University of the Basque Country gorka.elordieta@ehu.es; aritz.irurtzun@ehu.es
Usual analyses of the semantics of questions à la Hamblin-Karttunen propose that an answer to a wh-question (1b) picks up one proposition of the denotation of the question (1a) (which is the set of propositions obtained by the substitution of the wh-phrase by alternatives that match it in semantic type). This gives the question a complete answer. However, there are other cases where an answer to a wh-question may provide such a proposition but without answering the question fully. E.g., (1a) could be answered as in (1b) but implying that there might be other potential lovers of Paula, for which the speaker has no evidence;
i.e., the open set denoted by the question is not cancelled by the answer. We refer to this type of answers as Non-Exhaustive Narrow Focus (NENF), opposed to Exhaustive Narrow Focus (ENF). We present evidence from French, Spanish and Basque showing that NENF is encoded intonationally. In subject wh-questions, in NENF the subject does not receive main prominence and it is the verb that receives it. Interestingly, these features are also observed in verum focus constructions, where the polarity is the focus of the sentence (cf. the dialogue in (2)).
We designed a production experiment with a series of answers to wh-questions focusing on the subject (cf. (3)-(5) as examples for French, Spanish and Basque).
We instructed the native speakers to produce the answers as ENF and NENF, with the same word order. We also had verum focus constructions (VF) (cf. (6)-(8)), in order to compare their intonational patterns with those of NENF. Three native speakers of each language read eighteen sentences as answers to triggering questions, repeated twice (162 utterances in total). We measured the F0 maximum in the subject and in the verb, the difference in Hz between the two F0 maxima, and peak alignment with the accented syllable. In ENF, the subject has the most prominent accent in the utterance, and the verb has a much smaller peak. In NENF, the subject does not display main prominence, and in Spanish and French it ends in a continuation rise, with peak displacement in Spanish. The verb receives main prosodic prominence, with a much higher peak than in ENF. On the other hand, there were no consistent differences for subject and verb intonation between NENF and VF: the verb (i.e., the polarity) has the most prominent accent, with similar peak heights in VF and NENF, whereas the subject ends in a continuation rise (in Spanish and French and in one Basque speaker) and may show peak delay (in Spanish and in one Basque speaker). Thus, although in NENF the subject responds to a wh-variable, NENF is prosodically similar to VF and different from ENF.
Our analysis of the results is that in NENF, speakers introduce an additional focal feature on the polarity so as to convey the meaning that they cannot provide an exhaustive reference for the variable in the question. In ENF, main prosodic prominence on the constituent K that answers for the variable x conveys the meaning that the pairing of the alternative values raised by the wh-phrase in
31
the question and the alternative values for the polarity (yes, no) is {K, yes}, and {all other alternatives, no}, cf. (9)). In NENF, speakers only commit to asserting that {K, yes}, but not {all other alternatives, no}. Thus, for a question like (1a), in a NENF answer a speaker only asserts that Mary loves Paula (i.e., the Subject- Polarity pair {Mary, yes}), but does not close other pairs (e.g., {John, yes/no}, {Peter, yes/no} (cf. (10)). The value of the polarity of the possible alternatives is thus not resolved, and the polarity of the pair {Mary, yes} is highlighted. In fact, we make the claim that NENF constructions are split foci constructions, having both the subject and the polarity as focal, with the prosody we have summarized above.
Examples
(1) a. Who loves Paula?
{love(x, p) x E} = {[[Mary loves Paula]], [[John loves Paula]], [[Peter loves Paula]], [[Sarah loves Paula]], [[George loves Paula]]...}
b. Mary loves Paula.
[[]]O: {love(m, p)} = [[Mary loves Paula]]
(2) A: - I’m not sure whether Mary loves Paula.
B: - Mary does love Paula.
(3) A: Qui a amené le boudin? ‘Who brought the blood sausage?’
B: Didier l’a amené /Didier a amené le boudin ‘Didier brought it / the blood sausage’
(4) A: ¿Quién devolvió el dinero? ‘Who returned the money?’
B: Valerio lo devolvió /Valerio devolvió el dinero ‘Valerio returned it / the money’
(5) A: Nok eran dau ardaua? ‘Who has drunk the wine?’
B: Nagorek eran dau ardaua ‘Nagore has drunk the wine.
(6) A: Didier disait qu’il allait amener le boudin, mais je ne suis pas trop sûr qu’il l’ait fait...
‘Didier said that he would bring the blood sausage, but I’m not sure he actually did’
B: Didier a amené le boudin. ‘Didier did bring the blood sausage’
(7) A: Valerio dijo que iba a devolver el dinero, pero no sé si lo ha hecho.
‘Valerio said he would return the money, but I don’t know whether he’s done it’
B: Valerio devolvió el dinero. ‘Valerio did return the money’
(8) A: Nagorek ardaua erango ebala esan eban., baiủa ez dakitx eran badau.
‘Nagore said she would bring wine, but I don’t know if she did’
B: Nagorek eran dau ardaua. ‘Nagore has drunk wine’
(9) Subj. Pol.
Mary yes
John
Peter no
…..
(10) Subj. Pol.
Mary yes
John
33
? ?
Peter no
……
Syntax-Prosody Mapping and Topic-Comment Structure in