Focusing bound pronouns

The presence of contrastive focus on pronouns interpreted as bound variables is puzzling. Bound variables do not refer, and it is therefore unclear how two of them can be made to contrast with each other. It is argued that this is a problem for both alternative-based accounts such as Rooth’s (Nat Lang Semantics 1:75–116, 1992) and givenness-based ones such as Schwarzschild’s (Nat Lang Semantics 7:141–177, 1999). The present paper shows that previous approaches to this puzzle face an empirical problem, namely the co-occurrence of additive too and focus on bound pronouns. Our account is based on the idea that the alternatives introduced by focused bound pronouns denote individuals. Putting forward the novel concept of compositional reconstruction, we show that a suitably modified Roothian analysis of focus licensing allows us to get bound pronouns to contrast with other bound pronouns. The reason for this is that the number of potential alternatives increases. We also suggest a modification of Rooth’s ~-operator: contrastiveness becomes a requirement of the operator, which is modelled as a definedness condition. It is argued that in the case of focused bound pronouns a ~-operator is necessarily inserted in the scope of the quantifier. If this is on the right track, it follows that the phenomenon of focused bound pronouns warrants both an operator interpreting focus as well as a semantic value for the contribution of focus. Any givenness-based analysis must include these two ingredients as well; we suggest a way in which this can be implemented more or less straightforwardly.

[1]  Jeffrey Kaplan Obligatory too in English , 1984 .

[2]  G. Chierchia Questions with quantifiers , 1992 .

[3]  Robin Cooper,et al.  The interpretation of pronouns , 1997 .

[4]  Irene Heim,et al.  Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs , 1992, J. Semant..

[5]  Mats Rooth Association with focus , 1985 .

[6]  U. Sauerland The Silent Content of Bound Variable Pronouns , 2004 .

[7]  Michael Wagner,et al.  Givenness and Locality , 2006 .

[8]  David Adger,et al.  Phi theory : phi-features across modules and interfaces , 2008 .

[9]  Mats Rooth A theory of focus interpretation , 1992, Natural Language Semantics.

[10]  H. Savin,et al.  The projection problem for presuppositions , 1971 .

[11]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  The Representation of Focus , 1991 .

[12]  Pauline Jacobson Paychecks, Stress, and Variable-Free Semantics , 2000 .

[13]  Alexis Dimitriadis Function Domains in Variable-Free Semantics , 2001 .

[14]  Sigrid Beck,et al.  Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation* , 2006 .

[15]  W. Bonney Pronouns and Variables. , 1974 .

[16]  Clemens Mayr,et al.  The role of alternatives and strength in grammar , 2010 .

[17]  D. Fox Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement , 2002, Linguistic Inquiry.

[18]  Kai-Uwe Von Fintel,et al.  Restrictions on quantifier domains , 1994 .

[19]  C. Mayr Contrastive salient alternatives: Focus on bound pronouns , 2010 .

[20]  L. Karttunen Syntax and Semantics of Questions , 1977 .

[21]  Daniel Büring,et al.  What’s New (and What’s Given) in the Theory of Focus? , 2008 .

[22]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[23]  Hubert Truckenbrodt,et al.  Phonological phrases : their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence , 1995 .

[24]  Richard Montague,et al.  The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English , 1973 .

[25]  Danny Fox,et al.  Focus, Parallelism and Accommodation , 1999 .

[26]  H. Rullmann,et al.  A Flexible Approach to Exhaustivity in Questions , 1999 .

[27]  Chung-chieh Shan Binding Alongside Hamblin Alternatives Calls for Variable-free Semantics , 2004 .

[28]  Michael Bennett,et al.  Questions in Montague grammar , 1979 .

[29]  A. Kratzer More Structural Analogies Between Pronouns and Tenses , 1998 .

[30]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Additive Particles under Stress , 1998 .

[31]  Paul D. Elbourne Situations and individuals , 2005 .

[32]  Veneeta Dayal Locality in WH Quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi , 2010 .

[33]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  The meaning of chains , 1998 .

[34]  Kai von Fintel,et al.  NPI Licensing, Strawson Entailment, and Context Dependency , 1999, J. Semant..

[35]  UIi Sauerland The Content of Pronouns: Evidence from Focus , 2000 .

[36]  Roger Schwarzschild,et al.  GIVENNESS, AVOIDF AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS ON THE PLACEMENT OF ACCENT* , 1999 .

[37]  Dag E. Wold Long Distance Selective Binding: The Case of Focus , 1996 .

[38]  I. Heim E-Type pronouns and donkey anaphora , 1990 .

[39]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Anaphora and dynamic binding , 1992 .

[40]  Hotze Rullman,et al.  First and Second Person Pronouns as Bound Variables , 2004, Linguistic Inquiry.

[41]  Bart Geurts,et al.  Interpreting focus again , 2004 .

[42]  Daniel Büring,et al.  The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent , 1997 .

[43]  Barbara Hall Partee,et al.  Formal semantics of Natural Language: Deletion and variable binding , 1975 .

[44]  First and Second Person Pronouns as Bound Variables , 2004 .

[45]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

[46]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  The Interpretation of Traces , 2004 .

[47]  E. Williams Blocking and anaphora , 1997 .

[48]  F. Heny,et al.  Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table , 1979 .