@article{FeryIshihara2005, author = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Ishihara, Shinichiro}, title = {Phonetic correlates of Second occurrence Focus}, isbn = {1-4196-5252-4}, year = {2005}, 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{FeryIshihara2009, author = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Ishihara, Shinichiro}, title = {The phonology of second occurrence focus}, issn = {0022-2267}, doi = {10.1017/S0022226709005702}, year = {2009}, abstract = {This paper investigates the question of whether and how 'Second Occurrence Focus' (SOF) is realized phonetically in German. The apparent lack of phonetic marking on SOF has raised much discussion oil the semantic theory Of focus (Partee 1999, Rooth 1992). Some researchers have reported the existence of phonetic marking of SOF in the postnuclear area (Rooth 1996, Beaver et al. 2007). In our experimental study with German sentences, we examined sentences both with prenuclear SOF and with postnuclear SOF, comparing them with their first occurrence focus (FOF) and non-focus counterparts. The results show that the phonetic prominence of focus (higher pitch/longer duration) is realized differently according to the type of focus as well as according to the position of the target expression. We account for these differences by considering several phonetic effects, those that are information-structure-related and those that are phonologically motivated.}, language = {en} } @article{FeryIshihara2010, author = {F{\´e}ry, Caroline and Ishihara, Shinichiro}, title = {How focus and givennes shape prosody}, isbn = {978-0-19-957095-9}, year = {2010}, language = {en} } @article{Ishihara2009, author = {Ishihara, Shinichiro}, title = {Interpreting the CCD prosodically}, issn = {0301-4428}, doi = {10.1515/Thli.2009.017}, year = {2009}, language = {en} } @article{GenzelIshiharaSuranyi2015, author = {Genzel, Susanne and Ishihara, Shinichiro and Suranyi, Balazs}, title = {The prosodic expression of focus, contrast and givenness: A production study of Hungarian}, series = {Lingua : international review of general linguistics}, volume = {165}, journal = {Lingua : international review of general linguistics}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0024-3841}, doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.010}, pages = {183 -- 204}, year = {2015}, abstract = {This paper reports the results of a production experiment that explores the prosodic realization of focus in Hungarian, a language that is characterized by obligatory syntactic focus marking. Our study investigates narrow focus in sentences in which focus is unambiguously marked by syntactic means, comparing it to broad focus sentences. Potential independent effects of the salience (textual givenness) of the background of the narrow focus and the contrastiveness of the focus are controlled for and are also examined. The results show that both continuous phonetic measures and categorical factors such as the distribution of contour types are affected by the focus-related factors, despite the presence of syntactic focus marking. The phonetic effects found are mostly parallel to those of typical prosodic focus marking languages like English. The prosodic prominence required of focus is realized through changes to the scaling and slope of F0 targets and contours. The asymmetric prominence relation between the focus and the background can be expressed not only by the phonetic marking of the prominence of the focused element, but also by the phonetic marking of the reduced prominence of the background. Furthermore, contrastiveness of focus and (textual) givenness of the background show independent phonetic effects, both of them affecting the realization of the background. These results are argued to shed light on alternative approaches to the information structural notion of contrastive focus and the relation between the notions of focus and givenness. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.}, language = {en} } @article{Ishihara2004, author = {Ishihara, Shinichiro}, title = {Prosody by phase}, 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-8391}, pages = {77 -- 119}, year = {2004}, abstract = {Japanese wh-questions always exhibit focus intonation (FI). Furthermore, the domain of FI exhibits a correspondence to the wh-scope. I propose that this phonology-semantics correspondence is a result of the cyclic computation of FI, which is explained under the notion of Multiple Spell-Out in the recent Minimalist framework. The proposed analysis makes two predictions: (1) embedding of an FI into another is possible; (2) (overt) movement of a wh-phrase to a phase edge position causes a mismatch between FI and wh-scope. Both predictions are tested experimentally, and shown to be borne out.}, language = {en} }