Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

Focus Below the Word Level

  • Ron Artstein
Article

Abstract

Intonational focus can be observed on parts of words that appear to lack intrinsic meaning, and triggers alternatives that are similar in form. In order to provide a unified treatment of focus above and below the word level (they do, after all, behave the same in most respects), I develop a theory of denotations for arbitrary word parts in which focused word parts denote their own sound and the unfocused parts are functions from sounds to word meanings. This allows focus theories to generalize below the word level; any differences with focus above the word level are located in the semantics of word parts. The paper also explores phonological constraints on focus placement, and shows that the focusability of a word part depends solely on its prosodic status, not on any semantic factors.

References

  1. Abraham, W. (ed.): 1991, Discourse Particles: Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic, and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Allopenna, P., J. S. Magnuson, and M. K. Tanenhaus: 1998, ‘Tracking the Time Course of Spoken Word Recognition Using Eye Movements: Evidence for Continuous Mapping Models’, Journal of Memory and Language 38, 419–439.Google Scholar
  3. Aronoff, M.: 1976, Word Formation in Generative Grammar (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 1), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  4. Artstein, R.: 2002a, ‘A Focus Semantics for Echo Questions’, in Á. Bende-Farkas and A. Riester (eds.), Workshop on Information Structure in Context, pp. 98–107, IMS, University of Stuttgart. Available on-line at http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~hans/wspapers/echo.ps.Google Scholar
  5. Artstein, R.: 2002b, Parts of Words: Compositional Semantics for Prosodic Constituents, PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  6. Artstein, R.: forthcoming, ‘Coordination of Parts of Words’, Lingua (to appear).Google Scholar
  7. Beaver, D., B. Clark, E. Flemming, and M. Wolters: 2002, ‘Second Occurrence Focus is Prosodically Marked: Results of a Production Experiment’, unpublished manuscript, Stanford University and Rhetorical Systems, available on-line at http://montague.stanford.edu/~dib/Publications/sof.pdf.Google Scholar
  8. Bolinger, D. L.: 1961, ‘Contrastive Accent and Contrastive Stress’, Language 37(1), 83–96. Reprinted in Bolinger (1965), pp. 101–117.Google Scholar
  9. Bolinger, D. L.: 1965, Forms of English: Accent, Morpheme, Order (ed. by I. Abe and T. Kanekiyo), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  10. Bolinger, D. L.: 1986, Intonation and its Parts: Melody in Spoken English, Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
  11. Booij, G. and R. Lieber: 1993, ‘On the Simultaneity of Morphological and Prosodic Structure’, in S. Hargus and E. M. Kaisse (eds.), Studies in Lexical Phonology (Phonetics and Phonology 4), pp. 23–44, Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N.: 1970, ‘Deep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic Interpretation’, in R. Jakobson and S. Kawamoto (eds.), Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics, Presented to Shiro Hattori on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, pp. 52–91, TEC Co., Tokyo. Reprinted in Steinberg and Jakobovits (1971), pp. 183–216, and in Chomsky (1972), pp. 62–119.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N.: 1972, Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N.: 1976, ‘Conditions on the Rules of Grammar’, Linguistic Analysis 2(4), 303–351.Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N. and M. Halle: 1968, The Sound Pattern of English, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Coleman, H. O.: 1914, ‘Intonation and Emphasis’, Miscellanea Phonetica 1, 6–26.Google Scholar
  17. Cresswell, M. J.: 1973, Logics and Languages, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  18. Dell, G. S.: 1995, ‘Speaking and Misspeaking’, in L. R. Gleitman and M. Liberman (eds.), An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Vol. 1: Language, second edition, pp. 183–208, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  19. Gussenhoven, C.: 1983, ‘Focus, Mode and the Nucleus’, Journal of Linguistics 19(2), 377–417. Reprinted in Gussenhoven (1984), pp. 11–62.Google Scholar
  20. Gussenhoven, C.: 1984, On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  21. Gussenhoven, C.: 1999, ‘On the Limits of Focus Projection in English’, in P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, pp. 43–55, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  22. Jackendoff, R. S.: 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  23. Kadmon, N.: 2001, Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition, and Focus, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  24. Kamp, H. and B. Partee (eds.): 1997, Context Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning: Proceedings of the Workshops in Prague and Bad Teinach, IMS, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  25. Kratzer, A.: 1991, ‘The Representation of Focus’, in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, pp. 825–834, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  26. Krifka, M.: 1991, ‘A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions’, in S. Moore and A. Z. Wyner (eds.), Proceedings from SALT I, pp. 127–158, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
  27. Krifka, M.: 1992, ‘A Framework for Focus-Sensitive Quantification’, in C. Barker and D. Dowty (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 2, pp. 215–236, The Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  28. Martí, L.: 2002, ‘Association with Focus as Context Reconstruction’, in Á. Bende-Farkas and A. Riester (eds.), Workshop on Information Structure in Context, pp. 181–190, IMS, University of Stuttgart. Available on-line at http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~hans/wspapers/Marti.pdf.Google Scholar
  29. Martí, L.: forthcoming, ‘Only, Context Reconstruction, and Informativity’, in Proceedings of NELS 33. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass. (to appear).Google Scholar
  30. The Oxford English Dictionary: 1989, second edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  31. Partee, B.: 1999, ‘Focus, Quantification, and Semantics-Pragmatics Issues’, in P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, pp. 213–231, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  32. Pater, J.: 2000, ‘Non-Uniformity in English Secondary Stress: The Role of Ranked and Lexically Specific Constraints’, Phonology 17(2), 237–274.Google Scholar
  33. Raffelsiefen, R.: 1993, ‘Relating Words: A Model of Base Recognition’, Linguistic Analysis 23(1–2), 3–159.Google Scholar
  34. Raffelsiefen, R.: 1999, ‘Diagnostics for Prosodic Words Revisited: The Case of Historically Prefixed Words in English’, in T. A. Hall and U. Kleinhenz (eds.), Studies on the Phonological Word (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 174), pp. 133–201, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  35. Rochemont, M. S.: 1986, Focus in Generative Grammar, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  36. Rooth, M.: 1985, ‘Association with Focus’, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  37. Rooth, M.: 1992, ‘A Theory of Focus Interpretation’, Natural Language Semantics 1(1), 75–116.Google Scholar
  38. Rooth, M.: 1996a, ‘Focus’. in S. Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp. 271–297, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  39. Rooth, M.: 1996b, ‘On the Interface Principles for Intonational Focus’, in T. Galloway and J. Spence (eds.), Proceedings from SALT 6, pp. 202–226, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
  40. Schwarzschild, R.: 1997, ‘Why Some Foci Must Associate’, unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University; available on-line at http://semanticsarchive.net.Google Scholar
  41. Schwarzschild, R.: 1999, ‘GIVENness, AvoidF and Other Constraints on the Placement of Accent’, Natural Language Semantics 7(2), 141–177.Google Scholar
  42. Selkirk, E. O.: 1984, Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  43. Selkirk, E. [O.]: 1995, ‘Sentence Prosody: Intonation, Stress, and Phrasing’, in J. A. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, pp. 550–569, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  44. von Stechow, A.: 1989, ‘Focusing and Backgrounding Operators’, Technical Report 6, Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, University of Konstanz. Reprinted in Abraham (1991), pp. 37–84.Google Scholar
  45. von Stechow, A.: 1991, ‘Current Issues in the Theory of Focus’, in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, pp. 804–825, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  46. Steedman, M.: 1991, ‘Structure and Intonation’, Language 67(2), 260–296.Google Scholar
  47. Steedman, M.: 2000a, ‘Information Structure and the Syntax-Phonology Interface’, Linguistic Inquiry 31(4), 649–689.Google Scholar
  48. Steedman, M.: 2000b, The Syntactic Process, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  49. Steinberg, D. D. and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.): 1971, Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  50. Tanenhaus, M. K., M. J. Spivey-Knowlton, K. M. Eberhard, and J. C. Sedivy: 1995, ‘Integration of Visual and Linguistic Information in Spoken Language Comprehension’, Science 268(5217), 1632–1634.Google Scholar
  51. Truckenbrodt, H.: 1995, ‘Phonological Phrases: Their Relation to Syntax, Focus, and Prominence’, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  52. Wennerstrom, A.: 1993, ‘Focus on the Prefix: Evidence for Word-Internal Prosodic Words’, Phonology 10, 309–324.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ron Artstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Computational Linguistics, Department of Computer Science, Technion – Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael E-mail

Personalised recommendations