University

of

Pennsylvania

Walnut

Street

Suite

Philadelphia

PA

January

Site

of

the

NSF

Science

and

Technology

Center

for

Research

in

Cognitive

Science

IRCS

Report

Institute

for

Research

in

Cognitive

Science

Information

Structure

and

the

Syntax-Phonology

Interface

Mark

Steedman

Information

Structure

and

the

Syntax-Phonology

Interface

Mark

Steedman

Draft

June

The

paper

proposes

a

theory

relating

syntax

semantics

and

intonational

prosody

and

covering

a

wide

range

of

English

intonational

tunes

and

their

semantic

interpretation

in

terms

of

focus

and

information

structure

The

theory

is

based

on

a

version

of

combinatory

categorial

grammar

which

directly

pairs

phonological

and

logical

forms

without

intermediary

representational

levels

Introduction

Phrasal

intonation

in

English

is

frequently

orthogonal

to

traditional

notions

of

surface

syntactic

structure

For

example

the

subject

and

transitive

verb

may

form

an

intonational

phrase

at

odds

with

the

traditional

subject-predicate

structure

in

a

simple

transitive

sentence

such

as

the

following

-LRB-

-RRB-

Anna

married

Manny

This

fact

presents

a

problem

for

any

theory

of

grammar

Selkirk

's

proposal

to

incorporate

phrasal

phonology

in

a

then-standard

GB

framework

gives

rise

to

a

theoretical

architecture

that

can

be

summarized

in

the

extension

of

the

traditional

T

or

Y-diagram

shown

in

Figure

-LRB-

cf.

Selkirk

p.

-RRB-

In

addition

to

the

usual

modules

of

the

parent

theory

including

a

level

of

S-structure

mediating

between

Phonetic

Form

-LRB-

PF

-RRB-

and

Logical

Form

-LRB-

LF

-RRB-

this

architecture

postulates

an

autonomous

structural

level

of

Intonational

Structure

which

also

mediates

between

PF

and

LF

The

responsibility

of

S-structure

is

as

usual

to

de?ne

aspects

of

LF

that

relate

to

predicate-argument

relations

The

responsibility

of

Intonation

Parts

of

the

work

were

presented

at

the

ESPRIT

Symposium

on

Natural

Language

and

Speech

Brussels

Nov.

the

conference

N?urnberg

Oct.

the

Ninth

Amsterdam

Colloquium

ILLC

Univ.

of

Amsterdam

December

the

IBM

Conference

on

Focus

Eschwege

June

and

the

International

Symposium

on

Spoken

Dialogue

Philadelphia

October

Thanks

for

comments

and

advice

to

Gann

Bierner

Nick

Campbell

Stephen

Bird

Eva

Hajicova

Mark

Hepple

Julia

Hirschberg

Jack

Hoeksema

Beryl

Hoffman

Trond

Kirkeby-Garstad

Stephen

Isard

Nobo

Komagata

Janet

Pierrehumbert

Krisztina

Polg?ardi

Scott

Prevost

Mats

Rooth

Petr

Sgall

Matthew

Stone

and

Bonnie

Webber

and

to

the

participants

at

those

conferences

The

research

was

supported

in

part

by

NSF

grant

nos

ARPA

grant

no

and

ARO

grant

no

D

R

A

F

T

D-StructureLexicon

S-Structure

LF

Structure

b

-RRB-

Information

Structure

Phonetic

Form

a

-RRB-

Pred.-arg

Structure

Intonation

Figure

Architecture

of

a

GB

Prosody

Structure

is

to

de?ne

those

aspects

of

LF

that

relate

to

discourse

information

structure

that

is

to

relations

such

as

theme

-LRB-

or

topic

-RRB-

rheme

-LRB-

or

comment

-RRB-

and

focus

-LRB-

or

contrast

-RRB-

It

would

be

in

keeping

with

other

recent

developments

in

generative

grammar

to

reduce

the

number

of

modules

in

the

theory

either

by

eliminating

some

of

them

entirely

as

Chomsky

has

proposed

or

-LRB-

equivalently

-RRB-

by

unifying

one

with

another

The

present

paper

shows

how

the

levels

of

S-structure

and

Intonation

Structure

-LRB-

together

with

certain

syntactic

functions

that

have

sometimes

been

relegated

to

the

module

of

Phonetic

Form

in

the

rather

unusual

sense

in

which

that

term

that

has

been

used

in

GB

-RRB-

can

be

collapsed

into

one

surface

syntactic

module

Surface

derivations

are

associated

with

a

compositional

semantics

that

determines

both

information

structural

and

predicate-argument

structural

aspects

of

a

logical

form

The

Claim

On

the

basis

of

evidence

from

coordination

and

other

constructions

involving

unbounded

dependencies

a

number

of

theories

based

on

Categorial

Grammar

-LRB-

CG

-RRB-

including

Combinatory

Categorial

Grammar

-LRB-

CCG

-RRB-

of

the

kind

proposed

in

Steedman

make

the

claim

that

substrings

like

Anna

married

are

possible

surface

syntactic

constituents

of

sentences

According

to

these

theories

even

such

minimal

sentences

as

have

two

possible

surface

structures

plays

a

rather

different

role

in

GB

theory

from

the

one

its

name

might

suggest

It

is

the

locus

of

a

number

of

syntactic

processes

including

some

associated

with

coordination

It

is

referred

to

on

occasion

by

Chomsky

-LRB-

-RRB-

as

Surface

Structure

a

name

which

is

more

in

keeping

with

its

actual

role

provides

a

useful

review

of

theories

by

Ades

Steedman

Bach

Dowty

Steedman

Oehrle

Hepple

Jacobson

and

Szabolcsi

among

others

although

of

these

authors

other

than

the

present

one

should

be

assumed

to

endorse

all

the

assumptions

of

the

version

that

is

outlined

here

-RRB-

The

present

proposal

is

more

distantly

related

to

a

number

of

other

generalizations

of

the

early

categorial

systems

of

Ajdukiewicz

Bar-Hillel

Lambek

Geach

Lewis

Montague

van

Benthem

Cresswell

and

von

Stechow

to

many

of

which

the

conclusions

of

this

paper

also

apply

In

particular

Oehrle

Moortgat

and

Morrill

explicitly

relate

Lambek-style

categorial

grammars

to

prosody

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

-LRB-

-RRB-

a.

Anna

married

Manny

b.

Anna

married

Manny

More

complex

sentences

like

Harry

says

that

Anna

married

Manny

may

have

many

surface

structures

for

each

reading

To

y

in

the

face

of

received

linguistic

wisdom

to

the

extent

of

questioning

traditional

assumptions

concerning

the

most

super?cial

level

of

syntactic

structure

may

seem

absurd

However

it

is

a

curious

fact

that

all

of

the

traditional

tests

for

surface

constituency

are

either

incomplete

-LRB-

as

are

the

criteria

of

representation

in

the

lexicon

and

susceptibility

to

movement

-RRB-

or

can

be

interpreted

as

offering

positive

support

for

a

more

general

notion

of

constituency

-LRB-

as

can

a

third

criterion

susceptibility

to

coordination

-RRB-

I

will

argue

that

most

traditional

tests

for

constituency

are

expressions

of

ill-de

ned

intuitions

about

a

level

of

meaning

related

to

traditional

underlying

structure

or

meaning

relations

rather

than

constituting

empirical

evidence

concerning

syntactic

form

a

confusion

which

Chomsky

-LRB-

Ch

passim

-RRB-

has

repeatedly

warned

against

It

is

important

in

assessing

this

claim

to

know

that

the

multiple

derivations

engendered

by

CCG

deliver

identical

interpretations

which

can

conveniently

be

represented

as

predicateargument

structures

or

logical

forms

-LRB-

in

the

logicians

sense

of

that

term

-RRB-

Such

structures

preserve

traditional

dominance

and

command

relations

including

relations

of

binding

and

control

All

such

bounded

relations

are

assumed

to

be

de?ned

via

interpretations

in

the

lexicon?a

position

that

seems

implicit

in

recent

work

by

Hale

and

Keyser

Such

relations

are

automatically

projected

onto

the

unorthodox

structures

of

CCG

by

the

rules

of

derivation

It

is

therefore

at

the

level

of

logical

form

rather

than

that

of

derivation

or

surface

structure

that

the

equivalent

of

c-command

must

be

de?ned

in

a

CCG

-LRB-

see

Steedman

and

below

-RRB-

In

earlier

work

I

have

tried

to

show

that

the

intonational

structure

of

English

essentially

as

described

by

Pierrehumbert

Selkirk

and

others

is

directly

subsumed

by

surface

syntactic

structure

as

it

is

viewed

in

CCG

-LRB-

Steedman

-RRB-

The

interpretations

which

the

grammar

assigns

compositionally

to

these

non-standard

surface

derivations

directly

correspond

to

information

structure

in

Selkirk

's

sense

of

the

term

The

present

paper

presents

a

new

version

of

this

theory

covering

a

wider

inventory

of

prosodic

tunes

and

information

categories

building

on

work

by

Scott

Prevost

-LRB-

Prevost

and

Steedman

Prevost

-RRB-

and

by

Kirkeby-Garstad

and

Polgardi

The

claim

is

that

surface

structure

and

information

structure

entirely

coincide

the

latter

being

simply

the

interpretation

of

the

former

Intonation

in

turn

coincides

with

surface

structure

-LRB-

and

hence

information

structure

-RRB-

to

the

extent

that

all

intonational

boundaries

coincide

with

syntactic

boundaries

a

position

which

is

to

some

extent

implicit

in

more

recent

work

by

Selkirk

-LRB-

cf.

p.

-RRB-

Of

course

the

reverse

does

not

follow

Not

all

surface

syntactic

boundaries

are

explicitly

marked

by

intonational

boundaries

Pierrehumbert

at

least

has

argued

that

intonational

tunes

constitute

a

language

of

tone-sequences

that

is

merely

nite-state

Even

in

English

the

majority

D

R

A

F

T

of

information

structural

boundaries

go

unmarked

by

prosody

There

is

no

contradiction

here

information

structure

has

to

be

inferred

from

the

partial

speci?cation

implicit

in

the

tones

in

exactly

the

same

sense

that

syntactic

structure

has

to

be

inferred

from

the

sequence

of

words

Intonation

and

Information

Structure

The

theory

proposed

below

is

compatible

with

any

of

the

standard

descriptive

accounts

of

phrasal

intonation

However

Pierrehumbert

's

notation

as

modi?ed

in

more

recent

work

by

Selkirk

Pierrehumbert

and

Beckman

and

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

is

particularly

helpful

in

de?ning

intonational

tunes

entirely

in

terms

of

two

components

the

pitch

accent

-LRB-

s

-RRB-

and

the

boundary

The

rst

of

these

tones

are

realised

as

maxima

or

minima

in

the

pitch

contour

and

coincide

with

the

perceived

major

stress

or

stresses

of

the

prosodic

phrase

while

the

second

marks

the

righthand

boundary

of

the

phrase

These

two

components

are

essentially

invariant

and

all

other

parts

of

the

pitch

contour

can

be

determined

by

interpolation

The

advantage

for

present

purposes

is

to

capture

formally

the

fact

that

the

same

tune

can

be

spread

over

longer

or

shorter

strings

in

order

to

mark

the

corresponding

constituents

for

the

particular

distinction

of

discourse

information-type

and/or

propositional

attitude

that

the

melody

denotes

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

provide

a

helpful

introduction

to

this

notation

Consider

the

prosody

of

the

sentence

Mary

likes

musicals

in

the

following

pair

of

discourse

settings

adapted

from

Jackendoff

pp.

