LINGUIST List 13.379

Mon Feb 11 2002

Sum: Focus and Event Relations in Clauses

Editor for this issue: Marie Klopfenstein <marielinguistlist.org>

Directory

  • sharbani, Re:13.261 Focus

    Message 1: Re:13.261 Focus

     Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:28:22 +0530
    From: sharbani <sharbevsnl.net>
    Subject: Re:13.261 Focus


    Sometime back I had asked the following questions relating to Focus:

    1) Can anybody explain to me WHY and HOW Focus is related to the EVENT of the clause? 2) I would also like to know which other language(s) clearly show such a connection. I received the following responses: AI)From: Werner Abraham <abrahamsocrates.Berkeley.EDU>

    He sent me the following paper:

    'The German Clause structure under discourse functional weight: Focus and Antifocus'----Werner Abraham & L=E1szl=F3 Molnarfi 15CGSW-WA+LM.doc/2/10/02 He also sent me the Call for contributions in:

    Volume of Folia Linguistica in 2003 guest edited by Werner Abraham & L=E1szl=F3 Molnarfi. Topic: Optionality in Syntax--Aspects of Word Order Variation in (West) Germanic

    Werner Abraham, Visiting Professor 2000/2002 Dept. of German, 5333 Dwinelle, UCB Berkeley, CA 94720-3243 Tel. +1-510-642-2004, fax +1-510-642-3243 as of mid-May 2002: werner.abrahamdirekt.at Maitschern 128, A-8942 Woerschach, tel=3Dfax: +43-3682-23175

    B) Daniel Wedgwood <danling.ed.ac.uk> sent the following VERY informative reply:

    The clearest proposal that I know of regarding events and focus is Elena Herburger's attempt to capture focus meanings using neo-Davidsonian semantic representations, as expounded in her book `What Counts' (2000, MIT Press). She proposes that, in a `tripartite' schema of existential quantification over an event variable, the focus is in the `nuclear scope' of the quantifier, while (only) thematic/non-focus material is mapped in to the restrictor. So `Fred [ate the BEANS]' (VP focus) is something like (1a), while `FRED ate the beans' looks more like (1b) [and here the initial `E' should be the existential quantifier]:

    1a) Ee [AGENT(e,fred')] EAT(e) & PAST(e) & THEME(e,the-beans') & AGENT(e,fred')

    `there is an event with Fred as its Agent such that Fred ate the beans'

    b) Ee [EAT(e) & PAST(e) & THEME(e,the-beans')] AGENT(e,fred') & EAT(e) & PAST(e) & THEME(e,the-beans')

    `there is an eating event in the past with the beans as its Theme such that Fred was the Agent of that event'

    [this is a very rough version of her representations!]

    In other words, Herburger proposes that the restrictor of the event quantification is what the sentence is `about', leaving the nuclear scope as focus. The paraphrases perhaps give an intuitive insight into why focus and event semantics might be linked.

    A review of this book appeared on the Linguist List last year and this might give you a better description than I can manage of the ideas in it. The review can be read at: http://linguistlist.org/issues/12/12-1356.html#1

    Herburger also has an article called `Focus and Weak Noun Phrases' in the journal `Natural Language Semantics' (1997), which contains a brief description of this general approach .

    Herburger's ideas have a certain intuitive appeal, but, interestingly, exactly the opposite proposal has also been made before: i.e. that focused material is mapped into the restrictor of event quantification, while thematic material related to the nuclear scope. This idea was put forward by Larson & Lefebvre in the following article:

    Larson, Richard & Claire Lefebvre. 1991. "Predicate Clefting in Haitian Creole". In T. Sherer et al.(rds) Proceedings of NELS 1990:247-263.

    In some ways, both of these approaches could be seen as re-interpretations, in Davidsonian terms, of the `structured meanings' approach to focus, in which focused items are lambda-abstracted out of ordinary predicate-argument structures.

    As for other languages showing evidence of event-focus relationships, I don't know too many specific, detailed examples, but I know from reading around the Hungarian literature that it seems to be common for identifiable `focus positions' to be syntactically adjacent to the verb.

    As far as I remember just now, this is reckoned to be true of at least Hungarian, Basque, Turkish, Aghem and Armenian (although I'm not claiming to be absolutely sure about any apart from Hungarian!). In the languages mentioned here (as well as in Korean), focus also seems to occupy a position syntactically similar to that occupied by items which can form `complex predicates' with the verb - and this process could presumably be represented in terms of event semantics also. In Hungarian, at least, a number of aspectual effects also involve the presence or absence of certain elements in an immediately pre-verbal position, the same position that focus occupies (at the surface). Presumably, these could also be analysed by making reference to event variables. So there seems to be scope for involving events in some explanation that would, at some level, unite focus and these other phenomena.

    For more description and more references relating to languages with focus positions, and how these might relate to the verb, you might find the following the collection of papers useful (in case you don't know it already) - especially the contribution by Mi-Jeung Jo:

    `Discourse Configurational Languages', ed. Katalin E. Kiss (1995) (Oxford University Press)

    One more (possibly irrelevant) thing, since you are dealing with Object Shift: I once read an article by David Adger (in the Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 1997) which deals with shifted object pronouns in Irish and Scots Gaelic. These pronouns - unusually - shift to the right. This phenomenon had previously been dealt with in purely syntactic terms, but Adger suggests that the correct way to deal with it is to define the position of these pronouns phonologically: they seem to encliticise to the constituent which bears the main stress in the sentence. So this could be seen as a connection between focus and (a kind of) object shift. Maybe that's relevant to you; maybe not.

