Focus projection need not be based on pitch accents: evidence from Georgian

Lena Borise

doi:10.16995/glossa.5733

Abstract

Based on experimental evidence, this paper shows that the prosodic realization of focus in Georgian is consistent with focus projection/percolation – the phenomenon by which prosodic prominence on a sub-constituent signals focus on a larger constituent – and can be accounted for with a Default Prosody-style analysis. In focus projection in English, object-focus utterances are realized in the same way as VP- or broad-focus utterances, because in all three cases the object carries the nuclear pitch accent. In contrast, in subject-focus utterances, the subject carries the nuclear pitch accent, which is incompatible with broad- or VP-focus interpretation; focus projection does not arise. Unlike English, Georgian, a ‘phrase language’, relies not on pitch accents but on boundary tones and phrasing in focus marking (Skopeteas &amp; Féry 2010; 2016). This language type has not been explicitly addressed from the perspective of focus projection. Nevertheless, the results reported here demonstrate that the prosodic realization of subject- and object-focus in Georgian, expressed with boundary tones and duration of the stressed syllable, fits with the focus-projection pattern. This paper shows that the Georgian data can be accounted for with the Default Prosody approaches to focus projection, but not approaches employing the formal mechanism of F-projection. Accordingly, the Georgian facts provide a novel argument in favor of the Default Prosody approaches.

Highlights

This paper shows that focus-projection patterns exist in a language that is prosodically and syntactically considerably different from English, for which focus projection is commonly discussed.1 The language is Georgian (Kartvelian)
The Georgian facts provide the kind of evidence in favor of the Default Prosody approaches that cannot be gathered from English
The results show that the Default Prosody approaches, but not the F-projection ones, can account for the Georgian facts

Summary

Introduction

This paper shows that focus-projection patterns exist in a language that is prosodically and syntactically considerably different from English, for which focus projection is commonly discussed. The language is Georgian (Kartvelian). This paper shows that focus-projection patterns exist in a language that is prosodically and syntactically considerably different from English, for which focus projection is commonly discussed.. Sentential prominence in English is expressed by pitch accents (Pierrehumbert 1980; Selkirk 1984; Ladd 1996), but Georgian uses boundary tones/phrasing instead (Skopeteas & Féry 2010; 2016). Narrow foci in English can occupy any position, whereas Georgian foci are immediately preverbal (Skopeteas, Féry & Asatiani 2009; Asatiani & Skopeteas 2012). This paper shows that, the Georgian facts can be accounted for in the Default Prosody tradition of analyzing focus projection. The Georgian facts provide the kind of evidence in favor of the Default Prosody approaches (as opposed to F-projection approaches) that cannot be gathered from English

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion