Contrast in cleft sentences
Emilie Destruel
(project in collaboration with Dan Velleman, UT Austin)
emilie-johnson@uiowa.edu
University of Iowa
Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt
01/21/2014
Goals for today
1. OFFER background on the notions of focus and contrast,
1. PROVIDE empirical evidence for the felicity of the English itcleft,
1. REFINE the notion of contrast in discourse-semantics
terms,
1. EXPLORE cross-linguistics implications.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
1. MOTIVATE the present study,
2
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND
3
What is focus?
(1)
Q: Who likes Sue?
A: [Mary]F likes Sue
(alternatives: [Jane]F likes Sue, [Peter]F likes Sue, etc.)
A: * Mary likes [Sue]F
• Focus does not have to be “new”, but must be unpredictable
(not yet in the common ground). (Beaver & Velleman 2011)
(2)
Gary, Larry, Harry, Barry and Mary all showed up at the
party. And you won't believe who got the drunkest. It was_____ !
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• Universal category of information structure (Krifka 2008)
• Focus evokes a set of alternative propositions which the
speaker takes to be salient (Rooth 1992)
4
Two types of focus
• Identificational focus
Associated with a semantically stronger interpretation:
Exhaustive
Contrastive
Corrective
Verum
(4)
S1: Last Halloween, John went as Batman.
S2: No, John went as [Spiderman]F.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• Informational focus
(3)
Q: Who is chewing tobacco?
A: [John]F is chewing tobacco.
5
• Different across languages (Büring 2008)
(5)
Q: Who is chewing tobacco?
A: JOHN is chewing tobacco
English
A: C’est Jean qui mâche du tabac
French
A: Está masticando tabaco Juan
Spanish
• Identificational focus must be realized in a special
position, via more marked strategy (Kiss 1998)
(6)
A: It’s John who is chewing tobacco it-cleft
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
How is focus realized?
6
The English it-cleft
It’s John who is chewing tobacco.
• Associated with an exhaustive inference (a)
• and/or contrast (b)
(a) Nobody other than John is chewing tobacco.
(b) John as opposed to, for example Mary, is chewing
tobacco.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
(7)
7
Contrast
• Exclusion of alternatives (Kiss 1998)
• Presence of an explicit antecedent focal alternative
(Rooth 1992; Schwarschild 1999)
• Account for why clefts are good as corrections but sound
odd as direct answers to explicit wh-questions.
• … but some facts remain unexplained.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• Previously understood on the basis of semantic terms:
8
Motivation for the current study
• In contexts in which an antecedent is available,
speakers may nevertheless choose not to use an itcleft.
(8) S1:Darren sounded really excited about his
vacation. I think he’s going to Canada.
S2a: Actually, he’s going to Mexico.
S2b: ? Actually, it’s Mexico that he’s going to.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• In contexts where the speaker provides a complete,
exhaustive answer, the it-cleft is not always
produced.
9
• Exhaustivity and presence of a focal antecedent may be
necessary conditions, but we think they are not sufficient
to explain the natural use of the cleft in English …
What more is needed ?
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
So …
10
Specific research questions
• How can the notion of contrast be refined to reflect
these factors?
• What might this mean for the bigger cross-linguistic
picture?
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• Under which conditions are it-clefts actually produced in
English? What factors are relevant for their felicity?
11
Broaden the notion of contrast to include two features:
• LINGUISTIC: Rooth-style contrast with a prejacent
proposition.
 Makes clefts more felicitous.
 Directly promotes cleft production.
• METALINGUISTIC: Conflict with hearer’s expectations.
 Takes the discourse in an unexpected direction.
 Makes canonical sentences less felicitous, which
indirectly promotes cleft production.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
Our proposal
12
Roadmap
1. Evidence from a production study
1. Discussion
2. Implications for cross-linguistics data & Direction for
future work
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
2. Evidence from a rating study
13
THE CONTRA-PRESUPPOSITIONAL
USE OF CLEFTS
Experiment 1
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
PRODUCTION STUDY:
14
Goal of the study
• An observation: natural English it-clefts often seem to
be counter-presuppositional … not informational.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• A practical goal: how to elicit felicitous it-clefts?
15
Counter-presuppositional context:
• Correction: Ken.
• You say: __________________________________
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• Your friend says: We were planning Amy's surprise party
for weeks. I can't believe someone ruined the surprise.
Do you have any idea why Alice told her about it?
16
Informational context:
• Answer: Ken.
• You say: ___________________________
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• Your friend says: We were planning Amy's surprise party
for weeks. I can't believe someone ruined the surprise.
Who told her about it?
17
 Counter-presuppositional contexts will elicit clefts
where informational contexts did not.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
Prediction
18
Methodology
•
•
•
•
15 native English speakers (UT undergraduates).
5 lexicalizations created per context.
2 versions of the written questionnaire.
Each participant saw a total of 10 experimental stimuli +
5 fillers.
• Collected 150 sentences.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
2 x 2 design:
• context (informational/ counter-presuppositional)
• grammatical function of element in the answer
(subject/ object).
19
Results (raw numbers)
80
69
40
40
35
Canonical
Cleft
20
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
60
6
20
0
Informational
Counter- presuppositional
• Difference in distribution of sentence form across both
contexts is highly significant. (χ2 (1) = 36.24, p<0.01)
• Difference in distribution of sentence form in
informational context is highly significant. (z = 7.27,
p<0.01)
• Difference in distribution of sentence form in counterpresuppositional context is not highly significant. (z = 0.57, p=0.5)
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• The odds of using a cleft is 13.1 times higher given the
counter-presuppositional context than the informational
context.
21
Interim discussion
• While clefts are clearly contrastive, clefting is not the
only strategy available to speakers. Canonicals (with
prosodic prominence) are also produced.
 So, what makes a cleft a better alternative?
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• It-clefts are actually produced, mostly to offer a
correction to a presupposition. They do make really bad
direct answers.
22
DEGREE OF BELIEF OR
DEGREE OF AT-ISSUENESS?
Experiment 2
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
RATING STUDY:
23
The intuition behind this study…
• Question: what difference actually matters between the
informational & counter-presuppositional contexts?
• Intuition: cleft is doing more than just linguistic
contrast...
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• The production study can only tell us so much about the
cleft’s use.
24
 Two types of expectations seem important:
• Expectations about the world (Strength of belief)
• Expectations about the discourse (At-issueness)
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• The cleft seems increasingly better when the speaker’s
expectations are expressed more strongly, and the conflict
with hearer’s expectations intensifies.
(related to Zimmerman 2008, 2011)
25
Strength of belief
• Gradient notion:
“no overt belief”
“weak belief”
“strong belief”
• More strongly expressed beliefs lead to stronger conflict
between interlocutors.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• Expectations involving speaker’s beliefs about the world
(common ground)
… expressed as assertions or presuppositions.
26
At-issueness
• At-issue: asserted content. “The main point of the
utterance”
• Non-at-issue: presupposed content. “propositions
which the sentences are not primarily about”
(Simons et al. 2010, Tonhauser 2012, Tonhauser et al.
2013)
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• Expectations the speaker has about the direction in which
discourse is progressing…
… expressed by marking (part of) the proposition as:
27
Hypothesis
• clefts will become increasingly felicitous as
strength of belief increases, and vice-versa for
canonicals.
• clefts will become increasingly felicitous when
the proposition corrected is not-at-issue, and
vice-versa for canonicals.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
Both factors Strength of belief and At-issueness play
a role in the felicity of the it-cleft:
28
Stimuli
“This bean dip is fantastic. I really want the recipe...
• …Who made it ?”
Informational
• …I guess maybe Shannon made it.”
At-issue weak belief
• …Shannon made it.”
At-issue strong belief
• …I can’t believe Shannon made it.”
Counter-presuppositional
Responses to rate:
• Actually, Tim made it.
• Actually, it was Tim who made it.
Canonical
It-Cleft
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
Contexts:
29
• Felicity judgment task on 1-5 point likert scale:
1- not natural at all, I would never say this.
3- sounds natural, I would sometimes say this.
5- extremely natural, exactly how I would say this.
• 12 native English speakers (undergraduates at St Edwards
University).
• 5 lexicalizations created per context.
• Each participant saw a total of 20 experimental stimuli
(5 in each context).
• Collected a total of 240 ratings.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
Methodology
30
Results (raw numbers, collapsed for GF)
5
3
2
Canonical
Cleft
1
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
4
0
31
Ratings of canonicals by context
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
(based on 240 observations)
32
Ratings of it-clefts by context
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
(based on 240 observations)
33
• For clefts: ANOVA shows a significant effect of context on
rating (p<0.001). Tukey’s HSD test shows significant
differences between:
• For canonicals: ANOVA shows a significant effect of
context on rating (p<0.001). Tukey’s HSD test shows
significant differences between:
• Counter-presuppositional and informational (p<0.001)
• Counter-presuppositional and low contrast (p<0.001)
• Counter-presuppositional and strong contrast (p<0.001)
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• Informational and low contrast (p=0.015)
• Informational and strong contrast (p<0.001)
• Informational and counter-presuppositional (p<0.001)
34
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
DISCUSSION
35
Canonicals
• Strength of belief is not significant, but at-issueness plays a
role.
• Our interpretation:
The use-conditions of the canonical must make reference to
the distinction at-issue/ non-at-issue.
Canonical sentences are preferred when used to address or
contradict at-issue (asserted) content.
Canonical sentences signal “things are proceeding as normal”
and are infelicitous in contexts where the component
contradicted is non-at-issue.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• Canonicals are significantly worse in the counterpresuppositional context than in the other three.
36
It-clefts
• Strength of belief has some effect, but it only slightly
significant.
• Our interpretation:
All it takes for the clefts to be felicitous is linguistic
contrast …
but for clefts to be preferred, the canonical must not be
available, and that due to metalinguistic contrast: conflict
about the direction of the discourse.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• It-clefts are significantly worse in the informational
context than in the other three.
37
• Clefts and canonicals are in competition.
• Clefts are felicitous when the canonical is a “bad” option.
• Specifically, clefts are better than canonicals in the
counter-presuppositional context due to a combination of
two effects:
• Clefts improve because there’s an antecedent.
• Canonicals degrade because the antecedent is not-atissue.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
Competition is key!
38
Summing up
• The notion of contrast must include a metalinguistic
component: conflict with hearer’s expectations, specifically
about the advancement discourse.
• So far, the only statistically significant feature is at-issueness:
canonicals are worse when addressing non-at-issue content.
• In-line with results on Chinese (Greif 2012) where increased
phonetic marking and clefts are produced with corrections of
presupposed information.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• It-clefts are used in English when the corresponding canonical
is less felicitous or unavailable.
39
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
CROSS-LINGUISTIC
IMPLICATIONS
40
What’s next: cross-linguistically
• … So why don’t all languages use clefts in the same
contexts?
 A speculative hypothesis: the felicity conditions for
canonical sentences vary.
• A canonical sentence signals “things are proceeding as
normal” – but what’s “normal” could vary.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• Felicity contexts for clefts (and other strong focus
constructions) are supposed to be the same
crosslinguistically…
41
What’s normal?
FRENCH: “Don’t use canonicals for subject focus.”
(normally, subjects are old information/ topics)
K’ICHEE’: “Don’t use canonicals for transitive subject focus.”
(normally, transitive subjects are old information)
HUNGARIAN: “Don’t use canonicals for partial answers.”
(normally, complete answers are preferred)
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
ENGLISH: “Don’t use canonicals to address not-at-issue content.”
(normally, we discuss what’s at issue)
42
• A more thorough ratings experiment – having two
additional contexts:
 Informational
 At-issue weak belief
 At-issue strong belief
 Not at-issue weak belief
 Not at-issue strong belief
 Counter-presuppositional
• A production experiment covering all contexts.
• Run the experiment in the oral modality.
• Supplement with corpus data.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
What’s next: English
43
And thanks to:
•
•
•
•
•
David I. Beaver
Aixin Tan
Malte Zimmermann
Mira Grubic
And our participants (the undergraduates at UT Austin &
St Edwards University)
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
Thank you very much!
44
• Declerck, R. (1984). The pragmatics of it-cleft and wh-clefts. Lingua, 64, p.251-289.
• Greif, M. (2012). Corrective focus in Mandarin Chinese: a question of belief? Muenchen:
Lincom Europa.
• Katz, J. and E. Selkirk. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic
prominence in English. Language, 87, p. 771-816.
• Kiss, K. E. (1998). Identicational focus versus information focus. Language, 74, p. 245-273.
• Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, p. 75116.
• Schwarschild, R. (1999). Givenness, avoidf and other constraints on the placement of
accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7, p. 141-177.
• Tonhauser, J. (2012). “Diagnosing (non)- at-issue content”. In Proceedings of underrepresented languages of the Americas (SULA) 6, p. 239-254. UMass: Amherst, GLSA.
• Velleman, D., Beaver, D., Destruel, E., Bumford, D., Onea, E., and Coppock, E. (2012). Itclefts are IT- (inquiry terminating) construction. In Proceedings of SALT 22 , p. 441-460.
• Zimmermann, M. (2008). Contrastive focus and emphasis. In Acta Linguistica Hungarica , p.
347-360.
• Zimmermann, M. (2011). The grammatical expression of focus in West Chadic: Variation
and uniformity in and across languages. Linguistics , 49, p. 1161-1211.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
References
45
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
APPENDIX
46
Stimuli sample from newly conducted rating
experiment (1)
• At-issue weak belief
a. Speaker A: This bean dip is fantastic. I really want to get the recipe. I think
Sharon brought it.
b. Speaker B: No, Lyle brought it. vs. Speaker B: No, it’s Lyle who brought it.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• Informational
a. Speaker A: This bean dip is fantastic. I really want to get the recipe. Who
brought it?
b. Speaker B: Lyle brought it. vs. Speaker B: It’s Lyle who brought it.
• Not at-issue weak belief
a. Speaker A: This bean dip is fantastic. I really want to get the recipe. But
Sharon -- who I'm guessing brought it -- already left.
b. Speaker B: No, Lyle brought it. vs. Speaker B: No, it’s Lyle who brought it.
47
Stimuli sample from newly conducted rating
experiment (2)
• Not At-issue Strong belief
a. Speaker A: This bean dip is fantastic. I really want to get the recipe. But
Sharon, who brought it, already left.
b. Speaker B: No, Lyle brought it. vs. Speaker B: No, it’s Lyle who brought it.
• Counter-Presuppositional
a. Speaker A: This bean dip is fantastic. I really want to get the recipe. I can’t
believe that Sharon brought it -- she’s normally not a very good cook.
b. Speaker B: No, Lyle brought it. vs. Speaker B: No, it’s Lyle who brought it.
Destruel, Semantics Colloquium
Frankfurt, 01/21/14
• At-issue Strong belief
a. Speaker A: This bean dip is fantastic. I really want to get the recipe. It
turns out that Sharon brought it.
b. Speaker B: No, Lyle brought it. vs. Speaker B: No, it’s Lyle who brought it.
48