Theticity in a Bidirectional Theory of Focus Interpretation Kjell Johan Sæbø ILOS, University of Oslo LoLa 9.

Theticity in a Bidirectional Theory of Focus Interpretation

Kjell Johan Sæbø

ILOS, University of Oslo

LoLa 9

Theticity – Informational Integration (Nonautonomy) (Jacobs)

(1) a. # A MIRacle HAPpened.

A MIRacle happened.

b. ? SOMEthing HAPpened.

Something HAPpened.

Theticity Integration Broad Focus

(2) a. [ARgument predicate]F

b. [ARgument]F [PREdicate]F

Theticity is Constrained

• Argument (a) should be Theme (not Agent)(but Kennedy 1999)

• a and P must form one informational unit, be processed semantically in one step(Jacobs 1999)

Theticity: Sensitivity to Cotext

(3) a. – Are there signs of stagnation?

– Yes. [GOLD is rising]F, …

b. – How are metal prices doing?

# – [GOLD is rising]F, …

c. – [GOLD]F is [RISing]F, …

Sensitivity to Discourse Relations

(4) a. ? [GOLD rose]F yesterday as investors

bought bullion as a haven after Israel …

b. As a result, [GOLD rose]F.

Sensitivity to Predicates

(5) a. As a result, [GOLD has risen]F.

As a result, [GOLD has fallen]F.

b. # As a result, [GOLD has soared]F.

# As a result, [GOLD has surged]F.

# As a result, [GOLD has plunged]F.

Hypothesis

Constraints on theticity (integration, nonautonomy) arecrucially constraints on broad focus in terms of Alternative Semantics and OT pragmatics

Focus Semantics

The Double Focus Presupposition

(3) c. – How are metals doing?

– [GOLD]F is [RISing]F, …

The question provides a verification like

zinc rising gold is falling copper slumping

Problem

the focus presupposition of (2b) subsumesthe focus presupposition of (2a)

(2) a. [ARgument predicate]F

b. [ARgument]F [PREdicate]F

Thus

the question in (3b/c) serves to verify the broad focus presupposition of (3b) as well –

(3) b. – How are metals doing?

# – [GOLD is rising]F, …

because any alternative to < gold , rising > is at the same time an alternative to < gold rising >

Suggestion

what is right about the question in (3a) –

(3) a. – Are there signs of stagnation?

– Yes. [GOLD is rising]F, …

is that it does not only yield propositions basedon pairwise alternatives:

{ gold rising , jobs declining , stocks falling ,Iran crisis , Iraq crisis , Lebanon crisis , … }

Discourse Relations Suspend Alternatives

Out of the blue, there are intrinsic alternatives to“gold” and to “rose”, but as a resulting event,“gold” and “rose” fail to contrast pairwise.

(4) b. As a result, [GOLD rose]F.

In the situation, P is relatively predictable; «fell» fails to count as an alternative to «rose»:

{ gold rose , stocks fell , inflation rose , … }

Extreme Predictability

Predicates Evoke Alternatives

Some predicates are intrinsically surrounded byother predicates that might be uttered instead –

(5) b. # As a result, [GOLD has soared]F.

P is not sufficiently predictable; «risen» counts as an alternative to «soared»:

{ gold has risen , oil has surged , … }

Competition

By uttering (2a), you communicate its focuspresupposition minus those of (2b-d):

(2) a. [ARgument predicate]F

b. [ARgument]F [PREdicate]F

c. [ARgument]F predicate

d. argument [PREdicate]F

There are alternatives to < Pa >, but not to P and a or just P or a «in» all the propositions

Decomposing the F(<P,a>)() Focus Presupposition

= there is a set of propositions based on pairwise alternatives to <P,a> such that one differs in P

= there is a set of propositions based on pairwise alternatives to <P,a> such that one differs in a

Conditional Informativity Chart

inf(·/·) ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬

F(<P,a>)() 0

F(<P>)() 0

F(<a>)() 0

F(<Pa>)() 2 2 2 2

Accommodation

But, crucially, there is abundant room foraccommodation: Within limits, speakers can choose whether to represent an argument-predicate pair asbelonging to a set of alternative pairs

Agents and Adjuncts

(6) a. – Hast du dein Kleid selbst geschneidert? – Nein, ich habe es [in PaRIS gekauft]F.

b. – Did you buy that dress (in Paris)?

– No, [my GRANDfather made]F it.

– He’s a tailor.

Conclusion

By uttering a thetic judgment, you signal thatthere are no clear alternatives to the two fociof the corresponding categorical judgment – the only clear alternatives are alternatives to the judgment itself.