<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P90-1008">
  <Title>A Compositional Semantics for Focusing Subjuncts</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="60" end_page="60" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Conclusions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> This paper summarizes work, details of which can be found in (Lyons, 1989). The work represents a step towards better understanding of focusing subjuncts and of compositional semantics in general. The semantics we have proposed allows focusing subjuncts to be covered by a frame-based approach to semantic interpretation, by virtue of its being compositional, computationally practical, able to differentiate between asserted and non-asserted meaning, sensitive to intonation, and eross-categorial. We have found that: * Focus and stress information can be used to advantage in a semantic interpreter.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> * The hypothesis that focus may be optionally percolated to a parent node from a daughter explains the scope ambiguities observed in the interpretation of focusing subjuncts.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> * Rooth's method of obtaining the translation of a focusing subjunct by using p-sets to select &amp;quot;domains of quantification&amp;quot; can be adapted to translating a sentence into a frame representstion. null * Treating focusing subjuncts as operators on sentential semantic forms makes this translation possible.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> * Semantically, focusing subjuncts are not just passive objects for composition. We have shown extensions to standard frame representations that are required for the translation of focusing subjuncts.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>