Chapter published in:
When Data Challenges Theory: Unexpected and paradoxical evidence in information structure
Edited by Davide Garassino and Daniel Jacob
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 273] 2022
► pp. 136
References
Angermuller, Johannes, Maingueneau, Dominique & Wodak, Ruth
2014The Discourse Studies Reader: An introduction. In The Discourse Studies Reader, Johannes Angermuller, Dominique Maingueneau & Ruth Wodak (eds), 2–14. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia
. In press. The Autosegmental-Metrical model of intonational phonology. In Prosodic Theory and Practice. Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel & Jonathan Barnes (eds) Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://​www​.amaliaarvaniti​.info​/publications> (11 June 2021).
Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex
2003Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, John L.
1962How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Baumann, Stefan, Grice, Martine & Steindamm, Susanne
2006Prosodic marking of focus domains – categorical or gradient? In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006, 301–304. https://​isca​-speech​.org​/archive​/sp2006​/sp06​_065​.html> (11 June 2021).
Baumann, Stefan & Riester, Arndt
2012Referential and lexical givenness: Semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects. In Prosody and Meaning, Gorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (eds), 119–162. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David I. & Clark, Brady Z.
2008Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berretta, Monica
2002“Quello che voglio dire è che”: le scisse da strutture topicalizzanti a connettivi testuali. In La parola al testo. Scritti per Bice Mortara Garavelli, Gian Luigi Beccaria & Carla Marello (eds), 15–31, Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Bocci, Giuliano & Cruschina, Silvio
2015Focus fronting and its implicatures. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2013. Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’, Enoch O. Aboh, Jeannette Schaeffer & Petra Sleeman (ed), 3–19. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and evaluative implicatures. Semantics and Pragmatics 9(3): 1–54. DOI logo
Borreguero Zuloaga, Margarita
2016Elementi anaforici e frasi scisse nei testi giornalistici contemporanei. In La lingua variabile nei testi letterari, artistici e funzionali contemporanei (1915–2014): analisi, interpretazione, traduzione, Giovanni Ruffino (ed), 529–542. Firenze, Franco Cesati.Google Scholar
Brunetti, Lisa
2009On links and tails in Italian. Lingua 119(5): 756–781. DOI logo
Brunetti, Lisa & Avanzi, Mathieu
2017Discourse properties of French clitic left dislocated NPs and their effect on prosody. Ms. http://​www​.llf​.cnrs​.fr​/en​/node​/5811> (11 June 2021).
Bühler, Karl
2011Theory of Language. The Representational Function of Language. [Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: G. Fischer 1934] Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel
2003On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 511–545. DOI logo
2016(Contrastive) Topic. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 64–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cantini, Andrea & Bruni, Riccardo
2017Paradoxes and contemporary logic. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed). https://​plato​.stanford​.edu​/archives​/fall2017​/entries​/paradoxes​-contemporary​-logic/> (11 June 2021).
Cartoni, Bruno & Meyer, Thomas
2012Extracting directional and comparable corpora from a multilingual corpus for translation studies. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Uğur Doğan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds), 2132–2137. Paris: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1976Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed), 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1994Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1994Discourse in production. In Handbook of Psycholinguistics, Morton A. Gernsbacher (ed), 985–1021. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1996Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela
2018The illocution-prosody relationship and the Information Pattern in spontaneous speech according to the Language into Act Theory (L-AcT). Linguistik Online, 88(1). DOI logo
Cruschina, Silvio
2019Focus Fronting in Spanish: Mirative implicature and information structure. Probus 31(1): 119–146. DOI logo
De Cesare, Anna-Maria
2011–2018 Contrast-It, University of Basel. https://​contrast​-it​.philhist​.unibas​.ch​/en​/home/> (11 June 2021).
2017Cleft constructions. In Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax [Manuals of Romance Linguistics 17], Elisabeth Stark & Andreas Dufter (eds), 536–568. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 È con piacere che … / C’est avec plaisir que … On Italian and French manner adverbial clefts expressing emotional states. In Pour une perspective fonctionnelle des constructions syntaxiques marquées [Special issue], Anna-Maria De Cesare & Mervi Helkkula (eds). Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 120: 429–448.Google Scholar
This volume. To be or not to be focus adverbials? A corpus-driven study of It. anche in spontaneous spoken Italian. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob eds Amsterdam-Philadelphia John Benjamins DOI logo
De Cesare, Anna-Maria, Garassino, Davide, Agar Marco, Rocío, Albom, Ana & Cimmino, Doriana
2016Sintassi marcata dell’italiano contemporaneo in prospettiva contrastiva con il francese, lo spagnolo, il tedesco e l’inglese. Uno studio basato sulla scrittura dei quotidiani online. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1984The pragmatics of it-clefts and wh-clefts. Lingua 64(4): 251–289. DOI logo
1988Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-clefts. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Kuthy, Kordula, Brunetti, Lisa & Berardi, Marta
2019 In Proceedings of the 13th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, 113–123. https://​www​.aclweb​.org​/anthology​/W19​-40​.pdf> (11 June 2021) DOI logo
Delin, Judith
1992Properties of it-cleft presupposition. Journal of Semantics 9: 179–196. DOI logo
Delin, Judith & Oberlander, Jon
1995Syntactic constraints on discourse structure: The case of it-clefts. Linguistics 33: 465–500. DOI logo
Destruel, Emilie
2012The French c’est-cleft: An empirical study on its meaning and use. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9, Christopher Piñon (ed), 95–112. https://​sites​.google​.com​/site​/eissvolumes​/eiss​-9> (11 June 2021).
Destruel, Emilie & Féry, Caroline
2020Prominence in French dual focus. Language and Speech 64(2): 319–345. DOI logo
Dryer, Matthew S.
1996Focus, pragmatic presupposition, and activated propositions. Journal of Pragmatics 26(4): 475–523. DOI logo
2006Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory. In Catching Language: Issues in Grammar Writing, Felix Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds), 207–234. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dufter, Andreas
2008On explaining the rise of c’est-clefts in French. In The Paradox of Grammatical Change, Ulrich Detges & Richard Waltereit (eds), 31–56. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009Clefting and discourse organization: Comparing Germanic and Romance. In Focus and Background in Romance Languages, Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 83–121. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dufter, Andreas & Gabriel, Christoph
2016Information structure, prosody, and word order. In Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance [Manuals of Romance Linguistics 10], Susann Fischer & Christoph Gabriel (eds), 419–455. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1998Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2): 245–273. DOI logo
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C.
2009The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences (32): 429–492. DOI logo
Face, Timothy & D’Imperio, Mariapaola
2005Reconsidering a focal typology: Evidence from Spanish and Italian. Italian Journal of Linguistics 17(2): 271–289.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara
2003Topicalizzazione e ripresa clitica. Analisi sincronica, confronto diacronico e considerazioni tipologiche. In Italia linguistica anno Mille. Italia linguistica anno Duemila, Nicoletta Maraschio & Teresa Poggi Salani (eds), 547–562. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
2017Dislocations and Framings. In Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax [Manuals of Romance Linguistics 17], Elisabeth Stark & Andreas Dufter (eds), 472–501. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Ramaglia, Francesca
2013Pseudoclefts at the Syntax-Prosody-Discourse Interface. In The Structure of Clefts, Katherina Hartmann & Tonjes Veenstra (eds), 97–138. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garassino, Davide
2014Reverse pseudo-clefts in Italian and English. A contrastive analysis. In Tra romanistica e germanistica: lingua, testo, cognizione e cultura / Between Romance and Germanic: Language, Text, Cognition, and Culture, Iørn Korzen, Angela Ferrari & Anna-Maria De Cesare (eds), 55–74. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2016Using Cleft sentences in Italian and English. A multifactorial analysis. In Current Issues in Italian, Romance and Germanic Non-canonical Word Orders. Syntax – Information Structure – Discourse Organization, Anna-Maria De Cesare & Davide Garassino (eds), 181–204. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
This volume. Translation as a source of pragmatic interference? An empirical investigation of French and Italian cleft sentences. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob eds Amsterdam-Philadelphia John Benjamins
Garassino, Davide & Jacob, Daniel
2018Polarity Focus and non-canonical syntax in Italian, French and Spanish. Clitic left dislocation and sì che / sí que-constructions. In The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast. Theoretical, Empirical, and Typological Approaches, Christine Dimroth & Stefan Sudhoff (eds), 227–254. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
García García, Marco & Uth, Melanie
2018Introduction. Core issues of focus realization in Romance. In Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond, Marco García García & Melanie Uth (eds), 1–30. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Ginzburg, Jonathan
2012The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin
1991Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100. DOI logo
Gundel, Jeanette K. & Fretheim, Thorstein
2004Topic and focus. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 175–195. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde
2010Adjunct Adverbials in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy & Fadden, Lorna
2007The information structure of it-clefts, wh-clefts and reverse wh-clefts in English. In The Grammar Pragmatics Interface: Essays in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel, Nancy Hedberg & Robert Zacharski (eds), 49–76. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heidinger, Steffen
2018Acceptability and frequency in Spanish focus marking. In Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond, Marco García García & Melanie Uth (eds), 99–128. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Höhle, Tilman N.
1992Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Linguistische Berichte Sonderhefte (Vol. 4), Jacobs Joachim (ed), 112–141. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. DOI logo
Horton, William S. & Gerrig, Richard J.
2016Revisiting the memory-based processing approach to common ground. In Memory and Common Ground Processes in Language [Special Issue], Sarah Brown-Schmidt, Melissa C. Duft & William S. Horton (eds). Topics 8(4): 780–795. DOI logo
Jacob, Daniel
2015Anaphorische Spaltsätze im Französischen: Grammatik – Text – Rhetorik. In Informationsstrukturen im Kontrast, Séverine Adam, Michael Schecker & Daniel Jacob (eds), 101–122. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim
2001The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39(4): 641–681. DOI logo
Kamp, Hans, van Genabith, Josef & Reyle, Uwe
2011Discourse Representation Theory. In The Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 15, Dov M. Gabbay & Franz Guenthner (eds), 124–394. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logo
Karssenberg, Lena
2018Non-Prototypical Clefts in French. A Corpus Analysis of “il y a” clefts. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena & Lahousse, Karen
2018The information structure of French il y a & c’est clefts: A corpus-based analysis. Linguistics 56(3): 513–548. DOI logo
Keenan, Edward L.
1976Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed), 305–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang & Von Stutterheim, Christiane
1992Textstruktur und referentielle Bewegung. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 86: 67–92.Google Scholar
Koehn, Philipp
2005Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit X, 79–86.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1991The representation of focus. In Semantik / Semantics. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Armin von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 825–834. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logo
Kratzer, Angelika & Selkirk, Elisabeth
2020Deconstructing information structure. Glossa 5(1): 113, 1–53. DOI logo
Krifka, Manfred
2006Association with focus phrases. In Architecture of Focus, Victoria Molnar, & Susanne Winkler (eds), 105–136. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logo
2008Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4): 243–276. DOI logo
Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate
2012Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In The Expression of Information Structure, Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds), 1–44. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logo
Ladd, Robert D.
2008Intonational Phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo
Lahousse, Karen & Lamiroy, Béatrice
2015“C’est ainsi que”: grammaticalisation ou lexicalisation ou les deux à la fois? Journal of French Language Studies 27: 161–185. DOI logo
Lambrecht, Knud
1994Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39(3): 463–516. DOI logo
Larrivée, Pierre
This volume. The curious case of the rare focus movement in French. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob eds Amsterdam-Philadelphia John Benjamins DOI logo
Leonetti, Manuel & Escandell-Vidal, Maria Victoria
2009Fronting and verum focus in Spanish. In Focus and Background in Romance Languages, Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 155–204. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra
1976Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed), 459–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
This volume. Distinguishing psychological Given/New from linguistic Topic/Focus makes things clearer. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob eds Amsterdam-Philadelphia John Benjamins DOI logo
Masia, Viviana
This volume. Remarks on Information Structure marking asymmetries: The epistemological view on the micropragmatic profile of utterances. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob eds Amsterdam-Philadelphia John Benjamins DOI logo
Matić, Dejan
This volume. Alternatives to information structure. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob eds Amsterdam-Philadelphia John Benjamins DOI logo
Matić, Dejan & Nikolaeva, Irina
2018From polarity focus to salient polarity: From things to processes. In The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast. Theoretical, Empirical, and Typological Approaches, Christine Dimroth & Stefan Sudhoff (eds), 9–53. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Matić, Dejan & Wedgwood, Daniel
2013The meaning of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49: 127–163. DOI logo
Mertens, Piet
2012La prosodie des clivées. In Penser les langues avec Claire Blanche-Benveniste, Sandrine Caddéo, Marie-Noëlle Roubaud, Magali Rouquier & Frédéric Sabio (eds), 127–139. Aix-en-Provence: Presses Universitaires de Provence.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Vermeulen, Reiko
2012The syntactic expression of information structure. In The Syntax of Topic, Focus, and Contrast. An Interface-based Approach, Ad Neeleman & Reiko Vermeulen (eds), 1–38. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logo
Onea, Edgar
2016Potential Questions at the Semantic-Pragmatic Interface. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel
2018Tracing the sources of Information Structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics 138: 77–97. DOI logo
2021Multifactorial Information Management (MIM): Summing up the emerging alternative to information structure. Linguistics Vanguard 7(1). DOI logo. DOI logo
Patten, Amanda L.
2012The English It-cleft: A Constructional Approach and a Diachronic Investigation. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logo
Paul, Hermann
1898Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle (Saale): Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, De Stefani, Elwis, & Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie
2015Time and Emergence in Grammar. Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Primus, Beatrice
2010Case marking typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed), 303–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F.
1978A comparison of WH-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54: 883–906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed), 233–255. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie
2016Contrast: Dissecting an elusive information-structural notion and its role in grammar. Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 270–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riester, Arndt
2015Analyzing Questions under Discussion and information structure in a Balinese narrative. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Information Structure of Austronesian Languages, Linguistics Dynamics Science Project 2, 1–26. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
2019Constructing QUD trees. In Questions in Discourse. Vol. 2: Pragmatics, Malte Zimmermann, Klaus von Heusinger & Edgar Onea (eds), 163–192. Leiden: Brill. DOI logo
Riester, Arndt & Baumann, Stefan
2013Focus triggers and focus types form a corpus perspective. Dialogue & Discourse 4 (2): 215–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riester, Arndt & Shiohara, Asako
2018Information structure in Sumbawa: A QUD analysis. In Perspectives on Information Structure in Austronesian Languages, Sonja Riesberg, Asako Shiohara & Atsuko Utsumi (eds), 285–311. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Riester, Arndt, Brunetti, Lisa & De Kuthy, Kordula
2018Annotation guidelines for Questions under Discussion and information structure. In Information Structure in Lesser-Described Languages: Studies in Syntax and Prosody, Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude & Martine Vanhove (eds), 403–443. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Rizzi, Luigi
1997The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige
2004Context in dynamic interpretation. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 197–220. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2012 [1996]Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics 5: 1–69. DOI logo
Roggia, Carlo Enrico
2009Le frasi scisse in italiano. Struttura informativa e funzioni discorsive. Geneva: Slatkine.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1985Association with Focus. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
1992A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116. DOI logo
1996Focus. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin (ed), 271–297. Oxford; Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte, Jacob, Daniel & Konieczny, Lars
This volume. How alternatives are created: Specialized background knowledge affects the interpretation of clefts in discourse. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob eds Amsterdam-Philadelphia John Benjamins DOI logo
Shlonski, Ur & Bocci, Giuliano
2019Syntactic cartography. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. https://​oxfordre​.com​/view​/10​.1093​/acrefore​/9780199384655​.001​.0001​/acrefore​-9780199384655​-e​-310> (11 June 2021) DOI logo
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre
1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
2002Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. DOI logo
2009A response to Abbott on presupposition and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 539–44. DOI logo
Torregrossa, Jacopo
2018Distinguishing focus and contrast at PF: A view from Italian. In Focus Realization and Interpretation in Romance and Beyond, Marco García-García & Melanie Uth (eds), 173–200. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Turco, Giuseppina
2014Contrasting Opposite Polarity in Germanic and Romance Languages: Verum Focus and Affirmative Particles in Native Speakers and Advanced L2 Learners. PhD thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Turco, Giuseppina, Dimroth, Christine & Braun, Bettina
2013Intonational means to mark verum focus in German and French. Language and Speech 56(4): 460–490. DOI logo
Vallduví, Enric
1991The role of plasticity in the association of focus and prominence. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 7: 295–306.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric & Vilkuna, Maria
1998On rheme and kontrast. In The Limits of Syntax [Syntax and Semantics 29], Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds), 79–108. New York: Academic Press. DOI logo
van der Wal, Jenneke
2016Diagnosing focus. Studies in Language 40: 259–301. DOI logo
van Kuppevelt, Jan
1995Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics 31: 109–147. DOI logo
Velleman, Leah & Beaver, David I.
2016Question-based models of information structure. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 86–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris
2013English ‘emphatic do’. Lingua 128: 142–171. DOI logo
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan
2004Relevance theory. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar
2011Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121: 1651–1670. DOI logo
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

De Cesare, Anna-Maria
2022. To be or not to be focus adverbials?. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273],  pp. 204 ff. DOI logo
Garassino, Davide
2022. Translation as a source of pragmatic interference?. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273],  pp. 272 ff. DOI logo
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
2022. Distinguishing psychological Given/New from linguistic Topic/Focus makes things clearer. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273],  pp. 40 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 02 january 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.