Author:
Elisabeth SelkirkUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst Department of Linguistics South College Amherst MA 01003 USA

Search for other papers by Elisabeth Selkirk in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Full access

New evidence is provided for a grammatical principle that singles out contrastive focus (Rooth 1996; Truckenbrodt 1995) and distinguishes it from discourse-new “informational” focus. Since the prosody of discourse-given constituents may also be distinguished from discourse-new, a three-way distinction in representation is motivated. It is assumed that an F-feature marks just contrastive focus (Jackendoff 1972, Rooth 1992), and that a G-feature marks discourse-given constituents (Féry-Samek-Lodovici 2006), while discourse-new is unmarked. A crucial argument for G-marking comes from second occurrence focus (SOF) prosody, which arguably derives from a syntactic representation where SOF is both F-marked and G-marked. This analysis relies on a new G-Marking Condition specifying that a contrastive focus may be G-marked only if the focus semantic value of its scope is discourse-given, i.e., only if the contrast itself is given.

  • Bartels, Christine 1995. Second occurrence test. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Bartels, Christine 2004. Acoustic correlates of “second occurrence” focus: Towards an experimental investigation. In: Hans Kamp — Barbara Partee (eds): Context-dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning, 354–361. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

    Bartels C. , '', in Context-dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning , (2004 ) -.

  • Beaver, David — Brady Zack Clark — Edward Flemming — T. Florian Jäger — Maria Wolters 2007. When semantics meets phonetics: Acoustical studies of second occurrence focus. In: Language 83:245–276.

    Wolters M. , 'When semantics meets phonetics: Acoustical studies of second occurrence focus ' (2007 ) 83 Language : 245 -276 .

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Büring, Daniel 2006. Been there, marked that—A tentative theory of second occurrence focus. Manuscript, UCLA.

  • Chomsky, Noam 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In: Danny D. Steinberg — Leon A. Jakobovits (eds): Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology, 183–216. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Chomsky N. , '', in Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology , (1971 ) -.

  • É. Kiss, Katalin 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. In: Language 74:245–273.

    Katalin , 'Identificational focus versus information focus ' (1998 ) 74 Language : 245 -273 .

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Féry, Caroline — Shinichiro Ishihara 2006. Interpreting second occurrence focus. In: Christopher Davis — Amy Rose Deal — Youri Zabbal (eds): Proceedings of NELS 36, 371–384. GLSA, Amherst, Mass.

    Ishihara S. , '', in Proceedings of NELS 36 , (2006 ) -.

  • Féry, Caroline — Vieri Samek-Lodovici 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. In: Language 82:131–150.

    Samek-Lodovici V. , 'Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci ' (2006 ) 82 Language : 131 -150 .

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Gussenhoven, Carlos 1983. Focus, mode, and the nucleus. In: Journal of Linguistics 19:377–417.

    Gussenhoven C. , 'Focus, mode, and the nucleus ' (1983 ) 19 Journal of Linguistics : 377 -417 .

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Gussenhoven, Carlos 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Gussenhoven C. , '', in The phonology of tone and intonation , (2004 ) -.

  • Jackendoff, Ray 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

    Jackendoff R. , '', in Semantic interpretation in generative grammar , (1972 ) -.

  • Jacobs, Joachim 1988. Fokus-Hintergrund-Gliederung und Grammatik. In: Hans Altmann (ed.): Intonationsforschungen, 89–134. Niemeyer, Tübingen.

    Jacobs J. , '', in Intonationsforschungen , (1988 ) -.

  • Schwarzschild, Roger 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of focus. In: Natural Language Semantics 7:141–177.

    Schwarzschild R. , 'GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of focus ' (1999 ) 7 Natural Language Semantics : 141 -177 .

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax. The relation between sound and structure. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

    Selkirk E. O. , '', in The relation between sound and structure , (1984 ) -.

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In: John A. Goldsmith (ed.): The handbook of phonological theory, 550–569. Blackwell, Cambridge MA & Oxford.

    Selkirk E. O. , '', in The handbook of phonological theory , (1995 ) -.

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: Prosodic evidence from right node raising in English. In: Bernard Bel — Isabel Marlin (eds): Speech prosody 2002: Proceedings of the first international conference on speech prosody, 643–646. Laboratoire Parole et Langage, Aix-en-Provence.

