deconstructing information structure

1

DeconstructingInformationStructureAngelikaKratzer&ElisabethSelkirk

UniversityofMassachusettsAmherst&UniversityCollegeLondon*

TothememoryofMichaelRochemont

Abstract

Thepaperarguesthatthecoreofwhatistraditionallyreferredtoas‘Information

Structure’canbedeconstructedintobonafidemorphosyntacticfeaturesthathavefamiliar

typesofmeaningsandjusthappentobespelledoutprosodically,ratherthansegmentally

ortonally,inStandardAmericanandBritishEnglish.Settingasidetopicality,wediscuss

twosuchfeatures,[FoC]and[G].[FoC]highlightscontrastsand,inStandardAmericanand

BritishEnglish,aimsforhighestprominenceinasentence.[G]issensitivetodiscourse

givennessand,inStandardAmericanandBritishEnglish,resists(phrase-level)

prominence.Thereisnorepresentationofnewness.Apartfromtheidiosyncratic

propertiesof[FoC]and[G],whichguidetheirsyntacticdistribution,felicitoususe,and

phonologicalspellout,nospecialgrammaticalmechanismsorarchitectureshavetobe

assumedtoaccountforthemanyphonological,syntactic,semantic,andpragmatic

manifestationsofInformationStructurenotionsrelatedtogivennessandfocus.

1. Introduction:DeconstructingInformationStructure

InformationStructure,asthetermiscommonlyused,coversconceptsrelatedtofocus,

givenness,ortopicality.Inspiteofmanyyearsofresearch,thereisnocommongroundon

howthoseconceptsrelatetoeachother,whattheirplaceingrammaris,orwhetherthere

isanytheoreticalunityorvaluetothem.Herewewillsetasidetopicalityandlimitour

discussiontogivennessandfocus.InwhatfollowswewillmakeacasethatStandard

AmericanEnglishhastwobonafidemorphosyntacticfeaturestriggeringdiscourse

requirementsrelatedtogivennessandcontrast.Onefeature,Givennessmarking([G]-

* UniversityofMassachusettsAmherst:Kratzer,Selkirk.UniversityCollegeLondon:Kratzer.

2

marking),issensitivetowhetheranindividual,concept,orpropositionhasbeen

mentionedbeforeorisotherwisepresentinthecontext.Theotherfeature,FoCusmarking

([FoC]-marking),evokesalternativestoamentionedindividual,concept,orproposition,

andtherebybringsoutacontrast.

GivennessandcontrasthavebeendiscussedasdistinctcategoriesofInformationStructure

atleastsinceChafe(1976),withimportantinsightscontributedbythePragueSchool.1

Rochemont(2016)hasanin-depthdiscussionofgivennessinthesenseintendedhereand

distinguishesitfromkindrednotionslikepresuppositionality,definiteness,repetition,and

predictability.WewillfollowRochemontincapitalizingGivennesswheneverthetargeted

notionofgivennessistheoneresponsibleforthelackofprominenceoncontentwords

undercertaindiscourseconditionsinStandardAmericanandBritishEnglish.Inasimilar

vein,wewillusethespellingFoCuswhentheintendednotionoffocusistiedtothe

introductionofalternativestohighlightacontrast.2FoCusinthissenseneedstobe

distinguishedfrominformationfocus(‘newnessfocus’),whichappliestoexpressionsthat

merelypresentnewinformation.Wewilltakeupthistopicinsections4and5,wherewe

willgathertogetherevidencefromdifferentsourcesconfirmingthatGivennessandFoCus,

butnotinformationfocus,arerepresentedbymorphosyntacticfeaturesinStandard

AmericanandBritishEnglish.

1. IntheterminologyofthePragueSchool,constituentsthataregiveninoursensecorrespondto‘themes’,andthosethatarenewto‘rhemes’.Focusedconstituentsinoursenserelateto‘contrast’,andnon-focusedconstituentsto‘background’.Vallduví(2016)givesanoverviewofmodernconstrualsofthosenotionsandmakesclearthatboththe‘theme/rheme’andthe‘contrast/background’dichotomiesareneeded.2. Pretheoretically,we’llcontinuetousethestandardspellingsforgivennessandfocus,andthatincludesoccasionswhenwediscussexamplesfromsourcesthatdonotnecessarilyassumetheInformationStructurenotionswedo.

3

Examples(1)to(2)belowgiveafirstillustrationofGivennessandFoCusandtheir

representationvia[G]-markingand[FoC]-marking.3

(1) Me: Didanybodyeattheclementines?Ican’tfindtheminthepantry.

You: (Ithink)Paulamight[haveeatentheclementines]G.

(2) Me: Sarahmailedthecaramels.

You: (No),[Eliza]FoC[mailedthecaramels]G.

Inyouranswerin(1),theVPhaveeatentheclementinesisGiven.Theconceptofhaving

eatentheclementineshasjustbeenmentioned.ItsGivennessissignaledbytheabsenceof

prominenceoneatenandclementinesinStandardAmericanandBritishEnglish.The

contextofyouranswerin(1)discourages(butdoesn’texclude)aninterpretationwhere

PaulaisaFoCus.Onitsmostnaturalinterpretation,youaren’tevokingalternativesto

Paula,thatis,youaren’tcontrastingPaulawithotherpeoplewhomighthaveeatenthe

clementines.Paulaismerelynew,then.Anticipatingargumentsstilltocome,Paulaisn’t

markedwithanyfeaturein(1).In(2),theVPmailedthecaramelsinyourreplyisGiven,

too,butthesubjectElizaisnowaFoCus,notmerelynew.FoCusonElizaevokes

alternativestoEliza:otherpeoplewhomighthavemailedthecaramels.SinceSarahisone

ofthem,yourreplyhighlightsacontrastwithwhatIsaid.

Thephonologicalandsemantic/pragmaticpropertiesof[G]-markingand[FoC]-marking

willbediscussedindetailinsections6and7,sowewillnotgobeyondthisintroductory

illustrationof[G]-markingand[FoC]-markingfornow.

IfGivennessandFoCusarerealizedbygenuinemorphosyntacticfeatures,theywouldbe

expectedtohavetheusualpropertiesofmorphosyntacticfeatures.Theyshouldshow

syntacticbehaviorinatleastsomelanguages,liketriggeringmovementoragreement.

3. Technically,[FoC]and[G]arefeaturesassociatedwithsyntacticnodesandarepartoftheirlabeling.Forconvenience,theyareusuallytheonlylabelsweindicatewhenrepresentingsyntacticstructuresaslabeledbracketings.

4

Acrosslanguages,weshouldseevariationinthewaythefeaturesarespelledout:

segmentally,tonally,prosodically,throughacombinationofthose,ornotatall.Ifspelled

outsegmentally,thefeaturesmightinfluenceorbeinfluencedbythephonological

realizationoftheirenvironmentinrule-governedways.Ifspelledouttonallyor

prosodically,theymightinteractwiththetonalandprosodicpropertiesoftheirlinguistic

environment.TherewouldbenothingspecialaboutGivennessandFoCusaffectingthe

prosodicstructureofthesentencestheyoccurininStandardAmericanandBritishEnglish,

then.Aconnectionbetweenprosodyandmeaningwouldbeentirelywithintherangeof

possibilitiespermittedbyfamiliargrammaticalarchitectures

Historically,whathassettheinvestigationofInformationStructureapartfrom

investigationsofothersemanticandpragmaticphenomenalikespeechacts,

presuppositions,quantification,andwhathaveyou,seemstobepreciselythefactthat

importantInformationStructurenotionsarerealizedprosodically,ratherthansegmentally

infamiliarlanguageslikeEnglish.Thisapparentspecialrelationtoprosodyhasledto

proposedgrammaticalarchitectureswhereprosodicrepresentationsthemselvesare

bearersofmeaning.Ononeimplementation,whichcanbetracedbacktoLadd(1980),the

inputforthecomputationcalculatingthediscourseanaphoricimpactofprosodic

prominencearebinarybranchingmetricaltrees,asinLiberman&Prince(1977).4Metrical

treescanrepresentrelativeprominencerelationsbetweensisterconstituentsinsyntactic

representations.InEnglish,thedefaultisforaleft-handsistertobeweakandforaright-

handsistertobestrong.DeviationsfromthedefaultsignaltheimpactofInformation

Structure.Whenasisterthatshouldbeweakbydefaultisactuallystrong,wecaninferthat

itisaFoCus,andwhenasisterthatshouldbestrongisactuallyweak,weknowthatitis

Given.Onsuchanapproach,thecomputationofdiscourserequirementsattachedto

GivennessandFoCusmightonlyneedtotrackdeviationsfromthedefaultprominence

4. ThisapproachisalsoadoptedinWilliams(1996,2012),Wagner(2005,2012),Calhoun(2010),andBüring(2015).

5

pattern.5AseparaterepresentationofGivennessorFoCusviamorphosyntacticfeatures

mightseemsuperfluous.

However,asAboh(2010,2016)remindsus,InformationStructureCANhaveanimpacton

prosody,butdoesn’tHAVEto.ThereisnonecessarylinkbetweenprosodyandInformation

Structure.Cross-linguistically,InformationStructurenotionscanbespelledout

segmentally,prosodically,tonally,ornotatall,andcanmoreovershowsyntacticbehavior

liketriggeringmovementoragreement,evenwithouthavinganydistinctiveprosodic

properties.Giventhatprosodicrealizationisjustoneoptionforspellingoutnotionsrelated

toInformationStructure,proposedarchitectureswherethosenotionsarenecessarily

linkedtoprosodicrepresentationsdonotprovideanoptimalbasisforatypologythatmaps

outthefullrangeofpossiblerealizationsofInformationStructureinnaturallanguages.

Forillustration,Aboh(2007a,2007b,2010,2016)documentsthattheGbelanguage

Gungbe(spokeninBenin)usesovertparticlestomarktopicandfocus.Theparticles

appearinleft-peripheralpositionsandattracttopicalorfocusedconstituentstotheedgeof

theirprojections.3(a)and(b)illustrateconstructionswiththefocusparticlewɛ̀:6

(3) a. Sɛ́sínúwɛ̀dàÀsíàbá

SessinouFOCmarryAsiaba

‘SESSINOUmarriedAsiaba.’

5. Ladd(1996,2008)makesclearthat,ultimately,richerprosodicrepresentationsincludinginformationaboutprosodicphrasingwouldbeneeded.6. Glosses:FOCforfocusparticle.Hereandinallfollowingexamples,glossesandtranslationsareexactlyasgiveninthecitedsource,exceptforcapitalization.

6

b. Àsíàbáwɛ̀Sɛ́sínúdà

AsiabaFOCSessinoumarry

‘SessinoumarriedASIABA.’

Gungbe.Aboh(2007a:289).

AccordingtoAboh(personalcommunication),neitherhenorothernativespeakerswho

haveworkedonthoseconstructionsperceiveanyprosodicdifferencebetweenneutraland

focusedconstituents,buthecautionsthattherehasn’tyetbeenanysystematicresearchon

this.

ThefactthatmeaningsrelatedtoInformationStructurecanbespelledoutindifferent

ways,andcanmoreovertriggersyntacticbehaviorsupportsthehypothesisthatthose

meaningsareuniversallyintroducedbygenuinemorphosyntacticfeatures.Wewanttocall

thishypothesisAboh’sConjecture,afterAboh(2010,2016),whereitisexplicitly

entertained.TheconsequencesofAboh’sConjecturearemomentous.Onthephonological

side,whatmayseemtobemoreglobaleffectsofInformationStructureonprosodyin

languageslikeStandardAmericanorBritishEnglishwouldnowhavetobederivablefrom

theinteractionofidiosyncraticcontributionsofmorphosyntacticfeatureswith

independentlyattestedprinciplesofdefaultprosody.Thatis,anyconnectionbetween

prosodyanddiscourserelatedmeaningswouldhavetobefunneledthroughdedicated

morphosyntacticfeatures.

AsAboh(2016)iswellaware,hisviewonInformationStructuremaylookboldtothose

whoareprimarilylookingatIndo-Europeanlanguages.Takentoitsmostradical

conclusion,theviewsuggeststhatInformationStructuremaybenothingbutacollectionof

run-of-the-millmorphosyntacticfeatureswithdiscourserelatedmeaningsthathappento

bespelledoutprosodicallyinsomelanguageswehappentoknowwell.Inthenextsection,

we’llgatherfurthersupportforAboh’sConjecturebypresentingmoreexamplesfrom

languageswheretherealizationsoffocusbehavelikegenuinemorphosyntacticfeatures.

7

2. Representingfocuswithmorphosyntacticfeatures

Thissectionwillshowcaseafewselectedexamplessupportingtheconjecturethatnatural

languagesrepresentfocus-relatednotionsbygenuinemorphosyntacticfeaturesthatare

notnecessarilyspelledoutprosodically.Weneedtobeginwithacaveat,though.The

examplesinthissectionaredrawnfromtheliterature,sothereareboundtobe

terminologicalortheoreticalmisalignmentsbetweenthedifferentsources.Notallanalyses

assumethesamenotionsoffocus,andnotallanalysesmakeexplicitthesemanticor

syntacticpropertiesofthediscoursecontextsinwhichaputativefocusmightappear.We

areneverthelessconfidentthattheexampleswediscussillustratesomekindofFoCus,as

opposedtomereinformationfocus.We’llalsohavetosetasidegivennessinthissection,

forthesimplereasonthatthereislittledocumentationaboutthecrosslinguisticrealization

ofthisnotion.

Morphosyntacticfeaturesearntheirkeepbydrivingsyntacticbehaviorlikedisplacement

oragreement.WealreadysawthatinGungbe,focusedconstituentsmovetoleft-peripheral

positionsheadedbythefocusparticlewɛ̀.LikeGungbe,Wolof,anAtlanticlanguagespoken

inSenegalandtheGambia,hasaleft-peripheralfocusposition(Torrence2013)7:

(4) a. Xalebil-a-agis.

childtheXPL-COP-1SGsee

‘It’sthechildthatIsaw.’

b. Calekkoolbal-a-agis-eIsaa.

PschooltheXPL-COP-1SGsee-applIsaa

‘It’satschoolthatIsawIsaa.’

7. Glosses:1SGforfirstpersonsingular,APPLforapplicative,COPforcopula,MANNformannersuffix,XPLforexpletive.

8

c. Gaawl-a-aubbe-ebuntbi.

quicklyXPL-COP-1SGopen-manndoorthe

‘It’squicklythatIopenedthedoor.’

Wolof.Torrence(2013:182).

Torrence(2013)analyzesconstructionslike4(a)to(c)ascleftconstructionsthatarethe

resultofmovementofthecleftedconstituentintotheleftperiphery.Rialland&Robert

(2001)conductedacousticanalysesofseveralnaturalandelicitedWolofcorporaand

foundthatWolofhasnoprosodicmarkingoffocus:“TheoriginalityofWolofisthatithas

noprosodicmarkingoffocus,evenoptionally”(Rialland&Robert2001:937).Thereis

essentiallylevelpitchinallsentencetypes,exceptattheedgesofintonationalphrases,

wheretonalmorphemesindependentofinformationstructureappear.Rialland&Robert’s

acousticinvestigationofWolofestablishesthatthereisnonecessaryconnectionbetween

focusandprosody.InWolof,focusedconstituentsoccupydedicatedsyntacticpositions,

butsurfacewithflatintonationcontours.

Focuscantriggeragreementinsomelanguages.Inthe‘focusconcord’constructionsof

Sinhala,Pre-ModernJapanese,andtheJapanesedialectsspokenintheRyukyus(Aldridge

(2018),Kishimoto(2018),Slade(2018),Whitman(1997)),focusedphrasesaremarked

withaparticlethatcovarieswithspecialinflectiononthepredicate.(5)isanexamplefrom

Sinhala,anIndo-IranianlanguagespokeninSriLanka.8

(5) a. Ranjit[Chitraeepotǝtamaykieuwekiyǝla]dannǝwa.

RanjitChitrathatbookFOCread.Ethatknow.A

‘RanjitknowsthatitwasthatbookthatChitraread.’

8. Glosses:Afor-ainflection,Efor-einflection,FOCforfocus.

9

b. Ranjit[Chitraeepotǝtamaykieuwakiyǝla]danne.

RanjitChitrathatbookFOCread.Athatknow.E

‘ItisthatbookthatRanjitknowsthatChitraread.’

Sinhala.Kishimoto(2018:2).

In5(a)and(b),theparticletamaymarkseepotǝ(‘thatbook’)asafocus.Thescopeofthe

focusisindicatedbythe-eendingoftheverb,whichhastoappearhereinsteadofthe

default-aending.In5(a),thescopeofthefocusisjusttheembeddedsentence.5(a)

conveysthatRanjitknowsthatwhatChitrareadwasthatbook(andnotanythingelse).In

5(b),ontheotherhand,thescopeofthefocusisthewholesentence.5(b)conveysthat

whatRanjitknowsChitrareadisthatbook(andnotanythingelse).5(b),butnot5(a)

shouldthusbecompatiblewithasituationwhere,unbeknownsttoRanjit,Chitraalsoread

amagazine.

Hagstrom(1998,2004)andKishimoto(2018)assumethatthereisfeatureagreement

betweenthefocusparticletamayandthescopesiteoffocusmarkedbythee-formofthe

verbinexampleslike5(a)or(b).Bothauthorsargue(indifferentways)thatthenatureof

thisrelationforcesthefocusparticletomovetoitsscopesiteovertlyorcovertly.9(6)

wouldbetheresultofanovertinstanceofthismovement.

(6) [Ranjiteepotǝkieuwa]tamay

Ranjitthatbookread.AFOC

‘ItwasonlythatRanjitreadthatbook.’

Sinhala.Kishimoto(2018:3).

9. ForHagstrom,the-eformoftheverbhasanuninterpretablefocusfeaturethatneedstobechecked.ForKishimoto,themovementofthefocusparticleiscriterialinthesenseofRizzi(1997):theparticlemovesintoadedicatedfocuspositionintheCPlayerofthesentence.

10

In(6),tamayappearsclausefinallyandwiththea-formoftheverb.Inthisposition,tamay

doesn’tdelimitthefocusedconstituent,asin5(a)and(b),butmarksthescopesiteofthe

focus.(6)hasseveralinterpretationsdependingonwhichpartofthescopeoftamayis

understoodasfocused.ItmayconveythatitwasRanjitwhoreadthatbook,thatitwas

thatbookthatRanjitread,thatRanjitdidreadthatbook,andsoon.

Anagreementrelationbetweenparticlesthatmarkfocusedconstituentsandinflectionona

nearbypredicatehasalsobeenpositedforthekakari-musubiconstructionfoundin

PremodernJapaneseandinJapanesedialectsspokenintheRyukyus(Whitman1997).10

(7) Pito=kososira-nematu=pasiruramu.

Person=KOSOknow-NEG.IZpine=TOPknowMOD.RT

‘Thoughpeopledonotunderstand,thepinemayknow.’

OldJapanese.Aldridge(2018:7).

In(7),thecontrastivefocusparticlekosotriggerstheizen‘realis’inflectiononthe

predicate,whichwouldnotbeusedhereintheabsenceofkoso.Thisdependencebetween

afocusparticleandinflectiononthepredicatehasbeenanalyzedasfeatureagreementby

severalresearchers,includingIkawa(1998),Kuroda(2007),andAldridge(2018).

TheexamplesfromGungbe,Wolof,Sinhala,andOldJapaneseshowthat,crosslinguistically,

therepresentationsoffocus-relatednotionscanshowthesignaturebehaviorof

morphosyntacticfeatures:theycanappearasheadsofdedicatedsyntacticpositions,can

triggerdisplacement,andcanparticipateinagreementrelations.Takentogether,those

factssupporttheconjecturethatnaturallanguagesrepresentfocus-relatednotionsby

morphosyntacticfeatures.Wealsohaveseenevidencethat,cross-linguistically,those

10. Glosses:NEGfornegation,IZforizen‘realis’inflection,TOPfortopic,MODformodal,RTforrentai‘adnominal’inflection.

11

featuresdonothavetobespelledoutprosodically.Theconnectionbetweenprosodyand

InformationStructureisnotalinguisticuniversal.

3. AunifiedaccountfornewnessandFoCus?

Section1alreadyintroducedthemainclaimofthispaper,namelythatStandardAmerican

Englishhastwobonafidemorphosyntacticfeaturesimposingdiscourserequirements

relatedtoGivennessandFoCus:[G]-markingand[FoC]-marking.OurclaimthatStandard

AmericanEnglishhastwofeaturestomarkdiscourserequirementsrelatedtoFoCusand

GivennessfliesinthefaceoftheunifiedaccountsofRooth(1992,2016)andSchwarzschild

(1999).RoothandSchwarzschildfollowJackendoff(1972)andSelkirk(1984,1995)in

assumingthatconstituentsthatareFoCused(inoursense)andthosethataremerelynew

(hencenotGiveninoursense)areuniformly[F]-marked.Givenconstituentsremain

unmarked.Thisisillustratedin(1’)and(2’)below.

(1’) Me: Didanybodyeattheclementines?Ican’tfindtheminthepantry.

You: (Ithink)[Paula]Fmighthaveeatentheclementines.

(2’) Me: Sarahmailedthecaramels.

You: (No),[Eliza]Fmailedthecaramels.

OnereasonfavoringsuchauniformaccountisthatinEnglish,pitchaccentsareinvariably

associatedwithmaterialthatcanbeeitherFoCusedormerelynew.Thedistributionof

pitchaccentsthusseemstoindicatethatEnglishprosodytreatsFoCusedandmerelynew

phrasesthesame.

Asecondreasontoseriouslyconsiderauniform[F]-markingapproachisthatRooth(1992)

andSchwarzschild(1999)haveactuallyproposedsuccessfulaccountsthatcomputethe

discourserequirementsimposedbyFoCusandGivennessfromrepresentationsthatonly

have[F]-marking.ToillustratetheleadingideascommontoRoothandSchwarzschild,we’ll

usetheAlternativesSemanticsofRooth(1992,2016)tostatethediscourseanaphoric

12

requirementsforGivennessandFoCusinawaythatcloselymimicsthemethodof

Schwarzschild(1999).

Lookagainatyouranswerin(2’),repeatedhereas(8):

(8) [Eliza]Fmailedthecaramels.

(8)isnotacceptableasanout-of-the-blueutterance.TheVPmailedthecaramelsneedsto

beGiveninoursense,andthesentenceasawholeseemstoexpressacontrast,possibly

withsomethingthatwassaidearlier.Schwarzschild(1999)proposesaunified

characterizationofthosetwodiscourserequirementsintermsofamoregeneralnotionof

givennessthatsubsumesbothourGivennessandcontrast.Schwarzschildrequiresthatany

constituentthatisnot[F]-markedbegiveninthisgeneralsense.In(8),neithertheVPorits

parts,northesentenceasawholeare[F]-marked,hencethoseconstituentsallneedto

comeoutasgivenonhisapproach.

TheAlternativesSemanticsofRooth(1992,2016)providesaconvenientcounterpartof

Schwarzschild’sgeneralnotionofgivenness:A-Givennessfromnowon.11Aconstituent𝛼is

A-Given(inacontext)justincasethereisasalientdiscoursereferent(anindividual,

concept,orproposition)fromtheprecedingcontextthatisamemberofthealternativesset

associatedwith𝛼.InAlternativesSemantics,everyexpressionisassignedtwosemantic

values:itsO(rdinary)-value,anditsA(lternatives)-value,whichisitsalternativesset.For

example,theO-valueof(8)isjustthepropositionthatElizamailedthecaramels.ItsA-

valueisthesetofpropositionsin(9).

11. Schwarzschildstateshisnotionofgivennessintermsofaspecialversionofgeneralizedentailment.AsRooth(2016)pointsout,Schwarzschild’sgeneralizedentailmentconditionforgivennessissometimestooeasytosatisfy.Take(i):

(i) Every[cat]Fisacomplainer.ForSchwarzschild,(i)asawholeisgivenjustincase(ii)isentailedbypriorcontext:

(ii) ∃P[everyPisacomplainer].

13

(9) {‘Elizamailedthecaramels’,‘Sarahmailedthecaramels’,‘Leifmailedthecaramels’,

…}.

SincethepropositionthatSarahmailedthecaramelsisinthealternativesset(9)for(8)

and,inthecontextof(2’),hasjustbeenmentioned,(8)asawholeisA-Giveninthat

context.

Tocomputethealternativessetfor(8)compositionally,wecombinetheA-valuesofits

immediateconstituents,the[F]-markedsubject[Eliza]FandtheVPmailedthecaramels.

TheA-valueof[Eliza]Fisthesetofallindividuals:Eliza,Sarah,Leif,andanybodyelseinour

domainofdiscourse.WhatabouttheA-valueoftheVPmailedthecaramels,whichcontains

no[F]-marks?InRooth’sAlternativesSemantics,thatVP’sA-valueisasingletonset,theset

containingtheVP’sO-valueasitsonlymember.That’sthesingletonsetcontainingthe

propertyofhavingmailedthecaramels.TheA-valueof(10)asawholeiscomputedby

pointwisecombinationoftheA-valuesof[Eliza]FandtheVPmailedthecaramels:{Eliza,

Sarah,Leif,…}´{‘mailedthecaramels’}.Theresultisthealternativesset(9).

OurGivennessfallsoutasaspecialcaseofA-Givenness.SincetheVPmailedthecaramelsin

(8)hasasingletonalternativesset,itisA-Givenjustincaseitsonlymember,theproperty

ofhavingmailedthecaramels,issalientinthediscoursecontext,henceisGiveninour

sense.That,too,isthecaseinthecontextof(2’).

Rooth’sandSchwarzschild’ssystemsprovideunifiedaccountsofthediscourse

requirementstriggeredbyFoCusandGivenness.Itlooksliketherereallyaren’tTWOsuch

Butthepropertyofbeingacomplainerisawitnessfor(ii),hence(ii)istriviallytrueandisentailedbyanysentence.DefiningtherelevantnotionofgivennesswithinAlternativesSemanticsdoesnotrunintothisproblem.

14

discourserequirements.Givennessandcontrastseemtobetwosidesofthesamecoin.

Rooth’sandSchwarzschild’ssystemsonlyrequireasinglefocus-relatedfeature:[F]-

marking.NeitherFoCusnorGivennessneedtoberepresented.Thecaseforaunified

accountofGivennessandFoCusintermsof[F]-markingisstrong.Nevertheless,adiverse

rangeoffactsgoagainstit.Thefollowingsectionwillpresentdatasuggestingstronglythat

FoCusandnewnessshouldnotbelumpedtogetherintoasinglefeature.

4. AgainstaunifiedaccountofnewnessandFoCus

Overtheyears,syntacticians,phonologists,andphoneticians,havedocumenteddifferences

betweendifferenttypesoffocusinanumberoflanguages.Manyofthoseauthorshave

pointedtodifferencesinthewaylanguagesmarkconstituentsthataremerelynew

(newnessfocus,informationfocus),asopposedtoconstituentsthatevokealternativesand

therebyhighlightacontrast(FoCus).12Inthissection,wewilldiscusssomerepresentative

examples.Wewillconcludethatthoseexamplesposechallengesforsingle-feature

representationsofthesemantic/pragmaticandphonologicaleffectsofFoCusand

Givenness,whichrelyon[F]-markingalone.Wewillthenexplorewaysofovercoming

thosechallengeswithinatwo-featureapproach.

OurfirstexamplecomesfromKatz&Selkirk’sexperimentalmaterials(Katz&Selkirk

2011:802).

(10) Garyisanartdealer.Latelyhe’sbeenverypickyaboutwhichmuseumhedeals

with;hedoesn’tdobusinesswiththeMetropolitanortheGuggenheim.

SohewouldonlyofferthatModiglianitoMoMA.Hesaysthat’stheonlymuseum

withaspacegoodenoughtohangitin.

12. TheseauthorsincludeChafe(1976),Rochemont(1986,2013a,2013b),Pierrehumbert&Beckman(1988),D’Imperio(1997),Kiss(1998),Vallduví&Vilkuna(1998),Zubizarreta(1998),Frota(2000),Belletti(2001,2004),Selkirk(2002,2007,2008),Féry&Samek-Lodovici(2006),Aboh(2007a,2007b),Ameka(2010),Beaver&Velleman(2011),Katz&Selkirk(2011),amongmanyothers.

15

Ourtargetsentencewithin(10)is(11)13:

(11) HewouldónlyofferthatModigliánitoMóMA.

BothModiglianiandMoMAin(11)bearobligatorypitchaccentswhenreadaloudinthe

contextof(10).Butthereareimportantdifferencesbetweenthetwo.Inthecontextof(10),

MoMAintroducesalternativesandtherebysetsupacontrastwiththeMetropolitanandthe

Guggenheim,theothertwomuseumsmentioned.MoMAisaFoCus,then.Modigliani,onthe

otherhand,presentsmerelynewinformation.Itdoesn’tevokealternatives.Inthecontext

of(10),(11)impliesthatGarywouldn’tofferthatModiglianitotheMetropolitanorthe

Guggenheim.Modiglianithusdoesn’tassociatewithonly.Itdoesn’tcontributeany

alternativestothecomputationofthealternativessetthatonlyoperatesover.Thatsetis

illustratedin(12).

(12) {‘HewouldofferthatModiglianitoMoMA’,hewouldofferthatModiglianitothe

Metropolitan’,‘hewouldofferthatModiglianitotheGuggenheim’,…}

Sentence(11)istruejustincasethementionedalternative‘HewouldofferthatModigliani

toMoMA’istheonlyalternativein(12)thatistrue.

Thescenariodescribedin(10)alsoexcludesthepossibilitythatModiglianiinourtarget

sentencemightbeacontrastivetopicscopingoveronly.Inthecontextof(10),(11)can’tbe

understoodascontrastingthementionedModiglianipainting,whichGarywouldonlyoffer

toMoMA,withotherpaintingsofhisthathemightalsooffertotheMetropolitanorthe

Guggenheim.Suchaninterpretationwouldgoagainstwhatwearebeingtoldinthestory,

namelythatGarydoesn’tdobusinesswiththeMetropolitanortheGuggenheim.

13. Weuseacuteaccentstoindicatethelocationofpitchaccents.UnderliningonMóMain(11)indicatesgreaterphoneticprominence.

16

Katz&Selkirk’sexamplesshowthatthegrammarofstandardAmericanEnglish

distinguishesconstituentsthatareFoCusedfromthosethataremerelynew.Thedifference

canbedetectedininteractionswithFoCus-sensitiveoperatorslikeonly.Katz&Selkirk’s

paperisn’tprimarilyaboutthesemanticeffectsofalternativesfocus(FoCus)vs.

informationfocus,though.Katz&Selkirk(2011)isforemostaphoneticstudy.Theyshow

thatthereisasystematicphoneticdifferencebetweenFoCusedandmerelynewmaterial

which,crucially,isindependentofsyntacticposition.We’llcomebacktothisaspectoftheir

studyinsection6.

Withincurrent[F]-marking-onlyapproaches,bothModiglianiandMoMAinourtarget

sentence(11)(aspartof(10))wouldhavetobe[F]-marked,sincebothhaveapitchaccent.

Butthenwewouldhavenosyntacticrepresentationfromwhichtocomputetheright

alternativessetforonlyontheonehand,andtherightphoneticrealizationforModigliani

andMoMAontheother.14

Englishit-cleftconstructionscreateasimilardilemmafor[F]-marking-onlyapproaches.It-

cleftsconsistofacleftedconstituentfollowedbythecleftclause(thesubordinateclause),

asinyourreplyin(13):

(13) Me:Jane’slostherkeysandisreallyupset.

You:ItwasherphonethatJanelost.

Init-cleftsentencesthecleftedconstituentisaFoCus.In(13),Jane’sphoneiscontrasted

withherkeys.In(13),itsohappensthatthematerialinthecleftclauseisGivenandlacks

pitchaccent(s).ButasPrince(1978)observed,andHedberg(1990,2010,2013)discussed,

14. Rooth(2015)hasmoreexamplesofthiskind.Heproposesananalysisthathassyntacticfeaturesexclusivelydedicatedtotheprojectionofalternatives,inadditionto[F]-markingofterminalelements.Rooth’sprojectionfeaturesdonothavecredentialsasbonafidemorphosyntacticfeatures,hencewon’thelpwiththeagendawearepursuinginthispaper.

17

thematerialinthecleftclausemayalsobenew,henceaccented.(14)isoneoftheexamples

quotedbyPrince(herexample41(b)).15

(14) TheleadersofthemilitanthomophilemovementinAmericagenerallyhavebeen

youngpeople.Itwastheywhofoughtbackduringaviolentpoliceraidona

GreenwichVillagebarin1969,anincidentfromwhichmanygaysdatethebirthof

themoderncrusadeforhomosexualrights.

Ourtargetsentencewithin(14)is15(a),andthecleftclauseis15(b).

(15) a. ItwasthéywhofoughtbáckduringavíolentpolíceraidonaGréenwich

Villagebárin´1969.

b. …whofoughtbáckduringavíolentpolíceraidonaGréenwichVillagebárin

´1969.

Thepronountheyin15(a)isaFoCus.Itsinglesoutyoungpeopleamongothergroupsof

peoplewhocouldhavefoughtbackduringthatraidonaGreenwichVillagebar.What’s

beingsaidaboutyoungpeoplein15(b)isallnewinformation,andthat’sreflectedinthe

distributionofpitchaccents.Tocomputetheinferencethatnootherrelevantgroup(apart

fromtheyoungpeople)foughtbackduringthatviolentpoliceraidonaGreenwichVillage

barin1969,wewanttogenerateanalternativessetlikethatin(16):

(16) {TheyoungpeoplefoughtbackduringaviolentpoliceraidonaGreenwichVillage

barin1969,theolderpeoplefoughtbackduringaviolentpoliceraidona

GreenwichVillagebarin1969,…}

Buthowarewegoingtogeneratethissetifeverythinginthecleftclause15(b)isnew

information,hencewouldhavetobe[F]-markedtoaccountforthedistributionofpitch

accents?Thedilemmaforan[F]-marking-onlyapproachisthatthemechanismcomputing

15. TheexampleisoriginallyfromthePennsylvaniaGazette,February1977,p.16.

18

thesetofFoCusalternativeswouldn’twanttohaveany[F]-marksinthecleftclause,while

themechanismcomputingtheprosodywouldneedthem.Onan[F]-marking-only

approachwewouldagainhavenosyntacticrepresentationfromwhichtocomputethe

rightalternativessetontheonehand,andtherightphoneticrealizationontheother.

Ourlastexampleinthissectionillustratesanalternationinanswerstowh-questionsthat

hasbeenreportedforseverallanguages,includingItalian(Kiss1998,Belletti2001),

Spanish(Zubizarreta1998),Finnish(Molnár2001),Gungbe(Aboh2007a,2007b),and

Kwalanguagesmoregenerally(Ameka2010).Forillustration,wewilllookatanItalian

example.InItalian,asimplewh-questionlike17(a)canbeansweredasin17(b)or17(c).

(17) a. Chihascrittoquestoarticolo?

Whohaswrittenthisarticle

Whowrotethisarticle?

b. L’hascrittoGennaro.

IthaswrittenGennaro

Gennarowroteit.

c. Gennarol’hascritto.

Gennaroithaswritten.

Gennarowroteit.

AsdiscussedbyKissandBelletti,aquestionlike17(a)canbeansweredwithapostverbal

subject,asin17(b),orapreverbalsubject,asin17(c),withasubtledifferenceinmeaning.

Asananswerto17(a),17(c)necessarilyexpressesacontrast.GennaromustbeaFoCus,it

can’tbemerelynew.FoCusonGennaroevokesotherpossibleauthorsforthisarticlewho

arebeingruledout.In17(b),GennarocouldbeaFoCus,butdoesn’thavetobe.Itcouldalso

bemerelynew.

19

Tobringoutintuitionsaboutpreverbalvs.postverbalsubjectsinItalianmoreclearly,

consider18(a)and(b)below,stillunderstoodasanswerstothequestionin17(a).16We

madetheanswerslonger,makingitharder(notimpossible)toaccommodateacontrastive

interpretationforthesubjectGennaro.Asaresult,thereispressureforGennarotoappear

postverbally.18(b)isjudgedinfelicitousasananswerto17(a).17

(18) a. Credochel’abbiascrittoGennaroquandoera

think.1SGthatithave.SUBJ.3SGwrittenGennarowhenbe.IMPF.3SG

inGraduateSchool.

inGraduateSchool.

IthinkGennarowroteitwhenhewasinGraduateSchool.

b.#CredocheGennarol’abbiascrittoquandoera

think.1SGthatGennaroithave.SUBJ.3SGwrittenwhenbe.IMPF.3SG

inGraduateSchool.

inGraduateSchool.

IthinkGennarowroteitwhenhewasinGraduateSchool.

KissandBellettiargue,followingRizzi(1997),thatthepreverbalsubjectsinsentenceslike

17(c)and18(b)occupyaleft-peripheralpositionreachedviamovement.Thepostverbal

positionofthesubjectiseitheritsoriginalposition(Kiss)oralowpositionintheverb’s

functionalprojection(Belletti).Eitherway,wecanconcludethatthesyntaxofItalian

makesadistinctionbetweenconstituentsthatareFoCusedandthosethataremerelynew.

16. Glosses:SGforsingular,SUBJforsubjunctive,IMPFforimperfective,1for1stperson,3for3rdperson.17. TheItalianexampleswereprovidedbyIlariaFrana.

20

TheItalianfactsareanotherchallengefor[F]-marking-onlyaccounts.Thesyntacticengine

forItalianneedstoknowthatitcan’tmovemerelynewconstituentsintotheleftperiphery

ofasentence.Butifthereisnothinginthesyntacticrepresentationthatwoulddistinguish

FoCusedphrasesfromthosethataremerelynew,it’shardtoseehowitcouldaccomplish

thattask.

Weconcludethatan[F]-feature-onlyaccountisn’tabletoconnectmeaning,syntax,and

phonologicalrealizationintherightway.Weneedtomakefinerdistinctions.Ifwewantto

holdontoAboh’sConjecture,weshouldconsiderthepossibilitythatlanguagesmightuse

twomorphosyntacticfeatures,ratherthanjustone,toproducethesemantic,pragmatic,

syntactic,andprosodiceffectsthatFoCus,Givenness,andnewnessareresponsibleforin

individuallanguages.

5. Blindtonewness

Thelastsectionconcludedthat,assumingAboh’sConjecture,weseemtoneedtwo

morphosyntacticfeaturestoexpressdiscourserequirementsconnectedtoGivennessand

Focus.Whichtwo?Wecan’tseemtodowithoutFoCus.WeneedaFoCusfeatureto

computealternativessetsforoperatorslikeonlyorcleftconstructions,weneedittodrive

movementintotheleftperipheryinItalian,andweneedittocomputetherightprosodyin

theKatz&Selkirkcases,forexample.Thechoicepoint,then,iswhethertohavea

morphosyntacticfeaturethatmarksmaterialthatisGiven([G]-accounts)or,alternatively,

amorphosyntacticfeaturethatmarksmaterialthatismerelynew([N]-accounts).If

newnessismarked,Givennesswouldbeunmarkedandviceversa.18

18. Moderntwo-featureproposalsareFéry&Samek-Lodovici(2006),Selkirk(2007,2008),andBeaver&Velleman(2011).Allthreeproposalsmarkfocus,withpossiblyslightlydifferentassumptionsaboutwhatfallsunderthisnotion.Beaver&Vellemanuse[N]-markingforconstituentsthatarenew(‘unpredictable’).Féry&Samek-Lodovici(2006)andSelkirk(2007,2008),ontheotherhand,representgivenness,ratherthannewness.

21

[G]-accountsand[N]-accountspositstrikinglydifferentrepresentationsforout-of-the-blue

utterances,whereeverythingisnewinformation.Inthosecases,[N]-accountsproduce

representationsthatlookminimallyasin19(a),whereas[G]-accountswouldposit

unmarkedrepresentations,asin19(b).

(19) Sárahmailedthecáramels.

(a) SarahNmailedNthecaramelsN. [N]-accounts

(b) Sarahmailedthecaramels. [G]-accounts

[N]-markingeverycontentwordin(19)isnecessarysincenewnessofaconstituentinno

wayimpliesthatanyofitsproperpartsarenewaswell.Representationswithmerely

broad[N]-markinglike(20)forout-of-the-blueutteranceswouldthusbeinadequate.

(20) [Sarahmailedthecaramels]N.

ThereisanasymmetrybetweenGivennessandnewness,then:Givennessofaconstituent

doesimplyGivennessofallofitsparts.Broad[G]-markingfortheGivenpartofyour

answerin(21)isthusentirelyjustified.


You: Ican’tbelíevethat[Sarahmailedthecaramels]G.

Weconcludethatiffeatureeconomyisaconsideration,[G]-accountshaveaslight

advantage.

Moreimportantly,thedifferencebetween19(a)and(b)hasconsequencesfortheSyntax-

Phonologyinterface.Onan[N]-account,theprosodyof(19)wouldhavetobereadoffthe

representation19(a),withallthose[N]-marks.Ona[G]-account,ontheotherhand,the

rightprosodyfor(19)wouldhavetobedeterminedonthebasisof19(b),whichdoesnot

containanyfeaturesrelatedtoFoCus,Givenness,ornewness.Thismeansthatif19(b)is

therightrepresentation,therehastobeadefaultprosodyforEnglishout-of-the-blue

22

utteranceswhoseprinciplesareindependentofanyimpactofInformationStructure.To

defenda[G]-account,then,wewouldneedtoshowwhatthatdefaultprosodyisandhowit

couldbederivedwithinanotherwiseplausiblegeneraltheoryofprosody.Supposesucha

demonstrationsucceeded.Wewouldthenbeinastrongpositiontoruleout19(a)on

conceptualgrounds:AllN-markingin19(a)wouldbecompletelysuperfluousasfaras

prosodyisconcerned.

AccountspresupposingtheexistenceofadefaultprosodyforEnglishthatisindependentof

InformationStructurehavebeenproposedsincetheearlieststudiesofprosodywithin

GenerativeGrammar(Chomsky&Halle1968,Bresnan1971,Chomsky1971).

Whiletheissuehasn’tbeenuncontroversial,thependulumisswingingtowardsdefault

prosodyinrecenttextbooks(Büring2016)andhandbookarticles(Truckenbrodt2016,

Zubizarreta2016).Wewilladdressthistopicinthenextsection,wherewewillfollow-up

onFéry&Samek-Lodovici(2006)andSelkirk(2007,2008)inworkingoutaparticular

versionofa[G]-account.Ona[G]-account,theprosodyofasentenceiscomputedoff

syntacticstructuresthatmayincludemorphosyntacticfeaturesforGivenness([G]-

marking)andFoCus([FoC]-marking),butdonotindicatenewness.Thegrammarisblindto

newness.TheapparentprosodicreflexesofnewnessinStandardAmericanandBritish

Englisharereflexesofadefaultprosodywhosebasicprinciplesdonotdependinanyway

onInformationStructure.

6. ThePhonologicalinterpretationof[FoC]and[G]

Thefateof[FoC]and[G]istobespelledoutbythePhonologyinsomeway,beit

prosodically,segmentally,ortonally.Morphosyntacticfeatures-whetherit’sfeaturesfor

FoCusorGivenness,orinflectionalfeatureslikethoseforpluralityorpasttense-are

phonologicallyinterpretedvialanguage-particularspelloutconstraintsspecifyingthe

phonologicalexpressionofthesefeatures.Thephonologicalexponencepropertiescalled

forbysuchspelloutconstraintsformpartoftheunderlyingphonologicalrepresentationof

asentence,whichistheinputtothephonologicalcomponentperse.Thesurface

phonologicalrepresentationderivedfromtheunderlyingrepresentationmayshow

phonologicalconstraint-drivenmodifications.Thisgeneralarchitectureisthesame,

23

whetherwearedealingwithprosodicspelloutof[FoC]and[G]inEnglish,orwith

segmentalspelloutofrelatedfeaturesinGungbe,forexample.

[FoC]and[G]inStandardEnglishdifferfromfeaturesforpluralityortenseinthattheyare

spelledoutnotassegments,butintermsofprominence.Theexponenceof[G]isthe

absenceofphrasalprominence.Theexponenceof[FoC]ishighestpossibleprominence.

Bothofthosefeaturesinvolvedivergencefromdefaultprominence.Atthepointofcontact

withthephonology,then,theyhavetointeractwithanunderlyingrepresentationthathas

informationaboutdefaultprominence.(22)belowillustratesanarchitecturethatmakes

thoseinteractionspossible.Inthearchitectureassumedin(22),thesolepointofinterface

betweensyntaxandphonologyinthegrammarisbetweenanoutputsyntactic

representationandtheunderlying(input)phonologicalrepresentation.Thisisaserialist

theoryofthesyntax-phonologyinterface,then.Therelationbetweensyntaxandthe

surfacephonologicalform,whichissubmittedtophoneticinterpretation,ismediatedbyan

underlyingphonologicalrepresentation.

Thesentencein22(a)ismeanttobeall-new,lackingany[FoC]-markingand[G]-marking.

Ourtaskinwhatfollowsistwofold:firsttoexplainexactlyhowunderlyingphonological

representationslike22(b)comeaboutand,second,toexplainhowsurfacephonological

representationslike22(c)arederivedfrom22(b).Thefirstsubtaskinvolvesallaspectsof

thesyntax-phonologyinterface,includingthespelloutofourtwomorphosyntacticfeatures

andthepropertiesofunderlyingphonologicalrepresentationtheyinteractwith.Forthe

secondsubtaskweareassuminganoptimalitytheoretic,constraint-based,account(Prince

&Smolensky2004[1993],McCarthy&Prince1999).

25

Inthesyntacticrepresentation22(a)theorthographicstringstandsfortheabstract

representationofthemorphemesandmorphosyntacticfeaturesofsyntactic

representationthataretobespelledoutintheunderlyingphonologicalrepresentation.

Theorthographicallyrepresentedterminalstringsin22(b)and(c)standforthe

phonologicalsegmentsthatgivephonologicalexpressiontotheterminalelementsof22(a).

Therearethreekeyaspectsoftheprosodyofsurfacephonologicalrepresentationsin

English:prosodicconstituency,prosodicprominence(stress),andtone.Prosodic

constituentsatlevelsw(prosodicword),j(phonologicalphrase),andi(intonational

phrase)haveaplaceintheunderlyingrepresentationin22(b),wheretheyreflectthe

word,phraseandclausestructureofthesyntacticrepresentationin22(a).Thepossibility

ofphonologicallydrivendivergence,ornon-isomorphism,betweenphonologicaland

syntacticconstituencyshowsthatprosodicconstituentsarenotsyntacticinkind(Nespor&

Vogel1986,Selkirk1986,2011,Truckenbrodt1999).

InMatchTheory(Selkirk2011),thephonologicalcategorytypesw,jandiarederived

fromthemorphosyntacticcategorytypesword,phraseandclause,respectively.The

constraintsMatchWord,MatchPhraseandMatchClause(Bennettetal.2017,Elfner2015,

Selkirk2011,thepapersinSelkirk&Lee2015)callforprosodicconstituentsin

phonologicalrepresentationthatcorrespondtotheconstituentsofasyntacticstructure

like22(a).Giventheserialorganizationofthegrammarassumedhere,wheresyntaxmeets

phonologyonlyintheunderlying(input)representationofthephonology19,itisinthe

underlyingphonologicalrepresentationthattheconstituentstructureofthesyntaxis

spelledoutbytheMatchConstraints.MatchPhraseisanexample:

(23) MatchPhrase

Aphraseofsyntacticstructurecorrespondstoaphonologicalphraseinunderlying

phonologicalrepresentation.

19. InSelkirk(2011)thisorganizationofgrammarwasnotassumed,andMatchconstraintswereconstruedasholdingatsurfacephonologicalrepresentation.

26

InEnglishonlyphrasesthatareheadedbyalexicalitem(noun,verb,adjective,andsome

prepositions)seemtocountforMatchPhrase.Thepositionoffunctionalcategoryheads

liketheinprosodicstructureisdeterminedbyphonologicalconstraints.

Reviewingthedistinctionsbetweenunderlyingandsurfacerepresentationin22(b)and(c),

ithappens(inthiscase)thatthesurfacerepresentationin22(c)hasfullyinheritedthe

prosodicw,j,andiconstituencyoftheunderlyingrepresentation22(b).Theappearanceof

prosodicfoot(ƒ)andsyllable(s)structurewithineachwin22(c),however,isdrivenby

phonologicalmarkednessconstraintsonsurfacephonologicalrepresentationthatorganize

segmentsintosyllables(Prince&Smolensky2004[1993],Zec2007)andsyllablesintofeet

(Hayes1995,Kager2007).

In22(b)and(c),stressisrepresentedwithans-subscriptonprosodicconstituents.Thes-

markingnotationisaconvenientalternativetothegridmarksofaconstituent-bracketed

metricalgrid(Hayes1995,andothers).Thedistributionofstress(prominence)inthe

sentenceisphonologicallypredictableinall-newsentences.Wewouldthusexpectitto

onlybepresentinsurfacephonologicalrepresentation,wereitnotforthefactthat[G]and

[FoC],bytheirverynature,havetointeractwithdefaultprominence.Thatcouldonly

happeninunderlyingrepresentation,giventheserialarchitectureweareassuming.

Ingeneral,eachconstituentofprosodicstructure(withthepossibleexceptionof

intonationalphrase,tobediscussedbelow)hasauniqueprominentdaughterconstituent.

Forphonologicalphrases,thisiscapturedbytheconstraintPhrasalProminence,which,in

English,isamarkednessconstraintonanyphonologicalrepresentation,beitsurfaceor

underlying.

(24) PhrasalProminence

Everyjhasexactlyoneprominentdaughter.

27

PhrasalProminencebelongstoafamilyofphonologicalmarkednessconstraintsthat

includesconstraintsfordefiningprominencewithinprosodicwordsandfeet.Inoptimality

theory,phonologicalmarkednessconstraintsarestandardlyconstruedasconstraintson

the‘ideal’natureofoutput/surfacephonologicalrepresentations.Butsince[G]and[FoC]

interferewithdefaultprosody,constraintslikePhrasalProminenceinStandardEnglish

needtoholdofunderlyingphonologicalrepresentation,too.

In22(b)and(c),PhrasalProminenceissatisfiedinallthreejs.Thenon-branchingjs

correspondingtothesubjectandobjectnounphrasesbothcontainasingles-marked

daughter.WithinthehigherjintherecursivejstructurecorrespondingtotheVPthe

daughterjiss-marked,ratherthanitswsister.Thisisnotyetaccountedfor.Itsuggestsan

additionalmarkednessconstraintprivilegingprominenceoncategoriesthatarehigherin

theprosodichierarchy.

(25) UnequalSisterProminence

Ifsistersinaprosodicrepresentationareofunequalcategory,thelower-level

one(s)intheprosodichierarchycannotbeprominent(s-marked).

Whataboutequalsisters,then?Herethesituationismorecomplicated.Languagesseemto

differ.Forexample,withinaprosodicwordthatcontainsasequenceoffeet,theprominent

footmaybetheright-mostortheleft-mostfoot,dependingonthelanguage.Lessisknown

aboutrelativeprominenceofequalsistersatthephrasallevel.Itisoftenassumedthatthe

right-mostphrasewouldreceiveprominenceinthiscase.Intheall-new(26),forexample,

thephrasecorrespondingtotheindirectobjectwouldthenbetheprominentone.20

(26) Syntax [I’ve[[sent]Vmy[[payment]N]NPtothe[[doctor]N]NP]VP]

20. Weareassumingasmall-clauseanalysisforpaymenttothedoctoralongthelinesofHarley(1995,2002).Theheadofthesmallclauseisafunctionalelement,hencethesmallclausedoesnotcorrespondtoaj.Asaconsequence,theprosodiccounterpartsofthetwoobjectsaresistersandarebothdaughtersofthejcorrespondingtotheVP.

28

UR (I’ve((sent)wmy((payment)ws)jtothe((doctor)ws)js)j)i

SR (I’ve((sent)wmy((payment)ws)jtothe(doctor)ws)js)j)i

H*L-H*L-

Weshouldmention,however,thattheexperimentalevidencefromKatz&Selkirk(2011)

doesnotnecessarilysupporttheprominenceasymmetryrepresentedin(26).Wetherefore

won’tcommitourselvestoamarkednessconstraintaboutprominenceofequalsistersin

phraseswithoutfurtherinvestigation.

Stressprominenceisknowntoaccountforthedistributionofstress-sensitivephonological

propertiesinEnglish.Predictablevowelreduction,forexample,takesplaceinStandard

AmericanEnglishinsyllablesthatareunstressed,thatis,nots-marked(seee.g.Chomsky&

Halle1968).Inthewordcáramèlsin22(c)theprominent(leftmost)syllable-daughterof

thefirstfoothastheunreducedvowelqualityofitsunderlyingrepresentation,asdoesthe

voweloftheprominentsoledaughterofthesecondfoot,butinthenon-s-markedsyllable

ofthefirstfootthereducedvowel[¶]appears.

Whileprominenceandprosodicconstituencyarenotcompletelypredictablefrom

phonologicalprinciplesalone,thedefaulttonesH*andL-are.Thisiswhytheyonlyappear

insurfacephonologicalrepresentationin(22)and(26).Thesetoneshavenomeaningthat

wouldwarrantthemaplaceinsyntacticrepresentationorinunderlyingphonological

representation.TheobligatoryH*pitchaccentsappearinginall-newsentencesarea

predictablereflexofthej-levelprominencestatus(ws)ofthewordbearingtheaccent.

(Selkirk1995,Ladd1996,Truckenbrodt2006).Thisphonologicalanalysisofthe

distributionoftheobligatoryH*pitchaccentexplainswhytheverbmailedlacksobligatory

pitchaccentin(22),whilethesubjectSarahandtheobjectcaramelsmustbearaH*.Asfor

theL-edgetones,whichcoincidewiththerighthandedgeofajin22(c),theyarealso

likelyapredictable,non-morphemicpropertyoftheprosody(Ladd1996).Wearemostly

29

leavingoutmorphemictonesinourrepresentations,likethesentencefinalH%orL%or

morphemicpitchaccentslikeL*+H,forexample(Pierrehumbert&Hirschberg1990).

Insum,thedefaultdistributionoftonesinsurfacephonologicalrepresentationinEnglish

comeswithphrase-levelprosodicconstituencyandprominencewithinthosephrases.

Generalphonologicalmarkednessconstraintsontherelationbetweentoneandprosodic

prominenceorprosodicconstituentedgeswillensuretheirpresenceinsurface

phonologicalrepresentation(Yip2002,2007).21

Wehavenowaddressedthethreeaspectsofsentenceprosodyfoundinall-new,unmarked,

sentences.Theprosodicpropertiesofthosesentencesarejointlydeterminedbygeneral

principlesofspelloutandgeneralconstraintsonphonologicalrepresentations.Thereis

thusnoroleforaputative[N]-feature.

WenextturntoexaminingtheeffectsofGivennessandFoCusonsentenceprosody.Let’s

lookfirstatthephonologyof[G]-marking.Whatisthephonologicalexpressionof

morphosyntactic[G]-markinginStandardEnglish?Sinceunderlyingphonological

representationisthesolepermittedcontactpointbetweensyntaxandphonologyinthe

serialistversionofthisinterfaceweareassuming,weproposethespelloutconstraintNo-

[G]-Prominenceasformulatedin(27):

(27) No-[G]-Prominence

Inunderlyingphonologicalrepresentation,thecounterpartofa[G]-marked

constituentmayneitherbe,orinclude,aphrase-levelprominence(anws).22

21. TheattractionofHtonetostressisfoundatthefootlevel(Zec1999),theprosodicwordlevel(Hellmuth2007),andthephonologicalphraselevel(Kisseberth1984,Gordon2003).22. Ladd’s(1980)originalproposalwasthatadiscourse-givenconstituentcouldn’tbethes-markedsisterinans/wlabelledmetricaltree.

30

No-[G]-Prominenceisaconstraintofthesyntax-phonologyinterfacethatcallsforthe

absenceofphrase-levelprominencewithGivenconstituentsinStandardEnglish.

Obviously,no-[G]-ProminenceconflictswithPhrasalProminence.Thisconflictcomesoutin

theURof(28).

(28) Me: Everythingokafteryouroperation?

You: Oh,yeah.

Syntax [I’ve[[sent]Vmy[[payment]N]NPtothe[[doctor]N]NP,G]VP]

UR (I’ve((sent)wmy((payment)ws)jstothe((doctor)w)j)j)i

SR ( I’ve ( (sent)w my ((payment)ws )js to the ( (doctor)w )j)j )i H* L- L%

No-[G]-Prominencerequirestheabsence,butPhrasalProminencerequiresthepresence,of

phrase-levelprominence(s-markingofw)fordoctorintheunderlyingrepresentationof

(28).PhrasalProminenceisthusviolated.Thereis,however,anotherpossibleunderlying

representationforthe[G]-markedphrasethatwouldavoidviolatingPhrasalProminence,

butwouldviolateMatchPhraseinstead.Thispossibilityisillustratedin(29):doctorhas

nowbeen‘dephrased’intheunderlyingrepresentationandPhrasalProminenceisno

longerapplicable.


You: Oh,yeah.

Syntax [I’ve[[sent]Vmy[[payment]N]NPtothe[[doctor]N]NP,G]VP]

UR (I’ve((sent)wmy((payment)ws)jstothe(doctor)w)j)i

SR ( I’ve ( (sent)w my ((payment)ws )js to the (doctor)w )j )i

31

H* L- L%

Ladd(1980,2008)providesevidenceforthedephrasingoftheprosodiccounterpartsof

[G]-markedphrases.(30)ishisexample23,analyzedwithinourcurrentframeworkof

assumptions.


You: Don’ttalktomeaboutit.

Syntax[The[[butcher]N]NP,G[[charged]Vmea[[thousand][[bucks]N]NP]NP]VP]

UR (The((butcher)w)j((charged)wmea((thousand)((bucks)ws)js)js)j)i

SR (The(butcher)w((charged)wmea((thousand)((bucks)ws)js)js)j)i

ø/H*H*L-L%

In(30),thereisanoptionalpitchaccentforthesubjectphrase.Laddsuggeststhatthe

observedlackofaL-toneattherightedgeofthesubjectphrasein(30)indicatesthatthis

phrasedoesnothavethestatusofajinsurfacephonologicalrepresentation.Thisabsence

ofjstatusforthephonologicalcounterpartsof[G]-markedconstituentsisnoteasily

discernablein(29)becauseoftheco-presenceofthemorphemicsentence-finalL%tone.

Wearenonethelessassumingthatallsurfacecounterpartsof[G]-markedconstituentsin

StandardEnglishare‘dephrased’insurfacerepresentation,violatingMatchPhrase.Match

PhraseisthussubordinatedtoNo-[G]-ProminenceandPhrasalProminence.

AnaccountisstillneededfortheoptionalpresenceofaH*pitchaccentwiththe[G]-

markedsubjectin(30).LaddreferstothisoptionalH*pitchaccentasa‘secondary’one,

whiletheH*thatappearsobligatorilywithwhatwearereferringtoasFoCusandnew

constituentsisa‘primary’accent.Theprimaryaccenthasalreadybeencharacterizedas

23. Example(24)inLadd(2008),300.

32

onewhichappearsbydefaultonthemostprominentsyllableofaj.Asforthesecondary

H*pitchaccent,itspresencecouldbedrivenbyaphonologicalconstraintcallingforthe

presenceofaHtoneonawordthatappearsattheleftedgeofaj.24There’sprecedentfor

theappearanceofsuchleft-edge-basedpitchaccentsinEuropeanPortuguese(Frota2000)

andIrish(Elfner2012,2015).Moreover,withinEnglishitselfthisinitialityeffectcan

explaintheoptionalpresenceofH*pitchaccentsontransitiveverbs,prenominalmodifiers,

andsoon,whicharepredictedtobenon-prominentinthedefaultcase.LocalizingtheHon

themain-stressedsyllableofthewordwouldbeachievedbymarkednessconstraintson

thetone-prominencerelation.

FurthereffectsofNo-[G]-Prominencearebroughtoutbyexample(31),alsofromLadd

(1980,2008).25


You: Don’ttalktomeaboutit.

Syntax [I’d[[like]Vto[[strangle]Vthe[[butcher]N]NP,G]VP]VP]

UR (I’d((like)wto((strangle)wsthe(butcher)w)j)j)i

SR (I’d((like)wto((strangle)wsthe(butcher)w)j)j)i

H*L-L%

In(31),becauseofPhrasalProminenceattheVP-level,theabsenceofprominenceonthe

prosodiccounterpartofthe[G]-markedobjectresultsinnecessaryphrasalprominenceand

apitchaccentonthecounterpartoftheverbintheunderlyingrepresentation.

24. Bolinger(1965),Shattuck-Hufnageletal.(1994).25. Example(22)ofLadd(2008),300.

33

Turningto[FoC]-marking,startingwithJackendoff(1972),itisusuallyassumedin

accountsofEnglishsentenceprosodythata[FoC]-markedsyntacticconstituentis

phonologicallyexpressedwiththehighestpossibleprominence(stress)ofthesentence.

WeproposetheFoCusProminenceconstraintin(32),whichassumesthatthe

morphosyntacticfeature[FoC]isspelledoutinStandardEnglishintheunderlying

phonologicalrepresentationofasentence.

(32)FoCusProminence

Theprosodiccounterpartofa[FoC]-markedconstituenthasthehighestpossible

prominenceinunderlyingphonologicalrepresentationthatitcanhavewithout

violatingotherconstraints.

Inthesyntacticrepresentationin33(a)below,thesubjectphraseis[FoC]-markedandthe

VPismerelynew.TheFoC-newsequencein33(a)couldhavethemeaningofthecleft

sentenceItwasSarahwhomailedthecaramels,spokeninacontextwheremailedthe

caramelsisnotsalientinthecurrentdiscourse,sonot[G]-marked.

34

(33) a. Syntax b. Underlying phonological representation

Clause i

/ \ / \

/ VP / j

/ / \ / / \

/ / \ / / \

NPFoC / DP ® js / \

| / / | | / \

N V D NP ws w js

| | / | | | |

| | / N | | ws

Sarah mailed the caramels Sarah mailed the caramels

Inthissimplecase,thejcounterpartofthe[FoC]-markedphraseSarahcarriesthehighest-

levelprominenceinthesentence.It’stheprominentdaughteroftheintonationalphrase

(i),whichisthehighestprosodicconstituent.Theprominenceofcaramelsisdeterminedby

PhrasalProminence.BoththisprominenceandFoCus-relatedprominencewouldbe

inheritedinthesurfacerepresentation,whichisnotgivenhere.Thephrase-level

prominenceandsurfacedistributionofH*andL-for(33)wouldthusbethesameasinan

all-newsentence.Onouraccount,thei-levelprominenceofthe[FoC]-markedconstituent

inphonologicalrepresentation(markedwithanarrow)isthesourceforthejudgmentby

speakersofEnglishthatthe[FoC]-markedconstituentofasentenceismoreprominent

relativetoother,non-[FoC]-marked,constituentsofthesamesentence.

Directexperimentalphoneticevidencefortheexistenceoftheintuitedrelativeprominence

patternsinsentenceswith[FoC]isprovidedinKatzandSelkirk(2011),whichinvestigates

thephoneticsofsentenceswith[FoC]-markedconstituentsthatprecedeorfollownon-

[FoC]-marked,merelynew,constituents,asin34(a)and(b),aswellasthephoneticsofall-

newsentenceslikethatin34(c).

35

(34) a. FoC-New:Theyonlyproduced[linen]FoCin[Nineveh].

b. New-FoC:Theyonlyproduced[linen]in[Nineveh]FoC.

c. New-New:Theyproduced[linen]in[Nineveh].

Katz&Selkirkfoundthatthesurfacephonologicalrepresentationsofthepost-verbal

phrasesin34(a)to(c)showthetypicaldefaultsurfaceH*L-tonepatternofaj,whetheror

notoneortheotherphrase,orneither,isalso[FoC]-marked.Thisbaselineidentityinthe

tonalcontentandphonologicalphrasingofthesentencesofsuchminimaltripletsprovides

aperfectlaboratoryforexaminingphoneticpatternsofrelativeprominenceinthepitch,

duration,andintensitydimensionsofthesuccessivepost-verbalphrases.Theresults

showedasignificantthree-waydifferenceinpatterningofrelativeprominence,onewhich

canbeillustratedbythearrowsin(35).

(35)Phonologicalrepresentationwithphoneticpitchdownstep/upsteppatterns:

a. …..(produced)w((linen)ws)jsin((ßNineveh)ws)j

H*L- H*L-

b. …..(produced)w((linen)ws)jin((()Nineveh)ws)js

H*L- H*L-

c. …..(produced)w((linen)ws)jin((¯Nineveh)ws)j

H*L- H*L-

Theall-newcasein35(c)reflectsthephoneticbaseline,namelythepresenceofsome

degreeofdownstep(indicatedby¯)betweenthepitchvaluesoftheH*pitchpeaksofthe

twosuccessivediscourse-newphrases(Liberman&Pierrehumbert1984onEnglish,Grabe

36

1998,Truckenbrodt2004onGerman).IntheFoC-newcasein35(a),thereisasignificantly

greaterdegreeofdownstep(indicatedbyß)betweentheH*peaksofthetwophrases.

FollowingTruckenbrodt(2007b),KatzandSelkirk(2011)seethislargedownstepasa

phoneticreflexofthehigherdegreeofprosodic/phonologicalprominenceonthej

correspondingtothe[FoC]-markedconstituent,whichisinitialinthesequence.Asforthe

new-FoCcase35(b),thereissomevariabilityinthepatternobserved.Theremaybeasmall

upstepofthecounterpartoftheFoCusedphrasewithrespecttotheprecedingphrase,or

thepitchheightofthetwomaybemoreorlessonapar.Baselinedownsteppingis

counteractedinthephoneticinterpretationoftheprominenceofthecounterpartofthe

[FoC]-markedconstituentin35(b).26

Theexperimentalresultsshowthatthepatternsofrelativephoneticprominenceinnew-

FoCandnew-newaresignificantlydifferent.Thisdissimilarityhasledustohypothesize

thatthereisnoprominentjsstatusforthecounterpartofthesecondverbalcomplementin

anall-newsentencelike35(c).Butwhywouldn’tani-levelprosodicmarkednessconstraint

thatistheanalogueofPhrasalProminencecallforoneofthedaughtersofitobe

prominent?Oursuggestionisthatprominenceatthei-levelinunderlyingrepresentationis

availableonlyastheexpressionof[FoC]-marking.Tocapturethisrequiresaddinga

constraintonthesyntax-phonologyinterfaceinStandardEnglish:

(36)FoCusPrivilege

Adaughterofiisprominentonlyifitscounterpartinsyntacticrepresentation

dominatesa[FoC]-markedconstituent.

