1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Approaches to Hungarian
  4. Chapter

oa (Non-)exhaustivity in focus partitioning across languages

image of (Non-)exhaustivity in focus partitioning across languages

We present novel experimental evidence on the availability and the status of exhaustivity inferences with focus partitioning in German, English, and Hungarian. Results suggest that German and English focus-background clefts and Hungarian focus share important properties, (É. Kiss 1998, 1999; Szabolcsi 1994; Percus 1997; Onea & Beaver 2009). Those constructions are anaphoric devices triggering an existence presupposition. EXH-inferences are not obligatory in such constructions in English, German, or Hungarian, against some previous literature (Percus 1997; Büring & Križ 2013; É. Kiss 1998), but in line with pragmatic analyses of EXH-inferences in clefts (Horn 1981, 2016; Pollard & Yasavul 2016). The cross-linguistic differences in the distribution of EXH-inferences are attributed to properties of the Hungarian number marking system.

  • Affiliations: 1: Universität Potsdam; 2: Universität Graz

References

  1. Abrusán, Márta
    2016 Presupposition cancellation: Explaining the ‘soft–hard’ trigger distinction. Natural Language Semantics24. 165–202. 10.1007/s11050‑016‑9122‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9122-7 [Google Scholar]
  2. Balogh, Kata
    2009  Theme with variations. A context-based analysis of focus . PhD thesis. Universiteit van Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Beaver, David I. & Brady Z. Clark
    2008 Sense and sensitivity. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444304176
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304176 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brody, Michael
    1990 Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics2. 201–225.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Büring, Daniel
    2016 Unalternative semantics. In Sarah D’Antonio , Mary Moroney & Carol Rose Little (eds.),Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 25. 550–575. 10.3765/salt.v25i0.3634
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3634 [Google Scholar]
  6. Büring, Daniel & Manuel Križ
    2013 It’s that, and that’s it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics and Pragmatics6(6). 1–29. 10.3765/sp.6.6
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.6 [Google Scholar]
  7. Delin, Judy
    1992 Properties of it-cleft presupposition. Journal of Semantics9. 289–306. 10.1093/jos/9.4.289
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  8. Destruel, Emilie & Joseph P. De Veaugh-Geiss
    2019 (Non-)Exhaustivity in French c’est-Clefts. In Christopher Pinon (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 12 (EISS 12). Paris: CSSP.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Destruel, Emilie , Dan Velleman , Edgar Onea , Dillan 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. Dordrecht: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P. , Malte Zimmermann , Edgar Onea & Anna-Christina Boell
    2015 Contradicting (not-)at-issueness in exclusives and clefts: An empirical study. In Sarah D’Antonio , Mary Moroney & Carol Rose Little (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT)25. 373–393. 10.3765/salt.v25i0.3054
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3054 [Google Scholar]
  11. De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P. , Swantje Tönnis , Edgar Onea & Malte Zimmermann
    2017 An experimental investigation of (non-)exhaustivity in es-clefts. In Rob Truswell (ed.), Sinn und Bedeutung 21 (SuB 21). University of Edinburgh.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2018  That’s not quite it: An experimental investigation of (non-)exhaustivity in clefts. Semantics & Pragmatics11(3). 10.3765/sp.11.3
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.11.3 [Google Scholar]
  13. É. Kiss, Katalin
    1987 Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑3703‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3703-1 [Google Scholar]
  14. É. Kiss, Katalin
    1998 Identificational focus versus information focus. Language74. 245–273. 10.1353/lan.1998.0211
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211 [Google Scholar]
  15. É. Kiss, Katalin
    1999 The English cleft construction as a focus phrase. In Lunella Mereu (ed.), Boundaries of morphology and syntax, 217–229. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.180.14kis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.180.14kis [Google Scholar]
  16. 2015 Grammaticalized backgrounding: Preliminary version of grammaticalized backgrounding. In Johan Brandtler , David Håkansson , Stefan Huber & Eva Klingvall (eds.), Discourse and grammar: A Festschrift in honor of Valéria Molnár, 193–214. Lund University.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. É. Kiss, Katalin & Lilla Pinter
    2014 Identificational focus revisited: The issue of exhaustivity. Paper presented at Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 50.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
    1997 The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Geurts, Bart & Rob van der Sandt
    2004 Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics30. 1–44. 10.1515/thli.2004.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2004.005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Grubic, Mira
    2015  Focus and alternative sensitivity in Ngamo (West Chadic) . PhD thesis. Universität Potsdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Güldemann, Tom
    2016 Maximal backgrounding = focus without (necessary) focus encoding. Studies in Language40(3). 551–590. 10.1075/sl.40.3.03gul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.3.03gul [Google Scholar]
  22. Heim, Irene
    1982  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases . PhD thesis. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Horn, Laurence R
    1981 Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. InNorth Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS) 11, 125–142. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Horn, Laurence R
    2016 Information structure and the landscape of (non-)at-issue meaning. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 108–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Horváth, Julia
    2010 "Discourse-Features", syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua120. 1346–1369. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  26. Junghanns, Uwe
    1997 On the so-called èto-cleft construction. In Martina Lindseth & Steven Franks (eds.), Proceedings of the sixth annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, 166–190. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle
    1993 From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kenesei, István
    1986 On the logic of word order in Hungarian. In Werner Abraham & Sjaak de Meij (eds.), Topic, focus and configurationality, 143–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.4.08ken
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.4.08ken [Google Scholar]
  29. 2006 Focus as identification. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 137–168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110922011.137
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.137 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kimmelman, Vadim
    2009 On the interpretation of èto in so-called èto-clefts». In Gerhild Zybatow , Uwe Junghanns , Denisa Lenertová & Petr Biskup (eds.), Studies in formal Slavic phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and information structure: Proceedings of FDSL 7, 319–329. Frankfurt: Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Krifka, Manfred
    2008 Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica55. 243–276. 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.2
     https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2 [Google Scholar]
  32. Onea, Edgar
    2007 Exhaustivity, focus and incorporation in Hungarian. In Maria Aloni , Paul Dekker & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium , 169–174. University of Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2016 Potential questions at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004217935
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004217935 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2019 Exhaustivity in it-clefts. In Chris Cummins & Napoleon Katsos (eds.), The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Onea, Edgar & David I. Beaver
    2009 Hungarian focus is not exhausted. In Ed Cormany , Satoshi Ito & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 19. 342–359. 10.3765/salt.v19i0.2524
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v19i0.2524 [Google Scholar]
  36. Percus, Orin
    1997 Prying open the cleft. In Kiyomi Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS) 27. 337–351.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Pollard, Carl & Murat Yasavul
    2016 Anaphoric it-clefts: The myth of exhaustivity. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 50.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Reeve, Matthew
    2012 Clefts and their Relatives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/la.185
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.185 [Google Scholar]
  39. Roberts, Craige
    2012 Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics5. 1–69. 10.3765/sp.5.6
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rooth, Mats
    1996 Focus. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Oxford: Blackwell. 271–297.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Saah, Kofi Korankye
    1994  Studies in Akan syntax, acquisition, and sentence processing . PhD thesis, University of Ottawa.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Schwarz, Florian
    2009  Two types of definites in natural language . PhD thesis, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Schwarzschild, Roger
    1999 Givenness, avoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics7(2). 141–177. 10.1023/A:1008370902407
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008370902407 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sgall, Petr , Eva Hajičová & Jarmila Panevová
    1986 The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Edited by Jacob L. Mey . Dordrecht: Reidel – Prague: Academia.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Simons, Mandy , David Beaver , Judith Tonhauser & Craige Roberts
    2010 What projects and why. In Nan Li & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20. 309–327. 10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584 [Google Scholar]
  46. Szabolcsi, Anna
    1981 Compositionality in focus. Folia Linguistica15. 141–161. 10.1515/flin.1981.15.1‑2.141
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1981.15.1-2.141 [Google Scholar]
  47. 1994 All quantifiers are not equal: The case of focus. Acta Linguistica Hungarica42. 171–187.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Tonhauser, Judith , David Beaver , Craige Roberts & Mandy Simons
    2013 Towards a taxonomy of projective content. Language89(1). 66–109. 10.1353/lan.2013.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Velleman, Dan , David Beaver , Emilie Destruel , Dylan Bumford , Edgar Onea & Elizabeth Coppock
    2012  It-clefts are IT (Inquiry Terminating) constructions. In Anca Chereches (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 22. 441–460.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Wedgwood, Daniel , Gergely Peth & Ronnie Cann
    2006 Hungarian ‘focus position’ and English it-clefts: The semantic underspecification of ‘focus’ readings. Ms., University of Edinburgh.
  51. Zimmermann, Malte
    2016 Cross-linguistic variability (and uniformity) in focus-background partitioning. Presentation at KNAW Colloquium ‘Language Variation in Action’ . Amsterdam, 19 February 2016.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Abrusán, Márta
    2016 Presupposition cancellation: Explaining the ‘soft–hard’ trigger distinction. Natural Language Semantics24. 165–202. 10.1007/s11050‑016‑9122‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9122-7 [Google Scholar]
  2. Balogh, Kata
    2009  Theme with variations. A context-based analysis of focus . PhD thesis. Universiteit van Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Beaver, David I. & Brady Z. Clark
    2008 Sense and sensitivity. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444304176
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304176 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brody, Michael
    1990 Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics2. 201–225.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Büring, Daniel
    2016 Unalternative semantics. In Sarah D’Antonio , Mary Moroney & Carol Rose Little (eds.),Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 25. 550–575. 10.3765/salt.v25i0.3634
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3634 [Google Scholar]
  6. Büring, Daniel & Manuel Križ
    2013 It’s that, and that’s it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics and Pragmatics6(6). 1–29. 10.3765/sp.6.6
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.6 [Google Scholar]
  7. Delin, Judy
    1992 Properties of it-cleft presupposition. Journal of Semantics9. 289–306. 10.1093/jos/9.4.289
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  8. Destruel, Emilie & Joseph P. De Veaugh-Geiss
    2019 (Non-)Exhaustivity in French c’est-Clefts. In Christopher Pinon (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 12 (EISS 12). Paris: CSSP.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Destruel, Emilie , Dan Velleman , Edgar Onea , Dillan 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. Dordrecht: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P. , Malte Zimmermann , Edgar Onea & Anna-Christina Boell
    2015 Contradicting (not-)at-issueness in exclusives and clefts: An empirical study. In Sarah D’Antonio , Mary Moroney & Carol Rose Little (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT)25. 373–393. 10.3765/salt.v25i0.3054
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3054 [Google Scholar]
  11. De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P. , Swantje Tönnis , Edgar Onea & Malte Zimmermann
    2017 An experimental investigation of (non-)exhaustivity in es-clefts. In Rob Truswell (ed.), Sinn und Bedeutung 21 (SuB 21). University of Edinburgh.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2018  That’s not quite it: An experimental investigation of (non-)exhaustivity in clefts. Semantics & Pragmatics11(3). 10.3765/sp.11.3
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.11.3 [Google Scholar]
  13. É. Kiss, Katalin
    1987 Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑3703‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3703-1 [Google Scholar]
  14. É. Kiss, Katalin
    1998 Identificational focus versus information focus. Language74. 245–273. 10.1353/lan.1998.0211
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211 [Google Scholar]
  15. É. Kiss, Katalin
    1999 The English cleft construction as a focus phrase. In Lunella Mereu (ed.), Boundaries of morphology and syntax, 217–229. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.180.14kis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.180.14kis [Google Scholar]
  16. 2015 Grammaticalized backgrounding: Preliminary version of grammaticalized backgrounding. In Johan Brandtler , David Håkansson , Stefan Huber & Eva Klingvall (eds.), Discourse and grammar: A Festschrift in honor of Valéria Molnár, 193–214. Lund University.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. É. Kiss, Katalin & Lilla Pinter
    2014 Identificational focus revisited: The issue of exhaustivity. Paper presented at Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 50.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
    1997 The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Geurts, Bart & Rob van der Sandt
    2004 Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics30. 1–44. 10.1515/thli.2004.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2004.005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Grubic, Mira
    2015  Focus and alternative sensitivity in Ngamo (West Chadic) . PhD thesis. Universität Potsdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Güldemann, Tom
    2016 Maximal backgrounding = focus without (necessary) focus encoding. Studies in Language40(3). 551–590. 10.1075/sl.40.3.03gul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.3.03gul [Google Scholar]
  22. Heim, Irene
    1982  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases . PhD thesis. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Horn, Laurence R
    1981 Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. InNorth Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS) 11, 125–142. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Horn, Laurence R
    2016 Information structure and the landscape of (non-)at-issue meaning. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 108–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Horváth, Julia
    2010 "Discourse-Features", syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua120. 1346–1369. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  26. Junghanns, Uwe
    1997 On the so-called èto-cleft construction. In Martina Lindseth & Steven Franks (eds.), Proceedings of the sixth annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, 166–190. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle
    1993 From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kenesei, István
    1986 On the logic of word order in Hungarian. In Werner Abraham & Sjaak de Meij (eds.), Topic, focus and configurationality, 143–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.4.08ken
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.4.08ken [Google Scholar]
  29. 2006 Focus as identification. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 137–168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110922011.137
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.137 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kimmelman, Vadim
    2009 On the interpretation of èto in so-called èto-clefts». In Gerhild Zybatow , Uwe Junghanns , Denisa Lenertová & Petr Biskup (eds.), Studies in formal Slavic phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and information structure: Proceedings of FDSL 7, 319–329. Frankfurt: Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Krifka, Manfred
    2008 Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica55. 243–276. 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.2
     https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2 [Google Scholar]
  32. Onea, Edgar
    2007 Exhaustivity, focus and incorporation in Hungarian. In Maria Aloni , Paul Dekker & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium , 169–174. University of Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2016 Potential questions at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004217935
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004217935 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2019 Exhaustivity in it-clefts. In Chris Cummins & Napoleon Katsos (eds.), The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Onea, Edgar & David I. Beaver
    2009 Hungarian focus is not exhausted. In Ed Cormany , Satoshi Ito & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 19. 342–359. 10.3765/salt.v19i0.2524
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v19i0.2524 [Google Scholar]
  36. Percus, Orin
    1997 Prying open the cleft. In Kiyomi Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS) 27. 337–351.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Pollard, Carl & Murat Yasavul
    2016 Anaphoric it-clefts: The myth of exhaustivity. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 50.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Reeve, Matthew
    2012 Clefts and their Relatives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/la.185
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.185 [Google Scholar]
  39. Roberts, Craige
    2012 Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics5. 1–69. 10.3765/sp.5.6
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rooth, Mats
    1996 Focus. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Oxford: Blackwell. 271–297.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Saah, Kofi Korankye
    1994  Studies in Akan syntax, acquisition, and sentence processing . PhD thesis, University of Ottawa.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Schwarz, Florian
    2009  Two types of definites in natural language . PhD thesis, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Schwarzschild, Roger
    1999 Givenness, avoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics7(2). 141–177. 10.1023/A:1008370902407
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008370902407 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sgall, Petr , Eva Hajičová & Jarmila Panevová
    1986 The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Edited by Jacob L. Mey . Dordrecht: Reidel – Prague: Academia.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Simons, Mandy , David Beaver , Judith Tonhauser & Craige Roberts
    2010 What projects and why. In Nan Li & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20. 309–327. 10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584 [Google Scholar]
  46. Szabolcsi, Anna
    1981 Compositionality in focus. Folia Linguistica15. 141–161. 10.1515/flin.1981.15.1‑2.141
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1981.15.1-2.141 [Google Scholar]
  47. 1994 All quantifiers are not equal: The case of focus. Acta Linguistica Hungarica42. 171–187.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Tonhauser, Judith , David Beaver , Craige Roberts & Mandy Simons
    2013 Towards a taxonomy of projective content. Language89(1). 66–109. 10.1353/lan.2013.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Velleman, Dan , David Beaver , Emilie Destruel , Dylan Bumford , Edgar Onea & Elizabeth Coppock
    2012  It-clefts are IT (Inquiry Terminating) constructions. In Anca Chereches (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 22. 441–460.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Wedgwood, Daniel , Gergely Peth & Ronnie Cann
    2006 Hungarian ‘focus position’ and English it-clefts: The semantic underspecification of ‘focus’ readings. Ms., University of Edinburgh.
  51. Zimmermann, Malte
    2016 Cross-linguistic variability (and uniformity) in focus-background partitioning. Presentation at KNAW Colloquium ‘Language Variation in Action’ . Amsterdam, 19 February 2016.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027261601-atoh.16.10zim
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027261601-atoh.16.10zim
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027261601
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error