@article{EndrissHinterwimmer2007,
  author    = {Endriss, Cornelia and Hinterwimmer, Stefan},
  title     = {Direct and indirect abountness topics},
  isbn      = {978-3-939469-88-9},
  year      = {2007},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GoetzeWeskottEndrissetal.2007,
  author    = {G{\"o}tze, Michael and Weskott, Thomas and Endriss, Cornelia and Fiedler, Ines and Hinterwimmer, Stefan and Petrova, Svetlana and Schwarz, Anne and Skopeteas, Stavros and Stoel, Ruben},
  title     = {Information structure},
  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-22277},
  pages     = {147 -- 187},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {The guidelines for Information Structure include instructions for the annotation of Information Status (or 'givenness'), Topic, and Focus, building upon a basic syntactic annotation of nominal phrases and sentences. A procedure for the annotation of these features is proposed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{EndrissHinterwimmerSkopeteas2007,
  author    = {Endriss, Cornelia and Hinterwimmer, Stefan and Skopeteas, Stavros},
  title     = {Semantics},
  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-22265},
  pages     = {135 -- 145},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {The guidelines for semantics comprise a number of layers related to quantificational structures as well as some crucial semantic properties of NPs with respect to information structure: definiteness, countability, and animacy.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{EndrissHinterwimmer2007,
  author    = {Endriss, Cornelia and Hinterwimmer, Stefan},
  title     = {Direct and indirect aboutness topics},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19640},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {We propose a definition of aboutness topicality that not only encompasses individual denoting DPs, but also indefinites. We concentrate on the interpretative effects of marking indefinites as topics: they either receive widest scope in their clause, or they are interpreted in the restrictor of an overt or covert Q-adverb. We show that in the first case they are direct aboutness topics insofar as they are the subject of a predication expressed by the comment, while in the second case they are indirect aboutness topics: they define the subject of a higher-order predication - namely the set of situations that the respective Q-adverb quantifies over.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{EndrissHinterwimmer2006,
  author    = {Endriss, Cornelia and Hinterwimmer, Stefan},
  title     = {Quantificational Variability Effects with plural definites},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19512},
  year      = {2006},
  abstract  = {In this paper we compare the behaviour of adverbs of frequency (de Swart 1993) like usually with the behaviour of adverbs of quantity like for the most part in sentences that contain plural definites. We show that sentences containing the former type of Q-adverb evidence that Quantificational Variability Effects (Berman 1991) come about as an indirect effect of quantification over situations: in order for quantificational variability readings to arise, these sentences have to obey two newly observed constraints that clearly set them apart from sentences containing corresponding quantificational DPs, and that can plausibly be explained under the assumption that quantification over (the atomic parts of) complex situations is involved. Concerning sentences with the latter type of Q-adverb, on the other hand, such evidence is lacking: with respect to the constraints just mentioned, they behave like sentences that contain corresponding quantificational DPs. We take this as evidence that Q-adverbs like for the most part do not quantify over the atomic parts of sum eventualities in the cases under discussion (as claimed by Nakanishi and Romero (2004)), but rather over the atomic parts of the respective sum individuals.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Hinterwimmer2007,
  author    = {Hinterwimmer, Stefan},
  title     = {The interpretation of Universally Quantified DPs and singular definites in adverbially quantified sentences},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19401},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {This paper deals with the conditions under which singular definites, on the one hand, and universally quantified DPs, on the other hand, receive interpretations according to which the sets denoted by the NP-complements of the respective determiner vary with the situations quantified over by a Q-adverb. I show that in both cases such interpretations depend on the availability of situation predicates that are compatible with the presuppositions associated with the respective determiner, as co-variation in both cases comes about via the binding of a covert situation variable that is contained within the NP-complement of the respective determiner. Secondly, I offer an account for the observation 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, as far as word order is concerned. This is shown to follow from the fact that co-varying definites in contrast to universally quantified DPs are inherently focus-marked.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{EndrissHinterwimmer2004,
  author    = {Endriss, Cornelia and Hinterwimmer, Stefan},
  title     = {The influence of tense in adverbial quantification},
  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-8409},
  pages     = {121 -- 151},
  year      = {2004},
  abstract  = {We argue that there is a crucial difference between determiner and adverbial quantification. Following Herburger [2000] and von Fintel [1994], we assume that determiner quantifiers quantify over individuals and adverbial quantifiers over eventualities. While it is usually assumed that the semantics of sentences with determiner quantifiers and those with adverbial quantifiers basically come out the same, we will show by way of new data that quantification over events is more restricted than quantification over individuals. This is because eventualities in contrast to individuals have to be located in time which is done using contextual information according to a pragmatic resolution strategy. If the contextual information and the tense information given in the respective sentence contradict each other, the sentence is uninterpretable. We conclude that this is the reason why in these cases adverbial quantification, i.e. quantification over eventualities, is impossible whereas quantification over individuals is fine.},
  language  = {en}
}