User Tools

Site Tools


localinfstruc

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

localinfstruc [2012/06/13 14:21]
voneaga
localinfstruc [2012/08/07 09:18] (current)
voneaga [Talks on this topic]
Line 1: Line 1:
 **Administrative info: ** **Administrative info: **
  
-//Topic to be discussed at the [[ 2nd || second meeting ]]. //+//Topic to be discussed at the [[ 2nd | second meeting ]]. //
  
 // Responsible supervisor(s): ​ // // Responsible supervisor(s): ​ //
  
-====== Local information structure: Focus in conditionals and appositives ​======+===== Local information structure: Focus in conditionals and appositives =====
  
  
Line 22: Line 22:
  
  (3) If only JOHN is going to be kissed by Mary, I will go home.  (3) If only JOHN is going to be kissed by Mary, I will go home.
 +
  (4) John, who only kissed MARY twice, will be there.  (4) John, who only kissed MARY twice, will be there.
 +
  (5) If John, who only kissed MARY twice, is going to be kissed by Mary, I will go home.  (5) If John, who only kissed MARY twice, is going to be kissed by Mary, I will go home.
  
  Such constructions involve some modeling problems:  Such constructions involve some modeling problems:
  
- A)+ === A) Embedded contexts and the QUD === 
  a. Do foci in such contexts also signal the answer to a question?  a. Do foci in such contexts also signal the answer to a question?
  b. Is that the question under discussion or some other question?  b. Is that the question under discussion or some other question?
Line 33: Line 36:
  d. Probably we need some notion of "​local"​ questions for these constructions. Beaver & Coppock 2011/12  d. Probably we need some notion of "​local"​ questions for these constructions. Beaver & Coppock 2011/12
  
- B) If we think of discourse as organized in terms of a stack of questions under discussion, how can we integrate questions answered by foci in conditionals and appositives into a coherent discourse?+ === B) Embedded contexts and discourse structure === 
 + 
 +If we think of discourse as organized in terms of a stack of questions under discussion, how can we integrate questions answered by foci in conditionals and appositives into a coherent discourse? 
 + 
 +Observations:​ 
  a. Conditionals don't seem to answer questions. Rawlins, and many others.  a. Conditionals don't seem to answer questions. Rawlins, and many others.
   i) What is their discourse function?   i) What is their discourse function?
Line 45: Line 53:
  c. nevertheless we get the full range of focus phenomena including accents and focus sensitive particles in both types of environments.  c. nevertheless we get the full range of focus phenomena including accents and focus sensitive particles in both types of environments.
  
- C) + === C) How local are "local questions"?​ === 
- a. We get contrasts between conditions as in (6). Apparently there must be some way in which the "​local"​ questions are not so local, i.e. the foci in each of them can somehow interact with the other one. Prosody seems to indicate that we need a fairly complex discourse structure. (Zeevat ​on but)+ 
 + a. We get contrasts between conditions as in (6). Apparently there must be some way in which the "​local"​ questions are not so local, i.e. the foci in each of them can somehow interact with the other one. Prosody seems to indicate that we need a fairly complex discourse structure. (Zeevat ​2012)
  
  (6) If JOHN loves Mary, I am happy, but if MAX loves Mary, I am unhappy.  (6) If JOHN loves Mary, I am happy, but if MAX loves Mary, I am unhappy.
Line 58: Line 67:
 The final paraphrase looks suspiciously close to the semantic analysis of inidrect scope marking by Dayal (??) and Lipták & Zimmermann (2007), to which the analysis of local question phenomena might extend. The final paraphrase looks suspiciously close to the semantic analysis of inidrect scope marking by Dayal (??) and Lipták & Zimmermann (2007), to which the analysis of local question phenomena might extend.
  
-Finally, the bigger questions to be addressed are (i) How do these observations and data relate to a question-based discourse model?; and (ii) How do they relate to the notion of at-issueness? ​+===== General questions ===== 
 + 
 +Finally, the bigger questions to be addressed are  
 + 
 +(i) How do these observations and data relate to a question-based discourse model?; and  
 +(ii) How do they relate to the notion of at-issueness? ​ 
 + 
 + 
 +===== Ideas for presentations / issues to be discussed ===== 
 + 
 + 
 +=== Empirical questions === 
 + 
 + 
 +    * What kind of contexts license focus accenting in conditionals,​ appositives,​ and other embedded environments (relative clauses etc.). Is it possible to reconstruct local QUDs for each of these cases?  
 +    * Do we get instances of local focus marking in non-intonation languages (Chadic, DGS)? 
 +    * Is local focus marking in Hungarian dependent on a focus correlate ('​az-CASE'​) in the matrix clause? What are the patterns? 
 +    
 + 
 +=== Modelling questions === 
 + 
 +   * What is the discourse-semantic function of appositive relative clauses? Are they really non-at issue, or do they rather express answers to additional QUDs that are superimposed on the main QUD? 
 +   * Can the same mechanism be exploited to fuse the local questions of other embedded (focus) domains with the main QUD? 
 +   * Is this the same mechanism that is overtly at work in the interpretation of indirect scope marking (Dayal 200?), which - in Hungarian - is also possible with relative and other embedded adjunct clauses (Lipták & Zimmermann 2007)? Can it be applied to any instance of embedded focus marking in need of a local QUD? 
 +   * What are the alternatives for integrating local questions into the overall discourse/​question structure?​ 
 +   * Could alternatives do the job? 
 + 
 +===== Talks on this topic ===== 
 + 
 +  * Talk 1 - Edgar Onea: Adding Potential Questions to the discourse 
 +  * Talk 2 -  
 + 
 +===== Literature ===== 
 + 
 +Always upload file when editing this.  
 + 
 +  -    Roberts et al 2010 - SALT paper 
 +  -    Beaver 2012 - Meeting 1 paper
localinfstruc.1339590071.txt.gz · Last modified: 2012/06/13 14:21 by voneaga