On the roles of anaphoricity and questions in free focus

IF 0.9 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Roni Katzir
{"title":"On the roles of anaphoricity and questions in free focus","authors":"Roni Katzir","doi":"10.1007/s11050-023-09214-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The sensitivity of focus to context has often been analyzed in terms of focus-based anaphoric relations between sentences and surrounding discourse. The literature, however, has also noted empirical difficulties for the anaphoric approach, and my goal in the present paper is to investigate what happens if we abandon the anaphoric view altogether. Instead of anaphoric felicity conditions, I propose that focus leads to infelicity only indirectly, when the semantic processes that it feeds—in particular, exhaustification and question formation—make an inappropriate contribution to discourse. I outline such an account, in line with Roberts (In Papers in semantics, Vol. 49 of Working papers in linguistics, 91–136, The Ohio State University, 1996) and incorporating recent insights from Büring (In Questions in discourse, Vol. 36 of Current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface, 6–44, Leiden: Brill, 2019) and Fox (In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22, 403–434, 2019). This account, which I motivate on conceptual grounds, has no anaphoric conditions on focus placement and has only an economy condition as a potential felicity condition on focus. However, there are cases where the fine control offered by anaphoricity seems needed, either to block deaccenting that would be licensed by a question or to allow local deaccenting that is not warranted by a question. Such cases challenge non-anaphoric accounts such as the present one and appear to support recent anaphoric proposals such as Schwarzschild (In Making worlds accessible. Essays in honor of Angelika Kratzer, 167–192, 2020), Wagner (In The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2020), and Goodhue (Journal of Semantics 39: 117–158, 2022). I argue that this potential motivation for anaphoricity is only apparent and that to the extent that anaphoric conditions on focus from the literature are not inert, they are in fact harmful.</p>","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Natural Language Semantics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-023-09214-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The sensitivity of focus to context has often been analyzed in terms of focus-based anaphoric relations between sentences and surrounding discourse. The literature, however, has also noted empirical difficulties for the anaphoric approach, and my goal in the present paper is to investigate what happens if we abandon the anaphoric view altogether. Instead of anaphoric felicity conditions, I propose that focus leads to infelicity only indirectly, when the semantic processes that it feeds—in particular, exhaustification and question formation—make an inappropriate contribution to discourse. I outline such an account, in line with Roberts (In Papers in semantics, Vol. 49 of Working papers in linguistics, 91–136, The Ohio State University, 1996) and incorporating recent insights from Büring (In Questions in discourse, Vol. 36 of Current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface, 6–44, Leiden: Brill, 2019) and Fox (In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22, 403–434, 2019). This account, which I motivate on conceptual grounds, has no anaphoric conditions on focus placement and has only an economy condition as a potential felicity condition on focus. However, there are cases where the fine control offered by anaphoricity seems needed, either to block deaccenting that would be licensed by a question or to allow local deaccenting that is not warranted by a question. Such cases challenge non-anaphoric accounts such as the present one and appear to support recent anaphoric proposals such as Schwarzschild (In Making worlds accessible. Essays in honor of Angelika Kratzer, 167–192, 2020), Wagner (In The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2020), and Goodhue (Journal of Semantics 39: 117–158, 2022). I argue that this potential motivation for anaphoricity is only apparent and that to the extent that anaphoric conditions on focus from the literature are not inert, they are in fact harmful.

论回指和疑问句在自由焦点中的作用
焦点对语境的敏感性通常是从句子与周围语篇之间的焦点回指关系来分析的。然而,文献也指出了回指方法的经验困难,我在本文中的目标是研究如果我们完全放弃回指观点会发生什么。我认为,当焦点所提供的语义过程——特别是穷尽和问题的形成——对话语做出了不恰当的贡献时,而不是回指的幸福条件,焦点只会间接导致不幸福。我概述了这样一个帐户,与罗伯茨(在语义学论文中,语言学工作论文第49卷,91-136卷,俄亥俄州立大学,1996年)和结合最近的见解从b ring(在话语中的问题,在语义/语用界面的当前研究第36卷,6-44,莱顿:Brill, 2019)和Fox(在Sinn und Bedeutung的程序22,403-434,2019)。我是基于概念上的理由提出这一解释的,它没有关于焦点位置的回指条件,只有一个经济条件作为焦点的潜在幸福条件。然而,在某些情况下,由回指提供的精细控制似乎是必要的,要么阻止由问题授权的降音,要么允许不受问题授权的局部降音。这些案例挑战了像现在这样的非回指说法,并似乎支持了最近的回指建议,如史瓦西(在《让世界变得触手可及》一书中)。为纪念Angelika Kratzer, 167 - 192,2020), Wagner(在Wiley Blackwell语义学伴侣中,牛津:Wiley-Blackwell, 2020)和Goodhue(语义学杂志39:117 - 158,2022)。我认为,这种回指的潜在动机只是显而易见的,在某种程度上,从文学的焦点上看,回指的条件不是惰性的,它们实际上是有害的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
27.30%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Natural Language Semantics is devoted to semantics and its interfaces in grammar, especially syntax. The journal seeks to encourage the convergence of approaches employing the concepts of logic and philosophy with perspectives of generative grammar on the relations between meaning and structure. Natural Language Semantics publishes studies focused on linguistic phenomena as opposed to those dealing primarily with the field''s methodological and formal foundations. Representative topics include, but are not limited to, quantification, negation, modality, genericity, tense, aspect, aktionsarten, focus, presuppositions, anaphora, definiteness, plurals, mass nouns, adjectives, adverbial modification, nominalization, ellipsis, and interrogatives. The journal features mainly research articles, but also short squibs as well as remarks on and replies to pertinent books and articles.The journal has an Editorial Assistant, Christine Bartels, a copy editor with a PhD in linguistics who personally shepherds accepted manuscripts through the production process.Since 2009 this journal is covered by ISI/Social Sciences Citation Index.Springer fully understands that access to your work is important to you and to the sponsors of your research. We are listed as a green publisher in the SHERPA/RoMEO database, as we allow self-archiving, but most importantly we are fully transparent about your rights. Read more about author''s rights on: http://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信