@article{Mucha2017,
  author    = {Mucha, Anne},
  title     = {Past interpretation and graded tense in Medumba},
  series = {Natural language semantics : an international journal of semantics and its interfaces in grammar},
  volume    = {25},
  journal   = {Natural language semantics : an international journal of semantics and its interfaces in grammar},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {0925-854X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s11050-016-9128-1},
  pages     = {1 -- 52},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {This paper provides a formal semantic analysis of past interpretation in Medumba (Grassfields Bantu), a graded tense language. Based on original fieldwork, the study explores the empirical behavior and meaning contribution of graded past morphemes in Medumba and relates these to the account of the phenomenon proposed in Cable (Nat Lang Semant 21:219-276, 2013) for GA (c) ky. Investigation reveals that the behavior of Medumba gradedness markers differs from that of their GA (c) ky counterparts in meaningful ways and, more broadly, discourages an analysis as presuppositional eventuality or reference time modifiers. Instead, the Medumba markers are most appropriately analyzed as quantificational tenses. It also turns out that Medumba, though belonging to the typological class of graded tense languages, shows intriguing similarities to genuinely tenseless languages in allowing for temporally unmarked sentences and exploiting aspectual and pragmatic cues for reference time resolution. The more general cross-linguistic implication of the study is that the set of languages often subsumed under the label "graded tense" does not in fact form a natural class and that more case-by-case research is needed to refine this category.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FominyamSimik2017,
  author    = {Fominyam, Henry and Simik, Radek},
  title     = {The morphosyntax of exhaustive focus},
  series = {Natural language \& linguistic theory},
  volume    = {35},
  journal   = {Natural language \& linguistic theory},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {0167-806X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s11049-017-9363-2},
  pages     = {1027 -- 1077},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {We provide an analysis of focus and exhaustive focus in the Grassfields Bantu language Awing. We show that Awing provides an exceptionally clear window into the syntactic properties of exhaustive focus. Our analysis reveals that the Awing particle l\&\#601;\&\#769; (le) realizes a left-peripheral head which, in terms of its syntactic position in the functional sequence, closely corresponds to the Foc(us) head in standard cartographic analyses (e.g., Rizzi 1997). Crucially, however, we show that le is only used if the focus it associates with receives a presuppositional exhaustive (cleft-like) interpretation. Other types of focus are not formally encoded in Awing. In order to reflect this semantic specification of le, we call its syntactic category Exh rather than Foc. Another point of difference from what one would consider a "standard" cartographic Foc head is that the focus associated with le is not realized in its specifier but rather within its complement. More particularly, we argue that le associates with the closest maximal projection it asymmetrically c-commands. The broader theoretical relevance of the present work is at least two-fold. First, our paper offers novel evidence in support of Horvath's (2010) Strong Modularity Hypothesis for Discourse Features, according to which information structural notions such as focus cannot be represented in narrow syntax as formal features. We argue that the information structure-related movement operations that Awing exhibits can be accounted for by interface considerations, in the spirit of Reinhart (2006). Second, our data support the generality of the so-called closeness requirement on association with focus (Jacobs 1983), which dictates that a focus-sensitive particle be as close to its focus as possible (in terms of c-command). What is of special significance is the fact that Awing exhibits two different avenues to satisfying closeness. The standard one—previously described for German or Vietnamese and witnessed here for the Awing particle t\&\#347;\&\#596;'\&\#601; 'only'—relies primarily on the flexible attachment of the focus-sensitive particle. The Awing particle le, in contrast, is syntactically rigid. For that reason, the satisfaction of closeness relies solely on the flexibility of other syntactic constituents.},
  language  = {en}
}