Post on 17-Jan-2016
Theticity in a Bidirectional Theory of Focus Interpretation
Kjell Johan Sæbø
ILOS, University of Oslo
LoLa 9
Theticity – Informational Integration (Nonautonomy) (Jacobs)
(1) a. # A MIRacle HAPpened.
A MIRacle happened.
b. ? SOMEthing HAPpened.
Something HAPpened.
Theticity Integration Broad Focus
(2) a. [ARgument predicate]F
b. [ARgument]F [PREdicate]F
Theticity is Constrained
• Argument (a) should be Theme (not Agent)(but Kennedy 1999)
• a and P must form one informational unit, be processed semantically in one step(Jacobs 1999)
Theticity: Sensitivity to Cotext
(3) a. – Are there signs of stagnation?
– Yes. [GOLD is rising]F, …
b. – How are metal prices doing?
# – [GOLD is rising]F, …
c. – [GOLD]F is [RISing]F, …
Sensitivity to Discourse Relations
(4) a. ? [GOLD rose]F yesterday as investors
bought bullion as a haven after Israel …
b. As a result, [GOLD rose]F.
Sensitivity to Predicates
(5) a. As a result, [GOLD has risen]F.
As a result, [GOLD has fallen]F.
b. # As a result, [GOLD has soared]F.
# As a result, [GOLD has surged]F.
# As a result, [GOLD has plunged]F.
Hypothesis
Constraints on theticity (integration, nonautonomy) arecrucially constraints on broad focus in terms of Alternative Semantics and OT pragmatics
Focus Semantics
The Double Focus Presupposition
(3) c. – How are metals doing?
– [GOLD]F is [RISing]F, …
The question provides a verification like
zinc rising gold is falling copper slumping
Problem
the focus presupposition of (2b) subsumesthe focus presupposition of (2a)
(2) a. [ARgument predicate]F
b. [ARgument]F [PREdicate]F
Thus
the question in (3b/c) serves to verify the broad focus presupposition of (3b) as well –
(3) b. – How are metals doing?
# – [GOLD is rising]F, …
because any alternative to < gold , rising > is at the same time an alternative to < gold rising >
Suggestion
what is right about the question in (3a) –
(3) a. – Are there signs of stagnation?
– Yes. [GOLD is rising]F, …
is that it does not only yield propositions basedon pairwise alternatives:
{ gold rising , jobs declining , stocks falling ,Iran crisis , Iraq crisis , Lebanon crisis , … }
Discourse Relations Suspend Alternatives
Out of the blue, there are intrinsic alternatives to“gold” and to “rose”, but as a resulting event,“gold” and “rose” fail to contrast pairwise.
(4) b. As a result, [GOLD rose]F.
In the situation, P is relatively predictable; «fell» fails to count as an alternative to «rose»:
{ gold rose , stocks fell , inflation rose , … }
Extreme Predictability
Predicates Evoke Alternatives
Some predicates are intrinsically surrounded byother predicates that might be uttered instead –
(5) b. # As a result, [GOLD has soared]F.
P is not sufficiently predictable; «risen» counts as an alternative to «soared»:
{ gold has risen , oil has surged , … }
Competition
By uttering (2a), you communicate its focuspresupposition minus those of (2b-d):
(2) a. [ARgument predicate]F
b. [ARgument]F [PREdicate]F
c. [ARgument]F predicate
d. argument [PREdicate]F
There are alternatives to < Pa >, but not to P and a or just P or a «in» all the propositions
Decomposing the F(<P,a>)() Focus Presupposition
= there is a set of propositions based on pairwise alternatives to <P,a> such that one differs in P
= there is a set of propositions based on pairwise alternatives to <P,a> such that one differs in a
Conditional Informativity Chart
inf(·/·) ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
F(<P,a>)() 0
F(<P>)() 0
F(<a>)() 0
F(<Pa>)() 2 2 2 2
Accommodation
But, crucially, there is abundant room foraccommodation: Within limits, speakers can choose whether to represent an argument-predicate pair asbelonging to a set of alternative pairs
Agents and Adjuncts
(6) a. – Hast du dein Kleid selbst geschneidert? – Nein, ich habe es [in PaRIS gekauft]F.
b. – Did you buy that dress (in Paris)?
– No, [my GRANDfather made]F it.
– He’s a tailor.
Conclusion
By uttering a thetic judgment, you signal thatthere are no clear alternatives to the two fociof the corresponding categorical judgment – the only clear alternatives are alternatives to the judgment itself.