@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}
}
@article{ZimmermannOnea2011,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Malte and Onea, Edgar},
  title     = {Focus marking and focus interpretation},
  series = {LINGUA},
  volume    = {121},
  journal   = {LINGUA},
  number    = {11},
  publisher = {ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV},
  address   = {AMSTERDAM},
  issn      = {0024-3841},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002},
  pages     = {1651 -- 1670},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {The languages of the world exhibit a range of formal phenomena (e.g. accenting, syntactic reordering and morphological marking) that are commonly linked to the information-structural notion of focus. Crucially, there does not seem to be a one-to-one mapping between particular formal features (focus marking devices) and focus, neither from a cross-linguistic perspective, nor within individual languages. This raises the question of what is actually being expressed if we say that a constituent is focused in a particular language, and whether, or to what extent, the same semantic or pragmatic content is formally expressed by focus-marking across languages. This special issue addresses the question of focus and its grammatical realization from a number of theoretical and empirical perspectives. In this introductory article we elaborate on this question by making an explicit proposal about what we take to be the correct way of thinking about the information-structural category of focus and its formal realization. In the first part, we introduce a unified semantico-pragmatic perspective on focus in terms of alternatives and possible worlds. In the second part, we present a cursory cross-linguistic overview of focus marking strategies as found in the languages of the world. Finally, in the third part, we discuss the connection between the notion of focus, different pragmatic uses of focus and different focus marking strategies employed in the grammars of natural languages. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@inproceedings{Stavropoulou2013,
  author    = {Stavropoulou, Pepi},
  title     = {On the status of contrast : evidence from the prosodic domain},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-66066},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Recent models of Information Structure (IS) identify a low level contrast feature that functions within the topic and focus of the utterance. This study investigates the exact nature of this feature based on empirical evidence from a controlled read speech experiment on the prosodic realization of different levels of contrast in Modern Greek. Results indicate that only correction is truly contrastive, and that it is similarly realized in both topic and focus, suggesting that contrast is an independent IS dimension. Non default focus position is further identified as a parameter that triggers a prosodically marked rendition, similar to correction.},
  language  = {en}
}
@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}
}