View More View Less
  • 1 University of Massachusetts Amherst Department of Linguistics South College Amherst MA 01003 USA
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.

  • 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 ) -.

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)