Focus--The PF Interface
Tanya Reinhart, 2003
This appeared as chapter 3 of Interface Strategies: Reference set computation, Mit
press, 2006.
.1Sentence main Stress ..................................................................................................................... 3
.1.1Cinque's main-Stress system ................................................................................................... 3
.1.1Szendroi's main- stress system ................................................................................................ 6
.2How Focus is coded ....................................................................................................................... 8
.1.1Main stress and focus -The basic view .................................................................................... 8
.1.1PF coding: The focus set ......................................................................................................... 9
.3Stress Operations. ........................................................................................................................ 14
.1.1Focus and Anaphora .............................................................................................................. 14
.1.1The operations: Destressing and main-stress shift. ............................................................... 19
.4Reference set computation. ......................................................................................................... 26
.1.1Focus projection. ................................................................................................................... 26
.1.1Markedness............................................................................................................................ 31
References ........................................................................................................................................ 33
Identifying the focus of a given derivation is of crucial importance for the context and the
inference systems. The focus constituent relates the utterance to context, and has an effect
on truth conditions (inference). It is therefore essential to the interface that derivations are
associated with focus. I will not be concerned here with the semantics of focus and its
actual effects on the interpreatation, which is a well studied area. For this question, I
assume the basic semantics of focus proposed in Rooth (1985, 1992), by which the focus is
always computed against a set of alternatives. But the question at stake here is how the
association with focus is obtained, namely how the inference and context systems identify
the focus of the derivation - how focus is coded.
The question bears resemblance to the questions of scope we examined in the previous
chapter. Quantifier scope plays a role in the inference system, and determines truth
conditions. It is crucial therefore for the inference system to identify the scope in a given
derivation, and the question we asked was how this information is coded, namely how does
the inference system know what scope to associate with the quantifiers in each given
derivation. A central debate in that area has been whether scope is marked overtly or
covertly. On the first view, c-command relations at the overt structure determine scope
uniquely. On the second, scope is determined by c-command relations at LF, namely covert
operation may change overt scope.
As we saw in section 3 of chapter 1., there is also resemblance in the history of the view of
quantifier scope, and of focus, in theoretical linguistics. At the earlier stages, e.g.
Chomsky (1971), focus was viewed, essentially, as a property defined on PF structures.
The basic idea was that sentence stress is assigned independently, by the phonological
rules, and the interface systems make use of this available stress in relating a sentence to its
context, namely, signaling the focus and presupposition structure. The focus was defined as
any constituent containing the intonation center of the sentence. So, on this view focus is
coded overtly. This rests on the notion of 'normal' or 'neutral' intonation. Specifically, a
distinction was needed between this type of normal stress, and more marked stress options
required by discourse needs.
This is reminiscent, then, of the markedness view of scope shift, which we examined in
chapter 2 (Keenan and Faltz (1978), Reinhart (1983)), where the 'normal' scope construals
are those obtained overtly, and QR applies only to obtain marked interpretations required
by the discourse.
However, in both cases, the concept of markedness was problematic. As we saw in chapter 2,
it turned out easy to find examples of scope shift which sound perfectly natural. (E.g.
Hirschb¨uhler 's An American flag was hanging in front of every building.) Similarly, The
distinction between marked and neutral stress has been challenged with arguments that in the
appropriate context, main stress can fall anywhere, with effects hardly distinguishable from
that of the neutral stress. (For an overview, see Selkirk (1984).) The conclusion taken was
that there is no sentence-level generalization governing the selection of possible foci, and any
expression can be a focus, subject only to discourse appropriateness. If so, then main stress
cannot be assigned at PF independently of the semantics of the sentence, and it must be the
other way around: sentence intonation reflects its independently determined focus structure.
In fact, in Chomsky (1976), where QR was introduced for the questions of quantifier scope,
the view was that, like in the case of quantifier scope, the focus constituent is identified at
the covert structure (LF), requiring 'focus-movement'. Consequently, any constituent that
can be raised by QR can serve as focus. But this solution is problematic as well. A problem
we discussed already regarding QR (see section 7 of chapter 2) is that in the minimalist
program, the hope is that syntactic movement is triggered only by needs of convergence
(technically implemented as feature-checking), and it is blind to any interface
considerations. In an optimally designed language, the bare minimum needed for
convergence should enable also meeting the interface conditions. This is not the case with
QR and focus movement: the derivation would converge without them, so this is
superfluous movement. Though technically we can always introduce focus and
quantification features to motivate movement, feature-checking is only the implementation,
and the problem remains the same. But in the case of focus, there is a further
complication. Focus movement eliminates indeed the problem of markedness, but this
requires assuming that main stress is sensitive to the semantics, namely it is determined by
identifying the focus. Thus, the relations between stress and structure get to be a complex
issue, raising questions of visibility of the covert structure to PF rules (stress).
Any way we go about it, the fact that neutral stress is not always sufficient to identify the
focus is a case of imperfection. The minimum that would suffice for the computational
system (namely a simple rule of main stress) is not sufficient to meet interface
requirements. We must, therefore, depart from optimal design, in order to enable the
computational system to meet the interface conditions. Nevertheless, it is not obvious that
the imperfection must be as sweeping as entailed by the focus movement analysis, e.g. that
the derivation's main stress is uniformly determined at the covert structure.
Cinque (1993) reopened the markedness issue in the area of focus, and proposed, in
essence, returning to the PF view of focus. Zubizaretta (1994, 1998), pursues this line, but
argues that it is still necessary to assume that focus is marked also at LF, by f(ocus) features.
In Reinhart (1995, 1998) I argued that if focus is marked in the overt structure, there is no
need to assume any focus features, or other covert marking.
To see how focus computation works, we should start with the basics of the stress system,
namely, the question how main stress is assigned to derivations. In section 1, we will
examine the system proposed by Cinque, and further developed by Szendroi (2001).
1. Sentence main Stress
1.1. Cinque's main-Stress system
The broader issue Cinque (1993) is concerned with is phrase and compound stress, but the
instance of this problem which is relevant for us here is sentence-stress. Previous analyses,
which followed, in various ways, the nuclear stress rule of Chomsky and Halle (1968),
assumed that this rule is parameterized, to capture the stress patterns across languages. Halle
and Vergnaud (1987) developed a metrical approach to this rule (following the metrical-lines
analysis of word stress, as first proposed by Liberman). The basic idea is that the nuclear
stress rule (NSR) applies cyclically, where the cycles are determined by syntactic
constituency. The input of the procedure is the sequence of (non-compound) word-stresses,
marked by asterisks, and represented as a line. A new line is introduced for each new cycle.
The NSR, then, locates the prominent stress of this line. My summary of how this works will
be simplified. A more detailed summary can be found in Cinque (1993). For illustration, let us
check how we derive the fact that main stress in the simple sentence (1a), falls on book.
Throughout, I will represent the word carrying the main stress of a sentence with bold-face
(for reasons of typographic visibility).
(1)
a.
b.
I read the book.
(Dat) ik het boek las (Dutch)
(2)
a.
b.
c.
Line 1 (=word line 3):
line 2 (VP cycle):
line 3 (IP cycle):
[ I [read [the book]]]
[*[ * [
* ]]]
[ [
* ]]
[
*
]
The output of word-stress for (1a) is (2a) (which is assumed to be metrical line 3). NSR then
selects one of the word-stresses of line 1, and places it in line 2. The same holds for line 3. Of
course, the question is how the rule knows which asterisk to place on the next line. (A simple
idea such as 'take the rightmost asterisks' won't do, e.g. for the Dutch equivalent (1b).)
Halle and Vergnaud (H&V) first define the cycle as a syntactic constituent containing
at least two asterisks (stressed words). In this case, one is defined as the head of the
constituent line. Once the head is identified, the NSR proceeds to project the head of each line
into the next line. The gist of this procedure is, then, stated in (3).
(3)
Nuclear stress rule
Locate the heads of line N constituents on line N+1.
(4)
Parameter setting for English (on line N( N=3): [..+HT, right]
But the crucial question, now, is how we identify the relevant head for (3). This is why (3) has
to be parameterized. For English, as the parameter is set in (4), the head must be in terminal
position of its constituent, and this position is to the right, thus book is selected as the relevant
VP asterisk. Given all these assumptions, the derivation in (2) goes through, giving the right
result for English. It is not a trivial matter to define the parameters for a "mixed" language like
Dutch. If we define it as left-headed, we will get correctly the stress of (1b), since the VP
leftmost stress (boek) will be projected. But with an intransitive sentence, the leftmost stress
will be the subject, which may then get the main stress, incorrectly.
Cinque's insight is that, in fact, no parametrization of the stress rule is needed. Apart
from the empirical problems of such parametrization, it is doing nothing more than an
unneeded duplication of the mechanism which governs, independently, word order variations
in syntax. Assuming that we need independently to know what is the direction of recursion in
a language, the same (and better) results will be obtained with applying the one universal
stress rule, starting with the most embedded constituent of the sentence.
The basic idea is as follows: let us assume that the first cycle of the stress rule is the
most deeply embedded stress, i.e. a category containing only one (word-level) stress. The
stress rule now needs no mention of heads or their order, and it can be stated with a slight
simplification in (5). As far as I can see, the rest follows with no further assumptions. I should
mention that I am not fully loyal to Cinque's actual execution. He assumes a greater
machinery than I do here, though I think I capture correctly his intuition. Nothing here hinges
on this being the case, and if my presentation is mistaken, one can go back to Cinque's precise
formulation.1 Let us see how the derivation of the stress of (1a) follows.
(5)
Generalized stress rule
Locate the stress (asterisk) of line N on line N+1.
(6)
a.
b.
d.
c.
line 1 (=word line 3):
line 2 (NP cycle):
line 3 (VP cycle):
line 4 (IP cycle):
[Max [read [the book]]]
[ * [ * [
* ]]]
[
[
[
* ]]]
[
[
* ]]
[
* ]
Let us assume that the most deeply embedded constituent is the object (a point I return to
directly). The first cycle-line, (6b), is then the NP (or N). Since there is only one stress for this
cycle in the previous line, it is this stress which projects to the present line. From then on,
there are no more options, and each cycle projects this same stress.
Thus, the gist of the analysis is that the main stress of the sentence will always be on
its most embedded constituent, namely, on the node we started stress-processing with. Of
course, everything depends now on the correct identification of the most embedded node.
Specifically, the problem arises in the case of sisters (both carrying stress). Cinque argues that
the answer lies in the order of recursion. Given two sisters, the most embedded one is that
1
Cinque's stress rule (10), p. 244) still includes the formulation in (3) (p.241), which assumes
heads. It includes also an additional requirement that an asterisk on line N must correspond to an
asterisk on line N-1. In his actual analysis, he starts with the next XP cycle (e.g. VP), just like
H&V. But curiously, he omits the requirement that the cycle contains at least two asterisks, and he
adds that "this simplification is crucial to obtain the correct results" (footnote 7, p. 244). Indeed,
this omission enables the analysis to work also without the previous assumptions, which is why I
think this is what he actually intended. In any case, I do not think that there is anything at stake
here apart from whether the machinery can be reduced. And I assume that the way I present
Cinque's analysis is precisely equivalent, empirically, to his.
occurring on the recursive side of the tree. At first sight, this may seem like begging the
question, but Cinque's point is that the order of recursion, or whatever determines word order,
is a problem independent of stress, the answer to which is the goal of current syntax. Once the
answer is found, the stress pattern should follow. Thus, in a right branching language like
English, in the VO structure, in (7), the most embedded node is the object. In a left-branching
language, like Dutch (in this relevant structure), it is again the object.
(7)
Asymmetry of sisters:
English
Dutch
V'
V
V'
O
*
O
*
V
Zubizarreta (1994) argues that, in fact, it is not correct to talk about just order of recursion
here, and depth of embedding is determined by head- complement relations.
With this assumed, the Dutch (1b), repeated in (8) is derived as in (9).
(8)
(9)
a.
b
c.
d.
(Dat) ik het boek las /I the book read.
Word stress:
NP cycle:
VP cycle:
IP cycle:
[ik [[het boek] las]]
[ * [[
* ] * ]]
[ [[
* ] ]]
[ [
*
]]
[
*
]
The intransitive case appears non-problematic, at this stage: Given a sentence like (dat) ik las/
I read , the first cycle assigns stress to V (or to VP - nothing hinges on this, in this case). Since
the VP and the subject are not sisters, the issue of embedding does not arise, and it is clear
where the stress-processing starts. Hence, the main stress will fall on the verb.
