Focus on Cataphora: Experiments in Context

Abstract

Since Chomsky 1976 , it has been claimed that focus on a referring expression blocks coreference in a cataphoric dependency (* Hisi mother loves JOHNi vs. Hisi mother LOVES Johni ). In three auditory experiments and a written questionnaire, we show that this fact does not hold when a referent is unambiguously established in the discourse (cf. Williams 1997 , Bianchi 2009 ) but does hold otherwise, validating suggestions in Rochemont 1978 , Horvath 1981 , and Rooth 1985 . The perceived effect of prosody, we argue, building on Williams’s original insight and deliberate experimental manipulation of Rochemont’s and Horvath’s examples, is due to the fact that deaccenting the R-expression allows hearers to accommodate a salient referent via a “question under discussion” ( Roberts 1996/2012 , Rooth 1996 ), to which the pronoun can refer in ambiguous or impoverished contexts. This heuristic is not available in the focus cases, and we show that participants’ interpretation of the pronoun is ambivalent here.

Prosodic Focus

“…This contrast is often cited as evidence for obligatory focus movement. Moulton et al (2018), however, show that the contrast in (86) disappears if the context provides an antecedent for John. Williams (1997) argues that cataphoric anaphors need to be licensed not by the following antecedent, but rather by a stipulated prior antecedent in discourse that both pronoun and John are coreferent with.…”

“…Moulton et al's results are compatible with this claim (but differ from Williams' own interpretation of the contrast). Moulton et al (2018) attributes the contrast in (86) (in the absence of such a context) to the fact that deaccentuation of John helps with the accommodation of a prior antecedent. The experimental evidence is compelling, and suggests that (86) does not provide an argument for obligatory focus movement.…”