Affiliation:
1. University of Helsinki
Abstract
The most debated syntactic reflex that is typically associated with contrast is the movement of a contrastive constituent to a dedicated, left-peripheral position. For Italian and Spanish, it has been claimed that focus fronting (FF) must be sanctioned by a contrastive interpretation of the focus, while non-contrastive focus generally occurs postverbally (see, e.g., Rizzi 1997; Zubizarreta 1998; Belletti 2004; López 2009). Only sentences with a postverbal focus are thus judged as pragmatically felicitous answers to the corresponding wh-questions. Some scholars, however, have recently reported different views and data, showing that non-contrastive preverbal foci are indeed accepted by native speakers in answers to wh-questions. In this paper, I argue that a solution to this problem can be found if the binary distinction between contrastive and non-contrastive focus is abandoned, and different ‘degrees’ or ‘types’ of contrastive focus are identified, depending on the way the set of alternatives is pragmatically exploited (Krifka 2007; Cruschina 2012). I show that languages are syntactically sensitive to specific types of focus with which special operations (e.g. FF) associate. Following Bianchi, Bocci & Cruschina (2015; 2016), I then argue that FF is in fact triggered not by contrast per se, but by the conventional implicature that is associated with a specific type of focus.
Publisher
Open Library of the Humanities
Reference124 articles.
1. Two types of NP preposing in French;Abeillé, AnneDanièle GodardFrédéric SabioS. Müller,2008
2. A heuristic mathematical approach for modeling constraint cumulativity: Contrastive focus in Spanish and Catalan;Adli, Aria;The Linguistic Review,2011
3. The essence of mirativity;Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.;Linguistic Typology,2012
Cited by
19 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献