| { | |
| "paper_id": "C92-1041", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T12:34:22.735254Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ron", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Zacharsk1", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "University of Edinburgh Edinburgh", | |
| "location": { | |
| "country": "UK" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "C92-1041", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "Tile primary purpose of this paper is to present a set of conditions that constrain accent placement in focused nominally ptemodified NPs. Selkirk (1984) argues that if the premodifier is an argument of the head, then the head can be deaccented. I agree with Selkirk's proposal and argue that what is essential is not whether the premodifier is a grammatical argument of the head noun, but rather, whether it is a 0-complement in lexical conceptual structure. This proposal is evaluated by testing it against a corpus of naturally occurring data.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 139, | |
| "end": 153, | |
| "text": "Selkirk (1984)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF22" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "abstract~", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It is generally agreed that an utterance can be divided into two parts which are related to the discourse function of the information represented by that utterance. The TOPIC is what the sentence is about and the FOCUS represents a new predication about the topic. This information structure constrains accent placement. For example, 'primary' accent must be within the constituent that represents the focused information. The ability of an accent on a single word to mark a larger phrase as focus is widely recognized. For example in (1) the accent on conservative can mark the phrase redneck conservative as the focused constituent (since (1) can be used to answer the question What was your town like? ). (Accent is indicated by small caps and focus by underlining.)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "11 would especially like to thank Jeanette Gundel and Nancy Hedberg for discussions and comments.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(1) My hometown was redneck CObISER-Y_ATI~. (Lia Matera 1988 Smart Money) in (1) focus is represented by a single constituent, but this need not be the case as (2) illustrates.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 44, | |
| "end": 73, | |
| "text": "(Lia Matera 1988 Smart Money)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2) A: Where's Karl? B: ~ her ~.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In (2B), Karl, the referent of her, is the topic and tire focus is thus discontinuous. Though there seems to be agreement about the importance of a theory that accounts for the accent-focus relation, there is little agreement about the exact nature of this relationship. For instance, different theories give different answers to the question of whether this relationship is syntactic, semantic, morphological, or pragmatic. There is also disagreement over how large a phrase can be brought into focus by a single accent.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Even for simple constructions the relationship between accent and focus is unclear. In exam~ pies (3)-(7), a MODIFIER + NOUN constituent is focused. Note that in the (a) member of each pair, it is the modifer that receives the accent and in the (b) member of the pair, it is the head noun.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(3) a. Those are CRAWLING things.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "b. Those are crawling INSECTS. (Bolinger 1986 .120) (4) a. He has HUNTINGTON's disease. b, He has Huntington's CHOREA. (Bolinger 1986.118 (Bolinger 1986.118) ~'his paper examines the association of accent and focus in nominally premodified NPs. 2 1.0 previous work. Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg (1990) state that some cases of the relationship between accent and focus seem dear. For example, when accent is on dress in the glrl with the red DRESS the focus can be information represented by the noun dress, the NP the red dress, the PP with the red dross, or the entire NP the glrl with the red dress. Whereas, accenting RED in the same phrase can serve only to focus information represented by the adjective red.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 31, | |
| "end": 45, | |
| "text": "(Bolinger 1986", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 119, | |
| "end": 137, | |
| "text": "(Bolinger 1986.118", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 138, | |
| "end": 157, | |
| "text": "(Bolinger 1986.118)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 266, | |
| "end": 301, | |
| "text": "Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg (1990)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "However, regarding the relationship between accent and focus in general, they state that q'he question of how an accent becomes associated with certain material is not yet well understood.' (p309 n.4) Some researchers view this rdationship between focus and accent as essentially syntactic. In the computational literature, Lyons and Hirst (1990) present the following rule constraining the accent focus relation: (8) a. What is accented is necessarily in focus. b. 'focus is optionally and nondererministically percolated up the syntax tree, to any node from its rightmost daughter (rightmost because stress manifests itself only at the end of the focused constituent). ' (1990.57) Many theoretical linguists have proposed similar syntactic constraints relating phrasal accent placement and focus (see, for example, Chomsky and Halle 1968 , Chomsky 1971 , Jackendoff 1972 , and Culicover and Rochemont 1983 Chomsky and Halle 1968, and Selkirk 1984) . Steedman (1991) claims that accent serves to divide an utterance into an optional constituent that represents the topic (what he, following Jackendoff 1972, calls the 'open-proposition') and a constituent that represents the focus. He argues that within each of these constituents, accent is put on the parr that represents what is 'emphasized or contrasted' with something in the discourse context--the 'interesting part'. This idea has also been proposed by a number of other researchers (see, for example, Schmerling 1976 , Gundel 1978 , Selkirk 1984 , Bolinger 1986 , and Rochemont 1986 . Although there is wide disagreement about the formal definitions of 'topicfocus' and 'the interesting part' there is no doubt that these are essential pragmatic determinants that constrain accent placement, and it is equally 5By focused constituent I mean the phr~,e that represents focused information. 4Rule (7) also fails in a range of other cases including most intransitive aen~nces ( Whau h~ppenedI--BUSH resigned ).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 324, | |
| "end": 346, | |
| "text": "Lyons and Hirst (1990)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 671, | |
| "end": 682, | |
| "text": "' (1990.57)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 817, | |
| "end": 839, | |
| "text": "Chomsky and Halle 1968", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 840, | |
| "end": 854, | |
| "text": ", Chomsky 1971", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 855, | |
| "end": 872, | |
| "text": ", Jackendoff 1972", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 873, | |
| "end": 907, | |
| "text": ", and Culicover and Rochemont 1983", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 908, | |
| "end": 919, | |
| "text": "Chomsky and", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 920, | |
| "end": 935, | |
| "text": "Halle 1968, and", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 936, | |
| "end": 949, | |
| "text": "Selkirk 1984)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF22" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 952, | |
| "end": 967, | |
| "text": "Steedman (1991)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1461, | |
| "end": 1476, | |
| "text": "Schmerling 1976", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF20" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1477, | |
| "end": 1490, | |
| "text": ", Gundel 1978", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1491, | |
| "end": 1505, | |
| "text": ", Selkirk 1984", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF22" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1506, | |
| "end": 1521, | |
| "text": ", Bolinger 1986", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1522, | |
| "end": 1542, | |
| "text": ", and Rochemont 1986", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF19" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "See Schmeding 1976 , Gundel 1978 , Bolinger 1986 , and Lambr~ht 1992 for further discmalon.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 4, | |
| "end": 18, | |
| "text": "Schmeding 1976", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 19, | |
| "end": 32, | |
| "text": ", Gundel 1978", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 33, | |
| "end": 48, | |
| "text": ", Bolinger 1986", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "clear that they play a major role determining accent in nominally premodified NPs. Consider {11), a dialogue between two linguistics professors about the dissertation of a student in the department:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(11) A: What's the dissertation about? B: Something to do with language ACQUISITION. (=Ladd 1980.90 ex.48) Ladd (1980) notes that when linguistics professors are talking about a dissertation of a student in the department, they assume that the dissertation is about some aspect of language and language can be deaccented. Ladd continues 'But the linguist's proud parents, who are not linguists, would tell their friends, who are also not linguists, that their son's dissertation was about LANGUAGE acquisition.' (Ladd 1980.90) It could be argued that the accent patterns in (3)-(5) are also determined by 'interestingness'. However, the role of 'interestingness' is less clear in phrases like those in (6) and 7. As Bolinger (1989.200) notes, accent placement in some prenominally modified NPs is more invariable than in others. For example, while in (12) the old information constrains the the location of accent, this is not the case in (13) and 14(12) a. My research is on language- Thus, if a noun phrase represents focused information, and if that noun phrase consists of an argument followed by the head noun, then the prediction is that the argument is necessarily accented. This seems like an elegant way to characterize the difference between leftward and rightward accented prenominaUy modified noun phrases, which has been problematic for other approaches to accent placement. Consider, for example, the difference in accent pattern between (21) which has an accent on its left constituent, and (22) which has the accent on its right constituent. There are three possible relations between a prenominal NP and its head. The prenominal can be a grammatical argument, a complement in lexical conceptual structure, or an adjunct modifier. A distinguishing characteristic of an adjunct modifier is that it is licensed by predication.5 As a result, it can be separated from its head by a copula. For example, in the phrase the red car, red", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 107, | |
| "end": 118, | |
| "text": "Ladd (1980)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 512, | |
| "end": 526, | |
| "text": "(Ladd 1980.90)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 716, | |
| "end": 735, | |
| "text": "Bolinger (1989.200)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "is an adjunct modifier and can be separated from its head as (24) illustrates.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(24) The car is red.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In (22) student is a modifier and can be separated from its head as in (25) The teacher is a student.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "However, in (21) history is not a modifier and it cannot be separated from its head as (24) shows.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(26) ??The teacher is of history.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "There is one question that immediately comes to mind: is Sdkirk's notion of 'argument' a syntactic notion (that is, is it a grammatical argument licensed by A-structure), or is it a semantic notion involving 0-participants in lcs?", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "2. arguments Grimshaw (1990) 1 believe the distinction is a semantic one involving 0-participants in lexical conceptual structure (Ics). Every verb and noun (including deverbal nouns) has a lexical conceptual structure that includes the entities involved in the events or states described (see, for example, Dowty (1989) , Fillmore (1968 ), and Jackendoff (1987 ). Selkirk's intuitions expressed in rules (15) and (16) are essentially correct. Reformulating her rules as constraints between lexical conceptual structure and focused information offers a more precise characterization of her insights. A reformulation of (15) and (16) constraining the accent-focus relation of premodified NPs containing a deverbal element is given in (31) and (32):", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 13, | |
| "end": 28, | |
| "text": "Grimshaw (1990)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 308, | |
| "end": 320, | |
| "text": "Dowty (1989)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 323, | |
| "end": 337, | |
| "text": "Fillmore (1968", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 338, | |
| "end": 361, | |
| "text": "), and Jackendoff (1987", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(31) The representation of a constituent is focused if that constituent receives a pitch accent. 32A representation, R, may be focused if a representation that is a 0-complement of R is focused.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Consider the pairs in (33) and (34).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(33) a. PACKAGE delivery b. overnight DELIVERY (34) a. CETACEAN research h. university RESEARCH According to Grimshaw, neither delivery nor research has an A-structure since neither has an internal aspectual analysis. However, since these are both deverbal nouns, they inherit their O-structure from the related verbs. Package, then, is a 0-complement of delivery, since package is the theme of deliver, (He delivers packages). Thus delivery can be deaccented as in (33a). Itowever, itt (33b), overnight is not a O-complement of delivery (*tie delivers overnight) and thus delivery must be accented. Likewise, in (34a) cetacean is the theme of research (He researches cetaceans) and thus research can be deaccented. However, in (34b) university is not a 0-complement of research and research must be accented. The rules presented in 31and 32were tested on data collected from multiple genres of natural discourse induding public radio news articles, nruhiple participant discussions, and academic lectures. The results are given in Table 1 modifier's relation to laead As shown in this table, the rule makes correct predictions in approximately 90% of the cases. The rule predicts that if the modifier's relation to ht~d is a 0-complement, then the accent should be on the left element--tire complement. This was indeed true for 115 instances. Some examples are given in 35 The rule also predicts that if the modifier is not a 0-complement of the head then the head needs to be accented. That was the case for 18 of the 20 instances in the data. Examples of this are given in 37 However, 1 suggest that woman in (41a) is not a complement of swimmer. Woman SWIMMER is an appositional compound (similar to helicopter GUNSHIP). Appositional compounds are lists of propositions, and like all lists, the last element of the list typically receives the main accent. Some evidence to support this view that (41a) is appositional is that the prenominal can be separated from the head by a copula as in (42) (42) The swimmer is a woman.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 1032, | |
| "end": 1039, | |
| "text": "Table 1", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Following Booij and van Haffxen (1988) I bdieve that a semantic effect of -er afFzxation is to bind the agent or experiencer in lcs. Thus, the agent role is not available to the representation of woman and that representation must be linked by 0-identification. Other examples of this type include (36) and (37a&b). In cases were the nonhead is the agent of the head the accent pattern varies--sometimes the head receives the accent (as (390, (41b), and (41c)) and at other times the nonhead receives the accent as in (43). 6 (43) a. DOG bite b. BEE sting c. COCK fighting", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 10, | |
| "end": 38, | |
| "text": "Booij and van Haffxen (1988)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "O. introduction", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The accent characteristics of phrases where the nominal premodifier can be construed as a subject of the head is less dear. There is some controversy as to whether such constructions are possible. For example, Selkirk (1982.34) restricts subjects from occurring in these compounds by use of the rule presented in (40)", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 210, | |
| "end": 227, | |
| "text": "Selkirk (1982.34)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "agents and experiencers", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The SUBJ argument of a lexical head may not be satisfied in compound structure.. Sproat and Liberman (1987) point out that subjects in compounds are not usually accented. The examples they give are presented in (41) (41) a. woman SWIMMER b. child DANCING c. student DEMONSTRATION Sproat and Liberman 1987.143 Deverbal nouns head 25% of the nominally premodified Nps in the corpus examined. 7 Since deverbal nouns are distinguished from other nouns in the lexicon, the generation system can correctly determine when to apply the rule in (32). As Dowry (1989), Jackendoff (1987 Jackendoff ( , 1990 and others have noted, lexical conceptual structure is needed for correct semantic interpretation. (For computational approaches see Charniak (1981) , Dorr (1989) , and Sowa (1991).) Thus, the rule requires only information that has independent motivation for being in the lexicon. As Selkirk noted, the same factors that govern accent placement in these constructions also constrain accent in verb phrases and sentences. In both cases the semantic interpretation of a head can be focused if its 0-complement is focused.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 81, | |
| "end": 107, | |
| "text": "Sproat and Liberman (1987)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF24" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 266, | |
| "end": 308, | |
| "text": "DEMONSTRATION Sproat and Liberman 1987.143", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 559, | |
| "end": 575, | |
| "text": "Jackendoff (1987", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 576, | |
| "end": 595, | |
| "text": "Jackendoff ( , 1990", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 729, | |
| "end": 744, | |
| "text": "Charniak (1981)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 747, | |
| "end": 758, | |
| "text": "Dorr (1989)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "agents and experiencers", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "6This variation in accent is ~ seen in agents realized u verb. They dn nnt ne\u00a3eum'ily have A-structure (other than the external role for nouns).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "agents and experiencers", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The same rules ((31) and (32)) are operative. Thus accenting potatoes in John twaddles POTATOES can serve to focus the representation (x twaddles potatoes) and similarly, accenting potato in POTATO twaddler focuses the representation (the x such that (x twaddles potatoes)).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "agents and experiencers", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "A central question in the study of intonation is what factors govern accent placement. I have argued here that argument structure plays no role in this determination at least as to prenominally modified noun phrases and have shown how a theory of focus like the one presented in Selkirk 1984 can be refined to account for semantic constraints for accent placement.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "agents and experiencers", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUO. 23-28, 1992", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "Intonation and its parts", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Dwight", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bolinger", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1986, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Bolinger, Dwight. 1986. Intonation and its parts. Stanford: Stanford University Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "Intonation and its uses", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Dwight", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bolinger", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1989, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Intonation and its uses. Stanford: Stanford University Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "The external syntax of derived words: evidence from Dutch. Yearbook of Morphology", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Geert", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Booij", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ton Yon Haaften", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1988, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "29--44", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Booij, Geert and Ton yon Haaften. 1988. The ex- ternal syntax of derived words: evidence from Dutch. Yearbook of Morphology, ed. by Geert Booij and Jaap van Marie. 29-44.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "The case-slot identity theory", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "E", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Charniak", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1981, | |
| "venue": "Cognitive Science", | |
| "volume": "5", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "285--292", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Charniak, E. 1981. The case-slot identity theory. Cognitive Science 5.285-292.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. Semantics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Noam", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chomsky", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1971, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "183--216", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. Semantics. Ed. by R. jacobs and P. Rosenbaum. 183-216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "The sound pattern of English", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Noam", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chomsky", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Halle", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1968, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky, Noam and M. Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "Lexical conceptual structure and generation in machine translation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Bonnie", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Dorr", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1989, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 9", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Dorr, Bonnie. 1989. Lexical conceptual structure and generation in machine translation. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 9.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "On the semantic content of the notion of 'thematic role'. Properties, types, and meaning", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "David", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "1l" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Dowty", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1989, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Dowty, David 1L 1989. On the semantic content of the notion of 'thematic role'. Properties, types, and meaning, ed. by Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee, and Raymond Turner.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "Universal in linguistic theory", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Charles", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Fillmore", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1968, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. Universal in linguistic theory, ed. by E. Bach and IL Harms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF11": { | |
| "ref_id": "b11", | |
| "title": "Stress, Pronominalization and the given-new distinction. University of ttawaii Working Papers in Linguistics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jeanette", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Gundel", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kohn", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1978, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Gundel, Jeanette Kohn. 1978. Stress, Pro- nominalization and the given-new distinction. University of ttawaii Working Papers in Linguistics. Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF12": { | |
| "ref_id": "b12", | |
| "title": "Semantic interpretation in generative grammar", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ray", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "S" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Jackendoff", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1972, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, M_A: MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF13": { | |
| "ref_id": "b13", | |
| "title": "The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ray", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "S" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Jackendoff", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1987, | |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", | |
| "volume": "18", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "369--411", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jackendoff, Ray S. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18.369-411.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF14": { | |
| "ref_id": "b14", | |
| "title": "Semantic structures", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ray", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "S" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Jackendoff", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF15": { | |
| "ref_id": "b15", | |
| "title": "The structure of intonational meaning", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "D", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ladd", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Robert", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1980, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Ladd, D. Robert. 1980. The structure of intona- tional meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF16": { | |
| "ref_id": "b16", | |
| "title": "Sentential-focus structures as grammatical constructions", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Knut", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Lambrecht", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Lambrecht, Knut. 1992. Sentential-focus structures as grammatical constructions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the LSA.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF17": { | |
| "ref_id": "b17", | |
| "title": "A compositional semantics for focusing subjuncts", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Daniel", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Lyons", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Graeme", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hirst", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "28", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "54--61", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Lyons, Daniel, and Graeme Hirst. 1990. A com- positional semantics for focusing subjuncts. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 28.54-61.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF18": { | |
| "ref_id": "b18", | |
| "title": "The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. Intentions in communication", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Janet", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Pierrehumbert", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Julia", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Hisrchberg", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1990, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "271--311", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Pierrehumbert, Janet, and Julia Hisrchberg. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the in- terpretation of discourse. Intentions in com- munication. Ed. by P. IL Cohen, J. Morgan and M. E. Pollack. 271-311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pre.~.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF19": { | |
| "ref_id": "b19", | |
| "title": "Focus in generative grammar", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Michael", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "S" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Rochemont", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1986, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Rochemont, Michael S. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF20": { | |
| "ref_id": "b20", | |
| "title": "Aspects of English sentence stress", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Susan", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "F" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Schmerling", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1976, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Schmerling, Susan F. 1976. Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin: University of Texas Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF21": { | |
| "ref_id": "b21", | |
| "title": "The syntax of words", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Elisabeth", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Selkirk", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1982, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. The syntax of words. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF22": { | |
| "ref_id": "b22", | |
| "title": "Phonology and syntax", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Elisabeth", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Selkirk", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1984, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF23": { | |
| "ref_id": "b23", | |
| "title": "Logical structures in the lexicon", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "John", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sown", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1991, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of a Workshop speonsored by the Special Interest Group on the Lexicon of the Association for Computational Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "38--55", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Sown, John. 1991. Logical structures in the lexi- con. Proceedings of a Workshop speonsored by the Special Interest Group on the Lexicon of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 38-55.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF24": { | |
| "ref_id": "b24", | |
| "title": "Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lingustics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Richard", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "W" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Sproat", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Y", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mark", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Liberman", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1987, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "25", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "140--146", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Sproat, Richard W. and Mark Y. Liberman. 1987. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lingustics. 25.140-146.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "TABREF2": { | |
| "html": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "text": "What then governs the location of accent in nominally premodified NPs? Why, for example, does He was my history TEACHER sound odd as an answer to the question How do you know Franz? Thus, the VI' can be a focused constituent by rule (16ii). This leads to correct results since this utterance can be used to respond to the question What did Ann do at the party? (She [V\":+focus danced the taranTELla.])", | |
| "num": null, | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>2.</td><td>argument .trucmre and accent</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Selkirk's theory of prosody-focus relation</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">predicts the following accent patterns in focused</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">modifier-noun constructions:</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">What was he to you? Selkirk (1984) suggests a</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">(20) Selkirk's predictions concerning raoeh'fier-noun pairs</td><td colspan=\"2\">particularly compelling answer. She presents the two constraints in (15) and (16).</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">ARGUMENT head</td><td>adjtmct HEAD</td><td colspan=\"2\">(15) Basic Focm Rule</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">ARGUMENT HEAD</td><td>ADJUNCT HEAD</td><td/><td>A constituent to which a pitch accent is as-</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">*argument HEAD</td><td>*ADJUNCT head</td><td/><td>signed is a focus.</td><td>(1984.207)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">(16) Phrasal Focus Rule</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>A constituent may be in focus if (i) or (ii)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>(or both) is true:</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>i. The constituent that is its head is a</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>fOg~us.</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>ii. A constituent contained within it</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>that is an argument of the head is a</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>fOCUS</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>(1984.207)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>if a</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">head is a focused constituent, then any projection</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">{ Particularly on language ACQUISITION.~ #Particularly on LANGUAGE acquisition.J</td><td colspan=\"2\">of that head can optionally be focused. Ifl say (17) Victoria visits BONEyards</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">b. My research is on acquisition-</td><td colspan=\"2\">the N, boneyards, is necessarily a focused</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">#Particularly on language ACQUISITION.1 Particularly on LANGUAGE acquisition. J</td><td colspan=\"2\">constituent by rule (15). Rule (16i) permits focus to percolate to the projections N' and N\" as shown in (18):</td></tr><tr><td>(13)</td><td colspan=\"2\">June hold a singular place in the study of insects. JUNE bugs can be seen.</td><td>(18)</td><td>Victoria visits [N\":+focu, [N':+focu, [N:+f~ [Born'yards]]]</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">??June BUGS call be seen.J</td><td colspan=\"2\">Rule (16ii) states that if an argument of a head is</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">focused, and if that focused constituent is con-</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">(14) As we were travelling along the road we</td><td colspan=\"2\">tained within the maximal projection of that</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">I\" ROADblock. came to a l#roadBLOCg.~</td><td colspan=\"2\">head, then the projection of that head can be focused. For example, if I say</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">(= Bolinger 1989.216)</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">The fixed stress on the initial syllables serves to</td><td>(19)</td><td>Ann danced the taranTELla</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">mark the phrase as a unitary concept rather than a</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">compositional one. However, not all NPs repre-</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">senting unitary concepts receive leftward stress</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">(for example, human Being}.</td><td/><td/></tr></table>" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |