Unalternative Semantics

Transcription

1 Unalternative Semantics Daniel Büring University of Vienna Poster presented at STECHOW workshop Sinn & Bedeutung 20, Tübingen, Sept. 10, Introduction and Basic Tenets Unalternative Semantics (UAS) is a new approach to deriving semantic focus alternatives compositionally. Among its features are... Calculation directly from Stress Pattern Focus Unalternatives = the class of impossible Focus Targets No F-Markers, no F-Ambiguities Predecessors: Schwarzschild (1997), Reinhart (2006) UAS collects restrictions on possible foci. At every branching node, we add a constraint that the focus cannot contain alternatives based on the literal meaning of the daughter and an alternative to the daughter (see Büring forthcoming, in preparation a, b). Some new notation is useful here: x x zmary saw john Q zmary saw john the set of all properties R John, with R any relation other than saw the set of all propositions x R John, with x any individual, and R any relation other than saw the set of all propositions x saw John, with x any individual other than the set of all propositions Q John, with Q any property other than being seen by Restrictions ψ The target of the focussing must not be among ψ. ψ The target of the focussing must be among ψ. Table 1: Legend. Note that ψ can be formally subsumed under ψ by defining ψ as ψ, i.e. the complement of ψ relative to the set of all denotations in the same domain. The different colored restrictions are thus just a notational convenience. 1

2 2 The Rules Four rules calculate unalternatives and introduce Unalternative Restrictions. (1) UA Rule 0: Terminals For any terminal T : [[T ]] U = {} {} I may well be a focus. (2) UA Rule 1: Propagation For any branching node 1 2 : domp1q b [[2]] U Ď [[]] U, and [[1]] U b domp1q Ď [[]] U (dompαq is the domain of α s type) x UA(2), UA(1) y (UA=unalternatives) Preserve the UAs of the daughters. (3) UA Rule 2: Weak Restriction For and : {[[s]] O }b dom w zt[[w]] O u Ď [[]] U x zw s Weak is not a narrow focus. (4) UA Rule 3: Strong Restriction For and where w would be the daughter by default (w has been Prosodically Demoted): pdom zppdom s zt[[s]] O uq b t[[w]] O uqq Ď [[]] U x zs w, or alternatively: x zs w Strong is (part of a) focus, and is not. (5) Condition on Prosodic Demotion: w must be given., 2

3 3 Illustration 3.1 Default Intonation (i) S (ii) saw JOHN S x zmary saw john x saw JOHN (iii) S Q zmary saw john total restriction (=+propag.) total restriction (=) saw JOHN Figure 1: Unalternatives at -level (i) and S-level (ii); (iii) shows how the () restriction introduced at the S level, and the propagated from the level can be combined into a single restriction. (6) a. saw Bob. O b. heard John V c. heard Bob/had to sneeze. d. Sue heard Bob/The roof collapsed. S e. Sue kissed John S+V f. Sue saw John S 3

4 3.2 Verb Focus (i) restriction SAW John (ii) S x zmary saw john x restriction (iii) SAW John S x total restriction (=) restriction SAW John Figure 2: Strong Restriction. Note that the of the restriction from to S results in a restriction that properly subsumes the introduced at the S level. (7) a. saw Bob. O b. heard John V c. heard Bob/had to sneeze. d. Sue heard Bob/The roof collapsed. S e. Sue kissed John S+V f. Sue saw John S 4 Overfocussing (8) wire tapped John. No, # saw JOHN. Problem for Alternative Semantics and relatives (Rooth, 1992; von Stechow, 1981, 1989): if that kissed John P [[ [SAW] F John]] F, then necessarily that kissed John P [[ [saw JOHN] F ]] F ( upward permissiveness ). Standard Solution: Some kind of transderivational constraint, e.g. AvoidF, Maximize Presuppositions etc. In UAS, the problem vanishes, due to more articulated focus alternative sets. (9) a. SAW John Ñ R zsaw John b. saw JOHN Ñ Q z saw John 4

5 (9b) excludes wire-tapped John, but (9a) does not. In general, the focal targets allowed by a larger constituent do not include those that would be allowed by prosodically promoting ( focussing ) its daughter. Put differently, even under neutral intonation, [[]] F (D et z[[v P ]] U in UAS) is not equal to D et. Choosing a bigger focus instead of a small one is thus excluded, without the need for transderivational constraints. 5 Answer Focus (the Set Case ) Due to the property just mentioned, we cannot require that the meaning of a contextual question be a subset of the allowed focal targets. For example,... and kissed John P [[what did do?]] O [[ visited JOHN]] U = Q z visited John... so kissed John P [[ visited JOHN]] U, i.e. visited JOHN would be wrongly excluded as an answer to What did do. Thus a er condition is called for: (10) A question target for focussing in S must contain elements that are not among S s Unalternatives, [[S]] U. This subsumes the individual case (contrastive focus), assuming that the focal target in that case is a singleton set containing the meaning of the target. 6 Outlook: Focussing and Deaccenting If a focal target must be contextually salient ( given ), UAS is by and large equivalent to a Rooth (1992)/Schwarzschild (1999)-type system. Alternative: the focal target must only be identifiable; givenness is a condition for deaccenting. This allows UAS to handle cases like (11): (11) (What s peculiar about Granny s dog?) She only likes JOHN. (Kadmon and Sevi, 2011) restriction for only: does Granny s cat like just John, or John and someone else (cf. Beaver and Clark, 2008) NB that neither this question, nor the alternative/focal target Granny s cat likes (John and) someone else is contextually salient This in turn clears the way for a pragmatically er condition on the meaning of focal targets, as called for by Wagner (2012), and proposed in Katzir (2013). (12) s uncle, who produces high-end convertibles, is coming to her wedding. I wonder what he brought as a present. a. He brought a [CHEAP convertible]. b. #He brought a [RED convertible] (12b) could be excluded by a condition to the effect that an identifiable alternative must be truly contrasting and relevant ( brought a non-red convertible 5

6 would fail on the second count). But note that the putative alternative in (12a) he brought an expensive convertible is not given, nor is the question did he bring a cheap, or an expensive convertible?. 7 Summary Unalternative Semantics provides a novel way of connecting intonation to contextual appropriateness. It achieves the effects of classical alternative semantics or structured meaning semantics, but without the need to have syntactic F-marking. It can rule out overfocussing without invoking transderivational constraints. It opens a new, arguably advantageous, perspective on the relation between contrast and givenness. References Beaver, David and Brady Clark (2008). Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell. Büring, Daniel (forthcoming). Focus, Questions and Givenness. In Klaus von Heusinger, Edgar Onea, and Malte Zimmermann, eds., Questions in Discourse. Holland: Brill. Büring, Daniel (in preparation a). Discontinuous Foci and Unalternative Semantics. In Proceedings of SinFonIJA 8. Büring, Daniel (in preparation b). Unalternative Semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 25. Kadmon, Nirit and Aldo Sevi (2011). Without Focus. In Barbara H. Partee, Michael Ginzburg, and Jurgis Šķilters, eds., Formal Semantics and Pragmatics. Discourse, Context and Models. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Vol. 6 (2010), Manhattan, KS: New Prairie Press. Katzir, Roni (2013). A Note on Contrast. Natural Language Semantics 23:1 11. Reinhart, Tanya (2006). Interface Strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Rooth, Mats (1992). A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: Schwarzschild, Roger (1997). Interpreting Accent. Unpublished manuscript Rutgers University. Schwarzschild, Roger (1999). GIVENness, AvoidF and Other Constraints on the Placement of Accent. Natural Language Semantics 7(2): von Stechow, Arnim (1981). Topic, Focus, and Local Relevance. In Wolfgang Klein and Willem Levelt, eds., Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics, Dordrecht: Reidel. 6

7 von Stechow, Arnim (1989). Focusing and Backgrounding Operators. Tech. Rep. 6, Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz. Wagner, Michael (2012). Focus and Givenness: A Unified Approach. In Ivona Kučerová and Ad Neeleman, eds., Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 7