Article published In:
Approaches to Hungarian 17: Special issue of the Journal on Uralic Linguistics 1:2 (2022)
Edited by Tamás Halm, Elizabeth Coppock and Balázs Surányi
[Journal of Uralic Linguistics 1:2] 2022
► pp. 154180
Bende-Farkas, Ágnes
2006Comparing English and Hungarian focus. Unpublished manuscript. IMS Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Bergen, Leon & Noah D. Goodman
2015The strategic use of noise in pragmatic reasoning. Topics in Cognitive Science 71. 336–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Leon, Roger Levy & Noah D. Goodman
2016Pragmatic reasoning through semantic inference. Semantics and Pragmatics 91. DOI logo ISSN: 1937-8912.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel
2010Conditional exhaustivity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Ms. ZAS/Vienna.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel & Manuel Križ
2013It’s that, and that’s it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics and Pragmatics 61. 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth
2007The grammar of Q: Q-particles and the nature of wh-fronting. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Cinque, Guglielmo
1993A null-theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 241. 239–267.Google Scholar
Destruel, Emilie
2016Focus marking asymmetries in colloquial and standard French: a stochastic optimality-theoretic account. Journal of French Language Studies 261. 299–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Destruel, Emilie, David I. Beaver & Elizabeth Coppock
2019It’s not what you expected. The surprising nature of cleft-alternatives in French and English. Frontiers in Psychology 101. 1400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Destruel, Emilie & Leah Velleman
2014Refining contrast: Empirical evidence from the English it-cleft. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 101. 197–214.Google Scholar
Destruel, Emilie, Daniel Velleman, Edgar Onea, Dylan 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. Heidelberg and Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P., Swantje Tönnis, Edgar Onea & Malte Zimmermann
2018That’s not quite it: An experimental investigation of (non-)exhaustivity in clefts. Semantics and Pragmatics 111. 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1998Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 741. 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline
2013Focus as prosodic alignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 311. 683–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, Michael C. & Noah D. Goodman
2012Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science 336 (6084). 998. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerőcs, Mátyás, Anna Babarczy & Balázs Surányi
2014Exhaustivity in focus: Experimental evidence from Hungarian. Language Use and Linguistic Structure 31. 181–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geurts, Bart & Rob van der Sandt
2004Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 301. 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R.
1981Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society 141. 108–131.Google Scholar
Kotek, Hadas
2019Composing questions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
2000When subjects behave like objects. Studies in Language 241. 611–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onea, Edgar
2019Exhaustivity in it-clefts. In Chris Cummins and Napoleon Katsos (eds.), The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics, 401–417. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlovic, Anna-Christina
2019The interpretation of it-clefts. PhD dissertation, Göttingen.
Percus, Orin
1997Prying open the cleft. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society 271. 337–351.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Murat Yasavul
2014Anaphoric it-clefts: The myth of exhaustivity. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Conference of the Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige
2012aInformation structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 51. 1–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012bInformation structure: Afterword. Semantics and Pragmatics 51. 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1992A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 11. 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth
1995Sentence prosody: Intonation stress and phrasing. In John Goldsmith (ed.), Handbook of phonological theory, 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros & Gisbert Fanselow
2010Focus types and argument asymmetries. A cross-linguistic study in language production. In Carsten Breul & Edward Göbbel (ed.), Comparative and contrastive studies in information structure, 169–197. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011Focus and the exclusion of alternatives: On the interaction of syntactic structure with pragmatic inference. Lingua 1211. 1693–1706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spector, Benjamin
2017The pragmatics of plural predication: Homogeneity and non-maximality within the rational speech act model. In Alexandre Cremers, Thom van Gessel & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam colloquium, 435–444. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert L.
2002Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 251. 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Surányi, Balázs
2011A szintaktikailag jelöletlen fókusz pragmatikája. [The pragmatics of syntactically unmarked focus.] Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XXIII. [Studies in General Linguistics XXIII.] 281–313.Google Scholar
Sutton, Richard S. & Andrew G. Barto
1998Reinforcement learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
1994All quantifiers are not equal: The case of focus. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 421. 171–187.Google Scholar
Tönnis, Swantje, Lea M. Fricke & Alexander Schreiber
2018Methodological considerations on testing argument asymmetry in German cleft sentences. In Eric Fuß, Marek Konopka, Beata Trawiński & Ulrich H. Waßner (eds.), Grammar and Corpora 2016, 231–240. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing.Google Scholar
Velleman, Dan Bridges, David Beaver, Emilie Destruel, Dylan Bumford, Edgar Onea & Liz Coppock
2012It-clefts are IT (Inquiry Terminating) constructions. Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory 221. 441–460. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, Daniel
2005Shifting the focus: From static structures to the dynamics of interpretation. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte, Joseph P. De Veaugh-Geiss, Swantje Tönnis & Edgar Onea
2020(Non-)Exhaustivity in focus partitioning across languages. In Veronika Hegedüs and Irene Vogel (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 161, 207–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar