@article{WierzbaFanselow2020,
  author    = {Wierzba, Marta and Fanselow, Gisbert},
  title     = {Factors influencing the acceptability of object fronting in German},
  series = {The journal of comparative Germanic linguistics},
  volume    = {23},
  journal   = {The journal of comparative Germanic linguistics},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {1383-4924},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10828-020-09113-1},
  pages     = {77 -- 124},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {In this paper, we address some controversially debated empirical questions concerning object fronting in German by a series of acceptability rating studies. We investigated three kinds of factors: (i) properties of the subject (given/new, pronoun/full DP), (ii) emphasis, (iii) register. The first factor is predicted to play a crucial role by models in which object fronting possibilities are limited by prosodic properties. Two experiments provide converging evidence for a systematic effect of this factor: we find that the relative acceptability of object fronting across subjects that require an accent (new DPs) is lower than across deaccentable subjects (pronouns and given DPs). Other models predict object fronting across full phrases (but not across pronouns) to be limited to an emphatic interpretation. This prediction is also borne out, suggesting that both types of models capture an empirically valid generalization and can be seen as complementing each other rather than competing with each other. Finally, we find support for the view that informal register facilitates object fronting. In sum, our experiments contribute to clarifying the empirical basis concerning a phenomenon influenced by a range of interacting factors. This, in turn, informs theoretical approaches to the prefield position and helps to identify factors that need to be carefully controlled in this field of research.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GenzelIshiharaSuranyi2015,
  author    = {Genzel, Susanne and Ishihara, Shinichiro and Suranyi, Balazs},
  title     = {The prosodic expression of focus, contrast and givenness: A production study of Hungarian},
  series = {Lingua : international review of general linguistics},
  volume    = {165},
  journal   = {Lingua : international review of general linguistics},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0024-3841},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.010},
  pages     = {183 -- 204},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {This paper reports the results of a production experiment that explores the prosodic realization of focus in Hungarian, a language that is characterized by obligatory syntactic focus marking. Our study investigates narrow focus in sentences in which focus is unambiguously marked by syntactic means, comparing it to broad focus sentences. Potential independent effects of the salience (textual givenness) of the background of the narrow focus and the contrastiveness of the focus are controlled for and are also examined. The results show that both continuous phonetic measures and categorical factors such as the distribution of contour types are affected by the focus-related factors, despite the presence of syntactic focus marking. The phonetic effects found are mostly parallel to those of typical prosodic focus marking languages like English. The prosodic prominence required of focus is realized through changes to the scaling and slope of F0 targets and contours. The asymmetric prominence relation between the focus and the background can be expressed not only by the phonetic marking of the prominence of the focused element, but also by the phonetic marking of the reduced prominence of the background. Furthermore, contrastiveness of focus and (textual) givenness of the background show independent phonetic effects, both of them affecting the realization of the background. These results are argued to shed light on alternative approaches to the information structural notion of contrastive focus and the relation between the notions of focus and givenness. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.},
  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}
}
@misc{Meinhardt2010,
  type      = {Master Thesis},
  author    = {Meinhardt, Miriam},
  title     = {Der Einfluss der Informationsstruktur auf das Verst{\"a}ndnis von Aktiv- und Passivs{\"a}tzen im ungest{\"o}rten Spracherwerb},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-59563},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {Kinder erwerben Passivstrukturen sp{\"a}ter als die meisten anderen syntaktischen Strukturen. Die vorliegende Studie besch{\"a}ftigt sich mit der Frage, ob dies auf informationsstrukturelle Faktoren zur{\"u}ckzuf{\"u}hren sein k{\"o}nnte. Probleme beim Erwerb von Passivs{\"a}tzen wurden in vorhergehenden Studien unter anderem auf ihre geringe Inputfrequenz oder bestimmte syntaktische Charakteristika von Passivs{\"a}tzen zur{\"u}ckgef{\"u}hrt. Jedoch konnte bisher keiner dieser Ans{\"a}tze ihr sp{\"a}tes Erwerbsalter umfassend erkl{\"a}ren. W{\"a}hrend Aktivs{\"a}tze, die kanonische, unmarkierte Satzstruktur im Deutschen, in jeglichem Diskurskontext verwendet werden k{\"o}nnen, werden Passivs{\"a}tze fast ausschließlich dann verwendet, wenn der Patiens der beschriebenen Handlung schon vorerw{\"a}hnt war und/ oder als Topik eines Satzes fungieren soll. Passivs{\"a}tze sind also nicht in jedem Kontext informationsstrukturell ad{\"a}quat. Kinder haben im Gegensatz zu Erwachsenen aufgrund ihrer geringeren syntaktischen F{\"a}higkeiten Probleme, S{\"a}tze zu verarbeiten, die nicht in einem ad{\"a}quaten Kontext stehen. Der Einfluss dieser Kontextbedingungen auf das Satzverst{\"a}ndnis wurde in der vorliegenden Studie bei deutschsprachigen Kindern untersucht. Kindern zwischen 3;0 und 4;11 Jahren wurden Aktiv- oder Passivs{\"a}tze pr{\"a}sentiert, denen informationsstrukturell ad{\"a}quate, inad{\"a}quate oder neutrale Kontexts{\"a}tze vorangingen. Wie erwartet verstanden die Kinder Aktivs{\"a}tze besser als Passivs{\"a}tze und 4-j{\"a}hrige Kinder zeigten bessere Leistungen als 3-j{\"a}hrige. Es gab Tendenzen, dass die 3-j{\"a}hrigen Kinder Passivs{\"a}tze besser, aber Aktivs{\"a}tze schlechter verstanden, wenn ihr Subjekt vorerw{\"a}hnt wurde. Statistisch signifikante Kontexteffekte fanden sich jedoch im Gegensatz zu einer vergleichbaren Studie mit englischsprachigen Kindern (Gourley und Catlin, 1978) in keiner Testbedingung. Außerdem zeigte sich, dass die Kinder Passivs{\"a}tze insgesamt besser und Aktivs{\"a}tze insgesamt schlechter verstanden als englischsprachige Kinder in anderen Studien. Die Ergebnisse werden mit dem Competition Modell (Mac Whinney und Bates, 1987) und einer Sprachverarbeitungstheorie von Stromswold (2002) erkl{\"a}rt. Außerdem wird diskutiert, warum die deutschsprachigen Kinder in der vorliegenden Studie andere Sprachverst{\"a}ndnisleistungen zeigten als englischsprachige Kinder.},
  language  = {de}
}
@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}
}