@article{GrubicRenansDuah2018,
  author    = {Grubic, Mira and Renans, Agata and Duah, Reginald Akuoko},
  title     = {Focus, exhaustivity and existence in Akan, Ga and Ngamo},
  series = {Linguistics : an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences},
  volume    = {57},
  journal   = {Linguistics : an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {De Gruyter Mouton},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {0024-3949},
  doi       = {10.1515/ling-2018-0035},
  pages     = {221 -- 268},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {This paper discusses the relation between focus marking and focus interpretation in Akan (Kwa), Ga (Kwa), and Ngamo (West Chadic). In all three languages, there is a special morphosyntactically marked focus/background construction, as well as morphosyntactically unmarked focus. We present data stemming from original fieldwork investigatingwhether marked focus/background constructions in these three languages also have additional interpretative effects apart from standard focus interpretation. Crosslinguistically, different additional inferences have been found for marked focus constructions, e.g. contrast (e.g. Vallduvi, Enric \& Maria Vilkuna. 1997. On rheme and kontrast. In Peter Culicover \& Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax (Syntax and semantics 29), 79-108. New York: Academic Press; Hartmann, Katharina \& Malte Zimmermann. 2007b. In place -Out of place: Focus in Hausa. In Kerstin Schwabe \& Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form, 365-403. Amsterdam \& Philadelphia: John Benjamins.; Destruel, Emilie \& Leah Velleman. 2014. Refining contrast: Empirical evidence from the English it-cleft. In Christopher Pinon (ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 10, 197-214. Paris: Colloque de syntaxe et semantique a Paris (CSSP). http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss10/), exhaustivity (e.g. E. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2). 245-273.; Hartmann, Katharina \& Malte Zimmermann. 2007a. Exhaustivity marking in Hausa: A re-evaluation of the particle nee/cee. In Enoch O. Aboh, Katharina Hartmann \& Malte Zimmermann (eds.), Focus strategies in African languages: The interaction of focus and grammar in Niger-Congo and AfroAsiatic (Trends in Linguistics 191), 241-263. Berlin \& New York: Mouton de Gruyter.), and existence (e.g. Rooth, Mats. 1999. Association with focus or association with presupposition? In Peter Bosch \& Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 232-244. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.; von Fintel, Kai \& Lisa Matthewson. 2008. Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 25(1-2). 139-201). This paper investigates these three inferences. In Akan and Ga, the marked focus constructions are found to be contrastive, while in Ngamo, no effect of contrast was found. We also show that marked focus constructions in Ga and Akan trigger exhaustivity and existence presuppositions, while the marked construction in Ngamo merely gives rise to an exhaustive conversational implicature and does not trigger an existence presupposition. Instead, the marked construction in Ngamo merely indicates salience of the backgrounded part via a morphological background marker related to the definite determiner (Schuh, Russell G. 2005. Yobe state, Nigeria as a linguistic area. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31(2). 77-94; Guldemann, Tom. 2016. Maximal backgrounding = focus without (necessary) focus encoding. Studies in Language 40(3). 551590). The paper thus contributes to the understanding of the semantics of marked focus constructions across languages and points to the crosslinguistic variation in expressing and interpreting marked focus/background constructions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HenrichsElsnerElsneretal.2012,
  author    = {Henrichs, Ivanina and Elsner, Claudia and Elsner, Birgit and Gredeback, Gustaf},
  title     = {Goal salience affects infants' goal-directed gaze shifts},
  series = {Frontiers in psychology},
  volume    = {3},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-1078},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00391},
  pages     = {7},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Around their first year of life, infants are able to anticipate the goal of others' ongoing actions. For instance, 12-month-olds anticipate the goal of everyday feeding actions and manual actions such as reaching and grasping. However, little is known whether the salience of the goal influences infants' online assessment of others' actions. The aim of the current eye-tracking study was to elucidate infants' ability to anticipate reaching actions depending on the visual salience of the goal object. In Experiment 1, 12-month-old infants' goal-directed gaze shifts were recorded as they observed a hand reaching for and grasping either a large (high-salience condition) or a small (low-salience condition) goal object. Infants exhibited predictive gaze shifts significantly earlier when the observed hand reached for the large goal object compared to when it reached for the small goal object. In addition, findings revealed rapid learning over the course of trials in the high-salience condition and no learning in the low-salience condition. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the results could not be simply attributed to the different grip aperture of the hand used when reaching for small and large objects. Together, our data indicate that by the end of their first year of life, infants rely on information about the goal salience to make inferences about the action goal.},
  language  = {en}
}