@phdthesis{Shipova2024, author = {Shipova, Evgeniya}, title = {Formal analysis of {\`e}to-clefts in Russian: syntax and semantics}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-63014}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-630149}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {219}, year = {2024}, abstract = {{\`E}to-clefts are Russian focus constructions with the demonstrative pronoun {\`e}to 'this' at the beginning: "{\`E}to Mark vyigral gonku" ("It was Mark who won the race"). They are often being compared with English it-clefts, German es-clefts, as well as the corresponding focus-background structures in other languages. In terms of semantics, {\`e}to-clefts have two important properties which are cross-linguistically typical for clefts: existence presupposition ("Someone won the race") and exhaustivity ("Nobody except Mark won the race"). However, the exhaustivity effects are not as strong as exhaustivity effects in structures with the exclusive only and require more research. At the same time, the question if the syntactic structure of {\`e}to-clefts matches the biclausal structure of English and German clefts, remains open. There are arguments in favor of biclausality, as well as monoclausality. Besides, there is no consistency regarding the status of {\`e}to itself. Finally, the information structure of {\`e}to-clefts has remained underexplored in the existing literature. This research investigates the information-structural, syntactic, and semantic properties of Russian clefts, both theoretically (supported by examples from Russian text corpora and judgments from native speakers) and experimentally. It is determined which desired changes in the information structure motivate native speakers to choose an {\`e}to-cleft and not the canonical structure or other focus realization tools. Novel syntactic tests are conducted to find evidence for bi-/monoclausality of {\`e}to-clefts, as well as for base-generation or movement of the cleft pivot. It is hypothesized that {\`e}to has a certain important function in clefts, and its status is investigated. Finally, new experiments on the nature of exhaustivity in {\`e}to-clefts are conducted. They allow for direct cross-linguistic comparison, using an incremental-information paradigm with truth-value judgments. In terms of information structure, this research makes a new proposal that presents {\`e}to-clefts as structures with an inherent focus-background bipartitioning. Even though {\`e}to-clefts are used in typical focus contexts, evidence was found that {\`e}to-clefts (as well as Russian thetic clefts) allow for both new information focus and contrastive focus. {\`E}to-clefts are pragmatically acceptable when a singleton answer to the implied question is expected (e.g. "It was Mark who won the race" but not "It was Mark who came to the party"). Importantly, {\`e}to in Russian clefts is neither dummy, nor redundant, but is a topic expression; conveys familiarity which triggers existence presupposition; refers to an instantiated event, or a known/perceivable situation; finally, {\`e}to plays an important role in the spoken language as a tool for speech coherency and a focus marker. In terms of syntax, this research makes a new monoclausal proposal and shows evidence that the cleft pivot undergoes movement to the left peripheral position. {\`E}to is proposed to be TopP. Finally, in terms of semantics, a novel cross-linguistic evaluation of Russian clefts is made. Experiments show that the exhaustivity inference in {\`e}to-clefts is not robust. Participants used different strategies in resolving exhaustivity, falling into 2 groups: one group considered {\`e}to-clefts exhaustive, while another group considered them non-exhaustive. Hence, there is evidence for the pragmatic nature of exhaustivity in {\`e}to-clefts. The experimental results for {\`e}to-clefts are similar to the experimental results for clefts in German, French and Akan. It is concluded that speakers use different tools available in their languages to produce structures with similar interpretive properties.}, language = {en} } @article{BevacquaScheffler2020, author = {Bevacqua, Luca and Scheffler, Tatjana}, title = {Form variation of pronominal it-clefts in written English}, series = {Linguistics vanguard}, volume = {6}, journal = {Linguistics vanguard}, number = {1}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {2199-174X}, doi = {10.1515/lingvan-2019-0066}, pages = {15}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Clefts are well-studied as a construction which induces emphasis on its clefted referent. However, little is known about the distribution of different stylistic forms of it-cleft variants. We report on a corpus study mining data from Twitter, targeting sentences clefting a pronoun in English. We examine the following features: case and syntactic role of the clefted pronoun, contraction of the copula, choice of complementiser and use of emphasis markers. The results show systematic associations between these features. A further comparison between the Twitter dataset and data from iWeb, a corpus of general-use web language, shows significant differences in levels of emphasis and formality, positioning Twitter language in the middle of the conceptual orality spectrum.