@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{SchreiberOneaGaspar2021, author = {Schreiber, Alexander and Onea G{\´a}sp{\´a}r, Edgar}, title = {Are narrow focus exhaustivity inferences Bayesian inferences?}, series = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation}, volume = {12}, journal = {Frontiers in psychology / Frontiers Research Foundation}, publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation}, address = {Lausanne}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.677223}, pages = {19}, year = {2021}, abstract = {In successful communication, the literal meaning of linguistic utterances is often enriched by pragmatic inferences. Part of the pragmatic reasoning underlying such inferences has been successfully modeled as Bayesian goal recognition in the Rational Speech Act (RSA) framework. In this paper, we try to model the interpretation of question-answer sequences with narrow focus in the answer in the RSA framework, thereby exploring the effects of domain size and prior probabilities on interpretation. Should narrow focus exhaustivity inferences be actually based on Bayesian inference involving prior probabilities of states, RSA models should predict a dependency of exhaustivity on these factors. We present experimental data that suggest that interlocutors do not act according to the predictions of the RSA model and that exhaustivity is in fact approximately constant across different domain sizes and priors. The results constitute a conceptual challenge for Bayesian accounts of the underlying pragmatic inferences.}, language = {en} } @article{GotznerRomoli2022, author = {Gotzner, Nicole and Romoli, Jacopo}, title = {Meaning and alternatives}, series = {Annual review of linguistics}, volume = {8}, journal = {Annual review of linguistics}, publisher = {Annual Reviews}, address = {Palo Alto}, issn = {2333-9691}, doi = {10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031220-012013}, pages = {213 -- 234}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Alternatives and competition in language are pervasive at all levels of linguistic analysis. More specifically, alternatives have been argued to play a prominent role in an ever-growing class of phenomena in the investigation of natural language meaning. In this article, we focus on scalar implicatures, as they are arguably the most paradigmatic case of an alternative-based phenomenon. We first review the main challenge for theories of alternatives, the so-called symmetry problem, and we briefly discuss how it has shaped the different approaches to alternatives. We then turn to two more recent challenges concerning scalar diversity and the inferences of sentences with multiple scalars. Finally, we describe several related alternative-based phenomena and recent conceptual approaches to alternatives. As we discuss, while important progress has been made, much more work is needed both on the theoretical side and on understanding the empirical landscape better.}, language = {en} } @article{GotznerSpalek2022, author = {Gotzner, Nicole and Spalek, Katharina}, title = {Expectations about upcoming discourse referents}, series = {International review of pragmatics : IRP}, volume = {14}, journal = {International review of pragmatics : IRP}, number = {1}, publisher = {Brill}, address = {Leiden}, issn = {1877-3095}, doi = {10.1163/18773109-01401003}, pages = {77 -- 94}, year = {2022}, abstract = {In the current study, we explore how different information-structural devices affect which referents conversational partners expect in the upcoming discourse. Our main research question is how pitch accents (H*, L+H*) and focus particles (German nur `only' and auch 'also') affect speakers' choices to mention focused referents, previously mentioned alternatives or new, inferable alternatives. Participants in our experiment were presented with short discourses involving two referents and were asked to orally produce two sentences that continue the story. An analysis of speakers' continuations showed that participants were most likely to mention a contextual alternative in the condition with only and the L+H* conditions, followed by H* conditions. In the condition with also, in turn, participants mentioned both the focused/accented referent and the contextual alternative. Our findings highlight the importance of information structure for discourse management and suggest that speakers take activated alternatives to be relevant for an unfolding discourse.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Atasoy2022, author = {Atasoy, Atilla}, title = {Production, perception, and processing of focus in Turkish}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-54815}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-548156}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {xxiii, 267}, year = {2022}, abstract = {The main goal of this dissertation is to experimentally investigate how focus is realised, perceived, and processed by native Turkish speakers, independent of preconceived notions of positional restrictions. Crucially, there are various issues and scientific debates surrounding focus in the Turkish language in the existing literature (chapter 1). It is argued in this dissertation that two factors led to the stagnant literature on focus in Turkish: the lack of clearly defined, modern understandings of information structure and its fundamental notion of focus, and the ongoing and ill-defined debate surrounding the question of whether there is an immediately preverbal focus position in Turkish. These issues gave rise to specific research questions addressed across this dissertation. Specifically, we were interested in how the focus dimensions such as focus size (comparing narrow constituent and broad sentence focus), focus target (comparing narrow subject and narrow object focus), and focus type (comparing new-information and contrastive focus) affect Turkish focus realisation and, in turn, focus comprehension when speakers are provided syntactic freedom to position focus as they see fit. To provide data on these core goals, we presented three behavioural experiments based on a systematic framework of information structure and its notions (chapter 2): (i) a production task with trigger wh-questions and contextual animations manipulated to elicit the focus dimensions of interest (chapter 3), (ii) a timed acceptability judgment task in listening to the recorded answers in our production task (chapter 4), and (iii) a self-paced reading task to gather on-line processing data (chapter 5). Based on the results of the conducted experiments, multiple conclusions are made in this dissertation (chapter 6). Firstly, this dissertation demonstrated empirically that there is no focus position in Turkish, neither in the sense of a strict focus position language nor as a focally loaded position facilitating focus perception and/or processing. While focus is, in fact, syntactically variable in the Turkish preverbal area, this is a consequence of movement triggered by other IS aspects like topicalisation and backgrounding, and the observational markedness of narrow subject focus compared to narrow object focus. As for focus type in Turkish, this dimension is not associated with word order in production, perception, or processing. Significant acoustic correlates of focus size (broad sentence focus vs narrow constituent focus) and focus target (narrow subject focus vs narrow object focus) were observed in fundamental frequency and intensity, representing focal boost, (postfocal) deaccentuation, and the presence or absence of a phrase-final rise in the prenucleus, while the perceivability of these effects remains to be investigated. In contrast, no acoustic correlates of focus type in simple, three-word transitive structures were observed, with focus types being interchangeable in mismatched question-answer pairs. Overall, the findings of this dissertation highlight the need for experimental investigations regarding focus in Turkish, as theoretical predictions do not necessarily align with experimental data. As such, the fallacy of implying causation from correlation should be strictly kept in mind, especially when constructions coincide with canonical structures, such as the immediately preverbal position in narrow object foci. Finally, numerous open questions remain to be explored, especially as focus and word order in Turkish are multifaceted. As shown, givenness is a confounding factor when investigating focus types, while thematic role assignment potentially confounds word order preferences. Further research based on established, modern information structure frameworks is needed, with chapter 5 concluding with specific recommendations for such future research.}, language = {en} } @article{ChenHoehle2018, author = {Chen, Aoju and H{\"o}hle, Barbara}, title = {Four- to five-year-old' use of word order and prosody in focus marking in Dutch}, series = {Linguistics Vanguard}, volume = {4}, journal = {Linguistics Vanguard}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {2199-174X}, doi = {10.1515/lingvan-2016-0101}, pages = {9}, year = {2018}, abstract = {This study investigated Dutch-speaking four- to five-year-olds' use of word order and prosody in distinguishing focus types (broad focus, narrow focus, and contrastive narrow focus) via an interactive answer-reconstruction game. We have found an overall preference for the unmarked word order SVO and no evidence for the use of OVS to distinguish focus types. But the children used pitch and duration in the subject-nouns to distinguish focus types in SVO sentences. These findings show that Dutch-speaking four- to five-year-olds differ from their German- and Finnish-speaking peers, who show evidence of varying choice of word order to mark specific focus types, and use prosody to distinguish focus types in subject and object nouns in both SVO and OVS sentences. These comparisons suggest that typological differences in the relative importance between word order and prosody can lead to differences in children's use of word order and prosody in unmarked and marked word orders. A more equal role of word order and prosody in the ambient language can stimulate more extensive use of prosody in the marked word order, whereas a more limited role of word order can restrict the use of prosody in the unmarked word order.}, language = {en} } @article{GrubicRenansDuah2018, author = {Grubic, Mira and Renans, Agata and Duah, Reginald Akuoko}, title = {Focus, exhaustivity and existence in Akan, Ga and Ngamo}, series = {Linguistics : an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences}, volume = {57}, journal = {Linguistics : an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences}, number = {1}, publisher = {De Gruyter Mouton}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {0024-3949}, doi = {10.1515/ling-2018-0035}, pages = {221 -- 268}, year = {2018}, abstract = {This paper discusses the relation between focus marking and focus interpretation in Akan (Kwa), Ga (Kwa), and Ngamo (West Chadic). In all three languages, there is a special morphosyntactically marked focus/background construction, as well as morphosyntactically unmarked focus. We present data stemming from original fieldwork investigatingwhether marked focus/background constructions in these three languages also have additional interpretative effects apart from standard focus interpretation. Crosslinguistically, different additional inferences have been found for marked focus constructions, e.g. contrast (e.g. Vallduvi, Enric \& Maria Vilkuna. 1997. On rheme and kontrast. In Peter Culicover \& Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax (Syntax and semantics 29), 79-108. New York: Academic Press; Hartmann, Katharina \& Malte Zimmermann. 2007b. In place -Out of place: Focus in Hausa. In Kerstin Schwabe \& Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 365-403. Amsterdam \& Philadelphia: John Benjamins.; Destruel, Emilie \& Leah Velleman. 2014. Refining contrast: Empirical evidence from the English it-cleft. In Christopher Pinon (ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 10, 197-214. Paris: Colloque de syntaxe et semantique a Paris (CSSP). http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss10/), exhaustivity (e.g. E. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2). 245-273.; Hartmann, Katharina \& Malte Zimmermann. 2007a. Exhaustivity marking in Hausa: A re-evaluation of the particle nee/cee. In Enoch O. Aboh, Katharina Hartmann \& Malte Zimmermann (eds.), Focus strategies in African languages: The interaction of focus and grammar in Niger-Congo and AfroAsiatic (Trends in Linguistics 191), 241-263. Berlin \& New York: Mouton de Gruyter.), and existence (e.g. Rooth, Mats. 1999. Association with focus or association with presupposition? In Peter Bosch \& Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 232-244. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.; von Fintel, Kai \& Lisa Matthewson. 2008. Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 25(1-2). 139-201). This paper investigates these three inferences. In Akan and Ga, the marked focus constructions are found to be contrastive, while in Ngamo, no effect of contrast was found. We also show that marked focus constructions in Ga and Akan trigger exhaustivity and existence presuppositions, while the marked construction in Ngamo merely gives rise to an exhaustive conversational implicature and does not trigger an existence presupposition. Instead, the marked construction in Ngamo merely indicates salience of the backgrounded part via a morphological background marker related to the definite determiner (Schuh, Russell G. 2005. Yobe state, Nigeria as a linguistic area. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31(2). 77-94; Guldemann, Tom. 2016. Maximal backgrounding = focus without (necessary) focus encoding. Studies in Language 40(3). 551590). The paper thus contributes to the understanding of the semantics of marked focus constructions across languages and points to the crosslinguistic variation in expressing and interpreting marked focus/background constructions.}, 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} } @misc{KentnerVasishth2015, author = {Kentner, Gerrit and Vasishth, Shravan}, title = {Prosodic focus marking in silent reading}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {467}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-407976}, pages = {19}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Understanding a sentence and integrating it into the discourse depends upon the identification of its focus, which, in spoken German, is marked by accentuation. In the case of written language, which lacks explicit cues to accent, readers have to draw on other kinds of information to determine the focus. We study the joint or interactive effects of two kinds of information that have no direct representation in print but have each been shown to be influential in the reader's text comprehension: (i) the (low-level) rhythmic-prosodic structure that is based on the distribution of lexically stressed syllables, and (ii) the (high-level) discourse context that is grounded in the memory of previous linguistic content. Systematically manipulating these factors, we examine the way readers resolve a syntactic ambiguity involving the scopally ambiguous focus operator auch (engl. "too") in both oral (Experiment 1) and silent reading (Experiment 2). The results of both experiments attest that discourse context and local linguistic rhythm conspire to guide the syntactic and, concomitantly, the focus-structural analysis of ambiguous sentences. We argue that reading comprehension requires the (implicit) assignment of accents according to the focus structure and that, by establishing a prominence profile, the implicit prosodic rhythm directly affects accent assignment.}, language = {en} }