Cover not available
Article published In:
Approaches to Hungarian 17: Special issue of the Journal on Uralic Linguistics 1:2 (2022)
Edited by Tamás Halm, Elizabeth Coppock and Balázs Surányi
[Journal of Uralic Linguistics 1:2] 2022
► pp. 154–180

Answering overt wh-questions

How similar are Hungarian pre-verbal focus and English it-clefts?

ORCID logo | University of Graz , Austria
It-clefts in English, their French and German counterparts and pre-verbal focus in Hungarian have been claimed to be semantically related constructions. For example, É. Kiss (1998) terms them identificational focus and Destruel et al. (2015) coin them inquiry-terminating (IT) constructions. Despite their similarities, these constructions also exhibit one major distributional difference: Clefts are usually no natural answers to overt wh-questions whereas pre-verbal focus in Hungarian constitutes the default question-answering strategy. In this paper, I show that it is possible to account for this difference within the Rational Speech Act model (Frank & Goodman 2012) without assuming any semantic differences between the structures. Thereby, I capitalize on the number of alternative constructions that could be used to answer overt wh-questions in the various languages under discussion and on a remarkable semantic property of the constructions under discussion that relates to the way they encode exhaustivity.
Keywords: Hungarian focus, it-clefts, exhaustivity, question under discussion, rational speech acts
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The problem
    • 2.1Background
    • 2.2Answers to overt wh-questions
  • 3.The basic case
    • 3.1The framework
    • 3.2The semantics
    • 3.3Analysis
  • 4.Subject–object-asymmetries
    • 4.1The data
    • 4.2Analysis
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00008.one
References (39)
References
Bende-Farkas, Ágnes. 2006. Comparing English and Hungarian focus. Unpublished manuscript. IMS Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Bergen, Leon & Noah D. Goodman. 2015. The strategic use of noise in pragmatic reasoning. Topics in Cognitive Science 71. 336–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Leon, Roger Levy & Noah D. Goodman. 2016. Pragmatic reasoning through semantic inference. Semantics and Pragmatics 91. DOI logo ISSN: 1937-8912.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2010. Conditional exhaustivity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Ms. ZAS/Vienna.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel & Manuel Križ. 2013. It’s that, and that’s it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics and Pragmatics 61. 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2007. The grammar of Q: Q-particles and the nature of wh-fronting. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null-theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 241. 239–267.Google Scholar
Destruel, Emilie. 2016. Focus marking asymmetries in colloquial and standard French: a stochastic optimality-theoretic account. Journal of French Language Studies 261. 299–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Destruel, Emilie, David I. Beaver & Elizabeth Coppock. 2019. It’s not what you expected. The surprising nature of cleft-alternatives in French and English. Frontiers in Psychology 101. 1400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Destruel, Emilie & Leah Velleman. 2014. Refining contrast: Empirical evidence from the English it-cleft. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 101. 197–214.Google Scholar
Destruel, Emilie, Daniel Velleman, Edgar Onea, Dylan Bumford, Jingyang Xue & David Beaver. 2015. A cross-linguistic study of the non-at-issueness of exhaustive inferences. In Florian Schwarz (ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions, 135–156. Heidelberg and Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P., Swantje Tönnis, Edgar Onea & Malte Zimmermann. 2018. That’s not quite it: An experimental investigation of (non-)exhaustivity in clefts. Semantics and Pragmatics 111. 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 741. 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2013. Focus as prosodic alignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 311. 683–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, Michael C. & Noah D. Goodman. 2012. Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science 336 (6084). 998. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerőcs, Mátyás, Anna Babarczy & Balázs Surányi. 2014. Exhaustivity in focus: Experimental evidence from Hungarian. Language Use and Linguistic Structure 31. 181–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geurts, Bart & Rob van der Sandt. 2004. Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 301. 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1981. Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society 141. 108–131.Google Scholar
Kotek, Hadas. 2019. Composing questions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2000. When subjects behave like objects. Studies in Language 241. 611–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onea, Edgar. 2019. Exhaustivity in it-clefts. In Chris Cummins and Napoleon Katsos (eds.), The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics, 401–417. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlovic, Anna-Christina. 2019. The interpretation of it-clefts. PhD dissertation, Göttingen.
Percus, Orin. 1997. Prying open the cleft. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society 271. 337–351.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Murat Yasavul. 2014. Anaphoric it-clefts: The myth of exhaustivity. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Conference of the Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2012a. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 51. 1–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. Information structure: Afterword. Semantics and Pragmatics 51. 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 11. 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation stress and phrasing. In John Goldsmith (ed.), Handbook of phonological theory, 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros & Gisbert Fanselow. 2010. Focus types and argument asymmetries. A cross-linguistic study in language production. In Carsten Breul & Edward Göbbel (ed.), Comparative and contrastive studies in information structure, 169–197. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Focus and the exclusion of alternatives: On the interaction of syntactic structure with pragmatic inference. Lingua 1211. 1693–1706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spector, Benjamin. 2017. The pragmatics of plural predication: Homogeneity and non-maximality within the rational speech act model. In Alexandre Cremers, Thom van Gessel & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam colloquium, 435–444. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert L. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 251. 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Surányi, Balázs. 2011. A szintaktikailag jelöletlen fókusz pragmatikája. [The pragmatics of syntactically unmarked focus.] Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XXIII. [Studies in General Linguistics XXIII.] 281–313.Google Scholar
Sutton, Richard S. & Andrew G. Barto. 1998. Reinforcement learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. All quantifiers are not equal: The case of focus. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 421. 171–187.Google Scholar
Tönnis, Swantje, Lea M. Fricke & Alexander Schreiber. 2018. Methodological considerations on testing argument asymmetry in German cleft sentences. In Eric Fuß, Marek Konopka, Beata Trawiński & Ulrich H. Waßner (eds.), Grammar and Corpora 2016, 231–240. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing.Google Scholar
Velleman, Dan Bridges, David Beaver, Emilie Destruel, Dylan Bumford, Edgar Onea & Liz Coppock. 2012. It-clefts are IT (Inquiry Terminating) constructions. Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory 221. 441–460. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, Daniel. 2005. Shifting the focus: From static structures to the dynamics of interpretation. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte, Joseph P. De Veaugh-Geiss, Swantje Tönnis & Edgar Onea. 2020. (Non-)Exhaustivity in focus partitioning across languages. In Veronika Hegedüs and Irene Vogel (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 161, 207–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar