<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-2113">
  <Title>An Underspecified HPSG Representation for Information Structure</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="670" end_page="671" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Focus marking
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The basic data are well-known. 4 A pitch accent on a direct object like, Buch in (7), can serve to mark a number of constituents as focused: (8). 5 The focus Dature is usually assumed to proje.ct.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1">  (7) Karl hat ein BucII gelesen.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Karl has a book read (8) a. Karl hat \[(;in BUCII\]F gelesen. b. Karl hat \[ein Buclt gelesen.\]F c. \[Karl hat ein Bucx~ gelesen.\]F A pitch accent on the subject Karl however cannot t)roject focus (9), neither do adjuncts t)roject focus (10).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> (9) \[KanL\]~.~ hat ein Buch gelesen (1{}) Maria hat \[DRAUSSEN\]F geniest.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Maria has outside sneezed These data can be explained by the h)llowing F-Assignment Rules fi-om (Selkirk, 1995):a (11) Basic F Rule  An accented word is F-marked.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> aThe same is true fl)r practically all accounts of focus projection that I am aware of- of., e.g., (Selkirk,  utterance is the question test, where the tbcus in the answer corresponds to the interrogative constituent in the question. However, this test can be misleading in cases where the question comes in a wider context (ef. (16) below and the discussion in (Knhn, 1996)). ~Rule (12b) may need some refinement. It is not clear whether it is a syntactic condition that constrains indirect F-marking of a head. Jacobs (1994) argues that the notion of integration or ir~formational autonomy is resimnsible instead, which is baaed on the complexity in semantic processing. Unibrtunatcly, the formal nature of integration is still ill-understood.  (12) F Projection a. F-marking of the head of a phrase licenses the F-marking of tile phrase.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> b. F-marking of an internal argument of a  head licenses the F-marking of the head.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> According to tiles(; rules, the head itself can project focus, which appears to be refuted by (b~ta like the following.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> (13) Karl hat ein Buch \[GEIA!:SI'\]N.\]F However, (13) can have a wider focus if books are contextually given (this effect has been called dcaccenting). Note the diiference between (14) and (15), both marked according to (11) and (12): although their maximal focus domain ix identical, tin Buch is F-marked only in (15).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9">  (14) Karl hat \[ein Buch \[(;ELESEN.\]F\]F (15) Karl hat \[\[ein Buc:n\]l ,, \[gelesen.\]FJF  This is reflected in Schwarzsehild's (1995) interl)retation of the F-feature. All constituents that are not F-marked need to be given, where givenness is defined an entaihnent by prior discourse. Entaihnent is extended to expressions of other type than propositions by existentially binding unfilled arguments. 7 Even non-F-marked constituents embedded in an F-marked constituent, like em Buch in (14) have to pass this givenness filter. So, deaccenting is no longer a special case for the theory.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> To restrict the optional focus projection from (12) fllrther, Schwarzschild assumes an additional pragmatic filter Avoid F that selects the tree with the least F-marking. s Non-F-marked constituents that contain F-marked subconstituents need to be giwm as well. The context has to entail their F-skeleton the 7The exact definition is as tbllows ((Schwarzschild, 1995), pp. 5-6.): An expression T (for target) is GIVEN iff it ha.s an antecedent, A, such that the existential closure of A entails the result of existentially binding F-variables in the existentially closed F-skeleton of T \[where the existential quantifier binding F-w~riablcs quantifies over contextually salient values\].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> The F-skeleton of an expression is the result of rcplacing F-marked elements witl, variables (working top to bottom).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> The existential closure of an expression is the result of existentially binding all unfilled arguments of the expression.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> if c~ is type t, ExClo((~) = c,.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="14"> if c~ is of conjoinable type (a, b), l~xCl,,(~) = 3x~,\[ExOo(,~(xdeg))\].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="15"> if c~ is type c, ExClo((t) = 3P(~,t)\[P((t)\]. 8I (:onsider the status of this filter somewhat problematic. Why shmdd a tree with less F-marking be pragmatically preferred? One could as well argue that since a sentence should be ~s informative as possible, given constituents should be avoided. The underspecified account dewfloped here recasts Schwarzschild's ideas in a way that makes Avoid F redundant.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="16">  result of replacing embedded F-marked elements with variables. 9 This condition allows to explain data like (16) - a puzzle for theories based on the question test for focus (cf. fn. 5 above).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="17"> (16) A: Paula hat eine rote Rose fotografiert. Paula has a red rose photographed Was hat sie davor getan? What has she before done B: Sie hat eine \[WEISSE\]F Rose fotografiert. She has a white rose photographed A's question leads to expect focus marking of the complete VP, but intonational marking plus projection rules produce a narrow focus on weifle. Schwarzschild (1995) predicts the indicated Fmarking, since the F-skeleton of the NP eine weifle Rose, for instance, (a X rose) is actually entailed by the context.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="18"> While non-F-marked constituents have to be given, F-marked constituents need not necessarily be new. This is to account for data like the following, where ihn in (17B) is given: (17) A: Wen hat Peters Mutter gelobt? Whom has Peter's mother praised? B: Sic hat \[IHN\]F gelobt.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="19"> She has him praised The indicated F-marking follows from the theory: there has to be some F-marking, since the meaning of the complete sentence (Peter's mother praised Peter) is not entailed by the context. The F-skeleton variant Peter's mother praised X is actually entailed by the question (17A), thus the F-marking of ihn.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>