consequences for grammatical theory marked and unmarked...

Marked and unmarked foci. Consequences for grammatical theory

Manuel LEONETTI (UAH)Victoria ESCANDELL-VIDAL (UNED)

SPIRIM FFI2015-64397-P

Information Structure and the Architecture of Grammar

UAB, 28/10/2016

Aims

• Argue for a view of Information Structure as an independent linguistic level, with the main distinctions only partially encoded in syntactic structure.

• Present data concerning focus structure in relative clauses that had gone unnoticed –for all we know- and can hardly be accounted for under a cartographic approach to informational focus.

• Draw some consequences of the analysis of these data for a theory of focus structure.

Information structure and the architecture of grammar

• Two views of the place of Information Structure (IS) in the organization of grammar:- IS is an independent component, not directly encoded in overt syntax (Vallduví 1992, Erteschik-Shir 1997, Zubizarreta 1998, Costa 2004, Neeleman and Vermeulen (eds.) 2012, Espinal and Villalba 2015)- IS is encoded in overt syntax by means of specific discourse-related features that trigger certain syntactic operations (Rizzi 1997, Belletti 2004)

Information structure and the architecture of grammar

• The cartographic approach has an obvious intuitive appeal: there is a simple, direct, transparent mapping from syntax to interpretation.• However, it has to face a number of conceptual and empirical problems (cf.

Domínguez 2013: 45-49, Samek-Lodovici 2015).

• We prefer to assume that, in principle, the syntax is blind to the realization of discourse-related phenomena, and it freely generates structures that may be filtered out at the interfaces.• In this view, IS belongs to the domain of interface phenomena.

Marked and unmarked

• One of the characteristic features of the cartographic approach to information structure –one we believe to be wrong- is treating unmarked topics and foci in the same way in which marked topics and foci are treated.• Briefly, modeling the unmarked as a version of the marked.

• This gives rise to a distorted view of the facts (even assuming that the proposed analysis of the marked constructions may be right).

Unmarked and marked

• Informational focus is typically unmarked:

’Add information’ is predicted to exist in all languages and never to be linguistically marked in any interesting way. In other words, focus / rheme… should be considered the ‘default’ or ‘elsewhere’ informational category. (McNally 1998)

• This raises doubts about the possibility of dealing with focus / rheme in terms of movement to a dedicated functional position, as if it were a “low version” of marked focus (Contrastive Focalization or Focus Fronting).

• Same problem with topics.

Informational focus and word order

• Two ways to understand the relationship between informational focus and syntactic structure:

I. There is a specific syntactic position for informational focus (`Low Focus’ position In Belletti 2004)• The narrow focus reading in VOS order is obtained by movement

of the subject to the specifier of a ‘Low Focus’ position that is available for every clause.

• This position is located above VP.• ‘Low Focus’ is different from ‘High Focus’ found at the left

periphery (devoted to expressing contrastive focus).• This solution increases the complexity of syntactic structure.


• Two ways to understand the relationship between informational focus and syntactic structure:II. There is no specific syntactic position for informational

focus. • Narrow focus is assigned by default to the constituent that aligns

with the highest prosodic prominece, typically the final position of the clause (Zubizarreta 1998, Samek-Lodovici 2015).

• The relation between syntax and interpretation is therefore mediated by prosodic structure.

• This solution advocates for a simpler syntax, and treats focus assignement as an interface phenomenon.


• Belletti’s proposal for informational focus has been criticized on different grounds (cf. Brunetti 2004, Domínguez 2013, Samek-Lodovici 2015).

• We would like to mention two general arguments against dealing with informational focus in terms of movement to Low Focus.

• 1. It is not clear how to integrate the well-known phenomenon of focus projection into the picture. Here syntactic structure underdetermines the extension of informational focus (Espinal and Villalba 2015: 670). How to explain sentence-focus?


• 2. Movement to Low Focus is specifically designed for narrow focus on postverbal subjects (VOS), but its consequences for narrow focus on other constituents (verbal complements, adjuncts) have not been explored.

• Among these consequences one finds the need to resort to the alleged movement of defocalized / destressed constituents to internal Topic positions. This leads to a confusion between topics and defocalized phrases.

• From now on, we concentrate on informational focus in relative clauses.

Focus and word order in relative clauses

The data

In Romance, V(O)S licenses the narrow focus reading of the postverbal subject (Cf. Leonetti, forthcoming for a recent overview):

(1) Alquiló el apartamento Ernesto.(2) El apartamento [que alquiló Ernesto]

• Narrow focus interpretation for the postverbal subject in (1)• cf ¿Quién alquiló el apartamento?

• No narrow focus interpretation for (2)


• Q1: If word order is the same in (1) and (2), why is the focus structure not the same?

Hypothesis: • Focus structure is a root phenomenon.

• The contrast between main and embedded clauses is relevant for information structure

• Cf. Hooper and Thompson 1973, de Cat 2012, for topics• Cf. Matić, van Gijn and Van Valin 2014: 13-18; van der Wal 2014, for foci


• [Q2: If word order in relative clauses is not related to information structure distinctions, what is the role of SV/VS order alternation?]

• The postverbal position of the subject in relative clauses is the unmarked position (Gutiérrez Bravo 2005: 152-154).

• This is due to prosodic structure considerations, not to information structure.

More on relatives: restrictive vs explicative clauses

The data

(3) El apartamento [que había alquilado Ernesto](4) El apartamento, [que había alquilado Ernesto,]

• No narrow focus interpretation in (3)• But narrow, informational focus reading possible in (4)

• A contrast –as far as we know- not previously mentioned in the literature



Assumptions• Same internal structure for restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses• The level of syntactic attachment is irrelevant to this matter

• Phonological difference• Restrictives are part of the larger intonational phrase. No intonational boundary at their right edge

• Explicatives are intonational phrases (Potts 2005)



Hypothesis• Information Structure is related to the assertion/presupposition contrast

• There is no specific ‘Low Focus’ position in the syntax


• Restrictive relatives provide descriptive content that is relevant to the identification of the referent of the NP• They work as predicates used to restrict the denotation• The content they convey is presented as presupposed information (i.e., non-controversial, shared in the common ground)

• Explicative relatives, in contrast, do not contribute to the identification of the referent of the NP• They do not restrict the denotation of the NP• Their content is asserted and presented as new information


• Only asserted propositions can have focus/background articulation (Roberts 1996/2012; Simons et al 2010, 2016)

• The IS of relatives depends on their contribution to discourse• Explicative relatives can have focus/background articulation because they assert new information (Koev 2016 for a recent overview)• They convey secondary meaning (Asher 2000; Potts 2012), i.e., they provide supporting content, designed to contextualize the at-issue content

• They raise an implicit new QUD• Restrictive relatives lack information structure as a natural consequence of conveying non-at-issue, presupposed content (see also Matić, van Gijn & Van Valin 2014)

More on information structure in relatives

• The contrast between restrictive and explicative relatives is not limited to postverbal subjects• Any final constituent of a non-restrictive relative clause can be interpreted as narrow focus

(5) a. El deportivo [que Ernesto conducía]b. El deportivo [que Ernesto destrozó]

(6) a. El deportivo, [que Ernesto destrozó,]b. El deportivo, [que Ernesto conducía {con gran

cuidado / personalmente},]c. #El deportivo, [que Ernesto conducía,]

More on information structure in relatives

• All kinds of relatives allow marked foci, i.e., contrastive focus in situ marked by intonational prominence

In the case of restrictive relatives this is limited to corrections of previously introduced presuppositions (Wait a minute! test)

(7) A: - El apartamento que alquiló Diana…B: - (Querrás decir) “el apartamento que alquiló EnNESto, no DiAna”

Interim conclusion

• The contrast in the information structure of restrictive vs explicative relative clauses cannot be accounted for in terms of syntactic configuration

• The contrast in the information structure of restrictive vs explicative relative clauses has to be accounted for in terms of the assertion/presupposition contrast.

Implications

I. No ‘low focus position’

Our proposal:II. Word order patterns are not necessarily linked to a fixed focus

structure; rather, they put constraints on possible focus structures.

III. A number of factors contribute to determining focus structure, including word order, prosody, lexical aspect, definiteness, thematic prominence and sets of alternatives evoked by the context.

IV. The asserted/presupposed status is also relevant for focus assignement.

Implications

I. No ‘low focus position’The data examined so far provide arguments against the existence of a ‘low focus position’ in the sense of Belletti 2004.

• Focus cannot be dependent on syntactic configuration only• ‘Low focus’ should be available for restrictive relatives, but the data show that it is not.

• Two (equally bad) solutions• Either the ‘Low Focus’ position is not available for restrictive relative

clauses• Or the ‘Low Focus’ position is not activated in restrictive relative

clauses• There is no way to include considerations about the information status of a clause (whether it is asserted or presupposed) into the cartographic account.

Implications

I. No ‘low focus position’

• Focus assignement is related to interface requirements, including prosodic prominence.

• Focus positions are unnecessary because focus assignement occurs in situ.

• To account for focus movement, considerations about the information status of other constituents have to enter the picture as well (which is incompatible with the cartographic approach)

Cf. Brunetti (2004); Samek-Lodovici (2015: cap. 3)

Implications

II. The relevance of the asserted/presupposed distinction for information structure.

a. This is a natural and economic explanation, one which does not need any additional stipulation (cf. Hooper and Thompson 1973)• Locating the difference between root and embedded clauses in the

structure of the left periphery (Haegeman 2010) is not relevant for the current discussion, unless we want to treat narrow focus in postverbal subjects as a left periphery phenomenon.

Implications


b. The same effect is found in other embedded clauses that are known to convey presupposed content, such as central adverbial clauses (temporal clauses and clauses headed by sin ‘without’ (Lahousse 2010, 2011)).

(8) a. Todo sucedió [antes de que llamaran a la policía los vecinos].b. Nos enteramos [después de que encontrara la maleta su

hermana].

c. Podremos pescar [cuando conceda el permiso la Consejería].(9) Lo enviamos [sin que viera las pruebas el editor].

Implications


c. The same phenomenon is found also in other Romance languages where the link between word order and information structure is more restrictive than in Spanish.

(10) a. ?È successo prima che chiamassero la polizia i vicini di casa.b. ?Això va passar abans que truquessin la policia els veïns.

(11) a. ?L’ abbiamo saputo dopo che ha ritrovato la valigia sua sorella.b. ?Ho hem sabut després que va trobar la maleta la seva germana.

(12) a. ?L’ abbiamo mandato senza che abbia visto le bozze l’ editore.b. ?L’hem enviat sense que hagi vist les proves l’editor.

Conclusions

• The effects of subject inversion are dependent on the asserted/presupposed status of the clause

• There is no ‘Low Focus’ position• Embedded clauses can develop their own information structure depending on whether they are asserted or presupposed

• Narrow focus on the subject seems to be a root phenomenon• Focus structure is in general pragmatically inferred as a part of basic explicatures of utterances (in Relevance-theoretic terms)

• Information structure is a (post-syntactic) level of representation in its own right

References

• Belletti, Adriana (2004): “Aspects of the low IP area”, en L. Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. II, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 16-51.

• Brunetti, Lisa (2004): A Unification of Focus, Padua: Unipress.

• Costa, João (2004): Subject Positions and Interfaces: the Case of European Portuguese, Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

• De Cat, Cécile (2012): “Towards an interface definition of root phenomena”, en L. Aelbrecht, L. Haegeman y R. Nye (eds.): Main Clause Phenomena. New Horizons, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 135-158.

• Domínguez, Laura (2013): Understanding Interfaces, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (1997): The Dynamics of Focus Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Espinal, Mª Teresa y Xavier Villalba (2015): “Ambiguity resolution and information structure”, The Linguistic Review 32.1: 61-85.

• Gutiérrez Bravo, Rodrigo (2005): “Subject inversion in Spanish relative clauses. A case of prosody-induced word order variation without narrow focus”, in T. Geerts, I. van Ginneken y H. Jacobs (eds.): Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 115-128.

• Haegeman, Liliane (2010): “The internal syntax of adverbial clauses”, Lingua 120: 628-648.

• Hooper, Joan B. y Barbara Thompson (1973): “On the applicability of root transformations”, Linguistic Inquiry 4.4: 465-497.

• Koev, Todor (2016): “Discourse, grammar, and at-issueness”, trabajo inédito. http://todorkoev.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/5/1/52510397/discourse_grammar_and_at-issueness.pdf

• Lahousse, Karen (2010): “Information structure and epistemic modality in adverbial clauses in French”, Studies in Language34:2, 298-326.

• Lahousse, Karen (2011): Quand passent les cigognes, París: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.

References

• Leonetti, Manuel (en prensa): “Basic constituent orders”, en E. Stark y A. Dufter (eds.), Morphosyntax and Syntax, Serie Manuals of Romance Linguistics, Berlín: Mouton-DeGruyter.

• Matić, Dejan, Rik van Gijn y Robert Van Valin (2014): “Information structure and reference tracking in complex sentences. An overview”, en R. van Gijn et al. (eds.), Information Structure and Reference Tracking in Complex Sentences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1-41.

• McNally, Louise (1998): “Towards a theory of the linguistic coding of information packaging instructions”, en P. Culicover y L. McNally (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 29. The Limits of Syntax, New York: Academic Press, 161-183.

• Neeleman, A. y Reiko Vermeulen (eds.) (2012): The Syntax of Topic, Focus and Contrast, Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

• Potts, Christopher (2005): “Lexicalized intonational meaning”, en S. Kawahara (ed.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 30 (UMOP 30). Amherst, MA: GLSA, 129-146.

• Rizzi, Luigi (1997): “The fine structure of the left periphery”, en L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281-337.

• Roberts, Craige (1996/2012): “Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics”, Semantics & Pragmatics 5, Article 6: 1–69.

• Samek-Lodovici, Vieri (2015): The Interaction of Focus, Givenness, and Prosody, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser David Beaver and Craige Roberts (2010): “What projects and why”, Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20: 309–327.

• Simons, Mandy, David Beaver, Craige Roberts y Judith Tonhauser (2016): “The Best Question: Explaining the projection behavior of factive verbs”. Discourse Processes, doi=10.1080/0163853X.2016.1150660.

• Vallduví, Enric (1992): The Informational Component, New York: Garland.

• Van der Wal, Jenneke (2014): “Subordinate clauses and exclusive focus in Makhuva”, en R. van Gijn et al. (eds.), Information Structure and Reference Tracking in Complex Sentences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 45-69.

• Zubizarreta, María Luisa (1998): Prosody, Focus and Word Order, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.

http://todorkoev.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/5/1/52510397/discourse_grammar_and_at-issueness.pdf

http://todorkoev.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/5/1/52510397/discourse_grammar_and_at-issueness.pdf

consequences for grammatical theory marked and unmarked...

Documents