and

the

earlier

papers

To

aid

the

exposition

words

bearing

nuclear

pitch

accents

are

printed

in

capitals

and

prosodic

phrase

boundaries

are

explicitly

marked

in

the

sentences

using

brackets

-LRB-

These

devices

are

not

part

of

the

formal

notation

-RRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

Q

Well

what

about

MUSICALS

Who

likes

THEM

A

-LRB-

MARY

-RRB-

-LRB-

likes

MUSICALS

-RRB-

H

L

L+H

LH

-LRB-

-RRB-

Q

Well

what

about

MARY

What

does

SHE

like

A

-LRB-

MARY

likes

-RRB-

-LRB-

MUSICALS

-RRB-

L+H

LH

H

LL

In

these

contexts

the

main

stressed

syllables

on

both

Mary

and

musicals

may

receive

a

pitch

accent

but

a

different

one

In

the

answer

A

of

the

former

example

there

is

a

prosodic

phrase

on

Mary

made

up

of

the

sharply

rising

pitch

accent

which

Pierrehumbert

calls

H

immediately

followed

by

an

L

boundary

perceived

as

a

rapid

fall

to

low

pitch

There

is

another

prosodic

phrase

having

the

somewhat

less

rapidly

rising

pitch-accent

called

L+H

on

musicals

preceded

by

tone

-LRB-

and

therefore

interpolated

low

pitch

-RRB-

on

the

word

likes

and

immediately

followed

by

a

rising

continuation

boundary

written

LH

-LRB-

See

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

's

ex

discussion

of

a

similar

example

-RRB-

In

the

answer

A

of

the

second

example

above

the

speci?cally

the

reason

that

English

intonational

tunes

can

be

viewed

as

a

regular

language

has

to

do

with

the

fact

that

English

is

in

the

terms

of

Selkirk

a

right

end

parameter

language

which

marks

the

right

hand

end

of

structural

units

but

not

the

left

hand

end

That

is

to

say

that

the

structures

underlying

intonational

tunes

are

at

least

context-free

and

there

is

only

weak

equivalence

to

a

regular

language

over

the

tones

the

moment

the

distinction

between

the

intonational

phrase

proper

and

what

Pierrehumbert

and

her

colleagues

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

two

tunes

are

reversed

this

time

the

tune

with

pitch

accent

L+H

and

boundary

LH

is

spread

across

a

prosodic

phrase

Mary

likes

while

the

other

tune

with

pitch

accent

H

and

boundary

LL

is

carried

by

the

prosodic

phrase

musicals

The

intuition

that

there

is

some

systematic

distinction

in

meaning

between

these

tunes

seems

to

be

very

compelling

though

it

has

in

the

past

proved

hard

to

formalize

The

tunes

have

variously

been

associated

with

social

attitude

-LRB-

O'Connor

and

Arnold

Merin

-RRB-

illocutionary

acts

-LRB-

Liberman

and

Sag

Sag

and

Liberman

Liberman

-RRB-

propositional

attitudes

-LRB-

Ward

and

Hirschberg

-RRB-

maintenance

of

mutual

belief

-LRB-

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

-RRB-

and

information

structure

-LRB-

Halliday

Jackendoff

Ladd

Gussenhoven

Selkirk

Rochemont

Steedman

-RRB-

The

present

paper

concentrates

on

certain

aspects

of

intonation

that

are

primarily

to

do

with

information

structure

in

the

sense

of

that

term

proposed

by

Vallduvi

and

Steedman

although

these

proposals

differ

in

detail?see

Vallduvi

and

Engdahl

for

a

survey

These

theories

follow

Halliday

in

assuming

that

there

are

two

independent

dimensions

to

information

structure

that

are

relevant

to

intonation

The

rst

corresponds

to

the

traditional

contrast

between

the

theme

or

topic

of

an

utterance

and

the

rheme

or

comment

that

the

utterance

makes

about

the

theme

In

English

we

will

see

that

this

dimension

of

information

structure

determines

the

overall

shape

of

the

intonational

tune

or

tunes

imposed

upon

an

utterance

The

second

dimension

is

one

of

focus

In

English

this

dimension

is

re?ected

in

the

position

of

pitch

accents

The

presence

of

a

pitch

accent

of

any

shape

is

generally

agreed

to

assign

salience

or

contrast

independently

of

the

shape

or

contour

of

the

pitch-accent

or

overall

phrasal

melody

-LRB-

see

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

-RRB-

This

section

of

the

paper

considers

these

two

dimensions

and

their

place

in

a

grammar

for

the

full

range

of

tunes

identi?ed

by

Pierrehumbert

Theme

and

Rheme

The

L+H

LH

tune

seems

-LRB-

at

least

in

the

contexts

discussed

so

far

-RRB-

to

bear

a

close

relation

to

the

traditional

notion

of

topic

which

in

order

to

avoid

confusion

with

a

number

of

other

uses

of

that

term

I

will

refer

as

the

theme

of

an

utterance

This

choice

of

term

is

merely

chosen

to

be

mnemonic

of

the

fact

that

when

this

tune

is

present

it

seems

to

mark

some

or

all

of

that

part

of

the

sentence

corresponding

in

some

sense

to

what

the

speaker

believes

to

be

the

matter

of

mutual

interest

that

the

utterance

bears

upon

I

do

not

assume

any

prior

de?nition

of

the

term

which

will

be

de?ned

more

formally

below

in

terms

of

both

the

structured

meanings

approach

of

Cresswell

and

others

and

the

alternatives

semantics

of

Rooth

and

others

The

H

L

and

H

LL

tunes

in

contrast

seem

to

be

used

to

mark

some

or

all

of

that

part

of

the

sentence

expressing

information

that

the

speaker

believes

to

be

what

the

hearer

needs

to

know

about

the

theme

or

matter

of

mutual

interest

This

notion

corresponds

to

that

of

comment

call

the

intermediate

phrase

is

ignored

These

categories

differ

in

respect

of

boundary

tone-sequences

reason

for

notating

the

latter

boundary

as

LL

rather

than

L

is

again

to

do

with

the

distinction

between

intonational

and

intermediate

phrases

Steedman

p.

and

p.

The

terms

theme

and

rheme

are

taken

from

Halliday

although

I

follow

Lyons

and

Bolinger

in

dropping

Halliday

's

requirement

that

the

theme

be

utterance-initial

In

fact

we

leave

open

the

possibility

that

an

utterance

might

involve

more

than

one

theme

D

R

A

F

T

or

rheme

of

an

utterance

Again

no

prior

de?nition

of

the

term

is

assumed

and

a

formal

de?nition

is

provided

below

Jackendoff

seems

to

have

been

the

rst

to

suggest

that

themes

in

utterances

like

should

be

characterized

semantically

via

functional

abstraction

using

the

notation

of

the

l-calculus

as

in

the

following

example

-LRB-

-RRB-

lx

The

variable-binding

operator

l

in

such

expressions

identi?es

a

variable

-LRB-

here

x

-RRB-

by

means

of

which

a

value

may

be

substituted

into

the

expression

to

the

right

of

the

dot

It

thus

de?nes

a

function

or

concept

mapping

individual

arguments

onto

propositions

concerning

Mary

's

liking

them

When

the

above

concept

is

supplied

with

an

argument

in

the

form

of

the

rheme

it

therefore

reduces

to

give

a

proposition

with

the

same

predicate-argument

relations

as

the

canonical

sentence

-LRB-

-RRB-

As

in

the

related

structured

meanings

approach

to

the

notion

of

presupposition

of

Cresswell

and

others

it

is

the

presence

in

the

context

of

the

abstract

proposition

in

that

makes

the

intonation

contour

in

felicitous

In

the

case

of

this

example

it

is

clear

that

this

abstract

proposition

is

explicitly

introduced

into

the

context

by

the

wh-question

Q

In

fact

we

will

see

later

that

it

gets

there

by

virtue

of

itself

constituting

the

rheme

of

that

question

That

is

not

to

say

that

the

question

uniquely

determines

this

response

nor

that

its

explicit

mention

is

necessary

for

interpreting

the

response

-LRB-

We

will

see

that

themes

can

also

in

the

absence

of

con?icting

information

be

accommodated

or

taken

on

board

by

the

hearer

-RRB-

But

the

effect

is

a

strong

one

exchanging

the

answers

to

the

questions

in

examples

and

yields

complete

incoherence

The

l-abstraction

operator

is

closely

related

to

the

existential

quanti?er

It

is

therefore

also

natural

to

associate

the

notion

of

theme

with

a

set

of

propositions

among

those

supported

by

the

conversational

context

which

could

possibly

instantiate

the

corresponding

existentially

quanti?ed

proposition

In

the

case

of

the

exchange

in

the

existential

in

question

is

the

following

in

which

indicates

possibility

-LRB-

-RRB-

The

propositions

that

instantiate

the

existential

might

in

a

particular

context

of

utterance

be

a

set

like

the

following

-LRB-

-RRB-

-LRB-

I

am

simplifying

by

assuming

that

these

propositions

are

represented

as

predicate-argument

structures

rather

than

something

more

extensional

because

the

way

such

a

set

is

obtained

need

of

terms

A

B

indicates

the

application

of

a

function

A

to

an

argument

B

and

application

associates

to

the

left

that

is

the

formula

is

equivalent

to

-LRB-

-RRB-

Primes

indicate

constants

denoting

semantic

interpretations

whose

detailed

nature

is

of

no

direct

concern

here

abstractions

are

also

related

to

Sperber

and

Wilson

and

Prince

have

called

the

open

proposition

of

an

utterance

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

not

concern

us

here

-RRB-

This

set

of

propositions

is

closely

related

to

Karttunen

and

Peters

secondary

denotation

and

to

the

related

notion

of

alternatives

set

in

the

Alternatives

Semantics

of

Rooth

and

Kratzer

which

these

authors

used

to

determine

the

entailments

of

utterances

including

those

associated

with

presuppositions

and

focusing

particles

and

to

the

related

analysis

of

German

intonational

meaning

of

B?uring

In

semantic

terms

theme

and

rheme

can

therefore

be

de?ned

as

follows

-LRB-

-RRB-

The

Theme

refers

to

the

alternatives

set

associated

with

the

utterance

The

Rheme

restricts

the

alternatives

set

The

sense

in

which

the

theme

refers

is

much

the

same

as

that

in

which

a

de?nite

expression

refers

to

its

referent

That

is

to

say

that

there

is

a

pragmatic

presupposition

that

the

relevant

alternatives

set

is

available

in

the

context

The

presupposition

may

in

the

sense

of

Lewis

be

accommodated

or

added

after

the

fact

to

a

context

that

is

consistent

with

it

Of

course

such

amboyantly

informative

intonation

contours

as

those

in

and

are

the

exception

It

is

only

appropriate

to

mark

the

theme

with

an

L+H

pitch

accent

when

it

stands

in

contrast

to

a

different

earlier

theme

If

the

alternatives

set

to

which

a

theme

refers

is

unambiguously

established

in

the

context

it

is

common

to

nd

that

the

theme

is

deaccented

throughout?in

Pierrehumbert

's

terms

without

any

pitch

accent

or

-LRB-

if

it

is

utterance-initial

-RRB-

any

boundary

as

in

the

following

exchange

-LRB-

-RRB-

Q

What

does

Mary

like

A

-LRB-

Mary

likes

-RRB-

-LRB-

MUSICALS

-RRB-

H

LL

We

would

be

missing

an

important

semantic

generalization

if

we

failed

to

note

that

examples

and

are

identical

in

information

structure

as

far

as

the

theme-rheme

division

goes

We

will

therefore

need

to

distinguish

the

marked

theme

in

the

former

from

the

unmarked

theme

in

the

latter

Unmarked

intonation

unlike

the

marked

variety

is

always

ambiguous

as

to

information

structure

In

the

following

context

the

same

contour

will

have

the

information

structure

of

-LRB-

-RRB-

Q

What

do

you

know

about

Mary

A

-LRB-

Mary

-RRB-

-LRB-

likes

MUSICALS

-RRB-

H

LL

The

context-establishing

questions

in

the

earlier

examples

and

can

also

be

analysed

in

terms

of

a

theme

and

a

rheme

As

Prevost

points

out

a

wh-item

such

as

What

or

Which

sort

of

music

in

a

wh-question

establishes

a

theme

albeit

a

rather

unspeci?c

one

associated

with

a

set

of

propositions

concerning

things

or

sorts

of

music

-LRB-

Usually

such

themes

are

prosodically

unmarked

but

they

may

also

bear

the

marked

L+H

LH

theme

tune

-RRB-

The

remainder

of

the

whquestion

which

typically

bears

the

H

LL

rheme

tune

restricts

this

set

to

propositions

relating

to

one

particular

predication

such

as

lx

It

is

this

set

which

in

turn

becomes

the

set

of

alternatives

associated

with

the

theme

in

the

answer

D

R

A

F

T

Focus

and

Background

The

position

of

the

pitch

accent

-LRB-

s

-RRB-

in

the

phrase

has

to

do

with

a

further

dimension

of

information

structure

within

both

theme

and

rheme

corresponding

to

a

distinction

between

the

informative

or

contrastive

part

-LRB-

s

-RRB-

of

either

information

unit

and

the

rest

-LRB-

In

the

case

of

the

unmarked

themes

just

discussed

the

absence

of

a

pitch

accent

means

that

the

theme

does

not

contrast

with

any

earlier

one

-RRB-

Halliday

who

was

probably

the

rst

to

identify

the

orthogonal

nature

of

these

two

dimensions

called

it

new

information

in

contrast

to

given

information

-LRB-

cf.

Brown

-RRB-

The

term

new

is

not

entirely

helpful

since

-LRB-

as

Halliday

was

aware

-RRB-

the

relevant

part

of

the

theme

need

not

be

novel

to

the

discourse

as

is

the

case

for

the

examples

to

hand

I

will

follow

the

phonological

literature

and

Prevost

in

calling

the

information

marked

by

the

pitch

accent

the

focus

distinguishing

theme-focus

and

rheme-focus

where

necessary

and

use

the

term

background

for

the

part

unmarked

by

pitch-accent

or

boundary

Again

there

are

a

number

of

other

taxonomies

with

most

of

which

the

present

proposal

is

fairly

straightforwardly

compatible

The

following

example

serves

to

illustrate

the

full

range

of

possibilities

for

the

distribution

of

focus

and

background

within

the

theme

and

the

rheme

-LRB-

-RRB-

Q

I

know

that

Mary

envies

the

man

who

wrote

the

musical

But

who

does

she

LIKE

A

-LRB-

Mary

LIKES

-RRB-

-LRB-

the

woman

who

DIRECTED

the

musical

-RRB-

-LCB-

z

-RCB-

L+H

LH

-LCB-

z

-RCB-

-LCB-

z

-RCB-

H

-LCB-

z

-RCB-

LL

-LCB-

z

-RCB-

Background

Focus

-LCB-

z

-RCB-

Background

Focus

Background

-LCB-

z

-RCB-

Theme

Rheme

Here

the

theme

is

something

that

I

will

call

Mary

likes

as

an

informal

shorthand

referring

to

the

translation

of

that

part

of

the

utterance

as

the

abstract

proposition

lx

Only

the

word

likes

is

emphasized

because

the

previous

theme

was

also

about

Mary

The

alternatives

set

is

therefore

a

set

of

propositions

about

Mary

liking

various

people

The

rheme

is

the

woman

who

directed

the

musical

where

only

the

word

directed

is

contrasted

It

is

important

to

note

that

it

is

all

and

only

the

material

marked

by

the

pitch

accent

-LRB-

s

-RRB-

that

is

constrasted

This

applies

when

there

is

more

than

one

pitch

accent

as

can

be

veri?ed

by

observing

the

effect

of

adding

a

further

pitch

accent

on

the

word

musical

Anything

not

so

marked

including

the

material

between

the

pitch

accent

-LRB-

s

-RRB-

and

the

boundary

is

background

Examples

like

this

suggest

that

the

focusing

property

of

pitch

accents

applies

at

the

level

of

words

and

their

interpretations

not

at

the

level

of

larger

constituents

unlike

the

theme/rheme

is

important

to

know

that

the

term

focus

is

used

in

the

literature

in

several

con?icting

ways

The

present

use

is

common

among

phonologists

who

use

it

simply

to

denote

the

material

marked

by

the

pitch

accent

-LRB-

s

-RRB-

This

usage

is

not

the

same

as

that

of

Grosz

and

Sidner

who

use

it

to

denote

something

like

topic

or

theme

in

present

terms

Nor

is

it

to

be

confused

with

the

usage

of

other

authors

such

as

Chomsky

Jackendoff

Gussenhoven

Haji?cov?a

and

Sgall

and

Vallduvi

who

in

different

ways

con?ne

the

use

of

the

term

focus

to

the

rheme

Still

other

authors

notably

Selkirk

Rooth

Jacobs

and

Krifka

invoke

two

levels

of

focus

using

the

term

to

cover

both

comment/rheme

and

phonological

focus

In

the

present

paper

the

term

focus

is

only

used

in

the

narrow

phonological

sense

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

distinction

However

there

is

an

asymmetry

between

the

prenuclear

background

material

the

woman

who

that

precedes

the

pitch

accent

on

directed

and

that

which

succeeds

it

-LRB-

the

musical

-RRB-

The

fact

that

there

is

no

pitch

accent

on

the

latter

seems

to

demand

that

all

individuals

in

the

context

have

the

property

of

having

something

to

do

with

this

particular

musical

It

would

actually

be

wrong

in

this

context

to

have

a

pitch

accent

However

the

lack

of

accent

on

the

former

does

not

seem

similarly

to

demand

that

all

the

individuals

that

we

are

restricting

over

are

women

and

in

fact

in

the

example

they

are

not

The

implication

is

that

in

this

context

the

property

of

directing

the

musical

is

suf?cient

to

distinguish

the

individual

uniquely?the

fact

that

this

individual

is

also

unique

by

virtue

of

being

a

woman

need

not

be

marked

In

the

light

of

these

observations

we

can

extend

the

account

of

the

semantics

of

theme

and

rheme

sketched

earlier

as

follows

The

signi?cance

of

the

presence

or

absence

of

pitch

accents

within

a

theme

like

MARY

likes

in

the

initial

example

seems

to

lie

in

the

existence

or

accommodatability

of

a

prior

theme

identical

to

the

new

one

except

for

the

replacement

in

its

translation

of

elements

corresponding

to

accented

items

like

MARY

by

variables

compatible

with

other

items

-LRB-

If

the

theme

is

unmarked

lacking

any

pitch

accents

as

in

certain

common

cases

discussed

below

then

the

pre-existing

or

accommodatable

theme

must

be

identical

to

the

new

one

-RRB-

We

might

therefore

mark

the

presence

of

pitch

accents

in

the

translation

itself

distinguishing

the

corresponding

constant

with

an

asterisk

-LRB-

-RRB-

lx

-LRB-

Of

course

the

idea

that

the

only

semantic

contribution

of

the

various

pitch

accents

is

a

single

undifferentiated

marking

of

focus

or

contrast

is

an

oversimpli?cation

to

which

we

will

return

in

section

-RRB-

Unless

a

compatible

prior

theme?that

is

one

which

will

unify

with

the

above

expression

when

is

replaced

by

a

variable?can

be

retrieved

or

accommodated

the

utterance

is

simply

infelicitous

and

the

analysis

will

fail

at

this

point

In

the

absence

of

such

infelicity

the

old

theme

is

then

removed

from

the

context

and

the

new

theme

is

added

in

a

process

that

I

will

refer

to

as

update

The

effect

of

the

update

is

much

like

that

of

Jacobs

-LRB-

-RRB-

and

Krifka

's

-LRB-

p.

-RRB-

ASSERT

operation

over

structured

meanings

The

new

theme

can

also

be

used

as

before

to

generate

the

related

alternatives

set

The

Generalization

to

Other

Intonational

Tunes

The

claim

that

the

L+H

LH

tune

marks

the

theme

is

implicit

in

the

accounts

of

Jackendoff

Ladd

and

others

but

it

remains

controversial

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

propose

a

compositional

semantics

for

intonational

tunes

that

is

based

on

scalar

dimensions

of

propositional

attitude

such

as

certainty

concerning

relevance

and

degree

of

commitment

to

belief

revision

-LRB-

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

-RRB-

According

to

their

account

the

L+H

difference

between

pre

and

post

nuclear

material

is

underlined

by

the

fact

that

it

is

also

possible

to

have

an

H

pitch

accent

on

woman

in

this

example?unlike

musical

Veltman

Heim

Landman

Groenendijk

and

Stokhof

and

Steedman

for

discussion

of

various

dynamic

logics

which

can

be

used

to

formalize

the

notion

of

updates

and

side-effects

D

R

A

F

T

pitch

accent

is

used

to

convey

that

the

accented

item

and

not

some

alternative

related

item

should

be

mutually

believed

-LRB-

p.

-RRB-

As

an

example

they

discuss

the

following

dialogue

adapted

from

Jackendoff

p.

and

also

discussed

by

Ladd

and

Steedman

which

is

isomorphic

to

example

above

-LRB-

-RRB-

Q

What

about

the

beans

Who

ate

THEM

A

FRED

ate

the

BEANS

H

L

L+H

LH

In

support

of

their

claim

that

the

L+H

pitch

accent

evokes

a

set

of

alternatives

besides

the

accented

item

they

correctly

observe

that

the

utterance

implicates

the

possibility

that

other

people

may

have

eaten

other

things

However

this

particular

alternatives

set

has

already

been

introduced

into

the

context

by

the

question

and

in

the

absence

of

such

a

question

-LRB-

or

some

other

utterance

establishing

a

context

that

supports

or

can

accommodate

this

theme

-RRB-

the

intonation

contour

is

inappropriate

The

example

therefore

does

not

exclude

the

possibility

that

the

L+H

LH

tune

evokes

this

set

of

alternatives

by

marking

a

part

of

the

theme

in

the

sense

de?ned

here

The

following

minimal

pair

of

dialogues

will

be

helpful

in

deciding

between

these

claims

since

it

appears

at

rst

glance

to

raise

problems

for

both

-LRB-

-RRB-

Q

Does

Mary

love

opera

A

Mary

likes

MUSICALS

H

LL

-LRB-

-RRB-

Q

Does

Mary

love

opera

A

Mary

likes

MUSICALS

L+H

LH

In

both

cases

the

initial

question

can

be

assumed

to

establish

a

set

of

alternatives

containing

the

proposition

in

question

and

its

negation

and

in

both

cases

the

answer

concerns

a

proposition

that

is

not

among

those

alternatives

In

the

rst

example

the

entire

response

is

marked

with

the

H

LL

tune

that

I

have

identi?ed

as

marking

the

rheme

Depending

on

the

context

the

speaker

may

thereby

be

committed

by

the

usual

Gricean

principles

to

a

number

of

conversational

implicatures

For

example

if

liking

musicals

entails

hating

opera

then

this

response

implicates

denial

If

on

the

other

hand

liking

musicals

entails

loving

opera

then

af?rmation

is

implicated

Either

way

the

speaker

's

intonation

only

commits

them

to

the

claim

that

their

utterance

is

a

rheme?that

is

that

it

restricts

the

set

of

alternatives

established

by

the

question

to

just

one?rather

than

to

a

particular

change

in

belief

The

second

example

is

of

a

kind

discussed

by

Jackendoff

Liberman

and

Sag

and

Ladd

and

might

appear

at

rst

glance

to

be

almost

equivalent

In

particular

the

possibilities

for

conversational

implicature

whether

of

af?rmation

or

denial

seem

identical

There

is

a

temptation

to

believe

that

the

L+H

LH

tune

in

this

case

might

mark

a

rheme

rather

than

a

theme

differing

from

the

standard

H

LL

rheme-tune

in

terms

of

the

degree

of

conviction

or

commitment

to

whether

it

does

in

fact

restrict

the

set

of

alternatives

suf?ciently

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

However

it

is

also

possible

to

believe

that

the

entire

answer

A

in

example

is

in

fact

a

theme

and

that

what

the

respondent

has

actually

done

is

to

offer

a

new

theme

or

set

of

alternatives

replacing

the

one

established

by

the

question

without

stating

a

rheme

at

all

On

this

view

the

lack

of

commitment

to

whether

the

utterance

restricts

the

alternatives

is

explained

since

that

is

exactly

what

a

theme

does

not

do

It

is

also

likely

among

other

possibilities

that

the

effect

of

not

taking

responsibility

for

a

rheme

in

this

utterance

will

be

that

of

conversationally

implicating

a

lack

of

con?dence

in

either

the

relevance

of

the

theme

or

the

certainty

of

the

inference

that

might

be

drawn

But

that

would

not

be

a

matter

of

literal

or

conventional

meaning

of

the

utterance

itself

This

is

essentially

the

analysis

proposed

by

Ladd

who

relates

all

uses

of

fallrise

contours

including

this

one

to

the

function

of

evoking

a

set

of

alternatives

established

by

the

preceding

context?a

notion

which

I

have

identi?ed

with

the

notion

of

theme

and

which

I

have

interpreted

above

in

terms

of

the

alternatives

semantics

of

Karttunen

and

Peters

and

Rooth

It

is

also

consistent

with

the

related

analysis

of

intonational

tunes

by

B?uring

p.

In

the

case

of

the

answer

A

in

the

new

theme

is

simply

the

following

-LRB-

-RRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

The

corresponding

alternatives

set

is

therefore

a

singleton

-LRB-

-RRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

Since

this

set

contains

only

one

member

it

also

entails

an

answer

to

the

question?but

that

is

a

matter

of

implicature

rather

than

what

has

actually

been

said

Example

is

closely

related

to

an

example

discussed

by

Ward

and

Hirschberg

who

notate

it

with

an

L

H

pitch

accent

-LRB-

which

Ladd

subsumes

under

fall-rise

and

does

not

distinguish

from

L+H

LH

-RRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

A

Harry

's

such

a

klutz

B

He

's

a

good

BADMINTON

player

L

H

LH

-LRB-

See

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

p.

ex

Prince

-RRB-

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

describe

the

L

H

LH

tune

in

this

example

as

expressing

uncertainty

about

whether

being

a

good

badminton

player

provides

relevant

information

about

degrees

of

clumsiness

However

it

is

also

unclear

that

degree

of

clumsiness

is

at

issue

in

this

example

rather

than

the

all-or-none

property

of

clumsiness

Ward

and

Hirschberg

's

example

is

also

consistent

with

an

implicature

along

the

same

lines

as

in

which

B

's

response

acts

as

a

theme

establishing

a

set

of

alternatives

such

as

the

following

the

single

member

of

which

entails

denial

-LRB-

-RRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

Under

this

analysis

any

implicature

of

uncertainty

about

the

relevance

of

the

information

would

result

from

the

fact

that

for

reasons

of

indirection

the

speaker

has

left

the

rheme

unsaid

rather

than

from

literal

or

conventional

meaning

D

R

A

F

T

The

L+H

and

L

H

pitch

accents

are

hard

to

tell

apart

both

subjectively

and

instrumentally?although

Pierrehumbert

Steele

provide

evidence

that

the

distinction

is

categorical

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

note

that

their

discourse

functions

are

closely

related

and

it

seems

quite

possible

to

produce

an

utterance

equivalent

to

example

using

L+H

-LRB-

-RRB-

A

Harry

is

such

a

klutz

B

He

's

a

good

BADMINTON

player

L+H

LH

Any

difference

from

seems

to

lie

in

the

fact

that

L

H

is

only

compatible

with

an

illocutionary

act

involving

contradiction

whereas

L+H

is

neutral

in

this

respect

For

this

reason

L

H

does

not

seem

to

be

possible

in

answers

to

questions

like

and

Nevertheless

it

does

seem

to

be

possible

as

a

theme

marker

in

closely

related

utterances

where

contradiction

is

involved

-LRB-

-RRB-

A

I

ca

n't

believe

you

ate

the

whole

thing

B

FRED

ate

MOST

of

it

H

L

L

H

LH

Examples

like

the

following

as

well

as

numerous

examples

cited

by

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

suggest

that

the

H

accent

yields

a

rhem

not

only

in

combination

with

LL

but

also

with

an

LH

boundary

Similarly

an

L+H

accent

can

combine

with

LL

as

well

as

LH

to

yield

a

theme

Consider

a

conversation

between

two

parties

one

of

whom

-LRB-

B

-RRB-

is

seeking

a

phone

number

which

the

other

-LRB-

A

-RRB-

is

reluctant

to

give

-LRB-

-RRB-

A

C

does

n't

want

you

to

call

her

B

You

do

n't

understand

SHE

'S

calling

ME

L+H

LH

H

LL

A

SHE

'S

calling

YOU

L+H

L

H

LH

The

theme

of

B

's

utterance

is

C

and

the

pronoun

that

is

used

to

refer

to

her

gets

a

pitch

accent

because

she

stands

in

contrast

to

the

other

contextual

agent

B

himself

The

rheme

of

B

's

utterance

is

calling

B

in

which

calling

is

background

and

me

gets

a

pitch

accent

because

it

is

in

contrast

to

the

other

contextual

callee

C

This

gives

rise

to

a

standard

theme-rheme

declarative

tune

L+H

H

LL

However

A

has

reason

to

doubt

this

claim

and

expresses

the

doubt

with

an

echo

question

which

has

the

same

pitch

accents

and

the

same

theme

and

rheme

but

in

which

the

boundary

types

are

reversed

-LRB-

A

medial

L

boundary

is

also

possible

in

B

's

version

-RRB-

Such

examples

suggest

a

way

to

distinguish

the

contribution

of

the

boundary

from

that

of

the

pitch

accent

A

further

example

of

the

H

LH

tune

from

this

last

utterance

which

is

afforded

by

the

following

example

adapted

from

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

is

relevant

-LRB-

-RRB-

Your

LUNCH

is

ready

H

LH

This

utterance

is

not

a

question

but

a

statement

so

the

contribution

of

the

LH

boundary

can

not

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

be

merely

to

mark

question

illocution

Nor

does

it

mark

ceding

the

turn

to

the

other

speaker

since

examples

like

the

following

-LRB-

again

adapted

from

Pierehumbert

and

Hirschberg

section

-RRB-

can

be

uttered

with

LH

boundaries

at

the

end

of

every

sentence

except

the

last

-LRB-

-RRB-

Attach

the

jumper

cables

to

the

car

that

's

running.LH

Attach

them

to

the

car

you

want

to

start.LH

Try

the

ignition.LH

If

you

're

lucky

LH

You

've

started

your

car.LL

All

of

the

uses

that

we

have

encountered

here

including

the

use

in

questions

and

in

monologue

are

consistent

with

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

's

claim

-LRB-

-RRB-

that

LH

-LRB-

and

all

other

boundaries

ending

in

H

including

HH

-RRB-

mark

discourse

units

as

to

be

interpreted

with

respect

to

a

succeeding

phrase

-LRB-

from

either

speaker?cf

Brown

-RRB-

whereas

LL

-LRB-

and

all

boundaries

ending

in

L

including

HL

-RRB-

do

not

This

observation

seems

to

generalize

across

the

remaining

pitch

accent

tones

in

Pierrehumbert

's

system

For

example

in

the

following

adapted

from

Hobbs

-LRB-

cf.

Merin

and

Bartels

-RRB-

L

appears

to

function

rather

similarly

to

H

in

marking

a

rheme

and

seems

to

involve

the

same

effect

of

LH

-LRB-

-RRB-

It

's

not

a

FREUDIAN

account

It

's

a

COGNITIVE

one

L

LH

H

LL

In

particular

L

seems

to

restrict

the

alternatives

set

in

a

similar

way

to

H

from

which

it

seems

to

differ

mainly

in

terms

of

whether

the

restriction

is

to

do

with

denial

or

af?rmation

This

property

suggests

that

in

English

questions

like

-LRB-

from

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

's

ex

-RRB-

L

seems

to

carry

the

same

presupposition

of

a

negative

that

in

Latin

is

marked

by

the

particle

num

-LRB-

In

H

carries

no

such

presupposition

-RRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

Do

PRUNES

have

FEET

L

L

LH

-LRB-

-RRB-

Do

PRUNES

have

FEET

H

H

LH

More

precisely

H

rhemes

seem

to

restrict

the

alternatives

to

the

one

that

the

speaker

supposes

that

the

hearer

wants

while

the

L

variety

seem

restrict

to

something

that

they

may

not

want

While

this

distinction

may

signal

af?rmation

vs.

denial

it

is

also

used

indirectly

in

polite

offers

of

alternatives

as

can

be

seen

from

the

increased

dif?dence

of

the

second

of

the

following

offers

-LRB-

-RRB-

There

's

ORANGE

juice

and

APPLE

juice

H

LH

H

LL

L

LH

H

LL

As

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

suggest

in

somewhat

different

terms

this

contrast

between

H

and

L

in

terms

of

positive

and

negative

presuppositions

appears

to

generalize

to

the

other

pitch

accents

We

have

already

discussed

the

theme-accents

L+H

and

L

H

in

terms

of

the

degree

of

denial

conveyed

The

two

remaining

rheme

accents

H

L

and

H+L

behave

much

like

Lady

Bracknell

's

version

of

H

and

L

D

R

A

F

T

-LRB-

-RRB-

JEREMY

H

L

LH

-LRB-

-RRB-

Do

PRUNES

have

FEET

H+L

H+L

LH

The

Relation

of

Grammar

and

Information

Structure

What

is

the

relation

of

such

intonational

structures

to

syntax

and

semantics

and

how

is

information

structure

computed

by

a

language

understander

Many

of

the

intonational

constituents

that

we

have

just

been

examining?such

as

the

string

Mary

likes?do

not

correspond

to

traditional

syntactic

constituents

Such

non-constituent

intonational

units

are

very

widespread

and

can

coincide

with

all

of

the

intonational

tunes

considered

above?for

example

as

a

rheme

in

the

following

example

-LRB-

adapted

from

Ladd

see

below

-RRB-

when

uttered

in

the

context

of

a

question

like

I

know

that

Harry

keeps

up

with

the

newspapers

but

has

he

read

Ulysses

-LRB-

-RRB-

Harry

does

n't

READ

BOOKS

H

L

L+H

LH

Here

the

theme

seems

to

be

books

marked

because

the

concept

stands

in

contrast

to

newspapers

The

rheme

seems

to

be

Harry

does

n't

read

with

the

usual

nal

H

L

tune

on

read

The

theme

can

also

be

unmarked

even

in

this

context

as

in

Ladd

's

original

example

-LRB-

-RRB-

Harry

does

n't

READ

books

H

LL

The

earlier

paper

argued

that

fragments

like

Mary

likes

and

Harry

does

n't

read

were

not

only

prosodic

constituents

but

syntactic

constituents

The

argument

is

brie?y

summarized

next

Combinatory

Grammars

I

will

assume

some

familiarity

with

Combinatory

Categorial

Grammar

of

the

kind

presented

in

Steedman

As

in

other

varieties

of

Categorial

Grammar

elements

like

verbs

are

associated

with

a

syntactic

category

which

identi?es

them

as

functions

and

speci?es

the

type

and

directionality

of

their

arguments

and

the

type

of

their

result

We

here

use

the

result

leftmost

notation

in

which

a

rightward-combining

functor

over

a

domain

b

into

a

range

a

are

written

a

b

while

the

corresponding

leftward-combining

functor

is

written

anb

a

and

b

may

themselves

be

function

categories

For

example

a

transitive

verb

is

a

function

from

-LRB-

object

-RRB-

NPs

into

predicates?that

is

into

functions

from

-LRB-

subject

-RRB-

NPs

into

S

-LRB-

-RRB-

likes

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

NP

Such

functor

categories

can

combine

with

their

arguments

by

the

following

rules

and

Krifka

section

have

pointed

out

the

complications

that

ensue

for

the

semantics

of

focus

is

a

question

about

how

to

notate

the

tune

of

this

example

that

I

will

defer

for

the

moment

is

an

alternative

result

on

top

notation

due

to

Lambek

in

which

the

latter

category

is

written

bna

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

-LRB-

-RRB-

Forward

Application

-LRB-

-RRB-

X

Y

Y

-RRB-

X

-LRB-

-RRB-

Backward

Application

-LRB-

-RRB-

Y

XnY

-RRB-

X

Derivations

are

written

as

in

a

with

underlines

annotated

with

arrows

denoting

application

of

forward

and

backward

rules

rather

than

as

conventional

phrase

structure

derivations

like

b

-LRB-

-RRB-

a.

Mary

likes

musicals

NP

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

NP

NP

SnNP

S

b.

NP

V

NPVPS

Mary

musicalslikes

The

lexical

categories

can

be

augmented

as

in

Bach

with

a

feature

system

to

capture

phenomena

like

agreement

here

represented

informally

by

subscripts

and

with

an

explicit

identi?cation

of

their

semantic

interpretation

here

associated

with

the

category

via

a

colon

operator

-LRB-

-RRB-

likes

-LRB-

-RRB-

NP

-LRB-

The

third

person

singular

feature

bundle

written

is

underspeci?ed

for

gender

and

can

combine

with

a

more

speci?c

feature

bundle

such

as

by

a

standard

uni?cation

mechanism

that

I

will

pass

over

here

cf.

Shieber

-RRB-

In

this

notation

the

rules

of

functional

application

must

be

expanded

with

an

explicit

sematics

in

the

same

way

For

example

-LRB-

-RRB-

Forward

Application

-LRB-

-RRB-

X

Y

f

Y

a

-RRB-

X

f

a

The

semantic

interpretation

of

this

and

all

other

combinatory

rules

is

completely

determined

by

their

syntactic

form

under

the

following

principle

-LRB-

-RRB-

The

Principle

of

Combinatory

Transparency

The

semantic

interpretation

of

the

category

resulting

from

a

combinatory

rule

is

completely

determined

by

the

de?nition

of

categories

as

functions

mapping

between

two

sets

of

logical

forms

That

is

to

say

that

fa

is

the

only

interpretation

permitted

for

the

result

X

of

the

rule

given

those

inputs

Alternatives

like

faa

and

af

are

not

allowed

Derivations

can

then

be

written

as

follows

-LRB-

-RRB-

Mary

likes

musicals

-LRB-

-RRB-

NP

NP

S

principle

is

stated

differently

in

Steedman

but

is

in

fact

identical

D

R

A

F

T

The

derivation

yields

an

S

with

a

compositional

interpretation

equivalent

as

usual

under

the

convention

of

left

associativity

to

-LRB-

-RRB-

Coordination

of

constituents

of

like

type

to

yield

a

single

constituent

of

the

same

type

is

permitted

by

the

following

rule

schema

whose

semantics

I

will

pass

over

here

-LRB-

-RRB-

Coordination

-LRB-

-RRB-

X

con

j

X

-RRB-

X

One

of

the

original

motivations

behind

CCG

was

to

account

for

coordination

of

contiguous

strings

that

do

not

constitute

traditional

constituents

as

in

the

following

example

-LRB-

-RRB-

I

requested

and

would

prefer

opera

Rather

than

invoking

rules

of

deletion

or

movement

CCG

allows

certain

further

operations

on

functions

related

to

Curry

's

combinators

including

the

following

rule

of

functional

composition

indexed

B

in

derivations

-LRB-

because

Curry

called

his

composition

combinator

B

-RRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

Forward

Composition

-LRB-

B

-RRB-

X

Y

Y

Z

-RRB-

X

Z

Since

would

is

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

VP

and

prefer

is

VP

NP

the

rule

yields

the

transitive

verb

category

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

NP

for

would

prefer

in

The

Principle

of

Combinatory

Transparency

means

that

the

semantic

effect

of

this

rule

is

as

follows

yielding

an

interpretation

lx

ly

-LRB-

-RRB-

y

for

the

same

fragment

-LRB-

-RRB-

Forward

Composition

-LRB-

B

-RRB-

X

Y

f

Y

Z

g

-RRB-

X

Z

lx

f

-LRB-

gx

-RRB-

Combinatory

grammars

also

include

type-raising

rules

which

turn

arguments

into

functions

over

functions-over-such-arguments

These

rules

allow

arguments

including

subjects

to

compose

and

thereby

take

part

in

coordinations

like

the

following

-LRB-

-RRB-

Mary

likes

and

I

dislike

musicals

-LRB-

-RRB-

Forward

Type-raising

-LRB-

T

-RRB-

X

a

-RRB-

T

-LRB-

TnX

-RRB-

l

f

f

a

-LRB-

-RRB-

Backward

Type-raising

-LRB-

T

-RRB-

X

a

-RRB-

Tn

-LRB-

T

X

-RRB-

l

f

f

a

T

is

a

variable

ranging

over

categories

such

as

S

SnNP

etc.

Such

rules

must

be

restricted

to

application

to

a

xed

set

of

categories?essentially

to

the

types

that

verbs

take

as

arguments

-LRB-

This

restriction

is

in

keeping

with

a

general

resemblance

between

type-raising

and

the

traditional

notion

of

case

cf.

Steedman

-RRB-

They

have

an

order-preserving

property

For

example

turns

an

NP

into

a

rightward

looking

function

over

leftward

functions

and

therefore

preserves

the

linear

order

of

subjects

and

predicates

The

interpretation

of

such

rules

is

again

entirely

determined

by

the

Principle

of

Combinatory

Transparency

Since

categories

like

NP

can

be

raised

over

a

number

of

different

functor

categories

such

as

predicate

transitive

verb

ditransitive

verb

etc

and

since

the

resulting

raised

categories

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

Sn

-LRB-

S

NP

-RRB-

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

n

-LRB-

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

PP

-RRB-

etc.

of

NPs

PPs

etc.

are

quite

hard

to

read

it

will

sometimes

be

convenient

to

abbreviate

the

raised

categories

as

schemata

written

NP

PP

etc.

Since

complement-taking

verbs

like

think

VP

S

can

in

turn

compose

with

fragments

like

Mary

likes

S

NP

we

correctly

predict

the

fact

that

right-node

raising

is

unbounded

as

in

a

below

and

also

provide

the

basis

for

an

analyis

of

the

similarly

unbounded

character

of

leftward

extraction

as

in

b

-LRB-

see

the

earlier

papers

and

Steedman

for

details

including

ECP

effects

and

various

extraction

asymmetries

and

a

variety

of

coordination

phenomena

-RRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

a.

-LSB-

I

dislike

-RSB-

S

NP

and

-LSB-

you

think

Mary

likes

-RSB-

S

NP

musicals

b

The

musicals

which

-LSB-

you

think

Mary

likes

-RSB-

S

NP

Grammar

and

Intonation

The

signi?cance

of

this

theory

for

present

purposes

is

the

following

If

in

order

to

account

for

coordination

and

relativization

we

take

strings

like

You

think

that

Mary

likes

to

be

surface

constituents

of

type

S

NP

then

they

must

also

be

possible

constituents

of

non-coordinate

sentences

like

Mary

likes

musicals

which

must

permit

the

following

derivation

as

well

as

the

traditional

derivation

repeated

as

below

-LRB-

-RRB-

Mary

likes

musicals

NP

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

NP

NP

T

S

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

lf

f

B

S

NP

lx

S

-LRB-

-RRB-

Mary

likes

musicals

NP

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

NP

NP

T

S

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

lf

f

SnNP

ly

S

Crucially

once

we

simplify

or

normalize

the

interpretations

by

b-reducing

l-abstracts

with

arguments

as

I

have

tacitly

done

throughout

the

derivations

both

yield

an

identical

appropriate

proposition

which

can

be

represented

by

the

following

predicate-argument

structure

-LRB-

-RRB-

The

Principle

of

Combinatory

Transparency

guarantees

that

all

such

non-standard

derivations

yield

identical

interpretations

over

which

such

c-command-dependent

relations

as

the

Binding

is

in

terms

of

this

level

of

representation

a

logical

form

preserving

traditional

notions

of

dominance

and

command

rather

than

in

terms

of

derivation

that

the

phenomena

which

in

GB

are

covered

by

the

Binding

Theory

can

be

most

straightforwardly

de?ned

within

the

present

theory

cf.

