@article{Fery2007,
  author    = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline},
  title     = {Information structural notions and the fallacy of invariant correlates},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19692},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {In a first step, definitions of the irreducible information structural categories are given, and in a second step, it is shown that there are no invariant phonological or otherwise grammatical correlates of these categories. In other words, the phonology, syntax or morphology are unable to define information structure. It is a common mistake that information structural categories are expressed by invariant grammatical correlates, be they syntactic, morphological or phonological. It is rather the case that grammatical cues help speaker and hearer to sort out which element carries which information structural role, and only in this sense are the grammatical correlates of information structure important. Languages display variation as to the role of grammar in enhancing categories of information structure, and this variation reflects the variation found in the 'normal' syntax and phonology of languages.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FeryHellmuthKuegleretal.2007,
  author    = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Hellmuth, Sam and K{\"u}gler, Frank and Mayer, J{\"o}rg},
  title     = {Phonology and intonation},
  series = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS},
  journal   = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS},
  number    = {7},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {1614-4708},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-22217},
  pages     = {29 -- 53},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {The encoding standards for phonology and intonation are designed to facilitate consistent annotation of the phonological and intonational aspects of information structure, in languages across a range of prosodic types. The guidelines are designed with the aim that a nonspecialist in phonology can both implement and interpret the resulting annotation.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FeryIshihara2009,
  author    = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Ishihara, Shinichiro},
  title     = {The phonology of second occurrence focus},
  issn      = {0022-2267},
  doi       = {10.1017/S0022226709005702},
  year      = {2009},
  abstract  = {This paper investigates the question of whether and how 'Second Occurrence Focus' (SOF) is realized phonetically in German. The apparent lack of phonetic marking on SOF has raised much discussion oil the semantic theory Of focus (Partee 1999, Rooth 1992). Some researchers have reported the existence of phonetic marking of SOF in the postnuclear area (Rooth 1996, Beaver et al. 2007). In our experimental study with German sentences, we examined sentences both with prenuclear SOF and with postnuclear SOF, comparing them with their first occurrence focus (FOF) and non-focus counterparts. The results show that the phonetic prominence of focus (higher pitch/longer duration) is realized differently according to the type of focus as well as according to the position of the target expression. We account for these differences by considering several phonetic effects, those that are information-structure-related and those that are phonologically motivated.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FeryKueglervandeVijver2003,
  author    = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline and K{\"u}gler, Frank and van de Vijver, Ruben},
  title     = {Pitch accents realization in German},
  isbn      = {1-87634-649-3},
  year      = {2003},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SkopeteasFeryAsatiani2009,
  author    = {Skopeteas, Stavros and F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Asatiani, Rusudan},
  title     = {Word order and intonation in Georgian},
  issn      = {0024-3841},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.001},
  year      = {2009},
  abstract  = {Georgian is famous for its word order flexibility: all permutations of constituent order are possible and the choice among them is primarily determined by information structure. In this paper, we show that word order is not the only means to encode information structure in this language, but it is used in combination with sentence prosody. After a preliminary description of the use of prosodic phrasing and intonation for this purpose, we address the question of the interrelation between these two strategies. Based on experimental evidence, we investigate the interaction of focus with word order and prosody, and we conclude that some aspects of word order variation are pragmatically vacuous and can be accommodated in any context if they are realized with an appropriate prosodic structure, while other word order phenomena are quite restrictive and cannot be overridden through prosodic manipulations.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FeryDrenhaus2008,
  author    = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Drenhaus, Heiner},
  title     = {Animacy and child language : An OT account},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.006},
  year      = {2008},
  abstract  = {In this paper we report the results of an elicited imitation task on dative case marking in non-canonical double object constructions with 22 German children (3;9-6;8). The aim was to test the proficiency of the children's grammar and to see which strategies they use to produce ditransitive sentences in which the direct object precedes the indirect object. The analysis of the children's utterances/imitations shows that the animacy of the direct object affects the overt dative case marking of the indirect object. Children made more errors repeating dative case marking when the direct object was inanimate, i.e., they produced the accusative case on the indirect object (non-adult-like). When both objects were animate, children correctly produced the dative case on the indirect object. We describe and account for these performance strategies of the children in the framework of Optimality Theory. Assuming that the same universal constraints are at work as in the adult grammar, the difference between adults and children lies in the constraint ranking. We focus on a prominent pattern found in children's performance, which is absent (or rather oppressed) in the corresponding adult performance, and show that one and the same grammar accounts for both (in the sense of "strong continuity"). (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ZimmermannFery2010,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Malte and F{\´e}ry, Caroline},
  title     = {Introduction},
  isbn      = {978-0-19-957095-9},
  year      = {2010},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FeryIshihara2010,
  author    = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Ishihara, Shinichiro},
  title     = {How focus and givennes shape prosody},
  isbn      = {978-0-19-957095-9},
  year      = {2010},
  language  = {en}
}
@book{Fery2001,
  author    = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline},
  title     = {Phonologie des Deutschen : eine optimalit{\"a}tstheoretische Einf{\"u}hrung},
  edition   = {2. Aufl},
  publisher = {Univ.-Bibliothek Publ.-Stelle},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-935024-35-8},
  issn      = {1616-7392},
  pages     = {221 S.},
  year      = {2001},
  language  = {de}
}
@book{Fery2001,
  author    = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline},
  title     = {Markedness, Faithfulness, Vowel Quality and Syllable Structure in French},
  series = {Phonology in Potsdam},
  journal   = {Phonology in Potsdam},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}t},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-935024-37-2},
  pages     = {1 -- 32},
  year      = {2001},
  language  = {en}
}