GENERATION OF ACCENT IN 
NOMINALLY PREMODIFIED NOUN PHRASES 
RON ZACHARSK1 
Departtnent of Linguistics 
University of Edinburgh 
Edinburgh, UK 
abstract~ 
Tile primary purpose of this paper is to 
present a set of conditions that constrain 
accent placement in focused nominally 
ptemodified NPs. Selkirk (1984) argues 
that if the premodifier is an argument of 
the head, then the head can be deaccented. 
I agree with Selkirk's proposal and argue 
that what is essential is not whether the 
premodifier is a grammatical argument 
of the head noun, but rather, whether it is 
a 0-complement in lexical conceptual 
structure. This proposal is evaluated by 
testing it against a corpus of naturally oc- 
curring data. 
O. introduction 
It is generally agreed that an utterance can be di- 
vided into two parts which are related to the dis- 
course function of the information represented by 
that utterance. The TOPIC is what the sentence is 
about and the FOCUS represents a new predication 
about the topic. This information structure 
constrains accent placement. For example, 
'primary' accent must be within the constituent 
that represents the focused information. The 
ability of an accent on a single word to mark a 
larger phrase as focus is widely recognized. For 
example in (1) the accent on conservative can mark 
the phrase redneck conservative as the focused con- 
stituent (since (1) can be used to answer the ques- 
tion What was your town like? ). (Accent is indi- 
cated by small caps and focus by underlining.) 
11 would especially like to thank Jeanette Gundel and 
Nancy Hedberg for discussions and comments. 
(1) My hometown was redneck CObISER- 
Y_ATI~. 
(Lia Matera 1988 Smart Money) 
in (1) focus is represented by a single constituent, 
but this need not be the case as (2) illustrates. 
(2) A: Where's Karl? 
B: ~ her ~. 
In (2B), Karl, the referent of her, is the topic and 
tire focus is thus discontinuous. 
Though there seems to be agreement about 
the importance of a theory that accounts for the ac- 
cent-focus relation, there is little agreement about 
the exact nature of this relationship. For instance, 
different theories give different answers to the 
question of whether this relationship is syntactic, 
semantic, morphological, or pragmatic. There is 
also disagreement over how large a phrase can be 
brought into focus by a single accent. 
Even for simple constructions the relation- 
ship between accent and focus is unclear. In exam~ 
pies (3)-(7), a MODIFIER + NOUN constituent is 
focused. Note that in the (a) member of each pair, 
it is the modifer that receives the accent and in 
the (b) member of the pair, it is the head noun. 
(3) a. Those are CRAWLING things. 
b. Those are crawling INSECTS. 
(Bolinger 1986.120) 
(4) a. He has HUNTINGTON's disease. 
b, He has Huntington's CHOREA. 
(Bolinger 1986.118) 
(5) a. 1~ do university RESEARCH. 
b. I do CETACEAN research. 
(6) a. (How do you know Fran72 What was 
he to you?) 
He was my HISTORY teacher. 
AuIa/s DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 AO1Yr 1992 2 5 3 I'ROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
b. (How do you know Fran72 What was 
he to you?) 
He was my first-grade TEACHER. 
(7) a. I work for the ROCKEFELLER 
Foundation. 
b. I work for the Carnegie 
ENDOWMENT. 
(Bolinger 1986.118) 
~'his paper examines the association of accent and 
focus in nominally premodified NPs. 2 
1.0 previous work. 
Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg (1990) state that 
some cases of the relationship between accent and 
focus seem dear. For example, when accent is on 
dress in the glrl with the red DRESS the focus can be 
information represented by the noun dress, the NP 
the red dress, the PP with the red dross, or the entire 
NP the glrl with the red dress. Whereas, accenting 
RED in the same phrase can serve only to focus in- 
formation represented by the adjective red. 
However, regarding the relationship between ac- 
cent and focus in general, they state that q'he ques- 
tion of how an accent becomes associated with cer- 
tain material is not yet well understood.' (p309 
n.4) 
Some researchers view this rdationship be- 
tween focus and accent as essentially syntactic. In 
the computational literature, Lyons and Hirst 
(1990) present the following rule constraining the 
accent focus relation: 
(8) a. What is accented is necessarily in fo- 
cus. 
b. 'focus is optionally and nonderermin- 
istically percolated up the syntax tree, 
to any node from its rightmost daugh- 
ter (rightmost because stress manifests 
itself only at the end of the focused 
constituent).' (1990.57) 
Many theoretical linguists have proposed similar 
syntactic constraints relating phrasal accent 
placement and focus (see, for example, Chomsky 
and Halle 1968, Chomsky 1971, Jackendoff 1972, 
and Culicover and Rochemont 1983). However, as 
noted by these researchers, a rule like the one in 
(8b) makes incorrect predications for most nomi- 
nally premodified tips. For example, consider 
21 use the more neutral term nominally premodified NPs 
imtead of mmp~n~. 
the NP the histor? teacher in (9B) which has the 
structure presented in (10): 
(9) A: What do you do? 
B: I'm a HISTORY teacher. 
(lO) 
N wt 
D N' 
N" N 
history teacher 
Clearly the NP a h/nor? teacher is the focused con- 
stituent. 3 But by rule (8) the accent on h/nor? can- 
not serve to focus the entire NP since hirtor? is not 
the rightmust daughter of this phrase. 4 Thus, a 
phrasal rule such as (8b) cannot be operative in 
these cas~. Instead, history teacher is viewed as a 
compound (as a structure of category N 0) and 
accent is determined by a separate compound 
accent rule, which places stress on the leftmust 
element (see Chomsky and Halle 1968, and 
Selkirk 1984). 
Steedman (1991) claims that accent serves 
to divide an utterance into an optional constituent 
that represents the topic (what he, following 
Jackendoff 1972, calls the 'open-proposition') and 
a constituent that represents the focus. He argues 
that within each of these constituents, accent is put 
on the parr that represents what is 'emphasized or 
contrasted' with something in the discourse con- 
text--the 'interesting part'. This idea has also 
been proposed by a number of other researchers 
(see, for example, Schmerling 1976, Gundel 
1978, Selkirk 1984, Bolinger 1986, 1989, and 
Rochemont 1986). Although there is wide dis- 
agreement about the formal definitions of 'topic- 
focus' and 'the interesting part' there is no doubt 
that these are essential pragmatic determinants 
that constrain accent placement, and it is equally 
5By focused constituent I mean the phr~,e that represents 
focused information. 4Rule (7) also fails in a range of other cases including most 
intransitive aen~nces ( Whau h~ppenedI--BUSH resigned ). 
See Schmeding 1976, Gundel 1978, Bolinger 1986, and 
Lambr~ht 1992 for further discmalon. 
ACRES DE COLING-92, N^h'T~, 23-28 ^OfT 1992 2 5 4 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUO. 23-28, 1992 
clear that they play a major role determining ac- 
cent in nominally premodified NPs. Consider 
{11), a dialogue between two linguistics professors 
about the dissertation of a student in the depart- 
ment: 
(11) A: What's the dissertation about? 
B: Something to do with language 
ACQUISITION. 
(=Ladd 1980.90 ex.48) 
Ladd (1980) notes that when linguistics professors 
are talking about a dissertation of a student in the 
department, they assume that the dissertation is 
about some aspect of language and language can be 
deaccented. Ladd continues 'But the linguist's 
proud parents, who are not linguists, would tell 
their friends, who are also not linguists, that their 
son's dissertation was about LANGUAGE acquisi- 
tion.' (Ladd 1980.90) 
It could be argued that the accent patterns 
in (3)-(5) are also determined by 'interestingness'. 
However, the role of 'interestingness' is less clear 
in phrases like those in (6) and (7). As Bolinger 
(1989.200) notes, accent placement in some 
prenominally modified NPs is more invariable 
than in others. For example, while in (12) the old 
information constrains the the location of accent, 
this is not the case in (13) and (14) 
(12) a. My research is on language- { 
Particularly on language ACQUISITION.~ 
#Particularly on LANGUAGE acquisition.J 
b. My research is on acquisition- 
#Particularly on language ACQUISITION.1 
Particularly on LANGUAGE acquisition. J 
(13) June hold a singular place in the study 
of insects. 
JUNE bugs can be seen. 
??June BUGS call be seen.J 
(14) As we were travelling along the road we 
I" ROADblock. 
came to a l#roadBLOCg.~ 
(= Bolinger 1989.216) 
The fixed stress on the initial syllables serves to 
mark the phrase as a unitary concept rather than a 
compositional one. However, not all NPs repre- 
senting unitary concepts receive leftward stress 
(for example, human Being}. 
2. argument .trucmre and accent 
What then governs the location of accent in nomi- 
nally premodified NPs? Why, for example, does 
He was my history TEACHER sound odd as an an- 
swer to the question How do you know Franz? 
What was he to you? Selkirk (1984) suggests a 
particularly compelling answer. She presents the 
