@misc{FanselowLenertova2010, author = {Fanselow, Gisbert and Lenertov{\´a}, Denisa}, title = {Left peripheral focus}, series = {Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {596}, issn = {1866-8364}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42819}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-428198}, pages = {43}, year = {2010}, abstract = {In Czech, German, and many other languages, part of the semantic focus of the utterance can be moved to the left periphery of the clause. The main generalization is that only the leftmost accented part of the semantic focus can be moved. We propose that movement to the left periphery is generally triggered by an unspecific edge feature of C (Chomsky 2008) and its restrictions can be attributed to requirements of cyclic linearization, modifying the theory of cyclic linearization developed by Fox and Pesetsky (2005). The crucial assumption is that structural accent is a direct consequence of being linearized at merge, thus it is indirectly relevant for (locality restrictions on) movement. The absence of structural accent correlates with given-ness. Given elements may later receive (topic or contrastive) accents, which accounts for fronting in multiple focus/contrastive topic constructions. Without any additional assumptions, the model can account for movement of pragmatically unmarked elements to the left periphery ('formal fronting', Frey 2005). Crucially, the analysis makes no reference at all to concepts of information structure in the syntax, in line with the claim of Chomsky (2008) that UG specifies no direct link between syntax and information structure.}, language = {en} } @article{FanselowLenertova2011, author = {Fanselow, Gisbert and Lenertova, Denisa}, title = {Left peripheral focus mismatches between syntax and information structure}, series = {Natural language \& linguistic theory}, volume = {29}, journal = {Natural language \& linguistic theory}, number = {1}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {0167-806X}, doi = {10.1007/s11049-010-9109-x}, pages = {169 -- 209}, year = {2011}, abstract = {In Czech, German, and many other languages, part of the semantic focus of the utterance can be moved to the left periphery of the clause. The main generalization is that only the leftmost accented part of the semantic focus can be moved. We propose that movement to the left periphery is generally triggered by an unspecific edge feature of C (Chomsky 2008) and its restrictions can be attributed to requirements of cyclic linearization, modifying the theory of cyclic linearization developed by Fox and Pesetsky (2005). The crucial assumption is that structural accent is a direct consequence of being linearized at merge, thus it is indirectly relevant for (locality restrictions on) movement. The absence of structural accent correlates with givenness. Given elements may later receive (topic or contrastive) accents, which accounts for fronting in multiple focus/contrastive topic constructions. Without any additional assumptions, the model can account for movement of pragmatically unmarked elements to the left periphery ('formal fronting', Frey 2005). Crucially, the analysis makes no reference at all to concepts of information structure in the syntax, in line with the claim of Chomsky (2008) that UG specifies no direct link between syntax and information structure.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{KarvovskayaKimmelmanRoehretal.2013, author = {Karvovskaya, Lena and Kimmelman, Vadim and R{\"o}hr, Christine Tanja and Stavropoulou, Pepi and Titov, Elena and van Putten, Saskia}, title = {Information structure : empirical perspectives on theory}, editor = {Balbach, Maria and Benz, Lena and Genzel, Susanne and Grubic, Mira and Renans, Agata and Schalowski, S{\"o}ren and Stegenwallner, Maja and Zeldes, Amir}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-64804}, year = {2013}, abstract = {The papers collected in this volume were presented at a Graduate/Postgraduate Student Conference with the title Information Structure: Empirical Perspectives on Theory held on December 2 and 3, 2011 at Potsdam-Griebnitzsee. The main goal of the conference was to connect young researchers working on information structure (IS) related topics and to discuss various IS categories such as givenness, focus, topic, and contrast. The aim of the conference was to find at least partial answers to the following questions: What IS categories are necessary? Are they gradient/continuous? How can one deal with optionality or redundancy? How are IS categories encoded grammatically? How do different empirical methods contribute to distinguishing between the influence of different IS categories on language comprehension and production? To answer these questions, a range of languages (Avatime, Chinese, German, Ishkashimi, Modern Greek, Old Saxon, Russian, Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands) and a range of phenomena from phonology, semantics, and syntax were investigated. The presented theories and data were based on different kinds of linguistic evidence: syntactic and semantic fieldwork, corpus studies, and phonological experiments. The six papers presented in this volume discuss a variety of IS categories, such as emphasis and contrast (Stavropoulous, Titov), association with focus and topics (van Putten, Karvovskaya), and givenness and backgrounding (Kimmelmann, R{\"o}hr).}, language = {en} } @article{Tomioka2007, author = {Tomioka, Satoshi}, title = {Intervention effects in focus}, series = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; working papers of the SFB 632}, volume = {9}, journal = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; working papers of the SFB 632}, editor = {Ishihara, Shinichiro and Petrova, Svetlana and Schwarz, Anne}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {1866-4725}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-24502}, pages = {97 -- 118}, year = {2007}, abstract = {The most recent trend in the studies of LF intervention effects makes crucial reference to focusing effects on the interveners, and this paper critically examines the representative analyses of the focus-based approach. While each analysis has its own merits and shortcomings, I argue that a pragmatic analysis that does not make appeal to syntactic configurations is better equipped to deal with many of the complex and delicate facts surrounding intervention effects.}, language = {en} } @article{Tomioka2007, author = {Tomioka, Satoshi}, title = {Information Structure as information-based partition}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19657}, year = {2007}, abstract = {While the Information Structure (IS) is most naturally interpreted as 'structure of information', some may argue that it is structure of something else, and others may object to the use of the word 'structure'. This paper focuses on the question of whether the informational component can have structural properties such that it can be called 'structure'. The preliminary conclusion is that, although there are some vague indications of structurehood in it, it is perhaps better understood to be a representation that encodes a finite set of information-based partitions, rather than structure.}, language = {en} } @article{Krifka2007, author = {Krifka, Manfred}, title = {Basic notions of information structure}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-939469-88-9}, issn = {1614-4708}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19603}, pages = {13 -- 55}, year = {2007}, abstract = {This article takes stock of the basic notions of Information Structure (IS). It first provides a general characterization of IS — following Chafe (1976) — within a communicative model of Common Ground(CG), which distinguishes between CG content and CG management. IS is concerned with those features of language that concern the local CG. Second, this paper defines and discusses the notions of Focus (as indicating alternatives) and its various uses, Givenness (as indicating that a denotation is already present in the CG), and Topic (as specifying what a statement is about). It also proposes a new notion, Delimitation, which comprises contrastive topics and frame setters, and indicates that the current conversational move does not entirely satisfy the local communicative needs. It also points out that rhetorical structuring partly belongs to IS.}, language = {en} }