Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 683–734 | Cite as

Focus as prosodic alignment

  • Caroline Féry
Article

Abstract

This article demonstrates that the most common prosodic realization of focus can be subsumed typologically under the notion of alignment: a focused constituent is preferably aligned prosodically with the right or left edge of a prosodic domain the size of either a prosodic phrase or an intonation phrase. Languages have different strategies to fulfill alignment, some of which are illustrated in this paper: syntactic movement, cleft constructions, insertion of a prosodic boundary, and enhancement of existing boundaries. Additionally, morpheme insertion and pitch accent plus deaccenting can also be understood as ways of achieving alignment. None of these strategies is obligatory in any language. For a focus to be aligned is just a preference, not a necessary property, and higher-ranked constraints often block the fulfillment of alignment. A stronger focus, like a contrastive one, is more prone to be aligned than a weaker one, like an informational focus. Prominence, which has often been claimed to be the universal prosodic property of focus (see Truckenbrodt 2005 and Büring 2010 among others), may co-occur with alignment, as in the case of a right-aligned nuclear stress, but crucially, alignment is not equivalent to prominence. Rather, alignment is understood as a mean to separate constituents with different information structural roles in different prosodic domains, to ‘package’ them individually.

Keywords

Focus Prosodic structure Syntax-phonology Typology Alignment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper was first presented at the XXth Colloquium on Generative Grammar in Barcelona in March 2010, and I would like to thank the organizers, Josep Quer and Pilar Prieto, for giving me the opportunity to present my views on focus there. People who have had an influence on the content of this paper are numerous. Among them are Anja Arnhold, Kirsten Brock, Gisbert Fanselow, Fatima Hamlaoui, Shin Ishihara, Gerrit Kentner, Frank Kügler, Sara Myrberg, Fabian Schubö, Lisa Selkirk, Stavros Skopeteas and Malte Zimmermann. But this list is far from being exhaustive. I would also like to thank three reviewers for NLLT, two anonymous ones and Hubert Truckenbrodt, for generous and helpful comments on a first version of this paper.

References

  1. Aboh, Enoch O. 2004. The morphosyntax of complement-head sequences. Clause structure and word order patterns in Kwa: Oxford studies in comparative syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aboh, Enoch O. 2010. Information structuring begins with the numeration. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2: 12–42. Google Scholar
  3. Arnhold, Anja. To appear. Prosodic structure and focus realization in West Greenlandic. In Prosodic typology. The phonology of intonation and phrasing, Vol. 2. ed. Sun-Ah Jun. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  4. Aronson, Howard I. 1982/1990. Georgian: A reading grammar. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers, Inc. Google Scholar
  5. Astruc, Maria Lluisa. 2005. The intonation of extra-sentential elements in Catalan and English, PhD diss., University of Cambridge. Google Scholar
  6. Balogh, Kata. 2009. Theme with variations: A context-based analysis of focus, Unpublished PhD diss., University of Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  7. Beckman, Mary E. and Janet B. Pierrehumbert. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3: 255–309. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beyssade, Claire, Barbara Hemforth, Jean-Marie Marandin, and Cristel Portes. 2009. Prosodic markings of information focus in French. In Proceedings of the conference interface discours & prosodie, Paris, France, eds. Hi-Yon Yoo and Elisabeth Delais-Roussarie, 109–122. Google Scholar
  9. Boeder, Winfried. 2005. The South Caucasian languages. Lingua 115: 5–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bródy, Michael. 1990. Remarks on the order of elements in the Hungarian focus field. In Approaches to Hungarian, Vol. 3: Structures and arguments, eds. István Kenesei and Cs. Pléh, 95–121. Szeged: JATE. Google Scholar
  11. Büring, Daniel. 2010. Towards a typology of focus realization. In Information structure. Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives, eds. Malte Zimmermann and Caroline Féry, 177–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  12. Chafe, William L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and topic, ed. C. N. Li, 25–55. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  13. Chen, Matthew Y. 1987. The syntax of Xiamen tone sandhi. Phonology Yearbook 4: 109–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheng, Lisa and Laura Downing. 2011. Mapping phonology to syntax: evidence from two wh-in-situ languages. Handout. GLOW 34. Vienna. Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, eds. Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jakobovits, 183–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  16. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24(2): 239–297. Google Scholar
