• Contents
• Introduction
• PDF-File (100)

Contents

1. Introduction
2. The Representation of Focus
2.1 Direct Association with Focus or Movement Theories of Focus
2.2 Alternative Semantics
2.3 Krifka's Puzzle
2.4 Focus Phrases
2.5 Syntactic Island Constraints or Semantic Barriers?

3. Alternative Semantics for definite NPs

3.1 N and N-modifier
3.2 The definite article
3.3 Krifka's Puzzle resolved

4.   The Architecture of Alternative Semantics

4.1. Russellian Iota Expression and Extending the Alternative Meaning of NPs
4.2. Generalized Choice Functions
4.3. Type Shifting Operation

5 Conclusion
References

Introduction

In this paper I investigate the semantics of association with focus in complex noun phrases in the framework of Alternative Semantics. Alternative Semantics (Rooth 1985, 1992) was developed to account for the phenomenon of association with focus as in (1a) without moving the focused constituent SueF. The focused constituent rather supplies the adequate domain of quantification for the focus operator only by a recursive definition of the "alternative meaning" or "p-sets". However, Alternative Semantics, like other approaches to focus, is exemplified with proper names, and does not treat complex NPs, as in (1b)-(1d). Proper names are quite exceptional because they do not contain linguistic material that interact with grammatical structure. The only information they contribute is that they are of type e (for entity). For instance, the alternatives to the proper name Sue in (1a) are all objects of the same type. They form the domain of quantification for the operator only. Intuitively, the domain of quantification in (1b) is similar to that one in (1a), whereas the domain of quantification in (1c) only includes professors. In Krifka's puzzle (1d), the domain of quantification for the operator only is not the set of alternatives to the focused expression BobF, but the set of women that introduce someone to John..

(1a) Sam only introduced [SueF]NP to John.
(1b) Sam only introduced [the professorF]NP to John.
(1c) Sam only introduced [the DutchF professor]NP to John.
(1d) Sam only talked to [NP the woman who introduced BobF to John]

The first question to be addressed is according to which rules are the alternative properties in (1c) and (1d) generated and projected such that they form the proper domain of quantification for the operator. A second question regards the alternative meaning of the article. The alternative meaning of the complex noun professorF in (1b) is a set of properties alternative to being a professor. The alternative meaning of the article must be capable of transforming this set of sets of individuals into a set of individuals to provide the necessary domain for the operator only. A third question is the alternative function of modifications, like in (1c) and (1d).
 A more general discussion on the relation between ordinary and alternative semantics shows that the alternative function of the definite article cannot directly be derived from its ordinary meaning. The alternative value of proper names and common nouns can be derived from their ordinary meaning by forming sets of the ordinary meaning. However, this is not possible for the function of the article. This mismatch requires some accommodations of the general  architecture of Alternative Semantics and its relation to the ordinary semantics.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, I discuss two semantic approaches to association with focus: movement theories and in situ theories. In movement theories the focused expression is moved to a position adjoined to the operator, leaving a variable in the place it was moved out. The focus-sensitive operator, which is described similar to a quantifier, evaluates the focused expression with regard to the background. In situ theories, such as Alternative Semantics, do not move the focused expression, but introduce a second kind of semantic interpretation: the alternative semantic value, which are formed by alternatives generated by the focused expression. These alternatives are projected in the composition to remain available for a focus sensitive operator like only. Association with focus in definite NPs gives some crucial data that according to Krifka (1996) calls for a mixed approach of the movement theory and Alternative Semantics. He introduces the concept of Focus Phrase, which mediates the association between the focus-sensitive operator and the focused expression. The operator directly relates to the Focus-Phrase, which corresponds to a movable constituent that includes the focused expression. The Focus-Phrase  itself is associated with the focused expression by principles of Alternative Semantics. I present more data that show that this basically syntactic notion does not solve the general problem of focus in complex NPs.
 In section 3, I extend Alternative Semantics in order to analyze complex definite NPs with focused subconstituents. I first formulate the rules for deriving the alternatives for common nouns and their restrictive modifiers such as adjectives and relative clauses. Second, the alternative composition rules are given, and third, the alternative semantic function of the definite article is reconstructed and formally described. This function consists in forming a set of elements of type e by using the alternative properties to the property expressed in the descriptive material of the NP. Finally, Krifka's puzzle (1d) is analyzed by using this extended version of Alternative Semantics. Section 4 discusses the general problem which is caused by the particular alternative function of the definite article, which cannot be derived from its ordinary meaning. I make three suggestions to accommodate this mismatch and evaluate them.

PDF-File (100)

Top