Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:05:34.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Derivational Approach to Focus Structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Aritz Irurtzun
Aritz Irurtzun*
Affiliation:
EHU-U., Basque Country
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I present a derivational analysis of the construal of the focus structure of the sentence. I propose that the [+FOCUS] feature is an optional formal feature that can be assigned to multiple tokens of the numeration. Hence, the focus structure is derived via Merge (creation of a set) in a strictly compositional way. This theory circumvents the empirical and theoretical shortcomings of Nuclear Stress Rule-based approaches, and accounts for split focus constructions (answers to multiple wh-questions).

Résumé

Résumé

Je propose une analyse dérivationnelle de l’interprétation de la structure en focus d’une phrase. Je propose que le trait [+FOCUS] est un trait formel facultatif qui peut apparaître plusieurs fois dans la numération. Ainsi, la structure en focus est dérivée par Merge (création d’un ensemble) de façon strictement compositionnelle. Cette théorie évite les lacunes des approches basées sur la Règle de l’accent nucléaire (Nuclear Stress Rule) et rend compte des constructions où le focus tombe sur des composants qui ne sont pas adjacents (comme dans les réponses aux questions-Qu multiples).

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 53 , Issue 2-3 , November 2008 , pp. 327 - 354
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arregi, Karlos. 2003. Focus on Basque movements. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Baltazani, Mary. 2002. Quantifier scope and the role of intonation in Greek. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1993. Subject focus and pronouns. In Focus and grammatical relations in Creole languages, ed. Byrne, F. and Winford, D., 189–212. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biloa, Edmond. 1995. Functional categories and the syntax of focus in Tuki. Newcastle, UK: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 1999. Topic. In Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, ed. Bosch, Peter and van der Sandt, Rob, 142–165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. Conditions on transformations. In Essays on form and interpretation, ed. Chomsky, Noam, 81–162. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. Bare Phrase Structure. In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and parameters in syntactic theory, ed. Webelhuth, Gert, 383–439. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24:239–297.Google Scholar
D’Imperio, Mariapaola. 2002. Italian intonation: An overview and some questions. Probus 14:37–69.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1985. Hyxkariana and linguistic typology. Dallas: SIL and University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Duguine, Maia. 2006. Silent arguments without pro: The case of Basque. Ms., EHU-U. Basque Country and Université de Nantes.Google Scholar
Elordieta, Arantzazu. 2001. Verb movement and constituent permutation in Basque. Doctoral dissertation, HIL/Leiden University.Google Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka. 2006. Constraints on intonational prominence of focalized constituents. In Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, ed. Lee, Chungmin, Gordon, Matthew, and Bliring, Daniel, 1–22. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2001. Focus and phrasing in French. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschift for Arnim von Stechow, ed. Féry, Caroline and Sternfeld, W., 153–181. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Frota, S. 2000. Prosody and focus in European Portuguese. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Godjevać, S. 2000. Intonation, word order, and focus projection in Serbo-Croatian. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, and Lahiri, Aditi. 1991. Bengali intonational phonology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:47–96.Google Scholar
Herburger, Elena. 2000. What counts: Focus and quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James, and May, Robert. 1981. Questions, quantifiers and crossing. The Linguistic Review 1:41–80.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio, and Urbina, Jon Ortiz de. 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Irurtzun, Aritz. 2003. The intonational phonology of Errenteria Basque. Paper read at the First Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia Conference, Lisbon.Google Scholar
Irurtzun, Aritz. 2005. Structure and derivation of split focalization. In Proceedings of the ESSLLI Workshop on Discourse Domains & Information Structure, ed. Heusinger, Klaus von and Umbach, Carla, 21–33. Available at www.cogsci.uni-osnabrueck.de/~workshopDDIS/procDDIS.pdf (accessed 9 October 2008).Google Scholar
Irurtzun, Aritz. 2006. Focus and clause structuration in the Minimalist Program. In Minimalist essays, ed. Boeckx, Cedric, 68–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ishihara, S. 2000. Stress, focus, and scrambling in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39: A Few from Building E39: Papers in Syntax, Semantics and their Interface, ed. Guerzoni, Elena and Matushansky, Ora, 142–175.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 1996. The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody: Intonational phonolgy and prosodie structure. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kannerva, J.M. 1990. Focusing on phonological phrases in Chicheŵa. In The phonology-syntax connection, ed. Inkelas, Sharon and Zee, Draga, 145–162. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway. 1995. Configuring Topic and focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Lanugage and Information.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1995. Introduction. In Discourse configurational languages, ed. Kiss, Katalin É., 3–27. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar, and Uriagereka, Juan. 1987. Barriers for Basque and vice-versa. In NELS 17: Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. McDonough, Joyce and Plunkett, Bernadette, 394–408. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Google Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 1999. Focus in Somali. In The grammar of focus, ed. Rebuschi, Georges and Tuller, Laurice, 275–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark Y. 1975. The intonational system of English. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, and Reinhart, Tanya. 1998. Scrambling and the PF interface. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. Butt, Miriam and Geuder, Wilhelm, 309–353. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Lanugage and Information.Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1989. Parameters in the grammar of Basque. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1995. Residual verb first and verb second in Basque. In Discourse configurational languages, ed. Kiss, Katalin É., 99–121. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Beekman, Mary E.. 1988. Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In intentions in communication, ed. Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry, and Pollack, Martha E., 271–311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface strategies. OTS Working Papers in Linguistic TL-95-002. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies: Optimal and costly compulations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rialland, Annie, and Robert, Stéphane, 2001. The intonational system of Wolof. Linguistics 39:893–939.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael, 1998. Phonological focus and structural focus. In Syntax and semantics 29: The limits of syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter and McNally, Louise, 337–363. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Sandalo, Filomena, and Truckenbrodt, Hubert, 2002. Some notes on phonological phrasing in Brazilian Portuguese. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 42: Phonological answers (and their corresponding questions), ed. Csirmaz, Anikó, Li, Zhiqiang, Nevins, Andrew, Vaysman, Olga, and Wagner, Michael, 285–310.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan F. 1976. Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GlVENness, AVOIDF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7:141–177.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. Goldsmith, John A., 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodie phrasing. In Prosody: Theory and experiment: Studies presented to Cösta Bruce, ed. Home, Merle, 231–262. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: Prosodie evidence from right node raising in English. In Speech Prosody 2002: Proceedings of the first international conference on speech prosody, ed. Bel, Bernard and Marlien, Isabelle, 643–646. Aix-en-Provence: Association pour la promotion de la phonétique et de la linguistique.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2006. Bengali intonation revisited: An optimality theoretic analysis in which FOCUS stress prominence drives FOCUS phrasing. In Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, ed. Lee, Chungmin, Gordon, Matthew, and Biiring, Daniel, 215–244. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Szendröi, Kriszta. 2001. Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 90:219–255.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1993. The informational component. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 2000. Phrasal stress and syntax. In Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg, ed. Oostendorp, Marc van and Anagnastopoulou, Elena. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute Electronic Publications in Linguistics.Google Scholar