User Tools
grammarinfstruc
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
|
grammarinfstruc [2012/06/25 23:23] malte |
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 125: | Line 127: | ||
| === A. Empirical questions === | === A. Empirical questions === | ||
| - | * Detailed investigations and anylses of some of the empirical puzzles above: sentences with focus particles and ill-matched explicit QUDs; sentences with unexpected focus accenting (Robbers-sentences)... | + | * 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, DGF), 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? | + | * 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). | * 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? | * Additional focus accents in wh-questions: What combinations are licit? What higher question strategies are indicated by additional focus accents? | ||
| Line 139: | Line 141: | ||
| * 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 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? | * 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 convinving/problematic is the notion of p-givenness of Kadmon & Sevi? Can it really account for the entire range of focus phenomena? | + | * How convincing/problematic is the notion of p-givenness of Kadmon & Sevi? Can it really account for the entire range of focus phenomena? |
grammarinfstruc.1340659427.txt.gz · Last modified: 2012/06/25 23:23 by malte
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
