Focus is best frequently accepted in linguistics to accredit to that allotment of a book which expresses the centre of absorption or affirmation of the utterance, that allotment of its acceptation which is not accepted in discourse.12 Related agreement for the same, or awful agnate concepts, are Comment and Rheme.234
Sunday, 11 March 2012
Generative approaches
In abundant linguistics, focus determines which allotment of the book contributes fresh or “textually and situationally non-derivable information”.5
Standard abundant approaches to grammar altercate that phonology and semantics cannot barter advice anon (See Fig. 1). Therefore, syntactic mechanisms including appearance and transformations accommodate prosodic advice apropos focus that is anesthetized to the semantics and phonology.
ocus may be emphasis either prosodically or syntactically or both, depending on the language. In syntax this can be done allotment focus markers, as apparent in (1), or by preposing as apparent in (2):
(1) I saw JOHN f.
(2) JOHN f, I saw.
In (1), focus is apparent syntactically with the subscripted ‘f’ which is accomplished phonologically by a nuclear angle accent. Clefting induces an binding accentuation break. Therefore in (2), focus is apparent via chat adjustment and a nuclear angle accent.
Focus additionally relates to phonology and has ramifications for how and area suprasegmental advice such as rhythm, stress, and accentuation is encoded in the grammar, and in accurate intonational tunes which mark focus.6 Speakers can use angle accents on syllables to announce what word(s) are in focus. Fresh words are generally absolute while accustomed words are not. The absolute word(s) forms the focus domain. However, not all of the words in a focus area charge be accented. (See 789 for rules on emphasis adjustment and focus-marking). The focus area can be either broad, as apparent in (3), or narrow, as apparent in (4) and (5):
(3) Did you see a blah dog or a cat? I saw a blah DOG f.
(4) Did you see a blah dog or a blah cat? I saw a blah DOG f.
(5) Did you see a blah dog or a atramentous dog? I saw a GREY f dog.
The question/answer archetype apparent in (3)–(5) has been activated by a array of theorists610 to allegorize the ambit of contexts a book absolute focus can be acclimated felicitously. Specifically, the question/answer archetype has been acclimated as a analytic for what counts as fresh information. For example, the focus arrangement in (3) would be awkward if the catechism was ‘Did you see a blah dog or a atramentous dog?’.
In (3) and (4), the angle emphasis is apparent in bold. In (3), the angle emphasis is placed on dog but the absolute noun byword a blah dog is beneath focus. In (4), the angle emphasis is additionally placed on dog but alone the noun dog is beneath focus. In (5), angle emphasis is placed on blah and alone the adjective blah is beneath focus.
Historically, abundant proposals fabricated focus a affection apprenticed to a distinct chat aural a sentence. Chomsky and Halle11 formulated a Nuclear Emphasis Aphorism that proposed there to be a affiliation amid the capital emphasis of a book and a distinct constituent. Since this basic is arresting sententially in a way that can adverse with lexical stress, this was originally referred to as "nuclear" stress. The purpose of this aphorism was to abduction the intuition that aural anniversary sentence, there is one chat in accurate that is absolute added acutely due to its emphasis - this is said to anatomy the basis of that sentence.
Focus was after appropriate to be a structural position at the alpha of the book (or on the larboard periphery) in Romance languages such as Italian, as the lexical arch of a Focus Byword (or FP, afterward the X-bar approach of byword structure). Jackendoff,12 Selkirk,78 Rooth,1314 Krifka,15 Schwarzschild9 altercate that focus consists of a affection that is assigned to a bulge in the syntactic representation of a sentence. Because focus is now broadly apparent as agnate amid abundant stress, or nuclear angle accent, this affection is generally associated with the phonologically arresting element(s) of a sentence.
Sound anatomy (phonological and phonetic) studies of focus are not as numerous, as relational emphasis phenomena tend to be of greater absorption to syntacticians and semanticists. But this may be changing: a contempo abstraction begin that not alone do focused words and phrases accept a college ambit of angle compared to words in the aforementioned book but that words afterward the focus in both American English and Mandarin Chinese were lower than accustomed in angle and words afore a focus are unaffected. The absolute usages of focus in accustomed emphasis are still uncertain. A continuum of possibilities could possibly be authentic amid absolutely audible and staccato styles of accent based on variations in pragmatics or timing.
Standard abundant approaches to grammar altercate that phonology and semantics cannot barter advice anon (See Fig. 1). Therefore, syntactic mechanisms including appearance and transformations accommodate prosodic advice apropos focus that is anesthetized to the semantics and phonology.
ocus may be emphasis either prosodically or syntactically or both, depending on the language. In syntax this can be done allotment focus markers, as apparent in (1), or by preposing as apparent in (2):
(1) I saw JOHN f.
(2) JOHN f, I saw.
In (1), focus is apparent syntactically with the subscripted ‘f’ which is accomplished phonologically by a nuclear angle accent. Clefting induces an binding accentuation break. Therefore in (2), focus is apparent via chat adjustment and a nuclear angle accent.
Focus additionally relates to phonology and has ramifications for how and area suprasegmental advice such as rhythm, stress, and accentuation is encoded in the grammar, and in accurate intonational tunes which mark focus.6 Speakers can use angle accents on syllables to announce what word(s) are in focus. Fresh words are generally absolute while accustomed words are not. The absolute word(s) forms the focus domain. However, not all of the words in a focus area charge be accented. (See 789 for rules on emphasis adjustment and focus-marking). The focus area can be either broad, as apparent in (3), or narrow, as apparent in (4) and (5):
(3) Did you see a blah dog or a cat? I saw a blah DOG f.
(4) Did you see a blah dog or a blah cat? I saw a blah DOG f.
(5) Did you see a blah dog or a atramentous dog? I saw a GREY f dog.
The question/answer archetype apparent in (3)–(5) has been activated by a array of theorists610 to allegorize the ambit of contexts a book absolute focus can be acclimated felicitously. Specifically, the question/answer archetype has been acclimated as a analytic for what counts as fresh information. For example, the focus arrangement in (3) would be awkward if the catechism was ‘Did you see a blah dog or a atramentous dog?’.
In (3) and (4), the angle emphasis is apparent in bold. In (3), the angle emphasis is placed on dog but the absolute noun byword a blah dog is beneath focus. In (4), the angle emphasis is additionally placed on dog but alone the noun dog is beneath focus. In (5), angle emphasis is placed on blah and alone the adjective blah is beneath focus.
Historically, abundant proposals fabricated focus a affection apprenticed to a distinct chat aural a sentence. Chomsky and Halle11 formulated a Nuclear Emphasis Aphorism that proposed there to be a affiliation amid the capital emphasis of a book and a distinct constituent. Since this basic is arresting sententially in a way that can adverse with lexical stress, this was originally referred to as "nuclear" stress. The purpose of this aphorism was to abduction the intuition that aural anniversary sentence, there is one chat in accurate that is absolute added acutely due to its emphasis - this is said to anatomy the basis of that sentence.
Focus was after appropriate to be a structural position at the alpha of the book (or on the larboard periphery) in Romance languages such as Italian, as the lexical arch of a Focus Byword (or FP, afterward the X-bar approach of byword structure). Jackendoff,12 Selkirk,78 Rooth,1314 Krifka,15 Schwarzschild9 altercate that focus consists of a affection that is assigned to a bulge in the syntactic representation of a sentence. Because focus is now broadly apparent as agnate amid abundant stress, or nuclear angle accent, this affection is generally associated with the phonologically arresting element(s) of a sentence.
Sound anatomy (phonological and phonetic) studies of focus are not as numerous, as relational emphasis phenomena tend to be of greater absorption to syntacticians and semanticists. But this may be changing: a contempo abstraction begin that not alone do focused words and phrases accept a college ambit of angle compared to words in the aforementioned book but that words afterward the focus in both American English and Mandarin Chinese were lower than accustomed in angle and words afore a focus are unaffected. The absolute usages of focus in accustomed emphasis are still uncertain. A continuum of possibilities could possibly be authentic amid absolutely audible and staccato styles of accent based on variations in pragmatics or timing.
Prominence and meaning
Focus anon affects the semantics, or meaning, of a sentence. Different means of pronouncing the book affects the meaning, or, what the apostle intends to convey. Focus distinguishes one estimation of a book from added interpretations of the aforementioned book that do not alter in chat order, but may alter in the way in which the words are taken to chronicle to anniversary other. To see the furnishings of focus on meaning, accede the afterward examples:
(6) John alone alien Bill to SUE.
In (6), emphasis is placed on Sue. There are two readings of (6) - ample focus apparent in (7) and attenuated focus apparent in (8):
(7) John alone introduced Bill to SUE f.
(8) John alone alien Bill to SUE f.
The acceptation of (7) can be abbreviated as the alone affair John did is introducing Bill to Sue. The acceptation of (8) can be abbreviated as the alone being to whom John alien Bill is Sue.
In both (7) and (8), focus is associated with the focus acute announcement only. This is accepted as affiliation with focus. The chic of focus acute expressions in which focus can be associated with includes exclusives (only, just) non-scalar additives (merely, too) scalar additives (also, even), particularlizers (in particular, for example), intensifiers, quantificational adverbs, quantificational determiners, sentential connectives, emotives, counterfactuals, superlatives, antithesis and generics.6 It is claimed that focus operators charge c-command their
(6) John alone alien Bill to SUE.
In (6), emphasis is placed on Sue. There are two readings of (6) - ample focus apparent in (7) and attenuated focus apparent in (8):
(7) John alone introduced Bill to SUE f.
(8) John alone alien Bill to SUE f.
The acceptation of (7) can be abbreviated as the alone affair John did is introducing Bill to Sue. The acceptation of (8) can be abbreviated as the alone being to whom John alien Bill is Sue.
In both (7) and (8), focus is associated with the focus acute announcement only. This is accepted as affiliation with focus. The chic of focus acute expressions in which focus can be associated with includes exclusives (only, just) non-scalar additives (merely, too) scalar additives (also, even), particularlizers (in particular, for example), intensifiers, quantificational adverbs, quantificational determiners, sentential connectives, emotives, counterfactuals, superlatives, antithesis and generics.6 It is claimed that focus operators charge c-command their
Focus marking
It has been claimed that fresh advice in the address is absolute while accustomed advice is not. Generally, the backdrop of fresh and accustomed are referred to as a word's address status. Definitions of fresh and accustomed vary. Halliday5 defines accustomed as “anaphorically” recoverable, while fresh is authentic to be “textually and situationally non-derivable information”. To allegorize this point, accede the afterward address in (12) and (13):
(12) Why don’t you accept some French TOAST?
(13) I’ve abandoned how to MAKE French toast.24
In (13) we agenda that the verb accomplish is not accustomed by the book in (12). It is address new. Therefore, it is accessible for accentuation. However, acknowledgment in (13) is accustomed in (12). Therefore, it is not accessible for accentuation. As ahead mentioned, angle accenting can chronicle to focus. Absolute words are generally said to be in focus or F-marked generally represented by F-markers. The accord amid emphasis adjustment is advised through the address cachet of accurate syntactic nodes.25 The aperture of F-markings in a syntactic timberline is acute to altercation anatomy and head-phrase relations.9
(12) Why don’t you accept some French TOAST?
(13) I’ve abandoned how to MAKE French toast.24
In (13) we agenda that the verb accomplish is not accustomed by the book in (12). It is address new. Therefore, it is accessible for accentuation. However, acknowledgment in (13) is accustomed in (12). Therefore, it is not accessible for accentuation. As ahead mentioned, angle accenting can chronicle to focus. Absolute words are generally said to be in focus or F-marked generally represented by F-markers. The accord amid emphasis adjustment is advised through the address cachet of accurate syntactic nodes.25 The aperture of F-markings in a syntactic timberline is acute to altercation anatomy and head-phrase relations.9
Selkirk and accent placement
Selkirk78 develops an absolute annual of how F-marking propagates up syntactic trees. Accenting indicates F-marking. F-marking projects up a accustomed syntactic timberline such that both lexical items, i.e. terminal nodes and phrasal levels, i.e. nonterminal nodes, can be F-marked. Specifically, a set of rules determines how and area F-marking occurs in the syntax. These rules are apparent in (1) and (2):
(14) Basic Rule: An absolute chat is f-marked.
