Cover not available

In:When Data Challenges Theory: Unexpected and paradoxical evidence in information structure
Edited by Davide Garassino and Daniel Jacob
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 273] 2022
► pp. 1–36

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Introduction
When data challenges theory

The analysis of information structure and its paradoxes

 | University of Zurich | ZHAW, Winterthur
 | University of Freiburg
Published online: 22 February 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.273.00gar
Abstract
This article provides a comprehensive survey on current research on information structure so as to clarify some ‘paradoxical’ effects stemming from the tension between data and theory. Paradoxes are here defined as unexpected data in light of certain assumptions held in mainstream literature. More specifically, we explore two possible sources of paradoxes: certain features of the experimental design and, above all, inadequate discourse models. Mainly considering dislocation and cleft sentences in French and Italian we suggest that some apparent paradoxes (such as non-focalizing clefts or dislocation expressing focus-related functions) can be conceived of as the effect of general pragmatic mechanisms and rhetorical strategies exploited by speakers. We also claim that these effects can be better understood through explicit models of discourse.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Information structure and discourse organization
    • 2.1Common ground
    • 2.2Information structure and (implicit) questions
    • 2.3Alternatives and types of focus
  • 3.The ‘building blocks’ of information structure
  • 4.The realization of information structure and its ‘natural paradoxes’
    • 4.1Information structure and prosody
    • 4.2The IS-prosody-syntax triangle
    • 4.3‘Non-canonical’ syntax: Left dislocation and cleft sentences in French and Italian
      • 4.3.1Left dislocation
      • 4.3.2Cleft sentences
  • 5.Conclusion and overview of the volume
    • 5.1As a way of conclusion
    • 5.2Contributions to this volume
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (125)
References
Angermuller, Johannes, Maingueneau, Dominique & Wodak, Ruth. 2014. The Discourse Studies Reader: An introduction. In The Discourse Studies Reader, Johannes Angermuller, Dominique Maingueneau & Ruth Wodak (eds), 2–14. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia. In press. The Autosegmental-Metrical model of intonational phonology. In Prosodic Theory and Practice. Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel & Jonathan Barnes (eds). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. <[URL]> (11 June 2021).
Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baumann, Stefan, Grice, Martine & Steindamm, Susanne. 2006. Prosodic marking of focus domains – categorical or gradient? In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006, 301–304. <[URL]> (11 June 2021).
Baumann, Stefan & Riester, Arndt. 2012. Referential and lexical givenness: Semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects. In Prosody and Meaning, Gorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (eds), 119–162. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beaver, David I. & Clark, Brady Z. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berretta, Monica. 2002. “Quello che voglio dire è che”: le scisse da strutture topicalizzanti a connettivi testuali. In La parola al testo. Scritti per Bice Mortara Garavelli, Gian Luigi Beccaria & Carla Marello (eds), 15–31, Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Bocci, Giuliano & Cruschina, Silvio. 2015. Focus fronting and its implicatures. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2013. Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’, Enoch O. Aboh, Jeannette Schaeffer & Petra Sleeman (ed), 3–19. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and evaluative implicatures. Semantics and Pragmatics 9(3): 1–54.
Borreguero Zuloaga, Margarita. 2016. Elementi anaforici e frasi scisse nei testi giornalistici contemporanei. In La lingua variabile nei testi letterari, artistici e funzionali contemporanei (1915–2014): analisi, interpretazione, traduzione, Giovanni Ruffino (ed), 529–542. Firenze, Franco Cesati.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brunetti, Lisa. 2009. On links and tails in Italian. Lingua 119(5): 756–781.
Brunetti, Lisa & Avanzi, Mathieu. 2017. Discourse properties of French clitic left dislocated NPs and their effect on prosody. Ms. <[URL]> (11 June 2021).
Bühler, Karl. 2011. Theory of Language. The Representational Function of Language. [Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: G. Fischer, 1934]. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 511–545.
. 2016. (Contrastive) Topic. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 64–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cantini, Andrea & Bruni, Riccardo. 2017. Paradoxes and contemporary logic. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed). <[URL]> (11 June 2021).
Cartoni, Bruno & Meyer, Thomas. 2012. Extracting directional and comparable corpora from a multilingual corpus for translation studies. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Uğur Doğan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds), 2132–2137. Paris: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed), 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1994. Discourse in production. In Handbook of Psycholinguistics, Morton A. Gernsbacher (ed), 985–1021. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela. 2018. The illocution-prosody relationship and the Information Pattern in spontaneous speech according to the Language into Act Theory (L-AcT). Linguistik Online, 88(1).
Cruschina, Silvio. 2019. Focus Fronting in Spanish: Mirative implicature and information structure. Probus 31(1): 119–146.
De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2011–2018. Contrast-It, University of Basel. <[URL]> (11 June 2021).
. 2017. Cleft constructions. In Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax [Manuals of Romance Linguistics 17], Elisabeth Stark & Andreas Dufter (eds), 536–568. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. È con piacere che … / C’est avec plaisir que … On Italian and French manner adverbial clefts expressing emotional states. In Pour une perspective fonctionnelle des constructions syntaxiques marquées [Special issue], Anna-Maria De Cesare & Mervi Helkkula (eds). Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 120: 429–448.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. This volume. To be or not to be focus adverbials? A corpus-driven study of It. anche in spontaneous spoken Italian. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
De Cesare, Anna-Maria, Garassino, Davide, Agar Marco, Rocío, Albom, Ana & Cimmino, Doriana. 2016. Sintassi marcata dell’italiano contemporaneo in prospettiva contrastiva con il francese, lo spagnolo, il tedesco e l’inglese. Uno studio basato sulla scrittura dei quotidiani online. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1984. The pragmatics of it-clefts and wh-clefts. Lingua 64(4): 251–289.
. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-clefts. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Kuthy, Kordula, Brunetti, Lisa & Berardi, Marta. 2019. In Proceedings of the 13th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, 113–123. <[URL]> (11 June 2021).
Delin, Judith. 1992. Properties of it-cleft presupposition. Journal of Semantics 9: 179–196.
Delin, Judith & Oberlander, Jon. 1995. Syntactic constraints on discourse structure: The case of it-clefts. Linguistics 33: 465–500.
Destruel, Emilie. 2012. The French c’est-cleft: An empirical study on its meaning and use. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9, Christopher Piñon (ed), 95–112. <[URL]> (11 June 2021).
Destruel, Emilie & Féry, Caroline. 2020. Prominence in French dual focus. Language and Speech 64(2): 319–345.
Dryer, Matthew S. 1996. Focus, pragmatic presupposition, and activated propositions. Journal of Pragmatics 26(4): 475–523.
2006. Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory. In Catching Language: Issues in Grammar Writing, Felix Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds), 207–234. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dufter, Andreas. 2008. On explaining the rise of c’est-clefts in French. In The Paradox of Grammatical Change, Ulrich Detges & Richard Waltereit (eds), 31–56. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Clefting and discourse organization: Comparing Germanic and Romance. In Focus and Background in Romance Languages, Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 83–121. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dufter, Andreas & Gabriel, Christoph. 2016. Information structure, prosody, and word order. In Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance [Manuals of Romance Linguistics 10], Susann Fischer & Christoph Gabriel (eds), 419–455. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2): 245–273.
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences (32): 429–492.
Face, Timothy & D’Imperio, Mariapaola. 2005. Reconsidering a focal typology: Evidence from Spanish and Italian. Italian Journal of Linguistics 17(2): 271–289.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2003. Topicalizzazione e ripresa clitica. Analisi sincronica, confronto diacronico e considerazioni tipologiche. In Italia linguistica anno Mille. Italia linguistica anno Duemila, Nicoletta Maraschio & Teresa Poggi Salani (eds), 547–562. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Dislocations and Framings. In Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax [Manuals of Romance Linguistics 17], Elisabeth Stark & Andreas Dufter (eds), 472–501. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Ramaglia, Francesca. 2013. Pseudoclefts at the Syntax-Prosody-Discourse Interface. In The Structure of Clefts, Katherina Hartmann & Tonjes Veenstra (eds), 97–138. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garassino, Davide. 2014. Reverse pseudo-clefts in Italian and English. A contrastive analysis. In Tra romanistica e germanistica: lingua, testo, cognizione e cultura / Between Romance and Germanic: Language, Text, Cognition, and Culture, Iørn Korzen, Angela Ferrari & Anna-Maria De Cesare (eds), 55–74. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Using Cleft sentences in Italian and English. A multifactorial analysis. In Current Issues in Italian, Romance and Germanic Non-canonical Word Orders. Syntax – Information Structure – Discourse Organization, Anna-Maria De Cesare & Davide Garassino (eds), 181–204. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. This volume. Translation as a source of pragmatic interference? An empirical investigation of French and Italian cleft sentences. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Garassino, Davide & Jacob, Daniel. 2018. Polarity Focus and non-canonical syntax in Italian, French and Spanish. Clitic left dislocation and sì che / sí que-constructions. In The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast. Theoretical, Empirical, and Typological Approaches, Christine Dimroth & Stefan Sudhoff (eds), 227–254. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
García García, Marco & Uth, Melanie. 2018. Introduction. Core issues of focus realization in Romance. In Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond, Marco García García & Melanie Uth (eds), 1–30. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2012. The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin. 1991. Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100.
Gundel, Jeanette K. & Fretheim, Thorstein. 2004. Topic and focus. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 175–195. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde. 2010. Adjunct Adverbials in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy & Fadden, Lorna. 2007. The information structure of it-clefts, wh-clefts and reverse wh-clefts in English. In The Grammar Pragmatics Interface: Essays in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel, Nancy Hedberg & Robert Zacharski (eds), 49–76. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heidinger, Steffen. 2018. Acceptability and frequency in Spanish focus marking. In Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond, Marco García García & Melanie Uth (eds), 99–128. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Höhle, Tilman N. 1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Linguistische Berichte Sonderhefte (Vol. 4), Jacobs Joachim (ed), 112–141. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Horton, William S. & Gerrig, Richard J. 2016. Revisiting the memory-based processing approach to common ground. In Memory and Common Ground Processes in Language [Special Issue], Sarah Brown-Schmidt, Melissa C. Duft & William S. Horton (eds). Topics 8(4): 780–795.
Jacob, Daniel. 2015. Anaphorische Spaltsätze im Französischen: Grammatik – Text – Rhetorik. In Informationsstrukturen im Kontrast, Séverine Adam, Michael Schecker & Daniel Jacob (eds), 101–122. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2001. The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39(4): 641–681.
Kamp, Hans, van Genabith, Josef & Reyle, Uwe. 2011. Discourse Representation Theory. In The Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 15, Dov M. Gabbay & Franz Guenthner (eds), 124–394. Dordrecht: Springer.
Karssenberg, Lena. 2018. Non-Prototypical Clefts in French. A Corpus Analysis of “il y a” clefts. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena & Lahousse, Karen. 2018. The information structure of French il y a & c’est clefts: A corpus-based analysis. Linguistics 56(3): 513–548.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed), 305–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang & Von Stutterheim, Christiane. 1992. Textstruktur und referentielle Bewegung. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 86: 67–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koehn, Philipp. 2005. Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit X, 79–86.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. The representation of focus. In Semantik / Semantics. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Armin von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 825–834. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kratzer, Angelika & Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2020. Deconstructing information structure. Glossa 5(1): 113, 1–53.
Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In Architecture of Focus, Victoria Molnar, & Susanne Winkler (eds), 105–136. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4): 243–276.
Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate. 2012. Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In The Expression of Information Structure, Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds), 1–44. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Ladd, Robert D. 2008. Intonational Phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lahousse, Karen & Lamiroy, Béatrice. 2015. “C’est ainsi que”: grammaticalisation ou lexicalisation ou les deux à la fois? Journal of French Language Studies 27: 161–185.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39(3): 463–516.
Larrivée, Pierre. This volume. The curious case of the rare focus movement in French. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Leonetti, Manuel & Escandell-Vidal, Maria Victoria. 2009. Fronting and verum focus in Spanish. In Focus and Background in Romance Languages, Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 155–204. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed), 459–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo. This volume. Distinguishing psychological Given/New from linguistic Topic/Focus makes things clearer. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Masia, Viviana. This volume. Remarks on Information Structure marking asymmetries: The epistemological view on the micropragmatic profile of utterances. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Matić, Dejan. This volume. Alternatives to information structure. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Matić, Dejan & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2018. From polarity focus to salient polarity: From things to processes. In The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast. Theoretical, Empirical, and Typological Approaches, Christine Dimroth & Stefan Sudhoff (eds), 9–53. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Matić, Dejan & Wedgwood, Daniel. 2013. The meaning of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49: 127–163.
Mertens, Piet. 2012. La prosodie des clivées. In Penser les langues avec Claire Blanche-Benveniste, Sandrine Caddéo, Marie-Noëlle Roubaud, Magali Rouquier & Frédéric Sabio (eds), 127–139. Aix-en-Provence: Presses Universitaires de Provence.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Vermeulen, Reiko. 2012. The syntactic expression of information structure. In The Syntax of Topic, Focus, and Contrast. An Interface-based Approach, Ad Neeleman & Reiko Vermeulen (eds), 1–38. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Onea, Edgar. 2016. Potential Questions at the Semantic-Pragmatic Interface. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel. 2018. Tracing the sources of Information Structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics 138: 77–97.
. 2021. Multifactorial Information Management (MIM): Summing up the emerging alternative to information structure. Linguistics Vanguard 7(1).
Patten, Amanda L. 2012. The English It-cleft: A Constructional Approach and a Diachronic Investigation. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Paul, Hermann. 1898. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle (Saale): Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, De Stefani, Elwis, & Horlacher, Anne-Sylvie. 2015. Time and Emergence in Grammar. Dislocation, Topicalization and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Primus, Beatrice. 2010. Case marking typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed), 303–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A comparison of WH-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54: 883–906. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed), 233–255. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2016. Contrast: Dissecting an elusive information-structural notion and its role in grammar. Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 270–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riester, Arndt. 2015. Analyzing Questions under Discussion and information structure in a Balinese narrative. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Information Structure of Austronesian Languages, Linguistics Dynamics Science Project 2, 1–26. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Constructing QUD trees. In Questions in Discourse. Vol. 2: Pragmatics, Malte Zimmermann, Klaus von Heusinger & Edgar Onea (eds), 163–192. Leiden: Brill.
Riester, Arndt & Baumann, Stefan. 2013. Focus triggers and focus types form a corpus perspective. Dialogue & Discourse 4 (2): 215–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riester, Arndt & Shiohara, Asako. 2018. Information structure in Sumbawa: A QUD analysis. In Perspectives on Information Structure in Austronesian Languages, Sonja Riesberg, Asako Shiohara & Atsuko Utsumi (eds), 285–311. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riester, Arndt, Brunetti, Lisa & De Kuthy, Kordula. 2018. Annotation guidelines for Questions under Discussion and information structure. In Information Structure in Lesser-Described Languages: Studies in Syntax and Prosody, Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude & Martine Vanhove (eds), 403–443. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2004. Context in dynamic interpretation. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 197–220. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012 [1996]. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics 5: 1–69.
Roggia, Carlo Enrico. 2009. Le frasi scisse in italiano. Struttura informativa e funzioni discorsive. Geneva: Slatkine.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116.
. 1996. Focus. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin (ed), 271–297. Oxford; Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte, Jacob, Daniel & Konieczny, Lars. This volume. How alternatives are created: Specialized background knowledge affects the interpretation of clefts in discourse. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shlonski, Ur & Bocci, Giuliano. 2019. Syntactic cartography. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. <[URL]> (11 June 2021).
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721.
. 2009. A response to Abbott on presupposition and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 539–44.
Torregrossa, Jacopo. 2018. Distinguishing focus and contrast at PF: A view from Italian. In Focus Realization and Interpretation in Romance and Beyond, Marco García-García & Melanie Uth (eds), 173–200. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Turco, Giuseppina. 2014. Contrasting Opposite Polarity in Germanic and Romance Languages: Verum Focus and Affirmative Particles in Native Speakers and Advanced L2 Learners. PhD thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Turco, Giuseppina, Dimroth, Christine & Braun, Bettina. 2013. Intonational means to mark verum focus in German and French. Language and Speech 56(4): 460–490.
Vallduví, Enric. 1991. The role of plasticity in the association of focus and prominence. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 7: 295–306.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric & Vilkuna, Maria. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. In The Limits of Syntax [Syntax and Semantics 29], Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds), 79–108. New York: Academic Press.
van der Wal, Jenneke. 2016. Diagnosing focus. Studies in Language 40: 259–301.
van Kuppevelt, Jan. 1995. Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics 31: 109–147.
Velleman, Leah & Beaver, David I. 2016. Question-based models of information structure. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 86–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 2013. English ‘emphatic do’. Lingua 128: 142–171.
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 2004. Relevance theory. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121: 1651–1670.
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

De Cesare, Anna-Maria
2022. To be or not to be focus adverbials?. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Garassino, Davide
2022. Translation as a source of pragmatic interference?. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 271 ff. DOI logo
Vallauri, Edoardo Lombardi
2022. Distinguishing psychological Given/New from linguistic Topic/Focus makes things clearer. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue