Alternatives in different dimensions: a case study of focus intervention

Abstract

In Beck (Nat Lang Seman 14:1-56, 2006), focus intervention is used as an argument for reducing Hamblin's (Found Lang 10:41-53, 1973) semantics for questions to Rooth's (Association with focus. Ph.D. Thesis, 1985) focus semantics. Drawing on novel empirical evidence from Mandarin and English, we argue that this reduction is unwarranted. Maintaining both Hamblin's original semantics and Rooth's focus semantics not only allows for a more adequate account for focus intervention in questions, but also correctly predicts that focus intervention is a very general phenomenon caused by interaction of alternatives in different dimensions.

Quexistentials and Focus

“…27 While Beck's account of focus intervention effects in questions has been very influential, various alternative accounts have been proposed as well. For instance, some have argued that a semantic anomaly (a type mismatch or a logical contradiction) arises when a wh-word appears in the scope of a focus-sensitive operator like only or even (Haida, 2007;Eckardt, 2007), and yet others have proposed that wh-words generate alternatives in the ordinary semantic value of a sentence (rather than focus alternatives) and that a clash arises when these interact with focus alternatives in the compositional interpretation of a question (Li and Law, 2016;Kotek, 2017).…”

“…We will discuss two issues for Beck's proposal (see Eckardt 2007, Mayr 2014and Li and Law 2016 for further critical discussion of the approach). The first issue concerns the original motivation for the proposal based on intervention effects.…”

Diversity of intervention effects: Unifying three Mandarin Chinese dou constructions

“…However, a consequence of (ii) is that interpretative mechanism of focus sensitivity is non-uniform: in addition to the standard mechanism through which a focus-sensitive operator access its quantificational domain via the non-singleton alternative dimension generated by F-marking, one would need to allow for the possibility for a focus-sensitive operator to get its quantificational domain elsewhere when its associate is not F-marked. For instance, Li & Law (2016) propose that a focus-sensitive operator can use the ordinary value of a non-F-marked wh-phrase as its quantificational domain, and use this as the basis of their analysis of focus association with wh-phrases and certain types of focus intervention effects. In sum, to maintain a purely syntactic analysis, one would need to stipulate lexical ambiguity of dou or switch to a less constrained theory of focus sensitivity in which focus-sensitive operators can (sometimes) use ordinary as well as alternative dimensions the quantification domain.…”

“…The literature on focus intervention effects has traditionally centered on cases where Op is the interrogative force and focus intervention leads to ungrammaticality (e.g., Beck 2006;Beck & Kim 2006). A notable exception is Li & Law's (2016) observation that an intervening focus-sensitive operator does not necessarily result in ungrammaticality. This paper provides further empirical evidence for this view (although the proposed analysis is different from Li & Law's: see the discussion in the previous subsection) and suggest a wider range of focus intervention effects than previously considered that are worth further exploration.…”

“…It should also be noted thatLi & Law (2016) do not consider all three constructions of dou and it is not clear whether their approach can be extended to account for all three constructions.…”