Alternative Semantics, Focus Domains and Contrast

Philosophische FakultätSeminar für Sprachwissenschaft

Sonderforschungsbereich 732Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung

Alternative Semantics, Focus Domainsand Contrast

Annotating Corpora with Information StructureESSLLI 2014

Kordula De Kuthy and Arndt Riester

August 21, 2014

Two important theoretical contributions in the past

(1) a. Who is laughing?b. JOHNfocus [is laughing]given/background .

I Of the two most influential focus frameworks in the past 30years, one concentrates on the focus part, the other on thegiven part.

I Mats Rooth’s Alternative Semantics (Rooth 1985, 1992,1996, 2010) is based on the idea that focus triggers(contrastive) alternatives.

I Roger Schwarzschild (Schwarzschild 1999) develops atechnical givenness notion.

I Contemporary theories of information structure, such asBüring (2008); Beaver & Clark (2008); Wagner (2012) andothers, mainly build on, and combine, ideas from Rooth andSchwarzschild.

2 | Kordula De Kuthy and Arndt Riester c© 2014 Universität Tübingen, Universität Stuttgart

Mats Rooth (Cornell University)


“Ordinary” semantic values, as known fromMontague semantics

S: like(m,s)hhhhhhhhhh

((((((((((

DP: mMary

VP: λx [like(x ,s)]``````

V: λy [λx [like(x , y)]]likes

DP: sSue

Notation:[[Mary ]]o = m[[likes Sue]]o = λx [like(x ,s)]etc.


Alternative semantic values (focus semantic values)

Idea: focusing adds an “alternative” semantic value (a set).

“the focus semantic value for a phrase of category S is theset of propositions obtainable from the ordinary semanticvalue by making a substitution in the positioncorresponding to the focused phrase.” (Rooth 1992, p.76)

(2) a. [[MAryF likes Sue]]o = like(m,s)b. [[MAryF likes Sue]]f = {like(x ,s) | x ∈ De}

(3) a. [[Mary likes SUEF ]]o = like(m,s)

b. [[Mary likes SUEF ]]f = {like(m, x) | x ∈ De}

Note, in general, that [[α]]o ∈ [[α]]f .


Focus-sensitive particles: only

I Association with focus

Bill Mary Tom Sue

(4) Mary only introduced BILLF to Tom.⇒ Mary didn’t introduce anyoneelse to Tom.

(5) Mary only introduced Bill to TOMF .⇒ Mary didn’t introduce Bill to any-one else.

I Consider a scenario in which Mary introduced Bill to Tom andSue, and there were no other introductions.

I In this scenario, (4) is true and (5) is false.


Semantics of only

A first proposal:

(6) [[Mary only VP]]o = ∀P ∈ [[VP]]f : [P(m)→ P = [[VP]]o]

(7) [[[VP introduce BILLF to Tom]]]f = {λx [intro(x , y , t)] | y ∈ De}(8) [[[VP introduce Bill to TOMF ]]]

f = {λx [intro(x ,b, y)] | y ∈ De}(9) [[Mary only introduced BILLF to Tom]]o

= ∀P ∈ {λx [intro(x , y , t)] | y ∈ De} :[P(m)→ P = λx [intro(x ,b, t]]

If Mary has a property of the form ’introducing y to Tom’, it is theproperty ’introducing Bill to Tom’.


ProblemI In most cases, the focus semantic

value is too big to function as areasonable restrictor (Rooth 1992).

(10) John only READF Ulysses.

I Intended VP alternatives:{[[read Ulysses]], [[understood Ulysses]]}

I Actual alternatives: {λx [R(x ,u)] | R ∈ D〈e,〈e,t〉〉}I Contains properties like buying Ulysses, having lived in the

same millenium as the author of Ulysses etc.I This makes the semantics of only much too strong.I There must be some kind of restriction on the alternative set.


Another example

(11) a. We always invite members of your family. But we arereally neglecting my relatives.

b. So far, we have only(C) invited [Uncle THEodore]F .

I The alternative set C should consist of Uncle Theodore andother relatives from my family.

I It should not include the members of your family, and itcertainly should not comprise all individuals in the world.

I Sentence meaning of (11b): For all persons from C, i.e. frommy family (except for Theo), it holds that we did not invitethem.

I This shows that the choice of alternatives is not trivial (it hasan influence on the truth conditions).


An attempt at fixing the problem

I The restrictor/domain of quantification C for only (the actualalternative set) is not equal to the focus semantic value butmerely a subset of it.

(12) a. John only VP.b. ∀P ∈ C : [P(j)→ P = [[VP]]o], where C ⊆ [[VP]]f

“Instead of fixing the value of C, one should simply usethe focus semantic value to constrain C, leaving room fora pragmatic process of constructing a domain ofquantification [. . . ]” (Rooth 1992, p.79)

I C is determined in the actual communicative situation (usingdiscourse, lexical and encyclopaedic information).

I For recent accounts of the semantics of only, see Beaver &Clark (2008); Coppock & Beaver (2014)


Non-truth-conditional uses of alternatives: contrast

(13) An [AMErican]F farmer was talking to a [CaNAdian]Ffarmer.

I It is sometimes claimed that givenness is the only reason fordeaccentuation (e.g. in CaNAdian farmer).

I But why is, then, the first mention of farmer also deaccented?I Rooth, following Chomsky (1971); Ladd (1980); Rochemont

(1986), rejects a givenness explanation, and, instead,proposes that the two phrases are symmetrically in contrastwith each other.

I Semantics of contrast (first proposal):

(14) α contrasts with β (6= α) if [[β]]o ∈ [[α]]f (and [[α]]o ∈ [[β]]f )


Open questions

I Is it necessary to mark contrast?I What is the size of the contrasted constituents (e.g. in (13):

properties, individuals, . . . )I Must a contrastive pair be marked with a special intonation

contour (rise-fall)?I Can the alternative also be left implicit?

(15) Next time, I hope that we will have a COMpetentF lecturer.


Focus Interpretation Principle

(adapted from Rooth 1992)

(16) Focus Interpretation Principle (FIP): In interpreting focusat the level of a phrase α, there must be a salientcontrastive set γ, s.th. γ ⊆ [[α]]f .

I γ will be identified with a particular set (sometimes a singletonset), either from the discourse context or construed via someother pragmatic process.

I In syntax, the domain of the FIP (the focus domain) isindicated by means of the ∼ squiggle operator.

I Rooth does not say how focus domains are formed in general.


Focus domains

Shhhhhhhhhhhh((((((((((((

DPhhhhhhhhh(((((((((

Dan

NPXXXXXX

��

NP8XXXXX��

AF

AmericanN

farmer

∼γ9

VP```

Vmet

DPhhhhhhhh((((((((

Da

NPXXXXXX

��

NP9XXXXX��

AF

CanadianN

farmer

∼γ8

The two ∼ operators resolve their variables (γ8, γ9) to the semanticobjects corresponding to the respective coindexed phrases:γ9 = [[Canadian farmer ]]o; γ8 = [[American farmer ]]o


Other contrastive constellationsComparatives:

(17) He explained that the ∼γ2[[situation in the MEtalFindustry]1] was more stable than the ∼γ1[[one in theCHEmicalF industry]2].

Coordination:

(18) Unless the ∼γ4[[LAbourF party]3] and the∼γ4[[conSERvativeF party]3] reach an agreement, the billcannot be passed.


Snowden interview: contrastive constellationsA very unsatisfactory attempt:

I How many focus domains should we have?I How big are they?I How can we tell?


Constraints on alternative setsWagner (2006): Not any two expressions that have acorresponding focus domain can be contrastive (contra Rooth).

(19) Mary’s uncle, who produces high-end convertibles, iscoming to her wedding. I wonder wonder what he broughtas a present.a. XHe brought a ∼[CHEAPF convertible].b. #He brought a ∼[REDF convertible].c. XHe brought a [RED conVERtible]F .


Proper alternatives

I Alternatives must form a partition.

convertible

cheap high-end


Pseudo-alternativesI If the denotations of two expressions overlap, they do not form

proper alternatives.I They cannot be contrasted against each other.I This is reflected in information structure and prosody

convertible

cheap high-end

red


Pseudo-alternatives (cont.)

(20) In Nordirland läuft heute das Ultimatum für die Bildungeiner eigenständigen ReGIErung aus. Falls sich dieParteien nicht auf ein Bündnis einigen, hat die britischeReGIErung mit einer Auflösung des nordirischenParlaments gedroht.In Northern Ireland, the ultimatum to form an independentGOvernment will expire today. If the parties cannot agreeon a coalition, the British GOvernment has threatened todisband the Northern Irish Assembly.

(21) [independent GOvernment]F [British GOvernment]F(no contrast involved)

(22) #∼[indePENdent government]F ∼[BRItish government]F


Constraints on alternative sets (cont.)

adapted from Wagner (2006); Büring (2008)

MATCH:For each focus domain D, there is some salient elementM ∈ [[D]]f in the context, s.th. D and M are properalternatives.


Constraints on alternative sets (cont.)

Anaphoric constituent:A constituent is anaphoric iff, within its focus domain, itneither bears nor is dominated by an F-marker.

MAXANA (MaximizeAnaphoricity):Maximize the number of anaphoric constituents in asentence, while respecting MATCH.

This means:I Place the ∼ as high as possible .I Use as few F-marks as possible.I If you use an F-mark, check whether it has potential anaphoric

subconstituents.I If yes, try to embed another focus domain under F.

. . . but do not violate MATCH!


Satisfying MAXANA

(23) a. Whom did Jo’s mother recommend?b. [She [recommended [a [friend of ∼[Jo’s]]]]].

1. She2. recommended3. friend4. Jo’s5. friend of Jo’s6. recommended a friend of Jo’s7. She recommended a friend of Jo’s

anaphoric constituent MATCH violation


Satisfying MAXANA

(23) a. Whom did Jo’s mother recommend?b. [She [recommended [a ∼[friend of [Jo’s]]]]].

1. She2. recommended3. friend4. Jo’s5. friend of Jo’s6. recommended a friend of Jo’s7. She recommended a friend of Jo’s



Satisfying MAXANA

(23) a. Whom did Jo’s mother recommend?b. [She [recommended [a ∼[friendF of [Jo’s]]]]].

1. She2. recommended3. friend4. Jo’s5. friendF of Jo’s6. recommended a friendF of Jo’s7. She recommended a friendF of Jo’s



Satisfying MAXANA

(23) a. Whom did Jo’s mother recommend?b. [She ∼[recommended [a [friendF of [Jo’s]]]]].

1. She2. recommended3. friend4. Jo’s5. friendF of Jo’s6. recommended a friendF of Jo’s7. She recommended a friendF of Jo’s



Satisfying MAXANA

(23) a. Whom did Jo’s mother recommend?b. [She ∼[recommended [a ∼[friendF of [Jo’s]]]F ]].

1. She2. recommended3. friend4. Jo’s5. friendF of Jo’s6. recommended [a friendF of Jo’s]F7. She recommended [a friendF of Jo’s]F



Satisfying MAXANA

(23) a. Whom did Jo’s mother recommend?b. ∼[She [recommended [a ∼[friendF of [Jo’s]]]F ]].

1. She2. recommended3. friend4. Jo’s5. friendF of Jo’s6. recommended [a friendF of Jo’s]F7. She recommended [a friendF of Jo’s]F



Snowden interview: determining focus domains

(24) ∼[The GCHQCT is collecting an incredible amount of dataon BritishF citizens].

(25) ∼[The NSACT is gathering an enormous amount of dataon USF citizens].

I Anaphoric constituents for (25): gathering, enormous,amount, data, citizens, X citizens, data on X citizens, amountof data on X citizens, enormous amount of data on X citizens,gathering an enormous amount of data on X citizens, Y isgathering an enormous amount of data on X citizen

I No MATCH violations


ReferencesBeaver, D. & B. Clark (2008). Sense and Sensitivity. How Focus Determines Meaning. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Büring, D. (2008). What’s New (and What’s Given) in the Theory of Focus? In Proceedings of the 34th Annual

Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society . pp. 403–424.Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and Semantic Interpretation. In D. Steinberg &

L. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics. An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology ,Cambridge University Press, pp. 183–216.

Coppock, E. & D. Beaver (2014). Principles of the Exclusive Muddle. Journal of Semantics 31, 371–432.Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundation of Language 10, 41–53.Ladd, D. R. (1980). The Structure of Intonational Meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Rochemont, M. S. (1986). Focus in Generative Grammar . Amsterdam: Benjamins.Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Rooth, M. (1992). A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1), 75–116.Rooth, M. (1996). Focus. In S. Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory , Oxford: Blackwell,

pp. 271–297.Rooth, M. (2010). Second Occurrence Focus and Relativized Stress F. In C. Féry & M. Zimmermann (eds.),

Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Approaches, Oxford University Press.Schwarzschild, R. (1999). GIVENness, AvoidF, and Other Constraints on the Placement of Accent. Natural

Language Semantics 7(2), 141–177.Wagner, M. (2006). Givenness and Locality. In Proceedings of SALT XVI. Ithaca, NY, pp. 295–312.Wagner, M. (2012). Focus and Givenness: a Unified Approach. In I. Kucerová & A. Neeleman (eds.), Contrasts

and positions in information structure, Cambridge University Press, pp. 102–148.


Alternative Semantics, Focus Domains and Contrast

Documents

Transcript of Alternative Semantics, Focus Domains and Contrast