  17. Clark, Herbert H. and Susan E. Haviland. 1977. Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Discourse processes: Advances in research and theory, ed. R. O. Freedle. Vol. 1 of Discourse production and comprehension, 1–40. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Google Scholar
  18. Clesh-Darbon, Anne Rebuschi and Annie Rialland. 1999. Are there cleft sentences in French? In The grammar of focus, eds. Georges Rebuschi and Laurice Tuller, 83–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar
  19. Cozier, Franz K. 2006. The co-occurrence of predicate clefting and wh-questions in Trinidad dialectal English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24: 655–688. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Cat, Cécile. 2007. French dislocation without movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(3): 485–534. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Downing, Laura J. and Bernd Pompino-Marschall. 2013. The focus prosody of Chichewa and the Stress-Focus constraint: A response to Samek-Lodovici. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(3). doi: 10.1007/s11049-013-9192-x.
  22. Downing, Laura J., Al Mtenje, and Bernd Pompino-Marschall. 2004. Prosody and information structure in Chicheŵa. In ZAS papers in linguistics 37. Papers in phonetics and phonology, eds. Susanne Fuchs and Silke Hamann, 167–186. Google Scholar
  23. É.Kiss, Katalin, 1987. Configurationality in grammar. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. É.Kiss, Katalin, 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2): 245–273. Google Scholar
  25. É.Kiss, Katalin, 2010. An adjunction analysis of quantifiers and adverbials in the Hungarian sentence. Lingua 120: 506–526. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Elordieta, Gorka. 2007. Constraints on intonational prominence of focalized constituents. In Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, eds. Chungmin L. L. Lee, Matthew Gordon, and Daniel Büring. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  27. Elordieta, Gorka, Inaki Gaminde, Inma Heráez, Jasone Salaberria, and Igor Martín de Vidales. 1999. Another step in the modeling of Basque intonation: Bermeo. In Text, speech and dialogue, eds. V. Matousek, P. Mautner, J. Ocelíková, and P. Soika, 361–364. Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fanselow, Gisbert and Caroline Féry. 2006. Prosodic and morphosyntactic aspects of discontinuous noun phrases: A comparative perspective. Ms., Universität Potsdam. Google Scholar
  29. Feldhausen, Ingo. 2010. Sentential form and prosodic structure of Catalan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar
  30. Féry, Caroline. 2011. German sentence accents and embedded prosodic phrases. Lingua 121: 1906–1922. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Féry, Caroline. To appear. Final compression in French as a phrasal phenomenon. Ms., Frankfurt. Google Scholar
  32. Féry, Caroline, Robin Hörnig, and Serge Pahaut. 2010. Phrasing in French and German: An experiment with semi-spontaneous speech. In Intonational phrasing at the interfaces: Cross-linguistic and bilingual studies in Romance and Germanic, eds. Christoph Gabriel and Conxita Lleó, 11–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar
  33. Féry, Caroline and Vieri Samek-Lodovici. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82(1): 131–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fiedler, Ines, Katharina Hartmann, Brigitte Reineke, Anne Schwarz, and Malte Zimmermann. 2010. Subject focus in West African languages. In Information structure from different perspectives, eds. Malte Zimmermann and Caroline Féry, 234–257. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  35. Frascarelli, Mara. 2000. The syntax-phonology interface in focus and topic constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Frota, Sónia. 2000. Prosody and focus in European Portuguese, New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  37. Fuchs, Anna. 1976. ‘Normaler’ und ‘kontrastiver’ Akzent. Lingua 38: 293–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Green, Melanie and Philip Jaggar. 2003. Ex-situ and in-situ focus in Hausa: Syntax, semantics and discourse. In Research in Afroasiatic grammar II, ed. J. Lecarme. Vol. 241 of CILT, 187–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  39. Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28(3): 373–422. Google Scholar
  40. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19: 377–417. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1992. Sentence accents and argument structure. In Thematic structure. Its role in grammar, ed. Iggy Roca, 79–106. Berlin: Foris. Google Scholar
  42. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2008. Notions and subnotions in information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 381–395. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hamlaoui, Fatima. 2009a. Le focus à l’interface de la syntaxe et de la phonologie: le cas du français dans une perspective typologique, Unpublished Thèse de Doctorat, Université Paris III. Google Scholar
  45. Hamlaoui, Fatima. 2009b. Focus, contrast and the syntax-phonology interface: The case of French cleft sentences. In Current issues in unity and diversity of languages: Collection of the papers selected from the 18th international congress of linguistics (2008). Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea. Google Scholar
  46. Harris, Alice. 2000. Word order harmonies and word order change in Georgian. In Stability, variation and change of word-order patterns over time, eds. R. Sornicola, E. Poppe, and A. Shisha-Halevy, 133–163. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  47. Hartmann, Katharina and Malte Zimmermann. 2007. In place – out of place: Focus in Hausa. In On information structure: Meaning and form, eds. Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler, 365–403. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  48. Hayes, Bruce. 1989. The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Rhythm and meter, eds. Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youngmans, 201–260. Orlando: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  49. Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  50. Hayes, Bruce and Aditi Lahiri. 1991. Bengali intonational phonology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9: 47–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Horváth, Julia. 1986. Focus in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar
  52. Horváth, Julia. 2007. Separating “focus movement” from focus. In Phrasal and clausal architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds, eds. S. Karimi, V. Samiian, and W. K. Wilkins. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  53. Hualde, Juan, Gorka Elordieta, Iñaki Gaminde, and Rajka Smiljanić. 2002. From pitch-accent to stress-accent in Basque. In Laboratory phonology 7, eds. Carlos Gussenhoven and Natasha Warner, 547–584. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  54. Hunyadi, László. 2002. Hungarian sentence prosody and universal grammar. Tübingen: Peter Lang. Google Scholar
  55. Hyman, Larry M. and Maria Polinsky. 2010. Focus in Aghem. In Information structure from different perspectives, eds. Malte Zimmermann and Caroline Féry, 206–233. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  56. Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2003. Intonation and interface conditions, PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  57. Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007. Major phrase, focus intonation and multiple spell-out (MaP, FI, MSO). The Linguistic Review 24: 137–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Itô, Junko and Armin Mester. 1994. Reflections on CodaCond and alignment. In Phonology at Santa Cruz 3, eds. J. Merchant, J. Padgett, and R. Walker, 27–46. Santa Cruz: University of California. Google Scholar
  59. Itô, Junko and Armin Mester. 2009. The extended prosodic word. In Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, eds. Janet Grijzenhout and Baris Kabak, Interface explorations series, 135–194. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  60. Itô, Junko and Armin Mester. 2012. Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In Prosody matters: Essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk, eds. T. Borowsky, S. Kawahara, T. Shinya, and M. Sugahara, 280–303. London: Equinox Publishers. Google Scholar
  61. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  62. Jacobs, Joachim. 1993. Integration. In Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, ed. Marga Reis. Vol. 306 of Linguistische Arbeiten. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar
  63. Jacobs, Joachim. 2001. The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39: 641–681. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kanerva, Jonni M. 1990. Focusing on phonological phrases in Chicheŵa. In Phonology-syntax-interface, eds. Sharon Inkelas and Draga Zec, 145–161. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  65. Keane, Elinor. (to appear). Tamil. In Prosodic typology. The phonology of intonation and phrasing, Vol. 2. ed. Sun-Ah Jun. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  66. Kentner, Gerrit and Caroline Féry. 2013. A new approach to prosodic grouping. The Linguistic Review 30: 3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Khan, Sameer ud Dowla. 2008. Intonational phonology and focus prosody of Bengali, PhD diss., University of California at Los Angeles. Google Scholar
  68. Khan, Sameer ud Dowla. 2011. The intonational phonology of Bangladeshi Standard Bengali. Ms., Brown University. Google Scholar
  69. Koch, Karsten. 2008a. Focus projection in Nɬeʔkepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds. C. B. Chang and H. J. Haynie, 348–356. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  70. Koch, Karsten. 2008b. Intonation and focus in Nɬeʔkepmxcin (Thompson River Salish), PhD diss., University of British Columbia. Google Scholar
