Hostname: page-component-699b5d5946-g2pq9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-05T11:44:24.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When semantics meets phonetics: Acoustical studies of second-occurrence focus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

David Beaver ,
Brady Zack Clark ,
Edward Flemming ,
T. Florian Jaeger  and
Maria Wolters
David Beaver*
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin
Brady Zack Clark
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Edward Flemming
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
T. Florian Jaeger
Affiliation:
University of Rochester
Maria Wolters
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
*
Beaver, Department of Linguistics, The University of Texas at Austin, Calhoun Hall 501, 1 University Station B5100, Austin, TX 78712–0198, [dib@mail.utexas.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A second-occurrence (SO) focus is the semantic focus of a focus-sensitive operator (e.g. only), but is a repeat of an earlier focused occurrence. We report on the first systematic production and perception experiments to show that SO foci occurring after a nuclear accent are, as Rooth (1996b) has claimed, prosodically marked. We find that (i) there is no mean pitch rise on SO foci, (ii) SO foci are marked by longer duration and greater energy, and (iii) listeners are able to detect the difference between SO foci and nonfoci. On the basis of these results, we argue that SO focus is compatible with theories of focus interpretation that it has been claimed to contradict.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 83 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 245 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 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

References

Anderson, Stephen. 1972. How to get even. Language 48.4.893–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Christine. 1997. Acoustic correlates of ‘second occurrence’ focus: Towards an experimental investigation. In Kamp & Partee, 11–30.Google Scholar
Bartels, Christine, and Kingston, John. 1984. Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus. Focus and natural language processing, vol. 1: Intonation and syntax, ed. by Bosch, Peter and der Sandt, Rob van, 11–28. Heidelberg: IBM Working Papers of the Institute for Logic and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Beaver, David, and Clark, Brady. 2003. Always and only: Why not all focus sensitive operators are alike. Natural Language Semantics 11.4.323–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David, and Clark, Brady. 2007. Sense and sensitivity: How focus effects meaning. Oxford: Blackwell, to appear.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. 1986. Stress and non-stress accent. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E., and Elam, Gayle A. 1997. Guidelines for ToBI labelling (version 3.0). Columbus: The Ohio State University, ms.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E., and Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3. 255–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1958. A theory of pitch accent in English. Word 14.3.109–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus—The 59th Street Bridge accent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2006. Been there, marked that—A tentative theory of second occurrence focus. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, ms.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Studies on semantics in generative grammar, 62–119. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2.4.303–51.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1973. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12.4.335–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohan, Jocelyn. 2000. The realization and function of focus in spoken English. Austin: University of Texas, Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
de Jong, Kenneth J. 1995. The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: Linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97.1.491–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Mey, Sjaak. 1991. ‘Only’ as a determiner and as a generalized quantifier. Journal of Semantics 8. 1–2.91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1994. The pragmatics of association with only. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Boston, January.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline, and Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2005. Interpreting second occurrence focus. Potsdam: University of Potsdam, ms.Google Scholar
Foolen, Ad. 1993. De betekenis van partikels: Een dokumentatie van de stand van het onderzoek met bijzondere aandacht voor ‘maar’. Nijmegen: Catholic University of Nijmegen dissertation.Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart, and der Sandt, Rob van. 2004. Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30.1.1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajičové, Eva. 1973. Negation and topic vs. comment. Philologica Pragensia 16. 81–93.Google Scholar
Hajičové, Eva. 1984. Presupposition and allegation revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 8.2.155–67.Google Scholar
Hajičové, Eva, Partee, Barbara H.; and Sgall, Petr. 1998. Topic-focus articulation, tripartite structures, and semantic content. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English (part 2). Journal of Linguistics 3.2.199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Jonathon, Fletcher, Janet; and Beckman, Mary E. 2000. Manner and place conflicts in the articulation of accent in Australian English. Papers in laboratory phonology 5: Acquisition and the lexicon, ed. by Broe, Michael B. and Pierrehumbert, Janet B., 40–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy. 2003. The prosody of contrastive topic and focus in spoken English. Pre-proceedings of the workshop on information structure in context, 141–52. Stuttgart: Institut für Maschinelle Sprach Verarbeitung.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy, and Sosa, Juan M. 2001. The prosodic structure of topic and focus in spontaneous English dialogue. Paper presented at Topic and Focus: A workshop on intonation and meaning, Linguistic Society of America Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy, and Sosa, Juan M. 2002. The prosody of questions in natural discourse. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002: The first international conference on speech prosody, 375–78. Aix-en-Provence: ISCA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1996. Exclusive company: Only and the dynamics of vertical inference. Journal of Semantics 13.1.1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huss, Volker. 1978. English word stress in post-nuclear position. Phonetica 35.2.86–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2004. Only always associates audibly, even if only is repeated: The prosodic properties of second occurrence focus in English. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition and focus. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans, and Partee, Barbara H. (eds.) Context-dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning: Proceedings of the workshops in Prague and Bad Teinach. Stuttgart: Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, University of Stuttgart.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1998. Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 1.2.128–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. Informationsstruktur und Grammatik 4, ed. by Jacobs, Joachim, 17–54. Opladen: Westdeutscher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1997. Focus and/or context: A second look at second occurrence expressions. In Kamp & Partee, 253–76.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with focus phrases. The architecture of focus, ed. by Molnér, Valéria and Winkler, Susanne, 105–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1980. The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 2003. Phonetic data analysis: An introduction to fieldwork and instrumental techniques. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Martí, Luisa. 2003. Contextual variables. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Storrs dissertation.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1974. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague, ed. by Thomason, Richmond, 247–70. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991. But, only, just: Focusing adverbial change in modern English 1500–1900. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Ostendorf, Mari, Price, Patti J.; and Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 1995. The Boston University radio news corpus. (Boston University technical report ECS-95–001.) Boston, MA: Boston University.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1999. Focus, quantification, and semantics-pragmatics issues. Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, ed. by Bosch, Peter and der Sandt, Rob van, 213–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1888. Principles of the history of language. London: Swan Sonnenschein, Lowrey, & Company. (Translation of Principien der Sprachgeschichte.)Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. Intentions in communication, ed. by Cohen, Philip, Morgan, Jerry, and Pollack, Martha, 271–311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. Radical pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 223–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Raaijmakers, Jeroen G. W., Schrijnemakers, Joseph M. C.; and Gremmen, Frans. 1999. How to deal with ‘the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy’: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language 41.3.416–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1995. Domain restriction in dynamic semantics. Quantification in natural languages, ed. by Bach, Emmon, Jelinek, Eloise, Kratzer, Angelika, and Partee, Barbara H., 661–700. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers in semantics 49. 91–136Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1.1.75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1996a. Focus. The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. by Lappin, Shalom, 271–97. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1996b. On the interface principles for intonational focus. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 6, ed. by Galloway, Teresa and Spence, Justin, 202–26. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1997. Why some foci must associate. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, ms.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7.2.141–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by Goldsmith, John A., 550–69. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie, and Turk, Alice E. 1996. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25.2.193–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, Kim. 1987. The structure and processing of fundamental frequency contours. Cambridge: Cambridge University dissertation.Google Scholar
Silverman, Kim, Beckman, Mary, Pitrelli, John, Ostendorf, Mari, Wightman, Colin, Price, Patti, Pierrehumbert, Janet; and Hirschberg, Julia. 1992. ToBI: A standard for labelling English prosody. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, vol. 2, 867–70. Banff: ICSLP.Google Scholar
Sluijter, Agaath M. C, and van Heuven, Vincent J. 1996a. Acoustic correlates of linguistic stress and accent in Dutch and American English. Proceedings of the fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, vol. 2, 630–33.Google Scholar
Sluijter, Agaath M. C, and van Heuven, Vincent J. 1996b. Spectral balance as acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 101.1.503–13.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2000. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry 31.4.649–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tancredi, Christopher D. 1990. Not only even, but even only. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Terken, Jacques, and Hirschberg, Julia. 1994. Deaccentuation of words representing given information: Effects of persistence of grammatical function and surface position. Language and Speech 37.2.125–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Turk, Alice E., and White, Lawrence. 1999. Structural influences on accentual lengthening. Journal of Phonetics 27. 171–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1990. The information component. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertationGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 1997. A minimal theory of adverbial quantification. In Kamp & Partee, 153–93.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1985/1989. Focusing and backgrounding operators. (Technical report.) Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Watson, Duane, Gunlogson, Christine; and Tanenhaus, Michael. 2006. Online methods for the investigation of prosody. Methods in empirical prosody research, ed. by Sudhoff, Stefan, Lenertové, Denisa, Meyer, Roland, Pappert, Sandra, Augurzky, Petra, Mleinek, Ina, Richter, Nicole, and Schlieβer, Johannes, 259–82. Leipzig: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Welby, Pauline. 2003. Effects of pitch accent position, type and status on focus projection. Language and Speech 46.1.53–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, Edwin. 1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28.4.577–628.Google Scholar
Wolters, Maria, and Beaver, David. 2001. What does he mean? Proceedings of the twentythird annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. by Moore, Johanna and Stenning, Keith, 1176–80. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar