@article{PfeilGenzelKuegler2015,
  author    = {Pfeil, Simone and Genzel, Susanne and K{\"u}gler, Frank},
  title     = {Empirical investigation of focus and exhaustivity in Akan},
  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    = {19},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {1614-4708},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-83774},
  pages     = {87 -- 109},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {It has been observed for many African languages that focussed subjects have to appear outside of their syntactic base position, as opposed to focussed objects, which can remain in-situ. This is known as subjectobject asymmetry of focus marking, which Fiedler et al. (2010) claim to hold also for Akan. Genzel (2013), on the other hand, argues that Akan does not exhibit a subject-object focus asymmetry. A questionnaire study and a production experiment were carried out to investigate whether focussed subjects may indeed be realized in-situ in Akan. The results suggest that (i) focussed subjects do not have to be obligatorily realized ex-situ, and that (ii) the syntactic preference for the realization of a focussed subject highly depends on exhaustivity.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Komen2009,
  author    = {Komen, Erwin R.},
  title     = {Branching constraints},
  series = {Linguistics in Potsdam},
  journal   = {Linguistics in Potsdam},
  number    = {28},
  issn      = {1616-7392},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32273},
  pages     = {157 -- 186},
  year      = {2009},
  abstract  = {Rejecting approaches with a directionality parameter, mainstream minimalism has adopted the notion of strict (or unidirectional) branching. Within optimality theory however, constraints have recently been proposed that presuppose that the branching direction scheme is language specific. I show that a syntactic analysis of Chechen word order and relative clauses using strict branching and movement triggered by feature checking seems very unlikely, whereas a directionality approach works well. I argue in favor of a mixed directionality approach for Chechen, where the branching direction scheme depends on the phrase type. This observation leads to the introduction of context variants of existing markedness constraints, in order to describe the branching processes in terms of optimality theory. The paper discusses how and where the optimality theory selection of the branching directions can be implemented within a minimalist derivation.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Kitagawa2007,
  author    = {Kitagawa, Yoshihisa},
  title     = {When we fail to question in Japanese},
  series = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; working papers of the SFB 632},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; working papers of the SFB 632},
  editor    = {Ishihara, Shinichiro and Petrova, Svetlana and Schwarz, Anne},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {1866-4725},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-24481},
  pages     = {29 -- 64},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {When we pay close attention to the prosody of Wh-questions in Japanese, we discover many novel and interesting empirical puzzles that would require us to devise a much finer syntactic component of grammar. This paper addresses the issues that pose some problems to such an elaborated grammar, and offers solutions, making an appeal to the information structure and sentence processing involved in the interpretation of interrogative and focus constructions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Hartmann2007,
  author    = {Hartmann, Katharina},
  title     = {Focus and Tone},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19729},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {Tone is a distinctive feature of the lexemes in tone languages. The information-structural category focus is usually marked by syntactic and morphological means in these languages, but sometimes also by intonation strategies. In intonation languages, focus is marked by pitch movements, which are also perceived as tone. The present article discusses prosodic focus marking in these two language types.},
  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{Rooth2007,
  author    = {Rooth, Mats},
  title     = {Notions of focus anaphoricity},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19622},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {This article reviews some of the theoretical notions and empirical phenomena which figure in current formal-semantic theories of focus. It also develops the connection between "alternative semantics" and "givenness" accounts of focus interpretation.},
  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}
}