  71. Kratzer, Angelika and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24: 93–135. Special issue on prosodic phrasing and tunes. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Krifka, Manfred. 1999. Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT 8, 111–128. Cornell: CLC Publications. Google Scholar
  73. Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Kroeber, Paul. 1997. Relativization in Thompson Salish. Anthropological Linguistics 39: 376–422. Google Scholar
  75. Ladd, D. Robert. 1980. The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Distributed (1980) by the Indiana University Linguistic Club. Google Scholar
  76. Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Lenerz, Jürgen. 1977. Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Narr. Tübingen. Google Scholar
  78. Liberman, Mark and Alan Prince. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336. Google Scholar
  79. López, Luis. 2009. Ranking the linear correspondence axiom. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 239–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. McCarthy, John J. 2003. OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20: 75–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince. 1993. Generalized alignment. In Yearbook of morphology 1993, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 79–153. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. McGinnis, Martha. 1997a. Case and locality in L-syntax: Evidence from Georgian. In MITWPL 32: The UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect, ed. Heidi Harley, MIT working papers in linguistics, 139–158. Cambridge. Google Scholar
  83. McGinnis, Martha. 1997b. Reflexive external arguments and lethal ambiguity. In Proceedings of WCCFL 16, eds. E. Curtis, J. Lyle, and G. Webster, 303–317. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  84. Nash, Léa. 1995. Portée argumentale et marquage casuel dans les langues SOV et dans les langues ergatives: l’exemple du géorgien, PhD diss., Université de Paris VIII. Google Scholar
  85. Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  86. Patil, Umesh, Anja Gollard, Gerrit Kentner, Frank Kügler, Caroline Féry, and Shravan Vasishth. 2007. Focus, word order and intonation in Hindi. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 1: 53–70. Google Scholar
  87. Piou, Nanie. 1982. Le clivage du prédicat. In Syntaxe de l’haïten, ed. C. Lefebvre, 122–152. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers. Google Scholar
  88. Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, & University of Colorado, Boulder. Google Scholar
  89. Reineke, Brigitte. 2006a. Focus et topique en tant que deux phénomènes pragmatiques dans les langues Oti-Volta orientales. Cahïers Voltaïques/Gur Papers 7: 100–111. Google Scholar
  90. Reineke, Brigitte. 2006b. Verb- und Prädikationsfokus im Ditammari und Byali. In Zwischen Bantu und Burkina. Festschrift für Gudrun Miehe zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. K. Winkelmann and D. Ibriszimow, 163–180. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Google Scholar
  91. Reineke, Brigitte. 2007. Identificational operation as focus strategy in Byali. In Focus strategies in African languages, eds. Enoch O. Aboh, Katharina Hartmann, and Malte Zimmermann, 223–240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  92. Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94. Google Scholar
  93. Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface strategies, Ms., OTS/University of Utrecht. Google Scholar
  94. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Robins, R. H. and Natalie Waterson. 1952. Notes on the phonetics of the Georgian word. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 14(1): 55–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar
  97. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Associations with focus, PhD Diss., Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Google Scholar
  98. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2005. Prosody-syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 637–755. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. When right dislocation meets the left-periphery: A unified analysis of Italian non-final focus. Lingua 116: 836–873. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Schuh, Russell G. 2005. Yobe State, Nigeria, as a linguistic area. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar
  102. Schwarz, Anne and Ines Fiedler. 2007. Narrative focus strategies in Gur and Kwa. In Focus strategies in African languages, eds. Enoch O. Aboh, Katharina Hartmann, and Malte Zimmermann, 267–286. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  103. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax. The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  105. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  107. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In Prosody: Theory and experiment, ed. Merle Horne, 231–261. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2009. On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: The syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136. Google Scholar
  109. Selkirk, Elisabeth. O. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface In The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., eds. John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan Yu. Google Scholar
  110. Selkirk, Elisabeth. O. and Tong Shen. 1990. Prosodic domains in Shanghai Chinese. In The phonology-syntax-interface, eds. Sharon Inkelas and Draga Zec, 313–337. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  111. Skopeteas, Stavros and Gisbert Fanselow. 2008. Focus types and argument asymmetries: A cross-linguistic study in language production. In Contrastive information structure analysis, ed. Breul Carsten. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  112. Skopeteas, Stavros and Gisbert Fanselow. 2010a. Effects of givenness and constraints on free word order. In Information structure from different perspectives, eds. Malte Zimmerman and Caroline Féry, 307–331. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  113. Skopeteas, Stavros and Gisbert Fanselow. 2010b. Focus in Georgian and the expression of contrast. Lingua 120: 1370–1391. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Skopeteas, Stavros and Caroline Féry. 2010c. Effect of narrow focus on tonal realization in Georgian. In Proceedings of speech prosody 2010 in Chicago. Google Scholar
  115. Skopeteas, Stavros, Ines Fiedler, Sam Hellmuth, Anne Schwarz, Ruben Stoel, Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry, and Manfred Krifka. 2006. Questionnaire on information structure (ISIS Vol. 4). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag. Available online. http://www.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de/en/quis-en/quis-materials-en.html. Google Scholar
  116. Swerts, Marc, Emiel Krahmer, and Cinzia Avesani. 2002. Prosodic marking of information status in Dutch and Italian: A comparative analysis. Journal of Phonetics 30: 629–654. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. The semantics of topic-focus articulation. In Formal methods in the study of language, eds. Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen, and Martin Stokhof. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum. Google Scholar
  118. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. All quantifiers are not equal: The case of focus. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 42: 171–187. Google Scholar
  119. Szendrői, Kriszta. 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20: 37–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus and prominence, Unpublished PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Google Scholar
  121. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2): 219–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2005. A short report on intonation phrase boundaries in German. Linguistische Berichte 203: 273–296. Google Scholar
  123. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2007. The syntax-phonology interface. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology, ed. Paul de Lacy, 435–456. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  124. Uhmann, Susanne. 1991. Fokusphonologie. Eine Analyse deutscher Intonationskonturen im Rahmen der nicht-linearen Phonologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar
  125. Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The informational component. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  126. Vallduví, Enric and Maria Vilkuna. 1998. On rheme and contrast. In The limits of syntax, eds. Peter Culicover and Louise McNally, 161–184. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  127. Varga, László. 2002. Intonation and stress: evidence from Hungarian. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Vicenik, Chad and Sun-Ah Jun. to appear. An autosegmental-metrical analysis of Georgian intonation. In Prosodic typology. The phonology of intonation and phrasing, Vol. 2. ed. Sun-Ah Jun. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  129. Villalba, Xavier. 2000. The syntax of sentence periphery, PhD diss., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bella-Terra. Google Scholar
  130. Vogel, Irene and István Kenesei. 1987. The interface between phonology and other components of grammar: The case of Hungarian. Phonology Yearbook 4: 243–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion, PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  132. Wagner, Michael. 2010. Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28: 183–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Zimmermann, Malte. 2008. Contrastive focus and emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 347–360. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Zubizaretta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Goethe-University FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations