Abstract
This dissertation argues that focus is not pragmatic, but semantic: it directly shapes the logical form of a sentence by restricting quantification where the syntax does not impose quantificational structure. At the clausal level, this means that the non-focused part restricts an event operator, which--following neo-Davidsonian assumptions--is introduced both by stative and eventive verbs. The resulting Structured Davidsonian Decomposition (SDD) is shown to predict the distribution of focal presupposition by exploiting scope ambiguities between the restricted existential event operator and negative elements (e.g. decreasing quantifiers, negation). In connection with negation, some interpretive effects of intonation contours (fall vs. fall-rise) are addressed, which are argued to also relevant for the distinction between contrastive and non-contrastive focus, and the phenomenon of exhaustive focus.
Analogous to the way the SDD accounts for focus in sentences with a tacit event quantifier, the SDD also explains how focus shapes the quantificational structure of overt event quantifiers like never, usually, sometime, etc. Phenomena that are reanalyzed in this context include second occurrence foci and the Quantificational Variability Effect and its relation to focus.
Finally, the effects of focus on nominal quantification are also considered. Contrary to standard assumptions, it is shown that the NP complement of a determiner D need not function as its restriction; there are indeed determiners whose quantificational structure is as strongly shaped by focus as those of adverbial quantifiers (focus-affected determiners). Focus-affected readings are possible only in Definiteness Effect contexts, and their semantic properties turn out to have an important repercussion for its analysis. It is argued that strong(-like) and weak DPs both have quantificational determiners, but that they take scope in different ways: the former by QR, the latter by D-raising. Apart from explaining various differences between strong(-like) and weak DPs, this also explains why weak determiners can be as strongly affected by focus as adverbs: since they take scope by D-raising, they are syntactically unary. As a result, the syntax has no restricting force, and their quantificational structure is entirely shaped by focus.
(To return to the main page, click
here)
(For ordering information, click here)