Focus (linguistics) 1315845 220088650 2008-06-18T06:12:01Z 68.34.208.184 /* Generative Approaches */ '''Focus''' is a concept in [[linguistics|linguistic]] theory that deals with how information in one phrase relates to information that has come before. Focus has been analyzed in a variety of ways by [[linguist|linguists]]. Historically, there have been two main approaches to focus – the [[generative grammar|generative]] approach and the functional approach. In the generative approach, the term ''focus'' is used to refer to words or expressions that are either [[prosody (linguistics)|prosodically]] or [[syntax|syntactically]] prominent, generally because they introduce “new” information. In the functional approach, the term ''focus'' is used to refer to words or expressions that establish coherence in the text or conversation. Although most articles in linguistic theory on focus are devoted to its effects in [[english language|English]], there is also extensive research on focus not only in [[topic (linguistics)|topic]]-prominent languages such as [[korean language|Korean]] and [[japanese language|Japanese]], but also in languages such as [[hungarian language|Hungarian]], [[italian language|Italian]] and [[russian language|Russian]]. ==Generative Approaches== In generative linguistics, focus determines which part of the sentence contributes new or “textually and situationally non-derivable information” <ref name=Halliday>{{Citation | first = M. | last = Halliday | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English (Part 2) | version = | publisher = Journal of Linguistics 3. | date = 1967 | url = | page = 206 | accessdate = }}</ref>. Standard generative approaches to grammar argue that [[phonology]] and [[semantics]] cannot exchange information directly (''See Fig. 1''). Therefore, syntactic mechanisms including features and [[transformational grammar|transformations]] include prosodic information regarding focus that is passed to the semantics and phonology. [[Image:SyntaxSplit.jpg|thumb|right|frame|Fig. 1 The Y-Model of Syntax, Semantics and Phonology]] Focus may be highlighted either prosodically or syntactically or both, depending on the language. In syntax this can be done assigning focus markers, as shown in (1), or by preposing as shown in (2): (1) I saw [JOHN] <sub>f</sub>. (2) [JOHN] <sub>f</sub>, I saw. In (1), focus is marked syntactically with the subscripted ‘f’ which is realized phonologically by a nuclear [[pitch accent]]. [[cleft sentence|Clefting]] induces an obligatory intonation break. Therefore in (2), focus is marked via word order and a nuclear pitch accent. Focus also relates to phonology and has ramifications for how and where [[prosody (linguistics)|suprasegmental]] information such as [[rhythm]], [[stress (linguistics)|stress]], and [[intonation (linguistics) |intonation]] is encoded in the grammar, and in particular intonational tunes which mark focus <ref name=Beaver>{{Citation | first = David I. & Brady Z. Clark | last = Beaver | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning | version = | publisher = Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. | date = 2008 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref>. Speakers can use pitch accents on syllables to indicate what word(s) are in focus. New words are often accented while given words are not. The accented word(s) forms the focus domain. However, not all of the words in a focus domain need be accented. (''See'' <ref name=Selkirk1>{{Citation | first = E. | last = Selkirk | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure | version = | publisher = Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. | date = 1984 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref> <ref name=Selkirk2>{{Citation | first = E. | last = Selkirk | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Sentence Prosody: Intonation, Stress, and Phrasing | version = | publisher = In: J. A. Goldsmith (ed.): The Handbook of Phonological Theory. London: Basil Blackwell, pp. 550–569. | date = 1995 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref> <ref name=Schwarzchild1>{{Citation | first = R. | last = Schwarzschild | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = GIVENness, AvoidF and other Constraints on the Placement of Accent | version = | publisher = Natural Language Semantics 7(2), 141–177. | date = 1999 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref> ''for rules on accent placement and focus-marking''). The focus domain can be either ''broad'', as shown in (3), or ''narrow'', as shown in (4) and (5): (3) Did you see a grey dog or a cat? I saw [a grey '''DOG'''] <sub>f</sub>. (4) Did you see a grey dog or a grey cat? I saw a grey ['''DOG'''] <sub>f</sub>. (5) Did you see a grey dog or a black dog? I saw a ['''GREY'''] <sub>f</sub> dog. The question/answer paradigm shown in (3) – (5) has been utilized by a variety of theorists <ref name=Roberts>{{Citation | first = C. | last = Roberts | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics | version = | publisher = OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49. Papers in Semantics. | date = 1996 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref> <ref name=Beaver/> to illustrate the range of contexts a sentence containing focus can be used felicitously. Specifically, the question/answer paradigm has been used as a diagnostic for what counts as new information. For example, the focus pattern in (3) would be infelicitous if the question was ‘Did you see a grey dog or a black dog?’. In (3) and (4), the pitch accent is marked in bold. In (3), the pitch accent is placed on ''dog'' but the entire noun phrase ''a grey dog'' is under focus. In (4), the pitch accent is also placed on ''dog'' but only the noun ''dog'' is under focus. In (5), pitch accent is placed on ''grey'' and only the adjective ''grey'' is under focus. Historically, generative proposals made focus a feature bound to a single word within a sentence. [[noam chomsky|Chomsky]] & [[Morris Halle|Halle]] <ref name=Chomsky>{{Citation | first = N. & M. Halle | last = Chomsky | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = The Sound Pattern of English | version = | publisher = MIT Press. | date = 1968 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref> formulated a Nuclear Stress Rule that proposed there to be a relation between the main stress of a sentence and a single constituent. Since this constituent is prominent sententially in a way that can contrast with lexical stress, this was originally referred to as "nuclear" stress. The purpose of this rule was to capture the intuition that within each sentence, there is one word in particular that is accented more prominently due to its importance - this is said to form the [[sentence nucleus|nucleus]] of that sentence. Focus was later suggested to be a structural position at the beginning of the sentence (or on the left periphery) in [[Romance languages]] such as Italian, as the lexical head of a Focus Phrase (or FP, following the [[X-bar theory]] of [[phrase structure grammar|phrase structure]]). [[Ray Jackendoff|Jackendoff]] <ref name=Jackendoff>{{Citation | first = R. | last = Jackendoff | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Semantic Structures | version = | publisher = MIT Press. | date = 1972 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref>, Selkrik <ref name=Selkirk1/> <ref name=Selkirk2/>, Rooth <ref name=Rooth1>{{Citation | first = M. | last = Rooth | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Association with Focus | version = | publisher = Ph.D. thesis, UMass. Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Students Association. | date = 1985 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref> <ref name=Rooth2>{{Citation | first = M. | last = Rooth | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = A Theory of Focus Interpretation | version = | publisher = Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116. | date = 1992 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref>, Krifka <ref name=Krifka1>{{Citation | first = M. | last = Rooth | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = A Compositional Semantics For Multiple Focus Constructions | version = | publisher = Informationsstruktur und Grammatik 4. | date = 1992 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref>, Schwarzchild <ref name=Schwarzchild1/> argue that focus consists of a feature that is assigned to a node in the syntactic representation of a sentence. <!-- Image with unknown copyright status removed: [[Image:FocusFeature.jpg|thumb|left|frame|Focus as syntactic feature in the sentence ''An [AMERICAN] <sub>f</sub> farmer met a [CANADIAN] <sub>f</sub> farmer.'' <ref name=Rooth2/>]] -->Because focus is now widely seen as corresponding between heavy stress, or nuclear pitch accent, this feature is often associated with the phonologically prominent element(s) of a sentence. Sound structure ([[phonology|phonological]] and [[phonetics|phonetic]]) studies of focus are not as numerous, as [[relation|relational]] language phenomena tend to be of greater interest to syntacticians and semanticists. But this may be changing: a recent study found that not only do focused words and phrases have a higher range of pitch compared to words in the same sentence but that words following the focus in both [[American English]] and [[Mandarin (linguistics)|Mandarin Chinese]] were lower than normal in pitch and words before a focus are unaffected. The precise usages of focus in natural language are still uncertain. A continuum of possibilities could possibly be defined between precisely [[enunciation|enunciated]] and [[staccato]] styles of speech based on variations in [[pragmatics]] or [[timing(linguistics)|timing]]. Currently, there are two central themes in research on focus in generative linguistics. First, given what words or expressions are prominent, what is the meaning of some sentence? Rooth <ref name=Rooth1/> , Jacobs <ref name=Jacobs>{{Citation | first = J. | last = Jacobs | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Fokus und Skalen | version = | publisher = T¨ubingen: Niemeyer. | date = 1983 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref>, Krifka <ref name=Krifka1/> , and von Stechow <ref name=Stechow>{{Citation | first = A. | last = von Stechow | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Focusing and backgrounding operators | version = | publisher = Universitat Konstanz, Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Arbeitspapier Nr. 6. Konstanz.Press. | date = 1989 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref> claim that there are lexical items and construction specific-rules that refer directly to the notion of focus . Dryer <ref name=Dryer>{{Citation | first = M. S. | last = Dryer | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = The pragmatics of association with only | version = | publisher = Paper presented at the 1994 Winter Meeting of the L.S.A. Boston, Massachusetts. | date = 1994 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref> , Kadmon <ref name=Kadmon>{{Citation | first = N. | last = Kadmon | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition and Focus | version = | publisher = Oxford: Blackwell. | date = 2001 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref>, Marti <ref name=Marti>{{Citation | first = L. | last = Marti | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Contextual Variables | version = | publisher = Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT and MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. | date = 2003 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref>, Roberts <ref name=Roberts/> , Schwarzschild <ref name=Schwarzchild2>{{Citation | first = R. | last = Schwarzschild | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Why Some Foci Must Associate | version = | publisher = Unpublished ms., Rutgers University. | date = 1997 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref> , Vallduvi <ref name=Vallduvi>{{Citation | first = E. | last = Vallduvi | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = The Information Component | version = | publisher = Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. | date = 1990 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref>, and Williams <ref name=Williams>{{Citation | first = E. | last = Williams | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Blocking and Anaphora | version = | publisher = Linguistic Inquiry 28(4), 577–628. | date = 1997 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref> argue for accounts in which general principles of discourse explain focus sensitivity <ref name=Beaver/>. Second, given the meaning and syntax of some sentence, what words or expressions are prominent? ===Prominence and Meaning=== Focus directly affects the semantics, or meaning, of a sentence. Different ways of pronouncing the sentence affects the meaning, or, what the speaker intends to convey. Focus distinguishes one interpretation of a sentence from other interpretations of the same sentence that do not differ in word order, but may differ in the way in which the words are taken to relate to each other. To see the effects of focus on meaning, consider the following examples: (6) John only introduced Bill to SUE. In (6), accent is placed on Sue. There are two readings of (6) - broad focus shown in (7) and narrow focus shown in (8): (7) John only [introduced Bill to SUE] <sub>f</sub>. (8) John only introduced Bill to [SUE] <sub>f</sub>. The meaning of (7) can be summarized as ''the only thing John did is introducing Bill to Sue''. The meaning of (8) can be summarized as ''the only person to whom John introduced Bill is Sue''. In both (7) and (8), focus is associated with the focus sensitive expression ''only''. This is known as association with focus. The class of focus sensitive expressions in which focus can be associated with includes exclusives (''only'', ''just'') non-scalar additives (''merely'', ''too'') scalar additives (''also'', ''even''), particularlizers (''in particular'', ''for example''), intensifiers, quantificational adverbs, quantificational determiners, sentential connectives, emotives, counterfactuals, superlatives, negation and generics <ref name=Beaver/>. It is claimed that focus operators must [[c-command]] their focus. ====Alternative Semantics==== Beginning with Rooth <ref name=Rooth1/> <ref