    Daniel Wedgwood postal address: Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics University of Edinburgh Adam Ferguson Building (Dept.) tel. 0131 650 3961 George Square (Dept.) fax. 0131 650 3962 Edinburgh EH8 9LL http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~dan



    C)With Dieter Wunderlich <wdlphil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de>

    The following question-answer session ensued:

    Ans): My understanding is that focus can be related to everything in a clause, to one of the core arguments, to one of the adverbials, to the whole VP, but also to the verb itself (which means, to the event encoded by the verb) and even to the assertation status of the clause (if there is some relevant part of the utterance that can be highlighted by intonation).

    Q) Must every clause have a focussed phrase? Ans) No. The clause can be out of the blue. If focus is grammaticalized (by movement to a specific position, by using particles, or by cleft sentence) and not just attributed by intonation, I expect that some sentences are blocked from this device.

    Q)The Bangla data shows that when the verb is a 'N-V' type, with the DO incorporated, there cannot be any Focussed phrase in the clause.

    Ans)Could one consider the incorporated noun to be in a focus? If not, then there is something in the construcion that blocks focusing.



    Q) In case of Dative subject constructions, there cannot be a Focus on any phrase in the clause.

    Ans) This is interesting. Again, either such a subject itself is focus or it blocks the focus construction, maybe because the subject undergoes some shift in that construction.



    Q) When the aspect of the verb is completive, eg., 'to give away', there cannot be a Focussed phrase in the clause etc.,

    Ans)How is aspect marked? By some particle or preverb?



    Q)In Bangla, the verb MUST move to the head of the Focussed phrase.

    Ans) Does this mean that the verb combines with the focussed phrase? Maybe some verbs cannot move in this way: because they have incorporated a noun or have to license a dative subject, or have some other material with them.

    Q) My intuition is that it is the EVENT which DICTATES the presence or absence of Focus in a clause.

    Ans) Clarify what this intuition is about. I doubt that the event itself dictates focus. Focus has to do with something that contrasts with the preceding context or with a set of alternatives possible for one of the elements in a clause. This is independent of the semantic properties of eventualities. My suggestion is that all the blocking phenomena you have described have to do with some morphosyntactic complexity of the focus construction. If the verb has to be moved, then some material strongly accociated with the verb may block movement. However, since I have no idea of how the focused and unfocused sentences actually look like, I cannot make any more specific proposals.

    Q)It is standardly assumed that in Wh-Qs the WhP has the Foc feature. But in Bangla, that is not obligatory. There can be cases where the WhP doesnot have the Foc feature, but some other phrase has the Focus feature.

    Ans) In German this is possible too. One can ask: Und wen hat PETER besucht? ('and who has been visited by PETER?')



    Prof. Dr. Dieter Wunderlich Seminar fuer Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet Duesseldorf Universitaetsstr.1 D-40225 Duesseldorf Fax: +211-81-11325 Homepage: http://web.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~wdl

    D)With Alex Monaghan Alex.MonaghanAculab.com too, I had a similar question-answer session: Ans) Focus is related to whatever the speaker/writer thinks is important. so, if he/she thinks the event is important, then focus may well attach to the event in a high proportion of your data. also, if focusing mechanisms (topicalisation, clefting, etc.) include ways of making the focus coincide with the event, then there will be a correlation between the two.

    however, there are plenty of examples where focus does not correspond to the event in a clause, so this is not a necessary condition. in certain genres (e.g. story telling), the event will be frequently focused, and certain languages may tend to focus the event (just as french tends to have focus at the end of the clause, and english tends to mark *narrow* focus by moving constituents away from the end).

    Q) What I am not able to understand is, Why there simply CANNOT be a Focus feature in a clause under certain conditions---and that is what has led me to conclude that it is the EVENT/ASPECT which DECIDES whether there should be a Focus present in the clause at all.

    I have found quite a few cases in my work, with corresponding consequences, for example, the WCO effect gets affected as a result.Some of the cases are:

    Dative subject constructions N-V predicates(incorporated) completive aspects(returned)--when the Focus can only be on the verb(contrasting with other verbs--not the aspect as such) etc Things would become clearer if one can identify cases where there CANNOT be any Focus feature in the clause. Ans) Now i'd really need to know your definition of focus: - prosodic prominence? - new information? - syntactic/morphological marker? - other? I can suggest possible explanations of no-focus clauses and give some examples from English which I hope will be helpful.

    The reasons one might expect focus NOT to be marked are as follows: - The focus is completely predictable (only one possible location), so marking is redundant - There is no important new information in the clause - All the information in the clause is equally new/important

    An example of the first type in english would be the much-discussed word "even", as in "Even a linguist should be able to understand calculus" or "Even a child can do that". in these cases, the semantic constituent which immediately follows "even" is necessarily the focus.

    The latter two types are treated much the same in the literature on prosodic focus in Germanic languages (Bolinger, Ladd, Schmerling, Gussenhoven, Hirschberg, and my own work). they are both cases of "broad" focus, i.e. the whole clause is equally focused, and the neutral default rules apply (major prominence on the last prominent item, etc.). thus, a conversation might go like this:

    A: What's the matter? B: John is an alien. (all new, broad focus) A: So, John is an alien. (all old. broad focus) B: and Sam is an alien. (Sam is new, the rest is old)

    crucially, B's first utterance and A's response would have exactly the same focus structure (and very similar prosody), whereas B's second utterance would have very different prosody in english.

    Following is Alex Monaghan's publication page:

    http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~alex/PUB/selection.html Dr Alex Monaghan Aculab plc, MK1 1PT, UK

    I am extremely grateful to all those who responded. Though I have received very elaborate responses, more responses are still welcome. This summary perhaps has clarified the questions more. I'll post the summary ofcourse, if I receive more replies.

    Thanks a lot

    Sharbani Banerji Sharbevsnl.net (C/o Centre for Applied Linguistics & Translation Studies, University Of Hyderabad Hyderabad-500,046.)