View More View Less
  • 1 Pázmány Péter Catholic University
  • | 2 Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Full access

Logical scope interpretation and sentence prosody exhibit intricate, yet scarcely studied interrelations across a variety of languages and constructions. Despite these observable interrelations, it is not clear whether quantifier scope by itself is able to directly affect prosodic form. Information structure is a key potential confounding factor, as it appears to richly interact both with scope interpretation and with prosodic form.

To address this complication, the current study investigates, based on data from Hungarian, whether quantifier scope is expressed prosodically if information structure is kept in check. A production experiment is presented that investigates grammatically scope ambiguous doubly quantified sentences with varied focus structures, while lacking a syntactically marked topic or focus. In contrast to the information structural manipulation, which is manifest in the analysis of the acoustic data, the results reveal no prosodic effect of quantifier scope, nor the interaction of scope with information structure. This finding casts doubt on the notion that logical scope can receive direct prosodic expression, and it indirectly corroborates the restrictive view instead that scope interpretation is encoded in prosody only in cases in which it is a free rider on information structure.

  • Anderson, Catherine. 2004. The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity. Doctoral dissertation. Northwestern University, Evanston.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Antonyuk-Yudina, Svitlana. 2011. Abstract. Linguistic Society of America, Annual Meeting, Pittsburg. Why prosody matters.

  • Baltazani, Mary. 2002. The prosodic structure of quantificational sentences in Greek. In Papers from the Chicago Linguistics Society Meeting Vol. 38. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. 6378.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Baltazani, Mary. 2002.. Quantifier scope and the role of intonation in Greek. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.

  • Baltazani, Mary. 2006. Intonation and pragmatic interpretation of negation in Greek. Journal of Pragmatics 38. 16581676.

  • Beckman, Mary E. 1996. The parsing of prosody. Language and Cognitive Processes 11. 1768.

  • Beghelli, Filippo and Tim Stowell. 1997. The syntax of distributivity and negation. In Szabolcsi (1997b, 71–10).

  • Błaszczak, Joanna and Hans-Martin Gärtner. 2005. Intonational phrasing, discontinuity, and the scope of negation. Syntax 8. 122.

  • Boersma, Paul. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5. 341345.

  • Bolinger, Dwight L. 1965. Forms of English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Bott, Oliver and Janina Radó. 2007. Quantifying quantifier scope: A cross-methodological comparison. In S. Featherson and W. Sternefeld (eds.) Roots – Linguistics in search of its evidential base (Studies in Generative Grammar 96). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 5374.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bott, Oliver and Janina Radó. 2009. How to provide exactly one interpretation for every sentence, or what eye movements reveal about quantifier scope. In S. Featherson and S. Winkle (eds.) The fruits of empirical linguistics. Volume 1: Process (Studies in Generative Grammar 101). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2546.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Büring, Daniel. 1997. The great scope inversion conspiracy. Linguistics and Philosophy 20. 17594.

  • Cohen, Ariel and Nomi Erteschik-Shir. 2002. Topic, focus and the interpretation of bare plurals. Natural Language Semantics 10. 125165.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cresti, Diana. 1995. Indefinite topics. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

  • Deguchi, Masanori and Yoshihisa Kitagawa. 2002. Prosody and wh-questions. In M. Hirotani (ed.) Proceedings of the Thirty-second Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts. 7392.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74. 245273.

  • É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • É. Kiss, Katalin. 2010. An adjunction analysis of quantifiers and adverbials in the Hungarian sentence. Lingua 120. 506526.

  • Ebert, Christian and Cornelia Endriss. 2004. Topic interpretation and wide scope indefinites. In K. Moulton and M. Wolf (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirty-fourth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts. 20314.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Féry, Caroline. 1993. German intonational patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

  • Filik, Ruth, Kevin B. Paterson and Simon P. Liversedge. 2004. Processing doubly quantified sentences: Evidence from eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11. 953959.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fodor, Janet Dean. 1982. The mental representation of quantifiers. In S. Peters and E. Saarinen (eds.) Processes, beliefs, and questons. Dordrecht: Reidel. 29164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Genzel, Susanne, Shinichiro Ishihara and Balázs Surányi. 2015. The prosodic expression of focus, contrast and givenness: A production study of Hungarian. Lingua 165. 183204.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gorman, Kyle, Jonathan Howell and Michael Wagner. 2011. Prosodylab-aligner: A tool for forced alignment of laboratory speech. Canadian Acoustics 39. 192193.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gyuris, Beáta and ScottJackson. under review. Factors affecting scope in Hungarian. Glossa.

  • Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English (part 2). Journal of Linguistics 3. 199244.

  • Hirotani, Masako. 2004. Prosody and LF: Processing Japanese wh-questions. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Hunyadi, László. 1981. Remarks on the syntax and semantics of topic and focus in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 31. 107136.

  • Hunyadi, László. 1999. The outlines of a metrical syntax of Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 46. 6994.

  • Hunyadi, László. 2002. Hungarian sentence prosody and Universal Grammar: On the prosody–syntax interface. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ionin, Tania. 2003. The one girl who was kissed by every boy: Scope, scrambling and discourse function in Russian. In M. V. Koppen, J. Sio and M. de Vos (eds.) Proceedings of ConSole X. Leiden: Leiden University. 7994.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ionin, Tania and Tatiana Luchkina. 2015. One reading for every word order: Revisiting Russian scope. In U. Steindl (ed.) Proceedings of the Thirty-second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 2130.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ioup, Georgette. 1975. Some universals for quantifier scope. In J. P. Kimball (ed.) Syntax and semantics 4. New York: Academic Press. 375.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2002. Invisible but audible wh-scope marking: Wh-constructions and deaccenting in Japanese. In L. Mikkelsen and C. Potts (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-first West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 180193.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Jun, Sun-Ah. 2005. Prosodic typology. In S.-A. Jun (ed.) Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 430458.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jun, Sun-Ah. 2014. Prosodic typology, By prominence type, word prosody, and macrorhythm. In S.-A. Jun (ed.) Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 520539.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kadmon, Nirit and Craige Roberts. 1986. Prosody and scope: The role of discourse structure. In A. M. Farley, P. T. Farley and K.-E. McCullough (eds.) Proceeding from the Twenty-second Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society [Part 2]: Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. 1628.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kálmán, László. 1985. Word order in non-neutral sentences. In I. Kenesei (ed.) Approaches to Hungarian 1: Data and descriptions. Szeged: JATE. 2537.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kálmán, László and Ádám Nádasdy. 1994. A hangsúly [Stress]. In F. Kiefer (ed.) Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 2: Fonológia [A structural grammar of Hungarian 2: Phonology]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 393467.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kempson, Ruth Margaret and Annabel Cormack. 1981. Ambiguity and quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 259309.

  • Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1994. Shells, yolks, and scrambled e.g.s. In M. Gonzàlez (ed.) Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusett. 221239.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In G. Carlson and F. Pelletier (eds.) The generic book. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 125175.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9. 140.

  • Kuno, Susumo. 1982. The Focus of the Question and the Focus of the Answer. In R. Schneider, K. Tuite and R. Chametzky (eds.) Papers from the parasession on nondeclaratives. Chicago: CLS. 276337.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kuno, Susumu. 1991. Remarks on quantifier scope. In H. Nakajima (ed.) Current English linguistics in Japan. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 261287.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kurtzman, Howard S. and Maryellen MacDonald. 1993. Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition 48. 273279.

  • Ladd, D. Robert. 1980. The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  • Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. A theory of topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Liu, Feng-hsi. 1997. Scope and specificity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Mády, Katalin. 2012. A fókusz prozódiai jelölése felolvasásban és spontán beszédben [Prosodic marking of focus in read and spontaneous speech]. In M. Gósy (ed.) Beszéd, adatbázis, kutatások [Speech, database, research]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 91107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mády, Katalin. 2015. Prosodic (non-)realisation of broad, narrow and contrastive focus in Hungarian: A production and perception study. In Interspeech 2015. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association. Dresden: ISCA. 948952.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mády, Katalin and Felicitas Kleber. 2010. Variation of pitch accent patterns in Hungarian. Paper presented at the 5th Speech Prosody Conference, Chicago.

  • May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • May, Robert. 1988. Ambiguities of quantification and wh: A reply to Williams. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 118135.

  • Neeleman, Ad and Hans van de Koot. 2008. Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 112. 137189.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Olaszy, Gábor. 2000. The prosody structure of dialogue components in Hungarian. International Journal of Speech Technology 3. 165176.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pafel, Jürgen. 2006. Quantifier scope in German. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Paterson, Kevin B., Ruth Filik and Simon P. Liversedge. 2008. Competition during processing of quantifier scope ambiguities: Evidence from eye movements during reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61. 459473.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Portner, Paul and Katsuhiko Yabushita. 2001. Specific indefinites and the information structure theory of topics. Journal of Semantics 18. 271297.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • R Development Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: Foundation for Statistical Computing.

  • Radó, Janina and Oliver Bott. 2012. Underspecified representations of quantifier scope? In M. Aloni, V. Kimmelman, F. Roelofsen, G. Sassoon, K. Schulz and M. Westera (eds.) Logic, language and meaning. 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, December 19–21, 2011. Revised selected papers. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer. 180189.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Radó, Janina and Oliver Bott. accepted. What do speaker judgments tell us about theories of quantifier scope in German? Glossa.

  • Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

  • Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 281337.

  • Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5. 169.

  • Sauerland, Uli and Oliver Bott. 2002. Prosody and scope in German inverse linking constructions. In B. Bel and I. Marlien (eds.) Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2020.conference, 11–13 April. 2002. Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage. 623628.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2011. The syntax–phonology interface. In J. A. Goldsmith, J. Riggle and A. C. L. Yu (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory (Second edition). Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 435484.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sluijter, Agatha Martha Cornelia. 1995. Phonetic correlates of stress and accent. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

  • Sluijter, Agatha Martha Cornelia and Vincent J. van Heuven. 1996. Acoustic correlates of linguistic stress and accent in Dutch and American English. In ICSLP–1996. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Philadelphia, October 3–6, 1996. Philadelphia: IEEE. 630633.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Surányi, Balázs. 2002. Multiple operator movements in Hungarian. Doctoral dissertation. LOT, Utrecht.

  • Surányi, Balázs, Shinichiro Ishihara and Fabian Schubö. 2012. Syntax–prosody mapping, topic–comment structure and stress–focus correspondence in Hungarian. In G. E. Alcibar and P. Prieto (eds.) Prosody and meaning. Berlin & New York: Amsterdam & Philadelphia. 3571.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Surányi, Balázs and Gergő Turi. 2017. Focus and quantifier scope – An experimental study in Hungarian. In A. Lipták and H. van der Hulst (eds.) Approaches to Hungarian 15: Papers from the 2016. Leiden conference. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 209238.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. The semantics of topic–focus articulation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen and M. Stokhof (eds.) Formal methods in the study of language. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centre. 503540.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Szabolcsi, Anna. 1997a. Strategies for scope taking. In Szabolcsi (1997b, 109–154).

  • Szabolcsi, Anna (ed.). 1997b. Ways of scope taking (SLAP 65). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Varga, László. 1975. A contrastive analysis of English and Hungarian sentence prosody. (The Hungarian–English Contrastive Linguistics Project Working Papers No. 6). Budapest & Arlington, VA: Linguistics Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences & Center for Applied Linguistics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Varga, László. 2002. Intonation and stress: Evidence from Hungarian. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Vogel, Irene, Angeliki Athanasopoulou and Nadya Pincus. 2015. Acoustic properties of prominence in Hungarian and the Functional Load Hypothesis. In K. É. Kiss, B. Surányi and É. Dékány (eds.) Approaches to Hungarian 14: Papers from the 2013. Piliscsaba conference. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 267292.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vogel, Irene and István Kenesei. 1987. The interface between phonology and other components of the grammar: The case of Hungarian. Phonology Yearbook 4. 243263.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ward, Gregory and Julia Hirschberg. 1985. Implicating uncertainty: The pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language 61. 747776.

  • Williams, Edwin. 1988. Is LF distinct from S-structure. A reply to May. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 135146.

The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

Editors

Editor-in-Chief: András Cser

Editor: Éva Dékány

Review Editor: Tamás Halm

Editorial Board

  • Anne Abeillé / Université Paris Diderot
  • Željko Bošković / University of Connecticut
  • Marcel den Dikken / Eötvös Loránd University; Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Hans-Martin Gärtner / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Elly van Gelderen / Arizona State University
  • Anders Holmberg / Newcastle University
  • Katarzyna Jaszczolt / University of Cambridge
  • Dániel Z. Kádár / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • István Kenesei / University of Szeged; Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Anikó Lipták / Leiden University
  • Katalin Mády / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Gereon Müller / Leipzig University
  • Csaba Pléh / Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Central European University
  • Giampaolo Salvi / Eötvös Loránd University
  • Irina Sekerina / College of Staten Island CUNY
  • Péter Siptár / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Gregory Stump / University of Kentucky
  • Peter Svenonius / University of Tromsø
  • Anne Tamm / Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church
  • Akira Watanabe / University of Tokyo
  • Jeroen van de Weijer / Shenzhen University

 

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

 

2020

 

Total Cites

219

WoS

Journal
Impact Factor

0,523

Rank by

Linguistics 150/193 (Q4)

Impact Factor

 

Impact Factor

0,432

without

Journal Self Cites

5 Year

0,500

Impact Factor

Journal 

0,72

Citation Indicator

 

Rank by Journal 

Linguistics 144/259 (Q3)

Citation Indicator 

 

Citable

19

Items

Total

19

Articles

Total

0

Reviews

Scimago

10

H-index

Scimago

0,295

Journal Rank

Scimago

Cultural Studies Q1

Quartile Score

Language and Linguistics Q2

 

Linguistics and Language Q2

 

Literature and Literary Theory Q1

Scopus

72/87=0,8

Scite Score

Scopus

Literature and Literary Theory 42/825 (Q1)

Scite Score Rank

Cultural Studies 247/1037 (Q1)

Scopus

1,022

SNIP

Days from 

58

submission

to acceptance

Days from 

68

acceptance

to publication

Acceptance

51%

Rate

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
155
Impact Factor 0,222
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
0,156
5 Year
Impact Factor
0,322
Immediacy
Index
0,870
Citable
Items
23
Total
Articles
23
Total
Reviews
0
Cited
Half-Life
11,2
Citing
Half-Life
16,6
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00006
Article Influence
Score
0,056
% Articles
in
Citable Items
100,00
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,00780
Average
IF
Percentile
9,358
Scimago
H-index
9
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,281
Scopus
Scite Score
53/85=0,6
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Cultural Studies 293/1002 (Q2)
Literature and Literary Theory 60/823(Q1)
Scopus
SNIP
0,768
Acceptance
Rate
25%

 

Acta Linguistica Academica
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2021 Online subsscription: 544 EUR / 680 USD
Print + online subscription: 624 EUR / 780 USD
Subscription fee 2022 Online subsscription: 558 EUR / 696 USD
Print + online subscription: 638 EUR / 796 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Acta Linguistica Academica
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
2017
Publication
Programme
2021 Volume 68
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
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 2559-8201 (Print)
ISSN 2560-1016 (Online)