Abstract
The goal of this paper is to investigate the relationship between focus and the inferences that listeners derive from utterances. While the function of focus is to generate a set of alternatives to the focused element, it can also evoke the implicature that the statement does not hold for the contextual alternatives, which is referred to as exhaustive meaning. Whether focus is exhaustive is a matter of cross-linguistic variation. This paper aims to assess exhaustive inferences in Serbian triggered by focus in situ marked by prosodic prominence and in the preverbal position, canonical sentences with neutral intonation, and the exclusive particle samo ‘only’. The participants were presented with the recorded test items, after which they were asked to express their judgement about the possibility of the contextual alternatives using a scale. The results indicated that there was no interpretative difference regarding exhaustive meaning between the sentences with the focused words marked with prosodic prominence and those with unmarked intonation. However, the sentences with the preverbal focused target word were judged as significantly more exhaustive than the canonical sentences with default intonation. Finally, the sentences with the focus particle samo were interpreted mostly as not allowing other contextual interpretations.
7 Acknowledgements
This study was financially supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. We would like to express our gratitude to Tatjana Paunović for her insightful comments on the earlier drafts of this paper. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and remarks.
References
Baumann, S., M. Grice and S. Steindamm. 2006. “Prosodic marking of focus domains: Categorical or gradient?” Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006. 301–304.Search in Google Scholar
Becker, L., I. Driemel and J.N. Awasom. in press. “Focus in Limbum”. African linguistics across the disciplines: Selected papers from the 48th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Available at https://home.uni-leipzig.de/muellerg/igra2/publikationen/Becker-Driemel-Nformi2017.pdf Last accessed 19 Sep 2019.Search in Google Scholar
Boersma, P. and D. Weenink. 2015. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.52. Available at http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ Last accessed 20 Apr 2019.Search in Google Scholar
Breen, M., E. Fedorenko, M. Wagner and E. Gibson. 2010. “Acoustic correlates of information structure”. Language and cognitive processes 25(7). 1044–1098.10.1080/01690965.2010.504378Search in Google Scholar
Chevallier, C., I. Noveck, T. Nazir, L. Bott, V. Lanzetti and D. Sperber. 2008. “Making disjunctions exclusive”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61(11). 1741–1760.10.1080/17470210701712960Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.) New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Cooper, W., S. Eady and P. Mueller. 1985. “Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts”. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 77(6). 2142–2156.10.1121/1.392372Search in Google Scholar
Destruel, E., D. Velleman, E. Onea, D. Bumford, J. Xue and D. Beaver. 2015. “A cross-linguistic study of the non-at-issueness of exhaustive inferences”. In: Schwarz, F. (ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions. Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics 45.) Cham: Springer. 135–156.10.1007/978-3-319-07980-6_6Search in Google Scholar
Eady, S. J. and W. E. Cooper. 1986. “Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions”. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 80. 402–415.10.1121/1.394091Search in Google Scholar
Godjevac, S. 2000. Intonation, Word Order, and Focus Projection in Serbo-Croatian. (PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.)Search in Google Scholar
Gotzner, N. and K. Spalek. 2014. “Exhaustive inferences and additive presuppositions: The interplay of focus operators and contrastive intonation”. Proceedings of the Formal and Experimental Pragmatics Workshop (European Summer School of Language, Logic and Information). 7–13.Search in Google Scholar
Gotzner N. and K. Spalek. 2017. “The connection between focus and implicatures: Investigating alternative activation under working memory load”. In: Pistoia-Reda, S. and F. Domaneschi (eds.), Linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches on implicatures and presuppositions. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 175–198.10.1007/978-3-319-50696-8_7Search in Google Scholar
Grice, P. 1975. “Logic and conversation”. Syntax and semantics 3. 41–58.10.1163/9789004368811_003Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. “Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2”. Journal of Linguistics 3. 199–244.10.1017/S0022226700016613Search in Google Scholar
Halupka-Rešetar, S. 2011. Rečenični fokus u engleskom i srpskom jeziku. Novi Sad: Faculty of Philosophy.Search in Google Scholar