    Selkirk E. O. , '', in Speech prosody 2002: Proceedings of the first international conference on speech prosody , (2002 ) -.

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2006. Contrastive focus, giveness and phrase stress. Manuscript. University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2007. Bengali intonation revisited: An optimality theoretic analysis in which FOCUS stress prominence drives FOCUS phrasing. In: Chungmin Lee — Matthew Gordon — Daniel Büring (eds): Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 82), 215–244. Springer, Dordrecht.

    Selkirk E. O. , '', in Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation , (2007 ) -.

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth O. — Angelika Kratzer 2004/2005. Focuses, phases and phrase stress. Class lectures, Seminar on Intonational Meaning, Spring 2004, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Also presented at the Mediterranean Syntax Meeting, Rhodes, June 23, 2005.

  • Truckenbrodt, Hubert 1995. Phonological phrases—their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Katz, Jonah — Elisabeth O. Selkirk 2005/2006. Pitch and duration scaling for contrastive focus: A phrase stress analysis. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Kratzer, Angelika 2004. Interpreting focus: Presupposed or expressive meanings? In: Theoretical Linguistics 30:123–136.

    Kratzer A. , 'Interpreting focus: Presupposed or expressive meanings? ' (2004 ) 30 Theoretical Linguistics : 123 -136 .

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Kratzer, Angelika — Elisabeth O. Selkirk 2007. Default phrase stress, prosodic phrasing and the spellout edge: The case of verbs. In: Linguistic Review 24:93–135.

    Selkirk E. O. , 'Default phrase stress, prosodic phrasing and the spellout edge: The case of verbs ' (2007 ) 24 Linguistic Review : 93 -135 .

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Krifka, Manfred 1991. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In: Joachim Jacobs (ed.): Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Sonderheft der Linguistischen Berichte , 17–53. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.

    Krifka M. , '', in Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Sonderheft der Linguistischen Berichte , (1991 ) -.

  • Ladd, Robert 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Ladd R. , '', in Intonational phonology , (1996 ) -.

  • Rooth, Mats 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. In: Natural Language Semantics 1:75–116.

    Rooth M. , 'A theory of focus interpretation ' (1992 ) 1 Natural Language Semantics : 75 -116 .

    • Search Google Scholar
  • Rooth, Mats 1996a. Focus. In: Shalom Lappin (ed.): The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 271–297. Blackwell, Cambridge MA & Oxford.

    Rooth M. , '', in The handbook of contemporary semantic theory , (1996 ) -.

  • Rooth, Mats 1996b. On the interface principles for intonational focus. In: Teresa Galloway — Justin Spence (eds): Proceedings of SALT VI, 202–226. CLC, Ithaca NY.

    Rooth M. , '', in Proceedings of SALT VI , (1996 ) -.

  • Collapse
  • Expand

The author instruction is available in PDF.

Please, download the file from HERE

Editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Katalin É. Kiss,
Ferenc Kiefer

Editor: Éva Dékány

Technical Editor: Zoltán G. Kiss

Review Editor: Beáta Gyuris

Editorial Board

  • Anne Abeillé
  • Željko Bošković
  • Marcel den Dikken
  • Hans-Martin Gärtner
  • Elly van Gelderen
  • Anders Holmberg
  • Katarzyna Jaszczolt
  • István Kenesei
  • Anikó Lipták
  • Katalin Mády
  • Gereon Müller
  • Csaba Pléh
  • Giampaolo Salvi
  • Irina Sekerina
  • Péter Siptár
  • Gregory Stump
  • Peter Svenonius
  • Anne Tamm
  • Akira Watanabe
  • Jeroen van de Weijer

Acta Linguistica Academica
Address: Benczúr u. 33. HU–1068 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: (+36 1) 351 0413; (+36 1) 321 4830 ext. 154
Fax: (36 1) 322 9297
E-mail: ala@nytud.mta.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Arts and Humanities Citation Index
  • Bibliographie Linguistique/Linguistic Bibliography
  • International Bibliographies IBZ and IBR
  • Linguistics Abstracts
  • Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts
  • MLA International Bibliography
  • SCOPUS
  • Social Science Citation Index
  • LinguisList

 

Acta Linguistica Hungarica
Language English
Size  
Year of
Foundation
1951
Publication
Programme
changed title
Volumes
per Year
 
Issues
per Year
 
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia  
Founder's
Address
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1216-8076 (Print)
ISSN 1588-2624 (Online)