@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}
}
@article{KueglerSkopeteasVerhoeven2007,
  author    = {K{\"u}gler, Frank and Skopeteas, Stavros and Verhoeven, Elisabeth},
  title     = {Encoding information structure in Yucatec Maya},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19469},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {The aim of this paper is to outline the means for encoding information structure in Yucatec Maya. Yucatec Maya is a tone language, displaying a three-fold opposition in the tonal realization of syllables. From the morpho-syntactic point of view, the grammar of Yucatec Maya contains morphological (topic affixes, morphological marking of out-of-focus predicates) and syntactic (designated positions) means to uniquely specify syntactic constructions for their information structure. After a descriptive overview of these phenomena, we present experimental evidence which reveals the impact of the nonavailability of prosodic alternatives on the choice of syntactic constructions in language production.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HellmuthSkopeteas2007,
  author    = {Hellmuth, Sam and Skopeteas, Stavros},
  title     = {Information structure in linguistic theory and in speech production : validation of a Cross-Linguistic data set},
  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-19450},
  pages     = {141 -- 186},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {The aim of this paper is to validate a dataset collected by means of production experiments which are part of the Questionnaire on Information Structure. The experiments generate a range of information structure contexts that have been observed in the literature to induce specific constructions. This paper compares the speech production results from a subset of these experiments with specific claims about the reflexes of information structure in four different languages. The results allow us to evaluate and in most cases validate the efficacy of our elicitation paradigms, to identify potentially fruitful avenues of future research, and to highlight issues involved in interpreting speech production data of this kind.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Schwarz2007,
  author    = {Schwarz, Anne},
  title     = {The particles l{\´e} and l{\´a} in the grammar of Konkomba},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19449},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {The paper investigates focus marking devices in the scarcely documented North-Ghanaian Gur language Konkomba. The two particles l{\´e} and l{\´a} occur under specific focus conditions and are therefore regarded as focus markers in the sparse literature. Comparing the distribution and obligatoriness of both alleged focus markers however, I show that one of the particles, l{\´e}, is better analyzed as a connective particle, i.e. as a syntactic rather than as a genuine pragmatic marker, and that comparable syntactic focus marking strategies for sentence-initial constituents are also known from related languages.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Fiedler2007,
  author    = {Fiedler, Ines},
  title     = {Focus expressions in Foodo},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19428},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {This paper aims at presenting different ways of expressing focus in Foodo, a Guang language. We can differentiate between marked and unmarked focus strategies. The marked focus expressions are first syntactically characterized: the focused constituent is in sentence-initial position and is second always marked obligatorily by a focus marker, which is nɩ for non-subjects and N for subjects. Complementary to these structures, Foodo knows an elliptic form consisting of the focused constituent and a predication marker gɛ́. It will be shown that the two focus markers can be analyzed as having developed out of the homophone conjunction nɩ and that the constraints on the use of the focus markers can be best explained by this fact.},
  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{Krifka2007,
  author    = {Krifka, Manfred},
  title     = {Functional similarities between bimanual coordination and topic/comment structure},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19416},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {Human manual action exhibits a differential use of a non-dominant (typically, left) and a dominant (typically, right) hand. Human communication exhibits a pervasive structuring of utterances into topic and comment. I will point out striking similarities between the coordination of hands in bimanual actions, and the structuring of utterances in topics and comments. I will also show how principles of bimanual coordination influence the expression of topic/comment structure in sign languages and in gestures accompanying spoken language, and suggest that bimanual coordination might have been a preadaptation of the development of information structure in human communication.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{AsherReese2007,
  author    = {Asher, Nicholas and Reese, Brian},
  title     = {Intonation and discourse},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19399},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {This paper surveys a range of constructions in which prosody affects discourse function and discourse structure.We discuss English tag questions, negative polar questions, and what we call "focus" questions. We postulate that these question types are complex speech acts and outline an analysis in Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT) to account for the interactions between prosody and discourse.},
  language  = {en}
}