No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Derivational Approach to Focus Structure
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 June 2016
Abstract
I present a derivational analysis of the construal of the focus structure of the sentence. I propose that the [+FOCUS] feature is an optional formal feature that can be assigned to multiple tokens of the numeration. Hence, the focus structure is derived via Merge (creation of a set) in a strictly compositional way. This theory circumvents the empirical and theoretical shortcomings of Nuclear Stress Rule-based approaches, and accounts for split focus constructions (answers to multiple wh-questions).
Résumé
Je propose une analyse dérivationnelle de l’interprétation de la structure en focus d’une phrase. Je propose que le trait [+FOCUS] est un trait formel facultatif qui peut apparaître plusieurs fois dans la numération. Ainsi, la structure en focus est dérivée par Merge (création d’un ensemble) de façon strictement compositionnelle. Cette théorie évite les lacunes des approches basées sur la Règle de l’accent nucléaire (Nuclear Stress Rule) et rend compte des constructions où le focus tombe sur des composants qui ne sont pas adjacents (comme dans les réponses aux questions-Qu multiples).
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 53 , Issue 2-3 , November 2008 , pp. 327 - 354
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2008
References
Arregi, Karlos. 2003. Focus on Basque movements. Doctoral
dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.Google Scholar
Baltazani, Mary. 2002. Quantifier scope and the role of intonation
in Greek. Doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Los
Angeles.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1993. Subject focus and
pronouns. In Focus and grammatical relations in
Creole languages, ed. Byrne, F. and Winford, D., 189–212.
Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biloa, Edmond. 1995. Functional categories and the syntax of
focus in Tuki. Newcastle, UK:
Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 1999. Topic. In
Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational
perspectives, ed. Bosch, Peter and van der Sandt, Rob, 142–165.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. Conditions on
transformations. In Essays on form and
interpretation, ed. Chomsky, Noam, 81–162. New York:
Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. Bare Phrase
Structure. In Government and Binding Theory and the
Minimalist Program: Principles and parameters in syntactic theory,
ed. Webelhuth, Gert, 383–439. Oxford:
Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound
stress. Linguistic Inquiry
24:239–297.Google Scholar
D’Imperio, Mariapaola. 2002. Italian intonation: An overview and
some questions. Probus
14:37–69.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C.
1985. Hyxkariana and linguistic typology.
Dallas: SIL and University of
Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Duguine, Maia. 2006. Silent arguments without
pro: The case of Basque. Ms.,
EHU-U. Basque Country and Université de
Nantes.Google Scholar
Elordieta, Arantzazu. 2001. Verb movement and constituent permutation in
Basque. Doctoral dissertation, HIL/Leiden
University.Google Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka. 2006. Constraints on intonational
prominence of focalized constituents. In Topic and
focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, ed.
Lee, Chungmin, Gordon, Matthew, and Bliring, Daniel, 1–22. Dordrecht:
Springer.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2001. Focus and phrasing in
French. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschift for
Arnim von Stechow, ed. Féry, Caroline and Sternfeld, W., 153–181. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Godjevać, S.
2000. Intonation, word order, and focus projection in
Serbo-Croatian. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State
University.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1987. An essay on stress.
Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, and Lahiri, Aditi. 1991. Bengali intonational
phonology. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory
9:47–96.Google Scholar
Herburger, Elena. 2000. What counts: Focus and
quantification. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James, and May, Robert. 1981. Questions, quantifiers and
crossing. The Linguistic Review
1:41–80.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio, and Urbina, Jon Ortiz de. 2003. A grammar of Basque.
Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.Google Scholar
Irurtzun, Aritz. 2003. The intonational phonology of Errenteria
Basque. Paper read at the First Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia
Conference, Lisbon.Google Scholar
Irurtzun, Aritz. 2005. Structure and derivation of split focalization. In
Proceedings of the ESSLLI Workshop on Discourse Domains &
Information Structure, ed. Heusinger, Klaus von and Umbach, Carla, 21–33. Available at www.cogsci.uni-osnabrueck.de/~workshopDDIS/procDDIS.pdf
(accessed 9 October 2008).Google Scholar
Irurtzun, Aritz. 2006. Focus and clause structuration in the
Minimalist Program. In Minimalist essays,
ed. Boeckx, Cedric, 68–96. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ishihara, S.
2000. Stress, focus, and scrambling in Japanese. MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 39: A Few from Building E39:
Papers in Syntax, Semantics and their Interface, ed. Guerzoni, Elena and Matushansky, Ora, 142–175.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in Generative
Grammar. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 1996. The phonetics and phonology of Korean
prosody: Intonational phonolgy and prosodie structure.
New York:
Routledge.Google Scholar
Kannerva, J.M.
1990. Focusing on phonological phrases in
Chicheŵa. In The phonology-syntax
connection, ed. Inkelas, Sharon and Zee, Draga, 145–162. Chicago:
University of Chicago
Press.Google Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway. 1995. Configuring Topic and focus in
Russian. Stanford, CA:
Center for the Study of Lanugage and
Information.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1995. Introduction. In
Discourse configurational languages, ed. Kiss, Katalin É., 3–27. New York:
Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar, and Uriagereka, Juan. 1987. Barriers for Basque and
vice-versa. In NELS 17: Proceedings
of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. McDonough, Joyce and Plunkett, Bernadette, 394–408. Amherst,
MA: Graduate Linguistics Student
Association.Google Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 1999. Focus in Somali. In
The grammar of focus, ed. Rebuschi, Georges and Tuller, Laurice, 275–309.
Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark Y.
1975. The intonational system of English. Doctoral
dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, and Reinhart, Tanya. 1998. Scrambling and the PF
interface. In The projection of arguments: Lexical
and compositional factors, ed. Butt, Miriam and Geuder, Wilhelm, 309–353. Stanford,
CA: Center for the Study of Lanugage and
Information.Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1995. Residual verb first and verb second
in Basque. In Discourse configurational
languages, ed. Kiss, Katalin É., 99–121. New York:
Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B.
1980. The phonology and phonetics of English
intonation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Beekman, Mary E.. 1988. Japanese tone structure.
Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours
in the interpretation of discourse. In intentions in
communication, ed. Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry, and Pollack, Martha E., 271–311. Cambridge,
MA: MIT
Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface strategies.
OTS Working Papers in Linguistic TL-95-002.
Utrecht: Utrecht
University.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies: Optimal and costly
compulations. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rialland, Annie, and Robert, Stéphane, 2001. The intonational system of
Wolof. Linguistics
39:893–939.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael, 1998. Phonological focus and structural
focus. In Syntax and semantics 29:
The limits of syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter and McNally, Louise, 337–363. San Diego,
CA: Academic
Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral
dissertation, University of
Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Sandalo, Filomena, and Truckenbrodt, Hubert, 2002. Some notes on phonological phrasing in Brazilian
Portuguese. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 42:
Phonological answers (and their corresponding questions),
ed. Csirmaz, Anikó, Li, Zhiqiang, Nevins, Andrew, Vaysman, Olga, and Wagner, Michael, 285–310.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan F.
1976. Aspects of English sentence stress.
Austin: University of Texas
Press.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GlVENness, AVOIDF and other
constraints on the placement of accent. Natural
Language Semantics
7:141–177.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress,
and phrasing. In The handbook of phonological
theory, ed. Goldsmith, John A., 550–569. Oxford:
Blackwell.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2000. The interaction of constraints on
prosodie phrasing. In Prosody: Theory and
experiment: Studies presented to Cösta Bruce, ed. Home, Merle, 231–262.
Dordrecht:
Kluwer.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS
vs. presentational focus: Prosodie evidence from right node
raising in English. In Speech Prosody 2002:
Proceedings of the first international conference on speech
prosody, ed. Bel, Bernard and Marlien, Isabelle, 643–646.
Aix-en-Provence: Association
pour la promotion de la phonétique et de la
linguistique.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2006. Bengali intonation revisited: An
optimality theoretic analysis in which FOCUS stress prominence drives FOCUS
phrasing. In Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic
perspectives on meaning and intonation, ed. Lee, Chungmin, Gordon, Matthew, and Biiring, Daniel, 215–244.
Dordrecht:
Kluwer.Google Scholar
Szendröi, Kriszta. 2001. Focus and the syntax-phonology
interface. Doctoral dissertation, University
College London.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to
syntax, focus, and prominence. Doctoral dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic
phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic
Inquiry
90:219–255.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1993. The informational component.
Doctoral dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order.
Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 2000. Phrasal stress and
syntax. In Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th
anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in
Tilburg, ed. Oostendorp, Marc van and Anagnastopoulou, Elena. Amsterdam: Meertens
Institute Electronic Publications in
Linguistics.Google Scholar