FOCUS ET PRÉSUPPOSITION

Claire Beyssade (27/04/04)
Focus et sém. structurée
Jackendoff & Krifka
FOCUS ET SEMANTIQUE STRUCTUREE
1. JACKENDOFF : FOCUS ET PRÉSUPPOSITION
« Stress and intonation in English have been commonly regarded as « mere stylistic factors »
which do not contribute to the essential meaning of sentences. In this chapter we will begin to
construct an account of the semantic effects of these phonological phenomena and show how
they fit into the general theory proposed here and into a possible theory of discourse. » p.229
1.1 Les phénomènes empiriques (rappel du cours précédent)
La congruence discursive
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
a
b
Is it JOHN who writes poetry ?
No, it is BILL who writes poetry
# No, it is JOHN who writes short stories
a.
b.
Did Maxwell kill the judge with a HAMMER ?
No, he killed him with a ZAPGUN
# No, it was SAM who killed the judge
Chomsky (1971)
Association avec le focus
• Les adverbes even, only et just
(5) a.
Even John gave his daughter a new bicycle.
b.
John gave even his daughter a new bicycle.
c.
John gave his daughter even a new bicycle.
d.
John even gave his daughter a new bicycle.
(6)
a.
b.
c.
d.
JOHN even gave his daughter a new bicycle.
John even gave HIS DAUGHTER a new bicycle.
John even gave his daughter A NEW BICYCLE.
John even gave HIS daughter a new bicycle.
(7)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Even JOHN gave his daughter a new bicycle.
* Even John GAVE his daughter a new bicycle.
* Even John gave HIS daughter a new bicycle.
* Even John gave his daughter A NEW bicycle.
* Even John gave his daughter a new BICYCLE.
Rq : cas de « second occurrence focus »
• La négation
(9)
a.
Maxwell didn’t kill the judge with a silver HAMMER
b.
Maxwell didn’t kill the JUDGE with a silver hammer
(10) a.
It is not with a silver hammer that Maxwell killed the judge
b.
It is not the judge that Maxwell killed with a silver hamme
« It appears then that negation can undergo the rule association with focus. »
Ambiguïté de (11) (p. 256) :
(11)
Karl doesn’t write radical phamplets in the BATHROOM
(12) a.
It isn’t in the bathroom that Karl writes radical pamphlets
b.
(*) Write radical pamphlets in the bathroom isn’t what Karl does
(13) a.
It is in the bathroom that Karl doesn’t write radical pamphlets
b.
What Karl doesn’t do is write radical pamphlets in the bathroom
(12) répond à (14)a ou b, alors que (1 ») répond à (15)a ou b.
1
Claire Beyssade (27/04/04)
(14)
(15)
a.
b.
a.
b
Focus et sém. structurée
Jackendoff & Krifka
Where does Karl write radical pamphlets ?
What does Karl do ?
In which room doesn’t Karl write radical pamphlets ?
Which of those perverted things doesn’t Karl do ?
1.2 Analyse de Jackendoff
Focus of a sentence : to denote the information in the sentence that is assumed by the speaker
not to be shared by him and the hearer
Presupposition of a sentence : to denote the information in the sentence that is assumed by
the speaker to be shared by him and the hearer.
(p.
230)
• Un discours est naturel, selon J., quand « successive sentences share presupposition, that
is, if the two speakers implicitly agree on what information they have in common. »
• Procédure à suivre pour calculer le focus et la présupposition associée à une phrase
(16) The derivation of the semantic representation proceeds in three steps.
1- Focus assignment derives two formal objects from the otherwise determined
semantic representation SR of a sentence S. The first, the Focus, consist of that
semantic material associated with surface structure nodes dominated by the marker F.
The second is a one place predicate PresuppS(x), formed by replacing the Focus by an
appropriate semantic variable x in SR.
2- La seconde étape conduit à la construction d’un autre objet formel, the
presuppositionnal set, defined as the set of values which, when substituted for x in
Pressupp(x), yield a true proposition. On le notera λx PresuppS (x).
3- La troisième étape conduit à construire la présupposition et l’assertion à partir de
l’ensemble présuppositionnel.
(p. 245-246)
(17) Présupposition
a.
λx PresuppS (x)
b.
c.
d.
is a coherent set in the present discourse
is well-defined
in the present discourse
is amenable to discussion
is under discussion
(18) Assertion
Focus ∈ λx PresuppS (x)
1.3 Analyses d’exemples
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
S : John LIKES Bill
Structure fonctionnelle : LIKE (John, Bill)
focus = LIKES
Presupp (x) = x (John , Bill)
L’ensemble présuppositionnel λxPresupp(x) correspond à l’ensemble des
relations qui existent entre John et Bill ( Notation de J., p. 245)
Assertion de S : ‘aimer’ appartient à l’ensemble des relations qui existent entre John et
Bill.
Présupposition de S : l’ensemble des relations qui existent entre John et Bill est un
ensemble cohérent / bien défini dans le discours.
a.
b.
c.
2
Claire Beyssade (27/04/04)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
Focus et sém. structurée
Jackendoff & Krifka
S : I introduced BILL to Sue
Structure fonctionnelle : INTRODUCE (I, Bill, Sue)
focus = BILL
Presupp(x) : I introduced x to Sue
L’ensemble présuppositionnel λxPresupp(x) correspond à l’ensemble des gens
que j’ai présentés à Sue
Assertion de S : Bill appartient à l’ensemble des gens que j’ai présentés à Sue.
Présupposition de S : l’ensemble des gens que j’ai présentés à Sue est un ensemble
cohérent / bien défini dans le discours.
a.
b.
c.
« The focus part of the sentence denotes one particular value picked out of a set of alternatives
values, which fits into an open / incomplete statement corresponding to the rest of the
sentence. » Kadmon. En fait, ce que Jackendoff appelle l’ensemble présuppositionnel (λx
PresuppS (x)), c’est un ensemble d’alternatives.
1.4 Présupposition focale vs Présupposition inhérente
« In addition to the presupposition derived by focus assignment, the reading of a sentence
may contain presuppositions introduced by other elements of the sentence.
• Verbes factifs
(27) Bill knows that eating tennis balls makes you sick.
Focal presupposition : Bill knows something
Inherent presupposition : Eating tennis balls makes you sick
(28)
Bill knows that eating TENNIS balls makes you sick.
Focal presupposition : Bill knows that eating a certain thing makes you sick
Inherent presupposition : Eating tennis balls makes you sick
• Adverbes sensibles au focus
(29)
Jean est venu aussi.
Présupposition inhérente :
ou
Assertion :
Sans intonation spécifique
a.
Quelqu’un d’autre que Jean est venu
b.
Jean a fait quelque chose d’autre.
c.
Jean est venu.
(30)
JEAN est venu aussi.
Avec intonation spécifique
focus = JEAN
Presupp(x) : venu(x)
Présupposition : λx venu(x) is a coherent set in the present discourse
Assertion :
Focus ∈ λx PresuppS (x) ie Jean est venu
Présupposition inhérente : quelqu’un d’autre que Jean est venu.
(31)
Jean est VENU aussi.
Avec intonation spécifique
focus = VENU
Presupp(x) : X(j)
Présupposition : λX X(j) is a coherent set in the present discourse
Assertion :
Focus ∈ λx PresuppS (x) ie Jean est venu
Présupposition inhérente : Jean a fait autre chose que venir.
La position de l’accent a une influence sur le contenu présupposé, mais pas sur le contenu
asserté. C’est différent avec la négation.
• Négation
(32) a.
Jean n’est pas VENU avec Marie.
b.
Jean n’est pas venu avec MARIE.
Pas de présupposition inhérente.
Présuppositions focales :
3
Claire Beyssade (27/04/04)
Focus et sém. structurée
Jackendoff & Krifka
(33)
a.
b.
Jean a fait qqchose avec Marie.
Jean est venu avec quelqu’un.
(34)
Jean n’est pas venu avec MARIE.
Focus = Marie
Presupp(x) = venu-avec (Jean,x)
Présupposition : λx venu-avec (Jean,x) is a coherent set in the present discourse
Assertion : Focus ∉ λx PresuppS (x) = Marie ∉ λx venu-avec (Jean,x)
«We can conclude then that not in the auxiliary undergoes optional association with focus
[…]. If it undergoes association with focus, it modifies the normal assertion form from (35) to
(35’) :
(35)
Focus ∈ λx Pressup(x)
(35’)
Focus ∉ λx Pressup(x)
(p. 258)
Pour la négation, on devrait parler, non pas d’association avec le focus, mais plutôt de
dissociation de la présupposition. (p. 257)
1. 5 En résumé
• J. appelle ensemble présuppositionnel ce que les autres théories appelent "ground", et
présupposition ce qui correspond en fait à la question en discussion.
• J. parle de l’assertion d’une phrase, et ne restreint pas cela aux phrases déclaratives.
Comment étendre cela à l’étude des questions ? Qu’est-ce que la présupposition associée à
une question et l’assertion associée à une question ? « For other sentence types, such as
questions and imperatives, the assertion will obviously take a different form. » (p. 246)
• J’ai passé sous silence ici tout ce qui concerne le focus comme trait syntaxique, la question
de la projection du focus et la distinction entre l’accent A et l’accent B.
2. THE STRUCTURED MEANING THEORY (... OF FOCUS)
Ajdukiewicz(1928), Hull(1975), Hausser & Zaefferer (1979), von Stechow (1981), Cresswell
& von Stechow (1982) Jacobs (1983), von Stechow & Zimmermann (1984), von Stechow
(1989), von Stechow (1990) et Ginzburg (1992).
2.1 Pourquoi faire ?
« The semantic effect of the focus feature is that it introduces a split of the semantic
representation into a background part and a focus part. [...]
Many expressions will disregard the focus-background split, but operators like only are
sensitive to it and will produce different results when combined with expressions that differ in
their background-focus articulation. » (Krifka, 1993, 270)
• Termes sensibles au focus
(1)
John only kissed MARY
(avec focus sur Mary seulement)
Only < λx [kiss(j,x)],m>
(2)
John only kissed MARY
(avec focus sur le VP)
Only < λP [P(j)], λx kiss(x,m) >
Règles pour only (reformulation de Horn’s (1969)) :
(3) only combining with the structured meaning <R,α1, ..., αn> yields the assertion (a)
together with the presupposition (b) :
 
∀x1... ∀xn [R(x1,...,xn) → <x1,...,xn > = <α1, ..., αn>
(b)
R(α1, ..., αn)
4
Claire Beyssade (27/04/04)
Focus et sém. structurée
Jackendoff & Krifka
• Congruence entre questions et réponses
2.2 Représentation formelle : Background-Focus articulation
• Background – Focus structures are represented as pairs of semantics representations <B,F>,
where B can be applied to F, yielding the standard representation B(F).
• Une sémantique plus riche que la sémantique « ordinaire » : « The focus induced
interpretation of a sentence is an ordered sequence, whose members are the property obtained
by abstracting on the focus / foci, and the ordinary semantic interpretations of the focus / foci.
The truth conditional content of a sentence can easily be recovered from its structured
meaning. » Kadmon p. 289
• Un calcul qui reste compositionnel :
(4)
Règle de propagation du focus :
A appliqué à <B, F> donne <λX[A(B(X))], F>
<B, F> appliqué à A donne <λX[B(X)(A)], F>
(5)
• Overt and covert operators of focus
Il y a des phrases qui contiennent un opérateur sensible au focus, comme only. On leur associe
la représentation suivante : only <Background, Focus>
Mais il y a aussi des phrases dans lesquelles aucun terme de ce type n’est présent. On les
représentera d’une façon similaire, en disant qu’il y a en fait un opérateur sensible au focus
invisible (covert). C’est l’opérateur illocutoire.
5
Claire Beyssade (27/04/04)
Focus et sém. structurée
Jackendoff & Krifka
« According to Jacobs(1984), cases of bound focus and unbound (« free ») focus are actually
not different at all. He proposes that the illocutionary operator that expresses the sentence
mood (assertion, question, directive, optative ...) may bind the focus. »
Krifka,
1992a, 19.
(6)
(7)
a.
b.
John introduced Bill to SUE
ASSERT(< λx introd(j,x,b),s>)
ASSERT(< λP.P(j), λx introd(x,s,b)>)
focus sur Sue
focus sur le VP (introd. Bill to Sue)
Définition de l’assertion (Cf Krifka,1992a, p. 20)
Note that the partitioning between focus and background does not play any role for the
semantics proper of the assertion operator, but affects only its felicity conditions.
3. STRUCTURED MEANING FOR QUESTIONS-ANSWER CONGRUENCE
3.1 Comment représenter les questions ?
Deux grandes approches pour modéliser les questions :
- the proposition set approach (Hamblin (1958, 1973), Kartunen (1977), Groenendijk &
Stokhof (1984))
- the structured meaning approach, dite aussi approche catégorielle ou fonctionnelle.
• The proposition set approach : the meaning of a question is the set of its possible full
answers, that is a set of propositions.
(8)
A : Who read La recherche du temps perdu ?
{p/ ∃x [Person(x) ∧ p = Read (RTP)(x)]}]
= {Read (RTP)(x) / Person(x)}
= {Read (RTP)(J), Read (RTP)(M),...}
B : Mary read La recherche du temps perdu.
Read (RTP)(M)
• The structured meaning approach
Un format de représentation qui s’applique aussi bien aux questions qu’aux réponses :
« Question meanings are functions that, when applied to the meaning of the answer, yield a
proposition. »
(9)
A : Who read La recherche du temps perdu ?
λx [read (RTP)(x)]
B : Mary
M
Question applied to answer :
λx [read (RTP)(x)] . M
= Read (RTP)(M)
Question polaire : (yes/no question)
(10) A : Did Mary read La recherche du temps perdu ? λf [f(read (RTP)(M))]
B : No
λP[~P]
Question applied to answer :
λf [f(read (RTP)(M))] λP[~P]
= ~Read (RTP)(M)
On en déduit que la Structured Meaning associée à la question dans (10) est :
(11) Did Mary read La recherche du temps perdu ?
<λf [f(read (RTP)(M))], {λp[p], λp[~p]}>
Oui et non sont des opérateurs fonctionnels :
(12) Oui : λp[p]
(9)
Non : λp[~p]
Question wh- :
L


 : association du domaine à une fonction
(13) a.
Who did Mary see ? <λx [see(x)(M)], Person>
b.
What did Mary see ? <λx [see(x)(M)], Thing>
The first part of a question meaning is its background, and the second part its restriction.
6
Claire Beyssade (27/04/04)
Focus et sém. structurée
Jackendoff & Krifka
3.2 Typologie des questions dans le cadre de la sémantique structurée
• Réponses elliptiques / réponses pleines : term answer / full answer.
(14) Who did Mary see ?
a. Mary saw John
b. John
Qu’est-ce qui est premier : la forme pleine ou la forme elliptique ?
• Réponses congruentes ≠ répliques (« fully acceptable reactions but [...] not congruent to the
question »)
Réactions acceptables :
- Réponses sous- ou sur-informatives,
- Réponses « which are natural under a contrastive topic accent », sous-informative
- « Acceptable replies » : I don’t know, ou I won’t tell you.
(15) What did Mary read ?
a. Mary read a novel by Balzac
b. Mary read, and enjoyed, a novel by Balzac
acceptable but not congruent :
over informative
c. Mary’s boyfriend read a novel by Balzac
acceptable but not congruent
under informative. Chgt de topic
d. I don’t know
no answer but reply
e. I won’t tell you.
no answer but reply
f. Nice weather today.
Reaction completely off the mark,
or
which
will
induce
conversational
implicature
« It is obvious how to express the condition for congruent question-answer pairs in this
framework : the background of the question and the answer must be the same, and the focus
of the answer must be an element of the background of the question. »
Krifka, 2001,
9.
(16) Criterion for congruent question-answer pair Q-A ,
where [[Q]] = <B,R> and [[A]] = <B’,F> :
B=B’ and F ∈ R
Exemples : deux façons de ne pas bien répondre
(17) a.
Who did Mary see ?
<λx [See (x)(M)], Person>
b.
Mary saw [John]F
<λx [See (x)(M)], J>, where J ∈ Person
c.
*[Mary]F saw John
<λx [See (J)(x)], M>, where M ∈ Person
d.
* Mary saw [La recherche du temps perdu]F.
<λx [See (x)(M)], RTP>, where RTP ∉ Person
• Polarity question vs alternative question
Alternative Semantics is unable to distinguish between polarity question and alternative
question
Polarity question
(20) A : Did Mary read la RTP ?
B : Yes / No
Alternative question
(21) A : Did Mary read la RTP, or didn’t she ?
B : * Yes / * No
B’ : She read it / she didn’t read it
(22)
A : Jean veut-il du thé ou du café ?
B : * Oui / *Non .
B’ : Du thé / Du café
Spécificité des questions alternatives : the question domain is given explicitly by the
disjunctive phrase.
7
Claire Beyssade (27/04/04)
Focus et sém. structurée
(23)
Do you want tea or coffee ?
(Question alternative)
a. Proposition set analysis :
{want(tea)(you), want(coffee)(you)}
b. Structured meaning analysis :
<λx [want(x)(you)], {tea, coffee}>
(24)
Do you want tea or coffee ?
Jackendoff & Krifka
(Question polaire, réponse attendue oui ou non,
schéma accentuel diff)
a. Proposition set analysis :
{[want(tea)(you) ν want(coffee)(you)], ~ [want(tea)(you) ν
want(coffee)(you)]}
b. Structured meaning analysis :
<λf [f[(want(tea)(you)] ν want(coffee)(you)])], {λp[p], λp[~p]}>
(25)
a.
b.
c.
d.
(25’) a.
b.
Est-ce que Marie a lu la recherche du temps perdu ou non ?
Est-ce que Marie a lu la recherche du temps perdu ?
Proposition set analysis :
{Marie a lu la RTP, Marie n’a pas lu la RTP}
Structured meaning
<λp [p], {Read(RTP)(M), ~ Read(RTP)(M)}>
<λf [f[(read(RTP)(M))] , {λp[p], λp[~p]}>
alternative
polaire
Question « all focus ».
λp [p] === Qu’est-ce qui est vrai ? Que peut-on dire ? En général.
• Multiple constituent questions
La sémantique structurée est adéquate pour rendre compte des questions multiples.
• Matching questions : celles qui présupposent une réponse en forme de liste. Accent sur
chaque mot wh-.
(26) a.
Who read what?
b.
Who left when?
c.
Who went when where?
• Conjoined questions : la question présuppose au contraire une seule réponse.
(27) a.
Who left, and when?
b.
Who read something, and what?
• Quiz questions : les questions d’examen, qui sont posées par quelqu’un qui connait la
réponse, sont plus proches des questions conjointes que des matching questions. Elles
interrogent sur une événement.
(28) Quel général français a envahi quel état d’Europe de l’est en quelle année ?
• Questions echo :
(29) A : Esmeralda needs a bandoneon
B : Who needs what?
Constraints on matching questions
(30) a.
They require a list answer.
b.
One of the question constituents is linked to a contextually given set.
They are D-linked. Typically the D-linked phrase is the first constituent.
The semantics for Matching Questions
(31) a. Who read what ?
b. <λ<x,y> [read (y) (x)], person*thing>
Matching questions are answered by one thing, but this thing is a function. They ask for a
mapping procedure, by using the operators FUN and FUN’ ( p. 23) :
(32)
a. <FUN (<λ<x,y> [read (y) (x)]) , FUN’ (person*thing)>
8
Claire Beyssade (27/04/04)
Focus et sém. structurée
Jackendoff & Krifka
b. FUN (<λ<x,y> [read (y) (x)]) = λf∀x [x ∈ Dom(f) → Read (f(x))(x)]
c. FUN’ (person*thing) = l’ensemble des fonctions des personnes vers les choses.
(33)
« What is important for our current purposes is that the constructions of functions
requires a structured meaning framework ; it cannot be expressed in the proposition
set framework. It needs access to the question constituents and the background of the
sentence in order to construct the function that defines the question, and this is
provided by structured meanings but cannot be retrived from proposition sets. »
(Krifka, 2001 : 23)
4. Structured meaning and focus sensitivity adverbs
Cf Krifka (1992a, 1992b).
• Un seul opérateur et deux foci :
(34) a.
John only introduced BILL to SUE
b.
only(< λx•y introd(j,x,y),b•s>)
• Enchassement de foci :
(35) Even1 JOHNF1 drank only2 WATERF2
(36) He even1 [only2 [drank WATER]F2]F1
(37) He even1 only2 drank [WATER]F2,F1
(38) [Most people drank water at some time during yesterday party]
John even1 [ONLY2]F1 drank [WATER]F2
Bibliographie
Bolinger, D. 1965. Forms of English : Accent, Morpheme, Order. I. Abe & T. Kenekiyo (eds).
Cambridge (MA). Harvard University Press.
Chomsky, N., 1971. « Deep structure, surface structure aznd semantics interpretation ». In D.
Steinberg and L. Jacobovits (eds), Semantics, Cambridge University Press, 183-216.
Fisher, S., 1968. « Cleft Sentences and Contrastive Stress, » ms, MIT.
Halliday, M.A.K., 1967. « Notes on transitivity and therme in English, part 2. », Journals of
Linguistics, 3-2, 199-244.
Jackendoff, R., 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press. Chapitre 6 : focus
and presupposition.
Jacobs, Joachim, 1991, “Focus ambiguities”, Journal of Semantics 8. 1-36.
Kadmon, Nirit, 2001, Formal Pragmatics, Blackwell.
Krifka, Manfred, 1992a, "A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions", in
Information Struktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed), Verlag,17-53.
Krifka, Manfred, 1992b, "A framework for Focus-sensitive Quantification", in Proceedings of SALT
II, Barker & Dowty (eds), 215-236.
Krifka, Manfred, 1993, "Focus and Presupposition in a Dynamic Interpretation", Journal of Semantics,
10, 269-300.
Krifka, Manfred, 2001, "For a structured meaning account of questions and answers" (revised
version), in C. Fery & W. Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientia. A Festschrift for Arnim von
Stechow, Akademie Verlag (= studia grammatica 52), Berlin, 287-319.
9