{"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.
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