• Abstract
• Contents
• Introduction
• PDF-File (30K)

Abstract

In this paper I investigate the semantics of association with focus in complex noun phrases in the framework of Alternative Semantics (Rooth 1985, 1992). For the first time, I formulate the rules for deriving the alternative meanings (p-sets) of complex nouns and their restrictive modifiers such as adjectives and relative clauses. They form sets of sets of individuals (i.e. they are of type <<e,t>,t>). The alternative semantic function of determiners is to transform these sets into sets of individuals, i.e. they are of type <<<e,t>,t>,<e,t>>. However, this type cannot be derived from the type of their ordinary meaning, namely <<e,t>,e> or <<e,t>,<<e,t>,t>>. This mismatch requires some accommodation of the general architecture of alternative semantics, which is the topic of the final section.

Contents

Summary
1. Introduction
2. Alternative Semantics
3. N and N-modifier
4. Determiners
5. Determiners and the Architecture of Alternative Semantics
6. Conclusion
References

Introduction

Alternative Semantics (Rooth 1985, 1992) was developed to account for the phenomenon of association with focus as in (1) without moving the focused constituent MaryF. 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, does not treat definite and indefinite NPs, as in (2)-(6).
 Intuitively the domain of quantification in (2) is similar to that one in (1), whereas the domain of quantification in (3) only includes professors. The latter example clearly indicates that it is not possible to analyze focus in complex NPs as focused complex NPs, as it might appear in (2). Krifka (1996, sect. 6) shows on examples like (4) that a movement approach to association with focus is not sufficient, since (4) cannot be paraphrased by "Mary is the only y such that Sam talked to the woman who introduced y to Sue" since the same woman might have introduced Bill to Sue, too.

(1) Sam only introduced MaryF to John
(2) Sam only introduced the professorF to John
(3) Sam only introduced the DutchF professor to John
(4) Sam only talked to the woman who introduced MaryF to John
(5) Sam only talked to the woman who introduced the professorF to John
(6) Sam only talked to the woman who introduced the DutchF professor to John

PDF-File (30K)

Zurück an den Beginn der Seite