Phonological Focus and Structural Focus

Rochemont, Michael

doi:10.1163/9789004373167_013

Cited by 35 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The contrast between the stress pattern in unergatives and unaccusatives has also been noted in the literature, where it is pointed out that unaccusatives exhibit single stress on the subject while unergatives pattern like transitives and show (primary) stress on the predicate and (secondary) stress on the subject (see e.g. Selkirk 1984Selkirk , 1995Rochemont 1998;Legate 2003). In fact, Zubizarreta makes some qualifying remarks about her data which point to the correctness of this contrast.…”

Section: A Modular Theory Of Nuclear Stress: Zubizarreta (1998)mentioning

confidence: 60%

“…According to Bolinger, what speakers decide to highlight is not a matter of grammar but a matter of what they are trying to say in a specific context. Other scholars have taken the sentential stress/accent as the input to an algorithm which derives the focus structure of a sentence (Selkirk 1984(Selkirk , 1995Rochemont 1986Rochemont , 1998. The present monograph argues in favour of the existence of a default sentential stress rule (following, in spirit, Chomsky 1971Chomsky , 1976Jackendoff 1972).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…In other words, focus is seen as a syntactic property with semantic and phonological implications. In taking this view, I argue against proposals which have either attempted to dispense with the sentential stress rule altogether or have used sentential stress as input to an algorithm Empirical scope 9 which derives the focus structure of a sentence, namely, the focus projection algorithm (Selkirk 1984(Selkirk , 1995Rochemont 1986Rochemont , 1998.…”

Section: Summary Of Main Proposalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are some empirical data, even within a single language, which defy any phonological approach to sentential stress. It has been observed, for instance, that in passive and unaccusative sentences uttered in out-of-the-blue contexts, primary stress falls on the subject (see Selkirk 1984Selkirk , 1995Rochemont 1998;Zubizarreta 1998;Legate 2003, among others). This is illustrated in the examples in (17).…”

Section: Empirical Facts Against Phonological Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is illustrated in the examples in (17). The example in (17a), which will be used throughout this book, is from Legate (2003), the rest being from Rochemont (1998). 17,18 (17) a.…”

Section: Empirical Facts Against Phonological Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Syntax of Sentential Stress

Kahnemuyipour¹

2009

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The theoretical focus of this series is on the interfaces between subcomponents of the human grammatical system and the closely related area of the interfaces between the different subdisciplines of linguistics. The notion of "interface" has become central in grammatical theory (for instance, in Chomsky's recent Minimalist Program) and in linguistic practice: work on the interfaces between syntax and semantics, syntax and morphology, phonology and phonetics etc. has led to a deeper understanding of particular linguistic phenomena and of the architecture of the linguistic component of the mind/brain. The series covers interfaces between core components of grammar, including syntax/morphology, syntax/semantics, syntax/phonology, syntax/ pragmatics, morphology/phonology, phonology/phonetics, phonetics/speech processing, semantics/pragmatics, and intonation/discourse structure as well as issues in the way that the systems of grammar involving these interface areas are acquired and deployed in use (including language acquisition, language dysfunction, and language processing). It demonstrates, we hope, that proper understandings of particular linguistic phenomena, languages, language groups, or inter-language variations all require reference to interfaces. The series is open to work by linguists of all theoretical persuasions and schools of thought. A main requirement is that authors should write so as to be understood by colleagues in related subfields of linguistics and by scholars in cognate disciplines. In this monograph, Arsalan Kahnemuyipour explores the consequences of a particular architecture for the phonology/syntax interface: a multiple spellout system where each spell-out point is sensitive to local "chunks" of syntactic structure. These chunks are identified as phases of the syntactic derivation, and the book argues that sentence stress can be predicted partly on the basis of these. The book also argues for a particular view of how the informationstructure/syntax interface is organized, and builds a theory of the interaction of the two interfaces.

show abstract

Section: A Modular Theory Of Nuclear Stress: Zubizarreta (1998)mentioning

confidence: 60%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Summary Of Main Proposalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Empirical Facts Against Phonological Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is illustrated in the examples in (17). The example in (17a), which will be used throughout this book, is from Legate (2003), the rest being from Rochemont (1998). 17,18 (17) a.…”

Section: Empirical Facts Against Phonological Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Syntax of Sentential Stress

Kahnemuyipour¹

2009

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Amahuaca ergative as agreement with multiple heads

Clem

2018

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: topic, contrastive focus and pronouns

Cowles

Walenski

Kluender

2007

Topoi

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the role that linguistic and cognitive prominence play in the resolution of anaphor-antecedent relationships. In two experiments, we found that pronouns are immediately sensitive to the cognitive prominence of potential antecedents when other antecedent selection cues are uninformative. In experiment 1, results suggest that despite their theoretical dissimilarities, topic and contrastive focus both serve to enhance cognitive prominence. Results from experiment 2 suggest that the contrastive prosody appropriate for focus constructions may also play an important role in enhancing cognitive prominence. Thus different types of linguistic prominence (topic, contrastive focus) appear to have the common effect of increasing the cognitive prominence of the discourse referent. For pronouns with two possible antecedents, the cognitive prominence of an antecedent aids in anaphor resolution, immediately biasing selection towards the more prominent (and ultimately preferred) antecedent.

show abstract

Phonological Focus and Structural Focus

Cited by 35 publications

References 0 publications

The Syntax of Sentential Stress

The Syntax of Sentential Stress

Amahuaca ergative as agreement with multiple heads

Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: topic, contrastive focus and pronouns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About