@article{BevacquaScheffler2020,
  author    = {Bevacqua, Luca and Scheffler, Tatjana},
  title     = {Form variation of pronominal it-clefts in written English},
  series = {Linguistics vanguard},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Linguistics vanguard},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {De Gruyter},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {2199-174X},
  doi       = {10.1515/lingvan-2019-0066},
  pages     = {15},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Clefts are well-studied as a construction which induces emphasis on its clefted referent. However, little is known about the distribution of different stylistic forms of it-cleft variants. We report on a corpus study mining data from Twitter, targeting sentences clefting a pronoun in English. We examine the following features: case and syntactic role of the clefted pronoun, contraction of the copula, choice of complementiser and use of emphasis markers. The results show systematic associations between these features. A further comparison between the Twitter dataset and data from iWeb, a corpus of general-use web language, shows significant differences in levels of emphasis and formality, positioning Twitter language in the middle of the conceptual orality spectrum.},
  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}
}
@article{PattersonEsaulovaFelser2017,
  author    = {Patterson, Clare and Esaulova, Yulia and Felser, Claudia},
  title     = {The impact of focus on pronoun resolution in native and non-native sentence comprehension},
  series = {Second language research},
  volume    = {33},
  journal   = {Second language research},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0267-6583},
  doi       = {10.1177/0267658317697786},
  pages     = {403 -- 429},
  year      = {2017},
  language  = {en}
}