Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 15–33

Focus interpretation in Thetic statements: Alternative Semantics and Optimality Theory Pragmatics

Original Paper

Abstract

Broad focus (or informational integration or nonautonomy) is lexically and contextually constrained, but these constraints are not well understood. On a standard theory of focus interpretation, the presupposition of a broad focus is verified whenever those of two narrow foci are. I argue that to account for cases where two narrow foci are preferred, it is necessary to assume that broad focus competes with two narrow foci and implicates the opposite of what they presuppose. Central constraints on thetic statements are thus accounted for in an Optimality Theory (OT) enriched Alternative Semantics.

Keywords

Focus Theticity Alternative Semantics Optimality theoretic pragmatics Informational integration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bende-Farkas, Á. (1999). Incorporation as unification. In: Proceedings of the 12th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  2. Blutner R. (1998). Lexical pragmatics. Journal of Semantics, 15, 115–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blutner R., Zeevat H. (eds) (2003). Optimality theory and pragmatics. London, MacMillanGoogle Scholar
  4. Borschev V., Partee B. (2002). The Russian genitive of negation: Theme – rheme structure or perspective structure?. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 10, 105–144Google Scholar
  5. Büring D. (2003). ‘On D-Trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 511–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coseriu E. (1967). Lexikalische solidaritäten. Poetica, 1, 293–303Google Scholar
  7. Drubig H.B. (1992). Zur Frage der grammatischen Repräsentation thetischer und kategorischer Sätze. In: Jacobs J. (eds) Informationsstruktur und Grammatik (=   Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft vol 4. Opladen, West-deutscher Verlag, pp 142–195Google Scholar
  8. Eckardt, R. (1996). Intonation and predication: an investigation in the nature of judgement structure. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 77. University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  9. Farkas D., de Swart H. (2003). The semantics of incorporation. Stanford, CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamblin C.L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10, 41–53Google Scholar
  11. Höhle T. (1982). Explikationen für ‘normale Betonung’ und ‘normale Wortstellung’. In: Abraham W. (eds) Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen, Narr, pp. 75–133Google Scholar
  12. Jacobs J. (1991). Focus Ambiguities. Journal of Semantics, 8, 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobs J. (1993). Integration. In: Reis M. (eds) Wortstellung und informationsstruktur. Tübingen, Niemeyer, pp. 64–116Google Scholar
  14. Jacobs J. (1999) Informational autonomy. In: Bosch P., van der Sandt R. (eds) Focus. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 56–81Google Scholar
  15. Jacobs J. (2001). The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics, 39, 641–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jäger G. (2001). Topic-comment structure and the contrast between stage level and individual level predicates. Journal of Semantics, 18, 83–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kennedy R. (1999). Focus constituency. Journal of Pragmatics, 31:1203–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krifka M. (2001). Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krifka M. (2001a). For a structured account of questions and answers. In: Féry C., Sternefeld W. (eds) Audiatur vox sapientiae: A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Berlin, Akademie Verlag, pp. 287–319Google Scholar
  20. Krifka M. (2003). Quantifiers in questions. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 3:499–526Google Scholar
  21. Krifka M. (2004). The semantics of questions and the focusation of answers. In: Lee Ch., Gordon M., Büring D. (eds) Topic and focus: a cross-linguistic perspective. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp 139–151Google Scholar
  22. Kruijff-Korbayová I., Steedman M. (2003). Discourse and Information Structure. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 12, 249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuroda S.-Y. (1972). The Categorical and the thetic judgment. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language, 9, 153–185Google Scholar
  24. Ladusaw W. (1994). Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In: Harvey M., Santelmann L. (eds) Proceedings of SALT 4. Ithaca, Cornell University, pp. 220–229Google Scholar
  25. Lötscher A. (1985). Akzentuierung und Thematisierbarkeit von Angaben. Linguistische Berichte, 97, 228–251Google Scholar
  26. McNally L. (1998). Stativity and Theticity. In: Rothstein S. (eds) Events and grammar. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 293–307Google Scholar
  27. Roberts C. (1998). Focus, the flow of information, and universal grammar. In: Culicover P., McNally L. (eds) Syntax and semantics 29: the limits of syntax. New York, Academic Press, pp. 109–160Google Scholar
  28. Rochemont M. (1986). Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam, BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  29. Rooth M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sasse H.-J. (1995). Theticity and VS order: a case study. in Sprachtypologie und universalienforschung, 48, 3–31Google Scholar
  31. Schwarzschild R. (1999). Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7:141–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Steedman M. (2000). Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 649–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Szabolcsi A. (1986). From the definiteness effect to lexical integrity. In: Abraham W., Meij S. (eds) Topic, focus and configurationality. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 321–348Google Scholar
  34. van Geenhoven, V. (1996). Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  35. van Kuppevelt J. (1995). Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Linguistics, 31, 109–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of European LanguagesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations