@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} } @misc{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 = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, volume = {16}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, issn = {1866-8364}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-52467}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-524677}, pages = {26}, 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} } @article{FanselowZimmermannPhilipp2022, author = {Fanselow, Gisbert and Zimmermann, Malte and Philipp, Mareike}, title = {Assessing the availability of inverse scope in German in the covered box paradigm}, series = {Glossa : a journal of general linguistics}, volume = {7}, journal = {Glossa : a journal of general linguistics}, number = {1}, publisher = {Open Library of Humanities}, address = {London}, issn = {2397-1835}, doi = {10.16995/glossa.5766}, pages = {1 -- 24}, year = {2022}, abstract = {This paper presents the results of a novel experimental approach to relative quantifier scope in German that elicits data in an indirect manner. Applying the covered-box method (Huang et al. 2013) to scope phenomena, we show that inverse scope is available to some extent in the free constituent order language German, thereby validating earlier findings on other syntactic configurations in German (Rado \& Bott 2018) and empirical claims on other free constituent order languages (Japanese, Russian, Hindi), as well as recent corpus findings in Webelhuth (2020). Moreover, the results of the indirect covered-box experiment replicate findings from an earlier direct-query experiment with comparable target items, in which participants were asked directly about the availability of surface scope and inverse scope readings. The configuration of interest consisted of canonical transitive clauses with deaccented existential subject and universal object QPs, in which the restriction of the universal QP was controlled for by the context.}, language = {en} } @article{HohausZimmermann2021, author = {Hohaus, Vera and Zimmermann, Malte}, title = {Comparisons of equality with German so ... wie, and the relationship between degrees and properties}, series = {Journal of semantics}, volume = {38}, journal = {Journal of semantics}, number = {1}, publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0167-5133}, doi = {10.1093/jos/ffaa011}, pages = {95 -- 143}, year = {2021}, abstract = {We present a compositionally transparent, unified semantic analysis of two kinds of so ... wie-equative constructions in German, namely degree equatives and property equatives in the domain of individuals or events. Unlike in English and many other European languages (Haspelmath \& Buchholz 1998, Rett 2013), both equative types in German feature the parameter marker so, suggesting a unified analysis. We show that the parallel formal expression of German degree and property equatives is accompanied by a parallel syntactic distribution (in predicative, attributive, and adverbial position), and by identical semantic properties: Both equative types allow for scope ambiguities, show negative island effects out of context, and license the negative polarity item uberhaupt 'at all' in the complement clause. As the same properties are also shared by German comparatives, we adopt the influential quantificational analysis of comparatives in von Stechow (1984ab), Heim (1985, 2001, 2007), and Beck (2011), and treat both German equative types in a uniform manner as expressing universal quantification over sets of degrees or over sets of properties (of individuals or events). Conceptually, the uniform marking of degree-related and property-related meanings is expected given that the abstract semantic category degree (type ) can be reconstructed in terms of equivalence classes, i.e., ontologically simpler sets of individuals (type ) or events (type ). These are found in any language, showing that whether or not a language makes explicit reference to degrees (by means of gradable adjectives, degree question words, degree-only equatives) does not follow on general conceptual or semantic grounds, but is determined by the grammar of that language.}, 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{DrenhausZimmermannVasishth2011, author = {Drenhaus, Heiner and Zimmermann, Malte and Vasishth, Shravan}, title = {Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional}, series = {Journal of neurolinguistics : an international journal for the study of brain function in language behavior and experience}, volume = {24}, journal = {Journal of neurolinguistics : an international journal for the study of brain function in language behavior and experience}, number = {3}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0911-6044}, doi = {10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.004}, pages = {320 -- 337}, year = {2011}, abstract = {While it is widely acknowledged in the formal semantic literature that both the truth-functional focus particle only and it-clefts convey exhaustiveness, the nature and source of exhaustiveness effects with it-clefts remain contested. We describe a questionnaire study (n = 80) and an event-related brain potentials (ERP) study (n = 16) that investigated the violation of exhaustiveness in German only-foci versus it-clefts. The offline study showed that a violation of exhaustivity with only is less acceptable than the violation with it-clefts, suggesting a difference in the nature of exhaustivity interpretation in the two environments. The ERP-results confirm that this difference can be seen in online processing as well: a violation of exhaustiveness in only-foci elicited a centro-posterior positivity (600-800ms), whereas a violation in it-clefts induced a globally distributed N400 pattern (400-600ms). The positivity can be interpreted as a reanalysis process and more generally as a process of context updating. The N400 effect in it-clefts is interpreted as indexing a cancelation process that is functionally distinct from the only case. The ERP study is, to our knowledge, the first evidence from an online experimental paradigm which shows that the violation of exhaustiveness involves different underlying processes in the two structural environments.}, language = {en} } @article{HartmannJacobZimmermann2008, author = {Hartmann, Katharina and Jacob, Peggy and Zimmermann, Malte}, title = {Focus asymmetries in Bura}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19381}, year = {2008}, abstract = {(Chadic), which exhibits a number of asymmetries: Grammatical focus marking is obligatory only with focused subjects, where focus is marked by the particle {\´a}n following the subject. Focused subjects remain in situ and the complement of {\´a}n is a regular VP. With nonsubject foci, {\´a}n appears in a cleft-structure between the fronted focus constituent and a relative clause. We present a semantically unified analysis of focus marking in Bura that treats the particle as a focusmarking copula in T that takes a property-denoting expression (the background) and an individual-denoting expression (the focus) as arguments. The article also investigates the realization of predicate and polarity focus, which are almost never marked. The upshot of the discussion is that Bura shares many characteristic traits of focus marking with other Chadic languages, but it crucially differs in exhibiting a structural difference in the marking of focus on subjects and non-subject constituents.}, 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} } @article{HartmannZimmermann2012, author = {Hartmann, Katharina and Zimmermann, Malte}, title = {Focus marking in Bura - semantic uniformity matches syntactic heterogeneity}, series = {Natural language \& linguistic theory}, volume = {30}, journal = {Natural language \& linguistic theory}, number = {4}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {0167-806X}, doi = {10.1007/s11049-012-9174-4}, pages = {1061 -- 1108}, year = {2012}, abstract = {The present article introduces a theory of (morpho-)syntactic focus marking on nominal categories in Bura, a Central Chadic SVO language spoken in the northeast of Nigeria. Our central claim is that the particle an plays a crucial role in the marking of subject and non-subject focus. We put forward a uniform analysis of an as a focus copula that selects for syntactic predicates of type < e,t > and a focused constituent of type < e >. This uniform semantic representation is transparently mapped onto different syntactic structures: In a clause with a focused subject, the focus copula appears between the subject in SpecTP and the predicative VP. On the other hand, syntactically focused non-subjects are fronted and appear in a bi-clausal cleft structure that contains the focus copula and a relative cleft-remnant. The non-uniform analysis of focus marking is further supported by the structure of predicative constructions, in which the focus copula separates the focused subject and the adjectival or nominal predicate. It is also shown that alternative unified analyses fail to account for the full range of Bura data. The latter part of the article provides an analysis of the Bura cleft construction. Based on syntactic and semantic evidence, we come to the conclusion that the clefted constituent is base-generated in its initial surface position, and that an empty operator moves within the relative clause. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the potential conceptual reasons behind the observed subject/non-subject asymmetry in Bura.}, language = {en} } @article{HartmannZimmermann2004, author = {Hartmann, Katharina and Zimmermann, Malte}, title = {Focus strategies in chadic}, 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 = {1}, issn = {1866-4725}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-8423}, pages = {207 -- 243}, year = {2004}, abstract = {We argue that the standard focus theories reach their limits when confronted with the focus systems of the Chadic languages. The backbone of the standard focus theories consists of two assumptions, both called into question by the languages under consideration. Firstly, it is standardly assumed that focus is generally marked by stress. The Chadic languages, however, exhibit a variety of different devices for focus marking. Secondly, it is assumed that focus is always marked. In Tangale, at least, focus is not marked consistently on all types of constituents. The paper offers two possible solutions to this dilemma.}, language = {en} }