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.
No comments:
Post a Comment