two constraints in (15) and (16). 
(15) Basic Focm Rule 
A constituent to which a pitch accent is as- 
signed is a focus. (1984.207) 
(16) Phrasal Focus Rule 
A constituent may be in focus if (i) or (ii) 
(or both) is true: 
i. The constituent that is its head is a 
fOg~us. 
ii. A constituent contained within it 
that is an argument of the head is a 
fOCUS 
(1984.207) 
The Basic Focus Rule in (15) is mandatory. This 
rule states that every word that contains an accent 
is necessarily focused. The phrasal focus rule given 
in (16) is optional. The rule (16i) states that if a 
head is a focused constituent, then any projection 
of that head can optionally be focused. Ifl say 
(17) Victoria visits BONEyards 
the N, boneyards, is necessarily a focused 
constituent by rule (15). Rule (16i) permits focus 
to percolate to the projections N' and N" as 
shown in (18): 
(18) Victoria visits \[N":+focu, \[N':+focu, 
\[N:+f~ \[Born'yards\]\]\] 
Rule (16ii) states that if an argument of a head is 
focused, and if that focused constituent is con- 
tained within the maximal projection of that 
head, then the projection of that head can be 
focused. For example, if I say 
(19) Ann danced the taranTELla 
the N, tarantella, is necessarily a focused 
constituent. Since this N is the head of the N", the 
tarantella, by rule (16i) the tarantella can be a 
focused contituent. This N" is an argument of the 
V, dancea~ and is contained within the maximal 
AcrES OF. COLING-92, NANTES, 2.3-28 AO~'r 1992 2 5 5 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AuG. 23-28, 1992 
projection of that V. Thus, the VI' can be a focused 
constituent by rule (16ii). This leads to correct re- 
sults since this utterance can be used to respond to 
the question What did Ann do at the party? (She 
\[V":+focus danced the taranTELla.\]) 
Selkirk's theory of prosody-focus relation 
predicts the following accent patterns in focused 
modifier-noun constructions: 
(20) Selkirk's predictions concerning 
raoeh'fier-noun pairs 
ARGUMENT head adjtmct HEAD 
ARGUMENT HEAD ADJUNCT HEAD 
*argument HEAD *ADJUNCT head 
Thus, if a noun phrase represents focused 
information, and if that noun phrase consists of an 
argument followed by the head noun, then the 
prediction is that the argument is necessarily ac- 
cented. This seems like an elegant way to 
characterize the difference between leftward and 
rightward accented prenominaUy modified noun 
phrases, which has been problematic for other ap- 
proaches to accent placement. Consider, for ex- 
ample, the difference in accent pattern between 
(21) which has an accent on its left constituent, and 
(22) which has the accent on its right constituent. 
(21) HISTORY teacher 
(22) student TEACHER 
Selkirk's theory offers a straightforward explana- 
tion of this difference. History is an argument of 
teacher in (18) and thus by rule (13ii) 
representation of the entire noun phrase can be 
focused. However, in (19) student is an adjunct 
and accenting the head, teacher, is required to 
focus the representation of that noun phrase. A 
similar notion has been suggested by Rochemont 
(1986) as shown in (23). (See Rochemont 1986 for 
a discussion comparing his focus rules to those of 
Selkirk 1984.) 
(23) a. If0~ is \[+focus\] and (x is X 0, then X n is 
\[+focus\]. 
b. If o~ is \[+focus\] and O~ is an argument 
of X 0contained in X n, then X °is 
\[+focus\]. 
c. If X 0 is \[+focus\] and Ct is an adjunct 
ofX ° then O~ is \[+focus\]. 
There are three possible relations between a 
prenominal NP and its head. The prenominal can 
be a grammatical argument, a complement in lex- 
ical conceptual structure, or an adjunct modifier. 
A distinguishing characteristic of an adjunct 
modifier is that it is licensed by predication.5 As 
a result, it can be separated from its head by a 
copula. For example, in the phrase the red car, red 
is an adjunct modifier and can be separated from 
its head as (24) illustrates. 
(24) The car is red. 
In (22) student is a modifier and can be separated 
from its head as in 
(25) The teacher is a student. 
However, in (21) history is not a modifier and it 
cannot be separated from its head as (24) shows. 
(26) ??The teacher is of history. 
There is one question that immediately comes to 
mind: is Sdkirk's notion of 'argument' a syntactic 
notion (that is, is it a grammatical argument li- 
censed by A-structure), or is it a semantic notion 
involving 0-participants in lcs? 
2. arguments 
Grimshaw (1990) argues convincingly that only 
nouns that have an internal aspeetual analysis (nouns 