26. Katz&Selkirk(2011)didnotindicatethejcorrespondingtotheVPin35(a)to(c).Iftherewassuchaj,PhrasalProminencewouldcallforoneofitsdaughterstobeprominent,andthatwouldpresumablybetheright-most.Thatlowerjwouldnotbeinapositiontocarryi-level prominence, however.

37

FoCusPrivilegewouldcomplementtheconstraintFoCusProminence,theotherconstraint

relevantto[FoC]-marking.FoCusProminenceisspecifictothegrammarofStandard

English.PerhapsFoCusPrivilegeistoo.

Thereisadditionalevidenceforthephonologicalrepresentationof[FoC]prominencefrom

caseswheretheFoCusfallsonaword,ratherthanaphrase.In(37),a[FoC]-markedverb

precedesadiscourse-newobject.

(37)(Guesswhat!)

a. [[Sarah][[mailed]FoC[thecaramels]].(Shedidn’tFed-Exthem.)

b. (((Sarah)ws)j(((mailed)ws)jsthe((caramels)ws)j)js)i

H*L-H*L-H*L-

(37)mightbeutteredinasituationwherebothspeakerandhearerknowthatSarah

plannedtosendoffaboxofcaramelsyesterday,andwhentheysaweachothertoday,the

firstthingthatwasreportedabouteitherSarahorthecaramelswaswhatisexpressedin

(37),where,semantically,acontrastwithrespecttothemodeofsendingthecaramels

(mailing(bythepostalservice)vs.sendingbyFedEx)comesintoplay.NeitherSarahorthe

caramelswouldbesalientinthisdiscourseandthereforethereisno[G]-markinginthis

firstexchangeoftheday.

Thefactualobservationisthat,whena[FoC]-markedverbisfollowedbyadiscourse-new

object,the[FoC]markedverbhasthestatusofaphonologicalphraseinsurface

representation.27Boththeverbandtheobjectinthegrammaticalsurfacerepresentationof

(37)carryanobligatoryH*pitchaccent,whichisareflexofj-levelprominence.Moreover,

therightedgeoftheverbcoincideswithaL-tone,whichisadefaultpropertyoftheright

edgeofaj.Whatforcestheprominentverbtoacquirethestatusofaphrase?Thereason,

wepropose,isthat,iftheverbdidn’tacquirejstatus,therewouldbeaviolationof

27. Selkirk(2002)providesexperimentalevidenceforthissortofpatternfromrightnoderaisingsentences,whereaFoC-markedverbisfollowedbyadiscoursenewobject.

38

UnequalSistersProminence:thewcorrespondingtotheverbiss-markedduetoFoCus

Prominence,butithasaphrasalsister(correspondingtotheverb’sdirectobject),which

shouldbetheprominentoneaccordingtoUnequalSistersProminence.

ConsidernextcaseswithtwoFoCusconstituentsinthesamesentence.Anexamplewould

be(38),whichisaconfigurationnottestedinKatz&Selkirk(2011).(38)couldbeafollow

uptoaprecedingall-newsentenceTheyproducedtapestriesinBabylon.

(38) FoC-FoC:Andthey[produced[linen]FoCin[Nineveh]FoC]VP.

Wehavetosayattheoutsetthatwedonotknowwhatthefullpictureofprominenceisin

thiscase.Tobesure,thereisatleastphrasalstatusandphrasalprominenceforlinenand

Nineveh,hencetwoH*pitchaccentswithfollowingL-edgetones.Whatwedonotknowis

whetheroneFoCusedphraseismoreprominentthantheotherandwhattheprominence

levelis.Hereishowwewouldapproachtheissueonouraccount.FoCusProminenceaims

forthehighestpossibleprominencefortheprosodiccounterpartsof[FoC]-marked

constituents.Themoststraightforwardwayofsatisfyingthisrequirementfor(38)would

be39(b),wherethecounterpartsofboth[FoC]-markedphraseshavei-levelprominence.

(39) a. FoC-FoC:Andthey[produced[linen]FoCin[Nineveh]FoC]VP.

b. (…..((produced)w((linen)ws)jsin((Nineveh)ws)js)js)i

H*L- H*L-

However,39(b)violatesPhrasalProminence.ThejcorrespondingtotheVPhastwos-

markeddaughters.Theremedyinsuchacasewouldbedephrasing,thatis,theelimination

ofthejcorrespondingtotheVP,asshownin40(b):

(40) a. FoC-FoC:Andthey[produced[linen]FoCin[Nineveh]FoC]VP.

39

b. (…..(produced)w((linen)ws)jsin((Nineveh)ws)js)i

H*L- H*L-

40(b)obeysFoCusProminenceandPhrasalProminence,buttherearenowtwostrong

daughtersofi.Wedonotknowwhetherthisisthecorrectresult,butitshouldbepossible

tosortoutexperimentallywhetherphoneticdataonrelativeprominencesupportsthis

analysis:ifcorrect,40(b)wouldbepredictedtobedistinctfromeachofthethree

configurationstestedbyKatz&Selkirk(2011).

Ifthe[FoC]-featurecallsforprominenceatthehighestpossiblelevel,whilethe[G]-feature

bansphraselevelprominence,whatdoesthisimplyforconfigurationswherea[FoC]-

markedphraseappearswithina[G]-markedphrase?Examplesarecasesofso-called

‘SecondOccurrenceFocus’illustratedin(41)below.Thecontextdescriptionand41(a)are

fromBeaveretal.(2007:256,example9).We’veadded41(b)andtheannotations.

(41) BothSidandhisaccomplicesshouldhavebeennamedinthismorning’scourt

session.Butthedefendantonlynamed[Síd]FoCincourttoday.

a. Even[thestateprósecutor]FoC[onlynamed[Sid]FoCincourttoday]G.

b. Even[thestateprósecutor]FoC[onlynamed[him/*’m]FoCincourttoday]G.

In41(a)and(b),apitchaccentH*ismissingonthe[FoC]-markedphrasewithinthe[G]-

markedphrase,afactconfirmedforanalogouscasesinBeaveretal.(2007)andother

experimentalstudiessinceRooth(1996).Themissingpitchaccentisexpected,givenour

formulationofFoCusProminence.In41(a),[FoC]-markingofSidrequiresthatSidhave

prominenceatthehighestpossiblelevel,thatis,atthehighestlevelitcanreachwithout

violatingotherconstraints.SinceSidisenclosedina[G]-markedconstituent,thehighest

possibleprominencelevelforSidisatthew-level(ans-markedfoot):theprosodic

40

counterpartsof[G]-markedconstituentscannotincludej-levelprominence(ans-marked

w).SinceH*requiresj-levelprominence,theabsenceofH*forSidin41(a)follows.

It’snotthat[G]-markingsimplynullifies[FoC]-marking.41(b)showsthatthereisarolefor

FoCusProminenceevenwhena[FoC]-markedphraseisenclosedina[G]-markedone.As

observedbySusanneTunstallandreportedinvonFintel(1994),anEnglishpronounin

configurationslike41(b)mustappearinitsstrong,stressed,form.Thefull-bodiedpronoun

himisrequiredhereinsteadoftheweakform‘m,whichispronouncedeitherasasyllabic

nasal,orasareducedvowelfollowedbythenasal.Reducedpronunciationslikethoseof

theweakformshaveasyllablethatcarriesnoprosodicprominenceatall.The

correspondingstrongformshaveminimallyfoot-levelprominence,andcouldthusbethe

locusofmainwordstressaswell.Thereisaprosodiceffectof[FoC]-marking,then,even

withina[G]-markedconstituent.Thiscaseprovidessupportfortheformulationin(32)of

FoCusProminence,whichpermitsvariationinthelevelofprosodicprominenceof[FoC]-

markedconstituents.

WeconcludethatthehypothesisthatFoCusandGivennessarerepresentedbytwo

morphosyntacticfeatures[FoC]and[G]yieldsaninsightfulaccountofthephonological

(andphonetic)effectsofthosetwoInformationStructurenotionsinStandardAmerican

andBritishEnglishwithinplausibleassumptionsofprosodicphonology.Atthesametime,

ouraccountmakesclearthat,cross-linguistically,phonologicalexponenceofthetwo

featuresviapropertiesrelatingtoprosodicprominenceisjustonepossibleoption,an

optionthatsetsthosevarietiesofEnglishapartfromothervarietiesandmanyother

languageswherethesametwofeaturesmaysurfaceindifferentwaysornotatall.Prosodic

spelloutisjustonelanguage-particularwayofspellingoutthosefeatures.

Inthenextsection,wewillshowthatthereisalsonothingspecialorexceptionalaboutthe

meaningofthetwofeatures[G]and[FoC].[FoC]isaclosecousinofthe[wh]-feature,and

[G]resemblesdiscourseparticlesinlanguageslikeGerman.Positingthosetwo

morphosyntacticfeatures,then,requiresnonewassumptionsaboutthekindsofmeanings

thatcanbecarriedbymorphosyntacticfeaturesinnaturallanguages,oraboutpossible

41

semanticorpragmaticarchitecturesthatthosefeaturesinteractwith.Themany

observationsaboutfocusandgivennessthatsemanticistshavegatheredovertheyearscan

benaturallyaccountedforbyinteractionsof[G]and[FoC]withtherestofthegrammar.

7. TheMeaninganddistributionof[FoC]and[G]

Both[G]-markingand[FoC]-markingimposerequirementsonthecurrentdiscourse.[G]-

markingtargetsmatcheswithwhatwassaidbeforeorisotherwisesalientinthediscourse

context.[FoC]-markingintroducesalternativestorepresentacontrast.Tostatethe

discourserequirementstriggeredby[G]and[FoC],wewillcontinuetorelyonthe

AlternativesSemanticsofRooth(1992,2016).Wesawalreadythat,inAlternatives

Semantics,expressionsareassignedtwosemanticvalues:O-values(ordinarymeanings)

andA-values(alternativessets).Oursemanticvaluesalsodependonarepresentationof

thediscoursecontextC.Amongotherthings,discoursecontextsdeterminewhatthe

availablediscoursereferentsare.Wearenotassuminganyparticularrepresentationof

discoursecontextshere,aslongastheyprovideanupdatablerecordofavailablediscourse

referents.DiscourseRepresentationTheory,fromitsverybeginninginKamp(1981),has

exploredhowdiscoursereferentsofvarioustypesareorganizedintostructured

representationsofdiscoursecontextsandmadeavailablefordiscourseanaphoricrelations

ofvariouskinds.

Withourfeaturerepertoire,it’sthe[FoC]-feature,ratherthanRooth’s[F]-feature,that

introducesalternatives:

(42) Themeaningofthe[FoC]-feature

O-values:

⟦[𝛼]Foc⟧O,C=⟦𝛼⟧O,C.

42

A-values:

For𝛼oftypet,

⟦[𝛼]FoC⟧A,C=Dt(thesetofallpossibleentitiesoftypet).

ThisisstandardRoothianAlternativesSemantics:ThecomputationoftheO-valueof[𝛼]Foc

overlooks[FoC]-marksandoutputstheO-valueof𝛼.For𝛼ofsemantictypet,theA-value

of[𝛼]FoCisthesetofallpossibleentitiesoftypet.28Theonlychangeweneedtoimplement

comeswiththe[G]-feature.The[G]-featureplacesaGivennessrequirementonthe

discoursecontext:

(43) Givenness

Anexpression𝛼isGiveninacontextCifthereisadiscoursereferent(individual,

property,proposition)inCthatentails⟦𝛼⟧O,C.

(43)saysthatforanexpressiontobeGiven,itsordinaryvaluemustbeentailedbya

discoursereferentintherecordofthecurrentdiscoursecontext.Thediscoursereferent

maybeaprecedinglinguisticantecedentorwhateverentitymaybesalientinthediscourse

contextwithouthavingbeenexplicitlymentioned.(43)reliesonacross-categorialnotion

ofentailmentthatrelatesindividuals,properties,andpropositions.Wecanassumethat

individualsentaileachotherwhentheyareidenticalandthenuseastandardrecursive

definition(vonFintel1999):

(44) Cross-categorialentailment29

Therelationofcross-categorialentailment⟹holdsbetweenentities𝔞and𝔟justin

caseoneofconditions(i)to(iii)applies:

28. SeeKatzir(2013)forargumentsthatthegenerationofalternativesshouldbeaspermissiveasstatedandnotberestrictedfurther.29. ThetypesystemisGallin’s(Gallin1975),withbasictypese,t,ands.ThedefinitioncanbemadesensitivetoinfluencesofcontextbyassumingthatacontextCmightconstrain

43

(i) 𝔞,𝔟ÎDe,and𝔞=𝔟.

(ii) 𝔞,𝔟ÎDt,and𝔞=0or𝔟=1.

(iii) 𝔞,𝔟ÎD<𝜏𝜎>,andforall𝔠inD𝜏,𝔞(𝔠)⟹𝔟(𝔠).

(43)isnon-committalaboutwhatittakesforanentitytobecomeadiscoursereferentina

context.Thisisdeterminedbyacombinationoflinguisticandextra-linguisticfactorsthat

donothavetoconcernushere.WithacharacterizationofGivennessinplace,wecanstate

thecontributionofthe[G]-featureasin(45):

(45) Themeaningofthe[G]-feature

O-values

⟦[𝛼]G⟧O,Cisdefinediff𝛼isGiveninC.

Ifdefined,⟦[𝛼]G⟧O,C=⟦𝛼⟧O,C.

A-values

⟦[𝛼]G⟧A,C=⟦𝛼⟧A,C.

The[G]-featureintroducesaGivennessrequirementthatisappliedtotheutterance

context,regardlessofhowdeeplyembeddedthefeaturemaybe.[G]doesnotcontribute

anythingtothetruth-conditionalcontentoftheexpressionsitattachesto,then,nordoesit

affectthecomputationofalternatives.Itscontributionisuse-conditionalorexpressivein

thesenseofKaplan(1999),Kratzer(1999,2004),Potts(2003),andGutzmann(2015).In

thatrespect,[G]resemblesdiscourseparticleslikeGermanjaordoch,assuggestedin

Kratzer(2004).Wechosetoimplementthecontributionof[G]asacontextual

presupposition,butweremainopentothepossibilitythatuse-conditionalmeaningsarea

distinguishedclassofmeaningsrequiringtheirownarchitecture,asarguedinPotts(2003).

thebasicdomainsDe(individuals)andDs(possibleworlds).Thisversionofgeneralizedentailmentdoesn’trunintotheproblemofSchwarzschild’s(1999)definitionmentionedinfootnote11.

44

Toillustratethesystem,we’llcomputeO-valuesandA-valuesforyouranswerintheby

nowfamiliarexample(2).


You: (No),[Eliza]FoC[mailedthecaramels]G

(46) Samplecomputation:[FoC]-markedname

O-value

⟦[Eliza]Foc⟧O,C=⟦Eliza⟧O,C=Eliza.

A-value

⟦[Eliza]FoC⟧A,C={Eliza,Sarah,Leif,…}

Samplecomputation:[G]-markedVP

O-value:

DefinediffmailedthecaramelsisGiveninC,thatis,iffthereisadiscoursereferent

inCthatentails⟦mailedthecaramels⟧O,C=𝝀x.𝝀w.mailed-the-caramels(x)(w).If

defined,⟦[mailedthecaramels]G⟧O,C=⟦mailedthecaramels⟧O,C=𝝀x.𝝀w.mailed-the-

caramels(x)(w).

A-value:

⟦[mailedthecaramels]G⟧A,C=⟦mailedthecaramels⟧A,C={𝝀x.𝝀w.mailed-the-

caramels(x)(w)}.

TocomputetheO-valueandA-valueforyouranswerin(2)asawhole,wecombinetheO-

valuesandA-valuesoftheirimmediateconstituents.TheO-valuesarecombinedvia

functionalapplication.TheA-valuescombineviapoint-wisefunctionalapplication:

(47) Samplecomputationofyouranswerinexample(2)

O-value:

Definediff⟦[mailedthecaramels]G⟧O,Cis.

45

Ifdefined,⟦[Eliza]FoC[mailedthecaramels]G⟧O,C=

⟦[mailedthecaramels]G⟧O,C(⟦[Eliza]FoC⟧O,C)=

𝝀x𝝀w.mailed-the-caramels(x)(w)(Eliza)=

𝝀w.mailed-the-caramels(Eliza)(w).

A-value:

⟦[Eliza]FoC[mailedthecaramels]G⟧A,C=

⟦[mailedthecaramels]G⟧A,C×⟦[Eliza]FoC⟧A,C=

⟦mailedthecaramels⟧A,C×⟦[Eliza]FoC⟧A,C=

{𝝀x𝝀w.mailed-the-caramels(x)(w)}×{Eliza,Sarah,Leif,…}= {𝝀w.mailed-the-caramels(Eliza)(w),𝝀w.mailed-the-caramels(Sarah)(w),

𝝀w.mailed-the-caramels(Leif)(w),…}.

Bynowacrucialdifferencebetween[G]and[FoC]hasemerged.[G]imposesadiscourse

requirementrelatedtoGivenness.[FoC]allbyitselfdoesnottriggeranydiscourse

requirement,itmerelyintroducesalternatives.FollowingRooth(1992),weareassuming

thatthecontrastrequirementthatcomeswith[FoC]-markingisintroducedbyaseparate

operator(the‘squiggle’)markingthescopeoftheFoCus.The~operatorhasadetectable

presenceinsyntax.Forexample,wesawinsection2thatSinhalahasverbalinflection

markingthescopeofapossiblydistantfocusedconstituent,suggestingaconfiguration

similartowh-constructions.Thepositionofthe~operatoralsoseemstobeatargetfor

movement,assumingthatthereisfocusrelatedmovement,asarguedasearlyasChomsky

(1976)andreconfirmedmostrecentlyinErlewine&Kotek(2018).30

Whilespeakersarefreeto[FoC]-markjustaboutanythingtheyplease,[FoC]-marked

constituentsmustbec-commandedbya~operator.FoCusing,then,alwayscarriesa

30. The~operatordoesn’tseemtohaveanycounterpartinprosodicstructure.Assumingourserialarchitecture,thesemanticscopeor‘domain’ofFoCuscouldnotplayanyroleindeterminingtheprosodicdomainforFoCusprominence,then,contrarytowhatisproposedinTruckenbrodt(1995),andreflectedinFéry&Samek-Lodovici‘s(2006)constraintStress-FocusandinBüring’s(2016)FocusRealizationcondition.

46

commitmenttocontrastinthetechnicalsensedefinedbelow(spelledContrastfromnow

on).Amorefleshed-outrepresentationofyourresponsein(2)is(48).

(48) Me: [Sarahmailedthecaramels]𝔞.

You: (No),~𝔞[[Eliza]FoC[mailedthecaramels]G]

The~operatorcomeswithanindex𝔞thatestablishesalinktoamatchingdiscourse

referentoftherighttype,which,inourexample,isthepropositionthatSarahmailedthe

caramels.ThatpropositionisdistinctfromthepropositionthatElizamailedthecaramels

andisalsoamongthealternativesdeterminedbythescopeofthe~operator.Inthisway

yourreplyin(48)representsaContrastwithwhatIsaidbefore.(49)isafirstattemptto

definethenotionofContrastrepresentationthatweareafter.

(49) Contrastrepresentation(notfinal)

Anexpression𝛼representsaContrastwithadiscoursereferent(individual,

property,proposition)𝔞justincaseconditions(i)and(ii)aresatisfied:

(i) 𝔞∈⟦𝛼⟧A,C.

(ii) 𝔞≠⟦𝛼⟧O,C.

Themeaningdefinitionforthe~operatorcanbestatedasin(50):

(50) The~operator

O-values

⟦~𝔞𝛼⟧O,Cisonlydefined,if𝛼representsaContrastwith𝔞,where𝔞isadiscourse

referentinC.Ifdefined,⟦~𝔞𝛼⟧O,C=⟦𝛼⟧O,C.

A-values

⟦~𝔞𝛼⟧A,C={⟦𝛼⟧O,C}.

AsinRooth(1992),the~operatorusesthealternativesdeterminedbyitsscopetoimpose

aContrastrequirement.Itthenblocksaccesstothosealternativesforhigheroperators.

47

Technically,itdoessobysettingtheA-valueof~𝔞𝛼backtoasingletonsetcontainingthe

O-valueof𝛼asitsonlymember.TheA-valueof𝛼isthusnolongervisibletofurther

computations.

UnlikeRooth(1992),ournotionofContrasthasnoprovisionforantecedentsthatare

questions.Thisisasitshouldbe.WhenwelookedattheItaliandatainsection4,wesaw

thatquestionsallbythemselvesdonotnecessarilytriggeraFoCusintheanswer.Krifka

(2004)presentsanadditionalargumentthatshedsseriousdoubtsontheassumptionthat

question-answercongruenceisarelationofContrast.(51)and(52)illustrate.

(51) Me: Lucieplantedthisbush.

a. You: (No),she[prunedthistrée]FoC.

b. You: (No),she[prúned]FoC[thistrée]FoC.

(52) Me: WhatdidLuciedo?

a. You: Sheonly[prunedthistrée]FoC.

b. You:#Sheonly[prúned]FoC[thistrée]FoC.

Both51(a)and(b)areacceptablereplies,andareexpectedtobe,sincebothrepresenta

ContrastwithwhatIsaidaccordingtoourdefinition.31Yetonly52(a)wouldbecongruent

withmyquestion.

Krifkapointsoutthat,ifalternativessetsareaspermissiveasRoothtakesthemtobe(and

Katzir(2013)saystheyhavetobe),thealternativessetforthe(a)-repliesin(51)and(52)

winduptobethesameasthoseforthe(b)-replies.Toseethis,takeanypropertyof

individualsPofsemantictype<e<st>>.PisinthealternativessetoftheVP[prunedthis

tree]FoC.Butnowconsider𝜆x.P,theconstantfunctionthatmapsanyindividualtothe

31. Sincethealternativessetsarethesameforbothofyourrepliesin(51),thereviseddefinitionofContrastrepresentationin(56)belowwillstillallowbothrepliestorepresentaContrastwiththeantecedentproposition.

48

propertyP.Beingoftype<e<e<st>>>,thisfunctionisinthealternativessetofthetransitive

verb[pruned]FoC,hencePisinthealternativessetoftheVP[[pruned]FoC[thistree]FoC].

KrifkaconcludesthatAlternativesSemanticsisunfittohandlequestion-answer

congruence:itcan’tdistinguishtheacceptable52(a)fromtheunacceptable52(b).From

ourperspective,thoseverysameobservationsdonotdiscreditAlternativesSemantics,

rathertheyconfirmourearlierconclusionthatquestionanswer-congruenceisnota

relationofContrasttobeginwith.

Question-answercongruenceisestablishedviatheGivenpartofanswersonourapproach.

ImportantinsightsabouttheconnectionbetweenInformationStructureandquestions

(Roberts1996,2012)thusremainuntouched.Thereisalessontobelearned,though:The

investigationofquestion-answerpairscannotbeusedtodiagnoseFoCus.Ifwedrawa

distinctionbetweenwhat’sFoCusedandwhat’smerelynewbyrepresentingGivenness,

ratherthannewness,thenotionofananswerfocusisnolongeranobviousone.Nowit’s

Givenness,notFoCus,thatisreliablydiagnosedwithquestion-answerpairs.32

GoingbacktoourdefinitionofContrastrepresentationin(49),itturnsoutthatitistoo

liberal.AsobservedinSchwarzschild(1993)andreportedinTruckenbrodt(1995),

definitionslike(49)allowoverFoCusingandthusincorrectlypredictthat53(b)represents

aContrastwiththepropositionexpressedby53(a),forexample.TheO-valuesof53(a)and

(b)aredifferent,andtheO-valueof53(a)isamemberoftheA-valueof53(b).Thisisnot

good.33

32. Féry&Samek-Lodovici(2006)andBüring(2016)haveboth[F]-markingand[G]-marking,yetstillholdontothenotionofananswerfocus.Question-answerpairsarediscussedasprototypicalinstancesoffocusinFéry&Ishihara(2016),whichsetsthestagefortheotherarticlesintheFéry&Ishiharahandbook.33. 53(b)canbeusedtocontradict53(a)ifstrawberriesisunderstoodasacontrastivetopic,withcharacteristic,rising,contrastivetopicintonation.That’snotthecontrastrelationthatwearetryingtocapture.

49

(53) a. JohnpickedstrawberriesatMary’sfarm.

b. Johnpicked[strawberries]FoCat[Sandy’s]FoCfarm.

Schwarzschild(1993:examples9(a)and(c),usingthecurrentnotation).

Schwarzschild(1993)alsoprovidesaremedyagainsttheover-FoCusingillustratedin(53).

Adaptedtoourframework,Schwarzschild’sContrastConstraintdeliversacriterionfor

disqualifyinganexpression𝛼fromrepresentingaContrastwithanentity𝔞ifaContrast

with𝔞couldalsoberepresentedbywhatwewillcalla“FoC/G-variant”of𝛼withasmaller

alternativesset.TwoexpressionsareFoC/G-variantsofeachotheriftheyareidentical

exceptfor[FoC]-markingand[G]-marking.54(a)to(e)illustratetheideabehind

Schwarzschild’sContrastConstraint.Since[G]-markingdoesnotaffectthecomputationof

A-values,weareneglecting[G]-markingpossibilities.

(54) 𝔭=thepropositionthatJohnpickedstrawberriesatMary’sfarm.

a. Johnpickedstrawberriesat[Sandy’s]FoCfarm.

b. Johnpickedstrawberriesat[Sandy’sfarm]FoC.

c. Johnpicked[strawberries]FoCat[Sandy’s]FoCfarm.

d. Johnpicked[strawberries]FoCat[Sandy’sfarm]FoC.

e. John[pickedstrawberriesatSandy’sfarm]FoC.

54(a)to(e)areFoC/G-variantsofeachother.Accordingto(49),theyshouldallrepresenta

Contrastwiththeproposition𝔭thatJohnpickedstrawberriesatMary’sfarm.Hereiswhy.

54(a)to(e)allhavethesameO-value,whichisthepropositionthatJohnpicked

strawberriesatSandy’sfarm.Thatpropositionisdifferentfrom𝔭,hencecondition(ii)of

(49)issatisfied.Condition(i)issatisfiedaswell,since𝔭isamemberoftheA-valuesof

54(a)to(e):SandyisanalternativeofMary,Sandy’sfarmisanalternativeofMary’sfarm,

strawberriesareamongthealternativesofstrawberries,andpickingstrawberriesat

Sandy’sfarmisanalternativeofpickingstrawberriesatMary’sfarm.Intuitively,only54(a)

representsagoodcontrastwith𝔭,however.AlltheothercasesareoverFoCused:Theyhave

eithertoomanyortoobigconstituentsthatareFoCused.

50

Tofindacriterionfordisqualifying54(b)to(e)fromrepresentingaContrastwith𝔭,we

comparetheirA-valuestothatof54(a).WhatweseeisthattheA-valueof54(a)isaproper

subsetofalltheothers:

(55) ⟦54(a)⟧A,C⊂⟦54(b)⟧A,C⊂⟦54(d)⟧A,C⊂⟦54(e)⟧A,C

⟦54(a)⟧A,C⊂⟦54(c)⟧A,C⊂⟦54(d)⟧A,C⊂⟦54(e)⟧A,C

Amongthechoicesin54(a)to(e),weshouldthuspicktheonewiththesmallest

alternativessetasrepresentingaContrastwith𝔭.IncorporatingSchwarzschild’sContrast

Constraint,ourdefinitionofContrastrepresentationcannowbeamendedasin(56):

(56) Contrastrepresentation(finalfornow)

Anexpression𝛼representsaContrastwithadiscoursereferent(individual,

property,proposition)𝔞justincaseconditions(i)to(iii)aresatisfied:

(i) 𝔞∈⟦𝛼⟧A,C.

(ii) 𝔞≠⟦𝛼⟧O,C

(iii) ThereisnoFoC/G-variant𝛽of𝛼suchthat⟦𝛽⟧A,C⊂⟦𝛼⟧A,Cand𝔞∈⟦𝛽⟧A,C.

Somecontrastsseemtrivial.In57(a)to(c),forexample,everywordispartofa[FoC]-

markedconstituentandthereareno[G]-markedorunmarked(new)parts.

(57) a. [Eliza]FoC[[mailed]FoC[thecaramels]FoC]

b. [Eliza]FoC[mailedthecaramels]FoC

c. [Eliza[mailedthecaramels]]FoC

It’stooeasyforthoserepresentationstosatisfytheContrastrequirementforFoCus,since

thealternativessetsgeneratedforsuch[FoC]-markingconfigurationsarecompletely

unrestricted:theycontainanyentitywhatsoever,aslongasitisoftherighttype.Definition

(56)doesn’tmake57(a)to(c)ineligibleforrepresentingContrasts,andrightlyso.57(a)to

(c)shouldn’tbedisqualifiedoffhand.57(a)mightbeutteredbyagradeschoolteacher

51

givingdictation,forexample,andtheconfigurationsin57(b)and(c)arenaturalinthe

contextof(58).

(58) Whatdidyourchildrendoforthecommongoodtoday?

a. SarahworkedattheSurvivalCenterallday,[Eliza]FoConly[mailedthe

caramelstoGrandpa]FoC.

b. Theonlythingworthmentioningisthat[Elizamailedthecaramelsto

Grandpa]FoC.

Aswewilldiscussshortly,thereispressureinStandardAmericanandBritishEnglishto

representContrastswithdiscoursereferentsfromtheprecedingcontext.Thatpressureis

unlikelytoextendtotrivialContrasts,though.Configurationslikethatin39(c),for

example,aresuretobeexemptfromwhateverpressurethereisforrepresentingContrasts.

SpeakersofEnglishwouldn’tevenbeabletodetectwhetherthereisa[FoC]-markin39(c).

AtwhatpointdoContrastsbecometootrivialtobeanorganizingforceindiscourse?

Whereexactlyisthecut-offpoint?Thequestionneedsmoreinvestigation.

FoCusingdoesn’talwaysrequireanantecedentintheprecedingdiscourse.Contrasting

discoursereferentscanbeaccommodatedonthespot,asinEllenPrince’scleftexample,

whichwelookedatearlier:

(14) TheleadersofthemilitanthomophilemovementinAmericagenerallyhavebeen

youngpeople.~𝔭[Itwas[they]FoCwhofoughtbackduringaviolentpoliceraidona

GreenwichVillagebarin1969],anincidentfromwhichmanygaysdatethebirthof

themoderncrusadeforhomosexualrights.

In(14),thepronountheyreferstotheyoungpeopleintherelevantdomain.FoCusingthey

evokesasanalternativethecomplementsetinthatdomain,thepeoplewhoarenolonger

young.Asaresult,thesentenceconveysthatyoungpeople,ratherthanolderpeople,were

theoneswhowerefightingbackduringthatpoliceraid.SincetheContrastingantecedentis

accommodated,theunFoCusedpartofthescopeoftheFoCusin(14)isnewinformation,

52

notGiven.WhileFoCusandGivennessoftentraveltogether,(14)standsasareminderthat

GivennessisinnowayanecessaryingredientforContrastrepresentation.

FoCusontheytriggersanexclusiveinterpretationin(14):thegroupofpeoplewhofought

backisrepresentedasagroupexcludingolderpeople.Wheredoesthisexclusive

interpretationcomefrom?(59),whichisinspiredbyanexamplefromWagner(2005,

2012),showsthatexclusiveinterpretationsdonotnecessarilyhavealocalsource.

(59) Me: DoesSallystilldrivethatexpensiveconvertibleherunclegaveherasa

weddingpresent?

You: Idon’tknow.WhatIcansaywithconfidenceisthatshedrivesa[réd]FoC

[convertible]G.

WhentellingmethatSallydrivesaredconvertibleyoudidn’tmeantoexcludethe

possibilitythatherconvertiblemightalsobeexpensive.Whatyoudidexcludewasthatyou

couldsaywithconfidencethatsheisdrivinganexpensiveconvertible.Theintendedscope

oftheFoCusonredstretchesallthewayuptothematrixclausein(59’),then,andthereis

againan(atleastpartially)accommodatedantecedent:

(59’) ~𝔭[WhatIcansaywithconfidenceisthatshedrivesa[réd]FoC[convertible]G].

Itmightbetemptingtothinkthatthe~operatoristhesourceoftheexclusive

interpretationin(59’).Butthatcan’tberight.FoCusdoesn’talwaystriggeranexclusive

interpretation:

(60) Me: Guesswhat!Oliverpassedthebarexam.

You: If[Oliver]FoC[passedthebarexam]G,barexamshavebecometooeasy.

In(60),FoCusonOlivertriggersascalar,ratherthananexclusive,interpretation,which

couldalsobebroughtoutbyanoverteven.What(60)isconveyingisthatOliverisatthe

lowerendofascalethatrankscandidatesaccordingtotheirchancestopassthebarexam.

53

Weconcludethatifthereisjustasingle~operator,itcan’tcomewithahard-wired

exclusiveinterpretation.Eitherthereisawholefamilyof~operatorsthatuseFoCus

alternativesindifferentways,or,moreplausibly,thereisasingle~operator,anddifferent

flavorsofFoCusaretheresultofseparateovertornon-overtoperatorsinteractingwithit,

asRooth(1992)proposed.34EitherpossibilityiscompatiblewiththetheoryofFoCus

representationadvocatedforhereandwithourcurrentknowledgeofFoCus-sensitive

operatorsthatmightcontributetothevariousflavorsofFoCusfoundacrosslanguages:

exhaustivityoperators(discussede.g.inSpector2016),scalaroperators(asine.g.Lahiri

1998),contrastivetopicoperators(asine.g.Constant2014),ormirativeoperators

(Bianchietal.2016).

Wehavenowlaidoutthesemanticpropertiesof[G]-markingand[FoC]-marking,butwe

haven’tyetsaidanythingaboutwhento[FoC]-markor[G]-mark,orhowthosetwo

featuresinteract.Williams(1997)discussescaseswhereconstituentsareGiven,butare

neverthelessobligatorilyFoCused.(61)illustrateswithanexamplethatisavariationof

onebyWilliams.

(61) Me: Romandoubtedthatitwouldbehotandpredictedthatitwouldbecold.

# You: [Máx]FoC[doubted]G[thatitwouldbecold]G.

Yourreplyin(61)isdeviantinthegivencontext,andseverelyso.AccordingtoWilliams

(1997:599),theproblemwithcaseslike(61)isthat“cumulativedestressingisnot

allowed.Onecannotdestressonephraseandthendestressitsneighbor,withseparate

licensingofeach.”Williams(1997,2012),Schwarzschild(1999),andWagner(2005,2012)

haveaccountsthat,eachintheirownway,convergeonWilliams’diagnosisofwhatis

wrongwithcaseslike(61).Rephrasingthediagnosisinourownwords,thereappearstobe

aproblemwhentwosisterconstituents𝛼and𝛽lackprominencewithouttheirmother

34. SeeBeck(2016)forageneraloverviewofFoCus-sensitiveoperatorsandtheirinteractionwiththe~operator.

54

constituent𝛼𝛽beingGiven.Inyourreplyin(61),bothdoubtedandthatitwouldbecoldare

Given,butdoubtedthatitwouldbecoldasawholeisnot.

Williams’diagnosisdoesn’tseemquiterightyet.62(a)and(b)goagainstit.35

(62) a. SallyranintoMaxbeforegettingmoneyfromtheATM.Sheendeduplénding

[[Max]G[someofthemoney]G].36

b. TheBorsalinoshopishavinganamazingsaleonhats.ButMax’spartner

wouldn’tlét[[Max]G[getaBorsalinohat]G].

62(a)and(b)areacceptablewithoutprominenceonanyoftheGivenconstituents,even

thoughMax’sgettingsomeofSally’smoneyorthepossibilityofhisgettingaBorsalinohat

arenotunderstoodtobecontextuallyimpliedbytherespectivestretchesofpreceding

discourse.Butthen62(a)and(b)haveconfigurationswheretwosisterconstituentslack

prominencewithouttheirmotherconstituentbeingGiven.What,then,isthedifference

betweenthedeviantexample(61)ontheonehand,andtheacceptable62(a)and(b)onthe

other?

Ourassessmentofthedevianceofyourreplyin(61)isthatinStandardAmericanand

BritishEnglish,thereispressureforrepresenting(non-trivial)Contrastswithsalient

discoursereferentsfromtheprecedingcontext.(61)isdeviantbecauseopportunitiesfor

35. Williamswouldruleout62(a)and(b)asviolationsofhisDisanaphoraLaw.ForSchwarzschild,hisGivennessrequirementwouldbeviolated,andforWagnerhisRelativeGivennessrequirement.36. Weareassumingthat[Maxsomeofthemoney]isaconstituentin62(a).ThisiscompatiblewithHarley(1995,2002)andotheranalysesofdoubleobjectconstructions.WithGreen(1974)andHarley,weassumefurtherthatthedoubleobjectconfigurationhereincludesasilentHAVE,sothatwehaveaconstituent[Max[HAVEsomeofthemoney]].

55

representingContrastshavebeenoverlooked.Thereweretwosuchopportunities,which

arerepresentedin(63)and(64).

(63) Me: Romandoubtedthatitwouldbehotand[(he)predictedthatitwouldbe

cold]𝔭.

You: ~𝔭[[Máx]FoC[dóubted]FoC[thatitwouldbecold]G].

(64) Me: [Romandoubtedthatitwouldbehot]𝔭andpredictedthatitwouldbecold.

You: ~𝔭[[Máx]FoC[doubted]Gthatitwouldbe[cóld]FoC].

62(a)and(b)wereconstructedsoastonotprovideopportunitiesforrepresenting(non-

trivial)Contrastswithsalientdiscoursereferentsfromtheprecedingcontext.Without

thoseopportunities,thepressureforrepresentingContrastsseemsoff.Thepressureis

pressurefromthediscoursecontext,then.It’sapushfordiscoursecoherence.Wepropose

theprinciplein(65),whichforces[FoC]-markingwhenthereareopportunitiesfor

representing(non-trivial)Contrasts:

(65) PressureforContrast

Represent(non-trivial)Contrasts.

Examples(63)and(64)notonlyillustratehowPressureforContrastcanforce[FoC]-

marking,theyalsoraisethequestionwhetherPressureforContrastcanblock[G]-marking.

(63)hasaFoCusedoccurrenceofdoubted,forexample,butthatoccurrenceofdoubtedis

alsoGivenaccordingtoourdefinition.Wemaywonder,then,whetheritshouldn’tbe[G]-

marked.Likewise,theFoCusedadjectivecoldin(64)ispartofasententialcomplement

thatisalsoGiven,sothereisagainaquestionwhetherthatcomplementshouldn’tbe[G]-

marked.Thatthose[G]-marksaregenuinelymissingissuggestedbytheprosodyof(63)

and(64),whichshowsnoimpactof[G]-marking,noteventheslightesthintofthereduced

prominencecharacteristicofSecondOccurrenceFoCus.Wetakethisisanindicationthat,

generally,[FoC]-markedconstituentscan’talsobe[G]-marked.Thisdoesn’texclude[FoC]-

markedconstituentsfrombeingproperlycontainedwithin[G]-markedconstituents,of

56

course,or[G]-markedconstituentsfrombeingproperlycontainedwithin[FoC]-marked

constituents.

Therearetwootherconstraintsfor[G]-markingthatourrepresentationshavebeen

conformingtowithoutmuchdiscussion.Oneisthatfunctionwords(asopposedtocontent

words)andstringsoffunctionwordsaregenerallynot[G]-marked.Thesecondonebars

redundantnestingof[G]-marks:aGivenconstituentisnot[G]-markedifitisproperly

containedinanotherGivenconstituent.Aswesawearlier,nested[G]-markingis

unnecessarysinceanypartofaGivenconstituentisGiven,too.Wehavethen:

(66) Pressurefor[G]-marking

[G]-markaGivenconstituent𝛼unlessoneof(i)to(iii)holds:

(i) 𝛼is[FoC]-marked.

(ii) 𝛼containsnocontentword.

(iii) 𝛼isproperlycontainedinaGivenconstituent.

Forourfinalexample,we’llputPressureforContrastandPressurefor[G]-markingtowork

toshedlightonanoldpuzzleabouttheroleofFoCusinforcingorblockingcoreference.37

(67)and(67’)illustrate.

(67) [BillblamedAmanda’sfather]𝔭andthen

a.[Amánda]FoC[[blamed]G[hím]FoC].

b.[Amánda]FoC[blamedhim]G.

Theonlydifferencebetween67(a)and(b)isthathimisFoCusedin67(a),butnotin67(b).

WeobservethathimhastorefertoBillin67(a),andtoAmanda’sfatherin67(b).Hereis

howwecanderivethisresult.PressureforContrasttellsusthat67(a)and(b)must

representaContrastwiththeantecedentproposition𝔭.SupposehimreferredtoAmanda’s

father.Inthatcase,67(a)wouldbeoverFoCused.ItwouldnotrepresentaContrastwith𝔭,

37. AnearlydiscussionofthephenomenonisinLakoff(1971).

57

since𝔭isalsointhealternativessetof67(b),whichisaFoC/G-variantof67(a)andhasa

smalleralternativesset.67(a)wouldalsoviolatePressurefor[G]-Marking,sincethe

propertyofblamingAmanda’sfatherisGiven.Therightrenditionwouldbe67(b),then.On

theotherhand,ifhimreferstoBill,67(a)doesrepresentaContrastwith𝔭.Thistimeround,

67(b)wouldberuledoutasviolatingboththeGivennessrequirementfor[G]-markingand

PressureforContrast:TheVPblamedhimisnotGiven,andtheantecedentproposition𝔭is

notinthealternativessetof67(b).

AquestionthatisnowonthetableiswhytherearesuchprinciplesasPressurefor

ContrastandPressurefor[G]-marking.Whatisitthatmakes[G]-markingandcertain

instancesof[FoC]-markingobligatoryinAmericanandBritishEnglish?Itmaybetempting

toinvoketheprinciple‘MaximizePresuppositions’,whichwasconsideredinHeim(1991).

AsHeimwaswellaware,though,suchaprinciplewouldneedtobeformulatedvery

carefully.Inourcase,wewouldhavetoexplain,forexample,whydiscourseparticleslike

Germanjaanddoch,whichonlyhaveuse-conditionalmeanings,too,arenotobligatory,

evenwhentheconditionstheyplaceonthediscoursecontextaremet.Whyshould

presencevsabsenceof[G]-markingorpresencevsabsenceof[FoC]-markingbedecidedby

MaximizePresuppositions,whilepresencevsabsenceofadiscourseparticlewouldnotbe?

Wewillhavetoleavethisquestionunansweredfornow.

Thissectionhaslaidoutthesyntacticandsemanticpropertiesofthefeatures[G]and

[FoC]:Whattheymean,whentheyhavetobeused,andwhentheycan’t.[FoC]islikethe

[wh]-featureinthatitformsoperatorstructuresandmaytriggermovementandverbal

agreement.The[G]-featureresemblesdiscourseparticleslikeGermanjaordoch(Kratzer

2004).Unlike[FoC]or[wh],butlikediscourseparticles,itdoesn’tformoperator

structures,butimposesitsdiscourserequirementdirectly.Whether[G]canalsodrive

movementortriggeragreementisstillanopenquestion.Existingworkonwordorder

variationreflectingapparentgivennesstendstonotdistinguishGivennessfromrelated

notionslikepresuppositionalityordefiniteness.Ifthedistinctionismade,asinFanselow

(2012,2016)andKučerová(2012),theobservedvariationisusuallyattributedtofactors

otherthanmereGivenness.AnexceptionisŠimíkandWierzba(2015),whoargue(against

58

Kučerová)thatGivenness,notpresuppositionality,isreflectedinCzechwordorder

variation.AccordingtoŠimíkandWierzba,CzechGivenphrasesavoidstress,but,unlike

EnglishGivenphrases,theymovetoleft-peripheralpositionstoescapethecanonical,

rightmost,stresspositioninCzech.ŠimíkandWierzba’sworkestablishesabridgetothe

workofReinhart(2006)andSzendröi(2001,2005,2017),andpointstothepossibilitythat

the[G]-feature,andpossiblyalsothe[FoC]-featureinsomelanguages,mightdrive

movementthataimsatcreatingaphonologicallymoredesirableinput.

8. Conclusion

Wehavearguedourcaseandshownwhatwesetouttoshowinthisarticle:Thecoreof

whathasbeentradedunderthename‘InformationStructure’canbedeconstructedinto

morphosyntacticfeaturesthathavefamiliartypesofmeaningsandarespelledout

prosodically,ratherthansegmentallyortonally,inStandardAmericanandBritishEnglish.

[FoC]-markinghighlightsContrastsandaimsforhighestprominenceinasentence.[G]-

markingissensitivetoGivennessandresists(phrase-level)prominence.Apartfromthe

idiosyncraticpropertiesofthosefeatures,whichguidetheirsyntacticdistribution,

felicitoususe,andphonologicalspellout,nospecialgrammaticalmechanismsor

architectureshavetobeassumedtoaccountforthemanyphonological,syntactic,

semantic,andpragmaticmanifestationsofnotionsrelatedtoGivennessandFoCus.

Theproposedfeaturesystemwith[G]and[FoC]isafarcryfromthesystemofSelkirk

(1984,1995),withitsbaroquenestedfeaturestructuresandadhocfocusprojection

principles.Wenowhavetwogenuinemorphosyntacticfeaturesthatfitintothetypologyof

grammaticalfeatures.EnglishisnolongeranobstacleforAboh’sConjecture.

59

References

Aboh,EnochO.2007.FocusedversusNon-FocusedWh-Phrases.FocusStrategiesinAfrican

Languages:TheInteractionofFocusandGrammarinNiger-CongoandAfro-Asiatic,ed.by

K.Hartmann&M.Zimmermann,287-314.Berlin:DeGruyterMouton.

—.2007.LeftwardFocusversusRightwardFocus:TheKwa-BantuConspiracy.SOASWorking

PapersinLinguistics15.81-104.

—.2010.InformationStructureBeginswiththeNumeration.Iberia:AnInternationalJournalof

TheoreticalLinguistics2.12-42.

—.2016.InformationStructure:ACartographicPerspective.TheOxfordHandbookofInformation

Structure,ed.byC.Féry&S.Ishihara,147-64.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Aldridge,Edith.2018.C-TInheritanceandtheLeftPeripheryinOldJapanese.Glossa3(1):article

26.1-22.

Ameka,FelixK.2010.InformationPackagingConstructionsinKwa:MicrovariationandTypology.

TopicsinKwaSyntax,ed.byE.O.Aboh&J.Essegbey,141-76.Dordrecht:Springer.

Beaver,David&DanVelleman.2011.TheCommunicativeSignificanceofPrimaryandSecondary

Accents.Lingua121.1671-92.

Beaver,DavidI.,BradyClark,EdwardStantonFlemming,T.FlorianJaeger&MariaWolters.2007.

WhenSemanticsMeetsPhonetics:AcousticalStudiesofSecond-OccurrenceFocus.

Language83.245-76.

Beck,Sigrid.2016.FocusSensitiveOperators.TheOxfordHandbookofInformationStructure,ed.

byC.Féry&S.Ishihara,227-50:OxfordUniversityPress.

Belletti,Adriana.2001.InversionasFocalization.SubjectInversioninRomanceandtheTheoryof

UniversalGrammar,ed.byA.C.J.Hulk&J.-I.Pollock,60-90.Oxford:OxfordUniversity

Press.

—.2004.AspectsoftheLowIPArea.TheStructureofCPandIP.TheCartographyofSyntactic

Structures,Volume2,ed.byL.Rizzi,16-51.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

60

Bennett,Ryan,EmilyElfner&JamesMcCloskey.2016.LightesttotheRight:AnApparently

AnomalousDisplacementinIrish.LinguisticInquiry47(2).169-234.

Bianchi,Valentina,GuilianoBocci&SilvioCruschina.2016.FocusFronting,Unexpectedness,and

EvaluativeImplicatures.Semantics&Pragmatics9:article3.1-54.

Bolinger,Dwight.1965.PitchAccentandSentenceRhythm.FormsofEnglish:Accent,Morpheme,

Order,ed.byI.Abe&T.Kanekiyo,139-80.Tokyo:Hokuou.

Bresnan,Joan.1971.SentenceStressandSyntacticTransformations.Language47.257-81.

Büring,Daniel.2015.UnalternativeSemantics.Proceedingsofthe25thSemanticsandLinguistic

TheoryConference,ed.byS.D'Antonio,M.Maroney&C.R.Little,550-75.Stanford

University:LinguisticSocietyofAmericaandCornellLinguisticsCircle.

—.2016.IntonationandMeaningOxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Calhoun,Sasha.2010.TheCentralityofMetricalStructureinSignalingInformationStructure:A

ProbabilisticPerspective.Language86.1-42.

Chafe,WallaceL.1976.Givenness,Contrastiveness,Definiteness,Subjects,TopicsandPointof

View.SubjectandTopic,ed.byC.N.Li,27-55.NewYork:AcademicPress.

Chomsky,Noam.1971.DeepStructure,SurfaceStructure,andSemanticInterpretation.Semantics.

AnInterdisciplinaryReaderinPhilosophy,LinguisticsandPsychology,ed.byD.D.

Steinberg&L.A.Jakobovits,183-216.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

—.1976.ConditionsonRulesofGrammar.LinguisticAnalysis2.303-50.

Chomsky,Noam&MorrisHalle.1968.TheSoundPatternofEnglish:TheMITPress.

Constant,Noah.2014.ContrastiveTopic:MeaningandRealization:UniversityofMassachusetts

Amherst.

D'Imperio,Mariapaola.1997.BreadthofFocus,Modality,andProminencePerceptionin

NeapolitanItalian.OSUWorkingPapersinLinguistics50.19-39.

Elfner,Emily.2012.Syntax-ProsodyInteractionsinIrish:UniversityofMassachusettsAmherst

PhDdissertation.

—.2015.RecursioninProsodicPhrasing:EvidencefromConnemaraIrish.NaturalLanguageand

LinguisticTheory33.1169-208.

Fanselow,Gisbert.2012.ScramblingasFormalMovement.ContrastsandPositionsinInformation

Structure,ed.byI.Kučerová&A.Neeleman,267-95.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity

Press.

61

—.2016.SyntacticandProsodicReflexesofInformationStructureinGermanic.TheOxford

HandbookofInformationStructure,ed.byC.Féry&S.Ishihara,621-41.Oxford:Oxford

UniversityPress.

Féry,Caroline&ShinichiroIshihara.2016.Introduction.TheOxfordHandbookofInformation


Féry,Caroline&VieriSamek-Lodovici.2006.FocusProjectionandProsodicProminenceinNested

Foci.Language82.131-50.

vonFintel,Kai.1994.RestrictionsonQuantifierDomains:UniversityofMassachusettsAmherst

PhDDissertation.

—.1999.NPILicensing,StrawsonEntailment,andContextDependency.JournalofSemantics16.

97-148.

Frota,Sonia.2000.ProsodyandFocusinEuropeanPortuguese:PhonologicalPhrasingand

IntonationNewYork:GarlandPublishing.

Gallin,Daniel.1975.IntensionalandHigher-OrderModalLogicAmsterdam:North-Holland.

Gordon,MatthewK.2003.ThePhonologyofPitchAccentsinChickasaw.Phonology20.173-218.

Grabe,Esther.1998.ComparativeIntonationalPhonology:EnglishandGerman:Universiteit

NijmegenPhDdissertation.

Green,Georgia.1974.SemanticsandSyntacticRegularityBloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

Gutzmann,Daniel.2015.Use-ConditionalMeaningOxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hagstrom,Paul.1998.DecomposingQuestions.MITPhDdissertation.

—.2004.ParticleMovementinSinhalaandJapanese.ClauseStructureinSouthAsianLanguages,

ed.byV.Dayal&A.Mahajan,227-52.Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublishers.

Hamblin,CharlesL.1973.QuestionsinMontagueEnglish.FoundationsofLanguage10.41-53.

Harley,Heidi.1995.Subjects,Events,andLicensing:MITPhD.

—.2002.PossessionandtheDoubleObjectConstruction.YearbookofLinguisticVariation2.29-

68.

Hayes,Bruce.1995.MetricalStressTheoryChicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

Hedberg,Nancy.1990.DiscoursePragmaticsandCleftSentencesinEnglish:Universityof

Minnesota.

—.2010.TheReferentialStatusofClefts.Language76.891-920.

62

—.2013.MultipleFocusandCleftSentences.CleftStructures,ed.byK.Hartmann&T.Veenstra,

227-50.Amsterdam:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.

Heim,Irene.1991.ArtikelundDefinitheit.Semantik/Semantics.AnInternationalHandbookof

ContemporaryResearched.byA.vonStechow&D.Wunderlich,487-535.Berlin:de

Gruyter.

Jackendoff,RayS.1972.SemanticInterpretationinGenerativeGrammarCambridge/Mass.:The

MITPress.

Kager,René.2007.FeetandMetricalStress.TheCambridgeHandbookofPhonology,ed.byP.de

Lacy,195-227.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Kamp,Hans.1981.ATheoryofTruthandSemanticRepresentation.FormalMethodsintheStudy

ofLanguage.Part1,ed.byJ.Groenendijk,T.Janssen&M.Stokhof,277-322.Amsterdam:

MathematischCentrum.

Kaplan,David.1999.TheMeaningof'Ouch'and'Oops'.PaperpresentedattheCornellConference

onContextDependency,CornellUniversity,IthacaNewYork.

Katz,Jonah&ElisabethSelkirk.2011.ContrastiveFocusvs.Discourse-New:Evidencefrom

PhoneticProminenceinEnglish.Language87.771-816.

Katzir,Roni.2013.ANoteonContrast.NaturalLanguageSemantics21.333-43.

Kishimoto,Hideki.2018.SinhalaFocusConcordConstructionsfromaDiscourse-Syntactic

Perspective.Glossa3.1-25.

Kiss,KatalinÉ.1998.IdentificationalFocusversusInformationFocus.Language74.245-73.

Kisseberth,Charles.1984.DigoTonology.StudiesinBantuTonology,ed.byG.N.Clements&J.A.

Goldsmith,105-82.Dordrecht:Foris.

Kotek,Hadas&MichaelYoshitakaErlewine.2018.CovertFocusMovementwithPied-Piping:

EvidencefromTanglewood.LinguisticInquiry49.441-63.

Kratzer,Angelika.1999.Beyond'Ouch'and'Oops'.PaperpresentedattheCornellConferenceon

ContextDependency,CornellUniversity,IthacaNewYork.

—.2004.InterpretingFocus:PresupposedorExpressiveMeanings?TheoreticalLinguistics30.

123-36.

Krifka,Manfred.2004.TheSemanticsofQuestionsandtheFocusationofAnswers.Topicand

Focus:ACross-LinguisticPerspective,ed.byC.Lee,M.Gordon&D.Büring,139-51.

Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublishers.

63

Kučerová,Ivona.2012.GrammaticalMarkingofGivenness.NaturalLanguageSemantics20.1-30.

Kuroda,Sige-Yuki.2007.OntheSyntaxofOldJapanese.CurrentIssuesintheHistoryand

StructureofJapanese,ed.byB.Frellesvig,M.Shibatani&J.C.Smith,263-317.Tokyo:

KurosioPublishers.

Ladd,RobertD.1980.TheStructureofIntonationalMeaning.EvidencefromEnglishBloomington

&London:IndianaUniversityPress.

—.1996.IntonationalPhonologyCambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

—.2008.IntonationalPhonology.SecondEdition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lahiri,Utpal.1998.FocusandNegativePolarityinHindi.NaturalLanguageSemantics6.57-125.

Lakoff,George.1971.PresuppositionandRelativeWell-formedness.Semantics.An

InterdisciplinaryReaderinPhilosophy,Linguistics,andPsychology,ed.byD.D.Steinberg&

L.A.Jakobovits,329-40.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Liberman,Mark&JanetPierrehumbert.1984.IntonationalInvarianceunderChangesinPitch

RangeandLength.LanguageSoundStructure,ed.byM.Aronoff&R.Oehrle,157-233.

Cambridge/Mass.:TheMITPress.

Liberman,Mark&AlanPrince.1977.OnStressandLinguisticRhythm.LinguisticInquiry8.249-

336.

McCarthy,John&AlanPrince.1999.FaithfulnessandIdentityinProsodicMorphology.The

ProsodyMorphologyInterface,ed.byR.Kager,H.vanderHulst&W.Zonneveld,218-309.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Molnár,Valéria.2001.ContrastfromaContrastivePerspective.PaperpresentedtotheESSLLI

2001WorkshoponInformationStructure,DiscourseStructureandDiscourseSemantics,

Helsinki,2001.

Neeleman,Ad&KrisztaSzendröi.2004.SupermanSentences.LinguisticInquiry35.149-59.

Nespor,Marina&IreneVogel.1986.ProsodicPhonologyDordrecht:Foris.

Pierrehumbert,Janet&MaryBeckman.1988.JapaneseToneStructureCambridge/Mass.:TheMIT

Press.

Pierrehumbert,Janet&JuliaHirschberg.1990.TheMeaningofIntonationalContoursinthe

InterpretationofDiscourse.IntentionsinCommunication,ed.byP.Cohen,J.Morgan&M.

Pollack,271-311.Cambridge/Mass.:TheMITPress.

Potts,Christopher.2003.TheLogicofConventionalImplicatures:UCSantaCruz.

64

Prince,Alan&PaulSmolensky.1993.OptimalityTheory:ConstraintInteractioninGenerative

Grammar.Unpublishedmanuscript.RutgersUniversity&UniversityofColoradoat

Boulder.

—.2004.OptimalityTheory:ConstraintInteractioninGenerativeGrammar.Oxford:Blackwell

Publishing.

Prince,Ellen.1978.AComparisonofWh-CleftsandIt-CleftsinDiscourse.Language54.883-906.

Reinhart,Tanya.2006.InterfaceStrategies:OptimalandCostlyComputationsCambridge/Mass.:

TheMITPress.

Rialland,Annie&StéphanieRobert.2001.TheIntonationalSystemofWolof.Linguistics39.893-

939.

Rizzi,Luigi.1997.TheFineStructureoftheLeftPeriphery.ElementsofGrammar,ed.byL.

Haegeman,281-337.Dordrecht:Springer.

Roberts,Craige.1996.InformationStructure:TowardsanIntegratedFormalTheoryof

Pragmatics.OSUWPLVolume49:PapersinSemantics,ed.byJ.H.Yoon&A.Kathol,91-136.

—.2012.InformationStructure:TowardsanIntegratedFormalTheoryofPragmatics.Semantics

&Pragmatics5:article6.1-69.

Rochemont,Michael.1986.FocusinGenerativeGrammarAmsterdam:JohnBenjaminsPublishing

Company.

—.2013.DiscourseNew,Focused,andGiven.ApproachestoHungarian.Volume13:Papersfrom

the2011LundConference,ed.byJ.Brandtler,V.Molnár&C.Platzack,199-228.

Amsterdam:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.

—.2013.DiscourseNew,F-Marking,andNormalStress.Lingua136.38-62.

—.2016.Givenness.TheOxfordHandbookofInformationStructure,ed.byC.Féry&S.Ishihara,

41-63.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Rooth,Mats.1992.ATheoryofFocusInterpretation.NaturalLanguageSemantics1.75-116.

—.1996.OntheInterfacePrinciplesforIntonationalFocus.ProceedingsofSALTVI,ed.byT.

Galloway&J.Spence,202-26.Ithaca,NewYork:CornellUniversity.

—.2015.RepresentingFocusScopingoverNew.NELS45,ed.byT.Bui&D.Özyıldız,1-15.

Amherst,Massachusetts:GLSA.

—.2016.AlternativeSemantics.TheOxfordHandbookofInformationStructure,ed.byC.Féry&S.

Ishihara,19-40.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

65

Schwarzschild,Roger.1993.TheContrastivenessofAssociatedFoci.Unpublishedmanuscript.

RutgersUniversity.

—.1999.GIVENness,AvoidFandOtherConstraintsonthePlacementofFocus.NaturalLanguage

Semantics7.141-77.

Selkirk,Elisabeth.1984.PhonologyandSyntax.TheRelationBetweenSoundandStructure

Cambridge/Mass.:TheMITPress.

—.1986.OnDerivedDomainsinSentencePhonology.Phonology3.371-405.

—.1995.SentenceProsody:Intonation,StressandPhrasing.TheHandbookofPhonological

Theory,ed.byJ.A.Goldsmith,550-69.Oxford:Blackwell.

—.2002.ContrastiveFOCUSvs.PresentationalFocus:ProsodicEvidencefromRightNodeRaising

inEnglish.PaperpresentedtoSpeechProsody2002:ProceedingsoftheFirstInternational

ProsodyConference,Aix-en-Provence,2002.

—.2007.ContrastiveFocus,Givenness,andtheUnmarkedStatusofDiscourse-New.

InterdisciplinaryStudiesonInformationStructure,ed.byC.Féry,G.Fanselow&M.Krifka,

125-45.Potsdam:UniversitätsverlagPotsdam.

—.2008.ContrastiveFocus,Givenness,andtheUnmarkedStatusof“Discourse-New”.Acta

LinguisticaHungarica55.1-16.

—.2011.TheSyntax-PhonologyInterface.TheHandbookofPhonologicalTheory.2ndEdition,ed.

byJ.A.Goldsmith,J.Riggle&A.Yu,435-84.Oxford:Wiley.

Selkirk,Elisabeth&SeunghunJ.Lee(eds)2015.ConstituencyinSentencePhonology.Thematic

issueofPhonology32(1).

Shattuck-Hufnagel,Stefanie,MariOstendorf&KennethRoss.1994.StressShiftandEarlyPitch

AccentPlacementinLexicalItemsinAmericanEnglish.JournalofPhonetics22.357-88.

Šimík,Radek&MartaWierzba.2015.TheRoleofGivenness,Presupposition,andProsodyinCzech

WordOrder:AnExperimentalStudy.SemanticsandPragmatics8.1-103.

Slade,Benjamin.2018.HistoryofFocus-ConcordConstructionsandFocus-AssociatedParticlesin

Sinhala,withComparisontoDravidianandJapanese.Glossa3(1):article2.1-28.

Spector,Benjamin.2016.ComparingExhaustivityOperators.SemanticsandPragmatics9.1-33.

Szendröi,Kriszta.2001.FocusandtheSyntax-PhonologyInterface:UniversityCollegeLondonPhD

Dissertation.

66

—.2005.FocusMovement(withSpecialReferencetoHungarian).TheBlackwellCompanionto

Syntax,ed.byM.Everaert&H.v.Riemsdijk,270–335.Oxford:Blackwell.

—.2017.TheSyntaxofInformationStructureandthePFInterface.Glossa2(1):article32.1-28.

Torrence,Harold.2013.APromotionAnalysisofWolofClefts.Syntax16.176-215.

Truckenbrodt,Hubert.1995.PhonologicalPhrases-theirRelationtoSyntax,Focus,and

Prominence:MIT.

—.1999.OntheRelationbetweenSyntacticPhrasesandPhonologicalPhrases.LinguisticInquiry

30.219-55.

—.2004.FinalLoweringinNon-FinalPosition.JournalofPhonetics32.313-48.

—.2006.PhrasalStress.EncyclopediaofLanguageandLinguistics.2ndedition,ed.byK.Brown,

572-79.Oxford:Elsevier.

—.2007a.TheSyntax-PhonologyInterface.TheCambridgeHandbookofPhonology,ed.byP.de

Lacy,435-56.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

—.2007b.UpstepofEdgeTonesandofNuclearAccents.TonesandTunes.Volume2:

ExperimentalStudiesinWordandSentenceProsody,ed.byC.Gussenhoven&T.Riad,349-

86.Berlin:Mouton.

—.2016.Focus,Intonation,andTonalHeight.TheOxfordHandbookofInformationStructure,ed.

byC.Féry&S.Ishihara,461-82.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.Vallduví,Enric.2016.InformationStructure.TheCambridgeHandbookofFormalSemantics,ed.

byM.Aloni&P.Dekker,728-55.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Vallduví,Enric&MariaVilkuna.1998.OnRhemeandKontrast.SyntaxandSemantics29.The

LimitsofSyntax,ed.byP.Culicover&L.McNally,79-108.SanDiego:AcademicPress.

Wagner,Michael.2005.ProsodyandRecursion:MIT.

—.2012.FocusandGivenness:AUnifiedApproach.ContrastsandPositionsinInformation

Structure,ed.byI.Kučerová&A.Neeleman,102-47.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity

Press.

Whitman,John.1997.KakarimusubifromaComparativePerspective.Japanese/KoreanLinguistics

6,ed.byH.-M.Sohn&J.Haig.Stanford:CenterfortheStudyofLanguageandInformation.

Williams,Edwin.1997.BlockingandAnaphora.LinguisticInquiry28.577-628.

67

—.2012.TheLocalityofFocusingandtheCoherenceofAnaphora.ContrastsandPositionsin

InformationStructure,ed.byI.Kučerová&A.Neeleman,148-74.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Yip,Moira.2002.ToneCambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

—.2007.Tone.TheCambridgeHandbookofPhonology,ed.byP.deLacy,229-51.Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.

Zec,Draga.1999.FootedTonesandTonalFeet:RhythmicConstituencyinaPitchAccent

Language.Phonology16.225-64.

—.2007.TheSyllable.TheCambridgeHandbookofPhonology,ed.byP.deLacy,161-94.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Zubizarreta,MaríaLuisa.1998.Prosody,Focus,andWordOrderCambridge/Mass.:TheMITPress.

—.2016.NuclearStressandInformationStructure.TheOxfordHandbookofInformation


deconstructing information structure

Documents