@article{SimikWierzba2017,
  author    = {Simik, Radek and Wierzba, Marta},
  title     = {EXPRESSION OF INFORMATION STRUCTURE IN WEST SLAVIC: MODELING THE IMPACT OF PROSODIC AND WORD-ORDER FACTORS},
  series = {Language : journal of the Linguistic Society of America},
  volume    = {93},
  journal   = {Language : journal of the Linguistic Society of America},
  publisher = {Linguistic Society of America},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {0097-8507},
  doi       = {10.1353/lan.2017.0040},
  pages     = {671 -- 709},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {The received wisdom is that word-order alternations in Slavic languages arise as a direct consequence of word-order-related information-structure constraints such as 'Place given expressions before new ones'. In this article, we compare the word-order hypothesis with a competing one, according to which word-order alternations arise as a consequence of a prosodic constraint: 'Avoid stress on given expressions'. Based on novel experimental and modeling data, we conclude that the prosodic hypothesis is more adequate than the word-order hypothesis. Yet we also show that combining the strengths of both hypotheses provides the best fit for the data. Methodologically, our article is based on gradient acceptability judgments and multiple regression, which allows us to evaluate whether violations of generalizations like 'Given precedes new' or 'Given lacks stress' lead to a consistent decrease in acceptability and to quantify the size of their respective effects. Focusing on the empirical adequacy of such generalizations rather than on specific theoretical implementations also makes it possible to bridge the gap between different linguistic traditions and to directly compare predictions emerging from formal and functional approaches.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SimikWierzba2015,
  author    = {Simik, Radek and Wierzba, Marta},
  title     = {The role of givenness, presupposition, and prosody in Czech word order: An experimental study},
  series = {Semantics and pragmatics},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Semantics and pragmatics},
  publisher = {Linguistic Society of America},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {1937-8912},
  doi       = {10.3765/sp.8.3},
  pages     = {103},
  year      = {2015},
  language  = {en}
}
@incollection{Selkirk2007,
  author    = {Selkirk, Elisabeth},
  title     = {Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of "Discourse-New"},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19670},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {New evidence is provided for a grammatical principle that singles out contrastive focus (Rooth 1996; Truckenbrodt 1995) and distinguishes it from discourse-new "informational" focus. Since the prosody of discourse-given constituents may also be distinguished from discourse-new, a three-way distinction in representation is motivated. It is assumed that an F-feature marks just contrastive focus (Jackendoff 1972, Rooth 1992), and that a G-feature marks discoursegiven constituents (F{\´e}ry and Samek-Lodovici 2006), while discoursenew is unmarked. A crucial argument for G-marking comes from second occurrence focus (SOF) prosody, which arguably derives from a syntactic representation where SOF is both F-marked and G-marked. This analysis relies on a new G-Marking Condition specifying that a contrastive focus may be G-marked only if the focus semantic value of its scope is discourse-given, i.e. only if the contrast itself is given.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Abusch2007,
  author    = {Abusch, Dorit},
  title     = {Focus presuppositions},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19663},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {This paper reviews notions related to focus and presupposition and addresses the hypothesis that focus triggers an existential presupposition. Presupposition projection behavior in certain examples appears to favor a presuppositional analysis of focus. It is argued that these examples are open to a different analysis using givenness theory. Overall, the analysis favors a weak semantics for focus not including an existential presupposition.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Weskott2005,
  author    = {Weskott, Thomas},
  title     = {Stop bashing givenness!},
  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    = {3},
  issn      = {1866-4725},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-8718},
  pages     = {53 -- 62},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {Elke Kasimir's paper (in this volume) argues against employing the notion of Givenness in the explanation of accent assignment. I will claim that the arguments against Givenness put forward by Kasimir are inconclusive because they beg the question of the role of Givenness. It is concluded that, more generally, arguments against Givenness as a diagnostic for information structural partitions should not be accepted offhand, since the notion of Givenness of discourse referents is (a) theoretically simple, (b) readily observable and quantifiable, and (c) bears cognitive significance.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Kasimir2005,
  author    = {Kasimir, Elke},
  title     = {Question-answer test and givenness},
  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    = {3},
  issn      = {1866-4725},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-8698},
  pages     = {1 -- 52},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {In order to investigate the empirical properties of focus, it is necessary to diagnose focus (or: "what is focused") in particular linguistic examples. It is often taken for granted that the application of one single diagnostic tool, the so-called question-answer test, which roughly says that whatever a question asks for is focused in the answer, is a fool-proof test for focus. This paper investigates one example class where such uncritical belief in the question-answer test has led to the assumption of rather complex focus projection rules: in these examples, pitch accent placement has been claimed to depend on certain parts of the focused constituents being given or not. It is demonstrated that such focus projection rules are unnecessarily complex and in turn require the assumption of unnecessarily complicated meaning rules, not to speak of the difficulties to give a precise semantic/pragmatic definition of the allegedly involved givenness property. For the sake of the argument, an alternative analysis is put forward which relies solely on alternative sets following Mats Rooth's work, and avoids any recourse to givenness. As it turns out, this alternative analysis is not only simpler but also makes in a critical case the better predictions.},
  language  = {en}
}