@article{SchreiberOneaGaspar2021,
  author    = {Schreiber, Alexander and Onea G{\´a}sp{\´a}r, Edgar},
  title     = {Are narrow focus exhaustivity inferences Bayesian inferences?},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.677223},
  pages     = {19},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {In successful communication, the literal meaning of linguistic utterances is often enriched by pragmatic inferences. Part of the pragmatic reasoning underlying such inferences has been successfully modeled as Bayesian goal recognition in the Rational Speech Act (RSA) framework. In this paper, we try to model the interpretation of question-answer sequences with narrow focus in the answer in the RSA framework, thereby exploring the effects of domain size and prior probabilities on interpretation. Should narrow focus exhaustivity inferences be actually based on Bayesian inference involving prior probabilities of states, RSA models should predict a dependency of exhaustivity on these factors. We present experimental data that suggest that interlocutors do not act according to the predictions of the RSA model and that exhaustivity is in fact approximately constant across different domain sizes and priors. The results constitute a conceptual challenge for Bayesian accounts of the underlying pragmatic inferences.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GotznerRomoli2022,
  author    = {Gotzner, Nicole and Romoli, Jacopo},
  title     = {Meaning and alternatives},
  series = {Annual review of linguistics},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Annual review of linguistics},
  publisher = {Annual Reviews},
  address   = {Palo Alto},
  issn      = {2333-9691},
  doi       = {10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031220-012013},
  pages     = {213 -- 234},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Alternatives and competition in language are pervasive at all levels of linguistic analysis. More specifically, alternatives have been argued to play a prominent role in an ever-growing class of phenomena in the investigation of natural language meaning. In this article, we focus on scalar implicatures, as they are arguably the most paradigmatic case of an alternative-based phenomenon. We first review the main challenge for theories of alternatives, the so-called symmetry problem, and we briefly discuss how it has shaped the different approaches to alternatives. We then turn to two more recent challenges concerning scalar diversity and the inferences of sentences with multiple scalars. Finally, we describe several related alternative-based phenomena and recent conceptual approaches to alternatives. As we discuss, while important progress has been made, much more work is needed both on the theoretical side and on understanding the empirical landscape better.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GotznerSpalek2022,
  author    = {Gotzner, Nicole and Spalek, Katharina},
  title     = {Expectations about upcoming discourse referents},
  series = {International review of pragmatics : IRP},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {International review of pragmatics : IRP},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Brill},
  address   = {Leiden},
  issn      = {1877-3095},
  doi       = {10.1163/18773109-01401003},
  pages     = {77 -- 94},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {In the current study, we explore how different information-structural devices affect which referents conversational partners expect in the upcoming discourse. Our main research question is how pitch accents (H*, L+H*) and focus particles (German nur `only' and auch 'also') affect speakers' choices to mention focused referents, previously mentioned alternatives or new, inferable alternatives. Participants in our experiment were presented with short discourses involving two referents and were asked to orally produce two sentences that continue the story. An analysis of speakers' continuations showed that participants were most likely to mention a contextual alternative in the condition with only and the L+H* conditions, followed by H* conditions. In the condition with also, in turn, participants mentioned both the focused/accented referent and the contextual alternative. Our findings highlight the importance of information structure for discourse management and suggest that speakers take activated alternatives to be relevant for an unfolding discourse.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ChenHoehle2018,
  author    = {Chen, Aoju and H{\"o}hle, Barbara},
  title     = {Four- to five-year-old' use of word order and prosody in focus marking in Dutch},
  series = {Linguistics Vanguard},
  volume    = {4},
  journal   = {Linguistics Vanguard},
  publisher = {De Gruyter},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {2199-174X},
  doi       = {10.1515/lingvan-2016-0101},
  pages     = {9},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {This study investigated Dutch-speaking four- to five-year-olds' use of word order and prosody in distinguishing focus types (broad focus, narrow focus, and contrastive narrow focus) via an interactive answer-reconstruction game. We have found an overall preference for the unmarked word order SVO and no evidence for the use of OVS to distinguish focus types. But the children used pitch and duration in the subject-nouns to distinguish focus types in SVO sentences. These findings show that Dutch-speaking four- to five-year-olds differ from their German- and Finnish-speaking peers, who show evidence of varying choice of word order to mark specific focus types, and use prosody to distinguish focus types in subject and object nouns in both SVO and OVS sentences. These comparisons suggest that typological differences in the relative importance between word order and prosody can lead to differences in children's use of word order and prosody in unmarked and marked word orders. A more equal role of word order and prosody in the ambient language can stimulate more extensive use of prosody in the marked word order, whereas a more limited role of word order can restrict the use of prosody in the unmarked word order.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GrubicRenansDuah2018,
  author    = {Grubic, Mira and Renans, Agata and Duah, Reginald Akuoko},
  title     = {Focus, exhaustivity and existence in Akan, Ga and Ngamo},
  series = {Linguistics : an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences},
  volume    = {57},
  journal   = {Linguistics : an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {De Gruyter Mouton},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {0024-3949},
  doi       = {10.1515/ling-2018-0035},
  pages     = {221 -- 268},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {This paper discusses the relation between focus marking and focus interpretation in Akan (Kwa), Ga (Kwa), and Ngamo (West Chadic). In all three languages, there is a special morphosyntactically marked focus/background construction, as well as morphosyntactically unmarked focus. We present data stemming from original fieldwork investigatingwhether marked focus/background constructions in these three languages also have additional interpretative effects apart from standard focus interpretation. Crosslinguistically, different additional inferences have been found for marked focus constructions, e.g. contrast (e.g. Vallduvi, Enric \& Maria Vilkuna. 1997. On rheme and kontrast. In Peter Culicover \& Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax (Syntax and semantics 29), 79-108. New York: Academic Press; Hartmann, Katharina \& Malte Zimmermann. 2007b. In place -Out of place: Focus in Hausa. In Kerstin Schwabe \& Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 365-403. Amsterdam \& Philadelphia: John Benjamins.; Destruel, Emilie \& Leah Velleman. 2014. Refining contrast: Empirical evidence from the English it-cleft. In Christopher Pinon (ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 10, 197-214. Paris: Colloque de syntaxe et semantique a Paris (CSSP). http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss10/), exhaustivity (e.g. E. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2). 245-273.; Hartmann, Katharina \& Malte Zimmermann. 2007a. Exhaustivity marking in Hausa: A re-evaluation of the particle nee/cee. In Enoch O. Aboh, Katharina Hartmann \& Malte Zimmermann (eds.), Focus strategies in African languages: The interaction of focus and grammar in Niger-Congo and AfroAsiatic (Trends in Linguistics 191), 241-263. Berlin \& New York: Mouton de Gruyter.), and existence (e.g. Rooth, Mats. 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.; von Fintel, Kai \& Lisa Matthewson. 2008. Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 25(1-2). 139-201). This paper investigates these three inferences. In Akan and Ga, the marked focus constructions are found to be contrastive, while in Ngamo, no effect of contrast was found. We also show that marked focus constructions in Ga and Akan trigger exhaustivity and existence presuppositions, while the marked construction in Ngamo merely gives rise to an exhaustive conversational implicature and does not trigger an existence presupposition. Instead, the marked construction in Ngamo merely indicates salience of the backgrounded part via a morphological background marker related to the definite determiner (Schuh, Russell G. 2005. Yobe state, Nigeria as a linguistic area. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31(2). 77-94; Guldemann, Tom. 2016. Maximal backgrounding = focus without (necessary) focus encoding. Studies in Language 40(3). 551590). The paper thus contributes to the understanding of the semantics of marked focus constructions across languages and points to the crosslinguistic variation in expressing and interpreting marked focus/background constructions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{PattersonEsaulovaFelser2017,
  author    = {Patterson, Clare and Esaulova, Yulia and Felser, Claudia},
  title     = {The impact of focus on pronoun resolution in native and non-native sentence comprehension},
  series = {Second language research},
  volume    = {33},
  journal   = {Second language research},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0267-6583},
  doi       = {10.1177/0267658317697786},
  pages     = {403 -- 429},
  year      = {2017},
  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{Zerbian2013,
  author    = {Zerbian, Sabine},
  title     = {Prosodic marking of narrow focus across varieties of South African English},
  series = {English world-wide : a journal of varieties of English},
  volume    = {34},
  journal   = {English world-wide : a journal of varieties of English},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Benjamins},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0172-8865},
  doi       = {10.1075/eww.34.1.02zer},
  pages     = {26 -- 47},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {This paper reports on an elicited production study which investigates prosodic marking of narrow focus in modified noun phrases in varieties of South African English. The acoustic analysis of fundamental frequency, intensity, and duration in narrow focus is presented and discussed. The results suggest that these three acoustic parameters are manipulated differently in narrow focus in the varieties of English as a Second Language as compared to General South African English. The article compares the results to what is known about prosodic marking of information structure in other varieties of English as a Second Language and underlines the necessity of carefully controlled data in the investigation of phonological and phonetic variation in varieties of English.},
  language  = {en}
}