@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{Ishihara2007,
  author    = {Ishihara, Shinichiro},
  title     = {Intonation of sentences with an NPI},
  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-24497},
  pages     = {65 -- 96},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {This paper presents the results of a production experiment on the intonation of sentences containing a negative polarity item (NPI) in Tokyo Japanese. The results show that NPI sentences exhibit a focus intonation: the F₀-peak of the word to which an NPI is attached is raised, while the pitch contour after the NPI-attached word is compressed until the negation. This intonation pattern is parallel to that of wh-question, in which the F₀ of the wh-phrase is raised while the post-wh-contour is compressed until the question particle.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Gussenhoven2007,
  author    = {Gussenhoven, Carlos},
  title     = {Notions and subnotions in information structure},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19704},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {Three dimensions can be distinguished in a cross-linguistic account of information structure. First, there is the definition of the focus constituent, the part of the linguistic expression which is subject to some focus meaning. Second and third, there are the focus meanings and the array of structural devices that encode them. In a given language, the expression of focus is facilitated as well as constrained by the grammar within which the focus devices operate. The prevalence of focus ambiguity, the structural inability to make focus distinctions, will thus vary across languages, and within a language, across focus meanings.},
  language  = {en}
}
@book{OPUS4-1329,
  title     = {Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; Working papers of the SFB 632. - Vol. 8},
  editor    = {Ishihara, Shinichiro and Jannedy, Stefanie and Schwarz, Anne},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-939469-72-8},
  issn      = {1866-4725},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-14359},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {230},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {The 8th volume of the working paper series Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) of the SFB 632 contains a collection of eight papers contributed by guest authors and SFB-members. The first paper on "Biased Questions" is an invited contribution by Nicholas Asher (CNRS, Laboratoire IRIT) \& Brian Reese (University of Texas at Austin). Surveying English tag questions, negative polar questions, and what they term "focus" questions, they investigate the effects of prosody on discourse function and discourse structure and analyze the interaction between prosody and discourse in SDRT (Segmented Discourse Representation Theory). Stefan Hinterwimmer (A2) explores the interpretation of singular definites and universally quantified DPs in adverbially quantified English sentences. He suggests that the availability of a co-varying interpretation is more constrained in the case of universally quantified DPs than in the case of singular definites, because different from universally quantified DPs, co-varying definites are inherently focus-marked. The existence of striking similarities between topic/comment structure and bimanual coordination is pointed out and investigated by Manfred Krifka (A2). Showing how principles of bimanual coordination influence the expression of topic/comment structure beyond spoken language, he suggests that bimanual coordination might have been a preadaptation of the development of Information Structure in human communication. Among the different ways of expressing focus in Foodo, an underdescribed African Guang language of the Kwa family, the marked focus constructions are the central topic of the paper by Ines Fiedler (B1 \& D2). Exploring the morphosyntactic facilities that Foodo has for focalization, she suggests that the two focus markers N and n have developed out of a homophone conjunction. Focus marking in another scarcely documented African tone language, the Gur language Konkomba, is treated by Anne Schwarz (B1 \& D2). Comparing the two alleged focus markers l{\´e} and l{\´a} of the language, she argues that l{\´e} is better interpreted as a syntactic device rather than as a focus marker and shows that this analysis is corroborated by parallels in related languages. The reflexes of Information Structure in four different European languages (French, German, Greek and Hungarian) are compared and validated by Sam Hellmuth \& Stavros Skopeteas (D2). The production data was collected with selected materials of the Questionnaire on Information Structure (QUIS) developed at the SFB. The results not only allow for an evaluation of the current elicitation paradigms, but also help to identify potentially fruitful venues of future research. Frank K{\"u}gler, Stavros Skopeteas (D2) \& Elisabeth Verhoeven (University of Bremen) give an account of the encoding of Information Structure in Yucatec Maya, a Mayan tone language spoken on the Yucatecan peninsula in Mexico. The results of a production experiment lead them to the conclusion that focus is mainly expressed by syntax in this language. Stefanie Jannedy (D3) undertakes an instrumental investigation on the expressions and interpretation of focus in Vietnamese, a language of the Mon-Khmer family contrasting six lexical tones. The data strongly suggests that focus in Vietnamese is exclusively marked by prosody (intonational emphasis expressed via duration, f0 and amplitude) and that different focus conditions can reliably be recovered. This volume offers insights into current work conducted at the SFB 632, comprising empirical and theoretical aspects of Information Structure in a multitude of languages. Several of the papers mine field work data collected during the first phase of the SFB and explore the expression of Information Structure in tone and non-tone languages from various regions of the world.},
  language  = {en}
}
@incollection{Kiss2007,
  author    = {Kiss, Katalin {\´E}.},
  title     = {Topic and focus},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19639},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {The paper explicates the notions of topic, contrastive topic, and focus as used in the analysis of Hungarian. Based on distributional criteria, topic and focus are claimed to represent distinct structural positions in the left periphery of the Hungarian sentence, associated with logical rather than discourse functions. The topic is interpreted as the logical subject of predication. The focus is analyzed as a derived main predicate, specifying the referential content of the set denoted by the backgrounded post-focus section of the sentence. The exhaustivity associated with the focus and the existential presupposition associated with the background are shown to be properties following from their specificational predication relation.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Tomioka2007,
  author    = {Tomioka, Satoshi},
  title     = {Information Structure as information-based partition},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19657},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {While the Information Structure (IS) is most naturally interpreted as 'structure of information', some may argue that it is structure of something else, and others may object to the use of the word 'structure'. This paper focuses on the question of whether the informational component can have structural properties such that it can be called 'structure'. The preliminary conclusion is that, although there are some vague indications of structurehood in it, it is perhaps better understood to be a representation that encodes a finite set of information-based partitions, rather than structure.},
  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}
}
@incollection{Selkirk2007,
  author    = {Selkirk, Elisabeth},
  title     = {Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of "Discourse-New"},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19670},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {New evidence is provided for a grammatical principle that singles out contrastive focus (Rooth 1996; Truckenbrodt 1995) and distinguishes it from discourse-new "informational" focus. Since the prosody of discourse-given constituents may also be distinguished from discourse-new, a three-way distinction in representation is motivated. It is assumed that an F-feature marks just contrastive focus (Jackendoff 1972, Rooth 1992), and that a G-feature marks discoursegiven constituents (F{\´e}ry and Samek-Lodovici 2006), while discoursenew is unmarked. A crucial argument for G-marking comes from second occurrence focus (SOF) prosody, which arguably derives from a syntactic representation where SOF is both F-marked and G-marked. This analysis relies on a new G-Marking Condition specifying that a contrastive focus may be G-marked only if the focus semantic value of its scope is discourse-given, i.e. only if the contrast itself is given.},
  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}
}
@incollection{Jannedy2007,
  author    = {Jannedy, Stefanie},
  title     = {Prosodic focus in Vietnamese},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19478},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {This paper reports on pilot work on the expression of Information Structure in Vietnamese and argues that Focus in Vietnamese is exclusively expressed prosodically: there are no specific focus markers, and the language uses phonology to express intonational emphasis in similar ways to languages like English or German. The exploratory data indicates that (i) focus is prosodically expressed while word order remains constant, (ii) listeners show good recoverability of the intended focus structure, and (iii) that there is a trading relationship between several phonetic parameters (duration, f0, amplitude) involved to signal prosodic (acoustic) emphasis.},
  language  = {en}
}