TY - JOUR A1 - Kasimir, Elke T1 - Question-answer test and givenness BT - some question marks JF - Interdisciplinary studies on information structure : ISIS ; working papers of the SFB 632 N2 - In order to investigate the empirical properties of focus, it is necessary to diagnose focus (or: "what is focused") in particular linguistic examples. It is often taken for granted that the application of one single diagnostic tool, the so-called question-answer test, which roughly says that whatever a question asks for is focused in the answer, is a fool-proof test for focus. This paper investigates one example class where such uncritical belief in the question-answer test has led to the assumption of rather complex focus projection rules: in these examples, pitch accent placement has been claimed to depend on certain parts of the focused constituents being given or not. It is demonstrated that such focus projection rules are unnecessarily complex and in turn require the assumption of unnecessarily complicated meaning rules, not to speak of the difficulties to give a precise semantic/pragmatic definition of the allegedly involved givenness property. For the sake of the argument, an alternative analysis is put forward which relies solely on alternative sets following Mats Rooth's work, and avoids any recourse to givenness. As it turns out, this alternative analysis is not only simpler but also makes in a critical case the better predictions. KW - focus KW - givenness Y1 - 2005 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-8698 SN - 1866-4725 SN - 1614-4708 IS - 3 SP - 1 EP - 52 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Hartmann, Katharina T1 - Focus and Tone N2 - Tone is a distinctive feature of the lexemes in tone languages. The information-structural category focus is usually marked by syntactic and morphological means in these languages, but sometimes also by intonation strategies. In intonation languages, focus is marked by pitch movements, which are also perceived as tone. The present article discusses prosodic focus marking in these two language types. KW - Tone (language) KW - intonation (language) KW - focus KW - pitch accent KW - prosodic phrasing Y1 - 2007 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19729 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Gueldemann, Tom A1 - Zerbian, Sabine A1 - Zimmermann, Malte ED - Liberman, M ED - Partee, BH T1 - Variation in information structure with special reference to Africa JF - Annual review of linguistics JF - Annual Review of Linguistics N2 - Information structure has been one of the central topics of recent linguistic research. This review discusses a wide range of current approaches with particular reference to African languages, as these have been playing a crucial role in advancing our knowledge about the diversity of and recurring patterns in both meaning and form of information structural notions. We focus on cross-linguistic functional frameworks, the investigation of prosody, formal syntactic theories, and relevant effects of semantic interpretation. Information structure is a thriving research domain that promises to yield important advances in our general understanding of human language. KW - contrast KW - focus KW - formal syntax KW - prosody KW - theticity KW - topic KW - semantics KW - focus sensitivity Y1 - 2015 SN - 978-0-8243-4201-2 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125134 SN - 2333-9691 VL - 1 SP - 155 EP - 178 PB - Annual Reviews CY - Palo Alto ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Grubic, Mira A1 - Renans, Agata A1 - Duah, Reginald Akuoko T1 - Focus, exhaustivity and existence in Akan, Ga and Ngamo JF - Linguistics : an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences N2 - 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. KW - focus KW - cleft KW - contrast KW - exhaustivity KW - existence presupposition KW - salience Y1 - 2018 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0035 SN - 0024-3949 SN - 1613-396X VL - 57 IS - 1 SP - 221 EP - 268 PB - De Gruyter Mouton CY - Berlin ER - TY - THES A1 - Grubic, Mira T1 - Focus and alternative sensitivity in Ngamo (West-Chadic) T1 - Fokus und Alternativensensitivität in Ngamo (Westtschadisch) N2 - The main research question of this thesis concerns the relation between focus interpretation, focus realization, and association with focus in the West Chadic language Ngamo. Concerning the relation between focus realization and interpretation, this thesis contributes to the question, cross-linguistically, what factors influence a marked realization of the focus/background distinction. There is background-marking rather than focus-marking in Ngamo, and the background marker is related to the definite determiner in the language. Using original fieldwork data as a basis, a formal semantic analysis of the background marker as a definite determiner of situations is proposed. Concerning the relation between focus and association with focus, the thesis adds to the growing body of crosslinguistic evidence that not all so-called focus-sensitive operators always associate with focus. The thesis shows that while the exclusive particle yak('i) (= "only") in Ngamo conventionally associates with focus, the particles har('i) (= "even, as far as, until, already"), and ke('e) (= "also, and") do not. The thesis provides an analysis of these phenomena in a situation semantic framework. N2 - Diese Arbeit untersucht die Verbindung zwischen Fokusinterpretation, Fokusrealisierung und Assoziation mit Fokus in der westtschadischen Sprache Ngamo. Was den Zusammenhang zwischen Fokusinterpretation und -realisierung angeht, leistet diese Arbeit einen Beitrag zu der Frage, welche Faktoren in verschiedenen Sprachen für markierte Realisierung von Fokus zuständig sind. Ngamo ist in diesem Zusammenhang besonders interessant, da es Hintergrundierung statt Fokus markiert (Schuh, 2005). Was den Zusammenhang zwischen Fokus und Assoziation mit Fokus angeht, liefert die Arbeit weitere Evidenz dafür, dass sogenannte fokussensitive Partikeln nicht in allen Sprachen obligatorisch mit Fokus assoziieren müssen. Sie zeigt dass obwohl die Partikel yak'i ("nur") in Ngamo konventionell mit Fokus assoziiert, die Partikeln har('i) (= "sogar, bis, schon") und ke('e) (= "auch, und") dies nicht tun. Die Arbeit analysiert diese Phänomene mit Hilfe eines situationssemantischen Ansatzes. KW - focus KW - focus-sensitivity KW - formal semantics KW - African languages KW - definiteness KW - situation semantics KW - Fokus KW - Fokussensitivität KW - formale Semantik KW - Situationssemantik KW - afrikanische Sprachen Y1 - 2015 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-81666 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Gotzner, Nicole A1 - Spalek, Katharina T1 - Expectations about upcoming discourse referents BT - Effects of pitch accents and focus particles in German language production JF - International review of pragmatics : IRP N2 - In the current study, we explore how different information-structural devices affect which referents conversational partners expect in the upcoming discourse. Our main research question is how pitch accents (H*, L+H*) and focus particles (German nur `only' and auch 'also') affect speakers' choices to mention focused referents, previously mentioned alternatives or new, inferable alternatives. Participants in our experiment were presented with short discourses involving two referents and were asked to orally produce two sentences that continue the story. An analysis of speakers' continuations showed that participants were most likely to mention a contextual alternative in the condition with only and the L+H* conditions, followed by H* conditions. In the condition with also, in turn, participants mentioned both the focused/accented referent and the contextual alternative. Our findings highlight the importance of information structure for discourse management and suggest that speakers take activated alternatives to be relevant for an unfolding discourse. KW - information structure KW - linguistics focus KW - pitch accents KW - focus KW - alternatives KW - discourse expectations Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01401003 SN - 1877-3095 SN - 1877-3109 VL - 14 IS - 1 SP - 77 EP - 94 PB - Brill CY - Leiden ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Gotzner, Nicole A1 - Romoli, Jacopo T1 - Meaning and alternatives JF - Annual review of linguistics N2 - Alternatives and competition in language are pervasive at all levels of linguistic analysis. More specifically, alternatives have been argued to play a prominent role in an ever-growing class of phenomena in the investigation of natural language meaning. In this article, we focus on scalar implicatures, as they are arguably the most paradigmatic case of an alternative-based phenomenon. We first review the main challenge for theories of alternatives, the so-called symmetry problem, and we briefly discuss how it has shaped the different approaches to alternatives. We then turn to two more recent challenges concerning scalar diversity and the inferences of sentences with multiple scalars. Finally, we describe several related alternative-based phenomena and recent conceptual approaches to alternatives. As we discuss, while important progress has been made, much more work is needed both on the theoretical side and on understanding the empirical landscape better. KW - alternatives KW - scalar implicatures KW - symmetry problem KW - focus KW - polarity KW - sensitivity KW - negative strengthening Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031220-012013 SN - 2333-9691 SN - 2333-9683 VL - 8 SP - 213 EP - 234 PB - Annual Reviews CY - Palo Alto ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Chen, Aoju A1 - Höhle, Barbara T1 - Four- to five-year-old' use of word order and prosody in focus marking in Dutch JF - Linguistics Vanguard N2 - This study investigated Dutch-speaking four- to five-year-olds’ use of word order and prosody in distinguishing focus types (broad focus, narrow focus, and contrastive narrow focus) via an interactive answer-reconstruction game. We have found an overall preference for the unmarked word order SVO and no evidence for the use of OVS to distinguish focus types. But the children used pitch and duration in the subject-nouns to distinguish focus types in SVO sentences. These findings show that Dutch-speaking four- to five-year-olds differ from their German- and Finnish-speaking peers, who show evidence of varying choice of word order to mark specific focus types, and use prosody to distinguish focus types in subject and object nouns in both SVO and OVS sentences. These comparisons suggest that typological differences in the relative importance between word order and prosody can lead to differences in children’s use of word order and prosody in unmarked and marked word orders. A more equal role of word order and prosody in the ambient language can stimulate more extensive use of prosody in the marked word order, whereas a more limited role of word order can restrict the use of prosody in the unmarked word order. KW - information structure KW - Dutch-speaking children KW - word order KW - prosody KW - focus Y1 - 2018 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0101 SN - 2199-174X VL - 4 PB - De Gruyter CY - Berlin ER - TY - THES A1 - Atasoy, Atilla T1 - Production, perception, and processing of focus in Turkish N2 - The main goal of this dissertation is to experimentally investigate how focus is realised, perceived, and processed by native Turkish speakers, independent of preconceived notions of positional restrictions. Crucially, there are various issues and scientific debates surrounding focus in the Turkish language in the existing literature (chapter 1). It is argued in this dissertation that two factors led to the stagnant literature on focus in Turkish: the lack of clearly defined, modern understandings of information structure and its fundamental notion of focus, and the ongoing and ill-defined debate surrounding the question of whether there is an immediately preverbal focus position in Turkish. These issues gave rise to specific research questions addressed across this dissertation. Specifically, we were interested in how the focus dimensions such as focus size (comparing narrow constituent and broad sentence focus), focus target (comparing narrow subject and narrow object focus), and focus type (comparing new-information and contrastive focus) affect Turkish focus realisation and, in turn, focus comprehension when speakers are provided syntactic freedom to position focus as they see fit. To provide data on these core goals, we presented three behavioural experiments based on a systematic framework of information structure and its notions (chapter 2): (i) a production task with trigger wh-questions and contextual animations manipulated to elicit the focus dimensions of interest (chapter 3), (ii) a timed acceptability judgment task in listening to the recorded answers in our production task (chapter 4), and (iii) a self-paced reading task to gather on-line processing data (chapter 5). Based on the results of the conducted experiments, multiple conclusions are made in this dissertation (chapter 6). Firstly, this dissertation demonstrated empirically that there is no focus position in Turkish, neither in the sense of a strict focus position language nor as a focally loaded position facilitating focus perception and/or processing. While focus is, in fact, syntactically variable in the Turkish preverbal area, this is a consequence of movement triggered by other IS aspects like topicalisation and backgrounding, and the observational markedness of narrow subject focus compared to narrow object focus. As for focus type in Turkish, this dimension is not associated with word order in production, perception, or processing. Significant acoustic correlates of focus size (broad sentence focus vs narrow constituent focus) and focus target (narrow subject focus vs narrow object focus) were observed in fundamental frequency and intensity, representing focal boost, (postfocal) deaccentuation, and the presence or absence of a phrase-final rise in the prenucleus, while the perceivability of these effects remains to be investigated. In contrast, no acoustic correlates of focus type in simple, three-word transitive structures were observed, with focus types being interchangeable in mismatched question-answer pairs. Overall, the findings of this dissertation highlight the need for experimental investigations regarding focus in Turkish, as theoretical predictions do not necessarily align with experimental data. As such, the fallacy of implying causation from correlation should be strictly kept in mind, especially when constructions coincide with canonical structures, such as the immediately preverbal position in narrow object foci. Finally, numerous open questions remain to be explored, especially as focus and word order in Turkish are multifaceted. As shown, givenness is a confounding factor when investigating focus types, while thematic role assignment potentially confounds word order preferences. Further research based on established, modern information structure frameworks is needed, with chapter 5 concluding with specific recommendations for such future research. N2 - Das Hauptziel dieser Dissertation war die experimentelle Untersuchung, wie Muttersprachler des Türkischen Fokus realisieren, wahrnehmen und sprachlich verarbeiten, unabhängig von vorgefassten Meinungen betreffend Positionsbeschränkungen. Entscheidend ist, dass es in der vorhandenen Literatur verschiedene Probleme und wissenschaftliche Debatten zum Thema Fokus in der türkischen Sprache gibt (Kapitel 1). In dieser Dissertation wird argumentiert, dass zwei Faktoren zu der stagnierenden Forschung zum Thema Fokus im Türkischen beitrugen: Das Fehlen eines klar definierten modernen Verständnisses der Informationsstruktur und ihres grundlegenden Begriffs von Fokus und die anhaltende und unklare Debatte um die Frage, ob es im Türkischen eine unmittelbar präverbale Fokusposition gibt. Diese Probleme führten zu den jeweiligen Forschungsfragen, die in dieser Dissertation behandelt wurden. Ausdrücklich lag das Interesse darauf, wie die Fokusdimensionen Fokusgröße, der Vergleich von schmalem Fokus (narrow focus) auf der Konstituente und breitem, projiziertem Fokus (broad focus) auf dem Satz, Fokusziel, der Vergleich von schmalem Subjektfokus und Objektfokus, und Fokustyp, der Vergleich von Fokus auf neuer Information (new-inforamtion focus) und Kontrastfokus, die Fokusrealisierung und -wahrnehmung im Türkischen beeinflussen, wenn den Sprechern syntaktische Freiheit gegeben wird Fokus nach Belieben im Satz zu positionieren. Basierend auf einen systematischen theoretischen Rahmen der Informationsstruktur und ihrer Begriffe (Kapitel 2), wurden drei Verhaltensexperimente in dieser Dissertation präsentiert, um Daten zu diesen Kernzielen vorzulegen: (i) ein Produktionsexperiment mit Fragen und kontextbezogenen Animationen als Trigger manipuliert, um die obengenannten Fokusdimensionen zu untersuchen, (ii) ein zeitlich gemessenes Akzeptanzexperiment (timed acceptability judgment task) beim Anhören der Antworten aufgezeichnet in unserem Produktionsexperiment und (iii) ein selbstbestimmtes Leseexperiment (self-paced reading task) zur Untersuchung der sprachlichen Verarbeitung (on-line language processing). Auf der Grundlage der Ergebnisse der durchgeführten Experimente werden in dieser Dissertation mehrere Schlussfolgerungen gezogen (Kapitel 6). Diese Dissertation hat zum einen empirisch nachgewiesen, dass es im Türkischen keine Fokusposition gibt, weder im Sinne einer strikten Fokusposition noch als fokal geladene Position, die die Fokuswahrnehmung und/oder -verarbeitung erleichtert. Während Fokus im türkischen präverbalen Bereich tatsächlich syntaktisch variabel ist, ist dies eine Folge syntaktischer Strategien anderer IS-Aspekte, wie etwa Topikalisierung und Hintergrundbildung (backgrounding), wie auch die additive Kennzeichnung schmaler Subjektfokusse im Vergleich zum Objektfokus. Was Fokustyp im Türkischen betrifft, ist diese Fokusdimension nicht mit Wortstellung in Produktion, Wahrnehmung oder Verarbeitung assoziiert. Signifikante akustische Korrelate der Fokusgröße (breiter Satzfokus vs. schmalen Konstituentenfokus) und Fokusziel (schmaler Subjektfokus vs. schmalen Objektfokus) in Grundfrequenz und Intensität in Form von Fokusverstärkung (focal boost), (postfokaler) Deakzentuierung und dem Vorhandensein oder Fehlen eines phrasenfinalen Anstiegs im Pränukleus wurden beobachtet, während die Wahrnehmbarkeit dieser Effekte noch zu untersuchen ist. Im Gegensatz dazu wurden keine akustischen Korrelate für Fokustyp in simplen transitiven Dreiwortstrukturen beobachtet, wobei Fokustypen in nicht übereinstimmenden Frage-Antwort-Paaren austauschbar waren. Insgesamt unterstreichen die oben skizzierten Ergebnisse dieser Dissertation die Notwendigkeit experimenteller Untersuchungen zu Fokus im Türkischen, da theoretische Vorhersagen nicht immer mit experimentellen Daten übereinstimmen. Der Trugschluss, dass Korrelation Kausalität impliziert, sollte strikt im Auge behalten werden, insbesondere wenn Konstruktionen mit kanonischen Strukturen übereinstimmen, wie etwa die unmittelbar präverbale Position in schmalen Objektfokussen. Schließlich sind noch zahlreiche offene Fragen zu klären, zumal Fokus und Wortstellung im Türkischen vielfältig sind. Wie in dieser Dissertation gezeigt wurde, ist Gegebenheit ein Störfaktor in der Untersuchung von Fokustypen. Ebenfalls ist zu vermuten, dass thematische Rollenzuweisung im Türkischen Präferenzen in Wortstellung hervorrufen können, die als Fokuseffekte fehlinterpretiert werden könnten. Weitere Forschung auf der Grundlage etablierter theoretischer Informationsstrukturrahmen ist erforderlich. Kapitel 5 schließt mit konkreten Empfehlungen für solche zukünftigen Untersuchungen ab. T2 - Produktion, Wahrnehmung und Verarbeitung von Fokus im Türkischen KW - focus KW - information structure KW - Turkish KW - focus realisation KW - Türkisch KW - Fokus KW - Fokusrealisierung KW - Informationsstruktur Y1 - 2022 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-548156 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Abusch, Dorit T1 - Focus presuppositions N2 - This paper reviews notions related to focus and presupposition and addresses the hypothesis that focus triggers an existential presupposition. Presupposition projection behavior in certain examples appears to favor a presuppositional analysis of focus. It is argued that these examples are open to a different analysis using givenness theory. Overall, the analysis favors a weak semantics for focus not including an existential presupposition. KW - focus KW - presupposition KW - alternative semantics presupposition projection KW - givenness Y1 - 2007 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-19663 ER -