that refer to what she calls complex events) have 
argument structure (A-structure). She describes sig- 
nificant differences in the behavior of complex 
event nouns and other nouns to support this analy- 
sis. For example, complex event nominals have 
obligatory arguments as shown in (27) 
(27) a The assignment is to be avoided. 
b. *The constant assignment is to be 
avoided. 
c. The constant assignment of unsolvable 
problems is to be avoided. 
(Grimshaw 1990.50 ex.8) 
Grimshaw considers assignment to be ambiguous 
between a complex event interpretation and a pro- 
cess interpretation. The addition of the modifier 
constant forces the complex event interpretation 
since constant can only be construed as a modifier 
of assignment on the complex event reading. Thus, 
it's A-structure must be satisfied as in (27c) just as 
5That is, the meaning of modifier is predicated on the 
external argument of the head noun (Its Rargumen0. 
Aca-~ DE COLING-92, NANTEs, 23-28 ^Ot3T 1992 2 5 6 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28. 1992 
the A-structure of the verb assign must be satisfied 
as in (28). 
(28) a We constantly assign problems. 
c. *We constantly assign. 
(Grimshaw 1990.50 ex.8) 
If Grimshaw's analysis is correct, as I believe it 
is, then the argument referenced in Selkirk's 
Phrasal Focus Rule, is best not construed as an ar- 
gument in A-structure. For while rule (16) would 
make correct predictions regarding complex event 
nominals such as those illustrated in (29), it fails 
on nominals that do not represent complex events 
as in (30) 
(29) a. TREE felling 
b. COOKIE baking 
(30) a. HISTORY teacher 
b. BIT guzzler 
1 believe the distinction is a semantic one involv- 
ing 0-participants in lexical conceptual structure 
(Ics). Every verb and noun (including deverbal 
nouns) has a lexical conceptual structure that in- 
cludes the entities involved in the events or states 
described (see, for example, Dowty (1989), 
Fillmore (1968), and Jackendoff (1987, 1990)). 
Selkirk's intuitions expressed in rules (15) and 
(16) are essentially correct. Reformulating her 
rules as constraints between lexical conceptual 
structure and focused information offers a more 
precise characterization of her insights. A reformu- 
lation of (15) and (16) constraining the accent-fo- 
cus relation of premodified NPs containing a de- 
verbal element is given in (31) and (32): 
(31) The representation of a constituent is 
focused if that constituent receives a 
pitch accent. 
(32) A representation, R, may be focused 
if a representation that is a 0-com- 
plement of R is focused. 
Consider the pairs in (33) and (34). 
(33) a. PACKAGE delivery 
b. overnight DELIVERY 
(34) a. CETACEAN research 
h. university RESEARCH 
According to Grimshaw, neither delivery nor re- 
search has an A-structure since neither has an internal 
aspectual analysis. However, since these are both 
deverbal nouns, they inherit their O-structure from 
the related verbs. Package, then, is a 0-comple- 
ment of delivery, since package is the theme of de- 
liver, (He delivers packages). Thus delivery can be 
deaccented as in (33a). Itowever, itt (33b), 
overnight is not a O-complement of delivery (*tie 
delivers overnight) and thus delivery must be ac- 
cented. Likewise, in (34a) cetacean is the theme of 
research (He researches cetaceans) and thus research 
can be deaccented. However, in (34b) university is 
not a 0-complement of research and research must 
be accented. 
The rules presented in (31) and (32) were 
tested on data collected from multiple genres of 
natural discourse induding public radio news arti- 
cles, nruhiple participant discussions, and aca- 
demic lectures. The results are given in Table 1 
modifier's re- 
lation to laead 
O-argument 
IK)I\]~ 
0-argument 
totals 
accent on accent on 
left el- right el- 
enlent enlent totals 
115 11 126 
2 18 20 
117 29 146 
Table 1. accent patterns of 
NOUN MODIFIER + DEVERBAL NOUN 
consD'ucrions 
As shown in this table, the rule makes correct pre- 
dictions in approximately 90% of the cases. The 
rule predicts that if the modifier's relation to 
ht~d is a 0-complement, then the accent should be 
on the left element--tire complement. This was 
indeed true for 115 instances. Some examples are 
given in (35) and (36). 
(35) Why should I buy one of those 
POTATO twaddlerJ (that can make 
potato romettes simply and easily and 
comes with a free set of Ginso 
knives?) 
(36) a. FEMINIST bashing 
a. LANGUAGE users 
b. PUB crawlers 
c. COMPUTER makers 
d. TEAK trade 
e. CONSISTENCY checkers 
AcrEs DE COLING-92, NANTES. 23-28 nO~' 1992 2 5 7 PROC. OV COLING-92, NANTES. AUO. 23-28, 1992 
The rule also predicts that if the modifier is not a 
0-complement of the head then the head needs to 
be accented. That was the case for 18 of the 20 in- 
stances in the data. Examples of this are given in 
(37) and (38) 
(37) She and her sister P..~PER5 never 
stop TELLING each other to be 
PROUD of what they ARE, to have 
RESPECT for themselves and the cul- 
ture they COME from. 
(38) a. amateur WRITER 
b. woman HIPHOPPERS 
c. continuation COVERAGE 
e. last-minute FILER 
There were 11 0-complement instances 
that were counterexamples to the rule presented in 
(32). Some examples of this are presented in (39). 
(39) a. government ENCOURAGEMENT 
b. systems ANALYST 
c. tenant BLACKLISTING 
d. human INTERVENTION 
e. relationship DEPENDENCY 
At present I have no explanation as to why these 
are accented the way they are. Why, for example, 
is one problem referred to as DRUG addiction and 
another as relationship DEPENDENCY?. 
However, 1 suggest that woman in (41a) is not a 
complement of swimmer. Woman SWIMMER is an 
appositional compound (similar to helicopter 
GUNSHIP). Appositional compounds are lists of 
propositions, and like all lists, the last element of 
the list typically receives the main accent. Some 
evidence to support this view that (41a) is apposi- 
tional is that the prenominal can be separated 
from the head by a copula as in (42) 
(42) The swimmer is a woman. 
Following Booij and van Haffxen (1988) I bdieve 
that a semantic effect of -er afFzxation is to bind 
the agent or experiencer in lcs. Thus, the agent role 
is not available to the representation of woman 
and that representation must be linked by 0-iden- 
tification. Other examples of this type include 
(36) and (37a&b). In cases were the nonhead is the 
agent of the head the accent pattern varies--some- 
times the head receives the accent (as (390, (41b), 
and (41c)) and at other times the nonhead receives 
the accent as in (43). 6 
(43) a. DOG bite 
b. BEE sting 
c. COCK fighting 
4. discussion 
3. agents and experiencers 
The accent characteristics of phrases where the 
nominal premodifier can be construed as a subject 
of the head is less dear. There is some controversy 
as to whether such constructions are possible. For 
example, Selkirk (1982.34) restricts subjects 
from occurring in these compounds by use of the 
rule presented in (40) 
(40) The SUBJ argument of a lexical head 
may not be satisfied in compound 
structure.. 
Sproat and Liberman (1987) point out that sub- 
jects in compounds are not usually accented. The 
examples they give are presented in (41) 
(41) a. woman SWIMMER 
b. child DANCING 
c. student DEMONSTRATION 
Sproat and Liberman 1987.143 
Deverbal nouns head 25% of the nominally pre- 
modified Nps in the corpus examined. 7 Since 
deverbal nouns are distinguished from other nouns 
in the lexicon, the generation system can correctly 
determine when to apply the rule in (32). As 
Dowry (1989), Jackendoff (1987, 1990) and oth- 
ers have noted, lexical conceptual structure is 
needed for correct semantic interpretation. (For 
computational approaches see Charniak (1981), 
Dorr (1989), and Sowa (1991).) Thus, the rule re- 
quires only information that has independent mo- 
tivation for being in the lexicon. 
As Selkirk noted, the same factors that 
govern accent placement in these constructions also 
constrain accent in verb phrases and sentences. In 
both cases the semantic interpretation of a head 
can be focused if its 0-complement is focused. 
6This variation in accent is ~ seen in agents realized u 
verb. They dn nnt ne£eum'ily have A-structure (other than the 
external role for nouns). 
ACRES DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 AO~r 1992 2 5 8 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
The same rules ((31) and (32)) are operative. Thus 
accenting potatoes in John twaddles POTATOES can 
serve to focus the representation (x twaddles 
potatoes) and similarly, accenting potato in 
POTATO twaddler focuses the representation (the x 
such that (x twaddles potatoes)). 
A central question in the study of intona- 
tion is what factors govern accent placement. I 
have argued here that argument structure plays no 
role in this determination at least as to prenomi- 
nally modified noun phrases and have shown how a 
theory of focus like the one presented in Selkirk 
1984 can be refined to account for semantic con- 
straints for accent placement. 
ACTFA DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 nou-r 1992 2 5 9 PROC. OF COLING~92, NAtcrEs, AUG. 23-28, 1992 

References 

Bolinger, Dwight. 1986. Intonation and its parts. 
Stanford: Stanford University Press. 

Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Intonation and its uses. 
Stanford: Stanford University Press. 

Booij, Geert and Ton yon Haaften. 1988. The ex- 
ternal syntax of derived words: evidence from 
Dutch. Yearbook of Morphology, ed. by Geert 

Booij and Jaap van Marie. 29-44. 
Charniak, E. 1981. The case-slot identity theory. 
Cognitive Science 5.285-292. 

Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface 
structure, and semantic interpretation. 
Semantics. Ed. by R. jacobs and P. 
Rosenbaum. 183-216. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. 

Chomsky, Noam and M. Halle. 1968. The sound 
pattern of English. New York: Harper and 
Row. 

Culicover, Peter, W. and Michael Rochemont. 
1983. Stress and focus in English. Language 
59(1):123-165. 

Dorr, Bonnie. 1989. Lexical conceptual structure 
and generation in machine translation. 
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the 
Cognitive Science Society 9. 

Dowty, David 1L 1989. On the semantic content 
of the notion of 'thematic role'. Properties, 
types, and meaning, ed. by Gennaro Chierchia, 
Barbara H. Partee, and Raymond Turner. 

Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. 
Universal in linguistic theory, ed. by E. Bach 
and IL Harms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and 
Winston. 

Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. 
Cambridge, MA: M1T Press. 

Gundel, Jeanette Kohn. 1978. Stress, Pro- 
nominalization and the given-new distinction. 
University of ttawaii Working Papers in 
Linguistics. Department of Linguistics, 
University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation 
in generative grammar. Cambridge, M_A: 
MIT Press. 

Jackendoff, Ray S. 1987. The status of thematic 
relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic 
Inquiry 18.369-411. 

Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures, 
Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 

Ladd, D. Robert. 1980. The structure of intona- 
tional meaning. Bloomington: Indiana 
University Press. 

Lambrecht, Knut. 1992. Sentential-focus structures 
as grammatical constructions. Paper presented 
at the Annual Meeting of the LSA. 

Lyons, Daniel, and Graeme Hirst. 1990. A com- 
positional semantics for focusing subjuncts. 
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the 
Association for Computational Linguistics. 
28.54-61. 

Pierrehumbert, Janet, and Julia Hisrchberg. 1990. 
The meaning of intonational contours in the in- 
terpretation of discourse. Intentions in com- 
munication. Ed. by P. IL Cohen, J. Morgan 
and M. E. Pollack. 271-311. Cambridge, 
MA: MIT Pre.~. 

Rochemont, Michael S. 1986. Focus in generative 
grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

Schmerling, Susan F. 1976. Aspects of English 
sentence stress. Austin: University of Texas 
Press. 

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. The syntax of words. 
Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax. 
Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 

Sown, John. 1991. Logical structures in the lexi- 
con. Proceedings of a Workshop speonsored by 
the Special Interest Group on the Lexicon of 
the Association for Computational 
Linguistics. 38-55. 

Sproat, Richard W. and Mark Y. Liberman. 1987. 
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the 
Association for Computational Lingustics. 
25.140-146. 

Steednran, Mark. 1991. Structure and intonation. 
Language 67.260-296. 