(15) Focus Projection:
a. F-marking the arch of a byword licenses F-marking of the phrase.
b. F-marking of the centralized altercation of a arch licenses the F-marking of the head.
c. F-marking of the anterior of a trace larboard by NP or wh-movement licenses F-marking of the trace.
To see how (14) and (15) apply, accede the afterward example:
Judy f adopted f a parrot f f foc25
Because there is no aphorism in (14) or (15) that licenses F-marking to the absolute article from any added node, the absolute article parrot charge be absolute as adumbrated in bold. Aphorism (15b) allows F-marking to activity from the absolute article to the arch verb adopted. Aphorism (15a) allows F-marking to activity from the arch verb to the VP adopted a parrot. Selkirk78 assumes the accountable Judy is absolute if F-marked as adumbrated in bold.25
(14) Basic Rule: An absolute chat is f-marked.
(15) Focus Projection:
a. F-marking the arch of a byword licenses F-marking of the phrase.
b. F-marking of the centralized altercation of a arch licenses the F-marking of the head.
c. F-marking of the anterior of a trace larboard by NP or wh-movement licenses F-marking of the trace.
To see how (14) and (15) apply, accede the afterward example:
Judy f adopted f a parrot f f foc25
Because there is no aphorism in (14) or (15) that licenses F-marking to the absolute article from any added node, the absolute article parrot charge be absolute as adumbrated in bold. Aphorism (15b) allows F-marking to activity from the absolute article to the arch verb adopted. Aphorism (15a) allows F-marking to activity from the arch verb to the VP adopted a parrot. Selkirk78 assumes the accountable Judy is absolute if F-marked as adumbrated in bold.25
Schwarzschild and accent placement
Schwarzschild9 credibility out weaknesses in Selkirk’s78 adeptness to adumbrate emphasis adjustment based on facts about the discourse. Selkirk’s approach says annihilation about how accentuation arises in sentences with absolutely old information. She does not absolutely clear the angle of address cachet and its affiliation to emphasis marking. Schwarzschild differs from Selkirk in that he develops a added able-bodied archetypal of address status. Address cachet is bent via the entailments of the context. This is accomplished through the analogue in (16):
(16) Analogue of given: An announcement of U counts as accustomed iff it has a arresting anterior A and
a. if U is blazon e, again A and U corefer;
b. otherwise: modulo \exists-type-shifting, A entails the existential F-closure of U.
The operation in (16b) can administer to any constituent. \exists-type-shifting “is a way of transforming syntactic capacity into abounding propositions so that it is accessible to analysis whether they are basic by the context”.25 For example, the aftereffect of \exists-type-shifting the VP in (5) is (6):
(17) hums a blessed tune
(18) \existsxx hums a blessed tune25
Note that (18) is a abounding proposition. The existential F-closure in (16b) refers to the operation of replacing the accomplished F-marked bulge with an existentially bankrupt variable. The operation is apparent in (19) and (20):
(19) \existsxx hums a blessed f tune f f
(20) \existsY\existsxx hums Y25
Given the address ambience in (21a) it is accessible to actuate the address cachet of any syntactic bulge in (21b):
(21)
a. Sean hummed a blessed tune VP
b. Angie hummed Chopin’s Funeral March f VP25
If the VP in (21a) is the arresting anterior for the VP in (21b), again the VP in (21b) counts as given. \exists-type-shifed VP in (21a) is apparent in (22). The existential F-closure of the VP in (21b) is apparent in (23):
(22) \existsxx hums a blessed tune
(23) \existsY\existsxx hums Y25
(22) entails (23). Therefore, the VP of (21b) counts as given. Schwarzschild9 assumes an optimality academic grammar.26 Emphasis adjustment is bent by a set of violable, hierarchically ranked constraints as apparent in (24):
(24)
a. GIVENness: A basic that is not F-marked is given.
b. Foc: A Foc-marked byword contains an accent
c. AvoidF: Do not F-mark
d. HeadArg: A arch is beneath arresting than its centralized argument.
The baronial Schwarzschild9 proposes is apparent in (25):
(25) GIVENness, Foc >> AvoidF >> HeadArg
As seen, GIVENness relates F-marking to address status. Foc relates F-marking to emphasis placement. Foc artlessly requires that a constituent(s) of an F-marked byword accommodate an accent. AvoidF states that beneath F-marking is bigger to added F-marking. HeadArg encodes the head-argument aberration into the grammar directly.25
(16) Analogue of given: An announcement of U counts as accustomed iff it has a arresting anterior A and
a. if U is blazon e, again A and U corefer;
b. otherwise: modulo \exists-type-shifting, A entails the existential F-closure of U.
The operation in (16b) can administer to any constituent. \exists-type-shifting “is a way of transforming syntactic capacity into abounding propositions so that it is accessible to analysis whether they are basic by the context”.25 For example, the aftereffect of \exists-type-shifting the VP in (5) is (6):
(17) hums a blessed tune
(18) \existsxx hums a blessed tune25
Note that (18) is a abounding proposition. The existential F-closure in (16b) refers to the operation of replacing the accomplished F-marked bulge with an existentially bankrupt variable. The operation is apparent in (19) and (20):
(19) \existsxx hums a blessed f tune f f
(20) \existsY\existsxx hums Y25
Given the address ambience in (21a) it is accessible to actuate the address cachet of any syntactic bulge in (21b):
(21)
a. Sean hummed a blessed tune VP
b. Angie hummed Chopin’s Funeral March f VP25
If the VP in (21a) is the arresting anterior for the VP in (21b), again the VP in (21b) counts as given. \exists-type-shifed VP in (21a) is apparent in (22). The existential F-closure of the VP in (21b) is apparent in (23):
(22) \existsxx hums a blessed tune
(23) \existsY\existsxx hums Y25
(22) entails (23). Therefore, the VP of (21b) counts as given. Schwarzschild9 assumes an optimality academic grammar.26 Emphasis adjustment is bent by a set of violable, hierarchically ranked constraints as apparent in (24):
(24)
a. GIVENness: A basic that is not F-marked is given.
b. Foc: A Foc-marked byword contains an accent
c. AvoidF: Do not F-mark
d. HeadArg: A arch is beneath arresting than its centralized argument.
The baronial Schwarzschild9 proposes is apparent in (25):
(25) GIVENness, Foc >> AvoidF >> HeadArg
As seen, GIVENness relates F-marking to address status. Foc relates F-marking to emphasis placement. Foc artlessly requires that a constituent(s) of an F-marked byword accommodate an accent. AvoidF states that beneath F-marking is bigger to added F-marking. HeadArg encodes the head-argument aberration into the grammar directly.25
Responses
Recent empiric assignment German et al.25 suggests that both Selkirk’s78 and Schwarzschild’s9 approach of accentuation and F-marking makes incorrect predictions. Consider the afterward context:
(26) Are the accouchement arena their game?
(27) Paul took bottomward their covering that they comedy their bold in.25
It has been acclaimed that prepositions are intrinsically anemic and do not readily booty accent.2425 However, both Selkirk and Schwarzschild adumbrate that in the attenuated focus context, an emphasis will action at best on the preposition in (27) as apparent in (28):
(28) Paul took bottomward their covering that they play their bold in f t f foc.25
However, the assembly agreement appear in German et al.25 showed that capacity are added acceptable to emphasis verbs or nouns as against to prepositions in the attenuated focused context, appropriately cardinal out emphasis patterns apparent in (28). German et al. altercate for a academic constraint-based grammar agnate to Anttila27 and Boersma28 that added fluidly accounts for how speakers emphasis words in discourse.
(26) Are the accouchement arena their game?
(27) Paul took bottomward their covering that they comedy their bold in.25
It has been acclaimed that prepositions are intrinsically anemic and do not readily booty accent.2425 However, both Selkirk and Schwarzschild adumbrate that in the attenuated focus context, an emphasis will action at best on the preposition in (27) as apparent in (28):
(28) Paul took bottomward their covering that they play their bold in f t f foc.25
However, the assembly agreement appear in German et al.25 showed that capacity are added acceptable to emphasis verbs or nouns as against to prepositions in the attenuated focused context, appropriately cardinal out emphasis patterns apparent in (28). German et al. altercate for a academic constraint-based grammar agnate to Anttila27 and Boersma28 that added fluidly accounts for how speakers emphasis words in discourse.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)