1887
Volume 40, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Many tests have been used in eliciting focus constructions and determining what type of focus a certain linguistic strategy expresses. This paper provides an overview of the various diagnostics for focus, indicating how they show the size of the focused constituent and what semantic-pragmatic type of focus is expressed. These types range from simple pragmatic focus to semantically more complex focus, signalling exclusivity or exhaustivity either as an inherent semantic part of the focus, or merely an implicature. The discussion of these diagnostics brings to light how some diagnostics are flawed, and whether the linguistic strategy tested is actually a dedicated strategy for focus at all.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.40.2.01van
2016-06-24
2019-10-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abels, Klaus & Peter Muriungi
    2008 The focus marker in Kîîtharaka: Syntax and semantics. Lingua118 (5). 687–731. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abner, Natasha
    2011 WH-words that go bump in the right. In Mary B. Washburn , Katherine McKinney-Bock , Erika Varis , Ann Sawyer & Barbara Tomaszewicz (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics , 24–32. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aboh, Enoch O
    2004The morphosyntax of complement-head sequences: clause structure and word order patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195159905.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195159905.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2007 Focused versus non-focused wh-phrases. In Enoch O. Aboh , Katharina Hartmann & Malte Zimmermann (eds.), Focus strategies in African languages, 287–314. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Adli, Aria
    2011Gradient acceptability and frequency effects in information structure: a quantitative study on Spanish, Catalan, and Persian. Freiburg: Universität Freiburg dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2015 What you like is not what you do: Acceptability and frequency in syntactic variation. In Aria Adli , Marco Garcia García & Göz Kaufmann (eds.), Variation in language: Usage-based vs. system-based approaches, 173–200. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110346855
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346855 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baltazani, Maria
    1998Topic and focus in Greek. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bazalgette, Timothy
    2015Algorithmic acquisition of focus parameters. University of Cambridge dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bearth, Thomas
    1992 Constituent structure, natural focus hierarchy and focus types in Toura. Folia Linguistica26. 75–94. doi: 10.1515/flin.1992.26.1‑2.75
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1992.26.1-2.75 [Google Scholar]
  10. Beaver, David & Brady Clark
    2008Sense and sensitivity. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444304176
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304176 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bianchi, Valentina , Giuliano Bocci & Silvio Cruschina
    2015 Focus fronting and its implicatures. In Enoch O. Aboh , Aafke Hulk , Jeannette Schaeffer & Petra Sleeman (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2013: Selected papers from Going Romance, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/rllt.8.01bia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.8.01bia [Google Scholar]
  12. Bisang, Walter & Remi Sonaiya
    2000 Information structuring in Yoruba. Linguistics38 (1). 169–197. doi: 10.1515/ling.38.1.169
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.38.1.169 [Google Scholar]
  13. Brunetti, Lisa
    2004A unification of focus. Padua: Unipress.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2009 On the pragmatics of post-focal material in Italian (left peripheral focus looked from the other side. In Denis Apothéloz , Bernard Combettes & Franck Neveu (eds.), Les linguistiques du détachement, Actes du Colloque de Nancy, Juin 7-9, 2006, 151–162. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Buell, Leston C
    2006 The Zulu conjoint/disjoint verb alternation: focus or constituency?. ZAS Papers in Linguistics43. 9–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chafe, William
    1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles N. Li & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Subject and topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chierchia, Gennaro
    2004 Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Adriana Belletti (eds.), Structures and beyond, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cruschina, Silvio
    2012Discourse-related features and functional projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Destruel, Emilie & Emilie Velleman
    2014 In Christopher Piñón (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, 197–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Douglas, Wilfrid H
    1959An introduction to the Western Desert language of Australia. Sydney: University of Sydney.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Downing, Laura J. & Bernd Pompino-Marschall
    2013 The focus prosody of Chichewa and the stress-focus constraint: A response to Samek-Lodovici (2005). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory31. 647–681. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑013‑9192‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9192-x [Google Scholar]
  22. Drenhaus, Heiner , Malte Zimmermann & Shravan Vasishth
    2011 Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional. Journal of Neurolinguistics24 (3). 320–337. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dretske, Fred I
    1972 Contrastive statements. Philosophical Review81 (4). 411–437. doi: 10.2307/2183886
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2183886 [Google Scholar]
  24. Drubig, Hans Bernard
    1994Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. Tübingen: University of Tübingen.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. É. Kiss, Katalin
    1998 Identificational focus versus information focus. Language74 (2). 245–273. doi: 10.1353/lan.1998.0211
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211 [Google Scholar]
  26. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Shalom Lappin
    1979 Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics6. 41–85. doi: 10.1515/thli.1979.6.1‑3.41
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1979.6.1-3.41 [Google Scholar]
  27. 1983 Under stress: A functional explanation of English sentence stress. Journal of Linguistics23. 341–358.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
    2007Information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Faller, Martina
    2002Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Fanselow, Gisbert & Denisa Lenertová
    2011 Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory29. 169–209. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑010‑9109‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9109-x [Google Scholar]
  31. Féry, Caroline & Shinichiro Ishihara
    2010 How focus and givenness shape prosody. In Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds.), Information structure. theoretical, typological and experimental perspectives, 36–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Frascarelli, Mara & Ángel Jiménez-Fernández
    2013 Optionality in contrast. Paper presented at CamCoS 2 , Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Frascarelli, Mara & Francesca Ramaglia
    2013 Optionality in contrast. Paper presented at IFF 39 , Modena.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Frey, Werner
    2010 Ā-Movement and conventional implicatures: About the grammatical encoding of emphasis in German. Lingua120 (6). 1416–1435. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.016 [Google Scholar]
  35. Garcia, Hugo
    2013 The interaction of thetics with exclamatives and miratives: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Paper presented at GWIS2, Methodological issues in the study of information structure , Graz, Austria.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Gast & van der Auwera
    2011 Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe. Language87. 2–54. doi: 10.1353/lan.2011.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0008 [Google Scholar]
  37. Götze, Michael , Thomas Weskott , Cornelia Endriss , Ines Fiedler , Stefan Hinterwimmer , Svetlana Petrova , Anne Schwarz , Stavros Skopeteas & Ruben Stoel
    2007 Information structure. In Stephanie Dipper , Michael Götze & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Information structure in cross-linguistic corpora: Annotation guidelines for phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and information structure. Working Papers of the SFB 632, 147–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Green, Melanie & Philip J. Jaggar
    2003 Ex-situ and in-situ focus in Hausa: Syntax, semantics and discourse. In Jacqueline Lecarme , Jean Lowenstamm & Ur Shlonsky (eds.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar 2: Current issues in linguistic theory, 187–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.241.11gre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.241.11gre [Google Scholar]
  39. Greif, Markus
    2010 Contrastive focus in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at Speech Prosody 2010 , Chicago, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof
    1984Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Gryllia, Stella
    2009On the nature of preverbal focus in Greek. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gussenhoven, Carlos
    2008 Notions and subnotions in information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica55. 381–395. doi: 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.11
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.11 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hagège, Claude
    2008 Towards a typology of interrogative verbs. Linguistic Typology12 (1). 1–44. doi: 10.1515/LITY.2008.031
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LITY.2008.031 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hartmann, Katharina & Malte Zimmermann
    2007 In place - out of place? Focus in Hausa. In Susanne Winkler & Kerstin Schwabe (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 365–403. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.100.20har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.20har [Google Scholar]
  45. Horn, Laurence R
    1972On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Los Angeles: University of California.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 1985 Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language61 (1). 121–174. doi: 10.2307/413423
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413423 [Google Scholar]
  47. 1981 Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. In Victoria Burke & James Pustejovski (eds.), Papers from the 11th Annual Meeting of NELS, 124–142. Amherst: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Horvath, Julia
    2010 “Discourse features”, syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua120 (6). 1346–1369. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kasimir, Elke
    2005 Question-Answer test and givenness: Some question marks. Working Papers of the SFB632, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS)3. 1–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kenesei, Istvan
    1986 On the logic of Hungarian word order. In Werner Abraham & Sjaak de Meij (eds.), Topic, focus, configurationality, 143–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.4.08ken
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.4.08ken [Google Scholar]
  51. 2006 Focus as identification. In Valeria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 137–168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110922011.137
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.137 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kim, Ilkyu
    2012 Korean -(n)un, -i/ka, and information structure. Paper presented at workshop ‘Categories of Information Structure’ , MPI Nijmegen.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. König, Ekkehard
    1991The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203212288
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203212288 [Google Scholar]
  54. Krahmer, Emiel & Marc Swerts
    2007 Perceiving focus. In Choonkyu Lee , Matthew Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds.), Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on intonation and meaning, 121–138. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2007 The effects of visual beats on prosodic prominence: Acoustic analyses, auditory perception and visual perception. Journal of Memory and Language57 (3). 396–414. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  56. Kratzer, Angelika
    2009 Pragmatic strengthening for free. Paper presented at31. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Osnabrück.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Krifka, Manfred
    1992 A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In Joachim Jacobs (eds.), Informationstruktur und Grammatik, 17–53. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑12176‑3_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_2 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2006 Association with focus phrases. In Valeria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110922011.105
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.105 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2007 Basic notions of information structure. In Caroline Féry , Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds.), Working Papers of the SFB 632, Interdisciplinary studies on information structure, 13–55. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2007 The semantics of questions and the focusation of answers. In Chungmin Lee , Matthew Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds.), Topic and focus, crosslinguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, 139–150. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Krifka, Manfred & Renate Musan
    2012 Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure, 1–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110261608.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261608.1 [Google Scholar]
  62. Labatut, Roger
    1986 Thématisation et focalisation en peul. Afrique et Langage26 (2). 17–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  64. Lecarme, Jacqueline
    1999 Focus in Somali. In Georges Rebuschi & Laurice Tuller (eds.), The grammar of focus, 275–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.24.10lec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.24.10lec [Google Scholar]
  65. Levinson, Stephen C
    2000Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Lewis, David
    1979 Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic8. 339–359. doi: 10.1007/BF00258436
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436 [Google Scholar]
  67. Martins, Ana Maria
    2011 Scrambling and information focus in old and contemporary Portuguese. Catalan Journal of Linguistics10. 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Matić, Dejan & Daniel Wedgwood
    2013 The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in a cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Linguistics49 (1). 1–37. doi: 10.1017/S0022226712000345
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000345 [Google Scholar]
  69. Matthewson, Lisa
    2004 On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Jounral of American Linguistics70. 369–415. doi: 10.1086/429207
    https://doi.org/10.1086/429207 [Google Scholar]
  70. 2013 On how (not) to uncover cross-linguistic variation. Proceedings of NELS 42 .
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Merchant, Jason
    2004 Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy27. 661–738. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑005‑7378‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3 [Google Scholar]
  72. Molnár, Valeria
    2002 Contrast - from a contrastive perspective. In Hilde Hasselgård , Stig Johansson , Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective, 147–162. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Neeleman, Ad , Elena Titov , Hans van de Koot & Reiko Vermeulen
    2009 A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In Jeroen Van Craenenbroeck (eds.), Alternatives to cartography, 15–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110217124.15
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110217124.15 [Google Scholar]
  74. Neidle, Carol
    2002 Language across modalities: ASL focus and question constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook2. 71–98. doi: 10.1075/livy.2.05nei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.2.05nei [Google Scholar]
  75. Onea, Edgar
    2007 Exhaustivity, Focus and Incorporation in Hungarian. In Maria Aloni , Paul Dekker & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium (ILLC/Department of Philosophy University of Amsterdam), 169–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Pan, Victor
    2012 Categories of Information Structure: On the syntax and semantics of Wh-topics and Wh-foci. Paper presented atworkshop ‘Categories of Information Structure’, MPI Nijmegen.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Partee, Barbara H
    1999 Focus, quantification, and semantics-pragmatics issues. In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 213–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Paul, Waltraud & John Whitman
    2008Shi…de focus clefts in Mandarin Chinese. The Linguistic Review25 (3/4). 413–451.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Quadros, R.M
    1999Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language. Porto Alegre: Pontificía Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Reich, Ingo
    2002 Question/answer congruence and the semantics of wh-phrases. Theoretical Linguistics28. 73–94. doi: 10.1515/thli.2002.28.1.73
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2002.28.1.73 [Google Scholar]
  81. 2012 Information structure and theoretical models of grammar. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure, 409–447. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Renans, Agata , Malte Zimmermann & Markus Greif
    2011 Questionnaire on focus semantics. In Agata Renans , Malte Zimmermann & Markus Greif (eds.), Working papers of the SFB 632. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Rizzi, Luigi
    1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  84. Robert, Stéphane
    2010 Focus in Atlantic languages. In Ines Fiedler & Anne Schwarz (eds.), The expression of information structure. A documentation of its diversity across Africa, 233–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.91.09rob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.91.09rob [Google Scholar]
  85. Roberts, Craige
    1996 Information structure in discourse. Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Yae-Hak Yoon & Andreas Kathol (eds.), Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 91–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Rooth, Mats
    1985Association with focus. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics1 (1). 75–116. doi: 10.1007/BF02342617
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  88. 1996 Focus. In Shalom Leppin (eds.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 271–297. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 1999 Association with focus or association with presupposition?In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus. Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 232–244. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Sanchez, Liliana
    2010The morphology and syntax of topic and focus: Minimalist inquiries in the Quechua periphery. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.169
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.169 [Google Scholar]
  91. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
    2006 Theticity. In G. Bernini & M. Schwarz (eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe, 255–308. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Selkirk, Elizabeth O
    1984Phonology and syntax: The relationship between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 1995 Intonation, stress and phrasing. In John A. Goldsmith (ed.), Handbook of phonology, 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 2008 Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of ‘discourse-new’. Acta Linguistica Hungarica55. 331–346. doi: 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.8
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.8 [Google Scholar]
  95. Skopeteas, Stavros , Ines Fiedler , Sam Hellmuth , Anne Schwarz , Ruben Stoel , Gisbert Fanselow , Caroline Féry & Manfred Krifka
    2006 Questionnaire on Information Structure (QUIS). Working papers of the SFB632 (ISIS)4.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Skopeteas, Stavros & Gisbert Fanselow
    2010 Focus in Georgian and the expression of contrast. Lingua120 (6). 1370–1391. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  97. Skopeteas, Stavros
    2012 The empirical investigation of information structure. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure, 217–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Slade, Benjamin Martin
    2011Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala and other languages. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Stalnaker, Robert
    2002 Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy25. 701–721. doi: 10.1023/A:1020867916902
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902 [Google Scholar]
  100. Szabolcsi, Anna
    1981 Compositionality in focus. Acta Linguistica Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae. 141–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 1983 Focusing properties, or the trap of first order. Theoretical Linguistics10. 125–145. doi: 10.1515/thli.1983.10.1‑3.125
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1983.10.1-3.125 [Google Scholar]
  102. 1994 All quantifiers are not equal: The case of focus. Acta Linguistica Hungarica42 (3-4). 171–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Torregrossa, Jacopo
    2012 Towards a taxonomy of focus types. The case of information foci and contrastive foci in Italian. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, Papers in Semantics16. 151–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Vallduví, Enric & Maria Vilkuna
    1998 On rheme and kontrast. In Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax, 79–106. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. van der Wal, Jenneke
    2009Word order and information structure in Makhuwa-Enahara. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 2011 Focus excluding alternatives: Conjoint/disjoint marking in Makhuwa. Lingua212 (11). 1734–1750. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.013 [Google Scholar]
  107. van Kuppevelt, Jan
    1996 Inferring from topics. Scalar implicatures as topic-dependent inferences. Linguistics and Philosophy19. 393–443. doi: 10.1007/BF00630897
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630897 [Google Scholar]
  108. van Leusen, Noor
    2004 Incompatibility in context: A diagnosis of correction. Journal of Semantics21. 415–441. doi: 10.1093/jos/21.4.415
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.4.415 [Google Scholar]
  109. van Rooij, Robert
    2002 Relevance only. In J. Bos , M.E. Foster & C. Matheson (eds.), Proceedings of the sixth workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (EDILOG 2002), 155–160.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. van Rooij, Robert & Katrin Schulz
    2004 Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information13. 491–519. doi: 10.1007/s10849‑004‑2118‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-004-2118-6 [Google Scholar]
  111. Verhoeven, Elisabeth & Stavros Skopeteas
    2015 Licensing focus constructions in Yucatec Maya. International Jounral of American Linguistics81(1). 1–40. doi: 10.1086/679041
    https://doi.org/10.1086/679041 [Google Scholar]
  112. Vermeulen, Reiko
    2012 Word order variation and information structure. In Ad Neeleman & Reiko Vermeulen (eds.), The syntax of topic, focus and contrast, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9781614511458
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511458 [Google Scholar]
  113. von Fintel, Kai
    2008 What is presupposition accommodation, again?Philosophical perspectives22 (1). 137–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1520‑8583.2008.00144.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00144.x [Google Scholar]
  114. Wedgwood, Daniel
    2012 Categories and processes: Information structure, the universality question and linguistic methodology. Paper presented at Categories of Information Structure , MPI Nijmegen.
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Wells, John C
    2006English intonation: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Yiman, Baye
    1988 Focus in Oromo. Studies in African Linguistics19. 365–384.
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Zerbian, Sabine
    2006Expression of information structure in Northern Sotho. Berlin: Humboldt University dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Zimmermann, Malte
    2008 Contrastive focus and emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica55 (3-4). 347–360. doi: 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.9
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.9 [Google Scholar]
  119. Zimmermann, Malte & Edgar Onea
    2011 Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua121 (11). 1651–1670. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  120. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa
    1998Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.40.2.01van
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): elicitation , exhaustivity , focus and semantics/pragmatics interface
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