User Tools

Site Tools


grammarinfstruc

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

grammarinfstruc [2012/06/25 22:35]
malte [General questions]
grammarinfstruc [2012/07/20 13:41] (current)
edgar [The focus-accent side: F-Q is fixed.]
Line 32: Line 32:
 If we assume with Beaver & Clark that the associate of the exclusive particle '​only'​ must be in focus, the focus of the utterance should be the direct object '​John',​ but the direct object '​John'​ in (1B) is not the direct answer to the explicit question under discussion in (1A). If we assume with Beaver & Clark that the associate of the exclusive particle '​only'​ must be in focus, the focus of the utterance should be the direct object '​John',​ but the direct object '​John'​ in (1B) is not the direct answer to the explicit question under discussion in (1A).
 In order to save the strict mapping hypothesis one would have to assume that (1B) answers some implicit question to be accomodated in the discourse structure. In order to save the strict mapping hypothesis one would have to assume that (1B) answers some implicit question to be accomodated in the discourse structure.
 +
 +For discussion: [[grammarinfstruc-disc1 : first discussion ]]
  
 Another example illustrating the same problem is: Another example illustrating the same problem is:
Line 56: Line 58:
 iii. A third case of a nuclear pitch accent that appears to be only losely related to the QUD is presented by focus accents embedded inside a focus phrase (Krifka 2006). In (4Aab), the placement of the pitch accent inside the relative clause correctly indicates that the complex DP containing it (= the focus phrase) is the answer to the QUD in (4Q). However, the variable placement of the pitch accent inside the relative clause suggests that accenting has other functions over and beyond indicating the QUD. In the example at hand, it seems that the position of accent helps in constraining the restriction of the exclusive focus particle '​only':​ iii. A third case of a nuclear pitch accent that appears to be only losely related to the QUD is presented by focus accents embedded inside a focus phrase (Krifka 2006). In (4Aab), the placement of the pitch accent inside the relative clause correctly indicates that the complex DP containing it (= the focus phrase) is the answer to the QUD in (4Q). However, the variable placement of the pitch accent inside the relative clause suggests that accenting has other functions over and beyond indicating the QUD. In the example at hand, it seems that the position of accent helps in constraining the restriction of the exclusive focus particle '​only':​
  
-(4Q) Whom do you like? +(4Q: Whom do you like? 
-(4A) a. I only like [the woman that PETER introduced to Bill]. +    ​A: ​a. I only like [the woman that PETER introduced to Bill]. 
-     ​b. I only like [the woman that Peter introduced to BILL].+       ​b. I only like [the woman that Peter introduced to BILL].
  
  
Line 118: Line 120:
   * Do we need more than one factor (e.g. focus+givenness) in order to predict the mapping between accenting and IS in intonation languages. ​   * Do we need more than one factor (e.g. focus+givenness) in order to predict the mapping between accenting and IS in intonation languages. ​
   * What to do with the relation between focus and focus marking in other languages that do not rely on intonation for marking focus cf. (Zimmermann & Onea 2011).   * What to do with the relation between focus and focus marking in other languages that do not rely on intonation for marking focus cf. (Zimmermann & Onea 2011).
 +
 +
 +===== Ideas for presentations / topics for discussion =====
 +
 +
 +=== A. Empirical questions === 
 +
 +  * Detailed investigations and analyses of some of the empirical puzzles above: sentences with focus particles and ill-matched explicit QUDs; sentences with unexpected focus accenting (Robbers-sentences)...
 +  * Presentations on the relation between focus, its structural realization,​ and the question under discussion in non-intonation languages (Chadic, DGS), or in languages that use both intonation and word order (e.g. Czech): (i.) Are there parallel mismatches to those found in German/​English between the structural realization of focus and the QUD? (ii.) Are there instances of - what appears to be - focus realization without focus, or focus without a particular structural realization? ​
 +  * The nature of verum focus: Does the phenomenon of verum focus in intonation languages really involve focusing of a covert verum operator in the sentential periphery (Höhle 1992, Romero & Han 2004), or does the deaccenting of the core vP reflect the fact that the entire proposition is given because it has been introduced into the preceding discourse (Hole & Zimmermann 2008). ​
 +  * Additional focus accents in wh-questions:​ What combinations are licit? What higher question strategies are indicated by additional focus accents?
 +  * Focus Combinations:​ Which combinations of focus accents are licit, which ones are not? E.g., what would be suitable contexts for the following sentences:
 +(1) MARY\ KISSED\ Peter. (???QUD: Who did something do Peter, and what did she do to him?)
 +(2) Mary DID\ invite PETER\. ​
 +
 +
 +=== B. Modelling questions === 
 +
 +   * A systematic Comparison of different focus models: focus = alternatives;​ focus = QUD; advantages and disadvantages.
 +   * What additional assumption are required for maintaining the hypothesis of a tight A - F - Q-correlation in light of the mismatches in B? Accomodation of iplicit QUDs etc.?
 +   * What would be decisive data in order to decide between a one-factor (focus or givenness) and a two-factor (focus and givenness) model?
 +   * How convincing/​problematic is the notion of p-givenness of Kadmon & Sevi? Can it really account for the entire range of focus phenomena?
 +
  
 ===== Talks on this topic ===== ===== Talks on this topic =====
grammarinfstruc.1340656542.txt.gz · Last modified: 2012/06/25 22:35 by malte