‘Focus, quantification, and semantics-pragmatics issues’. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (eds.) ‘Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives’, 213–231. Cambridge University Press.

Partee, B. H. 1991. ‘Topic, focus and quantification’. In S. Moore and A.Z. Wyner (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 1, Cornell University Working Papers in Linguistics.

Prince, E. 1981. ‘Towards a taxonomy of given-new information’. In P. Cole (ed.) ‘Radical Pragmatics’, 223–256. Academic Press.

Roberts, C. 1996. ‘Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics’. In J. Hak Yoon & A. Kathol (eds.) ‘Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 49’, 91–136. Ohio State University Press.

Rochemont, M. S. 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar. John Benjamins.

Rooth, M. 1985. Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Reproduced by the GLSA, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Rooth, M. 1992. ‘A theory of focus interpretation’. Natural Language Semantics 1.1: 75–116.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617

Rooth, M. 1996. ‘On the interface principles for intonational focus’. In T. Galloway & J. Spence (eds.) ‘Proceedings of SALT VI’, 202–226. Ithaca, NY: CLC.

Rooth, M. 2010. ‘Second occurrence focus and relativized stress F’. In C. Féry & M. Zimmermann (eds.) ‘Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives’, 15–36. Oxford University Press.

Schmerling, S. F. 1976. Aspects of English Sentence Stress. University of Texas Press.

Schwarzschild, R. 1999. ‘GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent’. Natural Language Semantics 7.2: 141–177.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008370902407

Serlkirk, E. O. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. MIT Press.

Serlkirk, E. O. 1996. ‘Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing’. In J. Goldsmith (ed.) ‘The Handbook of Phonological Theory’, 550–569. Blackwell.

Serlkirk, E. O. 2007. ‘Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of discourse-new’.

Sevi, A. 2005. Exhaustivity: A Semantic Account of ’Quantity’ Implicatures. Ph.D. thesis, Tel Aviv University.

Truckenbrodt, H. 1995. Phonological Phrases: Their Relation to Syntax, Focus and Prominence. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.

Valduví, E. & Vilkuna, M. 1998. ‘On Rheme and Kontrast’. In P. Cullicover & Louise McNally (eds.) ‘Syntax and Semantics29: The Limits of Syntax’, 79–108. Academic Press.

van Rooij, R. & Schulz, K. 2006. ‘Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: the case of exhaustive interpretation’. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 205–250.

von Stechow, A. 1981. ‘Topic, focus and local relevance’. In W. Klein and W. Levelt (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics, Reidel.

von Stechow, A. 1982. ‘Structured propositions’. Technical Report 59, Sonder-forschungsbereich 99, Universität Konstanz.

von Stechow, A. 1989. ‘Focusing and backgrounding operators’. Technical Report 6, Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.

Wagner, M. 2006. ‘Givenness and locality’. In M. Gibson & J. Howell (eds.) ‘Proceedings of SALT XVI’, 295–312. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

Zeevat, H. 2007. ‘Exhaustivity, questions and plurals in update semantics’. In M. Aloni, A. Butler & P. Dekker (eds.) ‘Questions in Dynamic semantics’, 161–92. Elsevier.

Zimmermann, M. 2008. ‘Contrastive focus and emphasis’. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 347–360.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.9

Download

Share

COinS