Halupka-Rešetar, S. 2019. “Left peripheral matters in Serbian: The role of discourse-pragmatics in word order (variation) and how to motivate it”. In: Stanković, B. and A. Janić (eds.), SinFonIJA 6 Proceedings. Niš: Faculty of Philosophy in Niš. 9–37.Search in Google Scholar
Horn, L. 1981. “Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts”. In: Burke, V. and J. Pustejovsky (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of NELS. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 125–142.Search in Google Scholar
Ivić, P. and I. Lehiste. 1969. “Prilozi ispitivanju fonetske i fonološke prirode akcenata u savremenom srpskohrvatskom književnom jeziku IV”. Journal of Philology and Linguistics 12. 115–165.Search in Google Scholar
Ivić, P. and I. Lehiste. 1970. “Prilozi ispitivanju fonetske i fonološke prirode akcenata u savremenom srpskohrvatskom književnom jeziku V”. Journal of Philology and Linguistics 13(2). 225–246.Search in Google Scholar
Ivić, P. and I. Lehiste. 1972. “Prilozi ispitivanju fonetske i fonološke prirode akcenata u savremenom srpskohrvatskom književnom jeziku VI”. Journal of Philology and Linguistics 15(1). 95–137.Search in Google Scholar
Kihm, A. 1999. “A study of what morphology may do”. In: Rebuschi, G. and L. Tuller (eds.), The grammar of focus. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 345–275.10.1075/la.24.09kihSearch in Google Scholar
Kiss, K. É. 1998. “Identification focus versus information focus”. Language 74(2). 245–273.10.1353/lan.1998.0211Search in Google Scholar
Kovačević, P. 2017. “Acoustic and syntactic correlates of prosodic stress”. Proceedings of DOGS 2017. 17–21.Search in Google Scholar
Mirić, M. 2016. “Uloga fokusa u interpretaciji skalarnih implikatura”. In: Arsenijević, B. and S. Halupka-Rešetar (eds.), Srpski jezik u savremenoj lingvističkoj teoriji. Niš: Faculty of Philosophy in Niš. 257–278.Search in Google Scholar
Onea, E. and D. Beaver. 2011. “Hungarian focus is not exhausted”. In: Cormany E., S. Ito and D. Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 19. eLanguage. 342–359.Search in Google Scholar
Paunović, T. 2018. Focus on focus: Prosodic signals of utterance-level information structure in L1 Serbian, L1 English, and Serbian L2 English. (Unpublished manuscript.)Search in Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273829.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Rochemont, M. S. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sigla.4Search in Google Scholar
Rooth, M. 1992. “A theory of focus interpretation”. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116.10.1007/BF02342617Search in Google Scholar
Rooth, M. 1985. Association with Focus. (PhD dissertation, Massachussets Institute of Technology, Department of Linguistics.)Search in Google Scholar
Skopeteas, S. and G. Fanselow. 2011. “Focus and the exclusion of alternatives: On the interaction of syntactic structure with pragmatic inference”. Lingua 121. 1693–1706.10.1016/j.lingua.2011.05.005Search in Google Scholar
Smiljanić, R. 2007. “Lexical and pragmatic effects on pitch range and low tone alignment in two dialects of Serbian and Croatian”. Proceedings of the 39th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 39(1). 520–539.Search in Google Scholar
Sredojević, D. 2017. Fonetsko-fonološki opis akcenata u standardnom srpskom jeziku – od specifičnog ka opštem. Novi Sad: Faculty of Philosophy.Search in Google Scholar
Vallduví, E. and M. Vilkuna. 1998. “On rheme and kontrast”. In: Culicover, P. and L. McNally (eds.), The Limits of Syntax. New York: Academic Press. 79–106.Search in Google Scholar
Xie, E. 2013. “Exhaustifying focus intervention effects: A crosslinguistic study”. Berkeley Linguistics Society. 317–332.10.3765/bls.v39i1.3889Search in Google Scholar
Xu, Y. and C. X. Xu. 2005. “Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation”. Journal of Phonetics 33. 159–197.10.1016/j.wocn.2004.11.001Search in Google Scholar
Zimmermann, M. and E. Onea. 2011. “Focus marking and focus interpretation”. Lingua 121. 1651–1670.10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002Search in Google Scholar
Below are presented the sets of test items involved in the experiment. In each set, the test items appear under four conditions. In condition A, the target word is presented with unmarked or neutral intonation in the SVO order. In condition B, the same target word is presented under identificational focus in situ, marked by prosodic prominence. In condition C, the focused target word appears at the beginning of the sentence, in the pre-verbal position. Finally, in condition D, the target word is within the scope of the exclusive particle samo.
Kontekst: Marija posmatra ribara na obali reke kako peca. Ona zna da reku nastanjuju grgeč, šaran i pastrmka.
Posle nekog vremena Marija kaže: A. Ribar je upecao šarana.
B. Ribar je upecao ŠARANA.
C. ŠARANA je upecao ribar.
D. Ribar je upecao samo šarana.
Na osnovu datog konteksta, postoji mogućnost da je ribar upecao još neku ribu iz reke.
Kontekst: Marija posmatra majku kako pegla. U korpi sa vešom nalaze se pantalone, majica i košulja.
Posle nekog vremena Marija kaže:
A. Mama je opeglala majicu.
B. Mama je opeglala MAJICU.
C. MAJICU je opeglala mama.
D. Mama je opeglala samo majicu.
Na osnovu datog konteksta, postoji mogućnost da je majka opeglala još neki veš iz korpe.
Kontekst: Marija posmatra vuka kako šeta šumom. Ona zna da u šumi takođe žive srna, zec i veverica.
Posle nekog vremena Marija kaže:
A. Vuk je pojeo zeca.
B. Vuk je pojeo ZECA.
C. ZECA je pojeo vuk.
D. Vuk je pojeo samo zeca.
Na osnovu datog konteksta, postoji mogućnost da je vuk pojeo još neku životinju iz šume.
Kontekst: Marija posmatra brata Stefana kako ruča. Na stolu se nalaze narandža, jabuka i kruška.
Posle nekog vremena Marija kaže:
A. Stefan je pojeo jabuku.
B. Stefan je pojeo JABUKU.
C. JABUKU je pojeo Stefan.
D. Stefan je pojeo samo jabuku.
Na osnovu datog konteksta, postoji mogućnost da je Stefan pojeo još neko voće sa stola.
Kontekst: Marija posmatra drugaricu Ivanu kako šeta baštom. U bašti rastu hrizantema, ruža i božur.
Posle nekog vremena Marija kaže:
A. Ivana je ubrala ružu.
B. Ivana je ubrala RUŽU.
C. RUŽU je ubrala Ivana.
D. Ivana je ubrala samo ružu.
Na osnovu datog konteksta, postoji mogućnost da je Ivana ubrala još neki cvet iz baste.
Kontekst: Marija posmatra dedu u seoskom dvorištu. U dvorištu se nalazi svinja, krava i kokoška.
Posle nekog vremena Marija kaže:
A. Deda je nahranio kravu.
B. Deda je nahranio KRAVU.
C. KRAVU je nahranio deda.
D. Deda je nahranio samo kravu.
Na osnovu datog konteksta, postoji mogućnost da je deda nahranio još neku životinju u dvorištu.
Kontekst: Marija posmatra Nemanju koji stoji za šankom. Na šanku se nalaze pivo, vino i rakija.
Posle nekog vremena Marija kaže:
A. Nemanja je popio vino.
B. Nemanja je popio VINO.
C. VINO je popio Nemanja.
D. Nemanja je popio samo vino.
Na osnovu datog konteksta, postoji mogućnost da je Nemanja popio još neko piće sa šanka.
Kontekst: Marija posmatra oca kako farba nameštaj. U sobi se nalaze sto, stolica i orman.
Posle nekog vremena Marija kaže:
A. Tata je ofarbao stolicu.
B. Tata je ofarbao STOLICU.
C. STOLICU je ofarbao tata.
D. Tata je ofarbao samo stolicu.
Na osnovu datog konteksta, postoji mogućnost da je otac ofarbao još neki nameštaj u sobi.
Kontekst: Marija posmatra muža Nikolu kako pere sudove. U sudoperi se nalaze čaša, tanjir i šolja.
Posle nekog vremena Marija kaže:
A. Nikola je oprao tanjir.
B. Nikola je oprao TANJIR.
C. TANJIR je oprao Nikola.
D. Nikola je oprao samo tanjir.
Na osnovu datog konteksta, postoji mogućnost da je Nikola oprao još neko posuđe iz sudopere.
Kontekst: Marija posmatra sestru Milicu kako služi goste na zabavi. Na stolu se nalaze meso, salata i kolači.
Posle nekog vremena Marija kaže:
A. Milica je pripremila salatu.
B. Milica je pripremila SALATU.
C. SALATU je pripremila Milica.
D. Milica je pripremila samo salatu.
Na osnovu datog konteksta, postoji mogućnost da je Milica pripremila još neko jelo sa stola.
Kontekst: Marija posmatra sina Marka kako se u dvorištu igra sa životinjama. U dvorištu su pas, mačka i jagnje.
Posle nekog vremena Marija kaže:
A. Marko je pomazio mačku.
B. Marko je pomazio MAČKU.
C. MAČKU je pomazio Marko.
D. Marko je pomazio samo mačku.
Na osnovu datog konteksta, postoji mogućnost da je Marko pomazio još neku životinju u dvorištu.
Kontekst: Marija posmatra ćerku Sanju kako pakuje stvari za školu u ranac. Na radnom stolu se nalaze olovka, knjiga i sveska.
Posle nekog vremena Marija kaže:
A. Sanja je spakovala knjigu.
B. Sanja je spakovala KNJIGU.
C. KNJIGU je spakovala Sanja.
D. Sanja je spakovala samo knjigu.
Na osnovu datog konteksta, postoji mogućnost da je Sanja spakovala još nešto sa radnog stola.
© 2021 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