name=Rooth2/>, the effects of focus on semantics can be said to be the introduction of a [[set]] of alternatives that contrasts with the ordinary semantic meaning of a sentence. Consider the following example: (9) Mary only likes [SUE] <sub>f</sub>. [[Image:RoothOrdinary.jpg|thumb|right|frame|The syntactic/semantic tree of the ordinary meaning of the sentence ''Mary likes Sue.'' <ref name=Rooth2/> ]] The ordinary semantic meaning of (9) is the [[binary relation]]: ::<math>like\langle Mary, Sue\rangle</math> (9) is true if and only if ''Mary'' stands in the ''like'' relation to ''Sue''. The set of alternatives that is a resultant of ''Sue'' being focused is the set: ::<math>\{like\langle Mary, y\rangle |y \in E\}</math>, where ''E'' is the domain of [[type theory|entities]] or individuals. The relevant alternatives for example (9) might be the set: ::<math>\{like\langle Mary, Sue\rangle, like\langle Mary, Bill\rangle, like\langle Mary, Lisa\rangle\}</math>. In (9), the set of alternatives is said to contrast with the ordinary semantic meaning of because the speaker indicates that the ordinary semantic meaning is true while every alternative is false. For example in (9), ''Mary likes Sue'' is true while ''Mary likes Bill'' and ''Mary likes Lisa'' are both false. Generally, the meaning of (9) can be summarized as ''Mary likes Sue and no one else''. ====Structured Meanings==== Following Jacobs <ref name=Jacobs/> and Williams <ref name=Williams/>, Krifka <ref name=Krifka1/> argues differently. Krifka <ref name=Krifka1/> claims focus partitions the semantics into a background part and focus part, represented by the pair: [[Image:KrifkaFocus.jpg|frame|right| The syntactic/semantic tree of the sentence ''John only introduced [BILL] <sub>f</sub> to [SUE] <sub>f</sub>.'' <ref name=Krifka1/>]] ::<math>\langle B,F\rangle</math> The [[logical form]] of which represented in [[lambda calculus]] is: ::<math>\langle \lambda x.x, A\rangle</math> This pair is referred to as a ''structured meaning''. Structured meanings allow for a compositional semantic approach to sentences that involve single or multiple foci. This approach follows [[Gottlob Frege|Frege's]] (1897) Principle of Compositionality: the meaning of a complex expression is determined by the meanings of its parts, and the way in which those parts are combined into structured meanings. Krifka’s <ref name=Krifka1/> structured meaning theory represents focus in a transparent and compositional fashion it encompasses sentences with more than one focus as well as sentences with a single focus. Krifka <ref name=Krifka1/> claims the advantages of structured meanings are two-fold: 1) We can access the meaning of an item in focus directly, and 2) Rooth's <ref name=Rooth1/> <ref name=Rooth2/> alternative semantics can be derived from a structured meaning approach but not vice versa. To see Krifka’s <ref name=Krifka1/> approach illustrated, consider the following examples of single focus shown in (10) and multiple foci shown in (11): (10) John introduced Bill to [SUE] <sub>f</sub>. (11) John only introduced [BILL] <sub>f</sub> to [SUE] <sub>f</sub>. Generally, the meaning of (10) can be summarized as ''John introduced Bill to Sue and no one else'', and the meaning of (11) can be summarized as ''the only pair of persons such that John introduced the first to the second is Bill and Sue''. Specifically, the structured meaning of (10) is: ::<math>\langle introd(j, b, x), s\rangle</math> where ''introd'' is the denotation of ''introduce'', '''j''' ''John'', '''b''' ''Bill'' and '''s''' ''Sue''. The background part of the structured meaning is; ''introd(j, b, x)''; and the focus part is ''s''. Through a (modified) form of functional application (or [[lambda calculus | beta reduction]]), the focus part of (10) and (11) is projected up through the syntax to the sentential level. Importantly, each intermediate level has distinct meaning. ===Focus Marking=== It has been claimed that ''new'' information in the discourse is accented while ''given'' information is not. Generally, the properties of ''new'' and ''given'' are referred to as a word's discourse status. Definitions of ''new'' and ''given'' vary. Halliday <ref name=Halliday/> defines ''given'' as “[[Anaphora | anaphorically]]” recoverable, while ''new'' is defined to be “textually and situationally non-derivable information”. To illustrate this point, consider the following discourse in (12) and (13): (12) Why don’t you have some French TOAST? (13) I’ve forgotten how to MAKE French toast. <ref name=Ladd>{{Citation | first = Robert D. | last = Ladd | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. | version = | publisher = Bloomington: Indiana University Press. | date = 1980 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref> In (13) we note that the verb ''make'' is not given by the sentence in (12). It is discourse new. Therefore, it is available for accentuation. However, ''toast'' in (13) is given in (12). Therefore, it is not available for accentuation. As previously mentioned, pitch accenting can relate to focus. Accented words are often said to be in focus or F-marked often represented by F-markers. The relationship between accent placement is mediated through the discourse status of particular syntactic nodes <ref name=German>{{Citation | first = J., Pierrehumbert, J. and Kaufmann, S. | last = German | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Evidence for phonological constraints on nuclear accent placement | version = | publisher = Language 82(1), 151-168. | date = 2006 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref>. The percolation of F-markings in a syntactic tree is sensitive to argument structure and head-phrase relations <ref name=Schwarzchild1/> . ====Selkirk <ref name=Selkirk1/> <ref name=Selkirk2/> & Accent Placement==== Selkirk <ref name=Selkirk1/> <ref name=Selkirk2/> develops an explicit account of how F-marking propagates up [[parse tree | syntactic trees]]. Accenting indicates F-marking. F-marking projects up a given syntactic tree such that both lexical items, i.e. [[Terminal and nonterminal symbols | terminal nodes]] and phrasal levels, i.e. [[Terminal and nonterminal symbols | nonterminal nodes]], can be F-marked. Specifically, a set of rules determines how and where F-marking occurs in the syntax. These rules are shown in (1) and (2): (14) '''Basic Rule''': An accented word is f-marked. (15) '''Focus Projection''': ::a. F-marking the head of a phrase licenses F-marking of the phrase. ::b. F-marking of the internal argument of a head licenses the F-marking of the head. ::c. F-marking of the antecedent of a trace left by NP or wh-movement licenses F-marking of the trace. To see how (14) and (15) apply, consider the following example: ::[['''Judy'''] <sub>f</sub> [adopted <sub>f</sub> a '''parrot''' <sub>f</sub>] <sub>f</sub>] <sub>foc</sub> <ref name=German/> Because there is no rule in (14) or (15) that licenses F-marking to the direct object from any other node, the direct object ''parrot'' must be accented as indicated in bold. Rule (15a) allows F-marking to project from the direct object to the head verb ''adopted''. Rule (15b) allows F-marking to project from the head verb to the VP ''adopted a parrot''. Selkirk <ref name=Selkirk1/> <ref name=Selkirk2/> assumes the subject ''Judy'' is accented if F-marked as indicated in bold <ref name=German/> . ====Schwarzchild <ref name=Schwarzchild1/> & Accent Placement==== Schwarzchild <ref name=Schwarzchild1/> points out weaknesses in Selkirk’s <ref name=Selkirk1/> <ref name=Selkirk2/> ability to predict accent placement based on facts about the discourse. Selkirk’s <ref name=Selkirk1/> <ref name=Selkirk2/> theory says nothing about how accentuation arises in sentences with entirely old information. She does not fully articulate the notion of discourse status and its relation to accent marking. Schwarzchild <ref name=Schwarzchild1/> differs from Selkirk <ref name=Selkirk1/> <ref name=Selkirk2/>, in that he develops a more robust model of discourse status. Discourse status is determined via the entailments of the context. This is achieved through the definition in (9): (16) '''Definition of given''': An utterance of U counts as given iff it has a salient antecedent A and ::a. if U is type [[type theory|e]], then A and U corefer; ::b. otherwise: modulo <math>\exists</math>-type-shifting, A entails the existential F-closure of U. The operation in (16b) can apply to any constituent. <math>\exists</math>-type-shifting “is a way of transforming syntactic constituents into full [[proposition | propositions]] so that it is possible to check whether they are [[entailment | entailed]] by the context” (German et. al. 2006). For example, the result of <math>\exists</math>-type-shifting the VP in (5) is (6): (17) [hums a happy tune] (18) <math>\exists</math>''x''[''x'' hums a happy tune] <ref name=German/> Note that (18) is a full proposition. The existential F-closure in (16b) refers to the operation of replacing the highest F-marked node with an existentially closed variable. The operation is shown in (19) and (20): (19) <math>\exists</math>''x''[''x'' hums [a happy <sub>f</sub> tune <sub>f</sub>] <sub>f</sub>] (20) <math>\exists</math>''Y''<math>\exists</math>''x''[''x'' hums ''Y''] <ref name=German/> Given the discourse context in (21a) it is possible to determine the discourse status of any syntactic node in (21b): (21) ::a. Sean [hummed a happy tune] <sub>VP</sub> ::b. Angie [hummed [Chopin’s Funeral March] <sub>f</sub>] <sub>VP</sub> <ref name=German/> If the VP in (21a) is the salient antecedent for the VP in (21b), then the VP in (21b) counts as given. <math>\exists</math>-type-shifed VP in (21a) is shown in (22). The existential F-closure of the VP in (21b) is shown in (23): (22) <math>\exists</math>''x''[''x'' hums a happy tune] (23) <math>\exists</math>''Y''<math>\exists</math>''x''[''x'' hums ''Y''] <ref name=German/> (22) entails (23). Therefore, the VP of (9b) counts as given. Schwarzchild <ref name=Schwarzchild1/> assumes an [[optimality theory | optimality theoretic]] grammar <ref name=Prince>{{Citation | first = Alan, and Paul Smolensky | last = Prince | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar | version = | publisher = New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, and Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, MS. | date = 1993 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref> . Accent placement is determined by a set of violable, hierarchically ranked constraints as shown in (24): (24) ::a. '''GIVENness''': A constituent that is not F-marked is given. ::b. '''Foc''': A Foc-marked phrase contains an accent ::c. '''AvoidF''': Do not F-mark ::d. '''HeadArg''': A head is less prominent than its internal argument. The ranking Schwarzchild <ref name=Schwarzchild1/> proposes is seen in (25): (25) GIVENness, Foc >> AvoidF >> HeadArg As we saw, GIVENness relates F-marking to discourse status. Foc relates F-marking to accent placement. Foc simply requires that a constinuent(s) of an F-marked phrase contain an accent. AvoidF states that less F-marking is preferable to more F-marking. HeadArg encodes the head-argument asymmetry into the grammar directly <ref name=German/> . =====Responses===== Recent empirical work German ''et al.'' <ref name=German/> suggests that both Selkirk’s <ref name=Selkirk1/> <ref name=Selkirk2/> and Schwarzchild’s <ref name=Schwarzchild1/> theory of accentuation and F-marking makes incorrect predictions. Consider the following context: (26) Are the children playing their game? (27) Paul took down their tent that they play their game in. <ref name=German/> It has been noted that prepositions are intrinsically weak and do not readily take accent <ref name=Ladd/>, <ref name=German/>. However, both Selkirk <ref name=Selkirk1/> <ref name=Selkirk2/> and Schwarzchild <ref name=Schwarzchild1/> predict that in the narrow focus context, an accent will occur at most on the preposition in (27) as shown in (28): (28) Paul took down their tent that they [play their game [in <sub>f</sub> [[trace (linguistics) | t]] <sub>f</sub>] <sub>foc</sub>]. <ref name=German/> However, the production experiment reported in German ''et al.'' <ref name=German/> showed that subjects are more likely to accent verbs or nouns as opposed to prepositions in the narrow focused context, thus ruling out accent patterns shown in (28). German ''et al.'' <ref name=German/> argue for a stochastic constraint-based grammar similar to Anttila <ref name=Antilla>{{Citation | first = A. | last = Antilla | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Variation in Finnish phonology and morphology | version = | publisher = Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation. | date = 1997 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref> and Boersma <ref name=Boersma>{{Citation | first = P. | last = Boersma | author = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = How we learn variation, optionality, and probability | version = | publisher = Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam 21.43–58. | date = 1997 | url = | page = | accessdate = }}</ref> that more fluidly accounts for how speakers accent words in discourse. ==Functional Approaches== ==See also== *[[Topic-comment]] *[[Topic (linguistics)]] *[[Topic-prominent language]] ==References== {{Reflist}} ==Sources== *Cinque, Guglielmo (1993). 'A null theory of phrase and compound stress'. ''Linguistic Inquiry'' 24:239-267. *[[Ad Neeleman|Neeleman, Ad]] and [[Tanya Reinhart]] (1998). 'Scrambling and the PF-Interface'. In ''The Projection of Arguments'', CSLI Publications, 309-353. *Ocampo, Francisco (2003). On the notion of focus in spoken Spanish: An empirical approach. In ''Theory, Practice, and Acquisition'', ed. by Paula Kempchinsky and Carlos-Eduardo Pineros. Sommerville: Cascadilla Press, 207-226. *Pereltsvaig, Asya (2002). 'Topic and focus as linear notions: evidence from Russian and Italian'. ''Proceedings of the Conference on the Interaction between Syntax and Pragmatics at UCL''. *Szendrői, Kriszta (2004). 'Focus and the interaction between syntax and pragmatics'. ''[[Lingua]]'' 114. *Xu, Y., C. X. Xu and X. Sun (2004). 'On the temporal domain of focus'. In Proceedings of International Conference on Speech Prosody 2004, Nara, Japan: 81-84. [[Category:Syntactic entities]] [[Category:Semantics]] [[br:Lavarenn greizennus]] [[it:Focalizzazione]] [[ja:焦点 (言語学)]]