Chierchia

However

Szabolcsi

Jacobson

Hepple

and

Dowty

discuss

a

number

of

ways

of

doing

this

without

the

mediation

of

predicate-argument

structure

within

closely

related

categorial

frameworks

to

which

the

present

analysis

of

intonation

structure

also

in

principle

applies

D

R

A

F

T

Conditions

can

be

de?ned

as

in

any

other

grammar

framework

In

more

complex

sentences

than

the

above

there

will

be

many

such

equivalent

derivations

for

each

distinct

interpretation

The

interest

of

such

derivations

for

present

purposes

will

be

obvious

The

claim

is

simply

that

the

non-standard

surface

structures

that

are

induced

by

the

combinatory

grammar

to

explain

coordination

in

English

subsume

the

intonational

structures

that

needed

in

order

to

explain

the

possible

intonation

contours

for

sentences

of

English

discussed

earlier

Intonational

boundaries

when

present

as

in

spoken

utterances

like

and

determine

which

of

the

possible

combinatory

derivations

such

as

and

is

intended

The

interpretations

of

the

constituents

that

arise

from

these

derivations

far

from

being

spurious

are

related

to

semantic

distinctions

of

information

structure

and

discourse

focus

That

is

not

of

course

to

claim

that

information

structure

is

invariably

-LRB-

or

even

usually

-RRB-

disambiguated

by

prosodic

information

As

should

be

evident

from

the

earlier

discussion

of

unmarked

information

listeners

seem

to

be

able

to

cope

with

as

much

ambiguity

in

this

component

of

the

grammar

as

in

any

other

The

claim

is

merely

that

where

intonational

markers

are

present

they

will

disambiguate

in

this

way

Combinatory

Prosody

I

shall

follow

the

earlier

papers

in

assuming

that

all

grammatical

categories

include

not

only

a

syntactic

type

and

a

semantic

interpretation

but

also

a

phonological

type

In

all

other

details

the

present

analysis

departs

from

the

earlier

one

In

particular

where

the

earlier

analysis

used

an

autonomous

autosegmental

phonological

categorial

grammar

with

its

own

combinatory

operations

of

application

and

composition

locked

to

syntactic

derivation

by

a

Prosodic

Constituent

Condition

the

present

grammar

uses

a

much

simpli?ed

set

of

phonological

types

and

uses

this

information

to

directly

limit

the

syntactic

derivation

-LRB-

and

hence

information

structure

-RRB-

The

Pitch

Accents

I

have

already

noted

that

the

focus-marking

property

of

pitch

accents

seems

to

belong

at

the

level

of

the

word

while

the

theme/rheme-marking

property

seems

to

belong

at

the

level

of

phrasal

constituents

Pierrehumbert

's

six

pitch

accents

can

be

assigned

the

following

categories

which

identify

them

-LRB-

under

the

argument

of

section

-RRB-

as

markers

of

theme

-LRB-

q

-RRB-

and

rheme

-LRB-

r

-RRB-

respectively

-LRB-

-RRB-

L+H

L

H

q

H

L

H

L

H+L

r

These

categories

simplify

considerably

in

omitting

some

further

speci?cation

of

distinctions

within

the

classes

q

and

r

of

theme

accents

and

rheme

accents

The

symbols

q

and

r

should

be

regarded

as

abbreviations

for

more

speci?c

bundles

of

features-values

distinguishing

the

individual

pitch

accents

on

dimensions

such

as

denial

and

the

factors

identi?ed

by

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

I

will

further

assume

that

pitch

accents

mark

-LRB-

some

element

of

-RRB-

the

interpretation

of

the

words

that

they

occur

on

using

the

asterisk

notation

introduced

earlier

While

eventually

we

will

certainly

want

to

do

this

by

rule

for

present

purposes

I

will

regard

this

as

happening

at

the

categories

differ

from

those

in

earlier

papers

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

level

of

lexical

entries

like

the

following

category

for

the

verb

likes

bearing

an

H

pitch

accent

before

they

are

input

to

syntax

-LRB-

-RRB-

likes

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

NP

H

r

I

will

assume

that

all

lexical

items

in

the

sentence

are

similarly

associated

either

with

a

pitch

accent

or

with

a

phonological

category

corresponding

to

the

absence

of

any

tone

in

Pierrehumbert

's

system

This

tone

which

I

will

follow

Pierrehumbert

in

leaving

without

annotation

in

the

string

bears

the

category

e

which

is

an

anonymous

variable

unique

to

this

particular

occurrence

of

the

tone

that

ranges

over

the

theme

and

rheme

markers

q

and

r

and

nothing

else

-LRB-

although

I

have

suppressed

explicit

typing

of

variables

in

the

notation

-RRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

e

We

will

further

assume

that

all

the

grammatical

combinatory

rules

etc.

include

a

similar

phonological

variable

for

each

input

and

output

as

in

the

following

version

of

in

which

c

is

a

variable

unique

to

this

rule

-LRB-

-RRB-

Forward

Application

-LRB-

-RRB-

X

Y

f

Y

a

-RRB-

X

f

a

c

c

c

Similarly

we

get

the

following

composition

and

type-raising

rules

-LRB-

-RRB-

Forward

Composition

-LRB-

B

-RRB-

X

Y

f

Y

Z

g

-RRB-

X

Z

lx

f

-LRB-

gx

-RRB-

c

c

c

-LRB-

-RRB-

Forward

Type-raising

-LRB-

T

-RRB-

X

a

-RRB-

T

-LRB-

TnX

-RRB-

l

f

f

a

c

c

Under

the

standard

uni?cation

based

interpretation

of

these

rules

and

in

particular

of

the

variable

c

these

rules

allow

intonational

tunes

to

be

spread

over

arbitrarily

large

constituents

For

example

in

analysing

the

rst

two

words

of

the

sentence

Mary

likes

the

Mondrian

the

following

partial

derivation

is

allowed

-LRB-

-RRB-

MARY

likes

the

MONDRIAN

L+H

LH

S

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

lp

:p

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

NP

lx

ly

q

e

B

S

NP

lx

q

Since

the

phonological

value

of

the

tone

on

likes

is

a

unique

anonymous

variable

e

it

can

unify

with

c

in

the

second

term

in

the

composition

rule

Since

the

result

is

still

a

variable

the

this

I

follow

Bird

and

Prevost

the

terms

of

the

earlier

autosegmental-categorial

approach

this

category

could

be

realized

as

a

very

general

bidirectional

functor

eje

D

R

A

F

T

q

on

Mary

can

also

unify

with

the

same

variable

c

on

the

rst

term

of

the

rule

to

yield

q

Since

the

same

variable

c

appears

on

the

result

the

entire

phrase

Mary

likes

is

marked

q.

Iterated

compositions

of

the

same

kind

have

the

effect

of

allowing

the

theme

and

rheme

markers

associated

with

the

pitch-accents

to

spread

unboundedly

across

any

sequence

that

forms

a

grammatical

constituent

according

to

the

combinatory

grammar

For

example

if

in

answer

to

the

same

question

What

does

MARY

like

the

reply

is

HARRY

says

she

likes

the

MONDRIAN

then

the

tune

will

typically

be

spread

over

Harry

says

she

likes

as

in

the

-LRB-

incomplete

-RRB-

derivation

below

in

which

the

semantics

has

been

suppressed

-LRB-

-RRB-

HARRY

says

she

likes

the

MONDRIAN

L+H

LH

S

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

S

S

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

NP

q

e

e

e

B

S

S

q

B

S

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

q

B

S

NP

q

Such

unboundedly

iterated

composition

may

include

further

occurences

of

the

L+H

pitch

accent

as

in

the

following

alternative

answer

to

the

same

question

in

which

the

level

of

the

second

L+H

pitch

accent

would

be

downstepped

That

is

its

entire

pitch

range

is

lowered

with

respect

to

its

predecessor

a

phenomenon

for

which

the

TOBI

conventions

-LRB-

Silverman

et

al.

-RRB-

offer

a

convenient

notation

extending

Pierrehumbert

's

system

with

the

pre?x

on

downstepped

pitch

accents

-LRB-

-RRB-

HARRY

SAYS

she

likes

the

MONDRIAN

L+H

L

H

LH

S

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

S

S

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

NP

q

q

e

e

B

S

S

q

B

S

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

q

B

S

NP

q

As

in

Pierrehumbert

's

original

system

the

phonological

category

of

the

pitch

accent

is

unaffected

by

downstep

and

its

speci?cation

in

the

example

is

strictly

redundant

All

other

possible

combinations

of

L+H

accents

and

tones

are

similarly

allowed

differing

only

in

which

elements

in

the

translation

are

marked

for

contrast

pitch

accents

that

bear

the

category

q

such

as

L

H

may

possibly

alternate

as

well

Different

r

accents

may

alternate

with

each

other

but

they

are

not

allowed

to

alternate

with

q

at

least

under

present

assumptions

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

The

Boundaries

The

phonological

categories

of

the

boundaries

can

be

written

as

follows

-LRB-

-RRB-

L

H

LL

LH

HH

HL

S$

nS

l

f

updatee

f

fne

Unlike

the

pitch

accent

categories

which

are

associated

with

whatever

grammatical

entity

the

accent

falls

within

the

boundaries

are

autonomous

string

elements

much

like

the

punctuation

marks

that

on

occasion

represent

them

in

the

orthography

It

is

combination

at

the

syntactic

level

that

makes

them

coarticulate

with

the

words

They

include

a

grammatical

category

-LRB-

written

on

top

as

usual

-RRB-

and

a

phonological

category

-LRB-

written

below

-RRB-

The

phonological

category

fne

has

the

form

of

a

function

from

the

pitch

accent

categories

q

and

r

over

which

the

variable

e

ranges

into

f

the

type

of

phonological

phrases

of

all

kinds

As

in

the

case

of

the

pitch-accents

I

am

simplifying

in

omitting

some

further

speci?cation

in

the

semantics

of

the

looking

forward

and

looking

back

effect

of

the

boundaries

discussed

by

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirchberg

and

above

The

result

f

represents

a

bundle

of

feature-values

distinguishing

these

meanings

like

those

represented

by

the

arguments

q

and

r

some

of

whose

components

-LRB-

such

as

the

denial

associated

with

L

accents

-RRB-

may

be

inherited

by

f

This

category

can

not

combine

by

the

standard

combinatory

rules

and

Instead

we

need

a

special

Boundary

Application

rule

as

follows

-LRB-

-RRB-

Boundary

Application

-LRB-

-RRB-

Y

a

XnY

f

-RRB-

X

f

a

e

fne

f

This

rule

is

annotated

as

in

derivations

because

it

is

grammatically

a

backward

rule

of

application

restricted

to

categories

bearing

the

boundary

category

The

phonological

variable

e

in

this

rule

schematizes

over

the

two

pitch

accent

categories

and

over

the

tone

itself

and

nothing

else

In

particular

e

does

not

unify

with

f

or

fne

The

boundary

tones

must

also

mark

the

informational

units

at

the

level

of

semantics

so

that

the

combination

of

a

boundary

tone

with

a

constituent

including

a

pitch

accent

de?nes

the

major

informational

elements

such

as

the

theme

and

the

rheme

The

upper

grammatical

element

in

the

categories

given

in

example

above

consists

of

a

syntactic

type

and

an

interpretation

as

usual

The

variable

S$

in

the

syntactic

type

ranges

over

a

set

fS

g

of

syntactic

categories

including

S

and

all

functions

into

members

of

fS

g?that

is

it

includes

S

S

NP

and

all

verbs

and

type-raised

arguments

of

verbs

but

not

nouns

and

the

like

The

boundary

categories

apply

the

function

updateq

-LRB-

if

the

phonological

category

on

the

argument

is

q

-RRB-

or

updater

-LRB-

if

it

is

r

-RRB-

to

the

interpretation

of

that

argument

marking

it

for

the

corresponding

discourse

function

It

follows

that

according

to

this

category

the

responsibility

for

identifying

a

phonological

phrase

categories

differ

from

earlier

proposals

category

follows

Prevost

and

Steedman

and

implies

that

boundaries

are

phonological

heads

and

constitutes

a

modi?cation

to

previous

versions

of

the

present

theory

that

brings

it

more

closely

into

line

with

the

proposals

in

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

The

idea

that

boundaries

are

in

categorial

terms

heads

or

functors

was

also

proposed

by

Kirkeby-Garstad

and

Polgardi

is

the

dollar

convention

of

earlier

papers

D

R

A

F

T

as

theme

or

rheme

lies

entirely

with

the

pitch

accent

As

far

as

the

predicate-argument

structure

that

the

derivation

yields

is

concerned

updateq

and

updater

are

identity

functions

that

effectively

vanish

However

until

they

apply

they

block

any

further

reduction

of

the

interpretation

to

the

canonical

predicate-argument

structure

We

further

assume

that

when

they

do

apply

their

evaluation

brings

about

an

update

to

the

model

in

the

sense

de?ned

earlier

The

update

has

the

effect

of

withdrawing

one

or

more

existing

themes

or

rhemes

and

asserting

a

new

one

in

the

manner

described

in

section

The

following

example

which

completes

the

derivation

of

the

theme

of

the

earlier

sentence

MARY

likes

the

MONDRIAN

demonstrates

the

effect

of

the

rst

type

of

boundary

tone

-LRB-

-RRB-

MARY

likes

the

MONDRIAN

L+H

LH

H

LL

S

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

NP

S$

nS

lp

:p

lx

ly

lf

updateef

q

e

fne

B

S

NP

lx

q

S

NP

updateq

-LRB-

lx

-RRB-

f

The

second

prosodic

phrase

in

the

example

bears

the

H

LL

rheme

tune

parallel

to

above

Example

below

completes

the

derivation

-LRB-

-RRB-

MARY

likes

the

MONDRIAN

L+H

LH

H

LL

S

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

-LRB-

SnNP

-RRB-

NP

S$

nS

NP

N

N

S$

nS

lp

:p

lx

ly

lf

updateef

lx

mondrian

lf

updateef

q

e

fne

e

r

fne

B

S

NP

lx

NP

q

r

T

NP

lp

:p

-LRB-

-RRB-

r

S

NP

updateq

-LRB-

lx

-RRB-

NP

updater

-LRB-

lp

:p

-LRB-

-RRB-

-RRB-

f

f

S

-LRB-

updateq

-LRB-

lx

-RRB-

-RRB-

-LRB-

updater

-LRB-

lp

:p

-LRB-

-RRB-

-RRB-

-RRB-

f

S

-LRB-

-RRB-

f

The

rules

permit

no

other

division

into

a

theme

and

a

rheme

for

this

intonation

contour

It

is

important

to

notice

that

it

is

only

once

the

functions

updateq

and

updater

have

applied

that

the

nal

semantic

reduction

or

normalization

can

take

place

to

yield

the

canonical

predicate

argument

structure

The

reduction

of

updateq

and

updater

can

occur

at

any

point

in

a

present

treatment

of

boundary

tones

as

exhibited

in

this

derivation

allows

a

pitch

accent

and

a

boundary

tone

to

affect

the

same

word

in

the

string

This

detail

was

left

implicit

in

earlier

work

as

Kirkeby-Gastad

and

Polgardi

pointed

out

in

a

critique

of

the

earlier

papers

The

element

in

the

interpretation

in

the

derivation

is

merely

a

place

holder

for

a

proper

treatment

of

determiners

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

derivation

The

division

of

the

utterance

into

an

open

proposition

constituting

the

theme

and

an

argument

constituting

the

rheme

is

appropriate

to

a

context

parallel

to

that

established

in

say

by

a

Whquestion

Which

painting

does

MARY

like

uttered

in

a

context

of

a

prior

discussion

of

somebody

else

's

preferences

and

a

prior

theme

such

as

the

following

-LRB-

-RRB-

q

-LRB-

lx

-RRB-

The

newly-derived

theme

q

-LRB-

lx

-RRB-

contrasts

with

this

prior

theme

in

the

earlier

sense

The

new

theme

can

then

be

used

to

identify

the

alternatives

set

which

might

be

the

following

-LRB-

-RRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

etc

The

rheme

r

-LRB-

lp

:p

-LRB-

-RRB-

-RRB-

can

then

be

used

to

reduce

this

set

to

a

single

proposition

-LRB-

-RRB-

As

in

the

case

of

themes

like

pitch

accents

including

multiple

ones

can

in

general

be

included

in

theme

or

rheme

in

a

number

of

ways

For

example

for

a

rheme

the

green

corduroy

we

get

the

following

possibilities

-LRB-

-RRB-

Q.

Does

Mary

like

the

green

corduroy

or

the

green

velvet

A.

-LRB-

MARY

likes

-RRB-

-LRB-

the

green

CORDUROY

-RRB-

L+H

LH

H

LL

-LRB-

-RRB-

Q.

Does

Mary

like

the

green

corduroy

or

the

red

cordurory

A.

-LRB-

MARY

likes

-RRB-

-LRB-

the

GREEN

corduroy

-RRB-

L+H

LH

H

LL

It

also

applies

when

both

words

are

marked

for

rheme

accent

with

H

pitch

accents

in

a

context

in

which

both

elements

of

the

noun-group

green

corduroy

are

contrasted

or

informative

as

in

the

following

answer

to

the

question

Does

Mary

like

the

green

corduroy

or

the

red

velvet

effect

the

update

action

rst

abstracts

over

the

constant

in

the

new

theme

Higher

order

uni?cation

can

be

used

for

this

task

via

Huet

's

algorithm

in

a

manner

discussed

by

Shieber

et

al.

-LRB-

to

appear

-RRB-

Prevost

discusses

a

related

procedural

device

before

downstep

is

redundantly

indicated

by

pre?x

and

does

not

affect

the

category

of

the

pitch

accent

D

R

A

F

T

-LRB-

-RRB-

MARY

likes

the

GREEN

CORDUROY

L+H

LH

H

H

LL

S

NP

NP

N

N

N

N

S$

nS

updateq

-LRB-

lx

-RRB-

green

lf

updateef

f

e

r

r

fne

B

NP

N

lx

-LRB-

-RRB-

r

NP

-LRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

-RRB-

r

T

Sn

-LRB-

S

NP

-RRB-

lf

f

-LRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

-RRB-

r

Sn

-LRB-

S

NP

-RRB-

updater

-LRB-

lf

f

-LRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

-RRB-

-RRB-

f

S

-LRB-

updateq

-LRB-

lx

-RRB-

-RRB-

-LRB-

updater

-LRB-

lf

f

-LRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

-RRB-

-RRB-

-RRB-

f

S

-LRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

-RRB-

f

Although

there

is

a

second

derivation

for

the

rheme

in

in

which

green

combines

with

corduroy

before

combining

the

article

the

applies

the

interpretation

is

unaffected

Indeed

examples

and

also

allow

both

derivations

The

only

differences

among

the

interpretations

arise

from

different

locations

of

the

pitch

accents

and

in

the

elements

of

the

interpretation

that

are

marked

for

contrast

as

a

result

These

observations

reinforce

the

earlier

suggestion

that

the

discourse

signi?cance

of

the

pitch

accents

operates

at

the

level

of

words

and

their

interpretations

rather

than

at

higher

levels

of

derivation

unlike

that

of

boundary

tones

Many

impossible

intonation

contours

correctly

remain

excluded

by

the

grammar

For

example

both

of

the

following

are

disallowed

because

the

intonation

structure

is

not

compatible

with

any

syntactic

analysis

for

exactly

the

same

reasons

that

forbid

nouns

from

extracting

-LRB-

-RRB-

a.

-LRB-

MARY

likes

the

green

-RRB-

-LRB-

CORDUROY

-RRB-

L+H

LH

H

LL

b.

-LRB-

My

OLDER

-RRB-

-LRB-

sister

likes

the

green

CORDUROY

-RRB-

L+H

LH

H

LL

Unmarked

Themes

We

noted

earlier

in

connection

with

examples

and

that

the

majority

of

themes

in

everyday

utterances

are

unmarked

by

either

pitch

accent

or

explicit

boundary

so

that

the

position

of

the

theme-rheme

boundary

is

usually

ambiguous

It

is

therefore

a

virtue

in

the

grammar

as

it

stands

that

it

allows

multiple

derivations

yielding

several

analyses

in

which

the

theme

is

unmarked

bearing

the

null-tone

category

e

while

the

various

possible

rhemes

are

distinguished

as

such

as

in

the

following

example

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

-LRB-

-RRB-

a.

-LRB-

I

read

a

book

about

-RRB-

Theme

-LRB-

PAINTINGS

-RRB-

Rheme

b.

-LRB-

I

read

-RRB-

Theme

-LRB-

a

book

about

PAINTINGS

-RRB-

Rheme

c.

-LRB-

I

-RRB-

Theme

-LRB-

read

a

book

about

PAINTINGS

-RRB-

Rheme

d.

-LRB-

I

read

a

book

about

PAINTINGS

-RRB-

Rheme

We

can

therefore

capture

the

earlier

observation

that

these

alternative

analyses

are

identical

in

information-structural

terms

to

those

involving

marked

themes

differing

only

in

the

contrastive

properties

of

the

various

alternatives

sets

involved

as

follows

The

phonological

category

fne

of

the

L

boundary

as

de?ned

at

already

allows

it

to

combine

with

a

tone

category

e

The

result

is

a

category

whose

semantics

differs

from

that

of

a

theme

only

in

including

a

variable

e

in

place

of

the

theme

marker

q

If

we

further

assume

that

an

L

boundary

is

phonetically

indistinguishable

from

the

tone

and

may

therefore

be

postulated

anywhere

there

is

no

tone

then

such

an

invisible

L

boundary

can

apply

to

a

preceding

category

marked

with

tone

A

rule

of

the

following

form

can

then

apply

to

make

the

result

of

such

combinations

semantically

identical

to

a

theme

marked

by

an

explicit

theme

pitch-accent

-LRB-

-RRB-

S$

updateef

-RRB-

S$

updateqf

Such

a

tactic

nondeterministically

allows

multiple

derivations

It

follows

from

this

analysis

that

utterances

with

unmarked

themes

are

typically

ambiguous

as

to

derivation

and

information

structure

since

there

are

several

ways

of

splitting

them

up

into

a

theme

and

a

rheme

and

there

may

be

several

ways

of

further

dividing

each

of

these

into

given

and

new

For

example

-LRB-

-RRB-

I

read

a

book

about

PAINTINGS

L

H

LL

S

NP

S$

nS

Sn

-LRB-

S

NP

-RRB-

e

fne

f

f

S

f

The

representation

of

theme

and

rheme

in

the

interpretation

is

exactly

as

in

the

earlier

examples

Note

that

while

the

boundary

L

can

apply

to

only

part

of

the

theme?say

just

to

a

book

about?but

the

remainder

will

then

fail

to

combine

because

of

the

type

restriction

on

e

so

that

the

derivation

will

block

As

in

earlier

papers

I

assume

that

as

far

as

the

processor

goes

the

non-determinism

induced

by

unmarked

themes

can

be

eliminated

by

taking

advantage

of

the

fact

that

they

are

exclusively

used

when

the

hearer

can

be

assumed

to

already

know

the

theme

Thus

the

appropriateness

of

applying

the

rule

to

a

given

category

can

be

directly

decided

by

reference

to

the

discourse

seems

likely

that

the

rule

itself

could

be

made

implicit

in

the

update

process

do

not

exclude

the

possibility

that

this

nondeterminism

is

in

fact

eliminated

by

subtle

phonetic

distinctions

between

L

and

the

tone

However

it

is

safest

to

assume

the

worst

earlier

papers

this

process

was

compiled

into

a

single

step

in

effect

nondeterministically

turning

constituents

marked

e

into

ones

marked

f

with

appropriately

modi?ed

interpretation

However

this

missed

a

generalization

concerning

the

relation

of

these

unmarked

themes

to

the

corresponding

marked

variety

a

point

to

which

we

return

in

connection

with

example

below

D

R

A

F

T

model

to

decide

whether

it

supports

the

presupposition

that

the

corresponding

referent

is

theme

background

or

whatever

This

ambiguity

is

further

constrained

by

the

grammar

itself

That

is

the

following

do

not

appear

to

be

possible

information

structures

because

like

the

related

examples

they

are

not

acceptable

syntactic

structures

-LRB-

-RRB-

a.

-LRB-

Mary

likes

the

green

-RRB-

Theme

-LRB-

CORDUROY

-RRB-

Rheme

b.

-LRB-

My

older

-RRB-

Theme

-LRB-

sister

likes

the

green

CORDUROY

-RRB-

Rheme

If

invisible

boundaries

can

be

postulated

at

the

righthand

end

of

an

unmarked

theme

then

they

must

also

be

allowed

in

other

positions

where

there

is

no

tone?for

example

at

the

righthand

end

of

an

utterance-initial

rheme

followed

by

an

unmarked

theme

as

in

the

following

answer

to

the

question

Who

likes

Mondrian

-LRB-

-RRB-

-LRB-

MARY

-RRB-

-LRB-

likes

Mondrian

-RRB-

H

L

LL

Again

this

rule

introduces

a

non-determinism

again

this

nondeterminism

only

arises

in

contexts

where

the

theme

in

question

is

entirely

given

or

background

and

hence

is

recoverable

by

the

hearer

-LRB-

Notice

that

such

themes

must

when

evaluated

by

de?nition

yield

an

alternatives

set

of

propositions

that

is

identical

to

the

background

set

We

will

return

to

this

point

below

-RRB-

Intonational

phrase

nal

tone

should

not

however

invariably

be

assumed

to

be

an

unmarked

theme

It

may

just

be

background

information

in

the

Rheme

To

take

an

old

example

from

Schmerling

one

may

announce

the

death

of

Nixon

in

the

absence

of

any

prior

discourse

whatsoever

by

saying

the

following

-LRB-

-RRB-

NIXON

died

H

LL

The

second

word

is

then

part

of

the

rheme

which

of

course

is

allowed

by

the

grammar

and

the

utterance

is

felicitous

just

in

case

dying

is

a

background

possibility

for

the

individual

in

question

-LRB-

If

not

as

Schmerling

points

out

one

has

to

say

something

like

NIXON

DIED

-RRB-

The

other

apparently

phonetically

indistinguishable

analysis

for

this

sentence

with

a

medial

L

and

an

unmarked

theme

is

the

following

and

is

appropriate

to

a

situation

where

the

question

is

Who

died

as

Ladd

points

out

-LRB-

p.

-RRB-

-LRB-

-RRB-

NIXON

died

H

L

LL

A

related

partition

into

rheme

followed

by

unmarked

theme

appears

to

arise

in

Ladd

's

own

example

repeated

here

in

the

revised

notation

uttered

in

the

context

of

a

question

Has

Harry

read

Ulysses

and

coordination

reveal

that

the

sentences

are

in

violation

of

island

constraints

The

present

paper

remains

agnostic

on

the

source

of

island

constraints

The

point

here

is

that

they

limit

intonation

as

well

as

the

rest

of

the

system

prosodic

annotation

of

this

example

represents

a

minor

departure

from

Pierrehumbert

whose

theory

does

not

permit

boundaries

without

corresponding

pitch

accents

and

who

would

regard

the

whole

tune

as

a

single

H

LL

intonational

phrase

The

present

analysis

is

quite

close

to

one

proposed

in

a

different

notation

by

Bing

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

-LRB-

-RRB-

Harry

does

n't

READ

books

H

L

LL

Although

the

phonological

analysis

proposed

here

is

different

from

Ladd

's

own

he

supports

a

view

of

the

information

structure

according

to

which

the

utterance

is

about

books

-LRB-

p.

-RRB-

by

which

he

seems

to

mean

that

books

is

in

present

terms

theme

That

in

turn

is

merely

to

say

that

the

alternatives

set

consists

only

of

propositions

about

books

Conclusion

The

way

is

now

clear

to

a

uni?cation

of

intonational

structure

and

surface

structure

since

it

is

evident

that

they

are

simply

different

aspects

of

the

same

derivational

structure

Such

a

notion

of

intonation

structure

is

richer

than

the

one

assumed

by

Selkirk

and

others

since

it

includes

constituent

boundaries

that

do

not

necessarily

have

a

phonetic

realization

However

this

conclusion

seems

unsurprising

All

we

are

saying

is

that

syntactic

boundaries

are

no

more

and

no

less

directly

speci?ed

by

tones

than

they

are

by

words

If

information

structure

boundaries

and

surface

syntactic

boundaries

coincide

in

this

way

then

there

are

a

number

of

other

prosodic

effects

which

should

depend

upon

the

surface

structures

afforded

by

CCG

in

as

direct

a

manner

as

English

intonation

contour

The

obvious

candidates

are

vowel-harmonic

effects

such

as

American

English

apping

-LRB-

Nespor

and

Vogel

-RRB-

the

Rhythm

Rule

-LRB-

Gussenhoven

Selkirk

-RRB-

and

Italian

raddoppiamento

syntattico

-LRB-

Napoli

and

Nespor

Kaisse

Nespor

and

Vogel

Vogel

-RRB-

The

latter

authors

in

particular

discuss

information-structural

effects

of

focus

that

seem

to

be

directly

capturable

in

this

way

More

speculatively

it

seems

likely

that

many

of

the

end-based

effects

of

syntax

upon

phonology

argued

for

by

Selkirk

and

Selkirk

and

Shen

according

to

which

intonation-structural

boundaries

coincide

with

either

left

or

right

edges

of

syntactic

constituents

but

not

necessarily

both

are

artifacts

of

the

syntactic

theories

within

which

they

have

been

framed

That

is

to

say

that

English

appears

to

be

a

left

edge

language

because

a

traditional

right-branching

account

of

its

surface

structure

just

does

n't

offer

phonologists

enough

right

brackets

to

work

with

The

claim

of

the

present

theory

is

simply

that

those

right

brackets

are

there

in

surface

syntax

in

left-branching

structures

like

It

is

unnecessary

under

this

interpretation

of

surface

structure

to

postulate

an

additional

independent

prosodic

structure

as

do

Selkirk

and

Nespor

and

Vogel

-LRB-

cf.

Vogel

and

Kenesei

and

Zec

and

Inkelas

-RRB-

We

should

instead

adopt

a

more

liberal

notion

of

syntactic

structure

one

which

is

directly

compatible

with

the

boundaries

that

the

phonologists

observe

The

status

of

Surface

Structure

in

this

theory

is

somewhat

different

from

the

status

of

the

related

concepts

in

GB

and

earlier

theories

such

as

the

annotated

surface

structures

of

Chomsky

and

Jackendoff

To

understand

this

point

it

will

be

helpful

to

consider

the

architecture

freer

notion

of

surface

structure

engendered

by

the

present

theory

may

also

explain

some

of

the

examples

which

Bolinger

has

used

to

argue

for

an

entirely

autonomous

lexically-oriented

account

of

accent

assignment

and

which

Gussenhoven

has

used

to

argue

for

a

similarly

autonomous

focus-based

account

It

may

also

allow

us

to

eliminate

some

of

the

non-syntactic

string-based

rules

and

performance

structures

that

Cooper

and

Cooper

and

Grosjean

and

Gee

have

proposed

to

add

to

the

syntax-driven

model

D

R

A

F

T

ANNA

married

MANNY

L+H

LH

H

LL

PHONETIC

FORM

married

-LRB-

S

NP

-RRB-

NP

married

LEXICON

married

manny'anna

PRED.ARG

STRUCTURE

Update

Normalization

Phonology

Anna

married

Manny

L+H

LH

H

LL

f

S

:-LRB-

update

-LRB-

p.

p

manny

-RRB-

-RRB-

-LRB-

-LRB-

x.married

x

anna

-RRB-

l

q

rupdate

l

Figure

The

Present

Architecture

of

the

present

theory

of

grammar

in

terms

of

the

traditional

T

or

Y

diagram

as

in

Figure

which

includes

an

example

of

an

object

of

the

kind

represented

in

each

module

for

one

possible

intonation

contour

for

the

sentence

with

which

the

paper

began

-LRB-

-RRB-

ANNA

married

MANNY

L+H

LH

H

LL

The

lexicon

associates

category-interpretation

pairs

with

-LRB-

the

phonological

speci?cation

of

-RRB-

each

word

of

the

language

Derived

objects

or

constituents

also

pair

-LRB-

the

phonological

speci?cation

of

-RRB-

strings

with

category-interpretation

pairs

which

are

projected

in

parallel

from

-LRB-

ordered

multisets

of

-RRB-

lexical

entries

via

derivations

using

combinatory

rules

Both

in

the

case

of

lexical

items

and

that

of

derived

objects

the

category

is

strictly

speaking

redundant

since

it

is

presumably

entirely

predictable

from

a

-RRB-

the

type

of

the

interpretation

b

-RRB-

X-bar

theory

and

c

-RRB-

a

parametric

description

of

the

language

as

to

position

of

heads

etc.

The

category-interpretation

pairs

therefore

count

as

a

single

level

of

representation

Each

object

in

a

derivation

can

therefore

be

thought

of

as

pairing

a

phonological

representation

p

-LRB-

which

provides

the

input

to

rules

relating

to

the

metrical

grid

-RRB-

with

a

single

representation

related

to

the

corresponding

logical

form

l

-LRB-

providing

the

input

to

systems

like

inference

and

reference

-RRB-

This

theory

can

therefore

like

other

Montagovian

categorial

approaches

be

viewed

as

minimalist

in

the

sense

of

Chomsky

's

program

many

of

whose

principles

can

then

be

seen

in

categorial

terms

as

concerning

the

speci?cation

of

the

lexicon

The

analogy

is

strengthened

by

the

fact

that

surface

structure

does

not

gure

as

a

level

of

representation

at

all

in

the

theory

While

I

have

described

the

combinatory

derivations

that

map

phonological

strings

onto

such

category-interpretation

pairs

-LRB-

and

vice

versa

-RRB-

in

terms

of

structures

implicit

in

derivations

no

rule

or

relation

has

been

predicated

over

such

structures

which

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

are

merely

a

history

or

record

of

how

an

algorithm

might

get

from

the

string

to

the

interpretation

-LRB-

or

vice

versa

-RRB-

While

in

order

to

show

that

the

theory

is

sound

and

complete

it

is

convenient

to

write

such

derivations

down

and

talk

about

them

as

surface

structures

they

do

not

constitute

a

level

of

representation

in

the

theory

No

rule

ever

needs

to

know

how

a

category

that

it

applies

to

was

derived

Combinatory

derivations

correspond

to

intonation

structure

in

the

extended

sense

of

the

term

de?ned

above

as

well

as

capturing

coordinate

structure

and

the

effects

of

relativization

-LRB-

Steedman

-RRB-

Surface

Structure

or

derivation

in

the

present

sense

therefore

subsumes

some

functions

of

S-structure

and

all

those

of

Intonation

Structure

together

with

some

of

the

role

of

PF

as

it

is

understood

in

GB

Phonetic

Form

in

present

terms

really

is

no

more

than

an

abstract

speci?cation

of

speech

segments

The

interpretation

which

the

derivation

associates

with

a

constituent

of

category

S

-LRB-

or

any

other

derived

constituent

-RRB-

also

directly

re?ects

such

information

structural

distinctions

as

those

between

theme

and

rheme

and

focus

and

ground

and

the

units

which

affect

the

context

via

the

process

of

update

Surface

structures

of

this

derivational

kind

do

not

preserve

traditional

notions

of

dominance

and

command

including

c-command

Relations

of

dominance

and

command

are

instead

represented

in

the

canonical

predicate-argument

structure

that

results

from

the

trivial

procedure

of

normalizing

or

b-reducing

the

alternative

information

structures

yielded

by

the

alternative

derivations

of

a

given

proposition

as

discussed

in

connection

with

examples

and

and

as

implicitly

assumed

in

derivations

throughout

the

paper

It

follows

that

all

grammatical

relations

that

depend

upon

c-command

notably

including

binding

and

control

and

such

related

phenomena

as

crossover

must

be

treated

as

properties

of

interpretations?in

present

terms

predicate-argument

structures?rather

than

surface

structures

a

suggestion

which

is

consistent

with

the

observations

of

Bach

and

Partee

and

Lasnik

and

Saito

Since

normalization

can

be

carried

out

at

each

step

in

a

derivation

-LRB-

and

would

be

automatically

in

certain

uni?cation

based

alternatives

to

the

l

calculus

for

representing

interpretations?e.g

the

one

used

in

Steedman

-RRB-

predicateargument

structure

is

the

only

explicit

level

of

representation

in

this

theory

of

grammar?that

is

the

only

level

over

which

grammatical

rules

and

relations

are

predicated

Predicate

argument

structures

are

automatically

determined

by

combinatory

derivation

under

the

Principle

of

Combinatory

Transparency

References

Ades

Anthony

E.

and

Mark

J.

Steedman

On

the

Order

of

Words

Linguistics

and

Philosophy

Bach

Emmon

Control

in

Montague

Grammar

Linguistic

Inquiry

Bach

Emmon

In

Defense

of

Passive

Linguistics

and

Philosophy

we

noted

earlier

there

is

a

close

resemblance

here

between

information

structures

and

the

structured

meanings

of

Cresswell

von

Stechow

and

Chierchia

as

well

as

with

the

alternatives

semantics

of

Karttunen

and

Peters

and

Rooth

in

present

terms

interpretations

are

represented

as

logical

forms

nothing

in

the

present

account

precludes

a

purely

model-theoretic

account

of

binding

and

control

of

the

kind

proposed

by

Bach

Dowty

Jacobson

and

others

D

R

A

F

T

Bach

Emmon

On

the

Relationship

between

Word-grammar

and

Phrase-grammar

Natural

Language

and

Linguistic

Theory

Bach

Emmon

Categorial

Grammars

as

Theories

of

Language

in

Oehrle

et

al.

Bach

Emmon

and

Barbara

Partee

Anaphora

and

Semantic

Structure

in

Papers

from

the

Parasession

on

Pronouns

and

Anaphora

Tenth

Meeting

of

the

Chicago

Linguistics

Society

CLS

Chicago

Bartels

Christine

Towards

a

Compositional

Interpretation

of

English

Statement

and

Question

Intonation

PhD

dissertation

University

of

Massachusetts

Amherst

Barwise

Jon

and

John

Perry

Situations

and

Attitudes

Cambridge

MA

MIT

Press

Beckman

Mary

The

Parsing

of

Prosody

Language

and

Cognitive

Processes

Beckman

Mary

and

Janet

Pierrehumbert

Intonational

Structure

in

Japanese

and

English

Phonology

Yearbook

Bing

Janet

Aspects

of

English

Prosody

PhD

dissertation

University

of

Massachusetts

Amherst

New

York

Garland

Publishing

Bird

Steven

Focus

and

phrasing

in

Uni?cation

Categorial

Grammar

in

Steven

Bird

-LRB-

ed

-RRB-

Declarative

Perspectives

on

Phonology

Working

Papers

in

Cognitive

Science

University

of

Edinburgh

Bolinger

Dwight

Intonation

and

its

Uses

Stanford

University

Press

Brown

Gillian

Prosodic

Structure

and

the

Given/New

Distinction

in

A.

Cutler

and

D.R.

Ladd

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Prosody

Models

and

Measurements

Berlin

Springer-Verlag

B?uring

Daniel

The

Street

Bridge

Accent

On

the

Meaning

of

Topic

and

Focus

PhD

Thesis

Universit?at

T?ubingen

B?uring

Daniel

The

Great

Scope

Inversion

Conspiracy

Linguistics

and

Philosophy

Chierchia

Gennaro

Formal

Semantics

and

the

Grammar

of

Predication

Linguistic

Inquiry

Chierchia

Gennaro

Aspects

of

a

Categorial

Theory

of

Binding

in

Oehrle

et

al

Chierchia

Gennaro

Structured

Meanings

Thematic

Roles

and

Control

in

G.

Chierchia

B.

Partee

and

R.

Turner

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Properties

Types

and

Meanings

Kluwer

Dordrecht

Chomsky

Noam

Syntactic

Structures

Mouton

The

Hague

Chomsky

Noam

Deep

Structure

Surface

Structure

and

Semantic

Interpretation

in

D.

Steinberg

and

L.

Jakobovits

Semantics

CUP

Cambridge

Chomsky

Noam

Conditions

on

Rules

of

Grammar

Linguistic

Analysis

Chomsky

Noam

Knowledge

of

Language

Praeger

New

York

NY

Chomsky

Noam

The

Minimalist

Program

MIT

Press

Cambridge

MA

Cooper

William

and

Julia

Paccia-Cooper

Syntax

and

Speech

Harvard

University

Press

Cambridge

MA

Cresswell

Max

Logics

and

Languages

Methuen

Curry

Haskell

and

Robert

Feys

Combinatory

Logic

North

Holland

Amsterdam

Dowty

David

Grammatical

Relations

and

Montague

Grammar

in

Pauline

Jacobson

and

Geoffrey

K.

Pullum

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

The

Nature

of

Syntactic

Representation

Reidel

Dordrecht

Dowty

David

Type-Raising

Functional

Composition

and

Non-Constituent

Coordination

in

Richard

T.

Oehrle

E.

Bach

and

D.

Wheeler

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Categorial

Grammars

and

Natural

Language

Structures

Reidel

Dordrecht

Dowty

David

Variable-free

Syntax

Variable-binding

Syntax

the

Natural

Deduction

Lambek

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

Calculus

and

the

Crossover

Constraint

in

Proceedings

of

the

West

Coast

Conference

on

Formal

Linguistics

Stanford

CA

SLA

Stanford

CA

F?ery

Carolin

German

Intonational

Patterns

Niemeyer

T?ubingen

Gee

James

and

Franc?ois

Grosjean

Performance

Structures

a

Psycholinguistic

and

Linguistic

Appraisal

Cognitive

Psychology

Genesereth

Michael

and

Nils

Nilsson

Logical

Foundations

of

AI

Los

Altos

CA

MorganKaufmann

Groenendijk

Jeroen

and

Martin

Stokhof

Dynamic

Predicate

Logic

Linguistics

and

Philosophy

Grosz

Barbara

and

Candy

Sidner

Attention

Intention

and

the

Structure

of

Discourse

Journal

of

Computational

Linguistics

Gussenhoven

Carlos

On

the

Grammar

and

Semantics

of

Sentence

Accent

Dordrecht

Foris

Haji?cov?a

Eva

and

Petr

Sgall

The

Ordering

Principle

Journal

of

Pragmatics

Haji?cov?a

Eva

and

Petr

Sgall

Topic

and

Focus

of

a

Sentence

and

the

Patterning

of

a

Text

Text

and

Discourse

Constitution

ed

by

J

anos

Pet?o

Berlin

De

Gruyter

Hale

Kenneth

and

Samuel

Jay

Keyser

On

Argument

Structure

and

the

Lexical

Expression

of

Syntactic

Relations

in

Kenneth

Hale

and

Samuel

Jay

Keyser

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

The

View

from

Building

Cambridge

MA

MIT

Press

Halliday

Michael

Intonation

and

Grammar

in

British

English

Mouton

The

Hague

Halliday

Michael

Language

Structure

and

Language

Function

in

John

Lyons

-LRB-

ed

-RRB-

New

Horizons

in

Linguistics

Penguin

Heim

Irene

File-change

Semantics

and

the

Familiarity

Theory

of

De?niteness

in

Arnim

von

Stechow

Rainer

Bauerle

and

C.

Schwarze

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Meaning

Use

and

Interpretation

de

Gruyter

Berlin

Hepple

Mark

The

Grammar

and

Processing

of

Order

and

Dependency

a

Categorial

Aproach

Ph.D

dissertation

University

of

Edinburgh

Hobbs

Jerry

The

Pierrehumbert-Hirschberg

Theory

of

Intonational

Meaning

Made

Simple

Comments

on

Pierrehumbert

and

Hirschberg

in

Philip

Cohen

Jerry

Morgan

and

Martha

Pollack

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Intentions

in

Communication

MIT

Press

Cambridge

MA

Hoffman

Beryl

Computational

Analysis

of

the

Syntax

and

Interpretation

of

Free

Word-order

in

Turkish

unpublished

PhD

thesis

IRCS

Report

IRCS

U.

Penn.

Huet

G?erard

A

uni?cation

Algorithm

for

Typed

l-calculus

Theoretical

Computer

Science

Jackendoff

Ray

Semantic

Interpretation

in

Generative

Grammar

MIT

Press

Cambridge

MA

Jacobs

Joachim

Focus

Ambiguities

Journal

of

Semantics

Jacobson

Pauline

Raising

as

Function

Composition

Linguistics

Philosophy

Jacobson

Pauline

The

Lexical

Entailment

Theory

of

Control

and

the

Tough

Construction

in

Ivan

Sag

Anna

Szabolcsi

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Lexical

Matters

CSLI/Chicago

UP

Chicago

Kaisse

Ellen

Connected

Speech

The

Interaction

of

Syntax

and

Phonology

Academic

Press

New

York

Karttunen

Lauri

and

Stanley

Peters

Conventional

Implicature

in

Choon-Kyu

Oh

and

David

Dinneen

Syntax

and

Semantics

Presupposition

New

York

Academic

Press

Kirkeby-Garstad

Trond

and

Krisztina

Polg?ardi

Some

remarks

on

a

Categorial

Theory

of

Intonation

Paper

to

the

Autumn

HIL

Seminar

on

Syntax

and

Phonology

ms.

University

of

Oslo

Kirkeby-Garstad

Trond

and

Krisztina

Polg?ardi

Against

Prosodic

Composition

G.

Bouma

and

D

R

A

F

T

G.

van

Noord

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Computational

Linguistics

in

the

Netherlands

IV

Vakgroep

Alfa-Informatica

Rijksuniversiteit

Groningen

Groningen

Kratzer

Angelika

The

Representation

of

Focus

in

Arnim

von

Stechow

and

Dieter

Wunderlich

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Semantics

An

International

Handbook

of

Contemporary

Research

Berlin

de

Gruyther

Krifka

Manfred

A

Compositional

Semantics

for

Multiple

Focus

Constructions

incomplete

reference

Lambek

Joachim

The

Mathematics

of

Sentence

Structure

American

Mathematical

Monthly

Ladd

D.

Robert

The

Structure

of

Intonational

Meaning

Indiana

University

Press

Bloomington

IN

Landman

F.

Towards

a

Theory

of

Information

Dordrecht

Foris

Lasnik

Howard

and

Mamuro

Saito

Move

a

MIT

Press

Cambridge

MA

Lewis

David

Scorekeeping

in

a

Language

Game

Journal

of

Philosophical

Logic

Liberman

Mark

The

Intonation

System

of

English

Ph.D

dissertation

published

by

Garland

Press

New

York

Liberman

Mark

and

Ivan

Sag

Prosodic

Form

and

Discourse

Function

in

Papers

from

the

Tenth

Regional

Meeting

Chicago

Linguistics

Society

Chicago

IL

XXX-XXX

Lyons

John

Semantics

vol

II

Cambridge

University

Press

Merin

Arthur

Where

It

's

At

-LRB-

is

what

English

Intonation

is

All

About

-RRB-

Papers

from

the

Regional

Meeting

of

the

Chicago

Linguistics

Society

CLS

Chicago

Merin

Arthur

and

Christine

Bartels

Decision

Theoretic

Semantics

for

Intonation

Ms.

University

of

Stuttgart

Moortgat

Michael

Categorial

Investigations

Ph.D

dissertation

Universiteit

van

Amsterdam

publ

Foris

Dordrecht

Morrill

Glyn

Type-logical

Grammar

Kluwer

Dordrecht

Oehrle

Richard

Boolean

Properties

in

the

Analysis

of

Gapping

In

Syntax

and

Semantics

Geoffrey

Huck

and

Almerindo

Ojeda

eds.

New

York

Academic

Press

Oehrle

Richard

T

Multidimensional

Compositional

Functions

as

a

Basis

for

Grammatical

Analysis

in

Richard

T.

Oehrle

E.

Bach

and

D.

Wheeler

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Categorial

Grammars

and

Natural

Language

Structures

Reidel

Dordrecht

Napoli

Donna-Jo

and

Marina

Nespor

The

Syntax

of

Word-initial

Consonant

Gemination

in

Italian

Lambgauge

Nespor

Marina

and

Irene

Vogel

Prosodic

Phonology

Foris

Dordrecht

O'Connor

Joseph

and

G.

Arnold

Intonation

of

Colloquial

English

Longman

Pierrehumbert

Janet

The

Phonology

and

Phonetics

of

English

Intonation

Ph.D

dissertation

MIT

-LRB-

Dist

by

Indiana

University

Linguistics

Club

Bloomington

IN

-RRB-

Pierrehumbert

Janet

and

Mary

Beckman

Japanese

Tone

Structure

MIT

Press

Cambridge

MA

Pierrehumbert

Janet

and

Julia

Hirschberg

The

Meaning

of

Intonational

Contours

in

the

Interpretation

of

Discourse

in

Philip

Cohen

Jerry

Morgan

and

Martha

Pollack

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Intentions

in

Communication

MIT

Press

Cambridge

MA

Prevost

Scott

and

Mark

Steedman

Specifying

Intonation

from

Context

for

Speech

Synthesis

Speech

Communication

Prevost

Scott

A

Semantics

of

Contrast

and

Information

Structure

for

Specifying

Intonation

in

Spoken

Language

Generation

PhD

dissertation

IRCS

TR

University

of

Pennsylvania

S

Y

N

T

A

X

P

H

O

N

O

L

O

G

Y

I

N

T

E

R

F

A

C

E

Prince

Ellen

On

the

syntactic

marking

of

presupposed

open

propositions

Papers

from

the

Parasession

on

Pragmatics

and

Grammatical

Theory

at

the

Regional

Meeting

of

the

Chicago

Linguistic

Society

Rambow

Owen

and

Giorgio

Satta

Formal

Aspects

of

non-locality

Paper

to

the

First

TAG

Workshop

University

of

Pennsylvania

March

Rochemont

Michael

Focus

in

Generative

Grammar

Amsterdam

Benjamins

Rooth

Mats

Association

with

Focus

unpublished

PhD

dissertation

University

of

Massachusetts

Amherst

Rooth

Mats

A

Theory

of

Focus

Interpretation

Natural

Language

Semantics

Sag

Ivan

and

Mark

Liberman

The

Intonational

Disambiguation

of

Indirect

Speech

Acts

Papers

form

the

Eleventh

Regional

Meeting

Chicago

Linguistic

Society

Chicago

IL

XXX-XXX

Schmerling

Susan

Aspects

of

English

Sentence

Stress

Austin

University

of

Texas

Press

Selkirk

Elisabeth

Phonology

and

Syntax

MIT

Press

Cambridge

MA

Selkirk

Elisabeth

Derived

Domains

in

Sentence

Phonology

Phonology

Yearbook

Selkirk

Elisabeth

On

the

nature

of

prosodic

constituency

in

J.

Kingston

and

M.

Beckman

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Papers

in

Laboratory

Phonology

I

Cambridge

University

Press

Cambridge

Selkirk

Elisabeth

and

Tong

Shen

Prosodic

Domains

in

Shanghai

Chinese

in

S.

Inkelas

and

D.

Zec

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

The

Phonology-Syntax

Connection

CSLI/University

of

Chicago

Press

Chicago

Shieber

Stuart

An

Introduction

to

Uni?cation

based

Approaches

to

Grammar

CSLI/Chicago

University

Press

Chicago

Shieber

Stuart

Fernando

Pereira

and

Mary

Dalrymple

Interactions

of

Scope

and

Ellipsis

Linguistics

and

Philosophy

-LRB-

to

appear

-RRB-

Silverman

Kim

Mary

Beckman

John

Pitrelli

Marie

Ostendorf

Colin

Wightman

Patti

Price

Janet

Pierrehumbert

and

Julia

Hirschberg

TOBI

a

Standard

for

Labeling

English

Prosody

Proceedings

of

Conference

on

Spoken

Language

Processing

Banff

Alberta

October

Sperber

Dan

and

Deirdre

Wilson

Mutual

Knowledge

and

Relevance

in

Theories

of

Comprehension

in

N.

Smith

-LRB-

ed

-RRB-

Mutual

Knowledge

Academic

Press

von

Stechow

Arnim

Focusing

and

Backgrounding

Operators

Fachgruppe

Sprachwissenschaft

der

Universit?at

Konstanz

Arbeitspapier

Nr

Steedman

Mark

Dependency

and

Coordination

in

the

Grammar

of

Dutch

and

English

Language

Steedman

Mark

Combinatory

grammars

and

parasitic

gaps

Natural

Language

Linguistic

Theory

Steedman

Mark

Gapping

as

Constituent

Coordination

Linguistics

Philosophy

Steedman

Mark

Structure

and

Intonation

Language

Steedman

Mark

Surface

Structure

Intonation

and

Focus

in

Ewan

Klein

and

F.

Veltman

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Natural

Language

and

Speech

Proceedings

of

the

ESPRIT

Symposium

Brussels

Nov.

Steedman

Mark

Type-raising

and

Directionality

on

Combinatory

Grammar

in

Proceedings

of

the

Annual

Meeting

of

the

Association

for

Computational

Linguistics

Berkeley

July

Steedman

Mark

Representing

Discourse

Information

for

Spoken

Dialogue

Generation

Proceedings

of

the

International

Symposium

on

Spoken

Dialogue

Workshop

at

the

International

Conference

on

Spoken

Language

Proces

sing

-LRB-

-RRB-

Philadelphia

October

Steedman

Mark

Surface

Structure

and

Interpretation

MIT

Press

Cambridge

MA

D

R

A

F

T

Steedman

Mark

Temporality

in

J.

van

Benthem

A.

ter

Meulen

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Handbook

of

Logic

and

Linguistics

North

Holland

Amsterdam

Szabolcsi

Anna

Bound

Variables

in

Syntax

Are

there

any

in

R.

Bartsch

J.

van

Benthem

and

P.

van

Emde

Boas

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Semantics

and

Contextual

Expression

Foris

Dordrecht

Szabolcsi

Anna

On

Combinatory

Grammar

and

Projection

from

the

Lexicon

in

Ivan

Sag

Anna

Szabolcsi

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Lexical

Matters

CSLI

Stanford

CA

Szabolcsi

Anna

and

Franz

Zwarts

Semantic

Properties

of

Composed

Functions

and

the

Distribution

of

Wh-phrases

Proceedings

of

the

Seventh

Amsterdam

Colloquium

ed

by

Stokhof

and

Torenvliet

Amsterdam

ILLI

Vallduvi

Enric

The

Information

Component

unpublished

PhD

dissertation

University

of

Pennsylvania

Vallduvi

Enric

and

Elisabet

Engdahl

The

Linguistic

Realisation

of

Information

Packaging

Linguistics

-LRB-

in

press

-RRB-

Veltman

F.

Data

semantics

in

J.

Groenendijk

M.

Janssen

and

M.

Stokhof

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

Truth

Interpretation

Information

GRASS

Dordrecht

Foris

Vogel

Irene

Phonological

Interfaces

in

Italian

in

M.

Mazzola

-LRB-

ed

-RRB-

Issues

and

Theory

in

Romance

Linguistics

Sel

Papers

from

Ling

Symposium

on

Romance

Langs

XXIII

Apr.

Washington

DC

Georgetown

UP

Vogel

Irene

and

Istv?an

Kenesei

Syntax

and

Semantics

in

Phonology

in

S.

Inkelas

and

D.

Zec

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

The

Phonology-Syntax

Connection

CSLI/University

of

Chicago

Press

Chicago

Ward

Gregory

and

Julia

Hirschberg

Implicating

Uncertainty

the

Pragmatics

of

Fall-rise

Intonation

Language

Wood

Mary

McGee

Categorial

Grammar

Routledge

Zec

Draga

and

Sharon

Inkelas

Prosodically

Constrained

Syntax

in

S.

Inkelas

and

D.

Zec

-LRB-

eds

-RRB-

The

Phonology-Syntax

Connection

CSLI/University

of

Chicago

Press

Chicago

Mark

Steedman

Dept.

of

Computer

and

Information

Science

University

of

Pennsylvania

South

Street

Philadelphia

PA

-LRB-

steedman@cis.upenn.edu

-RRB-

categorial grammar
focus
information structure
intonation
syntax