Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Focus games

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper provides a game-theoretic analysis of contrastive focus, extending insights from recent work on the role of noisy communication in prosodic accent placement to account for focus within sentences, sub-sentential phrases (e.g. in “farmer sentences”) and words. The shared insight behind these models is that languages with prosodic focus marking assign prosodic prominence only within elements which constitute material critical for successful interpretation. We first take care to distinguish the information-structural notion of (contrastive) focus from an ontologically distinct notion of givenness marking, and then outline the core properties of focus. We then introduce a signaling game between a speaker and hearer in which the goal is to transmit semantic content with the smallest signal possible. We apply the Iterated Best Response (IBR) method of Franke (Semant Pragmat 4:1–82, 2011) to find equilibrium strategies in this game, where a unique equilibrium strategy in this case picks out the “critical information” of an utterance, which by hypothesis constitutes its focus. We show that iterating this game at different syntactic levels of a sentence makes correct predictions about the role of contrast in determining stress within words and phrases, and can be extended to account for association and second occurrence focus effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Artstein, R. (2004). Focus below the word level. Natural Language Semantics, 12, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, M. (2006). Beyond individual choice: Teams and frames in game theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, M., & Bernasconi, M. (1997). The variable frame theory of focal points: An experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior, 19(1), 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardsley, N., Mehta, J., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2010). Explaining focal points: Cognitive Hierarchy Theory versus team reasoning. The Economic Journal, 120(543), 40–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2008). Sense and sensitivity: How focus affects meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Benz, A. (2012). Errors in pragmatics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 21(1), 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benz, A., Jaeger, G., & van Rooij, R. (Eds.). (2006). Game theory and pragmatics. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

  • Bergen, L., & Goodman, N. (2014). The strategic use of noise in pragmatic reasoning. In P. Bello, M. Guarini, M. McShane, & B. Scassellati (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th annual cognitive science conference (pp. 182–187). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

  • Bolinger, D. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you're a mind-reader). Language, 48(3), 633–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büring, D. (2003). On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26(5), 511–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büring, D. (2008). What's new (and what's given) in the theory of focus? In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society Meeting (pp. 403–423). Berkeley, CA: University of California.

  • Camerer, C. F., Ho, T. H., & Chong, J. K. (2004). A cognitive hierarchy model of games. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), 861–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W. (1974). Language and consciousness. Language, 50(1), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy (pp. 183–216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (2011). Language and other cognitive systems. What is special about language? Language Learning and Development, 7(4), 263–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. (2011). Meaningful games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Kuthy, K., & Meurers, D. (2012). Focus projection, between theory and evidence. Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory-Studies in Meaning and Structure, 111, 207–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Kuthy, K., & Stolterfoht, B. (2014). Focus projection revisited: Pitch accent perception in German. Presented at Linguistic Evidence 2014, Tübingen, Germany.

  • Féry, C., & Samek-Lodovici, V. (2006). Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested Foci. Language, 82(1), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, M. (2009). Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics. PhD thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

  • Franke, M. (2011). Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semantic and Pragmatics, 4, 1–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1991). Perfect Bayesian equilibrium and sequential equilibrium. Journal of Economic Theory, 53(2), 236–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • German, J., Pierrehumbert, J., & Kaufmann, S. (2006). Evidence for phonological constraints on nuclear accent placement. Language, 82(1), 151–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part II. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. (1973). Questions in Montague english. Foundations of Language, 10, 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi, J. C. (1968). Games of incomplete information played by `Bayesian' players, part ii. Management Science, 14(5), 320–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J., & Selkirk, E. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new. Language, 87(4), 771–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (2001). For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In C. Fery & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientia: A Festschrift for Arnum von Stechow (pp. 287–319). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuno, S. (1982). The focus of the question and the focus of the answer. Parassession on Nondeclaratives Chicago Linguistics Society (pp 134–157).

  • Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai C (2012) Rises all the way up: The interpretation of prosody, discourse attitudes and dialogue structure. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania

  • Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J. (1951). Non-cooperative games. Annals of mathematics, 54(2), 286–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parikh, P. (2001). The use of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parikh, P. (2010). Language and Equilibrium. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–256). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. (1996). Information Structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J. Yoon & A. Kathol (Eds.), OSUWPL Volume 49: Papers in Semantics (pp. 91–136). The Ohio State University.

  • Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, H. C. (2008). Accentuation and interpretation. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzschild, R. (1999). Givenness, AvoidF, and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 141–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, E. (2007). Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of ``discourse-new''. Interdisciplinary studies on information structure 6: The notions of information structure (pp. 125–145). Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. (1979). Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 3, 15–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens. J. S. (2013). Information structure, grammar and strategy in discourse. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Stevens, J. S. (2014). Against a unified analysis of givenness and focus. In R. Santana-LaBarge (Ed.), Proceedings of the 31st West Coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 438–446). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

  • Swerts, M., Krahmer, E., & Avesani, C. (2002). Prosodic marking of information status in Dutch and Italian: A comparative analysis. Journal of Phonetics, 30(4), 629–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truckenbrodt, H. (2007). The syntax-phonology interface. In P. de Lacy (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology (pp. 435–456). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Vallduví, E. (1990). The informational component. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Wagner, M. (2012a). Contrastive topics decomposed. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(8), 1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M. (2012b). Focus and givenness: A unified approach. In I. Kučerová & A. Neeleman (Eds.), Information structure: Contrasts and positions (pp. 102–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Zimmermann, M., & Onea, E. (2011). Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua, 121(11), 1651–1670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University, 108A Ohio Stadium East, 1961 Tuttle Park Place, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Jon Scott Stevens

Authors
  1. Jon Scott Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon Scott Stevens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stevens, J.S. Focus games. Linguist and Philos 39, 395–441 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9192-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9192-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation