Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2020 / Expressions in focus

Expressions in focus

Paper · 2020 · Poppy Mankowitz

Summary

Focus semantics usually treats a stressed constituent as evoking alternatives to its meaning. Krifka (2007) identified a second type, called expression focus, in which the contrasting options are themselves pieces of language. An example is contrasting "kick the bucket" with "passed away": both phrases mean the same thing, yet one is rejected in favour of the other. No worked-out theory of this existed. Mankowitz supplies one with two parts. The formal part extends a structured-meanings framework so that a sentence's e-focus value is built from its d-focus value. It does this through a property of grammar outputs that bear an aptness relation (Apt) to semantic values. The pragmatic part claims that such sentences keep their ordinary literal content. In suitable contexts, they conversationally implicate answers to questions under discussion about which wording is appropriate. With this single mechanism the paper accounts for metalinguistic negotiation, metalinguistic negation and embedded pejoratives. It also compares the account with Li (2017).

Key points

  • The paper builds on Krifka's (2007) split between two kinds of focus. Denotation focus evokes non-linguistic alternatives. Expression focus evokes linguistic ones.
  • The surface form of a sentence does not settle which kind of focus is at work. "Yuri DIEd" carries expression focus when it replies to someone who said "Yuri kicked the bucket."
  • Communication is modelled with a Stalnaker-style common ground and a QUD (following Ginzburg and Roberts). Under expression focus, the wh-element of the QUD ranges over expressions, for example "what expression is apt for conveying X?"
  • The paper follows Potts (2007) in keeping an output of the grammar distinct from its semantic representation.
  • Li (2017) pairs every focused item with an extra "exp" proposition. Mankowitz instead keeps one literal proposition and derives aptness claims pragmatically. These claims can take scope under operators such as negation.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Separate what is said from how it is worded: the same content can be rejected or endorsed purely on the choice of expression, so contrastive stress need not signal a change in meaning.
  • I2. Classify the focus type by asking which QUD the sentence answers (about the world or about wording), not by reading off syntax.
  • I3. Keep the literal proposition as the semantic output and add metalinguistic aptness claims only as context-dependent implicatures.
  • I4. Treat linguistic expressions as first-class entities that predicates can range over, kept separate from their meanings.
  • I5. Use minimal pairs to test whether an account is adequate: the same sentence in different contexts should yield denotation focus in one and expression focus in the other.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (frames): prag could flag "not X, but Y" patterns where X and Y map to the same frame, and label the speech act as a wording correction rather than a factual denial.
  • I2 (frames): the implicature module could test both QUD readings against the preceding discourse and pick the one that fits, then log that choice as an explanation step.
  • I3 (world): the world of a text should not record a state change for "he didn't kick the bucket, he passed away". It should keep die(x) and store a separate note that the speaker prefers a certain register or term.
  • I4 (world): the knowledge layer could hold expression nodes linked to WordNet senses with aptness or register attributes, so pejoratives and euphemisms are handled without changing the denotation.
  • I5 (learn): evaluation sets could include matched context pairs as negative controls, checking that the system's focus reading flips with context and not with surface form.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

Also on the byline: University of Salzburg.

📚 Shelves 3The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 9,296 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 9,206 worksPhilosophy · 211 works

Cite

Cite as Poppy Mankowitz. 2020. Expressions in focus. Semantics and Pragmatics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.3765/sp.13.13

@article{mankowitz2020expressions,
  title = {{Expressions in focus}},
  author = {Poppy Mankowitz},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2020},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.13.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.13}
}

References

93 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Anderson, Luvell & Ernie Lepore. 2013. Slurring words. Noûs 47(1). 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00820.x. ↗
  2. Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London & New York, NY: Routledge. find
  3. Arnold, Jennifer E. 2010. How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(4). 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1 749-818X.2010.00193.x. ↗
  4. Artstein, Ron. 2004. Focus below the word level. Natural Language Semantics 12(1). 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALS.0000011145.76954.0b. ↗
  5. Atlas, Jay David & Stephen C Levinson. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 1–62. New York, NY: Academic Press. find
  6. Baart, Joan L. G. 1987. Focus, syntax, and accent placement. Dordrecht: ICG Printing. find
  7. Baumann, Stefan. 2016. Second occurrence focus. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 483–502. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  8. Belleri, Delia. 2017. Verbalism and metalinguistic negotiation in ontological disputes. Philosophical Studies 174(9). 2211–2226. https://doi.org/10.100 7/s11098-016-0795-z. ↗
  9. Bolinger, Dwight L. 1958. A theory of pitch accent in English. Word 14(2-3). 109–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1958.11659660. ↗
  10. Bos, Johan. 2002. Underspecification and resolution in discourse semantics. Saarland University PhD Thesis. find
  11. Büring, Daniel. 1999. Topic. In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 142–165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  12. Büring, Daniel. 2007. Semantics, intonation, and information structure. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 445–473. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ↗
  13. Büring, Daniel. 2016. Intonation and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226269.001.0001. ↗
  14. Poppy Mankowitz Burton-Roberts, Noel. 1989. On Horn’s dilemma: Presupposition and negation. Journal of Linguistics 25(1). 95–125. https://doi.org/10.1017/S00222 26700012111. ↗
  15. Carston, Robyn. 1996. Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics 25(3). 309–330. https://doi.org/10 . 1016 / 0378 - 2166(94 ) 00 109-X. ↗
  16. Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Danny David Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, 183–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ↗
  17. Claus, Berry. 2011. Establishing salience during narrative text comprehension: A simulation view account. In Christian Chiarcos, Berry Claus & Michael Grabski (eds.), Salience: Multidisciplinary perspectives on its function in discourse (Studies and Monographs), 251–277. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ↗
  18. Cooper, Robin. 1983. Quantification and syntactic theory. Dordrecht: Reidel. ↗
  19. Copestake, Ann, Dan Flickinger, Carl Pollard & Ivan A Sag. 2006. Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation 3. 281–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-006-6327-9. ↗
  20. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519949. ↗
  21. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1999a. Focus structure and scope. In Georges Rebuschi & Laurice Tuller (eds.), The grammar of focus, 119–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.24.05ert. ↗
  22. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1999b. Focus structure theory and intonation. Language and Speech 42(2-3). 209–227. https://doi.org/10 . 1177 / 0023830 9990420020401. ↗
  23. Fox, Chris & Shalom Lappin. 2005. Underspecified interpretations in a Curry-typed representation language. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(2). 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exi006. ↗
  24. Fuchs, Anna. 1984. ‘Deaccenting’ and ‘default accent’. In Dafydd Gibbon & Helmut Richter (eds.), Intonation, accent and rhythm: Studies in discourse phonology, 134–164. New York, NY: De Gruyter. find
  25. Gamut, L. T. F. 1990. Logic, language, and meaning, volume 2: Intensional logic and logical grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ↗
  26. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1995a. Resolving questions, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(5). 459–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985365. Expressions in focus Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1995b. Resolving questions, II. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(6). 567–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00983299. ↗
  27. Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. find
  28. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1). 39–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF006283 04. ↗
  29. Gundel, Jeanette K, Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2). 274– 307. https://doi.org/10.2307/416535. ↗
  30. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19(2). 377–417. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700007799. ↗
  31. Hajičová, Eva, Petr Kuboň & Vladislav Kuboň. 1990. Hierarchy of salience and discourse analysis and production. Conference on Computational Linguistics (CoLing) 13. 144–148. https://doi.org/10.3115/991146.991172. ↗
  32. Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111357447. ↗
  33. Hausser, Roland & Dietmar Zaefferer. 1979. Questions and answers in a context-dependent Montague Grammar. In Franz Guenthner & Siegfried J. Schmidt (eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages, 339–358. Dordrecht: Reidel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9775-2_12. ↗
  34. Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. University of Massachusetts PhD Thesis. ↗
  35. Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  36. Herburger, Elena. 2000. What counts: Focus and quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7201.001.0001. von Heusinger, Klaus. 2006. Salience and anaphoric definite noun phrases. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 38(1). 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/037404 63.2006.10412202. ↗
  37. Hom, Christopher. 2008. The semantics of racial epithets. Journal of Philosophy 105(8). 416–440. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2008105834. ↗
  38. Hom, Christopher & Robert May. 2013. Moral and semantic innocence. Analytic Philosophy 54(3). 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12020. ↗
  39. Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (Georgetown University Poppy Mankowitz Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (GURT)), 11–42. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. find
  40. Horn, Laurence R. 1985. Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61(1). 121–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/413423. ↗
  41. Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. find
  42. Hornsby, Jennifer. 2001. Meaning and uselessness: How to think about derogatory words. Midwest Studies In Philosophy 25(1). 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4975.00042. ↗
  43. Hull, Rodney. 1975. A semantics for superficial and embedded questions in natural language. In Edward L. Keenan (ed.), Formal semantics of natural language, 35–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511897696.005. ↗
  44. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  45. Jacobs, Joachim. 1983. Fokus und Skalen, zur Syntax und Semantik von Grad-partikeln im Deutschen. Tubingen: Niemeyer. find
  46. Jeshion, Robin. 2013. Expressivism and the offensiveness of slurs. Philosophical Perspectives 27(1). 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12027. ↗
  47. Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  48. Kadmon, Nirit & Craige Roberts. 1986. Prosody and scope: The role of discourse structure. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 22(2). 16–28. find
  49. Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1616-1. ↗
  50. Karttunen, Lauri. 1969. Discourse referents. In 1969 conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ’69), 1–38. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.3115/990403.990490. ↗
  51. Kölbel, Max. 2004. Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104(1). 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0066-7373.2004.00081.x. ↗
  52. Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. The representation of focus. In Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, 825–834. Berlin & New York, NY: De Gruyter. ↗
  53. Kratzer, Angelika. 1999. Beyond ouch and oops: How descriptive and expressive meaning interact. In Cornell Conference on Theories of Context Dependence. Expressions in focus Krifka, Manfred. 1991. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 1. 17–53. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v1i0.2492. ↗
  54. Krifka, Manfred. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In Caroline Féry & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur vox sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 287–319. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. ↗
  55. Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure (ISIS), vol. 6, 13–56. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. ↗
  56. Ladd, Dwight R. 1983. Even, focus, and normal stress. Journal of Semantics 2(2). 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/semant/2.2.157. ↗
  57. Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10 . 1017 / CBO9780511620 607. ↗
  58. Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28. 643–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x. ↗
  59. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/1 0.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001. ↗
  60. Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1). 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436. ↗
  61. Li, Haoze. 2017. Semantics of metalinguistic focus. Amsterdam Colloquium 21. 345–354. find
  62. Ludlow, Peter. 2008. Cheap contextualism. Philosophical Issues 18(1). 104– 129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2008.00140.x. ↗
  63. McCawley, James D. 1991. Contrastive negation and metalinguistic negation. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 27. 189–206. find
  64. Moeschler, Jacques. 2010. Negation, scope and the descriptive / metalinguistic distinction. Generative Grammar in Geneva (GG@G) 6. 29–48. find
  65. Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Jack Kulas, James H. Fetzer & Terry L. Rankin (eds.), Philosophy, language, and artificial intelligence, vol. 2, 141–162. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2727-8_7. ↗
  66. Poppy Mankowitz Mount, Allyson. 2008. Intentions, gestures, and salience in ordinary and deferred demonstrative reference. Mind & Language 23(2). 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007.00335.x. ↗
  67. Partee, Barbara H. 1999. Focus, quantification, and semantics-pragmatics issues. In Peter Bosch & Rob A. van Der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 213–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  68. Plunkett, David & Tim Sundell. 2013. Disagreement and the semantics of normative and evaluative terms. Philosophers’ Imprint 13(23). 1–37. http://h dl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0013.023. ↗
  69. Plunkett, David & Tim Sundell. 2014. Antipositivist arguments from legal thought and talk: The metalinguistic response. In Graham Hubbs & Douglas Lind (eds.), Pragmatism, law, and language, 56–75. Oxford & New York, NY: Routledge. find
  70. Plunkett, David & Tim Sundell. 2019. Metalinguistic negotiation and speaker error. Inquiry. 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2019.1610055. ↗
  71. Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ↗
  72. Potts, Christopher. 2007. The dimensions of quotation. In Chris Barker & Pauline I. Jacobson (eds.), Direct compositionality, 405–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ↗
  73. Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given / new information. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–255. New York: Academic Press. find
  74. Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27(1). 53–94. https://www.philosophica.ugent.be/wp -content/uploads/fulltexts/27-4.pdf. ↗
  75. Reyle, Uwe. 1993. Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, representation, and deduction. Journal of Semantics 10(2). 123–179. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/10.2.123. ↗
  76. Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Jae Hak Yoon & Andreas Kathol (eds.), Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics (OSUWPL), vol. 49, 91–136. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics. find
  77. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. University of Massachusetts PhD Thesis. find
  78. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617. Expressions in focus Rudin, Deniz, Karl DeVries, Karen Duek, Kelsey Kraus & Adrian Brasoveanu. 2016. The semantics of corrections. In Jouko Väänänen, Åsa Hirvonen & Ruy de Queiroz (eds.), Logic, Language, Information, and Computation: 23rd International Workshop, 358–374. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52921-8_22. ↗
  79. Schaffer, Jonathan. 2009. Perspective in taste predicates and epistemic modals. In Andy Egan & Brian Weatherson (eds.), Epistemic modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  80. Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(1). 29–120. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022225203544. ↗
  81. Schlenker, Philippe. 2007. Expressive presuppositions. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2). 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.017. ↗
  82. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  83. Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, 315–332. New York, NY: New York Academic Press. find
  84. Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 701– 721. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902. von Stechow, Arnim. 1981. Topic, focus, and local relevance. In Wolfgang Klein & Willem Levelt (eds.), Crossing the boundaries in linguistics, 95– 130. Dordrecht: Reidel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8453-0_5. von Stechow, Arnim. 1991. Focusing and backgrounding operators. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German, 37–84. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.12.04ste. von Stechow, Arnim & Thomas Ede Zimmerman. 1984. Term answers and contextual change. Linguistics 22(1). 3–40. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1 984.22.1.3. ↗
  85. Steedman, Mark. 1994. Remarks on intonation and “focus”. In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus and natural language processing, 185–204. Heidelberg: IBM. find
  86. Steedman, Mark. 2000. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry 31(4). 649–689. https://doi.org/10.1162/00243 8900554505. ↗
  87. Stevens, Jon Scott. 2016. Focus games. Linguistics and Philosophy 39(5). 395– 441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9192-5. ↗
  88. Poppy Mankowitz Thomasson, Amie L. 2017. Metaphysical disputes and metalinguistic negotiation. Analytic Philosophy 58(1). 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12087. ↗
  89. Tichy, Pavel. 1978. Questions, answers, and logic. American Philosophical Quarterly 15. 275–284. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009725. ↗
  90. Wedgwood, Daniel. 2005. The normality of ‘metalinguistic’ foci: A challenge to strict compositionality. In Frank Richter & Manfred Sailer (eds.), ESS-LLI’05 Workshop on Empirical Challenges and Analytical Alternatives to Strict Compositionality, 17–37. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University. find
  91. Whiting, Daniel. 2013. It’s not what you said, it’s the way you said it: Slurs and conventional implicatures. Analytic Philosophy 54(3). 364–377. https ://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12024. ↗
  92. Williamson, Timothy. 2009. Reference, inference and the semantics of pejoratives. In Joseph Almog & Paolo Leonardi (eds.), The philosophy of David Kaplan, 137–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.109 3/acprof:oso/9780195367881.003.0009. ↗
  93. Winkler, Suzanne. 2016. Ellipsis and information structure. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 359–382. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfor dhb/9780199642670.013.31. Poppy Mankowitz Department of Philosophy University of Salzburg Franziskanergasse 1 5020 Salzburg poppy.mankowitz@sbg.ac.at ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mankowitz-2020-expressions-focus/