Chapter published in:
Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 16: Papers from the 2017 Budapest Conference
Edited by Veronika Hegedűs and Irene Vogel
[Approaches to Hungarian 16] 2020
► pp. 208230
References

References

Abrusán, Márta
2016Presupposition cancellation: Explaining the ‘soft–hard’ trigger distinction. Natural Language Semantics 24. 165–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Balogh, Kata
2009 Theme with variations. A context-based analysis of focus . PhD thesis. Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Beaver, David I. & Brady Z. Clark
2008Sense and sensitivity. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Michael
1990Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 201–225.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel
2016Unalternative semantics. In Sarah D’Antonio, Mary Moroney & Carol Rose Little (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 25. 550–575. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel & Manuel Križ
2013It’s that, and that’s it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics and Pragmatics 6(6). 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delin, Judy
1992Properties of it-cleft presupposition. Journal of Semantics 9. 289–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Destruel, Emilie & Joseph P. De Veaugh-Geiss
2019(Non-)Exhaustivity in French c’est-Clefts. In Christopher Pinon (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 12 (EISS 12). Paris: CSSP.Google Scholar
Destruel, Emilie, Dan Velleman, Edgar Onea, Dillan Bumford, Jingyang Xue, & David Beaver
2015A cross-linguistic study of the non-at-issueness of exhaustive inferences. In Florian Schwarz (ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions, 135–156. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P., Malte Zimmermann, Edgar Onea & Anna-Christina Boell
2015Contradicting (not-)at-issueness in exclusives and clefts: An empirical study. In Sarah D’Antonio, Mary Moroney & Carol Rose Little (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 25. 373–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P., Swantje Tönnis, Edgar Onea & Malte Zimmermann
2017An experimental investigation of (non-)exhaustivity in es-clefts. In Rob Truswell (ed.), Sinn und Bedeutung 21 (SuB 21). University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
2018 That’s not quite it: An experimental investigation of (non-)exhaustivity in clefts. Semantics & Pragmatics 11(3).CrossrefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1987Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74. 245–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999The English cleft construction as a focus phrase. In Lunella Mereu (ed.), Boundaries of morphology and syntax, 217–229. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Grammaticalized backgrounding: Preliminary version of grammaticalized backgrounding. In Johan Brandtler, David Håkansson, Stefan Huber & Eva Klingvall (eds.), Discourse and grammar: A Festschrift in honor of Valéria Molnár, 193–214. Lund University.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin & Lilla Pinter
2014Identificational focus revisited: The issue of exhaustivity. Paper presented at Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 50.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
1997The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart & Rob van der Sandt
2004Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30. 1–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grubic, Mira
2015 Focus and alternative sensitivity in Ngamo (West Chadic) . PhD thesis. Universität Potsdam.
Güldemann, Tom
2016Maximal backgrounding = focus without (necessary) focus encoding. Studies in Language 40(3). 551–590. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene
1982 The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases . PhD thesis. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Horn, Laurence R.
1981Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. In North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS) 11, 125–142. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R.
2016Information structure and the landscape of (non-)at-issue meaning. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 108–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horváth, Julia
2010"Discourse-Features", syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua 120. 1346–1369. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Junghanns, Uwe
1997On the so-called èto-cleft construction. In Martina Lindseth & Steven Franks (eds.), Proceedings of the sixth annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, 166–190. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle
1993From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István
1986On the logic of word order in Hungarian. In Werner Abraham & Sjaak de Meij (eds.), Topic, focus and configurationality, 143–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Focus as identification. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 137–168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim
2009On the interpretation of èto in so-called èto-clefts». In Gerhild Zybatow, Uwe Junghanns, Denisa Lenertová & Petr Biskup (eds.), Studies in formal Slavic phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and information structure: Proceedings of FDSL 7, 319–329. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2008Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 243–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Onea, Edgar
2007Exhaustivity, focus and incorporation in Hungarian. In Maria Aloni, Paul Dekker & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium , 169–174. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
2016Potential questions at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019Exhaustivity in it-clefts. In Chris Cummins & Napoleon Katsos (eds.), The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Onea, Edgar & David I. Beaver
2009Hungarian focus is not exhausted. In Ed Cormany, Satoshi Ito & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 19. 342–359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Percus, Orin
1997Prying open the cleft. In Kiyomi Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS) 27. 337–351.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Murat Yasavul
2016Anaphoric it-clefts: The myth of exhaustivity. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 50.
Reeve, Matthew
2012Clefts and their Relatives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige
2012Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5. 1–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1996Focus. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Oxford: Blackwell. 271–297.Google Scholar
Saah, Kofi Korankye
1994 Studies in Akan syntax, acquisition, and sentence processing . PhD thesis, University of Ottawa.
Schwarz, Florian
2009 Two types of definites in natural language . PhD thesis, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Schwarzschild, Roger
1999Givenness, avoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7(2). 141–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sgall, Petr, Eva Hajičová & Jarmila Panevová
1986The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Edited by Jacob L. Mey. Dordrecht: Reidel – Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy, David Beaver, Judith Tonhauser & Craige Roberts
2010What projects and why. In Nan Li & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20. 309–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
1981Compositionality in focus. Folia Linguistica 15. 141–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994All quantifiers are not equal: The case of focus. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 42. 171–187.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith, David Beaver, Craige Roberts & Mandy Simons
2013Towards a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89(1). 66–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Velleman, Dan, David Beaver, Emilie Destruel, Dylan Bumford, Edgar Onea & Elizabeth Coppock
2012 It-clefts are IT (Inquiry Terminating) constructions. In Anca Chereches (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 22. 441–460.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, Daniel, Gergely Peth & Ronnie Cann
2006Hungarian ‘focus position’ and English it-clefts: The semantic underspecification of ‘focus’ readings. Ms., University of Edinburgh.
Zimmermann, Malte
2016Cross-linguistic variability (and uniformity) in focus-background partitioning. Presentation at KNAW Colloquium ‘Language Variation in Action’ . Amsterdam, 19 February 2016.