Barbara Tomaszewicz, Joanna Błaszczak, Roumyana Pancheva University of Cologne /University of Wrocław University of Wrocław University of Southern California barbara.tomaszewicz@gmail.com joanna.blaszczak@googlemail.com roumyana.pancheva@gmail.com F OCUS A SSOCIATION R EVEALED IN R EADING T IMES LCQ 2015 Linguistic and Cognitive Aspects of Quantification Budapest, October 16-17, 2015 1
1 1 Theory: The Focus Association Mechanism Theory: The Focus Association Mechanism A focus associator is an expression whose contribution to the meaning of a A focus associator is an expression whose contribution to the meaning of a sentence depends on the position of sentence focus (indicated by prosodic sentence depends on the position of sentence focus (indicated by prosodic prominence). prominence). (1) a. John only bought Mary a [CAKE] F (1) a. John only bought Mary a [CAKE] F ‘John bought Mary nothing else but a cake.’ ‘John bought Mary nothing else but a cake.’ b. John only bought [ MAry] F a cake. b. John only bought [ MAry] F a cake. ‘ John bought no one else but Mary a cake. ’ ‘ John bought no one else but Mary a cake. ’ 2
1 1 Theory: The Focus Association Mechanism Theory: The Focus Association Mechanism A focus associator is an expression whose contribution to the meaning of a A focus associator is an expression whose contribution to the meaning of a sentence depends on the position of sentence focus (indicated by prosodic sentence depends on the position of sentence focus (indicated by prosodic prominence). prominence). (1) a. John only bought Mary a [CAKE] F (1) a. John only bought Mary a [CAKE] F ‘John bought Mary nothing else but a cake.’ ‘John bought Mary nothing else but a cake.’ b. John only bought [ MAry] F a cake. b. John only bought [ MAry] F a cake. ‘ John bought no one else but Mary a cake. ’ ‘ John bought no one else but Mary a cake. ’ The focus structure introduces a presupposition about the context (Rooth The focus structure introduces a presupposition about the context (Rooth 1992, 1996). 1992, 1996). (2) a. In St. Petersburg, officers always escorted [balleRInas] F . (2) a. In St. Petersburg, officers always escorted [balleRInas] F . ‘ Whenever officers escorted somebody, they escorted ballerinas. ’ ‘ Whenever officers escorted somebody, they escorted ballerinas. ’ b. In St. Petersburg, [Officers] F always escorted ballerinas. b. In St. Petersburg, [Officers] F always escorted ballerinas. ‘ Whenever ballerinas were escorted by somebody, ‘ Whenever ballerinas were escorted by somebody, they were escorted by officers. ’ they were escorted by officers. ’ 3
1 1 Theory: The Focus Association Mechanism Theory: The Focus Association Mechanism A focus associator is an expression whose contribution to the meaning of a A focus associator is an expression whose contribution to the meaning of a sentence depends on the position of sentence focus (indicated by prosodic sentence depends on the position of sentence focus (indicated by prosodic prominence). prominence). (1) a. John only bought Mary a [CAKE] F (1) a. John only bought Mary a [CAKE] F ‘John bought Mary nothing else but a cake.’ ‘John bought Mary nothing else but a cake.’ b. John only bought [ MAry] F a cake. b. John only bought [ MAry] F a cake. ‘ John bought no one else but Mary a cake. ’ ‘ John bought no one else but Mary a cake. ’ The focus structure introduces a presupposition about the context (Rooth The focus structure introduces a presupposition about the context (Rooth 1992, 1996). 1992, 1996). (2) a. In St. Petersburg, officers always escorted [balleRInas] F . (2) a. In St. Petersburg, officers always escorted [balleRInas] F . ‘ Whenever officers escorted somebody, they escorted ballerinas. ’ ‘ Whenever officers escorted somebody, they escorted ballerinas. ’ b. In St. Petersburg, [Officers] F always escorted ballerinas. b. In St. Petersburg, [Officers] F always escorted ballerinas. ‘ Whenever ballerinas were escorted by somebody, ‘ Whenever ballerinas were escorted by somebody, they were escorted by officers. ’ they were escorted by officers. ’ The value of the (implicit) domain variable of a quantificational expression The value of the (implicit) domain variable of a quantificational expression ( only , always ) is determined with respect to the focus structure of the ( only , always ) is determined with respect to the focus structure of the sentence (Rooth 1992, 1996, von Fintel 1994). sentence (Rooth 1992, 1996, von Fintel 1994). 4
Domain Restriction (i) John always gave Mary a cake when he visited her. • The adverb always contributes universal quantification over time intervals.
Domain Restriction (i) John always gave Mary a cake when he visited her. • The adverb always contributes universal quantification over time intervals. ⟦ when John visited Mary ⟧ = λ t [John visited Mary at t ] ⟦ always C John gave Mary a cake ⟧ = 1 iff ∀ t ∈ C [John gave Mary a cake at t ] ‘all time intervals are such that John gives Mary a cake at them’
Domain Restriction (i) John always gave Mary a cake when he visited her. • The adverb always contributes universal quantification over time intervals. ⟦ when John visited Mary ⟧ = λ t [John visited Mary at t ] ⟦ always C John gave Mary a cake ⟧ = 1 iff ∀ t ∈ C [John gave Mary a cake at t ] ‘all time intervals are such that John gives Mary a cake at them’ • Domain restriction in (i) is provided explicitly: C { t : John visited Mary at t }
Domain Restriction • C can be determined by discourse congruence • The focus structure introduces a presupposition about the context: a set of relevant alternatives is retrivable from the context.
Domain Restriction • C can be determined by discourse congruence • The focus structure introduces a presupposition about the context: a set of relevant alternatives is retrivable from the context. (ii) John gave [Mary] F a cake. Focal presupposition : There is a set of individuals whom John gave a cake.
Domain Restriction • C can be determined by discourse congruence • The focus structure introduces a presupposition about the context: a set of relevant alternatives is retrivable from the context. (ii) John gave [Mary] F a cake. Focal presupposition : There is a set of individuals whom John gave a cake. • The presupposition is introduced at LF by the focus interpretation operator : ~ (Rooth 1985, 1992, 1996: The Presuppositional Theory of Focus)
Focus Interpretation Operator ~ has its own restrictor C’
Focus Interpretation Operator ~ has its own restrictor C’ “Where φ is a syntactic phrase and C’ is a syntactically covert semantic variable, [ φ ∼ C’ ] introduces the presupposition that C’ is a subset of ⟦ φ ⟧ f containing ⟦ φ ⟧ o and at least one other element .” ( Rooth 1996, (20)) (iii) a. [[John gave [Mary] F a cake ] ~ C’ ] b. ⟦ John ⟧ f = { ⟦ John ⟧ o } c. ⟦ [Mary] F ⟧ f = D e = {Mary, Ann, Bill …} d. ⟦ gave ⟧ f ={ ⟦ gave ⟧ o } e. ⟦ John gave [Mary] F a cake ⟧ f = { p : x [ p = λ w . John gave x a cake in w ]} C’ { p : x [ p = λ w . John gave x a cake in w ]} f. (focal presupposition)
Contextual/Anaphoric licensing of focus • C’ ⟦ α ⟧ f and being a free variable, C’ is anaphoric in nature. • C’ is licensed when there is an antecedent β s.t.: • ⟦ β ⟧ o ⟦ α ⟧ f (Rooth 1992, p. 89) (1) a. Who did John give a cake? b. John gave [Mary] F a cake. (2) a. [ TP Who i did John give t i a cake] b. ⟦ 2a ⟧ o = { p : x [ p = λ w . John gave x a cake in w ]} c. ⟦ 2a ⟧ o ⟦ 1b ⟧ f
Focus association mechanism • The presence of ~ has the benefit of removing the need for any construction specific rules for focus effects on quantifiers.
Focus association mechanism • The presence of ~ has the benefit of removing the need for any construction specific rules for focus effects on quantifiers. • Condition on focus association (Rooth 1992, von Fintel 1994) C ⟦ α ⟧ f , or C ⟦ α ⟧ f , where C is the restrictor of a quantificational adverb and α the sister to ~
Focus association mechanism (1)a. John only gave [Mary] F a cheap gift. ‘John gave no one else but Mary a cheap gift.’ b. John only gave Mary a [cheap] F gift. ‘ John gave Mary no other kind of gift but a cheap gift .’
Focus association mechanism (1)a. John only gave [Mary] F a cheap gift. ‘John gave no one else but Mary a cheap gift.’ b. John only gave Mary a [cheap] F gift. ‘John gave Mary no other kind of gift but a cheap gift.’ (2)a. [ Only C ][[~ C’ ] [ TP John gave [Mary] F a cheap gift]] b. C ’ ⟦ TP ⟧ f { p : x [John gave x a cheap gift]} ( focal presupposition ) c. C ⟦ TP ⟧ f ( condition on focus association ) d. ⟦ (2a) ⟧ = λ w . ∀ p [( p ∈ C p ≠ ⟦ John gave Mary a cheap gift ⟧ ) → ¬ p ( w )]
Domain restriction & focus association • Irrespective of the presence of ~, the domain variable of a quantifier, C , can be contextually resolved (Rooth 1992) = focus effects optional. • For cases where operators require phonological focus, focus association needs to be lexically encoded (Rooth 1992, Beaver and Clark 2008). e.g. ⟦ only VP ⟧ o = λ w [ only ( w , ⟦ VP ⟧ o , ⟦ VP ⟧ f )]
Recommend
More recommend
