Theoretical Linguistics 30:123--136 (2004)

Angelika Kratzer
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
The BPR assumes that we already know how sentences are partitioned into focused and backgrounded material, and this is quite legitimate, given the literature on the topic , von Stechow ). If the BPR was true, no more would have to be said about the meaning of focus. The behavior of whatever inferences are generated by backgrounding could be taken care of by theories dealing with the projection of presuppositions of the familiar kind, the presuppositions of definite descriptions, clefts, or factives, for example. This is a non-trivial and interesting claim
Keywords language
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,163
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Presupposition Triggering From Alternatives.D. Abusch - 2010 - Journal of Semantics 27 (1):37-80.
Association by Movement: Evidence From NPI-Licensing. [REVIEW]Michael Wagner - 2006 - Natural Language Semantics 14 (4):297-324.
Denn as a highlighting-sensitive particle.Nadine Theiler - 2021 - Linguistics and Philosophy 44 (2):323-362.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
89 ( #131,037 of 2,507,018 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #417,155 of 2,507,018 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes