Focus

Author	Title	Year	Journal/Proceedings	Reftype	DOI/URL
Abrusán, M.	On the focus-sensitive presupposition triggers too, again, also, even Márta ABRUSÁN — CNRS, IRIT Toulouse [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Vol. 18Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, pp. 6-23	inproceedings
Abstract: This paper proposes to derive the presupposition of additive particles too, as well, also and the temporal particle again. It argues that the presuppositions of these particles can be predicted by the same presupposition triggering mechanism that was proposed for so-called soft triggers in Abrusán (2011). It is shown that presupposition suspension facts, characteristic of soft triggers, do not arise with additive particles because of their anaphoric and focus-sensitive nature. Finally, the paper proposes that the soft-hard presupposition distinction can be explained not in terms of differences in the nature of the presupposition but rather as a consequence of the anaphoric/focus-sensitive nature of various triggers.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Abrusan2014, author = {Márta Abrusán}, title = {On the focus-sensitive presupposition triggers too, again, also, even Márta ABRUSÁN — CNRS, IRIT Toulouse}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung}, year = {2014}, volume = {18}, pages = {6-23} }
Anand, P. and Martell, C.	Annotating the Focus of Negation in terms of Questions Under Discussion [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	School: Defense Technical Information Center	techreport	URL
Abstract: Blanco & Moldovan (Blanco and Moldovan 2011) have empirically demonstrated that negated sentences often convey implicit positive inferences, or focus, and that these inferences are both human annotatable and machine learnable. Concentrating on their annotation process, this paper argues that the focus based implicit positivity should be separated from concepts of scalar implicature and negraising as well as the placement of stress. We show that a model making these distinctions clear and which incorporates the pragmatic notion of question under discussion yields κ rates above .80, but that it substantially deflates the rates of focus of negation in text.
BibTeX: @techreport{Anand2012, author = {Pranav Anand and Craig Martell}, title = {Annotating the Focus of Negation in terms of Questions Under Discussion}, school = {Defense Technical Information Center}, year = {2012}, url = {https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA590555.pdf} }
AnderBois, S.	Focus and uninformativity in Yucatec Maya questions [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Natural Language Semantics Vol. 20(4), pp. 349-390	article	DOI
Abstract: Crosslinguistically, questions frequently make crucial use of morphosyntactic elements which also occur outside of questions. Chief among these are focus, disjunctions, and wh-words with indefinite semantics. This paper provides a compositional account of the semantics of wh-, alternative, and polar questions in Yucatec Maya (YM), which are composed primarily of these elements. Key to the account is a theory of disjunctions and indefinites (extending work by others) which recognizes the inherently inquisitive nature of these elements. While disjunctions and indefinites are inquisitive, they differ from questions since they are also truth-conditionally informative. Compositionally, then, the role of focus in YM questions is to presuppose the informative component of an indefinite wh-word or disjunction, rendering the inquisitive component the question's only new contribution to the discourse. In addition to deriving question denotations compositionally, the account also captures a potentially surprising fact: focused disjunctions in YM can function as either questions or assertions, depending solely on the discourse context.
BibTeX: @article{AnderBois2012, author = {Scott AnderBois}, title = {Focus and uninformativity in Yucatec Maya questions}, journal = {Natural Language Semantics}, publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, year = {2012}, volume = {20}, number = {4}, pages = {349--390}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9084-3} }
Balogh, K.	Additive particle uses in Hungarian [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2021	Studies in Language Vol. 45(2), pp. 428-469	article	DOI
Abstract: In this paper, we investigate empirical data that raise challenging issues with respect to focus sensitivity of the Hungarian additive particle is ‘also, too’. In Hungarian, the additive particle is attached to a constituent, and the is-phrase cannot occupy the structural focus position. This raises the issue how to capture the focus sensitivity of is. We propose a primarily pragmatic, context-based analysis of the Hungarian additive particle, where the particle associates with the pragmatic focus (Lambrecht 1994) determined on basis of the immediate question under discussion (Roberts 2012). Important evidence for this claim is that the Hungarian additive particle can take different semantic associates, corresponding to the pragmatic focus of the sentence. After discussing the Hungarian data, we will present the analysis in the framework of Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997; Van Valin 2005). To capture Hungarian and English data in a uniform way, important extensions of the framework will be proposed.
BibTeX: @article{Balogh2021, author = {Kata Balogh}, title = {Additive particle uses in Hungarian}, journal = {Studies in Language}, year = {2021}, volume = {45}, number = {2}, pages = {428-469}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19034.bal} }
Barros, M. and Kotek, H.	Ellipsis licensing and redundancy reduction: A focus-based approach [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	Glossa: a journal of general linguistics Vol. 4(1)	article	DOI
Abstract: The focus of this paper is the characterization of the identity condition on sluicing. While the formulation of this condition remains an open issue, recent work suggests that sluices are anaphoric to an implicit question or issue that the antecedent raises in the discourse (Q-equivalence approaches, Ginzburg & Sag 2000; AnderBois 2011; 2014; 2016; Barros 2014; Weir 2014; Kotek & Barros 2018). We highlight several challenges to Q-equivalence accounts, and argue instead for a return to focus-based accounts (Rooth 1992a; Romero 1998; Fox 2000; Merchant 2001). Under such an approach, antecedents are importantly not responsible for raising any particular issue/question themselves, a point we show to be a critical challenge to Q-equivalence accounts. We propose instead that sluicing is possible provided that the antecedent and sluice have the same focus-theoretic propositional content. We show that this account is similar to, but improves upon, Merchant’s (2001) influential e-GIVENness account. We extend this account to cases of VP ellipsis, and moreover argue in support of the idea that the theory of ellipsis licensing should be integrated into a more general theory of redundancy reduction. In other words, that the semantic condition on identity in ellipsis is the same as the semantic condition on deaccenting (Rooth 1992a; Tancredi 1992). We propose a generalized condition on redundancy reduction, which may replace Schwarzschild’s (1999) GIVENness condition.
BibTeX: @article{Barros2019, author = {Matthew Barros and Hadas Kotek}, title = {Ellipsis licensing and redundancy reduction: A focus-based approach}, journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics}, publisher = {Open Library of the Humanities}, year = {2019}, volume = {4}, number = {1}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.811} }
Beaver, D. and Clark, B.	Always and Only: Why not all focus sensitive operators are alike [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2003	Natural Language Semantics Vol. 11, pp. 323-362	article	DOI
Abstract: We discuss focus sensitivity in English, the phenomenon whereby interpretation of some expressions is affected by placement of intonational focus. We concentrate in particular on the interpretation of always and only, both of which are interpreted as universal quantifiers, and both of which are focus sensitive. Using both naturally occurring and constructed data we explore the interaction of these operators with negative polarity items, with presupposition, with prosodically reduced elements, and with syntactic extraction. On the basis of this data we show that while only lexically encodes a dependency on the placement of focus, always does not. Rather, the focus sensitivity of always results from its dependency on context, and from the fact that focus also reflects what is given in the context. We account for this split using an analysis couched in event semantics.
BibTeX: @article{Beaver2003, author = {David Beaver and Brady Clark}, title = {Always and Only: Why not all focus sensitive operators are alike}, journal = {Natural Language Semantics}, year = {2003}, volume = {11}, pages = {323-362}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025542629721} }
Beaver, D. and Clark, B.	Sense and Sensitivity: How focus determines meaning [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2008		book
Abstract: Sense and Sensitivity advances a novel research proposal in the nascent field of formal pragmatics, exploring in detail the semantics and pragmatics of focus in natural language discourse. The authors develop a new account of focus sensitivity, and show that what has hitherto been regarded as a uniform phenomenon in fact results from three different mechanisms. The book makes a major contribution to ongoing research in the area of focus sensitivity – a field exploring interactions between sound and meaning, specifically the dependency some words have on the effects of focus, such as "she only LIKES me" (i.e. nothing deeper) compared to "she only likes ME" (i.e. nobody else). Discusses the features of the QFC theory (Quasi association, Free association, and Conventional association), a new account of focus implying a tripartite typology of focus-sensitive expressions. Presents novel cross-linguistic data on focus and focus sensitivity that will be relevant across a range of linguistic sub-fields: semantics and pragmatics, syntax, and intonational phonology. Concludes with a case study of exclusives (like “only”), arguing that the entire existing literature has missed crucial generalizations, and for the first time explaining the focus sensitivity of these expressions in terms of their meaning and discourse function
BibTeX: @book{Beaver2008, author = {David Beaver and Brady Clark}, title = {Sense and Sensitivity: How focus determines meaning}, publisher = {Blackwell}, year = {2008} }
Büring, D.	The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge accent [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1997		book
Abstract: This study provides an illuminating and ground-breaking account of the complex interaction of intonational phenomena, semantics and pragmatics. Based on examples from German and English, and centred on an analysis of the fall-rise intonation contour, a semantic interpretation for two different pitch accents - Focus and Topic - is developed. The cross-sentence, as well as the sentence internal semantic effects of these accents, follow from the given treatment. The account is based on Montogovian possible world semantics and Chomskian generative syntax.
BibTeX: @book{Buering1997, author = {Daniel Büring}, title = {The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge accent}, publisher = {Routledge}, year = {1997} }
Büring, D.	On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents [Abstract] [Comment] [BibTeX]	2003	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 26(5), pp. 511-545	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper presents a comprehensive pragmatic theory ofcontrastive topic and its relation to focus in English.In discussing various constructions involving contrastive topics,it argues that they make reference to complex, hierarchicalaspects of discourse structure. In this, it follows and spellsout a proposal sketched in Roberts (1996, p. 121ff),using the formal tools found in Büring (1994,1997b). It improves on existing accounts in the accuracy with which it predicts the non-occurrence of the accent patterns associated with focus and contrastive topic, and locates the analysis of contrastive topicswithin a broader picture of discourse and information structure.
Comment: Buering (2003) offers an influential analysis of contrastive topics like example (6) in Roberts2012a in terms of the QUD framework. He uses tree-structured discourses instead of the QUD stack, but (as pointed out by an anonymous reviewer) it isn’t clear that the distinction makes a difference empirically. See also sections 2 and 3.
BibTeX: @article{Buering2003, author = {Daniel Büring}, title = {On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {2003}, volume = {26}, number = {5}, pages = {511-545}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025887707652} }
Büring, D.	Focus projection and default prominence [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2006	The Architecture of Focus	incollection	DOI
Abstract: I argue that focus projection rules in English should be reduced to a simple prominence principle, combined with a theory of default prominence. Novel data are presented to show that commonly assumed restrictions on focus projection -- that it is possible only from heads and complements -- do not in fact hold. A more adequate theory is one that places less restrictions on focus projection, and ultimately allows us to completely eliminate F-markers from the theory of grammar.
BibTeX: @incollection{Buering2006, author = {Daniel Büring}, title = {Focus projection and default prominence}, booktitle = {The Architecture of Focus}, publisher = {Mouton de Gruyter}, year = {2006}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.321} }
Büring, D.	Semantics, Intonation, and information structure [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2007	The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces	incollection	DOI
Abstract: This article explores the influences of information structure (IS) on intonation. It proposes an account whereby a single syntactic representation, which contains formal features such as focus (F), and contrastive topic (CT), is seen by both the phonological and interpretational modules of the grammar. The two aspects of IS that have received the most attention in recent formal work on IS – focus background and topic comment – are given. For each, a sketch of their realization and, more extensively, their interpretation, is offered. The article then addresses the effect of IS on constituent order in various languages. It is shown that IS realization can be thought of as a set of mapping requirements, in addition to those of default prosody, between syntactic structure and prosodic structure, which make reference to the IS representations (e.g. F and CT marking) in the syntax.
BibTeX: @incollection{Buering2007, author = {Daniel Büring}, title = {Semantics, Intonation, and information structure}, booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2007}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0015} }
Büring, D.	What's New (and What's Given) in the theory of focus? [BibTeX]	2008	Proceedings of BLS 34	inproceedings	DOI
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Buering2008, author = {Daniel Büring}, title = {What's New (and What's Given) in the theory of focus?}, booktitle = {Proceedings of BLS 34}, publisher = {Berkeley Linguistics Society and the Linguistic Society of America}, year = {2008}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v34i1.3586} }
Büring, D.	Towards a typology of focus realization [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2009	Information Structure, pp. 177-205	incollection	DOI
Abstract: Chapter 8 ‘Towards a Typology of Focus Realization’ by Daniel Büring presents a first attempt to formulate a cross‐linguistic theory of focus realization, that is, of how different languages express focusing. By far not all languages mark focused constituents via pitch accent placement, the way Germanic languages do. Rather, focusing is variously reflected in prosodic phrasing, constituent ordering, via special focus morphemes, and perhaps in some cases, not at all. The chapter explores the hypothesis that there is still something systematic to be said about focus realization, that is, that there is a common analytical apparatus that can capture the cross‐linguistic variation, based on the Prominence Theory of Focus Realization.
BibTeX: @incollection{Buering2009, author = {Daniel Büring}, title = {Towards a typology of focus realization}, booktitle = {Information Structure}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2009}, pages = {177-205}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0008} }
Carlson, K.	Predicting contrast in sentences with and without focus marking [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Lingua Vol. 150, pp. 78-91	article	DOI
Abstract: How do we know when a contrast is coming? This study explores the prediction of parallel contrastive phrases, especially NPs, in sentences with and without overt focus marking. A written sentence-completion questionnaire with clauses followed by the conjunction “but” compared unmarked initial clauses to ones with the focus marker “only” on the subject or object. Both conditions with “only” elicited more contrasts overall than the condition without focus marking, and many of the contrasts were with the focus-marked NP. While the baseline (no-only) condition had full clauses for half of the completions, subject focus increased clausal completions and object focus increased negative ellipsis completions (“not” + NP structures), both changes in syntax which make a contrast with the marked NP easy. The production of negative ellipsis sentences primarily in the object-focus condition suggests that the object bias of these sentences in comprehension could relate to their being used more frequently with this meaning. Finally, the overall pattern of results shows that overt marking of contrastive focus increases continuations with contrasts, and the conjunction “but” does not reliably predict explicitly-stated contrasts within a sentence without overt focus marking.
BibTeX: @article{Carlson2014, author = {Katy Carlson}, title = {Predicting contrast in sentences with and without focus marking}, journal = {Lingua}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2014}, volume = {150}, pages = {78--91}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.008} }
Clark, B.	Pragmatics and Intonation [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2017	Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics	incollection	DOI
Abstract: Intonation impacts pragmatic meaning. A range of empirical evidence shows that the pragmatic functions of intonation are specifiable. The dimensions of meaning impacted by intonation include at-issue meanings (for example, what is asserted in an assertion), presuppositions, conversational implicatures, and conventional implicatures. Certain linguistic expressions (such as the English exclusive only) are dependent on intonation, and some of these dependencies impact at-issue meaning. Intonation can also trigger certain presuppositions, in particular a certain type of anaphoric presupposition associated with the discourse context. There is also a robust interaction between intonation and implicature. The intonational prominence associated with focus can trigger certain scalar, existence, and exhaustive conversational implicatures. Finally, certain intonational contours (for example, the rise-fall-rise contour) appear to define conventional implicatures.
BibTeX: @incollection{Clark2017, author = {Brady Clark}, title = {Pragmatics and Intonation}, booktitle = {Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics}, year = {2017}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.208} }
Clopper, C.G. and Tonhauser, J.	The Prosody of Focus in Paraguayan Guaraní [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	International Journal of American Linguistics Vol. 79(2), pp. 219-251	article	DOI
Abstract: In many languages, prosodic prominence indicates which expressions of an utterance are focused. This study explores the prosody of focus in Paraguayan Guaraní (Tupí-Guaraní) through two production and two perception experiments conducted with native speakers of Guaraní in Paraguay. The results of the production experiments suggest that prosodic prominence is realized by stressed syllable duration, f0 slope, and pitch accent type. While the perception experiments provide evidence that Paraguayan Guaraní listeners attend to these properties in prosodic prominence perception, they also show that listeners are not at ceiling in identifying the prosodically most prominent expression from the acoustic signal alone. These results are consistent with recent findings about prosodic prominence perception in other languages and provide empirical support from an American indigenous language for the hypothesis that non-acoustic factors, such as word frequency and information status, also play a role in prominence perception.
BibTeX: @article{Clopper2013, author = {Cynthia G. Clopper and Judith Tonhauser}, title = {The Prosody of Focus in Paraguayan Guaraní}, journal = {International Journal of American Linguistics}, year = {2013}, volume = {79}, number = {2}, pages = {219--251}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1086/669629} }
De Kuthy, K. and Meurers, D.	Integrating GIVENness into a structured meaning approach in HPSG [BibTeX]	2011	Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar	inproceedings	URL
BibTeX: @inproceedings{DeKuthy2011, author = {De Kuthy, Kordula and Detmar Meurers}, title = {Integrating GIVENness into a structured meaning approach in HPSG}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar}, publisher = {CSLI Publications}, year = {2011}, url = {https://depts.washington.edu/hpsg2011/pp/DeKuthy-Meurers.pdf} }
De Kuthy, K. and Meurers, D.	Focus projection between theory and evidence [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory, pp. 207-240	incollection	DOI
Abstract: In this paper, we want to bring together and compare the predictions of traditional focus projection on the one hand and the more recent pragmatics-only approaches (Roberts, 2006; Kadmon, 2006) on the other with two sources of empirical evidence, experimental and corpus-based. In essence, the paper is an empirical exploration of the evidence for focus projection, working out the empirical challenge that a pragmatics-only approach needs to find an alternative explanation for.
BibTeX: @incollection{DeKuthy2012, author = {De Kuthy, Kordula and Detmar Meurers}, title = {Focus projection between theory and evidence}, booktitle = {Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory}, publisher = {De Gruyter Mouton}, year = {2012}, pages = {207-240}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510888.207} }
Djärv, K. and Bacovcin, H.A.	Prosodic effects on factive presupposition projection [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2020	Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 169, pp. 61-85	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper investigates the interaction between prosodically mediated pragmatics and factive presupposition projection. In particular, it addresses a set of proposals, articulated most clearly in Abrusán (2011, 2016); Simons et al. (2010), and Simons et al. (2017), which argue that prosodically mediated focus, as a signal of the Question Under Discussion (Roberts, 1996, 2012), determines whether or not particular content becomes presupposed (Abrusán) or ends up projecting from the scope of entailment-targeting operators (Simons et al.). We present experimental results demonstrating that the predictions made by these proposals are too strong: although focus is shown to have an effect on factive presupposition projection, it does not completely eliminate the factive inference, as argued by these authors. Rather, we find that the main factor determining whether or not a factive inference projects is the identity of the predicate. We argue that this supports a view whereby factive presuppositions are lexically triggered, and may only be cancelled in a particular set of embedded contexts via local accommodation (Heim, 1983). However, focus may give rise to inferences via the QUD, to the effect that the factive inference is weakened (although not completely eliminated).
BibTeX: @article{Djaerv2020, author = {Kajsa Djärv and Hezekiah Akiva Bacovcin}, title = {Prosodic effects on factive presupposition projection}, journal = {Journal of Pragmatics}, publisher = {Elsevier BV}, year = {2020}, volume = {169}, pages = {61--85}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.04.011} }
Downing, L.J.	On the (non-) congruence of focus and prominence in Tumbuka [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Selected Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 122-133	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: It is widely assumed in the linguistic literature on focus that, cross-linguistically: “Focus needs to be maximally [prosodically] prominent” (Büring 2010: 178; see, too, Frota (2000), Gundel (1988), Jackendoff (1972), Roberts (1998), Rooth (1992, 1996), Reinhart (1995), Samek-Lodovici (2005), Selkirk (1995, 2004), Szendröi (2003), and Truckenbrodt (1995, 2005)). However, there is also a growing list of counterexamples to the Focus-Prominence correlation. I show in this paper that Tumbuka, a Bantu language (N20) spoken in Malawi, should be added to the list of problematic cases. After presenting a brief sketch of Tumbuka prosody in section 2, section 3 demonstrates noncongruence between focus and maximal prominence by discussing the prosody of the following focusrelated constructions: wh-questions and answers; alternative (choice) questions and answers; and the focus particle -so ‘also’. I conclude in section 4 with questions for future research and implications of Tumbuka for the typology of focus prosody.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Downing2012, author = {Downing, Laura J}, title = {On the (non-) congruence of focus and prominence in Tumbuka}, booktitle = {Selected Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project}, year = {2012}, pages = {122--133}, url = {http://www.lingref.com/cpp/acal/42/paper2764.pdf} }
Féry, C. and Samek-Lodovici, V.	Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci [BibTeX]	2006	Language Vol. 82(1), pp. 131-150	article	DOI
BibTeX: @article{Fery2006, author = {Carole Féry and Vieri Samek-Lodovici}, title = {Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci}, journal = {Language}, year = {2006}, volume = {82}, number = {1}, pages = {131-150}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0031} }
Gillingham, G.	Focusing on unlikely accented nominals: context alternatives and implied expectations [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Proceedings of SALT 23	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: In English, accenting a pronoun occasionally switches its reference rela- tive to an unaccented pronoun: (1) John pushed Bill and... a. heb/#j##fell.##b.##HEj/#b fell. However, accent does not always have this effect - it is not licit in (2) below: (2) John bought Bill a drink and then... a. hej/?b went home. b. # HE went home. This paper argues that the felicity of the accent in (1b) is dependent on a presupposition of relative unlikeliness, which is unfulfilled in (2b). The presence of this accent is due to a focus-sensitive operator, Opunlikely, which presupposes the existence of a likelier alternative to the asserted one. The reference and the distribution of accented pronouns is due to the satisfaction of this presupposition. Opunlikely not only accounts for accents on pronouns, but also on coreferential nouns and other types of constituents as well. Finally, this operator also accounts for the distribution of accent and unlikeliness associated with other focus-sensitive constructions.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Gillingham2013, author = {Gwendolyn Gillingham}, title = {Focusing on unlikely accented nominals: context alternatives and implied expectations}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 23}, year = {2013}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v23i0.2663} }
Goebel, A.	Representing Context: Presupposition Triggers and Focus-sensitivity [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2020	School: University of Massachusets, Amherst	phdthesis	DOI
Abstract: This dissertation investigates the role of Focus-sensitivity for a typology of presupposition triggers. The central hypothesis is that Focus-sensitive triggers require a linguistic antecedent in the discourse model, whereas presuppositions of triggers lacking Focus-sensitivity are satisfied as entailments of the Common Ground. This hypothesis is supported by experimental evidence from two borne out predictions. First, Focus-sensitive triggers are sensitive to the salience of the antecedent satisfying their presupposition, as operationalized via the Question Under Discussion, and lead to interference-type effects, while triggers lacking Focus-sensitivity are indifferent to the QUD-structure. Second, Focus-sensitive triggers are harder to globally accommodate than triggers lacking Focus-sensitivity. The picture that emerges from these results is that the same kind of meaning - presuppositions - is grounded in distinct underlying representations of context in relation to an independent property of the trigger - Focus-sensitivity - which directly affects the way a trigger is processed.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Goebel2020, author = {Alexander Goebel}, title = {Representing Context: Presupposition Triggers and Focus-sensitivity}, school = {University of Massachusets, Amherst}, year = {2020}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.7275/19172131} }
Goodhue, D.	A unified account of inquisitive and assertive rising declaratives [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2021	Vol. 6(1)Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, pp. 951	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: Previous work on rising declaratives has argued that some have an inquisitive interpretation similar to polar questions, and that this meaning is intonationally distinguished by a steep final rise to a high boundary tone, while others have an assertive interpretation, similar to assertions of falling declaratives, that has a shallower final rise to a lower, high boundary tone. I demonstrate that this strict form-meaning correlation does not hold because there are inquisitive rising declaratives that have a shallow final rise. I argue for a unified theory of rising declaratives with enough interpretational flexibility to explain these crosscutting patterns.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Goodhue2021, author = {Daniel Goodhue}, title = {A unified account of inquisitive and assertive rising declaratives}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America}, year = {2021}, volume = {6}, number = {1}, pages = {951}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v6i1.5042} }
Grubic, M.	Kapa as an End-of-Scale Marker in Bole and Ngizim (West Chadic) [BibTeX]	2005	Vol. 16(1)Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung	inproceedings	URL
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Grubic2005, author = {Mira Grubic}, title = {Kapa as an End-of-Scale Marker in Bole and Ngizim (West Chadic)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung}, year = {2005}, volume = {16}, number = {1}, url = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/427} }
Grubic, M. and Zimmermann, M.	Conventional and free association with focus in Ngamo (West Chadic) [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	Vol. 15Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung, pp. 291-305	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: The paper discusses association with focus in Ngamo (West Chadic, Afro-Asiatic). We present evidence from thisnon-Indoeuropean language in favour of Beaver& Clark (2008)’s claim that different kinds of focus-sensitive elements interact with the meaning of focus in different ways, namely conventional association with focus vs free association.We show that exclusive particles (only) in Ngamo, as in English, conventionally associate with focus. (Scalar-) Additive particles (also, even), by contrast, do not pattern like their English counterparts: Same as Q-adverbials, they are more free in their association behaviour, and can also associate with non-focused elements under certain conditions.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Grubic2011, author = {Mira Grubic and Malte Zimmermann}, title = {Conventional and free association with focus in Ngamo (West Chadic)}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung}, publisher = {Universaar – Saarland University Press}, year = {2011}, volume = {15}, pages = {291-305}, url = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/382} }
Gutzmann, D. and Miró, E.C.	The Dimensions of VERUM [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: In this paper we study the semantics of so-called verum focus from the point of view of a multi-dimensional semantic model. As coined by Höhle (1992), verum focus is non-contrastive focus on the verb or a complementizer located in C in German, and it is a way of realizing the corresponding operator VERUM. In the small amount of previous literature, VERUM has been treated as a pure semantic operator. In contrast, we show that those one-dimensional treatments make the wrong predictions about the truth-conditions of an utterance involving verum focus as well as about its discourse contribution. Equipped with a multidimensional semantic framework, we treat VERUM as an expressive function that operates in the use-conditional dimension. It takes as argument a proposition p and expresses the interpretational instruction to downdate the corresponding question ?p from the question under discussion. We show that this approach to VERUM can account for the distribution of verum focus, and its discourse contribution.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Gutzmann2011, author = {Daniel Gutzmann and Elena Castroviejo Miró}, title = {The Dimensions of VERUM}, booktitle = {Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics}, year = {2011}, url = {http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss8/index_en.html} }
Hartmann, K. and Zimmermann, M.	Focus marking in Bura: semantic uniformity matches syntactic heterogeneity [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Vol. 30(4), pp. 1061-1108	article	DOI
Abstract: The present article introduces a theory of (morpho-)syntactic focus marking on nominal categories in Bura, a Central Chadic SVO language spoken in the northeast of Nigeria. Our central claim is that the particle an plays a crucial role in the marking of subject and non-subject focus. We put forward a uniform analysis of an as a focus copula that selects for syntactic predicates of type and a focused constituent of type . This uniform semantic representation is transparently mapped onto different syntactic structures: In a clause with a focused subject, the focus copula appears between the subject in SpecTP and the predicative VP. On the other hand, syntactically focused non-subjects are fronted and appear in a bi-clausal cleft structure that contains the focus copula and a relative cleft-remnant. The non-uniform analysis of focus marking is further supported by the structure of predicative constructions, in which the focus copula separates the focused subject and the adjectival or nominal predicate. It is also shown that alternative unified analyses fail to account for the full range of Bura data. The latter part of the article provides an analysis of the Bura cleft construction. Based on syntactic and semantic evidence, we come to the conclusion that the clefted constituent is base-generated in its initial surface position, and that an empty operator moves within the relative clause. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the potential conceptual reasons behind the observed subject/non-subject asymmetry in Bura.
BibTeX: @article{Hartmann2012, author = {Katharina Hartmann and Malte Zimmermann}, title = {Focus marking in Bura: semantic uniformity matches syntactic heterogeneity}, journal = {Natural Language & Linguistic Theory}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {2012}, volume = {30}, number = {4}, pages = {1061--1108}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9174-4} }
Ito, M.	Japanese-speaking children's interpretation of sentences containing the focus particle datte even: Conventional implicatures, QUD, and processing limitations [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Linguistics Vol. 50(1)	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper investigates Japanese-speaking children’s (in)sensitivity to information strength when interpreting sentences containing the focus particle datte ‘even.’ It examines whether or not their sensitivity is affected by the Question Under Discussion (QUD) and the Felicity Judgment (FJ) task based on the Processing Limitation Hypothesis (PLH; cf. Chierchia et al. 2001, 2004). Because datte ‘even’ is not a scalar term, it does not give rise to scalar implicatures (SIs) by constituting a part of scales. ‘Even’ evokes conventional implicatures. However, an ‘even’ sentence in context — in addition to the conventional implicatures — evokes a special case of SI calculated from contextdependent scales, which is pragmatic inferences induced by ‘even’s conventional implicatures (i.e., the word’s semantic/pragmatic import). The relevant scale (generally) concerns the NP element focused by ‘even’ and a set of alternatives. Because sentences without ‘even’ do not evoke any SI, I assume that the relevant implicatures are conventional in nature. Three experiments were done to examine whether Japanese-speaking children are really (in)capable of calculating conventional implicatures derived from datte sentences. It was found that (i) Children are insensitive to pragmatic anomalies of single “infelicitous” sentences (Experiments 1 and 2). This inability to detect pragmatic infelicity is consistent with findings about their ability to compute SIs. On the other hand, the adults showed sensitivity to conventional implicatures in all three experiments, which may be taken as evidence that the computation of implicatures derived from datte sentences differs from that of SIs. (ii) Unlike the results reported for SI in Zondervan (2007, 2009), the wh-focus/QUD way of asking questions does not facilitate the children’s performance with datte sentences (Experiment 2). (iii) The FJ task improved children’s performance (Experiment 3), thus supporting the PLH, which was applied to SI computation (Chierchia et al. 2004; cf. Reinhart 1999, 2006), and to the computation of implicatures involved in datte sentences. (iv) Children are unable to compute implicatures based on context-specific pragmatic scales derived from datte sentences, when a single “underinformative” statement is given. This partly contradicts previous findings on SI based on context dependent pragmatic scales (Papafragou and Tantalou 2004). The results indicate that children’s insensitivity to the pragmatic infelicity of datte sentences stems from the processing load induced by building and maintaining alternative representations, as reported for SI computation.
BibTeX: @article{Ito2012, author = {Masuyo Ito}, title = {Japanese-speaking children's interpretation of sentences containing the focus particle datte even: Conventional implicatures, QUD, and processing limitations}, journal = {Linguistics}, publisher = {Walter de Gruyter}, year = {2012}, volume = {50}, number = {1}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0004} }
Kadmon, N.	Some theories of the interpretation of accent placement [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2000		unpublished	URL
Abstract: This paper is concerned with the way in which discourse congruence depends upon the location of pitch accents. For the sake of brevity, I will concentrate on the congruence of question-answer pairs, although every claim or proposal below either has been or can (I think) be applied to other sorts of pieces of discourse as well.
BibTeX: @unpublished{Kadmon2000, author = {Nirit Kadmon}, title = {Some theories of the interpretation of accent placement}, year = {2000}, note = {Ms, Tel Aviv University, from a talk given at the Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique, Université de Paris V}, url = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TI3Njg1M/Kadmon-ms-2009-interp-of-pitch-accent-placement.pdf} }
Kadmon, N. and Sevi, A.	Without `Focus' [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2010	Vol. 6Formal Semantics and Pragmatics: Discourse, Context, and Models	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: It is widely accepted that a notion of 'focus', more or less as conceived of in Jackendoff (1972), must be incorporated into our theory of grammar, as a means of accounting for certain observed correlations between prosodic facts and semantic/pragmatic facts. In this paper, we put forth the somewhat radical idea that the time has come to give up this customary view, and eliminate 'focus' from our theory of grammar. We argue that such a move is both economical and fruitful. Research over the years has revealed that the correlations between prosody, 'focus', and the alleged semantic/pragmatic effects of focus are much less clear and systematic than we may have initially hoped. First we argue that this state of affairs detracts significantly from the utility of our notion of 'focus', to the point of calling into question the very motivation for including it in the grammar. Then we look at some of the central data, and show how they might be analyzed without recourse to a notion of 'focus'. We concentrate on (i) the effect of pitch accent placement on discourse congruence, and (ii) the choice of 'associate' for the so-called 'focus sensitive' adverb only. We argue that our focus-free approach to the data improves empirical coverage, and begins to reveal patterns that have previously been obscured by preconceptions about 'focus'.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Kadmon2010, author = {Nirit Kadmon and Aldo Sevi}, title = {Without `Focus'}, booktitle = {Formal Semantics and Pragmatics: Discourse, Context, and Models}, publisher = {The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication}, year = {2010}, volume = {6}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1585} }
Káldi, T.	Hungarian Pre-verbal Focus: Representation and Interpretation [BibTeX]	2021	School: Budapest University of Technology and Economics	phdthesis	URL
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Kaldi2021, author = {Tamás Káldi}, title = {Hungarian Pre-verbal Focus: Representation and Interpretation}, school = {Budapest University of Technology and Economics}, year = {2021}, url = {https://repozitorium.omikk.bme.hu/handle/10890/15355?locale-attribute=en} }
Karvovskaya, L.	'Also' in Ishkashimi : additive particle and sentence connector [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013		inproceedings	URL
Abstract: The paper discusses the distribution and meaning of the additive particle -mes in Ishkashimi. -mes receives different semantic associations while staying in the same syntactic position. Thus, structurally combined with an object, it can semantically associate with the focused object or with the whole focused VP; similarly, combined with the subject it can semantically associate with the focused subject and with the whole focused sentence.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Karvovskaya2013, author = {Lena Karvovskaya}, title = {'Also' in Ishkashimi : additive particle and sentence connector}, year = {2013}, url = {https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/6382/file/karv_75_97.pdf} }
Krifka, M.	A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1992	Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, pp. 17-53	incollection	DOI
Abstract: The subject of this article is the semantics of focus, i.e. the development of a framework in which we can formulate the influence of focus on the semantic and pragmatic interpretation. In section 1, I will discuss such a framework, structured meanings. In section 2, I will point out some of its shortcomings, as it is currently worked out; they have to do with cases involving multiple foci. In 3, I develop a general representation format in which we can cope with these problematic cases. Finally, in 4, I will discuss some extensions and possible problems, among others a combined semantic treatment of focus and topic.
BibTeX: @incollection{Krifka1992, author = {Manfred Krifka}, title = {A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions}, booktitle = {Informationsstruktur und Grammatik}, publisher = {Westdeutscher Verlag}, year = {1992}, pages = {17-53}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_2} }
Littell, P.W.	Focus, predication, and polarity in Kwak'wala [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2016	School: University of British Columbia	phdthesis	DOI
Abstract: In this dissertation, I investigate the formal semantics and pragmatics of alternative focus in Kwak'wala, a critically endangered Northern Wakashan language of British Columbia, Canada. I show that several notable phenomena and outstanding mysteries of Kwak'wala grammar involve focus expression, and by making their discourse contexts explicit we can observe how changes in discourse-relevant alternatives correspond to changes in morphosyntactic expression. These observations invite reappraisals of classic claims about Kwak'wala and Wakashan grammar, such as the claims that Kwak'wala lacks a noun/verb/adjective distinction (Boas et al., 1947, p. 280) and also lacks a copula (Boas et al., 1947, p. 205). Instead, I argue that Kwak'wala does indeed have a noun/verb/adjective distinction as well as equative (but not predicative) copulas, and show that these are tied up closely with the expression of focus. I argue, contra Koch's (2008) proposal for Nɬeʔkepmxcín focus, that Kwak'wala focus is not based on alignment to the edges of prosodic phrases, but based on the use of marked predication structures in which speakers choose non-optimal predicates like NPs and DPs over unmarked predicates like VPs. I also examine Kwak'wala additive and exclusive focus operators, and in particular investigate their distinctive association patterns, in which different exclusive operators associate with different types of “focus phrase” (Drubig 1994), while additive operators exhibit free association. I propose a hybrid focus model, a combination of the models in Wold (1996), Roberts (1996/2012) and Krifka (2006), among others, in which Kwak'wala focus operators associate with focus phrases, but derive their specific alternatives indirectly, through constraints on a contextual “question under discussion” variable. Finally, I examine the ubiquitous “discourse” enclitic =ʔm, which I propose expresses a discourse-relevant bipolar (e.g., P,¬P) contrast, and thereby distinguishes bipolar from monopolar (e.g., P) questions and answers (cf. Krifka 2013). The appearance of =ʔm in all additive and exclusive sentences provides morphological evidence that such sentences respond to complex alternative sets consisting of both constituent-type and polar-type contrasts (Krifka 1998, Rullmann 2003).
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Littell2016, author = {Littell, Patrick William}, title = {Focus, predication, and polarity in Kwak'wala}, school = {University of British Columbia}, year = {2016}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0300439} }
Moulton, K., Chan, Q., Cheng, T., Han, C.-h., Kim, K.-m. and Nickel-Thompson, S.	Focus on Cataphora: Experiments in Context [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018	Linguistic Inquiry Vol. 49(1), pp. 151-168	article	DOI
Abstract: Since Chomsky 1976, it has been claimed that focus on a referring expression blocks coreference in a cataphoric dependency (*Hisi mother loves JOHNi vs. Hisi mother LOVES Johni ). In three auditory experiments and a written questionnaire, we show that this fact does not hold when a referent is unambiguously established in the discourse (cf. Williams 1997, Bianchi 2009) but does hold otherwise, validating suggestions in Rochemont 1978, Horvath 1981, and Rooth 1985. The perceived effect of prosody, we argue, building on Williams’s original insight and deliberate experimental manipulation of Rochemont’s and Horvath’s examples, is due to the fact that deaccenting the R-expression allows hearers to accommodate a salient referent via a “question under discussion” (Roberts 1996/2012, Rooth 1996), to which the pronoun can refer in ambiguous or impoverished contexts. This heuristic is not available in the focus cases, and we show that participants’ interpretation of the pronoun is ambivalent here.
BibTeX: @article{Moulton2018, author = {Moulton, Keir and Chan, Queenie and Cheng, Tanie and Han, Chung-hye and Kim, Kyeong-min and Nickel-Thompson, Sophie}, title = {Focus on Cataphora: Experiments in Context}, journal = {Linguistic Inquiry}, year = {2018}, volume = {49}, number = {1}, pages = {151-168}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00269} }
Onea, E. and Beaver, D.	Hungarian focus is not exhausted [BibTeX]	2010	Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XIX, 2009	inproceedings	DOI
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Onea2010, author = {Edgar Onea and David Beaver}, title = {Hungarian focus is not exhausted}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XIX, 2009}, publisher = {CLC Publications}, year = {2010}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v19i0.2524} }
Onea, E.	Potential questions in discourse and grammar [BibTeX]	2013	School: University of Göttingen	phdthesis	DOI
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Onea2013, author = {Edgar Onea}, title = {Potential questions in discourse and grammar}, school = {University of Göttingen}, year = {2013}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1888.1128} }
De Kuthy, K., Ziai, R. and Meurers, D.	Focus Annotation of Task-based Data: A Comparison of Expert and Crowd-Sourced Annotation in a Reading and Comprehension Corpus [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2016	Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16), pp. 3928-3935	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: While the formal pragmatic concepts in information structure, such as the focus of an utterance, are precisely defined in theoretical linguistics and potentially very useful in conceptual and practical terms, it has turned out to be difficult to reliably annotate such notions in corpus data (Ritz et al., 2008; Calhoun et al., 2010). We present a large-scale focus annotation effort designed to overcome this problem. Our annotation study is based on the tasked-based corpus CREG (Ott et al., 2012), which consists of answers to explicitly given reading comprehension questions. We compare focus annotation by trained annotators with a crowd-sourcing setup making use of untrained native speakers. Given the task context and an annotation process incrementally making the question form and answer type explicit, the trained annotators reach substantial agreement for focus annotation. Interestingly, the crowd-sourcing setup also supports high-quality annotation – for specific subtypes of data. Finally, we turn to the question whether the relevance of focus annotation can be extrinsically evaluated. We show that automatic short-answer assessment significantly improves for focus annotated data. The focus annotated CREG corpus is freely available and constitutes the largest such resource for German.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Reading3928, author = {Kordula De Kuthy and Ramon Ziai and Detmar Meurers}, title = {Focus Annotation of Task-based Data: A Comparison of Expert and Crowd-Sourced Annotation in a Reading and Comprehension Corpus}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16)}, year = {2016}, pages = {3928--3935}, url = {https://aclanthology.org/L16-1621} }
Recht, T.	Verb-Initial Clauses in Ancient Greek Prose: A Discourse-Pragmatic Study [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	School: University of California, Berkeley	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: Word order in Ancient Greek, a ‘free word order’ or discourse-configurational language, depends largely on pragmatic and information-structural factors, but the precise nature of these factors is still a matter of some controversy (Dik 1995, Matić 2003). In this dissertation, I examine the set of constructions in which a verb appears in first position in its clause, and consider the conditions under which such constructions appear and the roles they play in structuring Greek discourse. I distinguish between topical and focal initial verbs, and show that the former class (which are the main concern of the study) in fact occur as part of larger units definable in terms of both prosody and pragmatics. The function of such units, I argue, is to mark specific kinds of transitions between the implicit questions that structure discourse (Questions Under Discussion [QUDs], Roberts 1996). I describe and categorize the types of QUD transitions marked by verb-initial units in a corpus of five fifth-and fourth-century Greek prose authors, and relate these to transitions marked by other classes of constructions, including a newly identified contrastive-topic construction. My account improves on preceding models by unifying a number of phenomena previously treated as disparate. It also represents the first large-scale application of the QUD model to real discourse.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Recht2015, author = {Tom Recht}, title = {Verb-Initial Clauses in Ancient Greek Prose: A Discourse-Pragmatic Study}, school = {University of California, Berkeley}, year = {2015}, url = {https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Recht_berkeley_0028E_15275.pdf} }
Riester, A. and Baumann, S.	Focus Triggers and Focus Types from a Corpus Perspective [BibTeX]	2013	Dialogue & Discourse Vol. 4(2), pp. 215-248	article	DOI
BibTeX: @article{Riester2013, author = {Arndt Riester and Stefan Baumann}, title = {Focus Triggers and Focus Types from a Corpus Perspective}, journal = {Dialogue & Discourse}, publisher = {University of Illinois Libraries}, year = {2013}, volume = {4}, number = {2}, pages = {215--248}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2013.210} }
Riester, A.	Analyzing questions under discussion and information structure in a Balinese narrative [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Information Structure ofAustronesian Languages	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: I argue against the skepticism recently expressed by Matić and Wedgwood (2013) regarding the possibility of defining a cross-linguistic category of focus. I sketch an interpretation-based and cross-linguistically applicable method of information-structural analysis, which makes use of Questions under Discussion. The method is demonstrated on a Balinese narrative text.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Riester2015, author = {Arndt Riester}, title = {Analyzing questions under discussion and information structure in a Balinese narrative}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Information Structure ofAustronesian Languages}, year = {2015}, url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10108/84506} }
Roberts, C.	Focus, the Flow of Information, and Universal Grammar [BibTeX]	1998	The Limits of Syntax, pp. 109-160	incollection	URL
BibTeX: @incollection{Roberts1998, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Focus, the Flow of Information, and Universal Grammar}, booktitle = {The Limits of Syntax}, publisher = {Academic Press}, year = {1998}, pages = {109-160}, url = {https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/roberts.21/focusflow.pdf} }
Rojas-Esponda, T.	A discourse model for überhaupt [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Semantics and Pragmatics Vol. 7	article	DOI
Abstract: The German particle "überhaupt" exhibits a variety of uses with seemingly unrelated meanings. Correspondingly, only partial and non-unified theoretical accounts have been proposed. I show how the various intuitions and ostensibly different meanings can be derived from a unified characterization of "überhaupt" as a move to a higher-level question under discussion. The account explains how "überhaupt" could correspond to a single word in German, and it provides additional support for questions under discussion as an important aspect of contexts.
