References

References

Alberti, Gábor & Anna Medve
2000Focus Constructions and the “Scope-inversion Puzzle” in Hungarian. In Gábor Alberti & István Kenesei (eds.), The structure of Hungarian VII, 93–117. Szeged: JATEPress.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides
2003Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Balogh, Kata
2009Theme with variations. A Context-based analysis of focus. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Balogh, Kata & Corinna Langer
Forthcoming. Additive particles, focus sensitivity and prosody: the case of Hungarian. Submitted.
Barsalou, Lawrence W.
1992Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Feder Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, 21–74. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Beaver, David I. & Brady Z. Clark
2002The proper treatments of focus sensitivity. In Line Mikkelsen & Christopher Potts (eds.), WCCFL 21 Proceedings, 15–28. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
2008Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning Explorations in Semantics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Suzanne
2009Az éhezők viadala [The hunger games]. Budapest: Agave Könyvek. Translated by Benedek Totth.Google Scholar
Dowty, David
1979Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1978A magyar mondatok egy szintaktikai modellje [A syntactic model of Hungarian sentences]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 80. 261–286.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1995Discourse configurational languages. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1998Identificational Focus versus Information Focus. Language 74. 245i273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2002The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Discourse functions: The case of Hungarian. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 663–685. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana
2016Toward a typology for additive markers. Lingua 180. 69–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Genzel, Susanne, Shinichiro Ishihara & Balázs Surányi
2015The prosodic expression of focus, contrast and givenness: A production study of Hungarian. Lingua 165. 183–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gyuris, Beáta
2009The semantics and pragmatics of the contrastive topic in Hungarian. Budapest: Lexica Ltd.Google Scholar
2012The information structure of Hungarian. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure, 159–186. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horváth, Júlia
2007Separating “focus movement” from focus. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. 108–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010“Discourse features”, Syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua 120. 1346–1369. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kallmeyer, Laura & Rainer Osswald
2013Syntax-driven semantic frame composition in lexicalized tree adjoining grammars. Journal of Language Modelling 1(2). 267–330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Combining predicate-argument structure and operator projection: Clause structure in Role and Reference Grammar. In Marco Kuhlmann & Tatjana Scheffler (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+13), 61–70. Association for Computational Linguistics. Available at: https://​www​.aclweb​.org​/anthology​/W17​-6207/ (Last access: 13 May 2020).
Kallmeyer, Laura, Rainer Osswald & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.
2013Tree wrapping for Role and Reference Grammar. In Glyn Morrill & Mark-Jan Nederhof (eds.), Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2012 and 2013 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8036, 175–190. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István
1997On the syntactic options of focus. Unpublished manuscript, University of Delaware, Newark and JATE, Szeged.Google Scholar
1998Adjuncts and arguments in VP-focus in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45(1–2). 61–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Focus as identification. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 137–168. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ference
2005On the information structure of the Hungarian sentence. Hungarian Studies 19(2). 255–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1991The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
1998Additive particles under stress. In Devon Strolovitch & Aaron Lawson (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 8, 111–128. Cornell University: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
2006Association with focus phrases. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 105–136. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred & Renate Musan
(eds.) 2012The expression of information structure. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, Saul A.
2009Presupposition and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 40(3). 367–386. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langer, Corinna
2019Focus sensitivity and prosodic structure in Hungarian: A case study on the additive particle is. Düsseldorf: Henrich-Heine-Universität MA Thesis.Google Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian
2014Evidence for frames from human language. In Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (eds.), Frames and concept types, 23–67. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Frame theory with first-order comparators: Modeling the lexical meaning of punctual verbs of change with frames. In Helle Hvid Hansen, Sarah E. Murray, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh & Henk Zeevat (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Information LNCS 10148, 98–117. Heidelberg/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Mayer, Mercer
1967A boy, a dog and a frog. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
1969Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
1973Frog on his own. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
1974Frog goes to diner. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
Mayer, Mercer & Marianna Mayer
1971A boy, a dog, a frog and a friend. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
1975One frog too many. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google 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. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Osswald, Rainer & Laura Kallmeyer
2018Towards a formalization of Role and Reference Grammar. In Rolf Kailuweit, Lisann Künkel & Eva Staudinger (eds.), Applying and expanding Role and Reference Grammar (NIHIN Studies), 355–378. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Universitätsbibliothek.Google Scholar
Petersen, Wiebke
2015Representation of concepts as frames. In Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (eds.), Meaning, frames, and conceptual representation (Studies in Language and Cognition 2), 43–67. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press. [Commented reprint: originally published 2007 In Jurģis Šķilters, Fiorenza Toccafondi & Gerhard Stemberger (eds.): Complex cognition and qualitative science (The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 2), 151–170. Riga: University of Latvia.]Google Scholar
Riester, Arndt
2015Analyzing Questions under Discussion and information structure in a Balinese narrative. In Atsuko Utsumi & Asako Shiohara (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Information Structure of Austronesian Languages, 1–26. Tokyo: Tokyo University ILCAA, TUFS.Google Scholar
2019Constructing QUD trees. In Malte Zimmermann, Klaus von Heusinger & Edgar Onea (eds.), Questions in discourse. Volume 2: Pragmatics, 164–193. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige
2003Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 287–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6). 1–69.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1985Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
1992A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth
1996Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In John A. Glodsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros, Ines Fiedler, Samantha Hellmuth, Anne Schwarz, Ruben Stoel, Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry & Manfred Krifka
2006Questionnaire on Information Structure: Reference manual (Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 4). Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Ana R. Luís
2012Clitics. An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
2002Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5–6). 701–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Surányi, Balázs
2011A szintaktikailag jelöletlen fókusz pragmatikája [On the pragmatics of the syntactically unmarked focus]. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XXIII. 281–313.Google Scholar
2015Discourse-configurationality. In Caroline Féry & Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 422–440. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
1981The semantics of topic-focus articulation. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language. Proceedings of the 3rd Amsterdam Colloquium, 513–540. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
1994All quantifiers are not equal: the case of focus. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 42(3/4). 171–187.Google Scholar
1997Strategies for Scope Taking. In Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, 109–154. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Quantifier particles and compositionality. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 27–34. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
2017Additive presuppositions are derived through activating focus alternatives. In Alexandre Cremers, Thom van Gessel & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium, 455–464. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna & Adrian Brasoveanu
2013Quantifier particles and compositionality. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of ψ,?ψ, and ◊ψ. A festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman, Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam. Available at: http://​festschriften​.illc​.uva​.nl​/Festschrift​-JMF/ (Last access: 13 May 2020).
Szendrői, Kriszta
2001Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. London: University College London PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
2003A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20. 37–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr.
2005Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Semantic macroroles and language processing. In Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie & Angela D. Friederici (eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking, 263–301. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & Randy LaPolla
1997Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1967Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vilkuna, M.
1989Free word order in Finnish. Its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, Daniel
2007Identifying inferences in focus. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 207–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M.
1985Clitics and particles. Language 61(2). 283–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar