@book{OlsenStiebelsBierwischetal.2019, author = {Olsen, Susan and Stiebels, Barbara and Bierwisch, Manfred and Zimmermann, Ilse and Cavar, Damir and Georgi, Doreen and Bacskai-Atkari, Julia and Alexiadou, Artemis and Błaszczak, Joanna and M{\"u}ller, Gereon and Šim{\´i}k, Radek and Meinunger, Andr{\´e} and Thiersch, Craig and Arnhold, Anja and F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Bayer, Josef and Titov, Elena and Fominyam, Henry and Tran, Thuan and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina D. and Schlesewsky, Matthias and Zimmermann, Malte and H{\"a}ussler, Jana and Mucha, Anne and Schmidt, Andreas and Weskott, Thomas and Wierzba, Marta and Stede, Manfred and Skopeteas, Stavros and Gafos, Adamantios I. and Haider, Hubert and Wunderlich, Dieter and Staudacher, Peter and Rauh, Gisa}, title = {Of Trees and Birds}, editor = {Brown, Jessica M. M. and Schmidt, Andreas and Wierzba, Marta}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-86956-457-9}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42654}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-426542}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {xvi, 435}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Gisbert Fanselow's work has been invaluable and inspiring to many ­researchers working on syntax, morphology, and information ­structure, both from a ­theoretical and from an experimental perspective. This ­volume comprises a collection of articles dedicated to Gisbert on the occasion of his 60th birthday, covering a range of topics from these areas and beyond. The contributions have in ­common that in a broad sense they have to do with language structures (and thus trees), and that in a more specific sense they have to do with birds. They thus cover two of Gisbert's major interests in- and outside of the linguistic world (and ­perhaps even at the interface).}, language = {en} } @article{Zimmermann2018, author = {Zimmermann, Malte}, title = {Wird Schon Stimmen!}, series = {Journal of semantics}, volume = {35}, journal = {Journal of semantics}, number = {4}, publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0167-5133}, doi = {10.1093/jos/ffy010}, pages = {687 -- 739}, year = {2018}, abstract = {The article puts forward a novel analysis of the German modal particle schon as a modal degree operator over propositional content. The proposed analysis offers a uniform perspective on the semantics of modal schon and its aspectual counterpart meaning 'already': Both particles are analyzed as denoting a degree operator, expressing a scale-based comparison over relevant alternatives. The alternatives are determined by focus in the case of aspectual schon (Krifka 2000), but are restricted to the polar alternatives p and ¬p in the case of modal schon. Semantically, modal schon introduces a presupposition to the effect that the circumstantial conversational background contains more factual evidence in favor of p than in favor of ¬p⁠, thereby making modal schon the not at-issue counterpart of the overt comparative form eher 'rather' (Herburger \& Rubinstein 2014). The analysis incorporates basic insights from earlier analyses of modal schon in a novel way, and it also offers new insights as to the underlying workings of modality in natural language as involving propositions rather than possible worlds (Kratzer 1977, 2012).}, language = {en} } @article{ZimmermannDeVeaughGeissToennisetal.2020, author = {Zimmermann, Malte and De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P. and T{\"o}nnis, Swantje and Onea, Edgar}, title = {(Non-)exhaustivity in focus partitioning across languages}, series = {Approaches to Hungarian}, volume = {16}, journal = {Approaches to Hungarian}, publisher = {John Benjamins}, address = {Amsterdam}, pages = {24}, year = {2020}, abstract = {We present novel experimental evidence on the availability and the status of exhaustivity inferences with focus partitioning in German, English, and Hungarian. Results suggest that German and English focus-background clefts and Hungarian focus share important properties, ({\´E}. Kiss 1998, 1999; Szabolcsi 1994; Percus 1997; Onea \& Beaver 2009). Those constructions are anaphoric devices triggering an existence presupposition. EXH-inferences are not obligatory in such constructions in English, German, or Hungarian, against some previous literature (Percus 1997; B{\"u}ring \& Križ 2013; {\´E}. Kiss 1998), but in line with pragmatic analyses of EXH-inferences in clefts (Horn 1981, 2016; Pollard \& Yasavul 2016). The cross-linguistic differences in the distribution of EXH-inferences are attributed to properties of the Hungarian number marking system.}, language = {en} } @incollection{HartmannZimmermann2006, author = {Hartmann, Katharina and Zimmermann, Malte}, title = {Morphological focus marking in G{\`u}r{\`u}nt{\`u}m (West Chadic)}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19525}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, year = {2006}, abstract = {The paper presents an in-depth study of focus marking in G{\`u}r{\`u}nt{\`u}m, a West Chadic language spoken in Bauchi Province of Northern Nigeria. Focus in G{\`u}r{\`u}nt{\`u}m is marked morphologically by means of a focus marker a, which typically precedes the focus constituent. Even though the morphological focus-marking system of G{\`u}r{\`u}nt{\`u}m allows for a lot of fine-grained distinctions in information structure (IS) in principle, the language is not entirely free of focus ambiguities that arise as the result of conflicting IS- and syntactic requirements that govern the placement of focus markers. We show that morphological focus marking with a applies across different types of focus, such as newinformation, contrastive, selective and corrective focus, and that a does not have a second function as a perfectivity marker, as is assumed in the literature. In contrast, we show at the end of the paper that a can also function as a foregrounding device at the level of discourse structure.}, language = {en} } @article{Zimmermann2007, author = {Zimmermann, Malte}, title = {Contrastive focus}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19688}, year = {2007}, abstract = {The article puts forward a discourse-pragmatic approach to the notoriously evasive phenomena of contrastivity and emphasis. It is argued that occurrences of focus that are treated in terms of 'contrastive focus', 'kontrast' (Vallduv{\´i} \& Vilkuna 1998) or 'identificational focus' ({\´E}. Kiss 1998) in the literature should not be analyzed in familiar semantic terms like introduction of alternatives or exhaustivity. Rather, an adequate analysis must take into account discourse-pragmatic notions like hearer expectation or discourse expectability of the focused content in a given discourse situation. The less expected a given content is judged to be for the hearer, relative to the Common Ground, the more likely a speaker is to mark this content by means of special grammatical devices, giving rise to emphasis.}, language = {en} } @article{RonasiFischerZimmermann2018, author = {Ronasi, Golnoush and Fischer, Martin H. and Zimmermann, Malte}, title = {Language and Arithmetic}, series = {Frontiers in psychology}, volume = {9}, journal = {Frontiers in psychology}, publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation}, address = {Lausanne}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01524}, pages = {12}, year = {2018}, abstract = {We examined cross-domain semantic priming effects between arithmetic and language. We paired subtractions with their linguistic equivalent, exception phrases (EPs) with positive quantifiers (e.g., "everybody except John") while pairing additions with their own linguistic equivalent, EPs with negative quantifiers (e.g., "nobody except John"; Moltmann, 1995). We hypothesized that EPs with positive quantifiers prime subtractions and inhibit additions while EPs with negative quantifiers prime additions and inhibit subtractions. Furthermore, we expected similar priming and inhibition effects from arithmetic into semantics. Our design allowed for a bidirectional analysis by using one trial's target as the prime for the next trial. Two experiments failed to show significant priming effects in either direction. Implications and possible shortcomings are explored in the general discussion.}, language = {en} } @article{DeVeaughGeissToennisOneaetal.2018, author = {De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P. and Toennis, Swantje and Onea, Edgar and Zimmermann, Malte}, title = {That's not quite it}, series = {Semantics and pragmatics}, volume = {11}, journal = {Semantics and pragmatics}, publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}, address = {Washington}, issn = {1937-8912}, doi = {10.3765/sp.11.3}, pages = {44}, year = {2018}, abstract = {We present a novel empirical study on German directly comparing the exhaustivity inference in es-clefts to exhaustivity inferences in definite pseudoclefts, exclusives, and plain intonational focus constructions. We employ mouse-driven verification/falsification tasks in an incremental information-retrieval paradigm across two experiments in order to assess the strength of exhaustivity in the four sentence types. The results are compatible with a parallel analysis of clefts and definite pseudoclefts, in line with previous claims in the literature (Percus 1997, Buring \& Kriz 2013). In striking contrast with such proposals, in which the exhaustivity inference is conventionally coded in the cleft-structure in terms of maximality/homogeneity, our study found that the exhaustivity inference is not systematic or robust in es-clefts nor in definite pseudoclefts: Whereas some speakers treat both constructions as exhaustive, others treat both constructions as non-exhaustive. In order to account for this unexpected finding, we argue that the exhaustivity inference in both clefts and definite pseudoclefts-specifically those with the compound definite derjenige - is pragmatically derived from the anaphoric existence presupposition that is common to both constructions.}, language = {en} } @article{HartmannZimmermann2009, author = {Hartmann, Katharina and Zimmermann, Malte}, title = {Morphological focus marking in G{\`u}r{\`u}nt{\`u}m (West Chadic)}, issn = {0024-3841}, doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2009.02.002}, year = {2009}, abstract = {The paper presents an in-depth study of focus marking in Guruntum, a West Chadic language spoken in Bauchi State in Nigeria. Focus in Guruntum is marked morphologically by means of a focus marker a, which typically precedes the focused constituent. Even though the morphological focus-marking system of Guruntum allows for a lot of fine-grained distinctions in information structure (IS), the language is not entirely free of focus ambiguities that are the result of conflicting IS- and syntactic requirements governing the placement of focus markers. We show that morphological focus marking with a applies across different types of focus, such as new-information, contrastive, selective and corrective focus, and that a does not have a second function as a perfective marker, as is assumed in the literature. In contrast, we argue that sentence-final occurrences of a in perfective sentences are markers of sentential focus and have additional functions at the level of discourse structure.}, 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{FiedlerHartmannReinekeetal.2010, author = {Fiedler, Ines and Hartmann, Katharina and Reineke, Brigitte and Schwarz, Anne and Zimmermann, Malte}, title = {Subject focus in West African languages}, isbn = {978-0-19-957095-9}, year = {2010}, language = {en} }