Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 40:2 (2016) ► pp.259–301

Diagnosing focus

 | University of Cambridge
Many tests have been used in eliciting focus constructions and determining what type of focus a certain linguistic strategy expresses. This paper provides an overview of the various diagnostics for focus, indicating how they show the size of the focused constituent and what semantic-pragmatic type of focus is expressed. These types range from simple pragmatic focus to semantically more complex focus, signalling exclusivity or exhaustivity either as an inherent semantic part of the focus, or merely an implicature. The discussion of these diagnostics brings to light how some diagnostics are flawed, and whether the linguistic strategy tested is actually a dedicated strategy for focus at all.
Keywords: semantics/pragmatics interface, focus, exhaustivity, elicitation
Published online: 1 July 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.2.01van
References (120)
Abels, Klaus & Peter Muriungi. 2008. The focus marker in Kîîtharaka: Syntax and semantics. Lingua 118 (5). 687–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abner, Natasha. 2011. WH-words that go bump in the right. In Mary B. Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer & Barbara Tomaszewicz (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics , 24–32. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Aboh, Enoch O. 2004. The morphosyntax of complement-head sequences: clause structure and word order patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Focused versus non-focused wh-phrases. In Enoch O. Aboh, Katharina Hartmann & Malte Zimmermann (eds.), Focus strategies in African languages, 287–314. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Adli, Aria. 2011. Gradient acceptability and frequency effects in information structure: a quantitative study on Spanish, Catalan, and Persian. Freiburg: Universität Freiburg dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2015. What you like is not what you do: Acceptability and frequency in syntactic variation. In Aria Adli, Marco Garcia García & Göz Kaufmann (eds.), Variation in language: Usage-based vs. system-based approaches, 173–200. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baltazani, Maria. 1998. Topic and focus in Greek. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
Bazalgette, Timothy. 2015. Algorithmic acquisition of focus parameters. University of Cambridge dissertation.Google Scholar
Bearth, Thomas. 1992. Constituent structure, natural focus hierarchy and focus types in Toura. Folia Linguistica 261. 75–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David & Brady Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Giuliano Bocci & Silvio Cruschina. 2015. Focus fronting and its implicatures. In Enoch O. Aboh, Aafke Hulk, Jeannette Schaeffer & Petra Sleeman (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2013: Selected papers from Going Romance, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter & Remi Sonaiya. 2000. Information structuring in Yoruba. Linguistics 38 (1). 169–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunetti, Lisa. 2004. A unification of focus. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
. 2009. On the pragmatics of post-focal material in Italian (left peripheral focus looked from the other side. In Denis Apothéloz, Bernard Combettes & Franck Neveu (eds.), Les linguistiques du détachement, Actes du Colloque de Nancy, Juin 7-9, 20061, 151–162. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Buell, Leston C. 2006. The Zulu conjoint/disjoint verb alternation: focus or constituency?. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 431. 9–30.Google Scholar
Chafe, William. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles N. Li & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Subject and topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Adriana Belletti (eds.), Structures and beyond, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Discourse-related features and functional projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Destruel, Emilie & Emilie Velleman. 2014. In Christopher Piñón (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, 197–214.Google Scholar
Douglas, Wilfrid H. 1959. An introduction to the Western Desert language of Australia. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J. & Bernd Pompino-Marschall. 2013. The focus prosody of Chichewa and the stress-focus constraint: A response to Samek-Lodovici (2005). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 311. 647–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drenhaus, Heiner, Malte Zimmermann & Shravan Vasishth. 2011. Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional. Journal of Neurolinguistics 24 (3). 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dretske, Fred I. 1972. Contrastive statements. Philosophical Review 81 (4). 411–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drubig, Hans Bernard. 1994. Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. Tübingen: University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74 (2). 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Shalom Lappin. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 61. 41–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1983. Under stress: A functional explanation of English sentence stress. Journal of Linguistics 231. 341–358.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Denisa Lenertová. 2011. Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 291. 169–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Shinichiro Ishihara. 2010. How focus and givenness shape prosody. In Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds.), Information structure. theoretical, typological and experimental perspectives, 36–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Ángel Jiménez-Fernández. 2013. Optionality in contrast. Paper presented at CamCoS 2 , Cambridge.
Frascarelli, Mara & Francesca Ramaglia. 2013. Optionality in contrast. Paper presented at IFF 39 , Modena.
Frey, Werner. 2010. Ā-Movement and conventional implicatures: About the grammatical encoding of emphasis in German. Lingua 120 (6). 1416–1435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, Hugo. 2013. The interaction of thetics with exclamatives and miratives: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Paper presented at GWIS2, Methodological issues in the study of information structure , Graz, Austria.
Gast & van der Auwera. 2011. Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe. Language 871. 2–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Götze, Michael, Thomas Weskott, Cornelia Endriss, Ines Fiedler, Stefan Hinterwimmer, Svetlana Petrova, Anne Schwarz, Stavros Skopeteas & Ruben Stoel. 2007. Information structure. In Stephanie Dipper, Michael Götze & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Information structure in cross-linguistic corpora: Annotation guidelines for phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and information structure. Working Papers of the SFB 632, 147–187. Google Scholar
Green, Melanie & Philip J. Jaggar. 2003. Ex-situ and in-situ focus in Hausa: Syntax, semantics and discourse. In Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm & Ur Shlonsky (eds.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar 2: Current issues in linguistic theory, 187–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greif, Markus. 2010. Contrastive focus in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at Speech Prosody 2010 , Chicago, USA.
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Gryllia, Stella. 2009. On the nature of preverbal focus in Greek. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2008. Notions and subnotions in information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 551. 381–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 2008. Towards a typology of interrogative verbs. Linguistic Typology 12 (1). 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Malte Zimmermann. 2007. In place - out of place? Focus in Hausa. In Susanne Winkler & Kerstin Schwabe (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 365–403. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
. 1985. Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61 (1). 121–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1981. Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. In Victoria Burke & James Pustejovski (eds.), Papers from the 11th Annual Meeting of NELS, 124–142. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 2010. “Discourse features”, syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua 120 (6). 1346–1369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasimir, Elke. 2005. Question-Answer test and givenness: Some question marks. Working Papers of the SFB632, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 31. 1–52.Google Scholar
Kenesei, Istvan. 1986. On the logic of Hungarian word order. In Werner Abraham & Sjaak de Meij (eds.), Topic, focus, configurationality, 143–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Focus as identification. In Valeria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 137–168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Ilkyu. 2012. Korean -(n)un, -i/ka, and information structure. Paper presented at workshop ‘Categories of Information Structure’ , MPI Nijmegen.
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krahmer, Emiel & Marc Swerts. 2007. Perceiving focus. In Choonkyu Lee, Matthew Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds.), Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on intonation and meaning, 121–138. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The effects of visual beats on prosodic prominence: Acoustic analyses, auditory perception and visual perception. Journal of Memory and Language 57 (3). 396–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Pragmatic strengthening for free. Paper presented at 31. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Osnabrück.
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In Joachim Jacobs (eds.), Informationstruktur und Grammatik, 17–53. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In Valeria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds.), Working Papers of the SFB 632, Interdisciplinary studies on information structure, 13–55. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
. 2007. The semantics of questions and the focusation of answers. In Chungmin Lee, Matthew Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds.), Topic and focus, crosslinguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, 139–150. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred & Renate Musan. 2012. Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure, 1–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labatut, Roger. 1986. Thématisation et focalisation en peul. Afrique et Langage 26 (2). 17–31.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 1999. Focus in Somali. In Georges Rebuschi & Laurice Tuller (eds.), The grammar of focus, 275–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 81. 339–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martins, Ana Maria. 2011. Scrambling and information focus in old and contemporary Portuguese. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 101. 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Daniel Wedgwood. 2013. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in a cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Linguistics 49 (1). 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Jounral of American Linguistics 701. 369–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. On how (not) to uncover cross-linguistic variation. Proceedings of NELS 42 .
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 271. 661–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molnár, Valeria. 2002. Contrast - from a contrastive perspective. In Hilde Hasselgård, Stig Johansson, Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective, 147–162. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, Elena Titov, Hans van de Koot & Reiko Vermeulen. 2009. A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In Jeroen Van Craenenbroeck (eds.), Alternatives to cartography, 15–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neidle, Carol. 2002. Language across modalities: ASL focus and question constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 21. 71–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onea, Edgar. 2007. Exhaustivity, Focus and Incorporation in Hungarian. In Maria Aloni, Paul Dekker & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium (ILLC/Department of Philosophy University of Amsterdam), 169–174.Google Scholar
Pan, Victor. 2012. Categories of Information Structure: On the syntax and semantics of Wh-topics and Wh-foci. Paper presented at workshop ‘Categories of Information Structure’, MPI Nijmegen.
Partee, Barbara H. 1999. Focus, quantification, and semantics-pragmatics issues. In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 213–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paul, Waltraud & John Whitman. 2008. Shi…de focus clefts in Mandarin Chinese. The Linguistic Review 25 (3/4). 413–451.Google Scholar
Quadros, R.M. 1999. Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language. Porto Alegre: Pontificía Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul dissertation.Google Scholar
Reich, Ingo. 2002. Question/answer congruence and the semantics of wh-phrases. Theoretical Linguistics 281. 73–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Information structure and theoretical models of grammar. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure, 409–447. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renans, Agata, Malte Zimmermann & Markus Greif. 2011. Questionnaire on focus semantics. In Agata Renans, Malte Zimmermann & Markus Greif (eds.), Working papers of the SFB 632. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robert, Stéphane. 2010. Focus in Atlantic languages. In Ines Fiedler & Anne Schwarz (eds.), The expression of information structure. A documentation of its diversity across Africa, 233–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse. Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Yae-Hak Yoon & Andreas Kathol (eds.), Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 91–136.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1 (1). 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Focus. In Shalom Leppin (eds.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 271–297. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1999. Association with focus or association with presupposition? In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus. Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 232–244. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 2006. Theticity. In G. Bernini & M. Schwarz (eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe, 255–308. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relationship between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. Intonation, stress and phrasing. In John A. Goldsmith (ed.), Handbook of phonology, 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2008. Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of ‘discourse-new’. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 551. 331–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros, Ines Fiedler, Sam Hellmuth, Anne Schwarz, Ruben Stoel, Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry & Manfred Krifka. 2006. Questionnaire on Information Structure (QUIS). Working papers of the SFB632 (ISIS) 41.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros & Gisbert Fanselow. 2010. Focus in Georgian and the expression of contrast. Lingua 120 (6). 1370–1391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros. 2012. The empirical investigation of information structure. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure, 217–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slade, Benjamin Martin. 2011. Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala and other languages. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 251. 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. Compositionality in focus. Acta Linguistica Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae. 141–162.Google Scholar
. 1983. Focusing properties, or the trap of first order. Theoretical Linguistics 101. 125–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. All quantifiers are not equal: The case of focus. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 42 (3-4). 171–187.Google Scholar
Torregrossa, Jacopo. 2012. Towards a taxonomy of focus types. The case of information foci and contrastive foci in Italian. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, Papers in Semantics 161. 151–172.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric & Maria Vilkuna. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. In Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax, 79–106. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Wal, Jenneke. 2009. Word order and information structure in Makhuwa-Enahara. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
. 2011. Focus excluding alternatives: Conjoint/disjoint marking in Makhuwa. Lingua 212 (11). 1734–1750. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Kuppevelt, Jan. 1996. Inferring from topics. Scalar implicatures as topic-dependent inferences. Linguistics and Philosophy 191. 393–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Leusen, Noor. 2004. Incompatibility in context: A diagnosis of correction. Journal of Semantics 211. 415–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, Robert. 2002. Relevance only. In J. Bos, M.E. Foster & C. Matheson (eds.), Proceedings of the sixth workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (EDILOG 2002), 155–160.Google Scholar
van Rooij, Robert & Katrin Schulz. 2004. Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 131. 491–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth & Stavros Skopeteas. 2015. Licensing focus constructions in Yucatec Maya. International Jounral of American Linguistics 81(1). 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeulen, Reiko. 2012. Word order variation and information structure. In Ad Neeleman & Reiko Vermeulen (eds.), The syntax of topic, focus and contrast, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 2008. What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical perspectives 22 (1). 137–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, Daniel. 2012. Categories and processes: Information structure, the universality question and linguistic methodology. Paper presented at Categories of Information Structure , MPI Nijmegen.
Wells, John C. 2006. English intonation: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yiman, Baye. 1988. Focus in Oromo. Studies in African Linguistics 191. 365–384.Google Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine. 2006. Expression of information structure in Northern Sotho. Berlin: Humboldt University dissertation.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2008. Contrastive focus and emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55 (3-4). 347–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Edgar Onea. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121 (11). 1651–1670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (18)

Cited by 18 other publications

Borise, Lena
2023. The syntax of wh-phrases, narrow foci, and neg-words in Georgian. The Linguistic Review 40:2 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
J. Kerr, Elisabeth, Allen Asiimwe, Patrick Kanampiu, Zhen Li, Ernest Nshemezimana & Jenneke van der Wal
2023. Bantu word order between discourse and syntactic relations. Linguistique et langues africaines :9(1) DOI logo
Pan, Victor Junnan & Chang Liu
2023. Focus Constructions Involving shì in Mandarin Chinese. Languages 8:2 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Bossi, Madeline
2022. N-effects are not-P-effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 40:2 ► pp. 425 ff. DOI logo
Cruschina, Silvio & Laia Mayol
2022. The Realization of Information Focus in Catalan. Languages 7:4 ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
Garassino, Davide & Daniel Jacob
2022. Introduction. When data challenges theory. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Matić, Dejan
2022. Alternatives to information structure. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Amaechi, Mary & Doreen Georgi
2021. On optional wh-/focus fronting in Igbo: A SYN-SEM-PHON interaction. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 39:3 ► pp. 299 ff. DOI logo
Cruschina, Silvio
2021. The greater the contrast, the greater the potential: On the effects of focus in syntax. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6:1 DOI logo
JERRO, KYLE
2021. Applied Objects and the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Journal of Linguistics 57:2 ► pp. 365 ff. DOI logo
Mannheim, Bruce
2021. The social (and cultural, and syntactic, and semantic) life of generics. Language in Society 50:4 ► pp. 605 ff. DOI logo
Ozerov, Pavel
2021. Multifactorial Information Management (MIM): summing up the emerging alternative to Information Structure. Linguistics Vanguard 7:1 DOI logo
Wu, Tong
2021. 类型学视角下汉语的双系式结构. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Belligh, Thomas
2020. Dutch thetic and sentence-focus constructions on the semantics-pragmatics interface. Studies in Language 44:4 ► pp. 831 ff. DOI logo
Kratzer, Angelika & Elisabeth Selkirk
2020. Deconstructing information structure. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:1 DOI logo
Bossi, Madeline & Michael Diercks
2019. V1 in Kipsigis: Head movement and discourse-based scrambling. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1 DOI logo
Gibson, Hannah
2019. The grammaticalisation of verb-auxiliary order in East African Bantu. Studies in Language 43:4 ► pp. 757 ff. DOI logo
Titov, Elena
2019. Morphosyntactic encoding of information structure in Akan. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 november 2024. 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.