@book{OlsenStiebelsBierwischetal.2019,
  author    = {Olsen, Susan and Stiebels, Barbara and Bierwisch, Manfred and Zimmermann, Ilse and Cavar, Damir and Georgi, Doreen and Bacskai-Atkari, Julia and Alexiadou, Artemis and Błaszczak, Joanna and M{\"u}ller, Gereon and Šim{\´i}k, Radek and Meinunger, Andr{\´e} and Thiersch, Craig and Arnhold, Anja and F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Bayer, Josef and Titov, Elena and Fominyam, Henry and Tran, Thuan and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina D. and Schlesewsky, Matthias and Zimmermann, Malte and H{\"a}ussler, Jana and Mucha, Anne and Schmidt, Andreas and Weskott, Thomas and Wierzba, Marta and Stede, Manfred and Skopeteas, Stavros and Gafos, Adamantios I. and Haider, Hubert and Wunderlich, Dieter and Staudacher, Peter and Rauh, Gisa},
  title     = {Of Trees and Birds},
  editor    = {Brown, Jessica M. M. and Schmidt, Andreas and Wierzba, Marta},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42654},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-426542},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xvi, 435},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Gisbert Fanselow's work has been invaluable and inspiring to many ­researchers working on syntax, morphology, and information ­structure, both from a ­theoretical and from an experimental perspective. This ­volume comprises a collection of articles dedicated to Gisbert on the occasion of his 60th birthday, covering a range of topics from these areas and beyond. The contributions have in ­common that in a broad sense they have to do with language structures (and thus trees), and that in a more specific sense they have to do with birds. They thus cover two of Gisbert's major interests in- and outside of the linguistic world (and ­perhaps even at the interface).},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Zimmermann2018,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Wird Schon Stimmen!},
  series = {Journal of semantics},
  volume    = {35},
  journal   = {Journal of semantics},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0167-5133},
  doi       = {10.1093/jos/ffy010},
  pages     = {687 -- 739},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {The article puts forward a novel analysis of the German modal particle schon as a modal degree operator over propositional content. The proposed analysis offers a uniform perspective on the semantics of modal schon and its aspectual counterpart meaning 'already': Both particles are analyzed as denoting a degree operator, expressing a scale-based comparison over relevant alternatives. The alternatives are determined by focus in the case of aspectual schon (Krifka 2000), but are restricted to the polar alternatives p and ¬p in the case of modal schon. Semantically, modal schon introduces a presupposition to the effect that the circumstantial conversational background contains more factual evidence in favor of p than in favor of ¬p⁠, thereby making modal schon the not at-issue counterpart of the overt comparative form eher 'rather' (Herburger \& Rubinstein 2014). The analysis incorporates basic insights from earlier analyses of modal schon in a novel way, and it also offers new insights as to the underlying workings of modality in natural language as involving propositions rather than possible worlds (Kratzer 1977, 2012).},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ZimmermannDeVeaughGeissToennisetal.2020,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Malte and De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P. and T{\"o}nnis, Swantje and Onea, Edgar},
  title     = {(Non-)exhaustivity in focus partitioning across languages},
  series = {Approaches to Hungarian},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {Approaches to Hungarian},
  publisher = {John Benjamins},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  pages     = {24},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {We present novel experimental evidence on the availability and the status of exhaustivity inferences with focus partitioning in German, English, and Hungarian. Results suggest that German and English focus-background clefts and Hungarian focus share important properties, ({\´E}. Kiss 1998, 1999; Szabolcsi 1994; Percus 1997; Onea \& Beaver 2009). Those constructions are anaphoric devices triggering an existence presupposition. EXH-inferences are not obligatory in such constructions in English, German, or Hungarian, against some previous literature (Percus 1997; B{\"u}ring \& Križ 2013; {\´E}. Kiss 1998), but in line with pragmatic analyses of EXH-inferences in clefts (Horn 1981, 2016; Pollard \& Yasavul 2016). The cross-linguistic differences in the distribution of EXH-inferences are attributed to properties of the Hungarian number marking system.},
  language  = {en}
}
@incollection{HartmannZimmermann2006,
  author    = {Hartmann, Katharina and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Morphological focus marking in G{\`u}r{\`u}nt{\`u}m (West Chadic)},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19525},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2006},
  abstract  = {The paper presents an in-depth study of focus marking in G{\`u}r{\`u}nt{\`u}m, a West Chadic language spoken in Bauchi Province of Northern Nigeria. Focus in G{\`u}r{\`u}nt{\`u}m is marked morphologically by means of a focus marker a, which typically precedes the focus constituent. Even though the morphological focus-marking system of G{\`u}r{\`u}nt{\`u}m allows for a lot of fine-grained distinctions in information structure (IS) in principle, the language is not entirely free of focus ambiguities that arise as the result of conflicting IS- and syntactic requirements that govern the placement of focus markers. We show that morphological focus marking with a applies across different types of focus, such as newinformation, contrastive, selective and corrective focus, and that a does not have a second function as a perfectivity marker, as is assumed in the literature. In contrast, we show at the end of the paper that a can also function as a foregrounding device at the level of discourse structure.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Zimmermann2007,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Contrastive focus},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19688},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {The article puts forward a discourse-pragmatic approach to the notoriously evasive phenomena of contrastivity and emphasis. It is argued that occurrences of focus that are treated in terms of 'contrastive focus', 'kontrast' (Vallduv{\´i} \& Vilkuna 1998) or 'identificational focus' ({\´E}. Kiss 1998) in the literature should not be analyzed in familiar semantic terms like introduction of alternatives or exhaustivity. Rather, an adequate analysis must take into account discourse-pragmatic notions like hearer expectation or discourse expectability of the focused content in a given discourse situation. The less expected a given content is judged to be for the hearer, relative to the Common Ground, the more likely a speaker is to mark this content by means of special grammatical devices, giving rise to emphasis.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RonasiFischerZimmermann2018,
  author    = {Ronasi, Golnoush and Fischer, Martin H. and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Language and Arithmetic},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01524},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {We examined cross-domain semantic priming effects between arithmetic and language. We paired subtractions with their linguistic equivalent, exception phrases (EPs) with positive quantifiers (e.g., "everybody except John") while pairing additions with their own linguistic equivalent, EPs with negative quantifiers (e.g., "nobody except John"; Moltmann, 1995). We hypothesized that EPs with positive quantifiers prime subtractions and inhibit additions while EPs with negative quantifiers prime additions and inhibit subtractions. Furthermore, we expected similar priming and inhibition effects from arithmetic into semantics. Our design allowed for a bidirectional analysis by using one trial's target as the prime for the next trial. Two experiments failed to show significant priming effects in either direction. Implications and possible shortcomings are explored in the general discussion.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DeVeaughGeissToennisOneaetal.2018,
  author    = {De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P. and Toennis, Swantje and Onea, Edgar and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {That's not quite it},
  series = {Semantics and pragmatics},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Semantics and pragmatics},
  publisher = {Linguistic Society of America},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {1937-8912},
  doi       = {10.3765/sp.11.3},
  pages     = {44},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {We present a novel empirical study on German directly comparing the exhaustivity inference in es-clefts to exhaustivity inferences in definite pseudoclefts, exclusives, and plain intonational focus constructions. We employ mouse-driven verification/falsification tasks in an incremental information-retrieval paradigm across two experiments in order to assess the strength of exhaustivity in the four sentence types. The results are compatible with a parallel analysis of clefts and definite pseudoclefts, in line with previous claims in the literature (Percus 1997, Buring \& Kriz 2013). In striking contrast with such proposals, in which the exhaustivity inference is conventionally coded in the cleft-structure in terms of maximality/homogeneity, our study found that the exhaustivity inference is not systematic or robust in es-clefts nor in definite pseudoclefts: Whereas some speakers treat both constructions as exhaustive, others treat both constructions as non-exhaustive. In order to account for this unexpected finding, we argue that the exhaustivity inference in both clefts and definite pseudoclefts-specifically those with the compound definite derjenige - is pragmatically derived from the anaphoric existence presupposition that is common to both constructions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HartmannZimmermann2009,
  author    = {Hartmann, Katharina and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Morphological focus marking in G{\`u}r{\`u}nt{\`u}m (West Chadic)},
  issn      = {0024-3841},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.lingua.2009.02.002},
  year      = {2009},
  abstract  = {The paper presents an in-depth study of focus marking in Guruntum, a West Chadic language spoken in Bauchi State in Nigeria. Focus in Guruntum is marked morphologically by means of a focus marker a, which typically precedes the focused constituent. Even though the morphological focus-marking system of Guruntum allows for a lot of fine-grained distinctions in information structure (IS), the language is not entirely free of focus ambiguities that are the result of conflicting IS- and syntactic requirements governing the placement of focus markers. We show that morphological focus marking with a applies across different types of focus, such as new-information, contrastive, selective and corrective focus, and that a does not have a second function as a perfective marker, as is assumed in the literature. In contrast, we argue that sentence-final occurrences of a in perfective sentences are markers of sentential focus and have additional functions at the level of discourse structure.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ZimmermannFery2010,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Malte and F{\´e}ry, Caroline},
  title     = {Introduction},
  isbn      = {978-0-19-957095-9},
  year      = {2010},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FiedlerHartmannReinekeetal.2010,
  author    = {Fiedler, Ines and Hartmann, Katharina and Reineke, Brigitte and Schwarz, Anne and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Subject focus in West African languages},
  isbn      = {978-0-19-957095-9},
  year      = {2010},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HartmannZimmermann2012,
  author    = {Hartmann, Katharina and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Focus marking in Bura - semantic uniformity matches syntactic heterogeneity},
  series = {Natural language \& linguistic theory},
  volume    = {30},
  journal   = {Natural language \& linguistic theory},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {0167-806X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s11049-012-9174-4},
  pages     = {1061 -- 1108},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {The present article introduces a theory of (morpho-)syntactic focus marking on nominal categories in Bura, a Central Chadic SVO language spoken in the northeast of Nigeria. Our central claim is that the particle an plays a crucial role in the marking of subject and non-subject focus. We put forward a uniform analysis of an as a focus copula that selects for syntactic predicates of type < e,t > and a focused constituent of type < e >. This uniform semantic representation is transparently mapped onto different syntactic structures: In a clause with a focused subject, the focus copula appears between the subject in SpecTP and the predicative VP. On the other hand, syntactically focused non-subjects are fronted and appear in a bi-clausal cleft structure that contains the focus copula and a relative cleft-remnant. The non-uniform analysis of focus marking is further supported by the structure of predicative constructions, in which the focus copula separates the focused subject and the adjectival or nominal predicate. It is also shown that alternative unified analyses fail to account for the full range of Bura data. The latter part of the article provides an analysis of the Bura cleft construction. Based on syntactic and semantic evidence, we come to the conclusion that the clefted constituent is base-generated in its initial surface position, and that an empty operator moves within the relative clause. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the potential conceptual reasons behind the observed subject/non-subject asymmetry in Bura.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ChiarcosFiedlerGrubicetal.2011,
  author    = {Chiarcos, Christian and Fiedler, Ines and Grubic, Mira and Hartmann, Katharina and Ritz, Julia and Schwarz, Anne and Zeldes, Amir and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Information structure in African languages corpora and tools},
  series = {Language resources and evaluation},
  volume    = {45},
  journal   = {Language resources and evaluation},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {1574-020X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10579-011-9153-0},
  pages     = {361 -- 374},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {In this paper, we describe tools and resources for the study of African languages developed at the Collaborative Research Centre 632 "Information Structure". These include deeply annotated data collections of 25 sub-Saharan languages that are described together with their annotation scheme, as well as the corpus tool ANNIS, which provides unified access to a broad variety of annotations created with a range of different tools. With the application of ANNIS to several African data collections, we illustrate its suitability for the purpose of language documentation, distributed access, and the creation of data archives.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ZimmermannOnea2011,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Malte and Onea, Edgar},
  title     = {Focus marking and focus interpretation},
  series = {LINGUA},
  volume    = {121},
  journal   = {LINGUA},
  number    = {11},
  publisher = {ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV},
  address   = {AMSTERDAM},
  issn      = {0024-3841},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002},
  pages     = {1651 -- 1670},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {The languages of the world exhibit a range of formal phenomena (e.g. accenting, syntactic reordering and morphological marking) that are commonly linked to the information-structural notion of focus. Crucially, there does not seem to be a one-to-one mapping between particular formal features (focus marking devices) and focus, neither from a cross-linguistic perspective, nor within individual languages. This raises the question of what is actually being expressed if we say that a constituent is focused in a particular language, and whether, or to what extent, the same semantic or pragmatic content is formally expressed by focus-marking across languages. This special issue addresses the question of focus and its grammatical realization from a number of theoretical and empirical perspectives. In this introductory article we elaborate on this question by making an explicit proposal about what we take to be the correct way of thinking about the information-structural category of focus and its formal realization. In the first part, we introduce a unified semantico-pragmatic perspective on focus in terms of alternatives and possible worlds. In the second part, we present a cursory cross-linguistic overview of focus marking strategies as found in the languages of the world. Finally, in the third part, we discuss the connection between the notion of focus, different pragmatic uses of focus and different focus marking strategies employed in the grammars of natural languages. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Zimmermann2011,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {On the functional architecture of DP and the feature content of pronominal quantifiers in Low German},
  series = {The journal of comparative Germanic linguistics},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {The journal of comparative Germanic linguistics},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {1383-4924},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10828-011-9046-z},
  pages     = {203 -- 240},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {The article investigates the functional architecture of complex pronominal quantifying expressions (PQEs) in Low German, such as jeder-een 'everyone' and keen-een 'no-one', which provide overt evidence for a Num-projection, situated between the NP- and DP-layer. The feature specification of Num as [+lattice] or [-lattice] is responsible for whether the DP denotes into the domain of atomic or mass/plural entities, respectively. In the case of complex PQEs, the syntactic Num-head hosts the overt element een 'a, one', which carries a [-lattice] feature, thus ensuring that the PQE ranges exclusively over the domain of atomic entities, but not mass or plural entities. The Num-head een differs from its simplex counterpart wat 'something', which is analyzed as an NP-proform with an underspecified [lattice]-feature. As a result, wat can range over atomic and mass domains alike. In the final part of the article, it is argued that wat is also underspecified for the operator feature [rel/wh], for which reason it can also function as an interrogative expression (what) and as a relative pronoun (which), respectively, depending on the syntactic context. Throughout the article, the Low German data are compared with relevant data from other German dialects and Germanic and Romance languages, pointing out similarities and differences in the syntactic structure and feature content of PQEs across these languages and dialects.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Zimmermann2011,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {The grammatical expression of focus in West Chadic variation and uniformity in and across languages},
  series = {Linguistics : an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences},
  volume    = {49},
  journal   = {Linguistics : an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {De Gruyter Mouton},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {0024-3949},
  doi       = {10.1515/LING.2011.032},
  pages     = {1163 -- 1213},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {The article provides an overview of the grammatical realization of focus in four West Chadic languages (Chadic, Afro-Asiatic). The languages discussed exhibit an intriguing crosslinguistic variation in the realization of focus, both among themselves as well as compared to European intonation languages. They also display language-internal variation in the formal realization of focus. The West Chadic languages differ widely in their ways of expressing focus, which range from syntactic over prosodic to morphological devices. In contrast to European intonation languages, the focus marking systems of the West Chadic languages are inconsistent in that focus is often not grammatically expressed, but these inconsistencies are shown to be systematic. Subject foci (contrastive or not) and contrastive nonsubject foci are always grammatically marked, whereas information focus on nonsubjects need not be marked as such. The absence of formal focus marking supports pragmatic theories of focus in terms of contextual resolution. The special status of focused subjects and contrastive foci is derived from the Contrastive Focus Hypothesis, which requires unexpected foci and unexpected focus contents to be marked as such, together with the assumption that canonical subjects in West Chadic receive a default interpretation as topics. Finally, I discuss certain focus ambiguities which are not attested in intonation languages, nor do they follow on standard accounts of focus marking, but which can be accounted for in terms of constraint interaction in the formal expression of focus.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GueldemannZerbianZimmermann2015,
  author    = {Gueldemann, Tom and Zerbian, Sabine and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Variation in information structure with special reference to Africa},
  series = {Annual review of linguistics},
  volume    = {1},
  journal   = {Annual review of linguistics},
  editor    = {Liberman, M and Partee, BH},
  publisher = {Annual Reviews},
  address   = {Palo Alto},
  isbn      = {978-0-8243-4201-2},
  issn      = {2333-9691},
  doi       = {10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125134},
  pages     = {155 -- 178},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Information structure has been one of the central topics of recent linguistic research. This review discusses a wide range of current approaches with particular reference to African languages, as these have been playing a crucial role in advancing our knowledge about the diversity of and recurring patterns in both meaning and form of information structural notions. We focus on cross-linguistic functional frameworks, the investigation of prosody, formal syntactic theories, and relevant effects of semantic interpretation. Information structure is a thriving research domain that promises to yield important advances in our general understanding of human language.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Zimmermann2016,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Predicate focus},
  series = {The Oxford handbook of information structure},
  journal   = {The Oxford handbook of information structure},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  isbn      = {978-0-19-964267-0},
  pages     = {314 -- 335},
  year      = {2016},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Zimmermann2019,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Im Korpus gibt's keine V{\"o}gel nicht},
  series = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  journal   = {Of trees and birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-457-9},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43254},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432541},
  pages     = {287 -- 306},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RonasiFischerZimmermann2018,
  author    = {Ronasi, Golnoush and Fischer, Martin H. and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Language and Arithmetic},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01524},
  pages     = {1 -- 12},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {We examined cross-domain semantic priming effects between arithmetic and language. We paired subtractions with their linguistic equivalent, exception phrases (EPs) with positive quantifiers (e.g., "everybody except John") while pairing additions with their own linguistic equivalent, EPs with negative quantifiers (e.g., "nobody except John"; Moltmann, 1995). We hypothesized that EPs with positive quantifiers prime subtractions and inhibit additions while EPs with negative quantifiers prime additions and inhibit subtractions. Furthermore, we expected similar priming and inhibition effects from arithmetic into semantics. Our design allowed for a bidirectional analysis by using one trial's target as the prime for the next trial. Two experiments failed to show significant priming effects in either direction. Implications and possible shortcomings are explored in the general discussion.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{RonasiFischerZimmermann2018,
  author    = {Ronasi, Golnoush and Fischer, Martin H. and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Language and Arithmetic},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {469},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-417278},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {We examined cross-domain semantic priming effects between arithmetic and language. We paired subtractions with their linguistic equivalent, exception phrases (EPs) with positive quantifiers (e.g., "everybody except John") while pairing additions with their own linguistic equivalent, EPs with negative quantifiers (e.g., "nobody except John"; Moltmann, 1995). We hypothesized that EPs with positive quantifiers prime subtractions and inhibit additions while EPs with negative quantifiers prime additions and inhibit subtractions. Furthermore, we expected similar priming and inhibition effects from arithmetic into semantics. Our design allowed for a bidirectional analysis by using one trial's target as the prime for the next trial. Two experiments failed to show significant priming effects in either direction. Implications and possible shortcomings are explored in the general discussion.},
  language  = {en}
}
@book{RenansZimmermannGreif2010,
  author    = {Renans, Agata and Zimmermann, Malte and Greif, Markus},
  title     = {Questionnaire on focus semantics},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-36826},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {This is the 15th issue of the working paper series Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) of the Sonderforschungsbereich (SFB) 632. This online version contains the Questionnaire on Focus Semantics contributed by Agata Renans, Malte Zimmermann and Markus Greif, members of Project D2 investigating information structural phenomena from a typological perspective. The present issue provides a tool for collecting and analyzing natural data with respect to relevant linguistic questions concerning focus types, focus sensitive particles, and the effects of quantificational adverbs and presupposition on focus semantics. This volume is a supplementation to the Reference manual of the Questionnaire on Information Structure, issued by Project D2 in ISIS 4 (2006).},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HartmannZimmermann2004,
  author    = {Hartmann, Katharina and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Focus strategies in chadic},
  series = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; working papers of the SFB 632},
  journal   = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; working papers of the SFB 632},
  number    = {1},
  issn      = {1866-4725},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-8423},
  pages     = {207 -- 243},
  year      = {2004},
  abstract  = {We argue that the standard focus theories reach their limits when confronted with the focus systems of the Chadic languages. The backbone of the standard focus theories consists of two assumptions, both called into question by the languages under consideration. Firstly, it is standardly assumed that focus is generally marked by stress. The Chadic languages, however, exhibit a variety of different devices for focus marking. Secondly, it is assumed that focus is always marked. In Tangale, at least, focus is not marked consistently on all types of constituents. The paper offers two possible solutions to this dilemma.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{ZimmermannDeVeaughGeissToennisetal.2020,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Malte and De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P. and T{\"o}nnis, Swantje and Onea, Edgar},
  title     = {(Non-)exhaustivity in focus partitioning across languages},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-52467},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-524677},
  pages     = {26},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {We present novel experimental evidence on the availability and the status of exhaustivity inferences with focus partitioning in German, English, and Hungarian. Results suggest that German and English focus-background clefts and Hungarian focus share important properties, ({\´E}. Kiss 1998, 1999; Szabolcsi 1994; Percus 1997; Onea \& Beaver 2009). Those constructions are anaphoric devices triggering an existence presupposition. EXH-inferences are not obligatory in such constructions in English, German, or Hungarian, against some previous literature (Percus 1997; B{\"u}ring \& Križ 2013; {\´E}. Kiss 1998), but in line with pragmatic analyses of EXH-inferences in clefts (Horn 1981, 2016; Pollard \& Yasavul 2016). The cross-linguistic differences in the distribution of EXH-inferences are attributed to properties of the Hungarian number marking system.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HohausZimmermann2021,
  author    = {Hohaus, Vera and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Comparisons of equality with German so ... wie, and the relationship between degrees and properties},
  series = {Journal of semantics},
  volume    = {38},
  journal   = {Journal of semantics},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0167-5133},
  doi       = {10.1093/jos/ffaa011},
  pages     = {95 -- 143},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {We present a compositionally transparent, unified semantic analysis of two kinds of so ... wie-equative constructions in German, namely degree equatives and property equatives in the domain of individuals or events. Unlike in English and many other European languages (Haspelmath \& Buchholz 1998, Rett 2013), both equative types in German feature the parameter marker so, suggesting a unified analysis. We show that the parallel formal expression of German degree and property equatives is accompanied by a parallel syntactic distribution (in predicative, attributive, and adverbial position), and by identical semantic properties: Both equative types allow for scope ambiguities, show negative island effects out of context, and license the negative polarity item uberhaupt 'at all' in the complement clause. As the same properties are also shared by German comparatives, we adopt the influential quantificational analysis of comparatives in von Stechow (1984ab), Heim (1985, 2001, 2007), and Beck (2011), and treat both German equative types in a uniform manner as expressing universal quantification over sets of degrees or over sets of properties (of individuals or events). Conceptually, the uniform marking of degree-related and property-related meanings is expected given that the abstract semantic category degree (type ) can be reconstructed in terms of equivalence classes, i.e., ontologically simpler sets of individuals (type ) or events (type ). These are found in any language, showing that whether or not a language makes explicit reference to degrees (by means of gradable adjectives, degree question words, degree-only equatives) does not follow on general conceptual or semantic grounds, but is determined by the grammar of that language.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HartmannJacobZimmermann2008,
  author    = {Hartmann, Katharina and Jacob, Peggy and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Focus asymmetries in Bura},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19381},
  year      = {2008},
  abstract  = {(Chadic), which exhibits a number of asymmetries: Grammatical focus marking is obligatory only with focused subjects, where focus is marked by the particle {\´a}n following the subject. Focused subjects remain in situ and the complement of {\´a}n is a regular VP. With nonsubject foci, {\´a}n appears in a cleft-structure between the fronted focus constituent and a relative clause. We present a semantically unified analysis of focus marking in Bura that treats the particle as a focusmarking copula in T that takes a property-denoting expression (the background) and an individual-denoting expression (the focus) as arguments. The article also investigates the realization of predicate and polarity focus, which are almost never marked. The upshot of the discussion is that Bura shares many characteristic traits of focus marking with other Chadic languages, but it crucially differs in exhibiting a structural difference in the marking of focus on subjects and non-subject constituents.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BlaszczakDipperFanselowetal.2007,
  author    = {Blaszczak, Joanna and Dipper, Stefanie and Fanselow, Gisbert and Ishihara, Shinishiro and Petrova, Svetlana and Skopeteas, Stavros and Weskott, Thomas and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Syntax},
  series = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS},
  journal   = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS},
  number    = {7},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {1614-4708},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-22253},
  pages     = {95 -- 133},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {The guidelines for syntactic annotation contain the layers that are especially relevant for queries related to the interaction of information structure with syntax. The layers of this level are constituent structure, grammatical functions, and semantic roles.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BlaszczakDipperFanselowetal.2007,
  author    = {Blaszczak, Joanna and Dipper, Stefanie and Fanselow, Gisbert and Ishihara, Shinishiro and Petrova, Svetlana and Skopeteas, Stavros and Weskott, Thomas and Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {Morphology},
  series = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS},
  journal   = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS},
  number    = {7},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {1614-4708},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-22247},
  pages     = {55 -- 94},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {The guidelines for morphological annotation contain the layers that are necessary for understanding the structure of the words in the object language: morphological segmentation, glossing, and annotation of part-of-speech.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Zimmermann2011,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Malte},
  title     = {The grammatical expression of focus in West Chadic},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-93617},
  pages     = {1163 -- 1213},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {The article provides an overview of the grammatical realization of focus in four West Chadic languages (Chadic, Afro-Asiatic). The languages discussed exhibit an intriguing crosslinguistic variation in the realization of focus, both among themselves as well as compared to European intonation languages. They also display language-internal variation in the formal realization of focus. The West Chadic languages differ widely in their ways of expressing focus, which range from syntactic over prosodic to morphological devices. In contrast to European intonation languages, the focus marking systems of the West Chadic languages are inconsistent in that focus is often not grammatically expressed, but these inconsistencies are shown to be systematic. Subject foci (contrastive or not) and contrastive nonsubject foci are always grammatically marked, whereas information focus on nonsubjects need not be marked as such. The absence of formal focus marking supports pragmatic theories of focus in terms of contextual resolution. The special status of focused subjects and contrastive foci is derived from the Contrastive Focus Hypothesis, which requires unexpected foci and unexpected focus contents to be marked as such, together with the assumption that canonical subjects in West Chadic receive a default interpretation as topics. Finally, I discuss certain focus ambiguities which are not attested in intonation languages, nor do they follow on standard accounts of focus marking, but which can be accounted for in terms of constraint interaction in the formal expression of focus.},
  language  = {en}
}
@book{RenansZimmermannGreif2011,
  author    = {Renans, Agata and Zimmermann, Malte and Greif, Markus},
  title     = {Questionnaire on focus semantics. - 2nd edition},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-50359},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {This is the 15th issue of the working paper series Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) of the Sonderforschungsbereich (SFB) 632. This online version contains the Questionnaire on Focus Semantics contributed by Agata Renans, Malte Zimmermann and Markus Greif, members of Project D2 investigating information structural phenomena from a typological perspective. The present issue provides a tool for collecting and analyzing natural data with respect to relevant linguistic questions concerning focus types, focus sensitive particles, and the effects of quantificational adverbs and presupposition on focus semantics. This volume is a supplementation to the Reference manual of the Questionnaire on Information Structure, issued by Project D2 in ISIS 4 (2006).},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FanselowZimmermannPhilipp2022,
  author    = {Fanselow, Gisbert and Zimmermann, Malte and Philipp, Mareike},
  title     = {Assessing the availability of inverse scope in German in the covered box paradigm},
  series = {Glossa : a journal of general linguistics},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {Glossa : a journal of general linguistics},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Open Library of Humanities},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {2397-1835},
  doi       = {10.16995/glossa.5766},
  pages     = {1 -- 24},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {This paper presents the results of a novel experimental approach to relative quantifier scope in German that elicits data in an indirect manner. Applying the covered-box method (Huang et al. 2013) to scope phenomena, we show that inverse scope is available to some extent in the free constituent order language German, thereby validating earlier findings on other syntactic configurations in German (Rado \& Bott 2018) and empirical claims on other free constituent order languages (Japanese, Russian, Hindi), as well as recent corpus findings in Webelhuth (2020). Moreover, the results of the indirect covered-box experiment replicate findings from an earlier direct-query experiment with comparable target items, in which participants were asked directly about the availability of surface scope and inverse scope readings. The configuration of interest consisted of canonical transitive clauses with deaccented existential subject and universal object QPs, in which the restriction of the universal QP was controlled for by the context.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DrenhausZimmermannVasishth2011,
  author    = {Drenhaus, Heiner and Zimmermann, Malte and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional},
  series = {Journal of neurolinguistics : an international journal for the study of brain function in language behavior and experience},
  volume    = {24},
  journal   = {Journal of neurolinguistics : an international journal for the study of brain function in language behavior and experience},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0911-6044},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.004},
  pages     = {320 -- 337},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {While it is widely acknowledged in the formal semantic literature that both the truth-functional focus particle only and it-clefts convey exhaustiveness, the nature and source of exhaustiveness effects with it-clefts remain contested. We describe a questionnaire study (n = 80) and an event-related brain potentials (ERP) study (n = 16) that investigated the violation of exhaustiveness in German only-foci versus it-clefts. The offline study showed that a violation of exhaustivity with only is less acceptable than the violation with it-clefts, suggesting a difference in the nature of exhaustivity interpretation in the two environments. The ERP-results confirm that this difference can be seen in online processing as well: a violation of exhaustiveness in only-foci elicited a centro-posterior positivity (600-800ms), whereas a violation in it-clefts induced a globally distributed N400 pattern (400-600ms). The positivity can be interpreted as a reanalysis process and more generally as a process of context updating. The N400 effect in it-clefts is interpreted as indexing a cancelation process that is functionally distinct from the only case. The ERP study is, to our knowledge, the first evidence from an online experimental paradigm which shows that the violation of exhaustiveness involves different underlying processes in the two structural environments.},
  language  = {en}
}