Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T14:05:38.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extraposition and focus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Geoffrey J. Huck  and
Younghee Na
Younghee Na
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two curious phenomena which have to this point been treated separately in the literature are seen to be consequences of the same general interpretive mechanism. We propose that the theory of focus not only accounts for the ‘definiteness restriction’ with respect to material extraposed from NP, but also contributes crucially to an explanation for the variable acceptability of sentences containing extractions from extraposed PPs.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 51 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Some of the ideas on which this paper is based were first presented in talks we gave at the 1985 annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America and the 1988 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, and at workshops at the University of Toronto and SUNY-Buffalo; we are grateful to audiences at each for comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to Mona Anderson, Mark Baltin, Elizabeth Cowper, John Goldsmith, Laurence Horn, Diane Massam, James McCawley, Keren Rice, John Richardson, Jerrold Sadock, Paul Schachter, Susan Schmerling, Gregory Ward, and Yael Ziv for useful discussion of issues raised in the paper, and would particularly like to thank Georgia Green, Charles Jones, and Michael Rochemont for detailed comments on an earlier version of it. This is of course not to say that any of the above would necessarily agree with what we say here. Research for this project was partially funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

References

Berman, Arlene, and Szamosi, Michael. 1972. Observations on sentential stress. Lg. 48.304–25.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark R. 1984. Extraposition rules and discontinuous constituents. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 157–63.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1965. Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Forms of English, ed. by Abe, Isamu and Kanekiyo, Tetsuya, 101–17. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Lg. 47.257–81.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S., 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader, ed. by Steinberg, Danny D. and Jakobovits, Leon A., 183–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul, 232–86. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On WH-movement. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter, and Rochemont, Michael S. 1983. Stress and focus in English. Lg. 59.123–65.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 1974. The position and movement of prepositional phrases. University of Massachusetts, ms. (A synopsis of this paper is given in Hornstein & Weinberg 1981.)Google Scholar
Egli, Urs. 1974. Ansätze zur Integration der Semantik in die Grammatik. Kronberg: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet D. 1978. Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 759–70.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn. 1979. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Gordon, David, and Lakoff, George. 1971. Conversational postulates. Chicago Linguistic Society 7. 63–84. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 1981. Approaches to island phenomena. (North Holland Linguistics Series, 45.) Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline. 1980. On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 637–78.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline, and May, Robert. 1984. Extraposition and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 1–31.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10. 41–53. Reprinted in Montague grammar, ed. by Barbara H. Partee, 247–57. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, and Weinberg, Amy. 1981. Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 55–91.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Huck, Geoffrey J. 1984. Discontinuity and word order in categorial grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles. 1987. P for Proper Governor. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, vol. 6, ed. by Crowhurst, Megan. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1964. Semi-sentences. Readings in the philosophy of language, ed. by Fodor, Jerry A. and Katz, Jerrold J., 400–16. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M. 1975. Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. (Cambridge Studies in linguistics, 15.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kimball, John. 1973. Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition 2. 15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. Constraints on internal subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 363–85.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. 1980. The structure of intonational meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence, and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1977. Preposition stranding in English: A problem and a mystery. CLS book of squibs, ed. by Fox, Samuel E., Beach, Woodford A., and Philosoph, Shulamith, 64–5. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Score-keeping in a language game. Semantics from different points of view, ed. by Bauerle, R., Egli, U., and von Stechow, Arnim, 172–87. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. The role of semantics in a grammar. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T., 125–69. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1981. Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic but were ashamed to ask. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 91–106.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1982. Adverbs and logical form: A linguistically realistic theory. Lg. 58.144–84.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. Approaches to natural language, ed. by Hintikka, Jaako, Moravcsik, Julius, and Suppes, Patrick, 221–42. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Na, Younghee. 1986. Syntactic and semantic interaction in Korean: Theme, topic, and relative clause. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Na, Younghee, and Huck, Geoffrey J. 1990. On the status of certain island violations in Korean. Toronto, ms.Google Scholar
Otero, Carlos. 1972. Acceptable ungrammatical sentences in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 233–42.Google Scholar
Otero, Carlos. 1973. Agrammaticality in performance. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 551–62.Google Scholar
Otero, Carlos. 1976. On acceptable agrammaticality: A rejoinder. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 342–62.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael S. 1978. A theory of stylistic rules in English. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael S. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. (Studies in linguistic analysis, 4.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Safir, Kenneth J. 1987. What explains the definiteness effect? The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. by Reuland, Eric J. and ter Meulen, Alice G. B., 71–97. (Current studies in linguistics, 14.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Lg. 49.19–46.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan. 1974. Contrastive stress and semantic relations. Chicago Linguistic Society 10. 608–16. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan. 1976. Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1964. Determiners and relative clauses in a generative grammar of English. Lg. 40.37–52.Google Scholar
Woisetschlaeger, Erich. 1983. On the question of definiteness in ‘an old man's book’. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 137–54.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael, and Cole, Peter. 1974. Relative extraposition and the scope of definite descriptions in Hebrew and English. Chicago Linguistic Society 10. 772–86. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1982. Stranded to and phonological phrasing in English. Linguistics. 20. 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar