User Tools
grammarinfstruc
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
|
grammarinfstruc [2012/06/25 23:51] malte [Ideas for presentations / topics for discussion] |
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 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.1340661091.txt.gz ยท Last modified: 2012/06/25 23:51 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
