Skip Navigation


Journal of Semantics Advance Access originally published online on March 3, 2009
Journal of Semantics 2009 26(2):159-184; doi:10.1093/jos/ffp001
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
26/2/159    most recent
ffp001v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Beck, S.
Right arrow Articles by Vasishth, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Multiple Focus

Sigrid Beck

Universität Tübingen

Shravan Vasishth

Universität Potsdam

Correspondence: SIGRID BECK, Chair of Descriptive and Theoretical Linguistics, Englisches Seminar Universität Tübingen, Wilhelmstr. 50, 72074 Tübingen, Germany, e-mail: sigrid.beck{at}uni-tuebingen.de

Correspondence: SHRAVAN VASISHTH, Chair of Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics, Department of Linguistics, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht Str 24-25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany, e-mail: vasishth.shravan{at}gmail.com


  Abstract

This paper presents the results of an experimental study on multiple focus configurations, that is, structures containing two nested focus-sensitive operators plus two foci supposed to associate with those operators. There has been controversial discussion in the semantic literature regarding whether or not an interpretation is acceptable that corresponds to this association. While the data are unclear, the issue is of considerable theoretical significance, as it distinguishes between the available theories of focus interpretation. Some theories (e.g. Rooth's 1992) predict such a pattern of association with focus to be impossible, while others (such as Wold’s 1996) predict it to be acceptable. The results of our study show the data to be unacceptable rather than acceptable, favouring important aspects of the theory of focus interpretation developed by Rooth.

Received for publication 11 February 2008. Accepted for publication 1 April 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.