}, 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} } @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} } @phdthesis{Amaechi2020, author = {Amaechi, Mary Chimaobi}, title = {A'-movement dependencies and their reflexes in Igbo}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-47152}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-471524}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {i, 195}, year = {2020}, abstract = {In this thesis, I examine different A-bar movement dependencies in Igbo, a Benue-Congo language spoken in southern Nigeria. Movement dependencies are found in constructions where an element is moved to the left edge of the clause to express information-structural categories such as in questions, relativization and focus. I show that these constructions in Igbo are very uniform from a syntactic point of view. The constructions are built on two basic fronting operations: relativization and focus movement, and are biclausal. I further investigate several morphophonological effects that are found in these A-bar constructions. I propose that these effects are reflexes of movement that are triggered when an element is moved overtly in relativization or focus. This proposal helps to explain the tone patterns that have previously been assumed to be a property of relative clauses. The thesis adds to the growing body of tonal reflexes of A-bar movement reported for a few African languages. The thesis also provides an insight into the complementizer domain (C-domain) of Igbo.}, 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} } @phdthesis{DeVeaughGeiss2020, author = {De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P.}, title = {Cleft exhaustivity}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-44642}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-446421}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {viii, 243}, year = {2020}, abstract = {In this dissertation a series of experimental studies are presented which demonstrate that the exhaustive inference of focus-background it-clefts in English and their cross-linguistic counterparts in Akan, French, and German is neither robust nor systematic. The inter-speaker and cross-linguistic variability is accounted for with a discourse-pragmatic approach to cleft exhaustivity, in which -- following Pollard \& Yasavul 2016 -- the exhaustive inference is derived from an interaction with another layer of meaning, namely, the existence presupposition encoded in clefts.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Renans2016, author = {Renans, Agata Maria}, title = {Exhaustivity}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-89501}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {221}, year = {2016}, abstract = {The dissertation proposes an answer to the question of how to model exhaustive inferences and what the meaning of the linguistic material that triggers these inferences is. In particular, it deals with the semantics of exclusive particles, clefts, and progressive aspect in Ga, an under-researched language spoken in Ghana. Based on new data coming from the author's original fieldwork in Accra, the thesis points to a previously unattested variation in the semantics of exclusives in a cross-linguistic perspective, analyzes the connections between exhaustive interpretation triggered by clefts and the aspectual interpretation of the sentence, and identifies a cross-categorial definite determiner. By that it sheds new light on several exhaustivity-related phenomena in both the nominal and the verbal domain and shows that both domains are closely connected.}, language = {en} } @book{Hole2008, author = {Hole, Daniel}, title = {EVEN, ALSO and ONLY in Vietnamese}, editor = {Ishihara, Shinichiro and Petrova, Svetlana and Schwarz, Anne}, issn = {1866-4725}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-22171}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, year = {2008}, abstract = {The article analyzes the system of focus-sensitive particles and, to a lesser extent, clefts in Vietnamese. EVEN/ALSO/ONLY foci are discussed across syntactic categories, and Vietnamese is found to organize its system of focus-sensitive particles along three dimensions of classification: (i) EVEN vs. ALSO vs. ONLY; (ii) particles c-commanding foci vs. particles c-commanding backgrounds; (iii) adverbial focus-sensitive particles vs. particles c-commanding argument foci only. Towards the end of the paper, free-choice constructions and additional sentence-final particles conveying ONLY and ALSO semantics are briefly discussed. The peculiar Vietnamese system reflects core properties of the analogous empirical domain in Chinese, a known source of borrowings into Vietnamese over the millennia.}, language = {de} }