BibTeX: @article{RojasEsponda2014, author = {Tania Rojas-Esponda}, title = {A discourse model for überhaupt}, journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics}, publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}, year = {2014}, volume = {7}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.1} }
Rooth, M.E.	Association with Focus [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1985	School: UMass/Amherst	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: Suppose John introduced Bill and Tom to Sue and performed no other introductions. Then (i) "John only introduced Bill to SUE" is true, while (ii) "John only introduced BILL to Sue" is false, where capitalization symbolizes a focus marked by a phonetic prominence. Two analyses of this phenomenon of association with focus are considered. The scope theory posits a logical form in which the focused phrase and a lambda abstract with a bound variable in the position of the focused phrases are arguments of "only." According to the domain selection theory I propose, (i) and (ii) have a function-argument structure mirroring the syntax. The translation of "only" has two arguments, the VP translation and the translation of the subject NP; (i) expresses a quantification over properties. Focus contributes to the meaning of (i) by delimiting the domain of quantification to properties of the form 'introduce Bill to y,' where y is an individual. This yields an assertion: if John has a property of the form 'introduce Bill to y', then it is the property introduce Bill to Sue.' This is similar in truth conditions to the assertion produced by the scope theory, namely 'if John introduced Bill to y, then y is Sue.' This idea is executed by including a recursive definition of the sets which will serve as domains of quantification in a Montague grammar. It is argued that the domain selection theory is superior in several ways. In particular, no bound variable in the position of the focused phrase is postulated; the relation between "only" or "even" and a focused phrase violates structural conditions on bound variables. Chomsky's crossover argument for assigning scope to focused phrases is answered. The proposal is extended to cases where "only" and "even" modify NP and various other categories by means of a crosscategorical semantics analogous to the crosscategorical semantics for conjunction proposed by Gazdar and others. Other constructions discussed are association of focus with adverbs of quantification (MARY always takes John to the movies, Mary always takes JOHN to the movies), clefts (it is JOHN's father who came, it is Johns FATHER who came), and conditionals
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Rooth1985, author = {Mats E. Rooth}, title = {Association with Focus}, school = {UMass/Amherst}, year = {1985}, url = {https://ecommons.cornell.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1813/28568/Rooth-1985-PhD.pdf?sequence=2} }
Rooth, M.E.	A theory of Focus Interpretation [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1992	Natural Language Semantics Vol. 1, pp. 75-116	article	DOI
Abstract: According to the alternative semantics for focus, the semantic reflec of intonational focus is a second semantic value, which in the case of a sentence is a set of propositions. We examine a range of semantic and pragmatic applications of the theory, and extract a unitary principle specifying how the focus semantic value interacts with semantic and pragmatic processes. A strong version of the theory has the effect of making lexical or construction-specific stipulation of a focus-related effect in association-with-focus constructions impossible. Furthermore, while focus has a uniform import, the sources of meaning differences in association with focus are various.
BibTeX: @article{Rooth1992, author = {Mats E. Rooth}, title = {A theory of Focus Interpretation}, journal = {Natural Language Semantics}, year = {1992}, volume = {1}, pages = {75-116}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617} }
Rooth, M.E.	Focus [BibTeX]	1996	Handbook of Semantics	incollection
BibTeX: @incollection{Rooth1996, author = {Mats E. Rooth}, title = {Focus}, booktitle = {Handbook of Semantics}, publisher = {Blackwell}, year = {1996} }
Rooth, M.E.	On the interface principles for intonational focus [BibTeX]	1996	Proceedings of SALT VI, pp. 202-226	inproceedings	DOI
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Rooth1996a, author = {Mats E. Rooth}, title = {On the interface principles for intonational focus}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT VI}, year = {1996}, pages = {202-226}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v6i0.2767} }
Sæbø, K.J.	Focus Interpretation in Thetic Statements: Alternative Semantics and Optimality Theory Pragmatics [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2007	Journal of Logic, Language, and Information	article	URL
Abstract: Broad focus (or informational integration or nonautonomy) is lexically and contextually constrained, but these constraints are not well understood. On a standard theory of focus interpretation, the presupposition of a broad focus is verified whenever those of two narrow foci are. I argue that to account for cases where two narrow foci are preferred, it is necessary to assume that broad focus competes with two narrow foci and implicates the opposite of what they presuppose. Central constraints on thetic statements are thus accounted for in an Optimality Theory (OT) enriched Alternative Semantics.
BibTeX: @article{Saeboe2007, author = {Kjell Johan Sæbø}, title = {Focus Interpretation in Thetic Statements: Alternative Semantics and Optimality Theory Pragmatics}, journal = {Journal of Logic, Language, and Information}, year = {2007}, url = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/40180439} }
Sæbø, K.J.	Focus, Sensitivity, and the Currency of the Question [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2009	Vol. 732(3)Focus at the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Working Papers of the SFB	incollection	URL
Abstract: According to Beaver and Clark (2008), a closed class of items, primarily particles like even or only, are systematically sensitive to focus, encoding a dependency on the Current Question (the CQ). This theory appears to give wrong predictions for exclusive particles like only in some cases where intuitively, what the particle asso-ciates with is not the (only) constituent in focus, – something else can be in focus instead or as well, even it itself. I conclude that while both focus itself and exclusive particles always address a Question, they do not always address the same.
BibTeX: @incollection{Saeboe2009, author = {Kjell Johan Sæbø}, title = {Focus, Sensitivity, and the Currency of the Question}, booktitle = {Focus at the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Working Papers of the SFB}, publisher = {University of Stuttgart}, year = {2009}, volume = {732}, number = {3}, url = {http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.595.3017&rep=rep1&type=pdf} }
Schwarzschild, R.	GIVENness, AvoidF and other Constraints on the placement of accent [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1999	Natural Language Semantics Vol. 7(2), pp. 141-177	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper strives to characterize the relation between accent placement and discourse in terms of independent constraints operating at the interface between syntax and interpretation. The Givenness Constraint requires un-F-marked constituents to be given. Key here is our definition of givenness, which synthesizes insights from the literature on the semantics of focus with older views on information structure. AvoidF requires speakers to economize on F-marking. A third constraint requires a subset of F-markers to dominate accents. The characteristic prominence patterns of "novelty focus" and "contrastive focus" both arise from a combination of the Givenness Constraint and AvoidF. Patterns of prominence in questions as well as in answers to questions are explained in terms of the constraints, thanks in part to the way in which the Givenness relation is defined. Head/argument asymmetries noted in the literature on Focus Projection are placed in the phonology-syntax interface, independent of discourse conditions. Deaccenting follows when AvoidF is ranked higher than constraint(s) governing head/argument asymmetries.
BibTeX: @article{Schwarzschild1999, author = {Roger Schwarzschild}, title = {GIVENness, AvoidF and other Constraints on the placement of accent}, journal = {Natural Language Semantics}, year = {1999}, volume = {7}, number = {2}, pages = {141-177}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008370902407} }
Selkirk, E.O.	Sentence Prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing [BibTeX]	1996	The Handbook of Phonological Theory	incollection
BibTeX: @incollection{Selkirk1996, author = {Elisabeth O. Selkirk}, title = {Sentence Prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing}, booktitle = {The Handbook of Phonological Theory}, publisher = {Blackwell}, year = {1996} }
Steedman, M.	Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2000	Linguistic Inquiry Vol. 31(4), pp. 549-689	article	URL
Abstract: The article proposes a theory of grammar relating syntax, discourse semantics, and intonational prosody. The full range of English intonational tunes distinguished by Beckman and Pierrehumbert (1986) and their semantic interpretation in terms of focus and information structure are discussed, including ‘‘discontinuous’’ themes and rhemes. The theory extends an earlier account based on Combinatory Categorial Grammar, which directly pairs phonological and logical forms without intermediary representational levels.
BibTeX: @article{Steedman2000, author = {Mark Steedman}, title = {Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface}, journal = {Linguistic Inquiry}, year = {2000}, volume = {31}, number = {4}, pages = {549-689}, url = {https://watermark.silverchair.com/002438900554505.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAqcwggKjBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKUMIICkAIBADCCAokGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMcvGab6fUsne9R9jyAgEQgIICWqnm1atrWOdVqT0FKRHQ8mp4cSIe_HiKAytDwY8JB-YX8k0-haiPs0bSS6rfbXIQWQOmMKEi_KxJbHmeBe3ynT62mH7E_VUxZG_InJS-hUY88oBSwVLo8V0iggC7mRKZ5BMMjPekOYBPU1gxkYkCKb5mwFRqLWhcpYcGJmV3sjmf15JMgD3PWkwf8Ta0cgp6PKYDXtElDIeRAh4Dv9UnLbVptlfbSVgayV4xVhGtbkFHNJcuMAmL0osdE3cXV2jhPbhC5b8uKGmBVsU0K6YB4jF8qd4p6MIPvTRqbvucorutgwu5lNyEQfv-uTOwnxIoLLMnmjt7yBb71xVyw-OxWpixEqkbMyS0rq2-Qv62XGOOQbOcP4gg3WKgCwwHUYj8AiU_cSsV7kbnDVCg2tC1sPPy6AwkOcOCtFZpMMu4hShiU7M8XnMrHwlzmhy2RL9kcRuZm3PYo0OdedAEQvGG1bHQMOvXe2nit1GBXjHSUhiX70U295979_nR8Zpu7aSU6Zb0KgiNNv6tmWl1ReeDes_8hViJAH_HPHLHj9PIYJSWs0HVRFCfe4eQVwWobO6UOKMNL18aFwn46VoZT1tlaz-albIHgwGUQZmggcwmRdPt7ALEbtR6jOLMWtSF2aVH6WtCfa_7wDQQNnTljieC_KVhwvjcV70RjbEgiiQVTjBPHNugqpRsFp4olj2XlM_JE-0IN6rNSiU_bLFXAe5Qr7HHu7XS5S_E3w4a7JmfTpGmvCd4yR-opuuEU9u8D1NrBE9c1ICk__FZuPfOh4jktGH0BVP6a9u1vY46} }
Steedman, M.	The Syntactic Process (Language, Speech, and Communication) [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2001		book
Abstract: In this book Mark Steedman argues that the surface syntax of natural languages maps spoken and written forms directly to a compositional semantic representation that includes predicate-argument structure, quantification, and information structure without constructing any intervening structural representation. His purpose is to construct a principled theory of natural grammar that is directly compatible with both explanatory linguistic accounts of a number of problematic syntactic phenomena and a straightforward computational account of the way sentences are mapped onto representations of meaning. The radical nature of Steedman's proposal stems from his claim that much of the apparent complexity of syntax, prosody, and processing follows from the lexical specification of the grammar and from the involvement of a small number of universal rule-types for combining predicates and arguments. These syntactic operations are related to the combinators of Combinatory Logic, engendering a much freer definition of derivational constituency than is traditionally assumed. This property allows Combinatory Categorial Grammar to capture elegantly the structure and interpretation of coordination and intonation contour in English as well as some well-known interactions between word order, coordination, and relativization across a number of other languages. It also allows more direct compatibility with incremental semantic interpretation during parsing. The book covers topics in formal linguistics, intonational phonology, computational linguistics, and experimental psycholinguistics, presenting them as an integrated theory of the language faculty in a form accessible to readers from any of those fields.
BibTeX: @book{Steedman2001, author = {Mark Steedman}, title = {The Syntactic Process (Language, Speech, and Communication)}, publisher = {MIT Press}, year = {2001} }
Stevens, J.S.	Pragmatics of Focus [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2017	Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics	incollection	DOI
Abstract: Generally speaking, ‘focus’ refers to the portion of an utterance which is especially informative or important within the context, and which is marked as such via some linguistic means. It can be difficult to provide a single precise definition, as the term is used somewhat differently for different languages and in different research traditions. Most often, it refers to the linguistic marking of (i) contrast, (ii) question-answering status, (iii) exhaustivity, or (iv) discourse unexpectability. An illustration of each of these possibilities is given below. In English, the focus-marked elements (indicated below with brackets) are realized with additional prosodic prominence in the form of a strong pitch accent (indicated by capital letters). (i) An [AMERICAN] farmer met a [CANADIAN] farmer… (ii) Q: Who called last night? A: [BILL] called last night. (iii) Only [an ELEPHANT] could have made those tracks. (iv) I can’t believe it: The Ohioans are fighting [OHIOANS] ! The underlying intuition common to all these instantiations is that a focus represents the minimal information needed to convey an important semantic distinction. Focus can be signaled prosodically (e.g., in the form of a strong pitch accent), syntactically (e.g., by moving focused phrases to a special position in the sentence), or morphologically (e.g., by appending a special affix to focused elements), with different crosslinguistic focus marking strategies often carrying slightly different restrictions on their use. Example (i) evokes a set of two contrasting alternatives, ‘American farmer,’ ‘Canadian farmer’, and the meaning ‘farmer’ is common to both members of the set. That is, within this evoked set of alternatives, ‘farmer’ is redundant, and it is the nationality of the farmers which differentiates the two people. Example (ii) exhibits a similar property. One of the standard theories of question semantics represents questions as sets of possible appropriate answers. For (ii), this would be a set of propositions like ‘Bill called last night, ‘Sue called last night,’ etc.. As with (i), there is an evoked set of meanings whose members share some overlapping semantic material. Within this set, the verb phrase meaning ‘called last night’ is redundant, and it is the identity of the subject that serves to differentiate the true answer. Example (iii) demonstrates a relationship between focus and certain words like only. The sentence means something like ‘of all the animals who might have made these tracks, it must be an elephant.’ As with (i) and (ii), this involves a set of alternatives: the set of possible track makers. That the sentence serves to single out a unique member of this set as being the true track maker makes the subject an elephant a natural focus of the sentence. Finally, in (iv), we see that focus on ‘Ohioans’ is being used to contrast the semantic content of the sentence with some preconception, namely that Ohioans are unlikely fighters of Ohioans. Examples (iii) and (iv) point to more specific uses of focus in different languages. In Hungarian, so-called identificational focus, which is marked syntactically, requires an exhaustive interpretation, as if a silent only were present. And in some Chadic languages, a meaning of “discourse unexpectability,” as in (iv), is required to mark focus via syntactic or morphological means.
BibTeX: @incollection{Stevens2017, author = {Jon Scott Stevens}, title = {Pragmatics of Focus}, booktitle = {Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics}, year = {2017}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.207} }
Surányi, B.	Focus in Focus [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018	Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, pp. 243-262	incollection	DOI
Abstract: Pars pro toto (PPT) focus movements pose an apparent challenge to algorithms that map specific syntactic positions to particular information structural functions. PPT focus movements bring a phrase into a syntactic configuration that is canonically associated with focus interpretation, yet a distinct constituent, one that properly contains the fronted phrase in the original structure, is assigned focus interpretation. The present paper demonstrates that this mismatch is only apparent in Hungarian, a language that is generally considered discourse configurational with respect to focus. In particular, it is argued that pars pro toto focus fronting in Hungarian concurrently involves both broad focus on a constituent that originally contains the fronted phrase and narrow focus associated with the phrase undergoing movement. The proposed nested focus analysis thus upholds the viability of syntactic configuration based approaches to information structure in discourse-configurational languages. It is also shown based on a careful examination of the interpretation of the construction that the exhaustivity of focus and the existential inference associated with its background, two interpretive properties that are often taken to go hand in hand, are in fact dissociable from each other.
BibTeX: @incollection{Suranyi2018, author = {Balázs Surányi}, title = {Focus in Focus}, booktitle = {Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {2018}, pages = {243--262}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90710-9_16} }
Szendröi, K.	Focus and the syntax-phonology interface [BibTeX]	2001	School: University College London	phdthesis
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Szendroei2001, author = {Kriszta Szendröi}, title = {Focus and the syntax-phonology interface}, school = {University College London}, year = {2001} }
Thomas, G.	Another additive particle [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	Proceedings of SALT	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: It is shown that another has an additive interpretation when it combines with Measure Phrases or Numeral Phrases. A number of discourse sensitive properties of additive another are studied, and it is argued that these are best accounted for by assuming that additive another is anaphoric to a Question Under Discussion, in a model of discourse inspired by Roberts 1996 and Büring 2003.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Thomas2011, author = {Guillaume Thomas}, title = {Another additive particle}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT}, year = {2011}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v21i0.2589} }
Truckenbrodt, H.	Phonological Phrases—Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence [BibTeX]	1995	School: MIT	phdthesis
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Truckenbrodt1995, author = {Hubert Truckenbrodt}, title = {Phonological Phrases—Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence}, school = {MIT}, year = {1995} }
Umbach, C.	Strategies of additivity: German additive noch compared to auch [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012	Lingua Vol. 122(15), pp. 1843-1863	article	DOI
Abstract: The German particle noch (‘still’) has an additive reading which differs significantly in meaning and use from the standard German additive particle auch (‘also’/‘too’). In the paper, a semantic and pragmatic analysis will be presented focusing on three core characteristics distinguishing additive noch from auch: (i) alignment with discourse time, (ii) association with deaccented focus, and (iii) continuation of the question-under-discussion. The analysis will be based on the notion of focus alternatives and make use of a question-based discourse model.
BibTeX: @article{Umbach2012, author = {Carla Umbach}, title = {Strategies of additivity: German additive noch compared to auch}, journal = {Lingua}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2012}, volume = {122}, number = {15}, pages = {1843--1863}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.01.011} }
Wagner, M.	Givenness and Locality [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2007	Proceedings of SALT 16	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: Constituents that encode information that was made salient by prior context often remain unaccented. This paper presents evidence that in order for a constituent to be marked as given by deaccenting, it is not sufficient that it is given, it must be given relative to something else. In particular, I will argue that constituents have to be given relative to their sister. This first section outlines the problem that earlier approaches to givenness face: sometimes, but not always, it appears that the sister of a constituent is relevant in deciding whether it can be marked as given.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Wagner2007, author = {Michael Wagner}, title = {Givenness and Locality}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 16}, publisher = {CLC Publications}, year = {2007}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v16i0.2938} }
Washburn, M.B.	Narrowing the Focus: Experimental studies on exhaustivity and contrast [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	School: University of Southern California	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: Focus structure has a profound effect on language production and processing. Yet, despite that focus has so much influence on an utterance, it still remains unclear what the meaning of focus is. Some theories consider focus to be entirely pragmatic, having no influence on the truth conditions or presuppositions of a focused sentence. Other theories consider focus to have a semantic contribution, contributing either to the truth conditions or the presuppositions of a focused sentence, but even within these, there is disagreement. For instance, von Stechow (1981, 1982) developed a theory in which the meaning of focus is to divide an utterance into an assertion and a background. On the other hand, Rooth (1985) developed a theory in which the meaning of focus is to introduce alternatives to the focused sentence into the derivation. Much of the debate between these theories of meaning has so far centered around how adequately the theory can compositionally account for the congruence between questions and focus in their answers, truth conditional focus association effects with operators like only, and, occasionally, word order. The difficulty for research into focus is that several very different types of theories have been demonstrated to be equivalently capable of accounting for these patterns. This dissertation, then, will attempt to address the question of what focus means from a slightly different angle. Its goal will be to narrow the realm of possible meanings for focus by experimentally testing for one possible property of focus: contrast. Specifically, this dissertation uses five experiments to test whether comprehenders need to compare a focused proposition to other propositions in order to interpret it. It investigates three things: 1) It investigates whether focus accesses a set of alternatives to an utterance. It will be looking for evidence that hearers are using alternatives to interpret a sentence with a focused word. 2) It investigates whether the members of this set are contrasted with the actual utterance. If hearers are using a set of alternatives to interpret focus, it could be the case that they access the set without forming any opinions about its members or the case that they consider all members except the actual proposition to be less ideal or even false. 3) It investigates whether this set of alternatives is accessed as part of the semantic derivation (ex: assertion or presupposition) or as a separate pragmatic process. Furthermore, it investigates whether the presence of a set of alternatives is a part of the truth conditions of a focused sentence (ex: an assertion of the sentence) or a part of the definedness conditions of a focused sentence (ex: a presupposition of the sentence). This dissertation finds that focus has two important properties: focus accesses a set of alternatives and at least this part of its meaning is semantically encoded as either a presupposition, an expressive meaning, or a context definedness condition. Additionally, members of the set of alternatives can be true and are semantic relations of the focused word. Even the English it-cleft is non-exhaustive. This recommends against purely pragmatic accounts of focus, and demonstrates that any theory of focus must include access to a set of alternatives.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Washburn2013, author = {Mary Byram Washburn}, title = {Narrowing the Focus: Experimental studies on exhaustivity and contrast}, school = {University of Southern California}, year = {2013}, url = {https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/narrowing-focus-experimental-studies-on/docview/1458633257/se-2?accountid=9783} }
Yasavul, M.	Prosody Of Focus and Contrastive Topic in K’iche [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Vol. 60Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 129-160	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: This paper discusses the findings of an experimental study about the prosodic encoding of focus and contrastive topic in K'iche'. The central question being addressed is whether prosody plays a role in distinguishing string-identical sentences where the pre-predicate expression can be interpreted as being focused or contrastively topicalized depending on context. I present a production experiment designed to identify whether such sentences differ in their prosodic properties as has been impressionistically suggested in the literature (Larsen 1988; Aissen 1992; Can Pixabaj & England 2011). The overall strategy of the experiment was to obtain naturally occurring data from native speakers of K'iche' by having them repeat target sentences they heard in conversations. The phonological analysis showed that content words in K'iche' have a rising pitch movement, a finding which is in line with Nielsen (2005). The acoustic analyses of several variables yielded a significant effect of condition only in the range of the F0 rise associated with focused and contrastively topicalized expressions. However, the difference across conditions is only 6 Hz which may not be perceivable by listeners.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Yasavul2013, author = {Murat Yasavul}, title = {Prosody Of Focus and Contrastive Topic in K’iche}, booktitle = {Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics}, year = {2013}, volume = {60}, pages = {129-160}, url = {http://hdl.handle.net/1811/80993} }
Yasavul, M.	Two Kinds of focus constructions in K'iche' [BibTeX]	2013	Proceedings of SALT 23, pp. 611-632	inproceedings	DOI
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Yasavul2013a, author = {Murat Yasavul}, title = {Two Kinds of focus constructions in K'iche'}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 23}, year = {2013}, pages = {611-632}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v23i0.3161} }
Ziai, R. and Meurers, D.	Focus Annotation in Reading Comprehension Data [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	LAW VIII - The 8th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, pp. 159-168	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: When characterizing the information structure of sentences, the so-called focus identifies the part of a sentence addressing the current question under discussion in the discourse. While this notion is precisely defined in formal semantics and potentially very useful in theoretical and practical terms, it has turned out to be difficult to reliably annotate focus in corpus data. We present a new focus annotation effort designed to overcome this problem. On the one hand, it is based on a task-based corpus providing more explicit context. The annotation study is based on the CREG corpus (Ott et al., 2012), which consists of answers to explicitly given reading comprehension questions. On the other hand, we operationalize focus annotation as an incremental process including several substeps which provide guidance, such as explicit answer typing. We evaluate the focus annotation both intrinsically by calculating agreement between annotators and extrinsically by showing that the focus information substantially improves the automatic meaning assessment of answers in the CoMiC system (Meurers et al., 2011).
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Ziai2014, author = {Ramon Ziai ; Detmar Meurers}, title = {Focus Annotation in Reading Comprehension Data}, booktitle = {LAW VIII - The 8th Linguistic Annotation Workshop}, year = {2014}, pages = {159-168}, url = {http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.675.715} }
Zimmermann, M.	Was glaubt EDE, wer der Mörder ist? On D-trees, Embedded Foci, and Indirect Scope Marking [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Approaches to Meaning: Composition, Values, and Interpretation, pp. 306-340	incollection	DOI
Abstract: Malte Zimmermann takes a closer look at embedded foci elaborating on the theory of question under discussion and draws a connection to wh-scope-marking constructions. The idea of "Was glaubt EDE, wer der Mörder ist? on D-trees, Embedded Foci, and Indirect Scope Marking" is that the wh-scope-marking construction grammaticalizes part of a pattern of two questions where one question is a subquestion of the other. Analogously, embedded foci are licensed if there is a question denotation in the discourse that is related to a subquestion asking for the embedded focus. The paper shows that the structure of the discourse has an impact on the nesting of new information.
BibTeX: @incollection{Zimmermann2014, author = {Malte Zimmermann}, title = {Was glaubt EDE, wer der Mörder ist? On D-trees, Embedded Foci, and Indirect Scope Marking}, booktitle = {Approaches to Meaning: Composition, Values, and Interpretation}, publisher = {Brill}, year = {2014}, pages = {306-340}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004279377_014} }
Zondervan, A.	The role of QUD and focus on the scalar implicature of most [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics	incollection
Abstract: Where previous studies supported the effect of the contextual property of Question Under Discussion (QUD) and focus on the scalar implicature of or, this paper presents two experiments that replicate this effect with the scalar term most. Both experiments show that, while story and target sentence are kept constant, more scalar implicatures are calculated when the scalar term is in the focus (new information) part of the sentence. In the experiments, the focus is manipulated by an explicit QUD. It is shown that the effect also holds for sentential answers to yes/no-questions, and might even extend to scalar implicatures in questions themselves.
BibTeX: @incollection{Zondervan2011, author = {Arjen Zondervan}, title = {The role of QUD and focus on the scalar implicature of most}, booktitle = {Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics}, publisher = {John Benjamins}, year = {2011} }