More problematic are structures where the subject (or another adjunct or specifier) is a
complex constituent, containing more embedding than the VP. The main stress still falls in
this case on the deepest constituent of the VP, and the question is how this happens. Cinque
assumes that the subject constitutes a cycle of its own. In this, he follows Halle and Vergnaud,
who noted, independently of this problem, that the subject always gets secondary stress
(higher than non-stressed nodes in the VP). The issue, then, becomes that of how to merge two
cycles, each carrying its own main stress. Cinque defines, for that, the notions of major and
minor paths of embedding. The main stress always falls on the major path, but when a minor
path joins it, it gets a secondary stress (one asterisk). Zubizarreta (1994) offers a different
formulation of this merging, sensitive to the complement/adjunct distinction, but for our
purpose here these details are not crucial.
Cinque argues that his stress rule applies directly to syntactic constituents and no
notions like a phonological or prosodic phrase are needed. The question of what the
relevant constituents for phrasal stress are, has been a subject of much debate. Cinque's line
contrasts with the view developed by Selkirk (1984), where it applies to phonological
phrases, related, but not isomorphic to syntactic constituents. Zubizarreta (1994, 1998)
points out that Cinque's analysis can also be stated to apply to phonological constituents.2
1.2. Szendroi's main- stress system
Szendrői (2001) presents an alternative technique for the execution of the stress rule. She uses
Liberman’s (1979) metrical tree notation. In this method, there are no separate cycles like the
NP-cycle or the VP-cycle like in Cinque’s system. Rather stress is assigned to the nodes of the
syntactic tree (or alternatively, the prosodic structure.) An advantage of this system is that it is
fully transparent how it applies to syntactic (or prosodic) trees, and thus it lends itself to
strictly incremental application. Stress is determined at each pair of nodes, as the derivation is
built.
Let us see how this system works. In the simplest case, when the tree contains just two
terminal nodes, the sisters a and b in (10), then one of the nodes is assigned a Strong
(henceforth S) label, while the other node receives a Weak (henceforth W) label. The topmost,
root node always receives an S label. This is illustrated in (10).
(10)
XS
aW
bS
What this means is that b is prosodically more prominent, “stronger”, than a. So, by
assumption b bears more stress relative to a. One of the main advantages of this notation is
that by assigning Strong-Weak pairs, it captures the inherently relational nature of stress.
There is no such thing as a stressed element in the absolute sense. In other words, assuming
that there is a phonetic cue (or a set of cues) associated with stress, there is no value x,
above which an element is stressed and below which it is unstressed.3 Rather, we take an
element to be stressed, if it bears more stress than another element.
Given the above, one might think that Strong-Strong and Weak-Weak pairs are
excluded. This is true. However, importantly, the two do not have the same status. As I will
explain in the discussion about destressing in section 3, two Weak nodes may appear
adjacent. In contrast, two Strong nodes may never be adjacent, due to the Obligatory
Contour Principle (Goldsmith,1976), which disallows adjacent stresses (or identical tones).
But let us concentrate on the technicalities of stress assignment in a metrical treebased system. Having seen the simplest configuration in (10), take a more complex
example, such as (11). In (11), Z, being the root node, receives an S label, while the sisters,
2
Zubizarreta points out (footnote 14) that the question whether the prosodic phrase is determined
semantically or syntactically does not have much empirical content. Selkirk argues that the
intonational phrase must form a sense unit, where two constituents constitute a sense unit if they
stand in a modifier-of-head or an argument-of-head relation. But the notions assumed in this
definition: modifier argument and head are, anyway, syntactic notions.
3
For this reason, it is highly unlikely that a syntactic feature such as [+stress] would be a helpful
tool to account for stress phenomena. As we shall see it is laso unlikely that [+Focus] is the right
way to encode focus. Both stress and focus are relational notions: stress never exists without
unstressed and focus without background. I.will return to this point.
X-Y, a-b and c-d receive W-S labels. Thus, we end up with two terminal nodes that receive
a Strong label: b and d. But which one is “stronger”? In other words, which node bears
primary stress and which one bears secondary stress?
(11)
ZS
XW
YS
cW
dS
aW
bS
If we look at the subtrees dominated by X and Y separately, then the strongest nodes
in the subtrees are d and b, respectively. Since X itself has a Weak label, while Y is Strong, it
is the strongest node of Y (i.e. b) that is the strongest node of the whole tree. Thus, b receives
main stress. The terminal node d, being the strongest node of the subtree whose topmost label
is Weak, bears secondary stress within the whole tree. On the basis of the above, we can give
the following definitions for primary and secondary stress.
(12)
Main stress falls on the terminal node that is connected to the root node by a path that
does not contain any Weak nodes, including the root node itself and the terminal node.
(i.e. RootS– X1S – X2S –... – XiS – ... – aS)
(13)
Secondary stress falls on the terminal node whose path to the root node contains
only S nodes, except for exactly one W label on the node immediately dominated
by the root node. (i.e. RootS X1W X2S ... XiS ... bS)
So far we argued that a Strong and a Weak label is assigned at each branching node.
But we said nothing about the order of assignment. We maintain Cinque’s insight that stress is
assigned following the order of embedding. Thus at each branching node, a Strong label is
assigned to the node that is syntactically more embedded. Its sister receives a Weak label. The
reformulation of the rule in these terms is given in (14). Compare (14) with (5) above.
(14)
Generalized stress rule (metrical tree-version)
Assign a Strong label to the node that is syntactically more embedded at every level of
the metrical tree. Assign Weak to its sister node.
In (15) it is shown how the derivation of the stress of (1a) follows in a metrical tree
diagram, given Cinque’s insight that main stress falls on the most embedded constituent on the
recursive side of the tree. (Compare 15 with 6 above.) The object receives main stress as it
bears an S label and is only dominated by S labels. The subject receives secondary stress as it
is the strongest node (in this case the only node) in the Weak-labelled subtree immediately
dominated by the root node.
(15)
IPS
DPW
I’S
IW
VPS
VW
DPS
DW
[Max
[read [the
NPS
book]]]
Among the advantages of this system is that it provides a way to derive Halle &Vergnaud’s
insight that the subject always bears secondary stress. Cinque claimed that the subject and the
VP constitute two separate cycles, the VP-being the major path, while the subject is the minor
path, by assumption. He also assumed that when the two cycles meet the main stress in the
minor path becomes secondary and the main stress of the major path will become the main
stress of the whole. In the present formulation, the root node immediately dominates two subtrees: one with a Weak label and one with a Strong label. The former corresponds to Cinque’s
minor path while the latter is the major path. The fact that the two paths come together and
thus secondary and primary stresses are determined is a property of the system, which
identifies one Srong and one weak node at every level of embedding. It does not have to be
stated separately that one of the paths is superior to the other.
2. How Focus is coded
2.1. Main stress and focus -The basic view
The analysis of sentence stress outlined so far is independent of any discourse considerations:
it is impossible to utter a sentence with no prominent stress, so the PF rule we examined -(5) determines where this stress will fall. The main stress of the sentence, which is assigned by
this rule, is just a particular instance of stress assignment, which is needed independently (e.g.
for units smaller than a sentence). However, sentence accent interfaces with the theory of
discourse, via the notion of focus. Focus, which is roughly viewed as the most informative
part of an utterance, is usually identified by prominent stress. The gist of Cinque's proposal is
that the set of possible (neutral) foci in a sentence is determined by its main stress, i.e. by the
same rule of phrasal stress. I return directly to how precisely this works. On this issue of the
relations between main sentence-stress and focus, there exist two conflicting positions: the one
that Cinque returns to is that possible focus selections are restricted by an independent PF
stress rule, and the other is that there is no such thing as a (neutral) PF stress, and the main
stress of the sentence is determined solely by its relations to discourse, i.e. by focus. Cinque
surveys common counter-arguments to the position he defends and concludes that discourse
considerations may at times interfere with the results of the phrase-stress rule, assigning a
different stress-prominence. But he assumes that the two types of prominence can be
distinguished. For him, the relevant distinction is that between sentence grammar and
discourse grammar. The latter can change the output of the computational system: if in a given
context, it is appropriate to use as a focus a constituent which was not assigned the main stress
by 'sentence grammar', 'discourse grammar' assigns an additional stress to this constituent, or
destresses the original prominent stress.
Zubizarreta (1994) develops this line, and argues that the relevant distinction is that
between a neutral focus and a marked one. Neutral focus intonation is often characterized as
that intonation under which a sentence could be uttered 'out of the blue', namely, the whole
sentence is asserted (as "new") and none of its constituents need to be pre-assumed in the
context (no "presupposition"). Zubizarreta argues, then, that what Cinque's stress rule
determines is the neutral focus intonation of a sentence. When a sentence with this intonation
is uttered 'out of the blue', the full sentence can be viewed as the focus phrase4. But the central
point of Cinque's and Zubizarreta's analysis is that, under the same neutral-focus intonation, a
sentence can be used also with only one of its constituents as the focus (and the rest preassumed). Crucially, the full set of the possible (neutral) focus constituents of the sentence is
determined by the same rule of phrasal stress. Cinque's generalization is given in (16).
(16) The focus of IP is a(ny) constituent containing the main stress of IP, as determined
by the stress-rule. (This is Cinque's 'sentence grammar' focus, and Zubizarreta's 'neutral
focus'.)
As Cinque notes, his analysis goes back, in its essence, to the view of focus in Chomsky
(1971). A way to check the prediction that any of the constituents dominating the main
(neutral) stress can serve as focus, is checking the set of possible substitutions. E.g. in the
context of a yes/no question in (17), modelled after Chomsky's example, the different answers
correspond to different selections of focus in the question. The focus in each answer, which is
the underlined F-bracketed constituent, substitutes one of the possible foci in the question,
namely one of the constituents dominating the main stress of the question.
(17)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Are you [looking for [a passenger with [a red [shirt]]]]?
No, I am looking for a passenger with a red tie
No, I am looking for a passenger with [F a coat]
No, I am looking for [F a member of the crew]
No, I am [F just wandering around]
2.2. PF coding: The focus set
Let us examine further the question that underlies this line of analysis. At the interface,
sentences must be fit to context and purpose of use. One of the means relating sentences to
discourse is focus. The computational system should, therefore, provide us with sufficient
means to identify the focus constituent, so the question is how it does that, namely where and
how the focus information is coded (signaled). Since 1976, the prevailing answer has been
that it is coded at LF, namely at the covert structure. This has been obtained either by covert
movement (QR) of the focus constituent, or by attaching a focus feature to nodes in the
syntactic derivation, or, most commonly, by both: attaching a focus feature to a constituent, to
license its movement (which, interestingly, is viewed by some as more minimal than doing
just one of these two).
It is, technically, possible to combine Cinque's distinction between neutral and marked
stress with the assumption that the focus is coded covertly at LF. This is the
implementation chosen by Zubizarreta, who states the focus rule (16) as a restriction on
4
This is assumed under different wordings since Chomsky (1971) and Jackendoff (1972), but has
recently gained more attention in work by Vallduvi, Engdahl, and Herman Hendricks.
nodes marked +F(ocus). However, as argued in Reinhart (1995), (1998), this is clearly not
a conceptual necessity. A more minimal and realistic assumption is that the focus
constituent is coded at PF, as essentially assumed in Chomsky (1971). Since main stress is
a requirement of the computational system (-a derivation cannot be pronounced without
main stress) an optimal language system would make use of this visible property of
derivations to code information needed at the interface.
Szendroi (2001) points out several theoretical and technical problems with prevailing
feature-based approaches to the coding of the focus constituents. One of her arguments is
based on the notion of inclusiveness. As Chomsky (1995: 228) formulates this notion, "a
'perfect language' should meet the condition of inclusiveness: any structure formed by the
computation […] is constituted of elements already present in the lexical items selected for
N [the numeration]; no new objects are added in the course of the computation apart from
rearrangements of lexical properties […]. Let us assume that this condition holds (virtually)
of the computation from N to LF (N )". Szendroi argues that at least in the present
formulations of the feature-based approach, [+F] violates the Inclusiveness condition, as
there is no sense in which bearing [+F] is a lexical property of an item. Thus, [+F] is
nothing more then a diacritic introduced into the computation to account for something that
does not directly relate to the lexical item bearing [+F] (see Zubizarreta 1998 for the same
claim). Suppose even that it can be somehow argued that the [+F] feature is associated with
a lexical item in the numeration to satisfy some discourse need. Still, the fact of the matter
is that the feature must be inserted on the lexical node that will bear main stress. But the
semantic (discourse) import of this feature is not necessarily associated with the lexical
node it is attached to, because the actual focus can be a wider projection. Either way we
look at it, it is not a property of the lexical item that is coded with this feature, but rather its
position in the prosodic structure.
The broader conceptual problem with approaching focus identification with assignment of
features is that focus, unlike main stress, is not a property of a constituent or a node. By
definition, focus is a relation between an expression and a sentence (See, e.g. its semantics
in Rooth (1985, 1992). But all approaches to the semantics of focus, since at least
Jackendoff (1972) have that same property.) The focus can, thus, be defined only at the
level of the sentence. An assignment of a focus feature is a technical trick that can, perhaps,
be made to work, but it codes information that cannot, in principle, be present in the
numeration. This is different, e.g. than the case of the Q(uantifier) feature, that was
proposed to mark DPs that may undergo QR. In that case, the properties that define the DP
as [+Q] are internal to that DP (say, its determiner). It is at least arguable that its
quantificational nature is traceable to the lexical entry and is, thus, information available to
the syntactic derivation (present at the numeration). Hence there was no conceptual
problem in assuming such feature, and my arguments evolved around the question whether
this is necessary and whether it can do the needed empirical work.
Even if we ignore the conceptual problem, and assuming that all technical problems with
feature-based approaches to focus that are pointed out by Szendroi (2001) and by
Neeleman & Szendroi (2002) can be solved, the fact that none of this is needed is a
sufficient argument against it. As mentioned in the discussion of QR in chapter 2, coding
information at the overt structure is, in any case, a more efficient mode of communication
than coding it covertly in the inaudible and invisible sphere. A language system that
encodes focus overtly, then, is more optimal for interface needs.
Some of the reason that this simpler line seemed untenable in linguistic theory was
conceptual. A leading assumption regarding the architecture of language has been the T
model (LF and PF being the two top branches of the T). On this view, the interface of the
CS with the inference and context systems must be only via the LF branch, and information
of the phonological spell out is not accessible, i.e. the PF coding is not legible to the
semantic (inference) system. So the two branches must be completely separate and
independent. This, however, is not a conceptual necessity.
From the perspective of enabling communication, the picture is almost the opposite. A
system perfect for communication would be one in which precisely the same syntactic tree
which is needed to enable the semantic interface would also be the one which is spelled out
phonetically. This would mean that the syntactic tree can be read directly and efficiently from
the phonological input. (E.g phonological boundaries correspond exactly to phrase boundaries,
and intonational contours reflect hierarchy relations of the tree). PF, in this case is nothing but
the physical coding of an abstract syntactic tree. Turning to the view of the semantic interface
in this perfect communication system, PF is legible to the inference systems, in the sense that
all information regarding the syntactic tree, which is needed for constructing semantic
representations (propositions), is obtained through the PF coding. In other words, PF is also
LF .
That the human language may be such a perfect system was proposed, in effect, by Cinque,
who argued, as we saw, that main stress is determined directly on the syntactic tree.
However, there seems to be ample evidence from phonology that the human language is not
that perfect. There are independent phonological requirements that can only be satisfied
assuming a distinct derivational phonological tree. From the syntactic perspective, it has been
widely assumed that there are clear instances of covert processes which cannot be reflected at
the PF. So the phonological and the syntactic derivations cannot be isomorphic.
Nevertheless, there are various imaginable degrees of imperfection. We could imagine a
system of the type proposed in Jackendoff (19-architecture) where the PF coding is done on
representations completely unrelated to the syntactic representations, and their association
requires a whole set of linking rules that associate nodes in one derivation with nodes in the
other. This is the least user-friendly system. Each sentence requires processing two
independent derivations, and computing their links. The efficiency of such system depends
dramatically on the efficiency of the linking rules, and the more such rules are needed, the
more room this leaves for errors of computation. But the most common approach to the
derivation of the phonological tree is that it is constructed by applying certain well-defined
and restricted operations on the syntactic tree. Thus, the phonological phrase is defined based
on the syntactic phrase, but taking into account edges which are not imposed by the syntactic
tree. (E.g. Selkirk (1986); Nespor & Vogel (1986).)
On this later view, much of the information of the syntactic tree is still recoverable from the
phonological tree, as in the perfect system we examined above. But the representations are not
fully isomorphic. In some cases, the hearer, in communication, or the inference systems at the
interface, still have to reconstruct some operations back from the PF representation in order to
extract the relevant syntactic information. This, then, is still some imperfect variant of a
system in which LF information is fully recoverable from PF. We might as well hope that
human language falls indeed within the boundaries of this type of a model, and attempt to
define the information needed for the semantic interface in such a way that it is recoverable
from PF.
Neeleman and Weerman (1999), followed by Neeleman and Reinhart (1998), argue that
possibly the strict adherence to the T model hindered also understanding of syntactic
processes. They argue, e.g. that case checking can take place across languages either in the
government domain of the syntactic tree, or in the phonological phrase, which is not always
identical. If the phonological tree is built incrementally, which is entailed by the minimalist
view, particularly Chomsky (2001), there is no reason why the phonological phrase should not
be an available domain for checking, and the choice of domain can be parametrized.
Nevertheless, my argument here, that focus is coded at the PF is not dependent upon the
option I have just outlined that LF is recoverable from PF. Maintaining the T model, we may
still assume that the inputs to the inference (semantics) system are <LF, PF> pairs, so it is only
in restricted cases, like focus identification, that the relevant information is coded at PF.
What is needed on the view that focus is coded at PF, is a rule or definition that tells
Inference and Context how to identify the focus unit, based on intonation. The generalization
in (16) provides the basics. In implementing this view of overt coding,
I pursue a line
suggested in Reinhart (1981), for the analysis of topics. On that analysis, rather then
associating derivations with a single topic, each derivation is associated with a set of possible
pragmatic assertions (PPA-set). The set is defined for each derivation within the syntax, but
discourse procedures select a member of this set, which is appropriate to the given context.
Extending this view to foci, each derivation is associated not with an actual focus, but with a
set of possible foci, namely, a set of constituents that can serve as the focus of the derivation in
a given context. This set is determined by the computational system at the stage where both
the syntactic tree and stress are visible, namely, the focus selection applies either to a
configurational PF structure, or to a pair <PF,LF>, of sound and configurational structure.5
The focus generalization (16) can, then, be stated as the definition of the focus set associated
with each derivation, as in (18). If stress falls on the object, either in English SVO structures,
or in Dutch SOV structures, the focus set defined by (18) is the one in (19c).
5
(18)
Focus set:
The focus set of a derivation D comprises all and only subtrees (constituents) which
contain the main stress of D.
(19)
a)
b)
[IP Subject [VP V Object]]
[IP Subject [VP Object V]]
c)
Focus set: {IP, VP, Object}
To get more precise about this description, we need to know more about the product of spell-out
(namely on the nature of PF, in the pair <LF,PF>). There are two possible views of what PF is one that this is just a sound string, the product of all spell-out procedures. In this case both a PF
and an LF representation is necessary to identify the focus. The other possibility is that just like
LF, this is the full syntactic tree, derived up to the stage of spell-out, representing also further
steps in the derivation required by spell-out operations like stress, erasure of features, and other
phonological processes. It is a different question whether this PF tree is just the syntactic tree, as
argued by Cinque, or a tree consisting of phonological phrases. If PF is a derivational tree (under
either of these views) it is in principle possible that the focus rule applies solely at PF, namely, it
associates a set of possible foci with each PF.
This means that in actual use, any of the members of the set in (19c) can serve as focus. At the
interface, one member of the focus set is selected, as the actual focus of the sentence. For
illustration, let us look at a concrete example (of a familiar type). (20a), which is generated
with stress on the object, can be used as an answer in any of the contexts in (20b-d), with the
F-bracketed constituent as focus.
(20)
a)
My neighbor is building a desk
b)
Speaker A:
Speaker B:
Speaker A:
Speaker B:
Speaker A:
Speaker B:
c)
d)
What's this noise?
[F My neighbor is building a desk]
What's your neighbor doing these days?
My neighbor [F is building a desk]
What's your neighbor building?
My neighbor is building [F a desk]
At this stage, it is up to the discourse conditions, rather than syntax, to determine whether a
derivation with a particular stress is appropriate in a given context.
A language system that codes its foci successfully in this way may be viewed as perfect: The
stress rule that is needed independently is sufficient to code the foci needed for the interface.
Thus, the bare minimum needed for the computational system is fully sufficient for the
interface. Natural language, alas, is not that perfect. There are more context needs than can be
satisfied by this simple system.
A derivation is inappropriate in context, if no member of its focus set can be used as an actual
focus in that context. (20a), for example, cannot be used as answer in either of the contexts of
(21). (# indicates, throughout, inappropriateness to context.)
(21)
a.
b.
Speaker A:
Speaker B:
Speaker A:
Speaker B:
Has your neighbor bought a desk already?
#No, my neighbor is [F building] a desk.
Who is building a desk?
#[F My neighbor] is building a desk.
This is so because in the contexts of (21), the F-bracketed constituents should be the foci, but
these constituents are not in the focus set generated by (18) for a sentence in which the object
bears stress (cf. 19).
We have encountered, then, an imperfection of the computational system - It is not fully
sufficient for interface needs. Hence, some repair mechanism is needed to adjust the
derivation to a context like (21). Assuming, as we have been, that focus is always coded at PF,
by main stress, the repair mechanism must be an operation shifting the main stress. Let us first
state this operation schematically as (22), and we will turn to more precise details in the next
section.
(22)
Relocate the main stress.
In the context of (21a), repeated in (23a), (22) shifts the main stress to the verb, yielding
(23aB). As a result, the verb is in the focus set defined by (18), and the derivation is
appropriate in this context. In (23b), main stress shifts to the subject.
(23)
a.
Speaker A:
Has your neighbor bought a desk already?
b.
Speaker B:
Speaker A:
Speaker B:
No, my neighbor is [F building] a desk.
Who is building a desk?
[F My neighbor] is building a desk.
The output of (22) is what is called marked stress. Although they sound perfectly natural in
their context, the foci in (23) are marked, since they are obtained by a superfluous
operation that undoes the results of the nuclear stress rule. As we shall see, applying (22) is
not just superfluous, as far as the needs of the computational system are concerned, but it is
a costly operation that requires reopening completed segments of the derivation, or undoing
previous steps. This is what defines it as an illicit operation. The logic of the system as
outlined in previous chapters is that applying this illicit operation requires consulting a
reference set to verify that there is no other choice but applying it. But before we examine
the reference set computation involved here, we need to get clearer on the nature of stress
shift.
3. Stress Operations.
3.1. Focus and Anaphora
Note, first, that there are, in fact, two reasons why speaker B's response in (21b), repeated, is
inappropriate.
(21)
b.
Speaker A:
Speaker B:
Who is building a desk?
#[F My neighbor] is building a desk.
(23)
b.
Speaker B:
[F My neighbor] is building a desk.
The one that we observed is that in this context, the subject my neighbor should be the focus,
but this constituent is not in the focus set of the derivation with this stress. The other problem
is that the object a desk is inappropriately stressed. The object does not carry new
information in this context, having been just mentioned in the previous sentence. But the
stress it carries suggests that it does. Both problems appear to be solved with the shift of the
main stress in (23b), repeated. But as we shall see directly, this is a byproduct of the specific
example, and in most cases it appears that two distinct operations are involved in fact in
determining the stress pattern.
Cinque (1993) argued briefly that stress shift involves, in fact, two distinct operations. One is
the destressing of a stressed element; the other is the strengthening of an element that does
not bear the main stress. In Reinhart (1995) I attempted to reduce these operations to just one,
arguing that "Ideally, rather than assuming two distinct operations, we should be able to show
that the availability of both results is entailed by the same focus-computation system" (p. 75,
section 4.5 of part III). But the analysis required certain complications of the definition of the
focus set, and, nevertheless, some serious empirical problems remained unsolved. The
conclusion I drew (since Reinhart, 1998) from this failed exercise in unification is that there
are two distinct processes responsible for stress effects, as argued in Selkirk (1984), (1996),
and correspondingly, two distinct stress operations. One is anaphoric destressing, and the
other is stress shift which applies when it is needed to add a member to the focus set.
Williams (1997) and Schwarzschild (1999) drew a different conclusion from the failure to
capture the full stress pattern in discourse by just stress-shift for focus. Still attempting a
unified account, they argue that the only relevant factor is, in fact, anaphoricity. They
develop an optimality-based account, which derives the various stress and focus options by
selection of the optimal candidate, based on the basic concept of anaphoricity (Williams) or
givennesss (Schwarzschild). As far as I can judge, in their empirical coverage they are
essentially identical, but they differ in implementation.
Schwarzschild presents the problem by looking at the widely believed generalization in
(24), where prominence means stress-prominence.
(24)
a. Lack of prominence indicates givenness.
b. Prominence indicates novelty.
He points out that the assumptions in (24) cannot be both true in view of examples like
(25).
(25)
a. Question:
b. Answer:
Who did John's mother vote for?
She voted for him.
In (25b) him, referring to John, has prosodic prominence or stress. Still, John has been just
mentioned in the previous discourse, so the pronoun represents given information.
Schwarzschild argues that while (24a) captures an observationally correct generalization,
(24b) cannot be defined in a way consistent with the facts. He concludes, therefore, that
while the association of lack of stress-prominence with givenness is a real discourse
phenomenon, the association of stress prominence with novelty is unfounded, and more
broadly, that the concept of novelty does not in fact play any independent role in discourse. I
agree with the second conclusion. The term novelty (or new information) has been used in
linguistic theory under a broad variety of definitions or descriptions, which in fact, do not
have much to do with each other. For instance, Schwarzschild cites Halliday (1967) as
giving the following three descriptions to 'new': a. "textually and situationally nonderivable information"; b. "contrary to some predicted or stated alternative"; c."replacing
the WH-element in a presupposed question".
However, the concept of novelty is not under consideration here. Our basic assumption is
that sentence main-stress is associated with focus. And focus, indeed, cannot be defined by
novelty. Rather, as mentioned, I assume the general lines of the analysis of focus in Rooth
(1985, 1992). On this account, the focus is always computed against a set of alternatives
(leaving aside here questions of the interpretation of the IP focus). Adding information to
an ongoing discourse means excluding options, or narrowing the set of compatible
propositions. The focus can be viewed as marking what is excluded. Of the three
definitions cited from Halliday, then, this is closest to definition b., and the uses of focus in
question contexts, as in Halliday's c., is just a specific instance of the same definitions.
Halliday's a. plays no role in defining the focus.
Returning to Schwarzschild's example (25), there is no conceptual problem in viewing John
as both the focus and as anaphoric, or given, if we assume that these are just independent
notions (and abandon the assumption (24b), as I just argued we should). I return to how stress
is derived in this case in the next sub-section. However, Schwarzschild proceeds to argue
(like Williams) that since givenness is a concept that is clearly needed in discourse, it should
be taken as the basic one, and it should suffice to derive all the phenomena associated with
identifying the focus. He offers an optimality system and a set of definitions which are able,
indeed, to do that, as far as I can judge, at least for languages like English. Unlike the view
presented here, there is no distinction between neutral and shifted stress, and the execution
requires reference-set computation in both cases, as also in Williams (1997). In the present
system, this is required only with stress-shift, as we shall see in section 4. From the
perspective of optimal design, extending this costly computation to all derivations seems too
big a price to pay for unification. In chapter 5, we will see that children are unable to process
stress-shift in comprehension, and I argue that this is the case because they are unable to
execute the required reference-set computation. If the same computation is involved in all
instances of stress, it is not easy to see how children manage to comprehend anything at all,
given that stress is present at each derivation.
Independently of the specific optimality implementation of Williams and Schwarzschild, I
believe the distinction between (non-) anaphoricity and focus is real, and cannot be replaced.
This is visible if we consider the interaction of these two notions with stress. As we shall see,
destressing obtained by stress-shift and destressing obtained by anaphoric destressing do not
have the same prosodic properties.
Cinque does not elaborate on the way the two operations differ. But Neeleman and Reinhart
(1998) argue that they do not only have different prosodic properties, but also completely
independent discourse functions. Stress strengthening is an operation on the focus set,
employed to derive foci not in the set, while destressing is an anaphoric process, independent
of the focus set. In the specific case of (23b) ([F My neighbor] is building a desk), it is
indeed the case that only one stress operation applied, as argued in Reinhart (1995): Although
the object a desk does not carry new information, it is also not anaphoric. Generally,
indefinite NPs are not anaphoric elements referring to entities already in the context set, and
they are normally not anaphorically destressed.6 Hence, only strengthening took place, and
the destressing of the object just reflects the fact that it no longer carries the main stress. But
there are many contexts where the two operations can be clearly distinguished. Let us survey
Neeleman and Reinhart' (N&R)'s analysis.
Anaphoric destressing applies when a DP (or another constituent) denotes an entity already in
the context set, that is, an entity previously mentioned in the discourse or available in the
situation (I will elaborate on this notion below). A denotation of this type is often found with
definite DPs, as can be observed in (26), but it is most noticeable with pronouns. Whether a
definite DP is anaphoric depends on previous context. Hence, without such context,
judgments are not always clear. But pronouns are mainly used anaphorically and hence they
are almost obligatorily destressed. If the object is destressed, the stress of the verb becomes
the prominent stress in VP, as illustrated in (27).
(26)
Speaker A:
Speaker B:
(27)
a.
6
That man over there is a famous writer
I was just thinking that I know that face
#Max saw her/it
. In the specific example this is even clearer because the preceeding context (Who is building a desk)
uses a creation verb. The choice of example, from Reinhart (1995) was, thus, not accidental (thought
subconscious). Since there is no anaphoric destressing here, the derivation can be accounted for with
using just one rule of main-stress shift.
b.
Max saw her/it
The other stress operation assigns an extra stress to the verb (or any other element selected as
focus), without destressing the object (or whatever other element bears neutral stress). The
result is that the object carries less stress than the verb, but that some secondary stress is still
present on it, unless the object is independently destressed for reasons of anaphora. It is only
this operation which I will refer to here as main-stress shift.
Typically, stress shift applies when it is needed to create a focus not already in the focus set.
In (28a), for example, the verb seeing is by itself not a possible focus with neutral stress.
Strengthening its stress enables it to serve as the only focus.
(28)
a.
b.
Max can only afford seeing cars
Max can afford seeing her
(29)
a.
b.
Only Max can afford buying cars
Only Max can afford seeing her
When main stress shift applies to the verb, as in (28), there is no actual intonational
difference between the effects of destressing and main-stress shift. In both one hears a
stronger stress on the verb than the nuclear stress rule would assign to it. Thus, in (28b) a
destressing operation has applied to her, independently of any focus requirement. But there is
no difference between the resulting prosodic pattern and the pattern in (28a). As we shall see
in the next subsection, this follows independently from the mechanism of stress assignment,
under Szendroi's implementation. An intonational difference is easily observed, however,
when main-stress shift applies further away from the object, as in (29a), where the subject is
strengthened. Here the secondary stress that remains on the object is audible. In contrast, the
pronoun in (29b), which is independently destressed, does not carry any stress at all.7 (29b),
then, is an in instance of the common situation where both stress reduction and main-stress
shift apply in the same sentence. In principle, however, the two procedures are independent,
and it is possible for only one of them to apply to a given derivation.
In (29) and hereafter, secondary stress is marked with italics. But the presentation here is
only informal. I return to the details of how secondary stress is determined in the next
subsection. An example from Dutch with the same effect of preservation of the original stress
when main-stress shift applies is given in (30).
(30)
Zelfs die milieu-fanaat heeft nu een auto gekocht
even that environment-fanatic has now bought a car
A systematic explication of the effects of (what I called here) main-stress shift on the focus
structure of a sentence is provided by Williams (1997). Williams argues (basing himself on a
detailed analysis of more elaborate examples) that main-stress shift creates a new focus, but
does not eliminate the previous focus structure. When this operation takes place, the
`presupposition' part of the sentence typically contains a focus and presupposition itself. That
is to say, there is a subordinate focus. Thus, the fact that main-stress shift does not eliminate
7
Rather it is the verb that carries secondary stress. The way this is obtained is addressed in the next
subsection.
the original stress, as N&R argue, finds a direct correlation in the focus interpretation of the
derivation.
A special instance of main-stress shift can be observed in (31).
(31)
a.
b.
I think I have to eat something
Ik denk dat ik iets moet eten
I think that I something must eat
The object here is certainly not anaphoric. But since it is devoid of any specific content, it is
an unlikely focus by itself. Though I am not aware of an analysis of such examples in the
literature on focus8, these cases seem to be related to the contrast Bolinger (1972) found
between the sentences in (32) (quoted by Zubizarreta and Cinque). In (32a), the candidate for
neutral stress does not merit a focused status because it is semantically uninformative. In
such cases no subsidiary focus structure is derived, although stress is obtained by the same
stress-shift operation.
(32)
a.
b.
I have a point to make
I have a point to emphasize
The standard view relates all stress operations to just focus structure. More generally, most
attention in studies of stress centered around the relation between stress and focus. A notable
exception is Selkirk (1984) who argues that there must be some independent procedure of
anaphoric destressing, a position she further developed in Selkirk (1996).9 N&R argue that
the lack of a systematic distinction between the two has led to many problems in the theory
of both sentence stress and focus, and I will return to some of these problems directly.
Underlying the need of a distinction is the fact that stress patterns provide many more
interface clues than just focus structure. The task of anaphora resolution, relevant to even the
simplest discourse, involves a complex procedure of associating expressions with their
potential antecedents, which, at times, may all be of the same number and gender. Without
some means of signalling anaphoric relations, this task would seem impossible to compute.
One of these means is signalling by stress.
That accent patterns indeed have a crucial role in discourse anaphora, independently of
focus, has been confirmed in several experimental studies of Nooteboom et al. (see, for
example, Nooteboom & Kruyt 1987 and Terken & Nooteboom 1988). They found that
8
Schwarzschild (1999) argues that givenness, rather than anaphoricity, is the notion relevant for
focus identification. Under his definition of givennes, the uninformative bare indefinites of the type
we are considering can be viewed, in fact, as given. Roughly, a constituent is given by
Schwarzschild's definition if it has discourse antecedent that, after existential closure, entails it or,
in the case of referring expressions, is identical to it. It can be argued that the existential closure of
anything or something (e.g. that something exists) is given in any context. While technically this is
a possible definition, I don't believe it correlates with our actual perception of what is given or
anaphoric in a given discourse. However, the crucial problem with this view is that in fact,
anaphoric elements and bare indefinites have very different stress patterns, which could not be
captured if they are both handled by anaphoric destressing.
9
Williams (1997) acknowledges the central role of anaphora in stress. However, he follows the
tradition of viewing anaphora and focus as one unified problem. For him, the whole issue of focus is
an instance of anaphora.
subjects tended uniformly to associate deaccented DPs with discourse entities.
Comprehension time was substantially longer when DPs representing discourse entities
were not destressed. The converse also holds: comprehension is slower when a destressed
DP refers to an entity first mentioned. In practice, speakers operate by the assumption that a
DP is destressed if and only if it is discourse-given.
Naturally, work in this area must focus on the question when an entity counts as
anaphoric, or discourse-given, and, thus, is subject to the destressing rule. In fact,
anaphoricity, or previous mention, are not a sufficient condition for this type of destressing
A DP referring to an entry which has not been active for a while, or has been mentioned too
far back, is not normally destressed. Rather, destressing is governed by the accessibility of
the antecedent, as defined in Ariel's (1990) analysis of anaphora resolution. This definition
also takes `topics' into account (a DP is highly accessible if it is either the topic, or has been
mentioned very recently.) Furthermore, following Pesetsky's (1987) view of D-linking, the
accessible entity need not be an antecedent in sense of strict identity. Thus, a DP may be Dlinked also if only its common noun set is already in the context set. Nevertheless I should
stress that the clearest instances of destressing are pronouns and anaphoric definite
descriptions. In the other cases it is not always obvious whether the D-linked DP has been
destressed, or its reduced stress is just an outcome of applying main-stress shift to another
constituent in the derivation.
With this assumed, N&R state a first approximation of the generalization governing the
operation of destressing, given in (33).
(33)
A DP is destressed if and only if it is D-linked to an accessible discourse
entity.
Note that this is an if-and-only-if condition. If a DP is appropriately D-linked, it must be
destressed, and if it is not D-linked it cannot be fully destressed, regardless of the focus
structure of the sentence. Though the anaphoric status of expressions may have an effect on
their focus structure, the crucial point is that something along the lines of (33) must be
operative independently of focus, as should be clear from the data discussed in this section.
Note that (33) is not an output condition on derivations, but rather it determines when the
operation of destressing must apply. As we shall see in the next sub-section, there are
instances where stress-shift can undo the results of destressing.
3.2. The operations: Destressing and main-stress shift.
Having examined the contextual (discourse) motivation for the two stress operations, let us
now turn to the way they actually apply. To get an intuitive grasp of how they work, let us
first look at the first approximations in (34)-(35), which use the notation of Cinque's stress
system (but are not a precise formulation that would be required in that system).
(34)
Main-stress shift: Add two stars.
(35)
Anaphoric destressing: Remove a star (prior to the NSR).
Main-stress shift takes a given output of main stress assignment and, while keeping this
assignment adds stress to another word. (The formulation of the rule in (34), as adding exactly
two stars, is for ease of illustration only, and is not a precise formulation of the rule in a
Cinque-type star notation. I return directly to a more explicit formulation.) In the example of
(36), the result is that main stress is on my neighbor, but the original stress on desk remains as
a secondary stress.
36)
*
*
*
*
My neighbor is building a desk ==> My neighbor is building a desk
Destressing, as we saw, is an operation independent of focus, and of the main stress of the
derivation. It applies locally, to any anaphoric constituent, independently of the general mainstress rule (NSR). If we restrict attention first to single anaphoric elements, this can be
captured by assuming that it applies at the word level, prior to the NSR. Thus, the relevant Dlinked or anaphoric expressions do not carry an intonational star when the NSR applies, as in
(37a).
37)
a)
b)
* *
Destress: Max [saw her]
*
NSR: ==> Max [saw her]
The NSR, then, just operates in the standard way, turning the most embedded star into the
main stress. Since in (37a) the lowest star is on the verb, it is the verb that will carry main
stress, as in (37b).
Let us follow the derivation of stress in (29), repeated in (38). (Recall that main stress is
marked with bolds and secondary stress with italics.)
38)
a.
b.
Only Max can afford buying cars
Only Max can afford seeing her
39)
*
*
*
*
Only Max can afford buying cars ==> Only Max can afford buying cars (Stress shift)
40
a)Destressing:
* *
* *
*
Only Max can afford seeing her
b) NSR:
*
Only Max can afford seeing her
c) Stress Shift:
*
*
*
Only Max can afford seeing her
In (38a), no anaphoric destressing takes place. (The focus-shift to seeing is motivated by
the scope of only.) Stress shift applies, as in (39), and the object cars still carries secondary
stress. (38b) is a more complex case where both destressing and stress shift applies. The
pronoun is destressed prior to the NSR, as in (40a). The NSR, then, assigns main stress to
the most embedded element with stress, namely the verb, as in (40b). Finally, as in this
specific example the we wanted the focus (for only) to be the subject, and the subject is not
in the focus set, stress shift must apply to yield (40c), where the secondary stress still
remains on the verb, where main stress originally fell. The two sentences in (38) end up,
thus, with very different intonations, and I argued above that in this case, the difference is
audible.
Destressing can apply to larger units than a word. Typically, when it applies to a whole VP,
the destressed VP can also not be pronounced at all, giving rise to VP ellipsis. This is
illustrated in (41). Since the VP in the second conjunct is anaphoric, it is destressed. Main
stress then is assigned on the only possible candidate, namely the subject, as in (41b). The
VP could either be pronounced as in (41b), or mispronounced ("deleted at PF"), as in (41c).
41)
a)
b)
c)
*
*
*
*
Destressing: First Max [touched Felixi] and then Lucie [touched himi]
*
*
NSR: First Max [touched Felixi
] and then Lucie [touched himi]
PF deletion: First Max [touched Felixi ] and then Lucie did [e]
Let us now return to the problem posed by Schwarzschild (1999) in (25), repeated in (42).
42)
a. Question:
b. Answer:
Who did John's mother vote for?
She voted for him.
In this case, the pronoun is both anaphoric, and a focus. In our terms, (42b) appears to violate
the destressing generalization (33), which entails that destressing must apply to this pronoun,
prior to, or independently of the NSR. But it is easy to see how this apparent contradiction
can be reconciled. The derivation of (42b) starts in the same way as (37)
43)
a)
b)
44)
45)
*
Destress: She [voted for him]
*
NSR: ==> She [voted for him]
Focus set of (43b): {voted, voted for him, she voted for him}
*
*
*
Stress shift: she voted for him
Since the pronouns in (43) are destressed, prior to the NSR, main stress projects from voted,
the only word bearing stress in this derivation. The resulting focus set is (44). However, at the
given context, him is the required focus, and it is not in this focus set. Hence, to meet the
context, stress-shift must apply, as in (45). Thus, although it may appear that the stress on him
in (42b) is derived by the NSR, in fact, it is derived by stress shift.
In the same way, stress shift can apply to the derivation in (41), as in (46).
46)
Stress shift:
*
*
*
*
First Maxi [touched Felix] and then Lucie [touched himi]
The output in (46) is a switch - reference structure. The pronoun cannot pick up the same
antecedent as it would in the destressed (41). I return to such structures in section 2 of
chapter 5, where we will follow the way the switch-reference interpretation is derived. We
will also see there that such derivations have indeed the traits of stress shift in acquisition children cannot process them. Pronoun foci obtained by stress-shift are often described as
contrastive, but for all our purposes, they are just standard applications of the stress-shift
operation.
The star notation was used here only for illustration. We cannot expect this informal
mechanism to actually determine the intonational pattern of the derivation, particularly
when the more complex main-stress shift operation is concerned. E.g. as mentioned in
section 3.1, the question whether the word which carried main stress prior to main-stress
shift will carry the derivation's secondary stress (after main-stress shift) is dependent also
on other stress factors. Capturing the precise intonational pattern requires, then, a full
fledged stress analysis. Szendroi (2001) offers a formulation of the operations of the
present system in the tree based metrical framework. I will only review it here briefly. For
the main-stress shift operation (which creates a new focus), it is necessary to ensure that a
constituent receives main stress. In the tree based framework, this means that it has to bear an
S label and it can be only dominated by nodes with S labels. This can be achieved by an
application of Szendroi's rule in (47). Recall (from section 1.2) that the Obligatory Contour
Principle (OCP) disallows the occurrence of two adjacent S-nodes.10 Hence, if (47)
applies, the sister of the targeted node has to be changed as well and becomes Weak.
47)
Main-stress shift (metrical tree version)
Assign S to a node α and every node dominating α..
(48) and (49) illustrate the application of this rule to the example we have followed here. The
standard main stress derivation in (a) is inappropriate to the context, since the required focus is
not in the focus set. Applying (47) adjusts the derivation to the context, resulting in the (b)
answer. The locus of the application of (47) is indicated by circles in the diagrams. The
operation required first switching the value of the circled node from W to S, and then
adjusting its sister node from S to W.
10
One case where we can see the OCP (or some other principle with similar effect) at work is
when two words are placed one after the other in such a way that the first word has word-final
stress, such as thirtéen, and the second word has word-initial stress, such as mén. This would result
in adjacent stresses, as in *thirtéen mén, but that is not what we get. Rather, word-stress is shifted
within the first word and the outcome is thírteen mén.
48
-Has your neighbor bought a desk already?
a)
#-My neighbor is [F building] a desk.
IPS
I’S
DPW
DW
NPS
IW
VPS
VS
DPW
DW NPS
b)
49
My neighbor
is
[F building]
a
desk.
-Who is building a desk?
a)
#[F My neighbor] is building a desk.
IPS
I’W
DPS
DW NPS
IW
VPS
VW
DPS
DWNPS
b)[F My neighbor]
is
building
a
desk.
After (47), the bolded word in each derivation carries the main stress, because it is dominated
by S-labeled nodes all the way up. In these specific examples, the dominating nodes are
independently S-labeled, by the standard requirement on W-S order, so no iterative
application of (47) is traceable. But we will turn directly to instances where this is not the
case.
We can observe now that desk ends up with a different stress in the two derivations. Given
Szendroi's definition of secondary stress in (13), repeated, desk bears secondary stress in (49),
but not in (48), where the secondary stress is on neighbor.
(13) Secondary stress falls on the terminal node whose path to the root node contains only
S nodes, except for exactly one W label on the node immediately dominated by the root
node. (i.e. RootS X1W X2S ... XiS ... bS)
The upshot is that when main stress shifts from the object to the verb, the intonational
pattern is not different from that obtained with destressing of the object. But when it shifts
to the subject, the pattern is different, as illustrated in (29), repeated as (50).
50)
a.
b.
Only Max can afford buying cars
Only Max can afford seeing her
In (50a), cars, where the main stress would fall originally, is defined as the secondary stress.
In (50b), the original main stress would fall on seeing (because the object is anaphorically
destressed). This original stress remains the secondary stress of the derivation.
Regarding destressing, note first that in the tree-based implementation, there is no specific rule
like the NSR. Rather, the NSR effects are obtained incrementally by applying the W-S rule to
each pair of nodes. Hence, there is no need (or sense) of stating that destressing applies before
the NSR. But the difference between main-stress shift and destressing is that the later is
strictly local, and independent of other elements in the derivation. It is stated in (51)
51) Destressing: Assign W to an anaphoric node.
The standard stress rule for English determines a W-S order for each pair of nodes. However,
if at a given stage an anaphoric word, or anaphoric constituent is encountered, (51) requires it
is assigned W. Unlike the main-stress shift operation, this process is strictly local, and it has
no effect on the nodes dominating its locus. Let us look at the derivations in (52)-(53), where
(53) repeats (41).
IPS
DPW
VPS
VS
52 Lucie touched
DPW
him
IPS
DPS
VPW
VW
53 First Max touched Felixi and then
Lucie
[touched
DPW
himi]
In (52), the anaphoric pronoun must be W. Since its sister -the verb- is not, it is assigned
an S. At the next node up, the derivation can proceed by the standard W-S requirement, so
S is assigned to the rightmost VP node. The outcome is that main stress falls on the verb,
which is dominated by only S nodes. In 53, both the verb and the pronoun have been
mentioned in the immediate context. So both are anaphoric and assigned W at the terminal
level.11 The next node up - the VP - dominates only anaphoric material, (namely, the whole
node is anaphoric), hence (51) applies again. Thus the whole VP ends up destressed, and
the main stress falls on the subject, with no stress shift.
We may note in conclusion that there is a substantial difference between destressing and
the main-stress shift operation. Destressing is a purely local calculation. At any given point
in the incremental application of W-S assignment, whether a node is anaphoric or not is
given from the context. This determines whether it gets stress according to the default W-S
order specified for the language, or it must be assigned the anaphoric W value, regardless
of the default order. At each stage what we consider is only whether the node we are a
assigning a value to is anaphoric or not, and the local decision has no further effect on the
assigning a value to nodes dominating it.
But main-stress shift is a global operation. Note, to begin with that main stress is a global
stress relation. It is defined not by the stress on an individual node, but by the full path in
the relevant subtree. Main-stress shift is an operation designed to alter the global default
stress of the derivation. So once a node was selected as the future main-stress, all nodes
above it have to be adjusted accordingly. In the examples we examined so far, this
adjustment was not visible, because the default order happened to assign S to the
dominating nodes. But in other instances, like (54b), the value assigned to some
dominating nodes must be adjusted as well. Here the specifier of the subject DP is focused,
thus it receives an S label by (47). However, the subject itself would be Weak unless (47)
applied to it. Thus, the only way to ensure that main stress falls on the specifier of the
subject is by applying (47) twice, first to the specifier and then to the subject itself.
11
Note that the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP), requires only that there are no adjacent S
nodes. So it does not rule out this option of a W-sequence. In case of very long W-sequences,
further accentuation devices may apply to create a contour, but this is not enforced by the OCP.
(54)
a)
Whose neighbor is building a desk?
IPS
I’W
DPS
DPS
NPW
IW
VPS
VW
DPS
DWNPS
b)[F John’s neighbor]
is
building
a
desk.
It does not much matter if main-stress shift applies iteratively in a given derivation. The
crucial consideration that makes this operation global is the need to keep track of the
history of a given node, and reapply S checking at each of the dominating nodes.
A further difference between destressing and main-stress shift is where they apply.
Anaphoric destressing applies incrementally during the phonological derivation. This is
possible, because the information regarding whether an element is (discourse) anaphoric is
available locally. (For each item it is known locally whether it is already in the context-set
or not). But main-stress shift is needed to create a focus not in the focus set, and as noted
(in section 2.2), being a focus is not an inherent property of a constituent, but rather a
relation between this constituent and the whole sentence that contains it. Hence, there is no
(non arbitrary) way to decide in advance during the derivation what should be the locus of
the stress-shift operation. This type of information is available only at the IP level (the
root), where the full sentence is constructed. At this level, the focus set is computed, and it
can be identified that the focus needed for the context is not in the focus set. So main-stress
shift applies at this stage to adjust the derivation to context.
Main-stress shift, then, is a repair mechanism. It involves undoing the output of the default
stress procedure, and creating a new S path for the targeted constituent. This is what makes
this operation marked, under the present view. An operation reopening and undoing a
completed derivation is always illicit. It is not something the computational system allows
naturally, and applying an illicit operation requires checking if there was no way to avoid
its application, namely, it requires reference-set computation.
4. Reference set computation.
4.1. Focus projection.
The widely acknowledged characteristics of the focus obtained by shifted (marked) stress are
that it 'does not project' - it can only be 'narrow focus'. This has been used by Cinque and
Zubizarreta as a major diagnostics for the distinction between neutral and marked stress,
but it is largely assumed also by others. The opponents of the distinction have come up
with ample examples showing that this cannot be always true. I will return to these
arguments directly, but first let us see what this generalization means.
As we saw, stress obtained by the default (nuclear, neutral) stress rule allows any projection
containing it to serve as focus, e.g. the whole IP in (20b), repeated. The shifted cases of (23),
by contrast, cannot be used in the same context, as we see in (55), which means that they do
not project IP as focus. Similarly, stress shifted inside the VP does not project VP as focus, as
seen in the comparison of (20c) and (56).
20
b)
55
20
c)
56)
Speaker A:
Speaker B:
What's this noise?
[F My neighbor is building a desk]
Speaker A:
Speaker B:
What's this noise?
#[F My neighbor is building a desk]
#[F My neighbor is building a desk]
Speaker A:
Speaker B:
What's your neighbor doing these days?
My neighbor [F is building a desk]
#My neighbor [F is building a desk]
The same difference can be witnessed with the scope of only (which is always the focus). In
(21), stress is assigned by the nuclear stress rule to builders. In this case, the scope of only can
be either (the narrow focus) builders, or the whole VP that contains it12. Suppose our store
sells equipment only to builders, but at the same time we also buy used equipment from
builders and others. In this situation, (57a), with the narrow focus is true, but (57b) with the
VP focus is false.
57
a)
b)
We only sell equipment [F to builders] (- not to the general public).
We only [F sell equipment to builders] (- We do not buy anything from
anybody).
58
a)
b
We only sell [F equipment] to builders - not health-insurance.
#We only [F sell equipment to builders] - We do not buy anything from
anybody.
In (58), stress-shift applied. The sentence can only be used to exclude the option that we sell
anything but equipment to builders, but not to exclude anything else, as witnessed by the
inappropriateness of (58b). This means that the only element in the scope of only is the narrow
focus -the argument bearing the new stress, as in (58a), but not the whole VP.
Though widely discussed, such facts did not receive a satisfactory account. Standard
approaches postulate a special focus-projection rule for 'contrastive' focus. But it is far from
obvious how we can distinguish (in a non circular way) the 'contrastive' (58a) from the
'standard' (57a), given that in both the focus is narrow.
12
The standard assumption is that the potential scope of only is just its c-command domain, where it
selects the focus as its scope.
Note also that it is impossible to explain the projection problem by forming some direct
association between the position of the stress and its focus interpretation. Such an attempt
could, e.g. identify a given stress as 'non-neutral' by noting that it is not falling on the position
required by the default stress rule, and then stipulate that with non-neutral stress the focus is
only the smallest projection of the stressed node. Technically, this means defining a special
focus set for sentences with non-default stress. Though this may seem an adequate descriptive
generalization, it is not, in fact, true.
59
[The man with the hat] committed a murder.
60
a)
b)
[Did the man with the apron] commit a murder?
Who committed a murder?
In (59) main stress falls in a 'non-neutral' position on the noun in the subject. By the
generalization under consideration, the focus set for (59) should contain then only the lower
DP the hat. The derivation can certainly be used with this constituent as a focus, e.g. as an
answer to the question (60a). But it can also be used as an answer to (60b), in which case the
whole DP the man with the hat is the focus. So the non-default stress does project up to the
top DP. But it is still impossible to use this derivation in an 'out of the blue' context, namely
with the full IP as focus.
Another instance where this line will not work is when anaphoric destressing is involved. In
(61) stress is in a non-neutral position. Still the focus set has the three members in (61b),
which is witnessed by the three contexts it can be used with in (62). The focus set in (61) is
precisely the one determined by the standard definition of the focus set (which I repeat
shortly).
61)
a)
b)
Lucie hit him
Focus set: {V, VP, IP}
62)
a)
b)
c)
Did Lucie kiss him?
What did Lucie do?
Why is he crying?
So, to begin with, narrow focus cannot be associated with the position of the stress, but it has
to do with how the stress got there. It is only if the given main stress was obtained by the
main-stress shift operation, that it does not project. In (61) this operation did not apply. As we
saw, the stress on the verb is obtained by applying the default stress rule (with anaphoric
destressing of the pronoun). But even if stress shift applies, more is needed to explain (59).
Given the reference-set approach to illicit operations, assumed in this work, these facts is
exactly what we should expect. Such operation is allowed just in case this is the only way to
meet interface-requirements, so it requires reference-set computation. Most notably, in this
approach it is not surprising that interpretative effects can depend on the derivational history.
It is only when an illicit operation applies that we have to check a reference set. So the fact
that we chose to apply this operation may restrict our set of possible interpretations. Let us see
how this works.
I assume, first, just the one definition of the focus set in (18), repeated, which is blind to
how stress is assigned. Hence, for the derivations at hand the focus-sets defined are those in
(b).
18)
The focus set of IP consists of the constituents containing the main stress of IP.
63
a)
b)
My neighbor is building a desk
Focus set: {IP, VP, Object}
64
a)
b)
My neighbor is building a desk
Focus set: {IP, VP, V}
65
a)
b)
My neighbor is building a desk
Focus set: {IP, subject}
The focus sets of (63) and (64) intersect in the case of IP and VP. Suppose that in a given
context we want VP (or IP) to be the focus. We could obtain this result by using (63a),
without applying the superfluous stress shift. Hence, (64a) is ruled out for that context. The
only focus of (64a) not already in the focus set of (63a) is the verb. Hence, it is only the need
to use this focus that can motivate the stress shift. Similarly, (65b) intersects with (63b) on IP.
Hence (65b) can only be used with the subject as focus.
As mentioned, computing this type of reasoning, requires a construction of a reference set,
which consists of <d,i> pairs of a derivation and interpretation. In this case, the relevant
interpretation is a selection of a focus out of the focus set. So, suppose our task is to decide
whether (64a) can be used in the context of (19), namely, with the selection of IP as focus.
The reference-set is (66).
66
a)
b)
d:
i:
My neighbor is building a desk --->
My neighbor is building a desk
Focus: IP
d:
i:
My neighbor is building a desk
Focus: IP
Since the pair in (66b) does not involve the extra-operation, it blocks (66a).
Suppose now we want to use (64a) with the verb as the focus, as in the context of (18a). Since
stress-shift is involved, we have to construct a reference-set here as well. However, the
reference-set is (67), which contains only this one member, since no other derivation (of the
same numeration) has the verb as focus. Hence this derivation is allowed.
67)
d:
i:
My neighbor is building a desk --->
My neighbor is building a desk
Focus: V
Let us return to (59) repeated in (68a).
68
a)
[The man with the hat (i)](j) committed a murder.
69
b)
Focus set: {DP(i)-the hat, DP(j)-the man with the hat, IP}
a)
b)
[The man with the hat] committed a murder.
Focus set: {DP- a murder, VP, IP}
The focuses sets of (68) and (69) intersect with the IP. Hence, the reference set
computation excludes using (68) in a context where IP is the intended focus. But neither of
the DPs in the focus set (68b) is included also in the focus set of (69). Hence, the
derivation can be used with either of these DPs as foci (as we saw with the contexts in
(61)). This is why the non-neutral stress in (68a) nevertheless projects partially.
Szendroi (2001) observes the contrast in (70). By what we said so far, the focus sets of (70a)
and (70b) equally contain the full DP subject. Still while this DP subject can be used as a
focus in (70a), it cannot in (70b).
(70)
a
b
Who committed a murder?
[F The man with the hat] committed a murder.
#[F The man with the hat] committed a murder.
She argues that in the case of (70b), another reference set needs to be constructed, namely, a
derivation with less applications of main-stress-shift:
As the diagram in (71a), corresponding to (70a), shows, main-stress shift that places S on a
given node applies once: to the subject DP node. (This is so, because hat is already S-labeled.
To turn it to the main stress only one W-node on its pass needs to be switched.) In (71b),
corresponding to (70b), main-stress shift applies twice: to the DP subject and also to the N
head of the subject.
(71a)
IPS
I’W
DPS
DW
NPS
NW
IW
PPS
PW
VPS
VW
DPS
DPS
DW
NPS
DW NPS
[The
man with the hat
(71b)
IPS
[read
[the
book]]]
I’W
DPS
DW
NPS
IW
NS
VPS
PPW
PW
VW DPS
DPS
DW
NPS
DW NPS
[The man
with the
hat [read [the
book]]]
In both (71a) and (71b) the subject DP is in the focus set. If what we need in the context is
just this DP as focus, there is no reason to apply twice the illicit operation. So deriving
(71a) can be viewed as "less illicit", or involving fewer violations than (71b), hence,
Szendroi argues, it rules (71b) out.
4.2. Markedness
The analysis is based on the assumption that the computational system always assigns main
stress in the same way. This stress is referred to as `neutral' or 'default' stress. Stress derived
by main-stress shift is viewed as marked. The analysis has established some concrete content
to the concept of markedness - a marked derivation is associated with computational
complexity. Whenever main-stress shift applies, a reference-set must be constructed to check
its appropriateness. This means that this operation entails a computational complexity,
whether the final outcome is 'in' or 'out'. On the other hand, there is no reason to assume any
reference-set computation in derivations involving no stress-shift (as would be assumed in
some optimality approaches). So, under the present view, the difference between neutral and
'marked' stress is that the latter requires computational complexity not involved in the first.
As mentioned, the idea that a systematic distinction can be drawn between marked and
neutral stress has been often challenged. The central argument against markedness was that
in the appropriate context marked sentences may sound as innocent as neutral sentences.
Hence, we can never know whether a given stress is marked or not, and, consequently, a
theory assuming this distinction is unfalsifiable. Under this formulation, the objections are
irrelevant, since computational complexity cannot be observed by introspection. When
applying the more complex computation is the only way to satisfy the interface needs, its
outputs sound perfectly normal.
The more significant objections evolve around the issue of focus-projection. As we saw, the
fact that in the case of stress-shift the focus does not project has been used as a major
diagnostics for marked stress. The counter argument has been that this is empirically wrong,
and we can find many instances of focus projection with stress not in its default position, as in
the examples below, from Schmerling (1976) and Ladd 1980 respectively. The point of
both examples is that the whole IP is the focus, even though stress shift has applied.
(72)
I'd give the money to Mary, but I don't trust Mary
(73)
Speaker A:
Speaker B:
Has John read `Slaughterhouse five'?
No, John doesn't read books
As mentioned, a major reason why this debate could not be successfully concluded was the
lack of an explicit distinction between anaphoric destressing and focus shift. With this
distinction established, we can observe that many (though not all) of the counter examples
are, in fact, instances of anaphoric destressing, rather than main-stress shift. (72) is a clear
anaphoric instance, since Mary is obviously in the context set having been just mentioned.
(73) is a more complex case of D-linking: The context set (established by speaker A)
contains a specific book, but this appears to activate the set of books, which is viewed as
given in speaker B's response. Hence books is anaphorically destressed. In both cases, then,
main stress falls on the verb, rather than on the default object position, but it did not get
there by applying the costly main-stress shift operation. As we saw, in this specific
instance, where main stress falls on the verb, there is no prosodic difference between the
outputs of anaphoric destressing and main-stress shift. Nevertheless, the difference in
derivational history shows up in the options of focus projection.
More generally, when only anaphoric destressing applies at a given derivation, the focus
projects in the standard way (as essentially observed already by Selkirk 1984, under a
different formulation). In the present system, this result is enabled, to begin with, since the
definition of the focus set is independent of the derivational history of the sentence, and it
holds uniformly regardless of where the stress falls. By way of summary, let us review
again a simple case like (74).
(74)
a.
Max likes cars
a'. Focus set: {IP, VP, Object}
b.
Max likes her
b'. Focus set: {IP, VP, V}
Recall that the focus set of IP consists of the constituents containing the main stress of IP.
For a structure like (74a), three possible foci can thus be identified (cf. 74a'). The minimal
assumption would be that the definition of possible foci (that is, of the focus set) remains
constant no matter how stress is derived. If so, destressing of the object, as in (74b), should
lead to the focus set in (74b'). This focus set differs from that in (74a') in only one
construal: (74b') allows the verb, but not the object, to be focus (since the object does not
contain the main stress). (74a'), in contrast, allows the object as focus, but not the verb. But
in both derivations IP and VP are equally defined as possible foci, i.e. so far, nothing
blocks focus projection in either structure. (72) and (73) are analogous to (74b), with
precisely the same focus set.
But the next crucial question is why the fact that IP and VP can be used as foci without
anaphoric destressing does not block their use in (74b), (72) and (73). In the present
system, there is no reason to expect that it would. Focus projection is blocked only if
reference set computation must take place, and it reveals that the projected focus could be
obtained without stress shift. But this computation is only activated if an illicit operation
applies. The global main-stress shift operation, which requires undoing the syntactic tree, is
such an operation. But as we saw, anaphoric destressing is not. It applies incrementally
with no computational cost involved. So nothing triggers any reference set computation
here, the derivation is not defined as marked, and the projection diagnostics shows, indeed,
that it is not.
References
(Note: These are the references for the whole book)
Abusch, Dorit. 1994. The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2(2):83-135.
Akmajian, A., and R. Jackendoff. 1970. Coreferentiality and stress. Linguistic Inquiry 1:124126.
Altman, G. T. M. and Steedman, M. 1988. Interaction with context during human sentence
processing. Cognition 30:191-238
Avrutin, Sergey. 1994. Psycholinguistic investigations in the theory of reference. Doctoral
dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Baert, J. L. 1987. Focus, syntax, and accent placements. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: ICG
Printing.
Baker, Carl L. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions. The role of an abstract
question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6:197-219
Barwise, J. and R. Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics
and Philosophy 4:159-219.
Baauw, S., E. Ruigendijk and F. Cuetos. 2003. The interpretation of contrastive stress in
Spanish-speaking children. In Proceedings of GALA 2003, ed. J. van Kampen and
S. Baauw. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT, Occasional Series 2.
Beghelli, Filippo. 1993. A minimalist approach to quantifier scope. In Proceedings of North
East Linguistics Society 23, University of Ottawa, ed. Amy J. Schafer. Amherst,
Mass.: NELS/University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Beghelli, Filippo. 1995. The phrase structure of quantifier scope. Doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Beghelli, Filippo, Dorit Ben-Shalom and Anna Szabolcsi. 1993. When do subjects and objects
exhibit a branching reading? In Proceedings of the Twelfth West Coast Conference on
Formal Linguistics, ed. Erin Duncan, Donka Farkas, and Philip Spaelti, PAGE #?.
Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information/Stanford
University.
Beghelli, Filippo and T. Stowell. 1995. The syntax of distributivity and negation. Manuscript,
UCLA.
Beghelli, Filippo and T. Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negation: the syntax of each and
every. In Ways of scope taking, ed. A. Szabolsci, PAGE #.Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Ben-Shalom, Dorit. 1993. Object wide scope and semantic trees. In Proceedings of Semantics
and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 3, ed. Lahiri name?, 19-37?. Ihaca, NY: CLC
Publications/Cornell University.
Ben-Shalom, Dorit. 1996. Dependent and independent pronouns. In Semantic Trees, Ch. 2.
Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Bochvar, D. A. 1939. On a three-valued logical calculus and its application to the analysis of
contradictories Matematceskij Sbornik 4:287-308. Quoted in Susan Haack. 1974.
Deviant logic: some philosophical issues. Cambridge University Press.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Accent is predictable (If you’re a mind-reader). Language 48: 633644.
Carden, G. 1982. Backward anaphora in discourse context. Journal of Linguistics 18:361-387.
Chien, Y.-Ch., and K. Wexler. 1990. Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding
as evidence of the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1:225295.
Chierchia G. and M. T. Guasti. 2000. Backwards vs. forward anaphora: reconstruction in
dhild language, Language Acquisition 8(2):129-170.
Chierchia, G, S. Crain, M.T. Guasti, A. Gualmini and L. Meroni. 2001. The acquisition of
disjunction: evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In Proceedings of
the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed.
Anna H.-J. Do, et al., 157-168. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In
Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, ed.
D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits, 183-216. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed.
Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232-286. New York: Holt, Reinhart and
Winston.
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Questions of form and interpretation. Linguistic Analysis 1:75-109.
Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2:303-351.
Reprinted in Chomsky, Noam, 1977. Essays on Form and Interpretation. New York:
North Holland.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1992. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics. Reprinted as Ch. 3 in Chomsky, 1995.
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from
building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Kenneth Hale
and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by step, ed.
R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, 89-156. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In A life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1–
52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam, and H. Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Syntax:
an international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 1, ed. Joachim Jacobs,
Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann, 506-569. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter. Reprinted in N. Chomsky, The Minimalist Program. MIT Press,
1995.
Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper
and Row.
Chung, S., W. Ladusaw and J. McCloskey. 1994. Sluicing and logical form. Ms. University of
California, Santa Cruz. Natural Language Semantics, 3(3):239–282.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry
24(2):239-298.
Clifton et al. eds., Perspectives on sentence processing. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale,
New Jersey, 443-467. AUTHOR?
Collins, Chris. 1994. Economy of derivation and the generalized proper binding condition.
Linguistic Inquiry 25(1):45-61.
Collins, Chris. 1997. Local economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Cooper, R. 1979. Variable binding and relative clauses. In Formal semantics and pragmatics
for natural languages, ed. Franz Guenthner and S. J. Schmidt, 131-170. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Reidel.
Cooper, R. 1983. Quantification and syntactic theory. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
Crain, Stephen, and Cecile McKee. 1986. Acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In
Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 16, GLSA, ed. S. Berman, J.-W.
Choe, and J. McDonough, 94-110. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA.
Crain, S., and D. Lillo-Martin. 1999. An introduction to linguistic theory and language
acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Crain, S., and H. Hamburger. 1992. Semantic knowledge and NP modification. In Formal
grammar: Theory and Interpretation, vol. 2, ed. R. Levine, 372-401. ?Vancouver,
British Columbia: The University of British Columbia Press.
Crain, S., and R. Thornton. 1998. Investigations in Universal Grammar: a guide to
experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Crain, S., W. Ni, and L. Conway. 1994. Learning, parsing, and modularity. In, Perspectives
on sentence processing, ed. C. Clifton et al., 443-467. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crain, S., and Steedman, M. 1985. On not being led up the garden path: the use of context by
the psychological parser. In Natural language parsing: psychological, computational
and theoretical perspectives, ed. D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky, 320-358.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cutler, A. and D. Swinney. 1987. Prosody and the development of comprehension. Journal
of Child Language 14(1):145-167.
Danon, G. 1996. The syntax of determiners in Hebrew. M.A thesis. Tel Aviv University.
Available at: http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~danong1/papers/thesis.pdf.
Delfitto, D. and D’Hulst, Y. 1994. Beyond the mapping hypothesis. Ms. Utrecht University.
De Jong, F. and H. Verkuyl. 1985. Generalized quantifiers: the properness of their
strength. In Generalized quantifiers: theory and application, ed. J. van Bentham and
A. ter Meulen. 21-43. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
van der Does, J. 1992. Applied quantifier logics. Doctoral dissertation. University of
Amsterdam.
Dowty, D. 1980. Comments on the paper by Bach and Partee. In Papers from the Parasession
on pronouns and anaphora, ed. K. J. Kreiman, and A. E. Ojeda, 29-40?. Chicago:
Chicago Linguistic Society.
Dowty, D. 1986. A note on collective predicates, distributive predicates and ‘all.’ In
Proceedings of the third Eastern State Conference on Linguistics, ed. Marshall, Miller
and Zhang, pages. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.
Epstein, Samuel David. 1992. Derivational constraints on A-Chain formation. Linguistic
Inquiry 23(2):235-259.
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1980. The syntax and semantics of questions in Swedish. Doctoral
dissertation. University of Massachussetts, Amherst.
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1986. Constituent questions: the syntax and semantics of questions with
special reference to Swedish. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Radel.
Everaert, M. and Eric Reuland 2000? eds Interface strategies. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11(2):337-362.
Farkas, D. 1981. Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In Papers from the Seventeenth
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 59-66. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Fiengo, Robert and Robert May. 1994. Indices and indentity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Fodor, Jerry. 1979. In defence of the truth gap. In Presuppositions, syntax and semantics 11,
ed. C. K. Oh and D. A. Dinneen. New York: Academic Press.
Fodor, Janet Dean, and Ivan A. Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites.
Linguistics and Philosophy 5(3):355-398.
Fodor, Jerry A., Thomas G. Bever, and Merrill F. Garrett. 1974. The psychology of
language: an introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Fox, Danny. 1993. Chain and Binding: a modification of Reinhart and Reuland’s reflexivity.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.
Fox, Danny . 1995. Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics 3:283-341.
Fox, Danny. 1998. Locality in variable binding. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and
competition in syntax, ed. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha
McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 129-155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, variable binding and the interpretation of chains.
Linguistic Inquiry 30:157–196.
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Gamut, L.T.F. 1991. Logic, language and meaning, vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Gathercole, S., G. and Hitch, G. J. 1993. Developmental changes in short-term memory: a
revised working memory perspective. In Theories of Memory, ed. A. F. Collins, S. E.
Gathercole, M. A. Conway, & P. E. Morris, 189-211/209?. Hove, UK: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Gathercole, Susan E. and Alan D. Baddeley. 1993. Working memory and language. Essays in
cognitive psychology. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gennari, S., A. Gualmini, S. Crain, L. Meroni, and S. Maciukaite. 2001. How adults and
children manage stress in ambiguous contexts. In Proceedings of 1st Workshop on
Cognitive Models of Semantic Processing. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh.
Gil, David. 1982. Quantifier scope, linguistic variation and natural language semantics.
Linguistics and Philosophy 5:421-472.
Golan, Yael. 1993. Node crossing economy, superiority and D-linking. Ms. Tel Aviv
University.
Goldsmith, John A. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Goodman, N. 1972. About. In Goodman, N. Problems and projects. Indianapolis?
Grimshaw, J., and S. Rosen. 1990. Knowledge and obedience: the developmental status of
the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 187-222.
Groenendijk, Jeroen. and Martin Stokhof. 1982. Semantic analysis of wh-complements,
Linguistics and Philosophy 52: 175-234.
Grodzinsky, Yoseph, and Tanya Reinhart. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference.
Linguistic Inquiry 241:69-102/1?.
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the
pragmatics of answers. Doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
Gualmini, A., S. Crain, L. Meroni, G. Chierchia and M.T. Guasti. 2001. At the
semantics/pragmatics interface in child language. In Proceedings from Semantics and
Linguistic Theory 11, 231-247. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Gualmini, A., S. Maciukaite and S. Crain. 2002. Children’s insensitivity with contrastive
stress with only. In Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 91(1).
Guenthner, F. and S. Schmidt, eds. 1979. Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural
languages. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel. WHICH ARTICLE?
Gundel, Jeannette K. 1974. The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University
Linguistic Club.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents in Dutch.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
Halbert, A., S. Crain, D. Shankweiler, and E. Woodams. 1995. Children’s interpretive use of
emphatic stress. Presented at the 8th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence
Processing, Tucson, AZ.
Halle, M., and J.-R. Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 2. Journal of
Linguistics 3:199-244.
Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language
10(1):41-53. Reprinted in Montague Grammar, ed. B. Partee. New York: Academic
Press, 1976.
Heim, Irene. 1982b. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1989 by Garland,
New York.
Heim, Irene. 1986. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms. University of Texas,
Austin
Heim, Irene. 1993. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: a reinterpretation
of Reinhart’s approach. SfS Report-07-93, University of Tubingen. Reprinted in The
interpretative Tract, MIT working papers in linguistics, vol. 25., ed. Uli Sauerland and
O. Percus, pages. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT woking papers in linguistics.
Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: a reinterpretation of Reinharts
approach. In The interpretative tract, ed. U. Sauerland and O. Percus. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT working papers in linguistics 25.
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Hendriks, H. 1993. Studied flexibility. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Higginbotham, James. 1983. Logical form, binding and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14(3):
395-420.
Higginbotham, James. 1989. Indefinites and predication. In The representation of
(in)definiteness, ed. Reuland, E. and A. G. B. ter Meulen, 41-80/43-70?. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16(4):547-593.
Higginbotham, James. 1992. Interrogatives. Ms. MIT.
Higginbotham, James, and Robert May. 1981. Questions, quantifiers and crossing. The
Linguistic Review 1: 41-79.
Hilbert, D. and P. Bernays. 1939. Die Grundlagen der Mathematik II, second edition, reprint
1970, Springer, Berlin. ARTICLE TITLE?
Hirschbuhler, P. 1982. VP Deletion and across-the-board quantifier scope. In Proceedings of
NELS 12, ed. Pustejovsky, James and Sells, Peter, 132-139. University of
Massachusetts, Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
de Hoop, H. 1992. Case configuration and NP interpretation. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
Hornby, P. A. and W. A. Hass. 1970. Use of contrastive stress by preschool children. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research 13:387-394/395-399?.
Hornstein, Norbert. 1995.? LF: The grammar of Logical Form from GB to minimalism.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hornstein, N. and A. Weinberg. 1990. The necessity of LF. The Linguistic Review 7:129-167.
Huang, C. T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Ingram, D. and C. Shaw. 1981. The comprehension of pronominal reference in children. Ms.
University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Ioup, G.L. 1975. The treatment of quantifier scope in a Transformational Grammar. Doctoral
dissertation, City University of New York.
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass:
MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Linguistic Inquiry
Monographs, 28. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Jacobson, Pauline. 1999. Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy
22:117–184.
Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic: introduction to model theoretic
semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer.
Karttunen, L. 1977. The syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:144.
Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Foris.
Keenan, Edward. 1971. Names, quantifiers and a solution to the sloppy identity problem.
Papers in Linguistics 4(2).
Keenan, Edward. 1989. A semantic definition of Indefinite NP. In The representation of
(in)definiteness, ed. Reuland, E. and A. ter Meulen, 109-150. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Keenan, Edward, and Leonard M. Faltz. 1978. Logical types for natural language. In UCLA
occasional papers in linguistics 3. University of California, Los Angeles.
Kehler, Andy. 1993. A discourse copying algorithm for ellipsis and anaphora. Proceedings of
EACL. Association for Computational Linguistics Morristown, NJ, USA.
Kempson, R. and A. Cormack. 1981. Ambiguity and quantification. Linguistics and
Philosophy 4:259-309.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The Generic Book,
ed. G. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier, 125–175. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago
Press.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or pseudo scope? Are there wide scope indefinites? In Events
in Grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 163–196. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and
English. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3):269-320.
Kuno, Susumu. 1975. Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax. Papers form
the parasession on functionalism 276-336. Chicago, Ill.: Chicago Linguistic Society.
***Ref not found; found a citation w/different pages, pub. In 1976; ***
Ladd, D. Robert. 1980. The structure of intonational meaning: evidence from English.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Langacker, R. 1969. On pronominalization and the chain of command. In Modern Studies in
English, ed. W. Reibel and S. Schane. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Lasnik, Howard. 1976. Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis 2(1):1-22
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move alpha: conditions on its applications and
output. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Pragmatics. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Formal Semantics of Natural Language,
ed. Edward Keenan, 3-15. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
Liberman, Mark (1979). The intonational system of English. Ph.D.dissertation, MIT, 1975.
New York: Garland Press.
Link, G. 1983. The logical analysis of plural and mass terms: a lattice theoretical approach. In
Meaning, use and interpretation of language, ed. R. Bauerle et al. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Lust, B., K. Loveland and R. Kornet. 1980. The development of anaphora in first language:
syntactic and pragmatic constraints. Linguistic Analysis 6(4):359-391.
Lust, B. and T. Clifford. 1982. The 3D study: effects of depth, distance and directionality on
children’s acquisition of Mandarin Chinese. In NELS 12, ed. J. Pustejovsky and P.
Sells. Amherst: University of Massechusetts, GLSA.
Maratsos, M. P. 1973. The effects of stress on the understanding of pronominal reference in
children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2(1):1-8.
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Reprinted by IUC.
Mazuka, R. 1996. Can a grammatical parameter be set before the first words? In Signal to
Syntax, ed. J. L. Morgan and K. Demuth. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McCawley, J. 1979. Presuppositions and discourse structure. In Presuppositions, Syntax
and Semantics, 11, ed. Oh, C.K and D.A. Dinneen. New York: Academic Press.
McDaniel, Dana. and Maxfield, Thomas L. 1992. Principle B and contrastive stress.
Language Acquisition 2(4):337-358.
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT?.
Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Libraries.
Moltmann, F. and A. Szabolcsi. 1994. Scope interactions with pair-list quantifiers, Paper
presented at NELS 24. Place: ?
Mulders, Iris and Floor Jas. 1995. They do exist: backward anaphors in Dutch. Ms., Utrecht
University.
Neeleman, Ad. 1994. Complex predicates. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, The
Netherlands. OTS.
Neeleman, A. and Fred Weerman. 1996. Case and arguments in a flexible syntax. Ms.,
Utrecht University/OTS.
Neeleman, Ad, and Fred Weerman. 1999. Flexible syntax: a theory of case and arguments.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Neeleman, Ad, and T. Reinhart. 1998. Scrambling and the PF interface. In Projecting from the
lexicon, CSLI, ed. W. Geuder and M. Butt. Stanford, California: Standord University
Press .
Neeleman and Szendroi 2002. INCOMPLETE, THE REF. BELOW?
Neeleman, Ad, and Kriszta Szendroi. 2004. Superman sentences. Linguistics Inquiry
35(1):149-159.
Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Foris.
Nespor, M., T. Guasti, and A. Christophe. 1996. Selecting word order: the rhythmic activation
principle. In Interfaces in phonology, ed. U. Kleinhenz, 1-26. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag.
Nishigauchi 1986,? Reference below?
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1986. The sytax of wh-questions in Japanese and English. Shoin
Literary Review 20:67-85.
Nooteboom, S.G., and J. G. Kruyt. 1987. Accents, focus distribution, and the perceived
distribution of given and new information: an experiment. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America 825:1512-1524.
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Pesetsky, David. 1989. Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding. In The representation
of (in)definiteness, ed. E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen, 98-129. Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press.
Pinto, M. 1994. Subjects in Italian: distribution and interpretation. Ms. Utrecht University,
OTS.
Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory.
Linguistic Inquiry 23:261-305.
Postma, Gertijan. 1984. The Dutch pronoun diens: distribution and reference properties. In
Linguistics in the Netherlands, ed. Hans Bennis and van Lessen Kloeke, 147-157.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
Prince, Ellen F. 1979. On the given/new distinction. In Papers from the fifteenth regional
meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society 15, ed. W. Hanks, C. Hofbauer and P. Clyne, 26778.
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics,
ed. P. Cole, 233-255. New York: Academic Press.
Pulleyblank, Douglas, and William J. Turkel. 1998. The logical problem of language
acquisition in optimality theory. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and
competition in syntax, ed. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha
McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 399-420. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press and MIT
working papers in linguistics.
Putnam, H. 1958. Formalization of the concept ‘about.’ Philosophy of science, 25(2): 125130.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge, Mass. Distributed by MIT working papers in linguistics.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1979. Syntactic domains for semantic rules. In Formal Semantics and
Pragmatics for Natural Language, ed. F. Guenthner & S. J. Schmidt, l07-l30.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981a. Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics.
Philosophica 27(1):53-93.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981b. A second COMP position. In Theory of markedness in generative
grammar, ed. A. Belletti et al, 517-557. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983a. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: The University of
Chicago University Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983b. Coreference and bound anaphora: a restatement of the anaphora
questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6(1):47-88.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1986. On the interpretation of donkey sentences. In On conditionals, ed. E.C.
Traugott et al, 103-122. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1989. Specifiers and operator binding. In The representation of
(in)definiteness, ed. Reuland, E. and A. ter Meulen, 130-167. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press
Reinhart, Tanya. 1991. Elliptic conjunctions: non quantificational LF. In The Chomskyan
Turn, ed. A. Kasher. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Reinhart, T. 1992. Wh-in-situ: an apparent paradox. In Proceedings of the Eigth Amsterdam
Colloquium, ed. P. Dekker et al., 483-492. University of Amsterdam.
Reinhart, T. 1993. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the minimalist program. Lecture at
Utrecht Linguistic Colloquium. [Distributed by OTS Working Papers in Linguistics
1994, TL-94-003 and printed with slight revisions in Natural Language Semantics,
vol 6: 29-56, 1998].
Reinhart, T. 1995. Interface Strategies. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics, TL-95-002.
Utrecht University. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
Reinhart, T. 1997. Quantifier scope: how labor is divided between QR and Choice functions.
Linguistics and Philosophy 20:335-397.
Reinhart, T. 1998. Interface economy: focus and markedness. In The role of economy
principles in linguistic theory, ed. Chris Wilder, Hans-Martin Gaertner, and
Manfred Bierwisch, 146-170. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1999a. The processing cost of reference-set computation: Guess patterns in
acquisition. OTS working papers in linguistics, 99001- CL/TL, Utrecht University.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1999b. Binding theory. In The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences,
ed. Robert A. Wilson and Frank C. Keil, 86-88. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2000. Strategies of anaphora resolution. In Interface Strategies, ed. Hans
Bennis, M. Everaert and E. Reuland, Martin, 295-324. Amsterdam: Royal
Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Reinhart, Tanya. forthcoming. Processing or pragmatics? Explaining the ecoreference
delaty. To appear In The processing and acquisition of reference, ed. Ted Gibson
and Neal Pearlmutter, pages. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1991. Anaphors and logophors: an argument structure
perspective. In Long Distance Anaphora, ed. Jan Koster and E. Reuland, 283-321.
Cambridge, England.: Cambridge University Press.
Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24:657-720.
Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32(3):439-492.
Reuland, Eric, and A. ter Meulen, eds. 1989. The representation of (in)definiteness.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Ristad, Eric. 1992. Computational structure of natural language. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Distributed by MIT working papers in linguistics.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Rodman, R. 1976. Scope phenomena, movement transformations, and relative clauses. In
Montague grammar, ed. B. Partee: New York: Academic Press.
Roberts, Craige. 1987. Modal subordination, anaphora and distributivity. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rooth, Mats E. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rooth, Mats E. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75-116.
Ross, J. R. 1969. Guess who. In CLS 5, Proceedings of the Fifth Regional Meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. R. Binnick et al., 252-286. Chicago, Ill.: University of
Chicago Press.
Ruys, E. G. 1992. The scope of indefinites. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, The
Netherlands. OTS Dissertation Series.
Ruys, E. G. 1996. Some notes on economy conditions in Chapter 4. Ms., Utrecht
University.
Ruys, E. G. 2000. Weak crossover as a scope phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 31(3):513–
539.
Sag, I. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Scha, R. 1981. Distributive, collective, and cumulative predication. In Formal Methods in the
study of Language, ed J. Groenendijk et al. 485-512. Amsterdam: Mathematical
Center.
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1996. Sentence prosody: intonation, stress and phrasing. In The
handbook of phonological theory, ed. John A. Goldsmith. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of
accents. Natural Language Semantics 7(1)41–177.
Solan, Lawrence. 1983. Pronominal reference: child language and the theory of grammar.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
Solan, Lawrence. M. 1978. Anaphora in child language. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Strawson, P. 1964. Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria, 30. Reprinted in
Strawson, P., Logico Linguistic Papers, London: Methuen, 1974, and in Semantics,
ed. D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits, London: Cambridge University Press.
Swinney, D. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: reconsideration of context
effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18:645-659.
Swinney, D., J. Nicol, and E. B. Zurif. 1989. The effects of focal brain damage on sentence
processing: an examination of the neurological organization of a mental module.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1:25-37.
Swinney, D., and P. Prather. 1989. On the comprehension of lexical ambiguity by young
children: investigations into the development of mental modularity. In Resolving
semantic ambiguity, ed. D.S. Gorfein, 225-238. New York: Springer Verlag.
Szabolsci and Zwarts 1991
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1995. On modes of operation. In Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam
Colloquium, ed. Paul Dekker and M. Stokhof. University of Amsterdam.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Ways of scope taking, ed. A. Szabolcsi,
109-154. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Szendroi, Kriszta. 2001. Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. Doctoral dissertation,
University College London, London.
Szendroi, Kriszta. 2003. Acquisition Evidence for an Interface Theory of Focus. In
Proceedings of GALA 2003, ed. J. van Kampen and S. Baauw. Utrecht, The
Netherlands: LOT, Occasional Series 2.
Tancredi, Christopher Damian. 1992. Deletion, deaccenting and presupposition. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Tavakolian, Susan L. 1974. Contrastive stress pattern in four year olds. Ms., University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Tavakolian, Susan L. 1977. Structural principles in the acquisition of complex sentences.
Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Taylor-Browne, K. 1983. Acquiring restrictions on forwards anaphora: a pilot study. In
Calgary working papers in linguistics, 75-99. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary,
Department of Linguistics.
ter Meulen, Alice, and Eric Reuland, eds. 1989. The representation of (in)definiteness.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Tesar, Bruce. 1998. Error-driven learning in optimality theory via the efficient computation
of optimal forms. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax,
ed. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David
Pesetsky, 421-435. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press and MIT working papers in
linguistics.
Thornton, Rosalind. 1998. Children’s interpretation of pronouns. Paper presented at the
Trieste conference on acquisition, September 1998.
Thornton, Rosalind. 1990. Adventures in long-distance moving: The acquisition of complex
wh-questions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Thornton, Rosalind, and Kenneth Wexler. 1999. Principle B, VP ellipsis and interpretation
in child grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Tsai, Wei-Tien 1994. On economizing the theory of A-bar dependencies. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Vallduvi, E. 1990. The informational component. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania.
Vallduvi, Engdahl, and Herman Hendricks.
Verkuyl, Henk J. 1988. Aspectual asymmetry and quantification. In Temporalsemantik:
Beiträge zur Linguistik der Zeitreferenz, ed. V. Ehrich and H. Vater, 220-259.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Chien, Y.-C. and K. Wexler. 1991. Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as
evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1:225295.
Wexler, K. and Y.-C. Chien. 1985. The development of lexical anaphors and pronouns. In
Papers and reports on child language development, 24, 138-149. Stanford, California:
Stanford University.
Williams, Edwin S. 1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1):101-39.
Williams, Edwin S. 1986. A reassignment of the functions of LF. Linguistic Inquiry 17:265299.
Williams, Edwin S. 1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28(4):577–628.
Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and
Philosophy 20(4):399-467.
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1994. Word order, prosody and focus. Ms., University of
Southern California.
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press.
Zuckerman, S., N. Vasić and S. Avrutin. 2001. The syntax-discourse interface and the
interpretation of pronominals by Dutch-speaking children. In Proceedings of the
annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, BUCLD 26, 781792. Boston, Mass.
Zuckerman, S., N. Vasic and S. Avrutin. in progress Pronominal reference in child language.
Ms., UiL OTS, Utrecht University.